Meeting transcript
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission - Regular Meeting
January 11, 2022 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
I think we might as well get started. It's 7PM time to call the regular meeting of the Andover Inland Wetlands and Water Crisis Commission to order. I see by the Zoom screen that, in addition to myself, Commissioners Larson and Monroe are present, as well as Agent Wagner and interested members of the public and our devoted Clerk, Abby. So, item three on the agenda, changes in order to agenda. Actually, I'd like to add to the agenda an item 8B, which would be a consideration of scheduling a hearing for adoption of revised regulations. This is something that's been in the works for a while. So again, 8B, hearing for revision of regulations. If there are no objections, we can adopt that by unanimous consent. Seeing none, we'll move on to approval of minutes. We have first the minutes for 12/06/2021, and I'll first ask commissioners if they have any edits or revisions or additions to the minutes as distributed? I had none.
William? Chair Elliott, I I think there was a a mistake with the dates and the jurisdictional of it was, like, January 11 and January 18, but I think that was supposed to be December 11 and December 18.
That would have been correct. Because we actually had the sidewalk on the eleventh and we were considering those two dates, December eleventh and eighteenth. Good catch. I did notice in the others present of the minutes, You had listed Marci Minor as present. Actually, was Jeff Minor. He was just hiding behind Marci's avatar, the way Bill does sometimes too. Yeah, all the time.
She's got you relabeled on our screen, so we know who it Okay. Okay, so any other additions or corrections? In that case, I'll move to adopt the to approve the minutes as revised and ask for I will do it by roll call. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Aye. Commissioner Monroe. Aye.
I vote aye as well. So the motion carries three-zero-zero. Next, minutes for the special meeting, SiteWalk, on, as Commissioner noted, on Saturday, December 11. Again, I will move to approve and ask for comments, revisions, etc. Nothing.
Okay, seeing no and hearing no comments, I'll ask him for a vote. Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Monroe. Aye. I vote aye. It's again 300 to approve. Okay, next item public comment for interested members of the public who don't have something on the agenda. Okay, seeing no hands raised, I will move on to Item six, old business. So we have permits and may be able to take action. So these are pending permits that we have received at a previous meeting. The first is application number 2126 for work to be done at Number 1 Lakeside Drive. See applicant Todd Perkins is on the line. Yes, sir. And I will ask if there have been any updates to the application since we received it.
I almost stopped by. Two individuals from Alma stopped by, and they did approve my project. And I received an email from them, and I forwarded it on to you guys, so you should have that. I think it was a PDF, but I can't be sure. It was a few weeks back, three weeks maybe.
Right, I do have a copy of that approval email. I'm pulling it up just now. Yeah, approval of the request. Contingent, this is an interesting one, contingent on the IWWC accepting the mortar proposed for use in the application. For the what did it say? It says
contingent on the IWWC accepting the mortar proposed for use in the application. Oh, Now syntactically, that's a very interesting statement. I don't know that any mortar was actually applied to the document, and I think that they are actually asking us to approve the use of mortar and not a brand of mortar or a type of mortar.
No, I can tell you the brand. I've already purchased Exactly. I figured out. Yeah. And they
they wanted to see the mortar, and it it I had it wrapped up about six times in tarp. And so we spent considerable time unwrapping it so they could see that it's sacchrete. And they thought that that would be okay, but they weren't sure. And they went back and they had their powwow and they decided that it was fine. And they sent me what I sent you. It was mortared before, so it's not new. And, I think they even commented further that it would be, approved because of my proximity to Cheney Brook that without it, I'm doomed to do this all over again, which I'd rather not live to see.
Well, I I take your point there. It's and and, yeah, I recall about the erosion due to the outflow from Chaney Brook. I'll ask Commissioners Larson or Monroe if they have any questions or comments about the application.
The only question I had was from a correctness and consistency of the applications. As I looked through 580 Lake Road today, I was reminded that there's this DEEP form that's required with each application. And I don't know that I've seen a lot of those lately, and so my question is, shouldn't that be part of the application and it needs to be submitted to the state?
It's here. They aren't posted on the website because. But they're they're usually completed when the application comes in. I have I have this one right here.
Okay. That sounds good. As long as we're covered on that. I wanted to comment. I didn't see the kind of detail that we're used to getting in previous lake wall applications, especially with respect to the restacked part of it, not the mortared portion, although it does apply in some ways to the mortared portion. Typically, the stack walls will have a silt barrier, know, a geotextile and or gravel backings the wall to reduce the potential for intrusion of silt into the lake. Also, don't see the construction erosion control and lake bed protection. That I've seen in previous applications, usually the contractor will provide information about how they intend to protect the lake bed while they're working on it, working on the outside face of the wall, how they will prevent any erosion that would occur as a result of soil disturbances. I think that's particularly important here because we noted in the photographs that there was soil already placed on-site. And in your application, you mentioned needing to fill
areas that had been eroded along with the wall collapse. So
I'll either ask or we would either have to postpone consideration or else get some assurance that those materials can be provided, I would say, to agent Wagner's and our satisfaction, prior to the beginning of construction.
Okay. To address your introduction with this comment, I don't know what you're accustomed to, but I know what you've asked for, and I've provided it. So has Alma. And if I don't get approval tonight, I'll scrap the project and my yard will continue to bleed into the lake.
Can I can I add something? This is the agent Wagner. Was just this project is a little bit different than the previous ones. Because there's no like the the previous ones that we've approved recently, they required excavation, and then they would install the the gravel behind it. They would, like, totally rebuild the wall. Whereas this one, they're just restacking the existing wall. It's not as as involved as a project. So in order, you know, if you're going to excavate behind it, put gravel, filter fabric, I mean, that would totally change the nature of the project where this one was more of a simple restacking the wall and remorting it, not totally rebuilding it from scratch in the same same location, which was kind of the other ones. So, you could, you could, know, you could add as a into the motion to approve it, you could add the conditions that. Road and proper erosion controls would would be installed to protect the lake. Know, you could do that, rather than postpone the
Yeah. No. I'd rather not postpone it. But again, I think that those are the erosion control and lake bed protection during construction activity, even though they're lightweight and, you know, but the others have not involved equipment either. But as you say, Agent Wagner, we have a situation where it's a lower impact activity. As I say, still, do have that soil that's already in place that would be subject to erosion during the construction project and want some assurance that there will be precautions taken to mitigate that possibility.
Yeah. That's why it's like, if if I could make a suggestion, you could just make a motion to approve it on the condition that, you know, a a silt fence or or whatever you would like, silt fence, a hay bale Would be installed between the. The wall reconstruction project and the lake bed during the during work.
Right now you will be. How shall I say present at the initiation, right? Who may have a chance to talk to the contractor? I mean, that's a typical condition that you're going to be.
No, I don't think it is. Usually not. I usually get notified when the work gets started.
Right, okay, so notice. And then I can show Not necessarily.
I can drive by it. I don't I don't spend enough time here to to be present for every for everything.
Right. No, I I was I'm sorry. I misspoke. You you're right. This notification
that's required. Yeah. Yeah. That is that's part of the standard condition that are issued with our permit. Okay, any commissioners want to weigh in on this?
But I would like to ask, you know, from what I saw of the wall that is being reworked, it looked to me like there were, I guess my question is how many rocks are you actually looking to put back up in cement? It looked like from what I could see at a distance, the wall was in pretty good shape. It just had a couple of rocks that had fallen down. When did you look at it? It was probably a couple weeks ago. It's already been restocked.
Okay. And I guess that's why it looked in pretty good shape.
Well, that's good to hear. They're doing a good job, but I can't continue with this work until I I have approval from your committee.
Right. And if we're getting Vice Chair, Chairman Ella sure, yeah.
I share your concern about, you know, normally we see the crushed stone with the some kind of fabric behind there to prevent the erosion. And I certainly would have preferred to see that. I thought that there was so little work on the wall that that wasn't that much of a concern to me this time, but it sounds like the wall was in worse shape and it's been repaired already, I guess. Should have pictures of it before it was restocked.
Right, and it was definitely tumbled down. It was hard to tell exactly the condition. The mortared portion, which I guess adjoins your block, and that's the portion that I take it remains to be worked on to, you know, either that or we've really gotten our socks on over our shoes here in terms of doing the work before the permit is issued. So I guess I could entertain a motion to approve the application, again, contingent on satisfactory erosion control for and lake bed production during the construction activities, and that agent Wagner will be afforded an opportunity by notification of the
initiation of that work.
Okay, so is this another addendum to my application that I'll need to submit?
I think you could submit it. Yeah, it would be good if you could submit it for the record. And again, I don't think we have to revisit the application in another meeting. We can give you a contingent approval, knowing that conditions are currently favorable for getting the work done other than being cold. The lake is down, and, you know, you have access, to the lakeshore.
Right. The access is, of course, important. I I have absolutely zero interest in this guy starting work in this kind of weather because I have concern about how the mortar might set up. As eager as he may be to get started, I won't permit it until it's above freezing. Right.
So I guess I need definition on what it is that you meet. Like, somebody mentioned hay bales. What is it that you want me to do to enable this work to proceed once it's not seven degrees outside? Outside.
Right. Again, it's a question of getting the contractor to supply information about what he would do to avoid erosion and lake bed disturbance during the construction activities.
Can I ask you to clarify something? I'm of the impression that all the restacking has been done. The only thing that's left is to apply the mortar. Is that correct? That is correct.
Okay. To me, that seems like there's pretty low risk of erosion from that point, like the risk, the highest risk would have been when the rocks were being stacked, not when the mortar is being put on. So I think the standard conditions of providing appropriate erosion control that are issued with every permit should suffice for that kind of activity. Okay. Did I mean, that's that's the commission's decision. K. Any comments from commissioners Larson or Monroe?
Well, I agree with the the low probability of the need for the hay bales in that. I guess I'll go back now. I misunderstood the whole mortar concept. I thought the mortar would be put between the rocks as the wall was rebuilt to hold the rocks in place. I guess I miss I don't have the right idea there. It looks like we're putting a smooth concrete face on the water side of the wall. Is that what the plan is now? No, sir.
I I don't do this kind of work, so I I don't know the technical terminology. But he's he restocked the walls and told me he was going to fit mortar than within the stones, I guess, for lack of a better word, kind of a packet in there, and that would, that would keep the stones in place for a very long time.
And, again, that was only for a portion of the wall, if I'm if I'm The the mortar portion of the wall.
He was planning to put the mortar on the entire length of the wall. With particular concentration on the part of my wall that bends from lakeside up towards my property and is one of the first points of contact to, the rushing waters from from Cheney. And those waters are not rushing all the time. But as you know, we've had several storms within just the past year that started this whole ball rolling. So in an effort to avoid that in the future.
Okay. I'm sorry. Just quickly reviewing the application. Because it speaks to of of preexisting stone to be placed back and former mortar replaced. Again, the photographs that, accompanied the application, wasn't clear that the entire wall had been mortared, And so I took it to, again, apply only to a portion of the wall that, was mortared at the at the time of the application and, again, approximate to the doc. Okay. So where we stand now seems to me there's a little confusion, but the gist of it is you've restacked the wall. The only thing that remains to be done pending favorable weather conditions is to apply mortar pocket in to hold the stones in place.
On the face of the wall, yes. And and I guess probably the top of it too. But I mean, the goal is the effort is to leave the stone appearance of the wall because it's far more attractive than just a big concrete wall, much like the dam, which is perfect the way it is. It's necessary. But, you know, aesthetically, what our aim was to do is to just secure the stones with some mortar and leave much of the stones intact so that that's what's visible.
Okay. And leave the impression of a drywall construction. Right. Okay. Right. Okay. And again, as we said, we have the situation of the standard conditions allowing for, well, requiring erosion control. And again, in this case, lake bed production is what we're really left with. And it sounds like it's pretty low impact activity since there's no excavation required. So, I guess I'll go along with Agent Wagner and that the standard conditions, that apply to our applications, to approve the applications, will suffice, in this case. Thank you. And again, asking for any further comments from commissioners.
So I guess at this point, you know, my my question would be, and again, Mr. Perkins probably isn't familiar with what other folks around the lake have done, but every other wall that's been rebuilt has had the contractor come in to brief us on the plan and it's had a plan that's had crushed stone and fabric behind the stone wall to prevent the washing away of the soil that we saw in this case. I very much want to protect the lake and prevent that soil from going in again. My question is, why would we not put the crushed stone in the fabric behind the wall as part of the repair that we did? Alright. Is that a question you've directed to me? Yes.
I'm I'm I'm not a contractor or a mason. I I suspect that the wall being a 100 years old and having fallen about maybe a third of it, maybe not that much into the lake, having been restacked and then packed with mortar is, what I've been led to believe would be sufficient to preventing any kind of erosion from my property entering the lake further. Although, they I don't imagine there's anything that would guarantee that a 100%. So
I don't know why it's not now you can't even give them now. That's what I was What's that? Joe, did that response satisfy your question?
Yes and no. I guess, know, we haven't voted yet, but I would like to add a conditional approval of if the silt gets washed out from behind the wall again, that the more robust repair of putting crushed stone in a fabric liner to prevent the washout of soil be done at the next repair.
Which hopefully there won't be. Okay, so I hope not. Okay,
I don't remember now if I actually made a motion,
but if I haven't, I will make a motion. You said you were prepared to, but then you offered it Right. Back to your
Okay, so I'll make a motion that we approve this application, again, with standard conditions and understanding that the desirable, if further occurrences warrant, that additional steps should be taken to prevent erosion from the site. Okay. Is that an adequate statement for you, Jud? Yes.
Okay, and William, do you have any further comments? No. I'll ask for a vote on the motion. Oh, did I get a second to the motion? I'll second it. Second. Okay, Monroe seconds.
So the motion is on the floor. Again, I'll ask for a vote by roll call. Commissioner Larson? Aye.
Commissioner Monroe? Aye. And Chair Elliott also vote aye. So, the motion is approved, and the permit is approved. Again, please be in contact with Agent Wagner as you proceed towards getting this work done to make sure that he's informed of progress. Will do. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Okay. Moving on then. And by the way, you're free. You're excused from the meeting if I
sit around for the rest of day. Thank you. Good night. Okay.
Okay. So next we have application 2127 from Gary McCullough, who I see is on the call, at 3 Lakeside Drive originally to put sand on a, quote beach area at their waterfront, and to, again originally to reconstruct an existing deck or dock, I should say. Now, there have been some changes occurring since that application was originally received. The commission was in receipt of a copy of a letter to Mr. McCullough regarding the sand that had been placed on the lake bed, saying that that was not a permitted use, that they would require that that sand would be removed. Secondly, we received a modification of the application to, instead of creating a sand beach, to build a retaining wall, to rebuild perhaps a retaining wall so that essentially a sandbox or beach like area could be created, but with erosion control and the remainder of the lake frontage to be converted to a lawn.
We haven't seen any plans, as I'm aware of, for the replacement of the dock, but we are in receipt of a letter from, again, Andover Lake Management Association to the effect that they're not really concerned about removal of the old dock. Although, again, it would still be an activity that requires, a wetlands permit. Agent Wagner, do you have anything further to comment on the, application as your communications?
Yeah. I don't. And then I just, I worked with Gary to kinda come up with a different application. We had he had received a a letter from Alma, you know, that that stated that they didn't want the sand below the high watermark on the Alma property. And then he came up with the moving of sand behind the wall, which is a it's a pretty good alternative, I feel like, to eliminating erosion into the lake and then restoring that area that the beach used to exist that. And there is a description like a revised description of the project that's online. It's posted under under as dated January 10, the description of proposed project that explains what what the revised application entails. So the doc isn't gonna it's just gonna get removed, which was okayed by Alma. They said they don't involve themselves in removing docs, just installing a new one. But that they would have to review the proposed stonewall reconstruction.
Yeah. Yeah, this is Gary. So yeah, thanks agent Wagner for the help and this was kind of a learning process for me. And so I would like to communicate as far as this meeting goes, what I'd like to be able to do is just gather the additional information that's going to be needed. Like I learned a lot about what needs to be done with a stone wall with what Todd has been going through. So I can learn from that and get a more detailed plan around that stone wall moving forward of course. So we may need to extend this application because I've really adjusted the plan dramatically. And just for the record too, the beach area, the existing beach area, there was already sand there as well as sand into the water. I had, because the lake was down, thought I was doing okay. I thought that was okay to do. I've learned differently. I've agreed to remove that sand that was put down. And then I think it would be a good idea to grow the lawn or grow the grass and natural stuff back down into the water.
And then where there's a diagram there that shows the existing wall or what remains of an existing wall that would be rebuilt much the same way that Todd did. But I think what we'll do is reinforce that shore facing or land facing side of that wall with approved gravel. And I think you mentioned some sort of fabric or something like that. So that's my vision. Long way from completing the vision but again looking for your guys' input so that the next time through the detail is there so we can make progress. Does that make sense?
Yeah, it makes sense to me. By the by the way, the sand on the beach is naturally occurring. It's a glacial formation and esker. Well, was thought that we left it there. Yeah, yeah, probably, but that's why the beach is where it is. Yeah,
when I was at town hall, we were looking at records of permits in the past and there was approved permits back in the early 2000s, I think. Joe may know the dates, but there was pictures of sand being brought down there.
So that was They replenish had the natural. But anyway, that's Yeah, on the that was my initial
desire was to replenish until, as people have told me, things have changed and there's a lot more focus, and I understand that. So I'm just trying to play within the rules.
Okay, well, thanks for that consideration. I think that, yeah, you've touched on the main points, and I think working with Agent Binder to refine the plans, and if you're going to be working with a contractor, certainly getting them to provide the kind of detail that we're accustomed to seeing in lake wall applications. Agent Wagner had shared with me some recommendations, I believe it was from New Hampshire, that were relevant to, and some work examples for lakeshore improvements, the sort you're talking about, and how to create a beach on a lake, and using a retaining wall to create a level area and reduce erosion was one of the suggestions that was made in that publication. So, it seems like you're on the right track. And again, a contractor would be able to provide a good deal of detail about lake bed protection and erosion mitigation during any kind of construction process. Yeah. Yep. Okay, members of the Commission, I'll ask for comments, suggestions.
Well, I certainly appreciate the applicant's desire to do the right thing. I know from my own experience how little I knew about living on a lake and wetlands rules until I got on the Wetlands Commission and started learning all that. The one piece, and I do think the plan sounds conceptually much better than the current plan. I guess the question I'm wrestling with is one of the alternatives to be considered would be the removal of the sand. And I know that's typical, but why should it be good for the lake to, yeah, don't know how much sand you brought in. It looks like a pretty extensive amount that, why even have that sand there? Sometimes,
you know, it's just like you've going in and calling with literal stupid.
Question addressed to the applicant, so. Yeah, yeah, I just heard somebody else talking. I I maybe.
Well, we're getting some cross talk from. Doing unmuted mic here. Why not unmute myself there?
Yeah. Okay, so yeah, there was. It was about 10 yards. Of sand brought in. And. As far as removing it, yeah, I mean I'm going to move probably five back up and some of the other uses I have for the sand is there's a there's stone deck up by the house past 200 feet. And so to to kind of reseat some of that and some other work in the front of the property. So I may use it for that, but I don't have specific plans, but I do plan on moving much of that sand back up towards the sheds, 200 feet away from the high watermark. So, and then, so the purpose for the sand is aesthetic, one. Two, you know, whether it matters or not, I mean, kind of grew up as a child on Crystal Lake and my grandparents had a place and they had a sandy beach. I got grandkids now and I'd love to share some of that experience with them, even though it's not a beach that flows into the water, it's it's still a beach by the water and we can take our boats out and
paddle boat, you know, paddle boat and that kind of stuff. So it's kind of, that's, ask me why, that's why.
Chairman Elliot, I would like to make a motion that we schedule a site visit because the new pictures that I saw online didn't really give me the perspective. Thought all the sand was dumped into the lake bed. I didn't know there was an existing beach back there and it would just help clarify, at least in my mind, coming up with the right decision on the application.
Yeah. Yeah, I'm I'm okay with that. I mean, you'll see that there's a couple of yards in the in the water. I talked to the guy and he was actually he wanted to move it out today. I says you're nuts. But he's eager to move that sand and we're just going to move it up above from the waterline or above the waterline. And then where it goes from there depends on what we decide to do. Right? So that's before I start moving it around anywhere, I'd like to just have, we're all in consensus with what's doable. And then again I can I can you know parcel some of the sand over there and move the rest back and if we have to give it to the fire department make sandbags out of it and I'm probably will be okay with that too?
Okay, so I concur with Commissioner Larson in that a site visit would be desirable in this case, because there seem to be a lot of moving parts in this application, and it's been revised, as it were, on the fly. The question would be when we could schedule that for Well, it's got to be suitable weather. I'm not going to even consider this coming Saturday. Typically, we have our sitewalks on Saturday mornings at 09:00. And again, just like with mortaring the wall at, let's see, at number one, Lakeside, we've got to, at the other application, we have to have above freezing weather, I think, at least for this exercise. So, it's hard to look out at the calendar and pick a date with the current conditions, but I suppose we could at least tentatively schedule a sidewalk
prior to our next regular meeting, which will be on, what, February 6. So, any suggestions about time there from commissioners? I'm open. Ain't going anywhere.
Well, I think 09:00 always works well for us. My question would be should we tentatively schedule it for the January 22, so if the weather's horrible, we have the twenty ninth available to us before we come to the next meeting? Yeah, well, we'd actually have the twenty ninth and the fifth,
February 5, because our the first Monday and Yep, okay, my mistake. Yep, looking at the calendar. But yeah, I think that would be good. Why don't we pencil in a meeting for February 22? Again, a special meeting February 22, 9AM for a sidewalk. January. Okay.
Yeah. So I'm I'm in the process of selling my home in Vernon. I have not yet actually moved in to 3 Lakeside. And I had some plans for actually moving. I got my brother in laws or son in laws, whoever the heck they are. Oh, no. Truck trucks to do some moving. We could make the twenty second work. The closing has just been moved out to the February 4. So I'm going to be pretty. So I doubt obviously want to be there for your site walk through. So you're saying the January 22. Right, that would be the the the earliest opportunity
and but then we'd have a contingency for the twenty ninth. Exactly. Okay, so. Let's let's shoot for that and and I I just like to have the option of if with weather and my closing date I have to have everything out of the house and coordinating that I may request that we may move it out even further, but.
Yeah, we can work with that. I'm sure we can work with that all right. Okay,
So in between now and then, I did look at the Alma website and there is a more detailed form that they require for building a wall or repairing a wall. And there's some detail there, which I need to look through and, you know, fill that out. So what is the purpose of the walkthrough? Is it to determine whether this is feasible at the level that we're talking about now or?
It's again, we call it a sidewalk simply because we were looking to get a physical sense of the location so that we can see how the work that's proposed fits into, you know, the existing conditions and what it would do to the site and its potential impact, in this case, on the water course and overlay.
Yeah, Okay. And then from there, then we'd be able to figure out whether or not the rock wall is Rebuilding that I mean Joe took a look at the the wall. I don't know. We had some pictures too. I don't know if we want to spend some time. Looking at that or Joe can provide a little bit of insight into what he saw, whether that's a value at this meeting. Don't know, I'm just throwing that out.
Yeah, I had a look at the pictures, and they do certainly provide a good view, but it's sometimes hard to grasp the full, how should I say, three-dimensional, characteristics.
Oh, yeah, throw a little snow on top of it and kind of gloomy weather. Yeah, I get it.
So, I agree with Commissioner Larson that a sidewalk would be in order here, and it looks like we're all okay with, again, we're scheduling the twenty second to do that, and we have further discussion. And let's give you more time to look at those ALMA regulations and consider just exactly how you want to approach the project in terms of getting, you know, what you're looking for aesthetically and functionally. Yeah. Well, again, satisfying requirements to mitigate any potential for sedimentation and impact on the lake. Yeah.
All right. Just one more question. You had mentioned the New Hampshire, you know, kind of blueprint, if you will, for designing a beach at a lake site. So could I consider that something that, I mean, do do you and the other commissioners are are familiar with that and would say, yeah, that's if you follow that, you know, blueprint, that would be a a good a good starting point? Or is there any concerns with what is stated in in that document?
Okay, I'm only familiar with it recently. Agent Wagner shared it with me after he was, after we started working on your application. And I don't think we could say off the top of our heads. I don't know if the other commissioners have even seen this document, so I wouldn't want to say that it's going to be an engineering manual for the Commission. Nevertheless, it did seem to have some useful suggestions. Agent Wagner, you want to comment on that document? You probably reviewed it more closely than I did.
Yeah, I can just explain it. It was just basically New Hampshire has a clause requiring a buffer on the shoreline. So if you want to construct any kind of beach, you have to use what's called a perch beach, is what they what they recommend. So you basically put, it's basically it's kind of like this, you'd have a stone wall, and then you'd have, you know, some kind of retaining wall between the beach and the lakeshore, and then you'd have like some stairs or something in New Hampshire, they have a, you know, an actual buffer zone. So the wall would be in a few feet back from the from the actual lakeshore, and then you'd depending on the topography, you'd have, you know, maybe a drainage swale on the uphill side of the beach to prevent erosion.
Mr. McCullough's property is pretty flat, so I can't see a lot of erosion potential from the uphill side. But you know, it could incorporate something like that into the design. But basically, yeah, the the New Hampshire recommends the Perch Beach because it it preserves the natural shoreline and allows people to enjoy their property. So that's what the document was about. Okay.
Yeah. I guess I would only ask if if you guys in your free time, like everybody has a lot of free time, but if you take a look at that and there's something that really stands out as a showstopper for you before I get too far into the planning and stuff like that, or during the planning, call that out as opposed to, I don't know, later in the process, I guess earlier rather than later.
That's quite reasonable. I think we'll make that effort. And again, communication with, Agent Wagner, during the planning process is going to be very valuable. Yes, I found, Agent Wagner to be very helpful.
Okay, listen, if we have no further questions or comments, we can't obviously act on this application. We're in agreement on the sidewalk and try to get a better understanding of the project impact at that time. Okay. I would like to move on in our agenda in the interest of time. Before we do that, Chairman Bill, one I
of the options is, because the project is going to end up being so different, is the applicant could pull the current application so that we don't have to worry about the maximum time limit before the application gets approved without action from the commission. I don't know that we're going to be in a spot to vote on it at the next meeting even. In the next meeting would be the absolute end date. It's the day before our max allowed time limit.
It can be extended with the applicant's consent. You can extend it, I think, to sixty five days from there. The applicant has to agree to the extension.
But I do also think that the current application isn't at all what we're going to be looking at, and so it might be cleaner just to pull this application and submit one that actually addresses what it is the applicant wants to do.
Does that mean I have to pay for another application?
I would say no, but I'm not sure. No, no, it's not our intention that it should be a new app, but a revised application, you know, revised application form attachments and so forth, all in one package, I think, what we're really looking for here, so that we're essentially all on the same page with the updated and, you know, extensively modified proposal.
Yeah, so basically, you know, say, you know, we're going to not even talk about the
Yeah, scratch the sand beach entirely. That's not going to happen. We know that because Alma, you know, that is to say sand on the lake bed. Right. That is the, and you're already under caution to get that sand off of the lake bed. Right, right. As soon as possible, you know. So, you know, that would, again, the proposal for what you actually intend to do would be the appropriate revision rather than, you know, continuing to submit appendices or addendums.
Okay. And I'll I'll work with Joe, I guess, that's something we can work together on again. I I can do get whatever we got. I just don't know what forms to put it on.
Yeah. I don't I don't know. I think that might get tricky because you have the the public review, you were to rescind your application and then reapply next month, it would that would put you into March before you could even get any approval. I I don't know. I I don't see I don't see any benefit to to doing it that way. I think just revising it like like any other application as you go along, which is kind of the purpose of this whole process is is I don't know, I think it's working right now because we're we're coming up with with better a better plan as the application progresses through this process. Rather than just getting it right the first time, which, you know, doesn't happen too often.
Basically, it would be your choice whether or not to resend the application or not. You could, you know, you could you could keep it here, the commission could take a vote, or you could decide to extend it next month. But I think, time wise, I think it it wouldn't make any sense to do it that way. That's just my thought.
Well, yeah. We're not I don't think we need a new application number, as it were, a new clock ticking, because it would, as H. Wagner points out, put you into a situation where you really couldn't hope to get approval or any work done, within the timeframe that's open. So, again, I think that the main point here is to make sure that we're all clear about exactly what is being proposed in the application.
Well, well, and that's part of what the sidewalk's gonna do. I think we've we've beaten a proverbial dead horse here a little bit. I think we know it's clear to me. I don't know if there's I don't know where the confusion is. If there's, you know, letter or another attempt to document what we're doing. I mean, there was a few bullet points there. Was you guys tell me. I just assumed I want want it to be easy, as easy as possible. I don't want to make it harder on myself or you guys.
My concern about starting the application over again was strictly twofold. One was time limits that we're up against. I didn't even mention the option that we could vote on the current application to disapprove it and start the clock over that way because that's not conducive to working with you in the manner that we are to come up with a better product. The other thing that I have seen is that when we go back years from now and try and you'll pull the file and understand what we did, records haven't always been very clear that way. And so one of the things I'm trying to do is make our records better for those who come after us to understand what actually happened. And if Agent Wagner is happy with the way it's going, I just want, you know, when we approve a plan that it's crystal clear what we're really approving, because sometimes there's some confusion on that.
All this revised stuff is all dated January 10. So there's two, There's a existing conditions map that I submitted. There's Gary's map of his proposed activities, all dated January 10, and then there's the description of the project that's dated January 10. And then if there's any more revisions, would just the date would be reflected in the approval motion. So you, you know, make an approval motion to approve the revised, you know, January 10, or whatever date it happens to be at that point. And that would be reflected in the permit. So you could go back in the files in the future, and you could see a copy of the permit that states which set of maps and which project description is actually approved. I have have run into that problem in the past, Jen. I've been trying to to make sure that the stuff I put in there is somebody that can go can go back and if I dropped in, figure out what what was going on there. So
I think with having all the files online and organized by application number and so forth, there's been a great deal of progress in making it easier to find the information we need. And so keeping track of the revision dates, is very helpful, in tracking, the application process. For example, when went through the bridge, not the Wellman Crossing permit process with extensive revisions of Full Farms Road and so forth. So, I think we can handle it basically, and I think that we should continue with the existing permit. And again, understanding that if we run up against the deadline, we're going to be asking the applicant for the extension that's permitted or the extension of the permit application. Okay. Well, with that, I'd really like to move on to our next item on the agenda. We have a, let's see now, 2128. It's a application for permit for wetlands crossings for purposes of logging activity. We had the sidewalk, and commissioners were able to see the locations, and in fact, some of the, as it were, history of logging on the site, where previously corduroy had been used for stream crossing and was still sort of embedded in the lake, or not the lake, but stream bed, and where they proposed to put a, what's it called, portable bridge, timbers crossing that little arm of Staddle Brook. Let's see, we have anyone representing the applicant on the call tonight? I don't see one. I think that, if I recall, at the sidewalk, Mr. Dubois I can't remember the pronunciation did not intend to
be at this meeting. Is that a recollection, Agent Wagner?
Yeah, that's what he told me. He had talked to you about it at the sidewalk. I don't I don't know if I was there. I think I'd gone back to take pictures or something. Okay.
Well, in any case, we have the application, and for in order to move forward on it, I'm going to make a motion to approve the permit application ask for, with of course standard conditions, and ask for a second to that motion. I'll second. Okay,
so moved and seconded. Okay, everybody had a chance to take a look at the pictures that Agent Wagner posted for refreshing our memory. Any questions or comments about the application? Mr. Munro?
Yeah, I did look at that video with the bridge up in Vermont. And it appears that the bridge just spans the entire stream. Is that what his plan is too? Do you know? That was my impression. Any other? Yeah, I agree
with that impression. Know, I think I asked him if there were going to be any stanchions going down into the screen to support the bridge in the center, and he said no. Good. Excuse me.
Well, if it's gonna span that that area that he brought it brought us to there, that would be a huge improvement over what happened there the last time.
Indeed, best management practices for logging have advanced over the past twenty, thirty years. Okay, any other questions or comments? Mr. Larson, do you have any? I'm all set.
Chairman Elliot? Yeah. Chairman, this is Hank from the Conservation Commission. Sure, but I just ask a question. Sure, regarding it. Do
you recall if there is a planned use of siltation fencing for the project?
No, it was I don't believe it was specified. AJ Wagner, do you have any recollection? Mine is that there were no other specific erosion controls or anything like that on that project. I don't recall that they were We certainly hadn't seen that in any of the previous logging projects that I'm aware of.
Okay, good. I just wanted to be clear out. Just check on that because I was concerned that if it was planned because of the timing with amphibian migrations coming up for the spring, but if it's not being used, that's perfect. Fine. Okay.
Yeah. Think they're actually they're hoping to start sometime this week, so it should be
be done before Conditions are pretty good right now. Okay, so if there are no further questions or comments, I'll call for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Monroe? Aye.
And I also vote aye, so the motion carries three zero. Joe, you can go ahead and issue the permit, and good luck to them. Okay, next item on the agenda. Under new business, we have IWWC2129 for activity in the Upland Review area for a project. Guess the official address is on Lake Road And Commercial Development and so forth. We have a, of course, highly detailed application, and I will ask for the representative of the agent or the owners or agents or whoever, would that be Jessica Bates of Thank BL you. If you could sort of clue us in on the little bitty part of the project that actually is on an upland review area and what the potential impacts might be there.
Definitely. If it's okay with the Commission, I would like to share my screen just so I can kind of show you. Otherwise, I'm going to talk with my hands. So either you can see me talk with my hands or you can look at the plan. Yeah,
board clerk who is administering the meeting should be able to arrange for you to share screen.
Okay. You should be able to, Jessica. Just let me know if you can.
Okay. Thank you. So this is the site plan. First of all, hi. My name is Jessica Bates. I'm a professional engineer. I work for BL companies. My office is in Hartford, Connecticut. We're here to discuss the application at 580 Lake Road. It's at the intersection of Lake Road and Route 6 right in front of Ben Franklin Plumbing Supplies. It is in the Upland Review area, as Mr. Chairman said, due to the proximity to Chaney Brook. Chaney Brook is on this plan right here, is actually pointing down. So, Chaney Brook on the plan is on the left side of the screen across Lake Road from the application site. The approximate high water of Cheney Brook is this dark, like, kind of jagged line, and the Upland Review area is this green line that goes kind of halfway through the building and through part of the parking lot. As I said previously, the wetland is on the other side of the road from the application site, and the topography of this site all drains kind of from the
upper left hand side of the screen to the lower right hand side of the screen. There is a culvert oops, I'm gonna move my hatching There is a culvert beneath Route 6 that this site entirely drains to, and there is absolutely no water or anything that is going towards water sediment silt or anything of that nature that could get into Chaneybrook as a result of the construction activities on this site. Even the driveway and everything else, that part of Lake Road is actually draining towards Route 6 and the cross culvert that goes beneath Route 6. This site in general ranges in topography from roughly two ninety nine here to approximately two ninety two in this location. It is zoned industrial. Retail sales is allowed. There's no FEMA floodplain on this site. The application is for a 10,640 square foot building with 35 parking spaces. We are calling for some parking spaces to be regular, bituminous asphalt and some parking spaces to be pervious asphalt. There are two driveway to this parking to this lot. One would be from Route 6 and one would be from Lake Road. That is under review currently by the Connecticut Department of Transportation. The Upland Review Area, as I said previously, falls on-site, but there's no significant work in the Upland Review Area, and there would be no effects to the wetlands due to this proposed construction site. The utility is on-site. Everything is available readily electric, telephone is in Route 6. We would have a septic system, which is under review by the health department as we speak now,
and the well would be required, and there would be a Connecticut Department of Health transient non community well on-site. The photometrics for the site are LED, dark sky compliant, full cutoff light fixtures. There is an increase in impervious. Obviously, this is right now a maintained lawn, so any impervious would automatically be an increase in impervious. To mitigate the effects of the increase in impervious, we have a closed drainage system that will have sumps beneath the outlets, hoods to catch floatables and debris, hydrodynamic separators for total suspended solids and removal for the water quality flow, and leaching underground chambers, concrete chambers on this site to mitigate the pre post effect of impervious cover on this site. Erosion control, we are in full compliance with the Connecticut erosion control manual, and we are in compliance with the 2,002 stormwater quality manual. Landscaping has a variety of trees and shrubs, grasses that really produces an aesthetically pleasing site from both Lake Road and Route 6. Really, that's kind of a general overview of the site itself. In conclusion, we're saying we really have no significant impacts in the Upland Review area, and there will be no adverse effects on the wetland system that is across Lake Road from the application site. I think you're muted, Mr. I think.
Sorry. I'll thank engineer Bates for a concise and informative presentation, and I'll ask if any of the commissioners have any specific questions regarding the project.
We can talk more about it if you want. I have one question,
and that is I am under the impression that our zoning agent is discussed with somebody from your company, I don't know who, about the fact that sidewalks will be required to be put in the upland review area. And so while I don't think that that will have any detrimental effect on anything, it would preclude us from having to come back to wetlands if we made sure that the sidewalks were shown on the drawing that wetlands will
take action. Yeah, if could make that a condition of approval, we can definitely add that. We would put it on the side of the street and pitch it towards the road, it really still would have no adverse effects on the wetlands on the other side of the street. It wouldn't change our stormwater management design. It's very, very minimal increase in impervious cover based on the entire site in and of itself. So, yeah, we have no problems adding the sidewalks to the site, and we would appreciate the opportunity to do that as a condition of approval.
Okay. Commissioner Liesing, you were referring to a that would be a zoning condition as opposed to a building permit condition. It wouldn't be something that would be imposed by the IWWC. We just want to make sure that when we do and we won't be, of course, considering this application for approval tonight, but when we do, we want to make sure that what we have is on the same page as what Commissioner Larson's.
I do think it would be appropriate to have it as a condition of approval for the Inland Wetlands decision because that way, there can be no question of the fact that that was addressed by the Inland Wetlands Commission and it won't require the drawing to come back to wetlands again when sidewalks get added. If we recognize that there's going be a plan for sidewalks, I think that might be better for us in the long run.
Okay, so that's a modification you'd like to see in the application prior to our further consideration of it. Again, that would be our next meeting.
But if they can update the drawings before then, that would be great. But if not, you know, when we approve, we make motions to approve things, it has conditions of approval and to have listed the recognition that sidewalks will be included in the upland review area on the final plan, I think that covers as well.
And to get the plans in in time to be reviewed by the Commission prior to the next meeting, what would be the deadline for that? If you tell me it's yesterday, it'll be a I'm good. I'm not that good.
Well, I thought with CAD you could do things, you know. It's a couple clicks. A click of the switch, right? Yeah, we should be so lucky. No, our next meeting is not won't be until February 6, and I think that, you know, if we get materials within a week of the meeting, that's ample time for
us That's to the best I can do. Okay. Yeah, it just it's the printing and everything else, it takes some time, so I just wanted to make sure we had a couple of days to be able to put them on plans, print them, and get them back to you guys. Right.
I guess we're still having to deal with paper in some respects. Always. Forever.
Okay, any other questions or comments? Okay. You know, in a way, this is being an upland review project, we could actually leave this for agent approval. But I think that the extent of the project is such that probably be better if the whole commission, such as it is, has review over the application. Okay?
So So just so I'm clear, is this going to be just voted on on the next meeting, or is it a public hearing for the next meeting?
Well, that's a good point. I'm getting the sense that we don't regard this as having a significant impact, and therefore, we don't really need to have a hearing on the wetlands aspect of the application. And, you know, I can't speak for Planning and Zoning Commission, although Commissioner Larsen certainly could. I'm not sure whether a public hearing would be anticipated for an application of this scope.
But again, I don't see I just meant under this commission, is the next meeting going to be a public hearing or not? I don't think I didn't mean under planning and zoning, just meant under planning and No, no, no. Meant the
if there were going to be a planning and zoning, we'd probably want to get our act on the same page. I don't see a need for hearing for this application for this commission. Okay.
Unless I hear otherwise from my commissioners. And again, that question there is that it doesn't have a significant impact on the associated weapons. And again, based on the sense that it won't, there is no need for a public hearing on the wetlands aspect. I agree with that.
Okay. So if we, again, if we have a general sense of the project, and especially it's a wetlands aspect, and that we won't require a public hearing, and we should be able to act on the application at our next meeting, again, provided we get the updated revisions associated with the need for a sidewalk. Hey, the skateboarders have got to go someplace, right? Yes. Okay. So any other questions or comments on the proposal, on the application? If not, we'll move on to our remaining agenda. And again, thank Engineer Bates, and you may be excused from the meeting.
From the classroom? Yes. Thank you very much. Have a great night. Okay, good night. Bye.
Okay, let me find the agenda again here on my screen. Right, yeah, other business. And finally, the people who have been hanging in there all this time waiting for their moment to arrive, the Conservation Commission, as we recall, initiated an inventory of vernal pools in town of Andover, and last year we got an excellent report on activities of UConn students who applied their geospatial and GIS skills to identify potential goals. And now, our Conservation Commission, with our support, wants to move it forward. So, I'm going to ask Hank Brunner, representing the Conservation Commission, to tell us what's coming up next.
Thank you, Cherimina Elliott. And Abby, if I could share screen?
Yep. I just need you to call host who should be able to. Let me know if you can't. Alright. Hold on.
Let's see if I can call up this PowerPoint real quick. Where'd it go? There it goes.
You guys see that? I've got a blank screen that says Hank Greener has started. There we go. There you go. Alright, everybody sees the map of Andover. Hopefully we recognize that boundaries of the town and all those blue dots. If you remember, this is where we last left off. These were the potential vertical pools that were mapped working with the Yukon students that Chairman Elliott mentioned. And just a reminder that their potential vertical pools at this point, because really what we need to do is be able to collect some biological data to confirm whether they are in fact functioning as vertical pools, requires the presence of certain obligate species. Let me put this in slide mode here to make it a little easier actually just go to this. So what we've done in the next step is really to do is to look at. Doing those biological surveys so obviously the pools are on a variety of parcel some are public and some are private. We did a cross reference of the potential pools in the using the GIS mapping and we came across with of the 183 pools potential pools that were mapped 78% of them are on private land and 22% of them are on public land. The public lands, as you know, you know we have town land. Have some land trust property. We have some large tracts of state land and Bishop Swamp Wildlife Management area portions in Nathan Hale State Forest, but the majority are on private land, which is typical. Number of pools for parcel also I thought it would be interesting to look at is they can range anywhere from on private land one to 15 pools per parcel and on public land one to 21 pools for parcel.
We identified 63 landowners associated with those private lands that we would need to request permission from. We went back and over the past week actually several members of the Commission look through the property records in town to confirm because they're more up to date and we're able to identify confirm 59 of those and 59 addresses. So our next up what we'd like to do and want to bring to the Commission is we prepared a letter, a final draft letter for your review. Included by agent Wagner in the package for review. And approval because we'd like to be able to send that out as early as next week, no later than first week of February to attempt to get landowner permission to do surveys later in the spring. Does everybody have that a copy of that letter?
Right, the updated letter that Hank referring to was sent out, let's see now, on the seventh. I have an email, and it I had a little bit of input into drafting that letter, in particular in volunteering the Inland Wild And Water Courses Commission email address through the town of Andover Outlook email server, so we have a quote official email address for that correspondence.
And the letter is really two parts. The first part is sort of the introduction to the landowner and what this project is. And then the second part is the check basically a checkoff sheet that would be returned back to Chairman Elliott mentioned to the official location either via mail or email. Those we would use to tabulate the sites where we would be able to provide access.
Hank, I would offer that I did see the letter, I did read the letter, but I didn't recognize that I should be reading it with the critical eye to give you feedback on it. I know I got the point across, I thought it was very good, but I didn't scrutinize it carefully, if you would.
Take a minute because I'm going to ask for approval to send that letter since it is at least partly under our aegis. Again, although this is essentially a conservation commission activity, it's certainly one that we support since the information is useful from a wellness regulation point of view, knowing that it's there will certainly help guide activities. And I think that, again, the idea of having, well, at least get one or possibly two attempts at getting a letter out and getting that and giving it time for response means that the letter, the first letter at least, will have to be sent. And as Sank says, very soon, the window of opportunity
is fairly narrow for actually identifying and characterizing actual vernal pools. I will say that again, having had input into the letter, I'm quite satisfied with its content.
I have a question. Bill Monroe. I see it says each Vernell pool sampling should take thirty to sixty minutes and up to two surveys will be conducted per pool. Mhmm. Now how is this two surveys? I mean, I'm looking at it from the homeowners, private property owners, you know, I mean, it's it's two two surveys that they're just going to have two surveys. These people are going to be Volunteers are going to be on their property just. Just twice and and how much. Amount of time would that be like? It like within five years or within no one?
Yeah, it there there would be two surveys. One ideally would be and it depends a little bit the timing of when the amphibian season breaks, but typically one would be in March and one would be in April. And this each each one of those surveys they would be on the property for thirty to sixty minutes. So there would be two surveys this spring. They would all be completed by certainly by the end of May mid to the end of May, depending on how the season falls. But generally, the surveys will occur between March and May. Okay. Thank you. Answered my question. Now, it looks like George might have left us. Who's George?
I don't see him on the list. Maybe he'll come back. Should we text him?
Hey, Ken. I don't have his phone number, but if you have one. Let's see.
I found his phone number. I'll give him a call if no one else is yet.
Yeah. I haven't yeah. I was looking for his number. Okay. Yep. I'll, give him a call. Hold on. Thanks, Abby. Hello? Hello, George.
Hi, Abby. I'm sitting here looking at a Zoom screen that's telling me to, well, first of all, I'll try to join. I got booted out. I don't know what happened. I'm trying again now, but it does not seem to want I don't seem to be getting a connection. And I have no idea why because my Wi Fi and Ethernet are both active. So are others still in the meeting and active?
Yep. We're all here. I'll I'll investigate to see if I can get to the root of it, but, your phone works for now.
Okay. It's pretty hard to keep track of what's going on just by phone, and I'll hope that the connection will be restored. How do I get what others are saying? Can you patch me into that?
I think everyone can speak. I can hear you, George. Can you hear me? Yeah. You should be able to hear us.
Okay, I can can hear you, Judd, and I hope that we can proceed this way. As I said, it's really strange that I can't get the connection. I may just while we're talking, I'm I'm gonna quit and try starting over again. That sometimes does more than anything else. Okay. I'm not getting anywhere with trying to restart Zoom. Just got a spinning wheel that says connecting. So, again, question is, are we in a will we be in a position? Can we go ahead and approve the letter being sent to property owners regarding the Vernal Pool survey. I think we hear from Commissioner Monroe's comment might be well to just add that this might occur in March and April. So other than that, are there any suggestions? I have no other comments.
Okay. Once again, I have absolutely no idea why I can't get on to the Zoom meeting from my laptop here. I have one more bright idea. I may be able to do it from my desktop and we'll try that. But I don't have a lot of hope. Especially since the link from the PDF file doesn't seem to be working.
I just sent you a new invite to the IWWC chair email if that's helpful.
Okay. I'll, certainly give that a try. Why am I getting duck duck go go coming up here? Okay. I'll see if Outlook will let me in. If I look, we'll ever load. Okay. Got the link. Waiting for it to open. Looks like we got you.
There we go. You want me both? Okay. How about that? I'll, ring off of the phone then.
Okay. Oddly enough, can anybody hear me? Jed, you're the only person I can see. Can you raise your hand or I can hear you. Okay. I don't see myself. I see you. So we're looking at just a marginal improvement. They said the only
Okay, now I can see other participants and myself. Okay, we're making progress here. So where were we when I got booted out?
I think we were just looking. I don't know if you want a motion or just a consensus that the letter is ready to send out. Okay. Participants in the meeting hear me? Yes. Yes. Yes.
Okay, I think we have communication. Again, I'm switching platforms here, so it's a little awkward. I now have a panel with participants and Hank's screen with the PowerPoint presentation. And again, we have discussion of the proposed letter to be sent to landowners. We have proposed modification of the letter to indicate at least the window of dates that would be relevant for the surveys. And any other comments, suggestions? Okay, then. With that modification, I would like to move that the commission approve sending that letter. I'll second.
Thank you. So, motion and second to approve sending the letter. And again, by roll call, Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Monroe? Aye.
And I also vote aye, so the motion carries three-zero-zero. Hank, I think you can run through the Conservation Commission to have a little detail added. And Yep.
We'll look forward to getting some responses. Yep. At least from a few of the landowners in contact. Yeah. And hopefully 20%. That's what is typical. Okay.
Thank you. So one last a fair amount of activity. That could be a lot of pools to sleep.
Yeah. Well, we'll see. We'll see. So, so just a quick slide, the next steps then. Will the landowner mailing will occur January through early April. We'll get that out and thank you for your approval and support of the project. We also are scheduling, just to make you aware, a public program to promote awareness at the library on February 23. That's more of a general introduction to virtual pools. All Wetlands Commission members are more than welcome to attend that if you want to find out a little bit more. And then on April 9 through the sixteenth waiting to confirm the date on that with amy at the library will do a field experience to a pool that. Carrie Crompton and I identified and looked at for training that's behind the recreational fields. There's actually a couple pools there. So we'll do a field and that's a Saturday. We'll do a field program to give folks a chance to sort of explore a vertical pool and see a little bit about the life in the pool. And then we'll move into volunteer recruitment. Beginning in February actually, and then with the training probably toward the end of February or early March of the volunteers on the techniques and what needs to be done for the for the collecting the data, And then the verbal pool surveys themselves will occur March through May.
Good. Well, again, good luck recruiting volunteers. I'm there'll be some community interest.
Yeah. Of course, if any members of the commission are interested in volunteering, they'd be more than welcome.
Going to say we would be encouraged, as commissioners, and I would, on a household basis, expect also to be encouraged to participate in this conservation commission activity. Okay?
Well, thanks a lot, Hank. I'm really sorry for all the No, that's okay. That's the world we live in today with technology. We've all had our share of dealing with workarounds.
Yeah, indeed. Good. Just thought I've got two screens to work with. So with that, I guess we can move on to the other item that we have in other business, which is the revised regulations. You'll recall from our last meeting, we are obliged to hold a hearing before we can adopt those regulations since we're really not proposing anything substantively new. You know, we're not coming up with some radical new regulations for Andover. We're just incorporating updates to the model regulations from DEEP. I don't anticipate a whole lot of discussion, you know, a lot to hear in a hearing. And what I would like to propose then is that we simply schedule a hearing prior to a regular meeting, And that way we can hold a hearing, and then during a regular meeting, we can discuss and hopefully vote to approve the updated regulations. Commissioners, do you have any thoughts on that matter? Sounds good to me. Okay. Commissioner Munro? Same here. Okay.
And then we got to figure out a time. I'm thinking that in order to allow plenty of time for required notification, we do have toI don't remember the exact dates myself, but I know that, you know, we have deadlines in terms of public notice. We'll probably have to put in I'm sure we'll have to put a notice in the River East at some interval before the hearing. You know, there has to be adequate public notice. So, I'm thinking that the regular meeting in March, would be an appropriate time, to schedule that hearing. And I'm pulling back my calendar just to double check. Yeah, the first Monday of March is March 7, so our regular meeting would normally be at 7PM. We could schedule for the hearing for 7PM and the hearing to follow I mean, excuse me, the regular meeting to follow the hearing at seven So, if that's copacetic, we can, I guess, can adopt that by unanimous consent and pencil it in our calendars? And, Agent Wagner, I'll ask you to, attend to the details of posting the warning and all of that for a public hearing
regarding the updated or the revised regulations. The current regulations, of course, are posted on our website. We could probably post the revised regulations as well. If you don't have them in PDF format, I do. I've got all the original documents that were created during the process.
Yeah. Probably just to make sure I got the right version to post. If you could send me Yeah. Okay. I'll I'll I'll do that. We got some time.
George, do we need a motion to schedule the public hearing?
Yeah, we could do it formally. And do you want to make that motion?
I make a motion that we hold a public hearing 07:00 on March 7 for the purpose of discussing the changes to the inland wetlands regulations. I'll second that.
Alright, motion is second. Vote on the motion by Commissioner Lawson? Aye. Commissioner Monroe? Aye. And I also vote aye, so the motion carries three-zero-zero. So, we'll be good to go. With that, we can move on to the next item of our agenda, which would be should we go to calendar? Okay. Yeah. We got any enforcement actions or agent report.
Actually, it's been a quiet month, so no no Christmas time enforcement actions. I can continue to agent report. I didn't have any any applications or approvals, in December.
Indeed So. A quiet month. Okay. Maybe it'll get busier when things pick up in the spring. Okay, so thanks for that input.
Then moving on with the agenda. We'll move on, George. I did have one question for our agent. You been out to see the subdivision on Pine Ridge Drive recently. And the reason I asked the question is I think they are clearing the lot out there and I don't know exactly how they're getting the cleared trees across the wetlands. And there was a discussion that they were all going to be stockpiled out there, but I just, you know, I think it would be worth putting your eyes on the target and see what's actually going on with respect to, you know, that happening. I don't know if they're going to leave everything back there or how they get it across the wetlands to even do the cutting down out there. The bridge certainly isn't in place to go across the wetlands at this point.
Yeah. From a I did visit it. I forget what the exact date was, but Jim Halsey and me and Eric Lteska and George Korea were out there probably a few weeks ago, maybe two or three weeks ago. And we walked, from the old farm's side. And that's where at that time, that's where the work was going on, and they were actually working from from that way, and there was a like an old road that they're seem like at that time, they're they're doing the tree clearing from all from that part from the old driveway that was in from the previous owner. And he was working from that, working his way towards the wetland crossing from from that direction. But at that time, they're just clearing, like, opening up that road again and working from there. But I'll definitely swing by there see see what's going on. Keep an eye on it. Thank you.
Any other questions or comments for our agent? Okay, then as I say, moving on with the agenda. Our next regular meeting will be Monday, February 7, same time, same virtual place, and hopefully we'll fuel problems next time. And with that, we come to the final item on the agenda, namely adjournment. With no objection, we may adjourn by unanimous consent. Seems to be okay. So, I will consider the meeting adjourned at 09:05PM. Well, thanks all for your patience, and we have a wonderful month, and hope that it warms up in time for our site walk. I look forward to seeing you all then. Until then, we can click on the little red button that says leave. Bye bye. Good night, everyone. Hey, everybody. Bye.