Meeting transcript
IWWC - Regular Meeting
August 3, 2020 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
Members present. Of course, I can see, Jim Halsey. Here. Ed Smith. Edmund Smith present? Yeah, present. Okay. Let's see who else is there. Jed Larson? Yep, here.
Okay. My screen just lost you, so I don't know where you are. But I guess we have a quorum, and we don't have any alternates to be seated, so we can proceed with the meeting. Do we have any need to make additions or changes to the agenda? Seeing none, we will go on to agenda item four, public comment. Who's administering this meeting, by the way? I am, Linda. Okay, Linda. I'll count on you to recognize whoever may wish to speak and to appropriately unmute them for that purpose. Okay.
I want to put a shout out to Jed for a moment. Are you there, Jed? Yep. I made you co host. So can you help George if there's any documents from the website that have to be screen shared? Okay, Linda, I I have got to the the home page there, so I should be able to help out on that. Okay, I appreciate it. I'm working off two computers here so it's kind of hard for me to do it. So Megan, Amanda asked if I would, you know, reach out to you to help. We'll see how effective her training was. Okay.
Hope it all works. Okay, so we've got that settled then. We can then proceed to agenda item number five, approval of minutes. I would like a motion to approve the minutes of the 07/14/2020 regular meeting.
I'd like to move to approve minutes of the July 14 meeting. Ed Smith seconds the motion.
Okay. So motion by Jim Halsey, second by Ed Smith to approve the minutes. Any discussion? They are long. Hi. We just had
two people that were in attendance that weren't on the agenda Bill and Donna Phillips that's all okay
Okay, those corrections will be noted. Any other corrections, edits? Okay, seeing none, I'll call for a vote on motion. And we'll do it by a roll call again. Jim Hallisey? Aye. Jed Larson?
Are you able to hear me, George? I can hear you. Okay, I was trying to make a comment before you moved to voting
on it. Oh, well, didn't, that I didn't hear. Were you muted at the time or?
Sure, but the comment's just a typo on page three, paragraph H, third line down needs a two in front of the year we've got the 06/21/2020 instead of 2020. Okay, got it. And now I vote to approve. Aye. Okay.
Thank you. So we're voting on the minutes as corrected. Ed Smith. Aye. And Vice Chairman George Eliot votes aye. So the motion carries four-zero-zero. Okay, next item on the agenda, administrative approvals. So far we see none, unless, Mr. Wagner or were there any other administrative actions that we need to be aware of?
No, I haven't been appointed to approve anything yet, so.
Nothing yet. Well, that simplifies. Okay, I'm working on two screens here too, folks. So you'll forgive me if I seem distracted. Okay, so item seven on the agenda, permit applications. The first on the agenda is IWWC twenty twenty one from Emmanuel Correa. And of course, Jerry Hardisty is the engineer for the subdivision in residential construction at 12 West Shore Lane in BoltonAndover Connecticut. Let's see now I believe we have some updates on that and I guess I can call on Mr. Hardisty to comment on the revisions that were submitted along with the letter that we received today so Jerry can you unmute or can somebody unmute Jerry for I
don't think I'm muted but I was hoping to see the drawings that I submitted today, if we can bring those up. Unfortunately, was not able to make the last inland wetlands meeting, but I got the minutes from that and I saw that there were a number of comments from both the reviewing engineer and the wetlands commission. I have tried to address all of those comments with a revised plan. And actually, it's not even a revised plan so much as it is the actual subdivision plans that will be submitted to planning and zoning, and that takes care of the inconsistency concern that Jed had, a valid concern. We didn't know which ones you were looking at. But so I've submitted the subdivision and development plans for this, and these plans should address the comments that were that were covered in the review comments and the Commission's comments.
Judd, can you screen share those documents? I have them. I'm bringing them up on my own desktop but I can't share so if we want to have
I can I can also make you a co host too if you want George
it wouldn't work because I'm working on two computers and the Zoom is not Okay? My
Gary, which one do you want to see? Do you want to see the development plan or the subdivision plan? The development plan is probably more instructive. Okay. Do you see that one there, Jed? What's the full title of that document? A site plan 8,220. So is the subdivision plan up there now?
Don't see yet. He's looking for the development plan. The one right above it that says 8220 development. Okay. That should be it. No.
So what are you seeing from me? We're just seeing you. Okay. Here we go. Voila. Here it is. Thanks, Jed. Yep.
Okay. This plan this is the plan that will be submitted to Planning and Zoning. This development plan includes a soil erosion and sediment control plan as in accordance with the 2002 Connecticut guidelines for soil erosion and sediment control. That was one of the comments that should be followed. I've extended silt fence the entire length of the disturbed area between the disturbed area and the wetlands as requested. Another significant factor is that I've switched the the septic system reserve and proposed primary system. So the primary system now is farther from the wetlands than the reserve area. As I've stated before, it would be my preference to put the primary area closer to the wetlands because the soils are better. They're a little steeper there, and it would be a better situation for the septic system. There was a comment that I needed to show a 100 foot regulated area. That was on there before, but it may not have been showing up. Anyway, this is a if you can see my cursor, this is a regulated area for the western pockets of wetlands and this is the regulated area for the Eastern wetlands. Not sure what else there was a comment about not directing runoff into the wetlands to the west. The general topo for this property is running north to south or south to north, excuse me. So the chances of directing flow to that wetlands is pretty minimal. There was another question in the review comments about whether or not the western pockets of wetlands were a vernal pool, and I discussed that with my soil scientist today and he said that there was no way to really verify that for sure without doing a
year long monitoring of it and seeing the reactions in the springtime. However, he doubted that it was a vernal pool. I can tell you that area has been disturbed over the years because where the where you can see I have the lot one placard on this thing used to be a fairly significant horse barn. And the area behind the horse barn, they piled manure and did other agricultural things in this area. So it is some it is disturbed, and I don't think there will be any more disturbance. It being on the property line and over to the west side, I think, help mitigate any chances of that area being disturbed further. I think that I honestly think that this development, one lot development, can be done with with virtually no impact on the wetlands at all.
There's an existing fence right now at the edge of the clearing, and that fence, the tree line is right up against that fence, and it provides a pretty significant buffer between any development or any land use and the wetlands. Anything else? Can try to answer questions. But that's it in a nutshell.
Do any commissioners have any questions or comments on the site plan that has been presented and revised and on Jerry's comments?
Jerry, wasn't one of the comments that to take a look at repositioning the house to the Southwest so that it would be outside of the upland review area?
That was a comment, Jed. And I'll tell you what, this I wanted to leave this here because I thought that, first of all, I think that this is the most appropriate location for the house so that we don't crowd the back property line and get nearer to neighbors there. And also that if we provided it here, the house that I've got on this drawing is just a potential house. You know, it's we don't have house plans for anything. And so I figured if I showed this, then the commission could approve this based on nothing would be any closer than this point. But certainly, we could move it back and farther from the wetlands with a new application, with the actual plot plan that would have to be submitted before any kind of a building approval.
Yeah. This is Jim Hallessey, and I'd like to weigh in from a zoning perspective. The the rear yard setback is actually 50 feet, and that would preclude moving the house back much further. I mean, there's some room, but right now it's shown as a 20 foot rear yard. It's gonna have to be changed. It's not gonna impact the the plan before you. It just would prohibit moving the house much further back.
Understand, but isn't one of the requirements that we see what the alternate less invasive options might be so that the Commission can make the proper decision on that? And both Mr. Bruner and the engineer talked, I think, about moving it out of the Upland review area.
Jed, if we moved it if we moved it south and west, we would be in a different Upland review area. We're we're kind of there's not a whole lot of room here.
And I don't want it to This to go into a zoning discussion per se. But I think if there's an option that shows the house out of the Upland review area, and again having the wrong setback on the map might preclude that from being able to see that, I think we owe it to ourselves to see what those options are and there may be, you know, one of the things that you're supposed to do in the plan is provide the rationale for why we chose not to pursue those options. But we're not giving the Commission the opportunity to see if there's a better way to do it because we're only looking at one that you consider the worst case scenario.
I don't know how to address that, Chad. If you think that it's necessary to have 85 foot clearance instead of 75 foot clearance from the wetlands, you can certainly make that a condition of approval. But again, my position is that this house and the development of this house would have no impact at all on this wetlands.
Okay, well I just it seems to me that we have not done what our procedure requires to provide the alternatives, and we've not done what you were asked to do by Hank Gruner and the engineer who looked at it.
Well, those comments, I saw, says to rotate the house. Rotation of the proposed house. As I said, rotating the house in the position that it's in would I don't know how you could do that and still and gain a whole lot.
Okay. But I yeah. I've made my point. And I guess I will address it from a zoning perspective a little bit. When we were looking at the drawing before, I don't think we had the 100 foot regulated area on the Western Wetlands in there. And I think there's probably a zoning, a subdivision regulation that may preclude having, I know we talked about the septic, I think that paragraph in the subdivision rigs may specify a well and house as well. And so I was trying to get a feel for something that complied with outside the review area and then make your case for thinking that this is a better plan?
Well, well can go just about anywhere. We can move the well to right behind the house where at least 25 feet radius is is not within any kind of a wetland setback area.
Jim Halsey. Gary, through the chair. Why do you show two radiuses for the well?
Because the inside radius, the 25 foot radius is because you can't be within any kind of drains. So if you have it near the house, you need to show the 25 foot radius so that you know you're outside of the influence of the footing drains around the house. Okay.
And the outer radius, of course, is the 75 feet that we need to be away from any septic part of the septic system. Right. I believe it's a 100 feet for subdivision right? Yes.
Well, if this were a live meeting, I would sketch a new rectangular house right in this area and ask the commission if they could approve that. But I can't do that from here.
Ed Smith, are you talking about rotating the house clockwise?
I would suggest to rotate the house counterclockwise because we want the face of the house towards the road. So I would put the back of the house more or less coincidental with this contour line.
Let me interject here. Jerry, you want to can you share your desktop? And let me I'll make you a co host to share your desktop. Because, of course, we cannot see we're looking at Judd's desktop the plan and of course your cursor and his are not in sync so I'm jabbering away here meaninglessly okay there's something left out yes
Okay. So do you want me to make Jerry a co host?
If you can do that now, yes. That way he could share his I just managed to annotations.
I just click on share screen? Yeah. Jed, can you take your screen down? Okay. Jed, would you be able to walk Jerry through on the next step to screen share? Do I just click on the share screen? Yes. Whiteboard. There you go. There's nothing on my whiteboard. No. Can you guys see my screen now? Not yet. Not me. I just opened a screen from my desktop. Can't see, Jerry.
Is your document that you wanna open on your desktop? How's this? Can you see this? Go. Good. Yep. You're good. So
this is from my desktop, but it should be the same drawing that we've been looking at. Appears to be.
Okay. So I guess my point is that or my discussion is that we could pull this building back and put the backside of the building more or less parallel with this contour line. And that would provide us the most clearance from the regulated area.
Yeah, this is Jim. Just want make a comment. I mean, the further you move that house back, the longer that driveway is. Yeah. It can impact.
So you've got more runoff, you've more nitrates coming off. Yeah, get more pervious surface. Duration.
So essentially we're looking at several trade offs in terms of the foundation location in terms of, I think you mentioned already, Jerry, the setback from the rear of the lot and proximity to neighbors. Jim mentioned just now a longer driveway to access the site. And with consequence, depending on the driveway is constructed, could be a larger impact, although again it's within the upland review area, not within the wetland per se. So are there any other considerations that we have missed? Since Jed Larson brought up the question, I'll ask him directly if he has any comments on the discussion so far. Is this a satisfactory explication of the conditions that you were raising?
Well I did not have an awful lot of time to understand what documents we were going to be looking at tonight because they were just recently added to the website. I was expecting to see a proposal where we placed the house outside of the 100 foot upland review area because our procedure, the wetlands procedure, specifies that alternatives considered and subsequently rejected by the applicant, which would cause less or no environmental impact to wetlands or water courses, and why the alternative is set forth in the application was chosen, all such alternatives shall be diagrammed on a site plan or drawing. Now when we look at the design criteria for a lot, it says a subdivision lot should be designed such that no proposed locations of sanitary waste disposal, wells, buildings, or other structures shall be within 100 feet of the one hundred year flood high plane or the wetland review area. And so that's what I was looking for.
Jerry, do you think it's possible to address Judd's concerns now? Or is this going to have to require further consideration?
I think it would be difficult to locate all the house septic and well outside of the 100 foot setback. I think we could do it, but I don't think it would be the best design. We could rotate this so that the garage is forward, the house is behind it, and the well is behind. The well could be over in this corner here. So, yeah, it could be done. And I guess at this point, like I said, I was trying to show what would be the most likely and most attractive setup for this particular lot without having the house jammed way back and extending the driveway. But again, I feel that this is a responsible design, that it's not going to affect the wetlands.
But if you if you would approve this conditionally on the on the. Commissioner requirement that the House and the well are outside of the 100 foot setback I could make that happen. In which case, of course, then the only thing you'd be ruling on is the position of the driveway. And something like that could be once I redraw this and submit it, that's something that mister Wagner could probably review and okay because it's a matter of seeing if it fits. Yeah.
I don't I don't have that authority yet. I haven't been authorized as a as a agent yet, so I I would be unable to approve it. Okay. Well
I can see gets point. I mean, he wants to see it. He doesn't want to try and visualize.
Right. Right. No, I would make these I would make these revisions upon the conditional approval, then I'd make the final revisions and submit that.
I think we as a commission need to see it. That's what our procedures require. This is Kevin Arneson. I have a question. I'm sorry. Who was asking to speak here? This is Jason Pabri, owner.
Okay. I'm afraid we can't take your input at this point. That would be a public comment. It's a public comment. We're not in a hearing right now. We're in a meeting. Okay. Okay, I'd like to come to some resolution, at least temporary resolution on this. We have other items on the agenda. And I think our options right now include a Jerry pointed out, a conditional approval, that is approval of the application with conditions that would have to be met before any work could be before any of the work could be undertaken. We could table the discussion. We have I believe on this we have a total of I'm not doing the math too quickly but it looks like we have another 30 about another 30 for action on this item. So I will ask the commissioners what their pleasure is on how to proceed here. Do we want to entertain a motion to
approve the permit application with conditions or do we want to table
George this is Linda yeah I'm looking at your calendar and your next meeting is September 15, which is more than thirty days out.
Okay. Would it be more than ninety days out from the deadline?
The deadline was 06/10. So I think it would be more than ninety days.
Which means we'd have to have a special meeting if if we defer action. Right.
Okay, I'd rather not put us in a position where we have to have a special meeting just for this application. So I think it would be preferable if we could get some resolution on the application of tonight's meeting. And in that case, what we'll need is a motion to approve with conditions, or we could have a motion to reject or however the commissioners wish to frame that motion. I think from my point of view, best would be to a motion to approve with conditions.
Okay, I just have a procedural question. If motion to approve is put forth and the consensus is the commission would feel more comfortable with seeing revisions discussed. The application if we voted on that in that motion, it would would be effectively denying the application. So the alternative would be Once we vote, it's denied. I just wanted to not go down the road. We can't back out here.
I think the applicant has the authority to request a sixty five day extension, which is on top of the 90 degrees that the governor has granted due to the pandemic?
Well if that's the case then we would have time to view and consider alternatives proposed alternatives. And again I don't think that the the question here is not whether we need to have a revised plan but whether we are looking at a plan that considers alternatives.
I think if we had a revised plan, it needs to have the correct setback at the rear of the lot.
I'm sorry, what was the issue with the setback at the rear?
This drawing shows a 20 foot rear setback. I think Jim said it was 50. I don't have the chart in front of me, but I know it's not 20.
Yeah, I did look it up right before the meeting. I thought it was 50 and in fact it is 11.2 of the regulations, 11.2. Alright. I personally don't have a problem with with the plan as it's shown. But I do embrace Jed's point. I can't see structuring an approval that would address the concern. I mean, you're trying to structure, you're asking for somebody to review a plan that isn't there. I'm having a hard time picture personally. Okay then, should we
Let me just say one more thing. This plan is not significantly different than the one that was initially submitted, except for that we did revise the locations of the proposed septic system and the reserve area. We did that and that revised the that necessarily revised the driveway, which puts the driveway closer to the wetlands. So I would suggest that we have shown at least a couple of different scenarios here. Again, I'm trying to present something that's going to be the most valuable to whomever buys this lot. I think that typically the house is facing the road and to make something way back just adds additional driveway and makes it a less attractive piece of property. At the initial submission of this thing, this Commission ruled that this would not be a significant activity. So I'm not sure why this would be not approvable.
Ed Smith, Commissioner, I'm wondering, would I be breaking protocol to ask the owner to comment at this time? Earlier, he had tried to comment, but it wasn't appropriate. Can a commissioner ask them to comment? This is not an owner. This is in a butter. Thank you.
I will tell you that the proximity to the neighborhood houses was one of the reasons that this house is located where it is.
Well, Ed Smith again. Could the buyer comment? Could a commissioner ask for the buyer to comment? Perhaps the buyer has something to say that will speed this up.
I don't know what that means. There's no buyer that I'm aware. So who was trying to speak earlier? But they weren't permitted from the public.
An abutting landowner. Folks we really do need to move along on this. And I think Jerry's point is well taken that he has addressed concerns previously raised and argues that although we're within an upland review area the proposed activity will not have any measurable impact on the wetlands of concern. And I really think that we need to either, as they say, fish or cut bait here and either you know insist on a new plan or vote on what we have on the permit application that we have in front of us. Either way we need a motion to take action. So is anyone prepared to make a motion either to act on the permit or the permit application or to request the applicant to allow further time for consideration and postpone it till our next meeting.
Jim Halsey, with a question. Is there a, are there conditions prepared to go to company for approval? That's something that we just wouldn't have.
This is Linda. As far as I know, the answer is no. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. So the applicant's looking for direction. I mean, I'm concerned about also procedurally, there's four of us, which means that ties a denial, I believe. That's correct.
Okay. I'm gonna make a motion. I don't think which way to get it out there. If we make a motion to table it, and that fails, then it seems we have to act we have to then act on it act on an approval. Correct.
Okay. So I'm going to motion that we table it and ask applicant to provide the alternatives spelled out in the regulations and ask agent to prepare a draft approval or conditions that would accompany the summary.
Okay, we have a motion to table discussion of the further discussion of the permit application and conditions to be imposed on the applicant for review by the Commission. Do we have a second for that motion? Jed seconds.
Okay, so a motion to table by Jim Hallisey, second by Jed Larson. I don't think that's a debatable, so we will proceed to a vote on the motion. Again, we'll have to do this by roll call. And from on my screen, the first up is Jim Halsey.
Commissioner Eliade, I do have one concern. We do not have a request for an extension at this time. What's that? We do not have the request for an extension at this time.
Well, if we don't get that request, we'll have to have a special meeting.
Okay. Roll call. Yeah, roll call. Let me go aye. You called my name. I'm going say aye. Okay.
Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. And Vice Chairman Elliott voting aye. So the motion to table carries four-zero-zero. Okay we can I think eliminate Jerry's screen from our desktops? The next item on the agenda. IWC twenty-twenty three application for new residential construction upland review area and modification of a floodplain at 57 Hendee Road, Alphagans William PR and Donna J Phillips. And I believe Mr. Bushnell, the engineer, is also present. Okay yes alrighty so where do we stand on this one
Well, the way I see it, we submitted a updated plan last Tuesday to the wetlands commission and to the engineering viewing Brandon Anfield. I believe all the, bequests from Brandon were covered on that plan. They were actually covered on the plan before that I think that you guys saw last month. So, I think everything was covered on the plan. I did not hear back from Brandon. I contacted him this afternoon after lunch just to follow-up. And he said he did. He had meant to call me Friday but didn't. He just said everything was good. He wanted response to his three comments, which I haven't had time to do. Was kind of, you know, stuck with time being it was this afternoon I talked to him in meetings tonight. And then we started discussing about the fill and the compensation needed for the, you know, filling the floodplain and taking the fill from the other area on the property. We started talking about the amount of fill and how we could potentially reduce the impact on the wetlands over on the west side of the property, taking the fill out over there. And we both came to the conclusion that we only needed to fill to the flood elevation, the fill put into the flood elevation, which is three twenty three five in the house area,
only that amount needed to be taken out on the other side. You know, originally we had figured 600 yards of fill to complete that house development project. Now I'm down in the neighborhood of 400. Just to fill up to the flood elevation and then the 200 above that could come from off-site or anywhere else. You know, actually Mr. Phillips has some, fill stockpiled from the 57 Hendrie Road house. Just recently completed a, septic repair on that house, because that septic was substandard there. So working with the health district, they ended up removing some fill. It wasn't useful for the septic area. And he still has that stockpile there. He was gonna truck that off-site, but now we can just truck that to over to the house proposed house site. So, you know, in general, I didn't have a lot of time to work on the specifics of it this afternoon, but it looks like about a third less disturbance in the regulated area over on the westerly side of the property where the fills are gonna have to be taken out and over
to the house prod site.
Okay, is this reflected in an updated work? Can this be reflected in an updated plan? Yeah,
I don't know. So reduction in the area of disturbance is not reflected in the updated plan, but everything else should be, which should be, well, actually should be on a plan seven thirty. I don't know what plan was submitted. I didn't submit the plans that are wetlands. The owners did, so that's a question I asked them. Seven thirty is the plan. Okay.
So seven thirty, yeah. So you went from a three bedroom to a four bedroom septic, which basically added, oh, let's see how many feet to the trenches. Added about 10 feet to the length of the the septic trenches and just increased the size of the tank by 250 gallons. Still all within the same area of disturbances before. We're not disturbing any more area than we had proposed before
by doing that. Okay. So it'll just be a shallower excavation.
Yeah. But not not necessarily shallower, just smaller in area. Okay. Area, maybe maybe slightly shallower too. Is it possible to queue up the newest plan?
You should have the seven thirty plan. Yeah. That looks kinda small on my screen. Let's see. Yeah. That's it. That's the seven thirty plan right there. Alright then. So
you can see the four bedroom septic. We slid the house back 10 feet in one of the revisions, but again, we didn't we didn't change the disturbed area of disturbance. You know, still holding that same limited disturbance in the back there. We had considered using the existing pathway for the for the new driveway. But when we looked at that, that was gonna cause more disturbance, more driveway doing it that way. So we we stuck with the original plan coming in which showing on the plan. I know we had discussed that at one point, but that just didn't seem like a good alternative. Then there's been some stuff added which is a zoning issue with a lot line modification in the frontage and we show where the old the old road was there and things. That that's that's all to do with with zoning, not with, you know, not with wetlands.
Any questions or comments from commissioners?
So George, I guess this is Jed. From our minutes from the last meeting, we were looking to get the engineer to do a site plan review on the updated plan when received. And so as far as I know we don't have that review yet.
Hold on a second here I'm trying to reconstruct that Okay. So the question then is whether this plan data seven thirty has the required information with respect to Upland Review area delineation. Has that. It was changed from 100 to 200. Judge, does that satisfy your concern?
No, I was expecting a letter in our file under the application from the Antique River discussing the application and I see nothing there.
So I have one that I think I received back on July 19 from Brandon. Ian Field from Yantic, which I addressed the comments and sent him revised plans last week, but have not gotten anything in writing back from just kind of got a verbal from him this afternoon. The only thing really left to determine is, you know, exactly how much fill are we gonna take out of the westerly side of the property. How much fill do we need to take out to to make it an even cut and fill in the flood plain between there and the, the house site? And like I said before, we had figured the the the fill we had figured the entire fill on the house site up to the elevation three twenty five five for the slab elevation. And but we determined today that that was too didn't need to be done. It only needed to go up to three twenty three five. So, basically, we're taking putting the last two feet of fill on on the house site does not need to come out of the flood plain because that's being filled above the flood plain elevation. Therefore, we're gonna be taking less fill out of the westerly side of the site. Looks like probably about 200 yards, in neighborhood of 200 yards based on my quick calculations I had time to do this afternoon before the meeting, which will probably bring down the area of disturbance by about a third from what's shown on that seven thirty plan.
Okay, so Jud, are you suggesting we defer further consideration that we have that documentation?
I think we have to. Know, that was part of the deal is Megan wanted the engineering review and we discussed last time that should be done once the updated plan was received. And I looked at this, you know, I am certainly inadequate to make a call on the appropriateness. I guess my cut was not being a soil scientist, not being a civil engineer, any of those things, that the amount of fill that we were going to take out to build up the site was a significant, a more substantial, I won't use the word significant because we said it wasn't, activity in a wetland upland review area. I was counting on seeing what the engineer said about that after we got the final approved plan to help make the decision on that.
Well, that's kind of the discussion we had this afternoon. I mean, the engineer about how we can. You know, make that impact as small as possible. And then we started talking about we only need to fill. We actually need to take fill out of that area to get to the three twenty three five so. We've actually decreased the amount we're taking out by about 200 yards. Just with that. In play now.
I expect that's a positive development, but I think Jed has a good point there. We really do need the plan that reflects that and the documentation, the engineering documentation that was previously requested before we can proceed with the application.
I'm just looking that we have what we agreed at the last meeting we were going to have to make the decision.
So again, in light of the need to move on with our meeting, Jed, I would entertain a motion to table further discussion until we have this, again the final revised plan and the documentation requested which I would think should be available for our next meeting. And I believe we are within the timeline for She asked for the engineering timeline for action on this.
Yes, George, this is Linda, you are. Maximum action date is the August 5 and you have a ninety day extension by executive. Right,
okay. Yeah, I was scrolling down to that on the agenda. Thank you, Linda. Okay, so as I said, we really need a motion here to move on.
This is Jed, I'll make a motion that we table the application on 57 Hendy Road until we have the engineering review on the updated plan.
Excuse me. This is Bill Phillips. Can I say something? Since you're the property owner, go ahead.
Yeah. My question is I'm reading through the minutes, and it said that Megan Lawley asked for the engineer to do a split plan review on the updated plan that we received. And our understanding was that was what she did what he did on this letter that was sent in from him. I'll open up to the screen. So I thought that's what what we provided. Actually the town provided with hiring this engineer to do a study of this land and that's what he did and gave all his recommendations and then we provided that on our map. So that's why I'm not clear what more you're asking for if he's already done this. You know, we've provided everything that we've been asked up to this point. So, you know we thought we were gonna be able to get an approval tonight to move towards getting this project underway. We have all the information right here. Andrew spoke to the engineer today. I mean he had all this information earlier this week and didn't get back to Andrew. They spoke today and we have the information. Andrew just explained it.
You know, as I said The issue here is that we don't have the documentation.
Is it possible to to move towards an approval with getting that exact yardage that we could provide that exact yardage with an approval. What's the wording you would use? It would be no more than 600. No no I know that. Yes we could get in a condition with an approval with conditions on the exact yardage because I think that's all we're looking at. We're just running out of time for my daughter to build a house. You know, we've that's why we've been proactive on getting all our information in and we're just running out of time. Okay, well.
I think that's the only thing that we don't have is the amount of yardage and Andrew just explained that but we just don't have it written on the map.
If we could Well, again, what we don't have, again, as requested at the previous meeting, the site plan review on the updated plan. I'm not sure which, okay. We're getting a little off topic here because we do have a motion here at the table. And I want to get back to Jed on this. It's ambiguous here. You were referring to something from Yantic, right? Yes.
Okay. And it just says the engineer in the minute, so it's not clear
She specifically said Brandon at the last meeting was the Who we're talking about. Yeah. Yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Well,
the question was to Commissioner Larson regarding the specific information that seems to be lacking in the application as we have it in hand. Again, the plan for 07/30 has not been updated to the current proposal of removing less cut from the west side of the property to use as fill for the structure and then again the key question is about the letter.
Well the reason I was speeding up about that was because I'll be the I'm the site contractor that will be doing the site work on this project. That we if we go forward with this. So I would be doing all the site work. I'm the owner of Landy Construction. We're a site work contractor. And as far as my understanding was, correct me if I'm wrong, is the letter that we have from Brandon Anfield has addressed all the conditions and maybe Andrew can give me a little help on this and that he's got them all on the map except for the concern today that about lowering the impact with the fill. Can you shed any more light on that Andrew? Right. I think that's correct correct statement.
You know, I I submitted everything that he wanted, information and the changes to the plans he wanted in that in that memo except for the fill quantities are gonna you know gonna change.
Okay I'm a little confused here because I'm not seeing that in our in our documents you know, in the documentation for this application. Could you give me a specific title for that? Linda, can you help me out with this? This is the letter from Hanfield.
It would have been in the meeting packet from the last meeting is where you'd find it.
It was never posted. I think George, what you're looking for is Brandon's review of the updated site plans that was done on 07/30. Is that what you're looking for?
It's a letter dated June 25. Yeah. It's dated June 25.
I'm holding it up as I'm speaking. There's been no significant change to the plan. Well, it's it's been totally illogical. Change to the plan.
It was sent to us by Josephine. But, George, if if you are looking for another review from Brandon from Yantic River Consultants.
Okay, I have a packet here. I'm also looking on the web. Right, there's nothing past the June 25.
Okay, in our current applications list, we have application site plan May 18, the MUDRS list, statewide IWC activity reporting form, project description, Addendum B, proposed erosion and sedimentation controls, Phoenix Lab Report, review by Hank Gruner, site plan 50120 revised seventhirtytwenty.
IWWC chair was copied. It was from Joseph Wagner. Joseph Wagner sent this to Wetlands. Joseph Wagner sent it to the Right, this is the cover. Yeah, they have it. Right. I think Yeah. This is what this is where they sent this letter to us. Joseph Wagner sent random letter to us on July 27. Mhmm. Okay. That should be part of their packet. If it wasn't uploaded, it should have been. Andrew, do you have that letter also? Yeah. Yeah. Schumhouse, what what letter are we talking about now?
So letter from from Brandon Hanfield, the first letter that was submitted back before the last meeting.
Okay. It was submitted the day of the meeting. Yeah. We didn't have time to respond to it because it was submitted the day of the meeting or the last meeting. We didn't get it till during the meeting. We got it during the meeting. Yeah.
I'm looking at all the materials that I have both from the previous meeting and posted on the applications under applications under application 2023 on our town website and I'm simply not seeing that unless it's in the P and Z supporting documents.
George? This is Joe Joe Wagner. I was I I emailed you that letter. Megan emailed it to you, but I think she used incorrect email address. So I I emailed it. It was probably, like, an hour or two before the meeting
because I noticed the email address was wrong. Hold on a second. Let me let me check my email then. Okay. The only, I have two messages from Wetlands here, Joe. One includes the site documents, the site plan for 12 Webster Lane. And the next one, the other one here is pertains to an enforcement action at Route 87. So no, I did not receive the document you just mentioned. And again, if it's not on our website, if it's not, Jed, do you have this letter? I mean, I I do not have it. Okay.
Got it from Joe. Jim? Nope. They showed it at the last meeting.
Yeah. We got it during the meeting, last lands meeting from Joe Wagner. No. We got it on the twenty seventh. On the twenty seventh? Yeah. On the July 27.
But the the letter was presented at the last meeting by Megan Le It was shown on the screen. Shown on the screen
at the last meeting. It was shown on the screen the last meeting because that's when We did. Yeah. We got it at the meeting. Shot of it. Can forward it to someone that
Yeah. That's all very well, but it doesn't really give us time to receive it or consider it. And we do have a motion on the floor but we have a motion without a second to table the discussion so I'm going to hold this discussion until we resolve that question. Jed, do you want to continue your motion? Do want to look for a second to that motion to table? I think we should continue with the motion.
We just wanted to get to the bottom of the confusion because we're a little confused at this point. We are too and as I say we're going
I'm going to have to cut you off here because we really do need to move on this. And I think the best thing really is the table of motion and to try and get this resolved ex parte not within the context of trying to conduct a meeting on Zoom. This is not a very efficient way to No, move things
we agree. It's more difficult trying to do this on Zoom.
So getting back to the meeting per se, we have, Jed, you made a motion, correct? Yes. Okay. Then I'll ask if there's a second to that motion. Because remember, if there's no second, then the motion disappears. Second to motion, Jim Helles. Okay, Jim, thank you. So we've got a motion by Jed, seconded by Jed Larson, second by Jim Halsey to table further discussion until we have in hand the documentation that we requested the updated information reflected in tonight's discussion. So with a motion and a second, I'll go through a roll call vote. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Halsey? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Okay and Vice Chairman Elliott also votes aye so the motion to table carries four-zero-zero. We will take this up at our next meeting or a special meeting if necessary as soon as we receive again the information and that's posted in our applications folders on the website and all the commissioners have access to it. Moving on then we have our next item on the agenda Permit Application
IWWC twenty-twenty five. Jeff Palemas of Skips Water on behalf of the owners at 157 Lake Ide Drive for a septic installation in Upland Review area. Okay, could Skip be unmuted? Jeff Polinus be unmuted. Hear me.
Are there any updates on this or further discussion on this application?
I just want to know if the commission members can hear me speaking.
We can hear you now. Okay. All of sudden something happened and you came through loud and clear. At
our last or at your last meeting on July 14, we presented our plan for the repair or replacement of the septic system for John and Jen Benda at 157 Lakeside Drive. There were no requests for revisions to the plan and, no additional information was requested or submitted on behalf of this application. We were just here tonight hoping that if there's any other questions from the commission members, be happy to address those or hoping for an approval so that we can move forward with
this plan that has already been approved by the Thad King with Eastern Highlands Health District and move forward with the repair in the next coming weeks on their property. So their septic system will be updated and ready to function for them.
Okay, thank you. Any questions or comments from any of the commissioners? Okay, hearing and seeing no alerts. I'll ask for a motion on this permit application. I think a motion to approve would be in order. I'd like to move to approve the application of John and Jan Benda. Do we have a second for that motion? Jen seconds.
Okay so a motion by Jim Jim Halsey second by Jed Larson to approve the permit application any further discussion are there any conditions that we want to make sure are included or any other items pertinent to that application? Okay.
I believe the standard conditions from our summary ruling, correct me if I'm wrong, but anybody, but I mean they spell out issues like bill fence will be in place, construction, you know, perhaps be infected, things of that nature, pretty simple. That are standard conditions that are part of that summary ruling that goes out.
That would be my understanding. Any comments from our agent, mister Wagner?
I was just trying to look to see if it was there there would be a best management practices. So I would agree with Jim, but I'm not sure like where specifically they are listed.
Believe in our summary ruling form. I didn't realize they were there until recently.
Joey had just done a septic tank upgrade on probably 286 Lake Road Range. Lynn, I forget her last name, but she just put in a new septic tank that should have had all the standard approvals on that you might use for a model.
So could we put a condition in for, utilizing best management practices?
Yeah. I think and we could defer to agent Wagner on on what conditions are imposed. I'm referring again back to best, Joe's referring to his best management practice. And I think they're pretty much on the plan, as I recall. Don't think asking for anything that wasn't proposed.
This is Linda for the commission. As part of the standard form for the summary ruling, it does state in the first paragraph that you're approving it because all feasible measures have been met. So, written into the summary ruling in the first paragraph, and it's part of the approval. I'm just trying to pull one up now. It says can you guys still hear me? Yes, can. Yep. It says, I move that the application as described below be approved and a permit be granted with the conditions listed below because all prudent and feasible measures have been taken to minimize the impact on the wetlands and no feasible and prudent alternative exists. That's part of the language in the summary ruling, and then there's the standard conditions that follow.
And there are E and S controls, things of that nature. Yeah, let scroll down for a second. Let me see what I've got here. The standard conditions say the permit's valid for two years from date of approval, that the applicant has to get additional permits if required. Let's see. Yes, All activities for the prevention of soil erosion, including but not limited to, silt fences and hay bales shall be conducted under the direct supervision of a certified engineer who shall employ the best management practices, etcetera, etcetera. Thank you, Lynette.
So we can take those, standard conditions as read, as part of this motion then to include?
Yeah, you can phrase the motion that state all standard conditions apply, along that matter. I
will add that to the action. Move to approve the application conditions. Okay, Jed, is that acceptable for your second? Yes. Okay.
So any further discussion then? If not, then I will ask for a roll call vote on the motion. Jim Halsey? Aye. Ted Larson? Aye. Ed Smith? Aye. And George Eliot also aye. The motion carries four-zero-zero. You got your permit. You know what to do. Okay. Well, moving on. We're at agenda item eight, violations and enforcement actions. So we'll turn it over to Mr. Wagner. The first up for complaint re violation of permit conditions, including unauthorized development in an upland review area and floodplain, a gravel driveway parking area, and failure to install and maintain proper erosion and sediment controls at 27 Hendi Road, Hector Rivera, responsible. So, that's new and we don't have any documentation on that as yet so
yeah I haven't I haven't, gotten any new information on that actually time I saw it was on the agenda, so I definitely have to look into that.
Okay. So then I guess there's nothing we can do about that.
Sure, this is Jim Howison. Yeah, Jim. I was told at the last meeting that a commissioner cannot discuss enforcement actions. I'm not sure why. So I'm not gonna add anything to Joe's comments.
Okay. But we will certainly want to visit this at our next meeting and get the information pertaining to this complaint and our options as a commission, with respect to any actions that may be required.
Yeah. I'll, I'll collect all the information and try and contact them. I'll provide a report next month.
All right. Okay. How about item number b, the cessation disorder, for activities at 129 Hebron Road.
That one, I talked to Ruby a couple times. She told me they're working with a engineer to resubmit a new permit, with the engineer's help. They're trying to get it in for this meeting, but I didn't see anything. And they plan to put all their proposed activities that they're gonna do on the site, under one permit, including the activities listed under the cease and desist order. They also plan to submit drawings for a new fence in the wetland area that uses a different type of, footing spaced apart, not a trench, and a solid footing like the fence in the front of the yard. But they were adding that to the site plan, and I take it they didn't they didn't get it all done in time for this meeting.
Well, there's clearly no application on the agenda and I didn't see any new information pertinent to that application.
On I the would expect to see something for the next month
just talking to them. And have you seen any activity at the site or have you been to the Yeah, I haven't been to the site yet. Okay.
Next. And here's where I think I just did get some information. The order read me a deposition of material at forty one and thirty three Route eighty seven on the construction and open review. Can you update on that?
Yeah. Megan received a letter from an attorney representing the Nichols. Attorney said the Nichols were still waiting for mister Bohm to provide a contractor's license and a proof of insurance before they allowed him to start their remediation work on their property. They sent the letter to, the the letter from their attorney to Mark Brandt. He said the commission could hold an advisory vote, an informal vote to decide whether they want me, the agent, to commence legal action through the supreme court. But that's what I have on that. I was told that there is proof of insurance, but I'm not sure.
I I guess they were we're kinda waiting for missus Nichols and mister Bohm to come to an agreement so that mister Bohm can go on their property and and remove the material.
Okay, this would be the letter from Robert m Elliot PC.
Yes. I think Megan tried to send it to you earlier, but she sent it to the wrong address. Okay. Some reason on here. Yes. So you should have got it earlier, but I I just noticed that your address was had a misspelling in it, this evening. So
Okay. Well, I've got it. Yeah. I just pulled that up now. Okay. Part of it obviously relates to Nickel's insistence on insurance insurance affidavit, so forth. But there are also I see a claim here by the attorney that Mr. Baum has continued to the last sentence of that letter Mr. Baum has continued to clear and add debris to the pile within other parts of the designated wetland areas, which clearing is showing Mr. Bowne's disdain, incorrect usage there, should be disdain, and disobedience of the Inland Wetland Commission orders. So obviously we haven't had any recent updates on this activity. So have you, Joe, been able to visit the property or do you have any
personal No, have not visited the property. What I'm probably gonna have to go there with Jim because I really don't have any Other than a few photos on the website, I don't have any contacts. Like, I I'm not sure what it looked like originally. So I think it would be best if if I paid a visit with Jim just to see what the difference was. In terms of of activity since the So we can so we can, yeah, figure out if he was making if he was adding materials or or not.
All right, okay because this obviously has been dragging on for quite some time without any progress it seems and there are a lot of moving parts, including the shed that was placed on illegally deposited fill and so on. And if there's further activity in contravention of the commission's ruling, that would be a disturbing development that would require, I think, some further action on our part. So Jim, can you arrange to assist Joe with getting on Okay, what's going on because again, do I'd certainly like to see something happen in terms of remediating that. And between the adjoining Landovers being loggerheads and the potential for further activity, Again, it seems that some action is on the commission's part and on the Welland's agent's part required to get up to speed on this, figure out what's going on. So I guess we'll have to leave it at that for now and again revisit that at our next meeting. Is there any time for public comment or no?
We don't have public comment on the agenda further, but since you're the abutting landowner, I think this would be I'm just very
Okay. I'm just very concerned because we've been doing this since February. We have all our documentation. We have a number of pictures and everything. And we just keep it push, push. And now he has filled further down, made a new pathway further down. So obviously, the dumping in the inland wetland doesn't mean anything to him because there truly hasn't been any action taken against him if he's still doing this. And I'm just concerned because of the floodwaters that do happen because of the brook in the elevation of my yard. So I have a finished And with the water, I'm just very concerned. At some point, I mean, we keep continuing, continuing, different commission, this and that. But that's why we had the lawyer draft the letter looking for a time frame. Yes,
understand your concern. And again, we're trying to address this in a difficult situation, both with respect to our ability to meet and the fact that we have not had your request came in at a very awkward time with respect to the commission's enforcement arm, namely we had a retirement and a short term and then an interim Welland's agent I'm hopeful that Mr. Wagner will be able to move the ball on this we are not you know procrastinating on this we just haven't been able to move
Okay, but again, every meeting there's something different. And I understand, I completely get this, and I appreciate the volunteers in that. But every meeting, there's another issue that's preventing this from happening yet again. And I'm just looking for a time frame and where do I get a copy of this recorded meeting as well.
Ed Smith speaking. Perhaps it's time for us to have another sidewalk, all of us, because
Jed, I, I think Jim, you were there, right? We can look at that together
instead That's of just one of certainly a possibility, yes. Okay.
Maybe we can expedite it by having a special session.
And I think that what we can assure is that at the next meeting we will have a resolution on this. There will be, again, opportunity for site well, for our wetlands agent, at least Mr. Hallisey and Mr. Smith, to take a look and see if, again, it was particularly with respect to any further activity in the wetland. And can't off the top of my head give you a timeline, but we can construct that in terms of the legal requirements for moving, if we need to, to move to our next step of action. We're currently in an order to remediate, and further action, further legal action would have an inherent timeline.
So the order to remediate that was in February there was no there's no timeline for that is that what you're saying
I don't have that I you'll have to give me a minute to to see what that order said I don't have that in front of me
it was a certified letter issued in February with a timeline and fines
You'll have to give me a moment to look on that. Okay, we have an order to remediate, which is dated, again, February 24. And I don't have any okay we have a the letter issued by our former enforcement officer And no, I do not see a timeline other than the putative show cause hearing. But there's no timeline in the order to remediate.
So then I guess my question is what is the purpose of an order to remediate if there's no timeline to fix it? Because I've turned in everything that was asked of me. We're still waiting. And there's just now you're moving to the end of September, and there's still no resolution then. I regret I cannot address that question.
Where do I go from here? Who else can I talk to? Because in my opinion, the commission is not doing the job that they were they were commissioned to do.
Well, we would have, the town would have to start an enforcement action. We would have to seek damages and we would have to work with our attorney. May come to that if we don't get any actions. And as I say, I want to hear from our well known agent before we proceed and I want to investigate this claim of further disturbance and further activity in the wetlands.
Okay, but that's something new from what was before. So again, where do I get a copy of this recorded meeting? And then where do I get the information for your attorney for the town so I can follow-up?
I don't think well, can get a copy of the minutes of the meeting. Linda, what's the deal on the recorded meeting?
The audio should be up on the website probably tomorrow. Okay.
Thank you. And then the name of the attorney, is that on the website? Or
should I just send a name? I don't think you would be authorized to speak to the town attorney in this room. Okay. So how
do we get a message that I would like that conversation to happen?
I believe that that is beyond the scope of our discussion at the moment. Okay. And can that be reflected in the minutes? That statement is recorded, yes. Thank you.
Again, I understand that you're frustrated and concerned at the speed or the slowness, I should say, of developments in this situation, but I don't think that we're in any position to make any warranties about progress, except to say that we are going to investigate the situation. And now that we have Eleven's agent again, to try and move the owner, Mr. Boehm, to take action on this remediation. And that the commission will seek to enforce that order. Thank you.
Okay, moving on we have a couple of other pending or continuing items in the enforcement. One would be number E, the complaint regarding activity on Townsend Road, permitting Matthew Hagerty. Any update on that?
I went I drove by there this morning. There's no culverts yet. There's still temporary bridge for the equipment, so two planks going across the wetland. The wetland was dry from what I could see. There was no standing water in it. Rather.
There were hay bales along the entrance and exits of the temporary bridge. I also observed two shipping containers and some smaller construction or implements near the containers. The containers were in between the wetland and the road. I'm not sure if that's the way it was before, but that's how it is as of this morning.
Right. I don't have the record in front of me, but I believe that we, had asked for action regarding erosion control, that would be the hay bales. Jim, can I tap your memory for what the commission requested about that situation?
When I was brought in, I'm gonna be careful because I was again, I understand that, yeah.
I was asked to follow-up on the complaint when Josh had left. Right. And
hay bales were installed. And at that time, didn't realize it, it initially became apparent that basically he got an approval to build a house on that lot, and he installed a temporary crossing as a logging operation, which is, he's a logger by trade, he hasn't put the driveway in. I mean, fill for the driveway hasn't been installed. I mean, fact, culverts will go in at that time, I'm sure. So it's an ongoing project. We believe Ragerty is now moving on it, now to build the house at this time. So the complaint was essentially addressed, but now there's, Joe had pointed out, there's material, I'd say material, shipping containers. There were logs there. And I did speak to him about moving the logs, so he agreed to do that.
So it's fluid situation. He addressed the outstanding plate and now it's sort of a follow-up. One thing that I did learn from that is take a look at that constructed sequence. Never really paid that much attention to it until this realized the importance of it. And I don't think applicants do either. I mean, was no temporary crossing on that plan. So it kind of it's kind of hard to monitor I'm just pointing it out so that
That's a point very well taken that we had we approved a permit for you know that the application was for a driveway and you know we did a sidewalk and we looked at it and said okay you can put a driveway through here with according to the engineering plan and then we got the complaint about logging and the assurance we got at that time was that in fact it wasn't well it was logging but it was lot clearing for construction which obviously makes sense. But then again we have a temporary driveway and construction activities going on and it's hard to match that up with the permit that we issued.
I think in this case it needs be resolved. I mean, not gonna blow up in my opinion. I mean, we move forward, it will resolve itself. I just pointing it out because easy, easy, when I look at, when I used to look at construction sequence, it didn't mean that much to me. And after experiencing that, I'm going to pay a little more attention to that portion of the plan, I guess.
Good point. Okay, so do we need to continue to monitor this and keep it on our agenda for future meetings? George, this is Hank. Can you hear me? Yeah. Can I weigh in on this as I
had visited the site with Jim at the request of Megan? You may remember when the complaint was made because I had raised the concern about the possibility of doing more damage by removal of the trees that were felled in the wetland versus just leaving them in at that point. Even the seasonality. But one thing and, you know, I wanted to point out is when I when I visited the site. You know, the concern about the temporary driveway that's there, my concern is about hydrological connectivity there. And I'm a little concerned, you know, it's one thing to have the approvals where there's the culverts that would allow the flow through there, but absent that it's it's you know, a very temporary situation and I'm a little concerned that given the timing this is this project is kind of bleeding down the road, that there may be alterations to the hydrology of that wetland because that's the the sourcing is coming down off of that that drainage pathway there that's been bisected by the temporary driveway. I don't have any sense of when he may be going to complete that project, you know, install the culverts and get back to that. Anybody have any sense of the timing on this now?
Well, would have to contact the well oiled agent to do that because supervision of construction is part of the permit. And clearly, he has not done that. So yeah, it's all in advance. And you're right, there is a concern then about God willing and the creek does rise, we will have rain and there will be runoff and it's not going to go the way it would have prior to this disturbance.
Yeah, Jim Halsey, things one. He recently pulled a building permit and my understanding is that that development, building on that site is imminent. Any, the crossing, I appreciate Hank's concern, certainly, and it kind of, I was a little surprised that I hadn't, I didn't realize what was going on there, but it is a, it's a corduroy road, so I believe water is traveling underneath it. I mean it's, crossing is, it's a logging, it's a logging crossing.
Yeah, I've seen quite a lot of variability on logging crossings and wetlands however, so I guess my suggestion would be that that would be you know worth the monitoring, you know, to sort of just watch that, you know, given that this is seeming to take a longer time for it to get to actual build out. You know, that was just that's just my recommendation. Thanks. And I certainly didn't mean to downplay your concern. Bill, get me wrong. No, no, I didn't I didn't take it as a downplay, but I just I'm just concerned because I don't think any of us sort of realized that at the beginning. And that was a bit of a surprise to me when I went out when we were looking at felled trees, you know, which were, you know, I think quite frankly less of a concern than hydrological impacts to the wetlands in my view.
Should we not ask him to come before us and tell us why he didn't put it in the driveway like we told him to with the culvert before he starts doing any building back there?
I just think it's worth monitoring. I'm not sure, you know, it would be worth getting a better sense of the timetable on it. But I think it's just worth monitoring to make sure that that's, you know, the, it's not altering the flow pattern through there. And I think it will require during installation, it will require a little bit of oversight just to make sure that that's handled in the you know the best possible way to ensure that hydrology and also hopefully that there's a reduction in potential spread of invasives into the wetland through that disturbance there.
Yeah, because I think the Wetlands Commission's expectation was the first thing he was going to do is put a culvert in there and put the driveway over it.
That's, I believe I was on the commission when that was approved and that's certainly my recollection as well.
Yeah, we had no discussion about putting a temporary bridge across there.
Yeah, I think it's more it's almost like you know, it's two different projects like there's this forestry operation. And then there's residential construction driveway thing. I think it's, you know, it's being it's kind of like one of those mixes.
Well, I agree with Jim's comment. We got to pay more attention to that sequence of construction and just, you know, once we approve it, we've got to keep going out there and watch it to make sure they're doing what they tell us they're going to do.
Yeah, I think the site prep piece is really important. Yep. Anyway, I'll shut up for now. That was my recommendation. Would just suggest Thank you. You. Okay.
So we may need some enforcement action here. And I guess pending further activity, I think it would be reasonable to ask Mr. Hagerty about his present plans and when is he going to actually do that driveway because he didn't get a permit to do a corridor road. He didn't get a, you know, he didn't get a permit to do that kind of fill activity in the wetland.
Yeah. I can I can contact him and see what what his timeline is for that?
Okay. I think stress the need to get things in order as soon as possible. Yeah.
Okay, moving on then, the last enforcement action at 28 Shawty Mill Road, Matthew Grant, disturbance to a well. Seems to me that that was nearly resolved previously, but it's on the agenda.
Can I, defer to Jim on that one? Is that, permissible?
I asked him to stop and he stopped. That's what I thought. And I wanted to follow-up and give him some guidance on what he can do. He's really talking about crops. Crops is the term he used, so sort of gardening or whatever. But he, he, yeah, he was easy to deal with. Sort of follow-up with sort of some information with him. I can go through Joe on it. Okay. There we go.
Yeah. I can can do that. I'll get with him and come up with some recommendation.
Okay, that takes care of everything on the agenda for item number eight. Moving to item number nine, agent report, permit monitoring activity for the town connectivity project, and the gravel extraction on Route 6.
Yeah, both of those, I don't have much information on. Not enough to learn. I spoke with Megan about the gravel operation during my interview, but I other than that, that's really all I know about it, but there is one. The town connectivity project, basically the same. I just I I need more information before I can report on anything.
Has there been any activity that you're aware of with any of those?
That I've been informed of or made aware of. No. Okay.
George, can I can I jump in on the gravel operation because I was involved in that? I monitor that you know they put in John Valente when John was still there. Yeah, I had worked with the with the applicant on the installation of the erosion control which was also as you may remember serving as exclusion pension for the woods. Right. I monitor that pretty heavily right through the spring and through the wood turtle nesting season into the first week of July. And it took a bit of effort to, you know, there were probably three times when it needed repairs. It took some nudging for them to go out and, you know, fix some areas where the the
fencing had been plowed under by some some activity on the roadway there and by some fallen trees, things like that. But they did it, they maintained it and it certainly worked up to its exclusionary role with the turtles. I was able to monitor six turtles there that were using the area, none of them moved into the project area, and one was kind of following right along the fence line, so it worked very carefully. But I have not been monitoring it since the turtles, now we're in the inactive season where they're out in the floodplain, but I would recommend to the to Joe to, you know, periodically go out there and check it because, know, they were somewhat lax on on maintaining the Rosen control fencing there. It didn't seem to be that big of an issue because of the sandy soils there from what I saw with the rainstorms that we had as far as You know any any flow issues. It was more issues associated with work activities that were knocking it down, but it would be worth continuing to monitor. The other thing that I think is we would need to get a handle on a little bit is the timetable of that project has now been you know, fairly well delayed while there's activity out there.
Matthew Another key element will be restoration removal of the fencing and restoration. There was a vertical pull back there that they were Doctor. Avoiding which they were, but there were some restoration needs that were part of the conditions. And I wanted to get a better sense of the timing of when that might occur. So I've asked, you know, it might be a good recommendation for Joe to follow-up with the project manager and try to get a sense of when they may be completing that project from entering the restoration phase.
Yeah, I can I can contact them and see what they have for a timeline?
And I'd be happy, Joe, if you want to, you know, to go out there with you. And I can introduce you to the folks over at the, the auto parts store that are sort of the owners there. They're the ones that I've dealt with mostly there because the prop, you know, I haven't really seen the project manager much. You know, I'd be happy to happy to do that if you'd like. Yeah. That'd be good.
Yeah. This is Jim Halsey. I do monitored as well as zoning agent, and I concur. There's been a few times where there's been issues that the owners have taken care of it. I do want to point out though that if you're going to refer to the roof gravel operation, you're going to need to put the address on it, because it will be corrected. I don't know the address, but it would behoove you to plug in the street number.
Yeah, it's listed on the agenda is simply Map 33 Block 36 Lot 23.
I wasn't impressed on the plan if I remember right.
The reason I bring it up is it's always at the planning and zoning commission meeting when I report on it, it always comes up and when the minutes are reviewed, it comes up. I thought it was gonna approach this proactively. Mhmm.
I I can get, I can get Linda the address. It's not a problem.
Again, it's not given an address. It's simply referred to immediately West of 497 Route 6. Is Linda. I could not find an actual street address for it. It may not have a street address. It may just be a lot.
I think we refer to it as the the gravel operation next to the extra mile. Which
does have an address. I didn't mean to make a big deal about it. I'm sorry. Okay.
Well, then, okay, we'll take that as read. It's gonna be reviewed. You're gonna get the timeline on their current. I mean, of course, when they made the proposal, they were wanting to get the gravel and sand out as soon as possible anticipating construction and then, well, everything hit the fan. And so they're probably backed up and not moving much material but nevertheless trying to find out when they're planning to do because if it does bleed into another season of vernal activity, we particularly want to be sure that the silt and barrier fencing is in good order. And of course, Hank can advise you on that, Joe. Yeah, okay. Okay, now the other item here is the we brought up last time about trying to expedite
the work permits or basically permitting for town activities, things like the drainage at Shawty Mill. And I think you were charged with finding out about other towns in the area and how they handle there is, as it were, internal permit requirements.
Yeah. I haven't I haven't found one. I I mean, it looks like a lot of them use an administrative agent approval for their projects. I haven't found one yet that has, like, a separate municipal permit form or something like that. Some of them have different forms, like different permits for minimal impact. And a lot of those road projects, if it's, like, maintaining existing you know, and and it's not in a wetland, then it would fall under that. And then it goes through the agent approval. That's what I found so far, but I'll keep looking and
Okay. Yeah. Well, I guess in that case, what we'd have to do is to discuss as a matter of board policy what level should agent approval be implemented and what level should the agent kick it off to the commission?
What I was going to try to do is look at enough of them to get a feel for what the good processes are and then maybe make a summary that I can present Yeah, to the
and I think the differentiation, I mean, our permitting doesn't differentiate with level of activity. But I think that might give us a clue in terms of what we would expect you as the when you're authorized to to act as an agent. Yeah.
Think that's basically what those minimal permits were. They kinda clarify that, like, when when the agent can you know, for the citizens and for the commission, like, what what falls under the, you know, things that can be approved by an agent.
So Okay. This this is Jim Halas. You know, have a comment. I can appreciate what we've Megan and perhaps Eric were trying to do sort of streamline the process for towns. And I understand that. I think along with that has to be some sort of follow-up with either education on the part of the crew and or keep it, you know, oversight. Wetlands are not the Public Works Department's priority. Don't think if they move us to keep an eye on what goes that's all.
There's still yeah. Municipal governments are still considered to be under I I don't think there's any exemptions that that anything can fall under. It they still have they still have to go through the permitting process.
Yeah. I I was thinking more of the actual construction process. Mhmm. Sometimes there's not a lot of oversight there.
Keeping the crew on their toes is what's really required here. Yeah.
Not so much a matter of how the permit is granted, but making sure that the conditions of the permit are adhered to Part of the process. Yeah. Okay, well, we'll continue this discussion at subsequent meetings. Right now, think we can move to item number 10, other business. I don't have any information on the applications for three vacant well, we've got two vacant alternate positions and we have evidently three applications and remember I don't know who received those applications or in any way they can be sure Jim you brought up a good point last time about making sure that they that the applicants are registered voters or I guess property owners who could be electors of the town.
Couldn't resist putting that out. Yeah. And apparently they weren't, neither of the women were registered voters. Okay.
Which isn't a big deal. I mean, I think they're, they can be,
were gonna register to vote pretty quickly in Cincinnati. Yes, yes, it's not a, there's
no waiting for periods like getting a gun. Yeah, right. So I think that will resolve itself very quickly.
Okay, and what about the third LP? Wendy, do you have anything on these?
As I say, I have no idea. I do. Actually, Megan sent a letter, maybe notes for this meeting tonight. And she said that she confirms that neither of the female applicants have been registered, but Gabriel Anderson has registered. Megan plans to prepare a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen when she gets back from vacation for her appointment. Okay.
And she says she has not heard back from Elizabeth Miano as to whether or not she wishes to register. Okay. And then she says regarding the third application from William Monroe, she's going to confirm with the registrar whether he is registered in town. And she said, if he is, the commission may wish to interview him and recommend him in lieu of Ms. Miano at this time. Okay.
And then she says, Alternatively, Wayne has expressed interest in stepping down. If he does so, or if Elizabeth chooses not to register to vote, this would open up a third alternate position for Mr. Monroe or another individual to fill.
Okay, okay. Well, I think that's sufficient update and obviously there's no further action we can take tonight, but we'll certainly hope to have viable applications from all of these and approval from the Board of Selectmen so that we can have a fully constituted commission. Next item on the agenda and other business, our 2020 bylaws review. The bylaws, I'll remind you, were revised in 2019. I looked back I don't have actually an approved copy. I've got annotated copies of the bylaws, but it seems that we approved them at our May 1339 meeting. And so the question then is, is anybody on the commission aware of any need to revise our bylaws?
George, I think Megan sent out a updated copy of the bylaws, and I don't have them in front of me here.
I looked in my records They're pretty good. I think we did complete our bylaws. It's just that as I say, I don't have anything that I would regard as a final copy with the date of approval on it. It may been sent out. I'm just saying that, you know, in terms of my the folder that I have that says IWWC Bylaws does not contain a final draft. Contains what I believe is a draft that we approved but it doesn't you know it still has a markup and all that in it so we can resolve that otherwise that's really not germane to the discussion here again the question is do we have any need to revise our bylaws from the most recent revision.
I had a couple of concerns. Don't know if this is appropriate to bring it up.
Well, if it has to do with the bylaws, it's certainly appropriate. Okay. One of them actually goes back to
the filling of positions on the commission. My recollection of the the charter is that commissions fill their own slots for up to sixty five days or some period of time, after which time the board of selectmen can can may. Meaning, I don't know why we're not, as commission, we're not filling them. But I may have that wrong.
We are actually, again, you're right, Jim, that the commission has the right to fill its own if a vacancy occurs, what I believe would be called a casual vacancy when it's not as a result of end of term. So if casual vacancy occurs, then we do have the opportunity I think we've deferred to the Board of Selectmen and sent them our recommendations for filling that just to make sure that everybody's on the same page. But in effect, are by our recommendation to the Board of Selectmen, I think we are in effect filling the vacancy.
Okay, the what I read was that Megan was going to send these names on for approval. I just, I don't know, raise the question as to why we're not, why the commission's not doing it on their own. That is a good question.
Do wanna hear my other concerns? Sure. People always address resignations and letters have to go. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes people move out of town and don't don't resign. I wish there was a way to address that. In fact, it seems to have happened with the chairman of our CBA
very recently. Okay. So what do you call a de facto resignation? Basically, if a person moves out of town, then they're no longer eligible to serve. Right. So it's not so much a resignation as a disqualification. And you're right, how do we address that and move on then to a point a new well to fill the vacancy.
I thought there was something in the bylaws that said if a member misses three meetings in a row other than for illness, that is grounds for
dismissal or something. Yeah, but that's dismissal, Jud, not as I say in the case that Jim brought up. First of all, we don't want to have to wait on team meetings when somebody's moved out of town and is therefore no longer eligible to serve. There ought to be a way to handle that kind of vacancy. I think the situation of negligence of not fulfilling the obligations of being a member of the Commission is, you know, that is an orderly process and requires the waiting. But in the case of you know somebody becoming ineligible to serve on the commission we ought to be able to act on that immediately. That makes sense. Okay, moving on.
You think we could, Jim, should we look at the, let's look at the bylaws and the charter together and see if we can revise our bylaws accordingly. We may be able to do that because if the Commission if the Charter doesn't say anything about that kind of vacancy I'm feeling like then we should be able to do it immediately. Okay, next I have
bylaws that I read, and they list a whole, they really have assignments for the chairman, agent, the land use secretary. And I happen to know that the land use secretary doesn't do a lot of what's on her list. And I believe there may be some union issues, and I just thought perhaps someone should have a conversation with the town administrator before that moves anywhere.
May already Section be in six staff and duties. Yeah.
Office and duties. It may already be in place, but I don't, I can say it's not practiced. I just think it warrants conversation with Eric Anderson. Next. I just, somewhere in there it says the, everything that gets posted on the county website has to go through the assistant county administrator. First of all, I believe that's Amanda and she is the admin administrator. And I don't and I also just I don't like the idea that that you assign a specific I mean, that that function, that name, that job could change tomorrow. I would think it would behoove us just to go, I would say, get supposed to with and I I'm also big on, there should be more than one person that can do that. It's not
it's not the end of the world. I'm sure these things have been posted. I just got my
Okay. Well, there is language to say that with the assistance of such staff as available, the Recording Secretary shall, etcetera.
No, this is posting it. It refers to the assistant administrator somewhere. The posting of notices and such. Oh, okay. I don't know where. Section 16. Section 16. I'm sorry. So Jim? Yes. I
don't know how the new website is constructed, but I've worked on websites before where a designated person can be given access to just a portion of the website to do, you know, posting minutes or posting legal notices, but it would be specific to the wetlands page or the zoning page or something like that. But I'm not sure if the new website constructed in them yet.
I've run across situations where, you know, you you lock yourself in, only one person can do this. Correct. Creates problems. I have one more, which brought up Okay. Back in May, and I didn't get any traction then. 115 public hearings, you speak it speaks of proponents and opponents. So proponents speak and then opponent. My point is Okay. I'm not getting any audio, Jim. My
concern is this. I mean, public hearings be somewhat avid adversarial to start with in their, you know, their neighbors. Maybe somebody has a concern and they'd like to speak. They're not an opponent. I don't know why it has to be worded as that as such.
Well, it's a permit application, the proponent would be first the person who is applying for the permit. I think that this is kind of standard parliamentary procedure to allow the person who is making the motion in other words or making the the proposal to speak first.
Well I think this people speaking on behalf of the application meaning maybe that could yeah it may include.
Right, but I don't think it's the applicant but anyway I mean the applicant would be prior.
The applicant would be the main proponent of the Okay. Then you have opponents.
Right. I brought this up, and you didn't like it then either.
It's Okay. Think that the intent here if you can find another way to put it, the idea is that to make sure that both sides of the issue are heard and that, as usual, the proponent gets to go first because that's what you're going to be reacting to.
Right. But from in a meeting, the chairman says, you know, opponents get up, and then, you know, opponents. Are there any opponents? You have to get up and be an opponent to your neighbor's application. All you really wanna say is, you know, you point out some minor concern. That's my point.
Right. It's okay. I We don't to make it too adversarial, but it is a legal hearing. And maybe there's a way to put in there to allow for general comments maybe other than or for questions, questions and comments rather than cautioning it strictly in terms of debate.
Just one more issue They don't shut up. We're you know, we've been doing this, and I I may have brought this up before. I think I brought it up at the planning and zoning meeting. If it was a wetlands meeting, refresh my memory, I'll stop. At some point, question's gonna transition away from Zoom meetings. And people are gonna some people are gonna feel comfortable with that and some aren't. I think there's gonna be some sort of hybrid meeting, where where some of the commission is in a in a room and others are participating. And I think the bylaws are a good place to rest that, to allow it. Now it doesn't have to be now.
I mean, something that the commission thinks about. But I this is bylaws is where where you'd spell that process out. It's gonna be interesting because some people are ready to go back in a room with others and others won't be for a long time. And we're gonna need to accommodate, you know, the the diverse opinions.
I think that is a point very well taken. Developing some kind of hybrid model, the biologists wouldn't have to specify how it can be done, but we would have to allow for the possibility of participation in meetings without being present. And golly gee whiz, the US Congress is struggling with this same issue. Right, but I mean the business world must do this all
over. I mean it's got to be a lot of samples that work well. Yeah. Businesses have done this, you know, forever.
Gotta be Right. But, you know, we have of course, we're we're a regulatory commission we have legal obligations about you know how to it to fulfill our regulations but
yeah it could be addressed in bylaws and if there's a mean and it would have to accommodate both public applicants and all of their advisors legal and engineering advisors and commissioners themselves so we have to have a way for participation in the meeting that's either present or virtual.
And it's probably going to be forced anyway. Mean if you think about like the Americans with Disabilities Act, we're required to accommodate people with disabilities. I have to believe that as COVID nature of things change, there's going to be regulations that address.
Right. How we we go about that. Yeah. I'm unable to cast my ballot, so I'm entitled to use a mail in ballot automatically without having to claim any further disability. It's somewhat analogous to that. So you're right there there is the question of actual ability to attend a meeting and how do we accommodate an inability to actually attend a meeting
I just I just wanted to throw it out there just for. Let people think about it. And it doesn't have to be. Just thought the bylaws would be a good place for it, but. Could be done at its own.
You're right unless unless something statutory comes up you know if the legislature or executive order makes it part of regulations then it wouldn't have to be in bylaws but I think the bylaws would be the best place to address that since you know all of our you know our meeting procedures or hearing procedures and all that are in the bylaws that would be the logical place for any modification of standard procedures. Thank you.
Okay. Any other comments on bylaws? Okay. Our next meeting is scheduled for September 15, subject to the need, potential need for a special meeting if we need to act on the let's see which application was it. I guess it's the Korea application. Yeah, 2021. Could we set tentatively a date for a special meeting if needed Hopefully with Megan back from vacation but within the timeline. Can somebody quick do the math on June 10 plus ninety days? September 8. Thank you. So before September 8. Looks like September 1. I forgot it's Labor Day, isn't it? Labor Day is on you.
Labor Day is the seventh. Labor Day is the seventh, yeah. Ninety days from when? June what? June 10.
That'd be like September 8, isn't it? Or thereabouts? Yeah. Give her a good day.
Right, and of course our regular meeting is deferred because of Labor Day. How So. About the week before anyway?
I was gonna say the week of August 31, I'm gonna be out the week previously. So
August 31 onward because there shouldn't be any meeting scheduled that week because that's the fifth Monday. I don't know if we can do simultaneous Zoom meetings or not. I don't know what our limitations are. Nor do I. So you're proposing August 31?
Either that or September 1. Either one of those I think would work for us.
Yeah, so Monday or Tuesday at week thirty six. I'm open for either of those. Other, don't obviously can't speak for Megan, but. I don't see it. I'm looking at the TOM calendar and there's definitely nothing on for August 31. And there is nothing on for the evening of Tuesday September 1. So both of those would be open in terms of not conflicting with anything in the town. Any preferences?
I guess we probably ought to stick with Monday since that's our routine except for when it's not.
Right. So it's only not our routine when something else prevents us. So why don't we pencil it in potential special meeting on nineone? Oh, eightthirty one.
Eightthirty one, I'm sorry. I mean that's that just gets it on our calendars if we need to have it then obviously we'll have to warn it and all that in due course Hopefully that won't be an issue.
George, this is Linda. Yeah, Linda. I think you actually have to move it, make a motion to schedule the meeting so that it's on the record.
What if we don't need to have that meeting? Then you can cancel it. Okay. Then I'll take a motion to schedule a special meeting for August 31. So moved. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Do I have a second? Ted seconds. Okay,
so motion by Ed Smith, second by Jed Larson to schedule a special meeting for August 31, 7PM. Roll call vote. Mr. Smith? Aye. Mr. Larson? Aye. Mr. Hallisey? Aye.
And I vote aye as well as for the motion carries four-zero-zero. The final item on the agenda would then be a motion to adjourn. Ed Smith seconds.
Okay. I didn't hear the actual motion. Who made the motion? Oh, I make a motion that we adjourn okay and a second to that motion Jed seconds okay
so moved and seconded to adjourn non debatable so let's just vote by voice all in favor aye motion carries unanimously meeting stands adjourned at 09:54 p