Meeting transcript
IWWC Special Meeting
April 14, 2020 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
Malli. I'm the chairman of the Inland Wetlands and Water Fortress Commission, and this is special meeting being held on Tuesday, 04/14/2020 at 07:00PM via Zoom. I'm gonna read just, some kinda guidelines since it is a virtual is the right word, but an online meeting as opposed to an in person meeting. So just, to kinda set some ground rules for participation. So this is a web based call. We're operating under the following procedures. This session is being audio recorded just like every other Inland Wetlands and Water Forces Commission meeting. And please be advised that today we are also recording the video proceedings. To ensure sound quality, the default rule for this meeting is that everyone will remain on mute.
Commissioners and staff will generally remain on mute except when speaking or voting and will generally be keeping video of themselves on throughout the meeting. Applicants and members of the public should feel free to leave their video on or off. You will be asked, however, to turn on your video when speaking. If video is not available for you, you will not be precluded from speaking or providing public testimony. If you are speaking at the meeting and have materials to submit to the commission, which were not distributed in advance of the meeting with the rest of the materials, please indicate that you wish to submit a document. You'll need to hold it up to the camera so that the commission and all members of the public may review it. In addition, you will be required to email the document or take a photograph of it and email it to buildingadmin@androverct.org, who will include it in the permanent records of the commission. Please note that this is not a public hearing. Members of the public may only speak during an open public hearing. If a member of the public creates an audio or video disruption, they may be manually ejected from the meeting upon recommendation of staff to the chair. With that, I will do roll call. I see we have George Elliott, vice chairman present, Jim Halsey present serving as wetlands agent, and Jed Larson, commissioner present. I do not see is Ed Smith on the line or Wayne Thorpe? So we have Ed and Wayne are, absent for tonight's meeting. Alright. So we do have a quorum, so we'll proceed with the meeting. Item three on the agenda is the approval of the 04/06/2020 regular meeting minutes.
George Elliott, moving to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of 04/06/2020. Thank you, George. And I'll second. Ed Larson seconds the motion. Any discussion?
On page three, on the fourth paragraph down, at the end of the second line, it says to remove the fresh fill that was out in. And I think I get the idea there, but should it just be one of those words? Unfortunately, Ed is not on the line to clarify.
Maybe we could have the line say to remove the fresh fill period and that might get rid of the confusion there. I think that was the intent. I would favor that. Any additional discussion?
Jed, could you recite that sentence as you want it edited?
Yes. So Ed Smith commented there's a lot more than three feet of fill of large rocks behind the shed and shed would have to be moved more than six foot to remove the fresh fill period. Okay. I'm just gonna go ahead and share
the agenda over here. Don't if this will work with him. We have the agenda up before us. Are you set with that correction, Amanda? Yes.
Thank you. Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, I will call for a vote on the motion. I guess we'll do it by roll call. So Jed Larson, how do you vote? Aye.
Thank you. George Elliott, how do you vote? Aye. And chairman Lally votes aye as well. So the motion carries three zero zero. Think I saw agent Hallisey come on the line. Is that correct? I see Jim on the line. Is attorney Brantz on the line? We'll proceed to item four on the agenda, which is an enforcement item. Commissioner should have received a packet and it should be posted online, several materials related to this item. There is an order to cease and desist dated 04/08/2020. There is an aerial photograph of the properties, dated 04/05/2020. And then there are two documents containing photographs. One were preliminary photographs submitted, notifying the commission of a possible violation, and the other were photographs taken by Jim Halsey acting as Wetlands agent on 04/02/2020. So if you don't have any of those materials, they are online, and I'm going to try to display them, as they're discussed so that everybody can see them. So quick background from my perspective for the record. On 03/20/2020, I was contacted by a neighbor, and it will bring up a document. Give me one minute. So on March 20, these photos were shared with me requesting that the commission look into a potential violation at Number 129 Hebron Road with the description that they were digging a trench through the brook. On the March 21, I passed this information on to Jim Halsey and asked him to respond as an agent on behalf of the commission and investigate the issue. Additional photographs, photo number three was submitted on April 1 via town manager Anderson. And then on April 2, Jim Hallett investigated the property as an agent and submitted other photos, which we'll go over in a second.
On April 6, I visited the property myself. I actually visited the adjacent property, number 125 to understand the complaint that was being submitted prior to our regular meeting. And I took photos five or excuse me, photo four and five here, during that visit to try and explain the issue to the commission during our, our last regular meeting. And then based on the regular meeting on April 6, Jim Halsey was asked by the commission to issue a cease and desist order to the owners of the property, asking them to come before the commission this evening for a show cause hearing to, explain the activity on the property. So I'm gonna back up quickly,
just for orientation purposes. The property in question is here. Can you all see, an aerial photo right now? Yes. Yes.
Thank you. Okay. So the property under discussion is Number 129. The property boundaries are here, and the activity under discussion is occurring, basically along, the property boundaries, the front line of the property, the the roadside, and the property line that abuts Number 125. Back to that photograph if needed. I'm gonna switch over to the photographs that agent Halsey took on the second and ask him to provide a report to the commission and summarize the order that he sent out to the property owner. Eden Helisier, are you on the line? I am.
Okay. Also, had spoken to the property owner and they indicated that they were participating in this hearing and apparently they're not on it. Thought I saw Ruby. Okay. Understand.
I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't an issue with getting, accessing the room. Okay. Alright. Yeah. I took pictures. There's a trench along the front of the house, on Hebron Ave I'm sorry. Hebron Road and and the north side of the property. Approximately three feet deep. It extends on the north side of the property. It extends with back of back of property towards an intermittent stream. Charmacy.
And there's there's this okay. There's the stream, obviously. That that's the backyard just in front of the stream. Again, this was is an intermittent stream, so it I I was actually there later this afternoon and it's running. I'm sure there's times when it's it's fairly dry. The water in the trenches magnet there. It's not when I was there initially, it wasn't flowing towards the back just because of the branch itself. As far as the order, the order was to cease and desist come forth with a plan.
Actually, the best way to do this. Do you wanna just read the the main points of the order, the violation and then what the the order is requesting?
Sure. Following activities have occurred in property located 88 Hebron. Anyway, excavation of an edge along the front side property line, disturbance of materials within a 100 feet of an intermittent stream and probable wetlands soils along the rear property. The ex activity has resulted in placement of fill in regulated in regulated area, which should the trench. The trench appears to alter the flow of surface runoff and channel it towards aforementioned stream. And it We can All largely boilerplate, and then the order is ordered to cease and desist from any further regulated activities in 100 feet, specifically including, but not limited to, cutting of trees, vegetation, structure, or deposition of any any other structure or material.
Your further order to submit a restoration plan depicting just just the most current order that that went out, Megan? Do you know? Hello?
I apologize, I muted myself. This is the last version of the order that I had a copy of, so I thought this was the final one that had been sent out. Is it not?
Doesn't appear to be. Can you hold on one second? Let me be right back. Okay. I have somebody assisting me with calling it up. Bear with me. Can you still hear me? I can hear you, Jim. This is George.
Thank you. Hold on one second, and I I will see what I can do here. Apologize.
Jim, would you be interested in sharing your screen with the correct document? Once
you have it up? Yeah. Let me see what I can do. Okay. Thank you all for your patience with these virtual meetings.
Okay. If you talk. I have technical assistance here. Bear with me. Didn't work. Yeah.
Okay. That was it. That was the document. Did I share it on screen? Yes.
Someone else is sharing, so you can't until they exit. Okay. I apparently, I can't share
while somebody else is sharing. Okay. I just stopped Megan sharing. So try now. Sorry about that. Try now.
Can you see it? Yes. Okay. So it's 129 Heber Road. Here's the I apologize for that. When you're done, you hit stop. Okay. I'm gonna scroll down again. Do Do I have control over this document or does the host at this point? I should. Right? You should. Yep.
Hereby I wanted to cease and desist from any further regulated activities in regulated areas. 100 feet of a regulated area, including but not limited to cutting of trees, vegetation, construction, or position of any other structure or material, rest restoration plan, type of vegetation, etcetera.
Can you scroll up or I guess down so that we can see your screen? Right now I can only see the first two lines. Okay.
That's it's calling for restoration plan. It's very clear the restoration plan should be submitted and approved reviewed and approved by the by the agency. Also the show cause hearing.
Can you scroll so that we can see the order on the screen? Are you able to page down? The section titled order, sorry. The order is Jim, try to use your arrows on your keypad. Right here, the order is right.
Can you see the order? We can see it, but we need you to scroll down. Really? Jim,
this is George. I can only see the first page of the document, and we want to be looking at really the last page of the document on the screen.
Okay, see, that's what I have in front of me. There to be white Sorry.
Can you stop sharing and try to reshare again to see if maybe it got frozen? Sure. Pause share?
Yeah. And try share screen again and see if that wakes it up.
Jim, move your mouse to the bottom of the screen. Yep. Do you see the menu pad? Yep. See where it says share screen with the green arrow? Yes. Click on that. I am. It says alt s.
If you click on the green arrow, it should start sharing your screen. Okay.
Or if it's easier to quickly email it to Megan or myself. Okay. Here we are. Okay. I'm looking at
no? We have the right page now. Think we just need you to scroll up a little bit. There you go. Perfect. Stop. Thank you. Can everybody see it now?
Yep. Okay. So essentially the order was to, submit a restoration plan for the disturbance in the wetland. Is that correct? Yes. Okay.
Alright. Is there anything else that you want to add to your report, Jim, before we turn it over?
No. Think the commission would like to see plan of the activity, the entire activity, including restoration. Nice to get some some input from from the owner as to what they're posing to do. Assume that's when they when they they have opportunity to address the commission later in the the hearing. I'm sorry, because Oh, yeah. I'm glad you're here. Okay.
I'm gonna unmute Ruby if I can. Amanda, can you there you go. Thank you. So first, let's start with I have based on the order to cease and desist, Ruby a. Meralda de Cuerto. Is that correct? Yes.
Okay. I think we need you to just speak up a little bit if you can. How would you prefer the commission to address you? As Ruby, that's it's fine. Ruby? Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is your chance to just kinda explain the activity at the property and and what's going on.
Okay. So first of all, I just want to apologize. I mean, I didn't think it was such a big deal. All we wanted to do was fence around all our property, and that was that was the the plan. Now I need you guys to explain very clear to me what am I supposed to do. I've never gotten anything like this before. So at this point is everything is new to me. So, again, I apologize. I didn't know the boundaries for the wetlands area. You know, I thought it was my property. So at some point, we talked to one of the inspectors from the town hall, and my husband mentioned that we wanted to do the wall,
you know, the fence, but I didn't want a regular fence. I wanted something nice, like as you guys can tell, that improvements we have made to the property. I mean, we we've been blessed and we have fixed our our house. And I just wanted, you know, a wall around it and with stone, like and so that was the plan. We just started working on it. I didn't know it was going to be a big deal or I don't know if it's not a big deal above the wall, but it's just that we touched the wetlands. At this point, I don't know what we did wrong and that's I didn't understand the whole letter that they sent to me. So, I'm hoping to get an answer today from whoever is on that expertise and explain to me and tell me and guide me what to do. I mean, there has been a lot of people here in my house taking pictures, walking around. I don't know if they have the right to do it either. So, I mean, so I just want to apologize and then hope you guys can understand us and guide us on what we have to do, so we have to do so we do things the right way.
I'll unmute myself. This is Chairman Lilley again. Can you talk about so I'm gonna kind of approximate. I think right now the activity that's occurred is on the front line of the property and then a portion of the sideline of the property. Is that correct? Yes. When I went out in the fields, the the trench hadn't actually, it didn't look to me, like it had crossed the brook yet. Was your intention to continue along the entire property line or, like how far is the planned extent to the fence?
Well, it's just to close it around technically, but now that I'm assuming we can do it all around because of the wetlands, probably it's gonna be different. Depends on what the regulations are.
Do the commissioners have any questions that they wanna ask?
This is George Elliott, and I had a question regarding photograph number three that was submitted on April 1. It appears that at the back of the photo The roadside?
There's a hose arising out of the trench and then going around. Is water being pumped out of that trench?
I believe they use they put a hose so they can keep working on, like, digging because one of those days rain. So when it rains, I guess it gets filled up.
So water is being removed from the trench. Is that correct?
Apparently, yeah. Honestly, I don't do the work, I have no idea of knowing.
So George, when I was out in the field, the trench, I think this was taken after probably a period of significant rain. My guess is the pump is intended to keep storm water out of the trench because it didn't appear to be I don't know if this photo helps kind of elucidate it, but this is the trench line here. The extent of the digging kind of stops about here and then this is where the Brook crosses. At least when I visited on April 6, the surface water wasn't connected or flowing into the trench in any way.
Okay. So they're not diverting the water course, but rather removing surface water and altering the drainage of the area, which may include wetlands.
I wouldn't say that they're removing surface water. I think the pump was temporarily removing storm water, which I would say They continue to yes, I know they did that. So for the record, my background, I have a master's in natural resource management and a bachelor's in environmental science, and I I do stream monitoring, for my my professional career. So I I do have some expertise on this topic and the ability to identify these features in the landscape. So the initial report we were given was that the the property owner was diverting the intermittent stream on the property. In my professional opinion, that is not the case. I think the pump that was shown in, photo three here, was basically, a maintenance pump for allowing activity to occur within the trench. I don't think it's diverting water from the watercourse. Yeah. Go ahead. It's okay.
I'm sorry. Yeah. The picture, it's the picture that you're showing there right now, it's towards the front it's not in the back and the wetlands is in the back of the property. Right so yeah that's helpful. So right here
if you can see Georgia's sort of a street sign this is Hebron Road right here so if I go back to that aerial sort of a funny orientation, but the top of that photo is here, and you're basically looking in this direction. Right.
Okay. And the stream itself, I'd say, is kinda like over here. And the extent of the trench when I was up there on the sixth was it didn't actually cross the trench. Okay.
So here's another photo to kinda show. So this is the path of the intermittent stream. It did look like there was some disturbance and that's why I was asking about the intention for extending the fence because it's hard to see. There is a string here that seemed to suggest that the fence was gonna be extended past and and through the brook, but, digging had not just for the record occurred in the stream at the time that I was out there. The the majority of the activity was, towards the front of the property, towards the roadside, and had not yet crossed the stream. This is why I I went out on the sixth because I found it very difficult to understand from the photos that had been submitted. So, I wanted to go out to the property to to be able to understand the circumstances better. Does that help explain it all, George?
Yes. And my follow-up question then would be, do we have photos of the trench along Hebron Road at the front of the property?
I don't believe we do because I don't know about Jim, whether you took any from my perspective, it wasn't wetlands in that area. So I didn't focus my efforts on looking at that part of the property. Jim, did you take any photos of the front of the property? So
I think one of the things, so the order as it stands right now, as drafted by agent Halsey, is to prepare a vegetation restoration plan. So the way a show cause hearing works is it provides you with the property owner, Ruby, as the opportunity to come before us kind of explain, you know, your your side of the story, if you will, as you did. And then it gives the commission a chance to say, okay. Well, now that we have additional information, should the order, be removed? Should it remain in place as it was sent out or should it be modified? So there's sort of three things that can happen as a result of that. And it's kinda up to Jed, George, and myself now to to try and figure out, the answer to that question with your help. It's hard for us to know the true extent of the wetlands without a wetlands delineation survey. Is that something that you would be willing to have done on the lot? To get what?
So in Connecticut, a certified soil scientist is the only person that can say with certainty, where a wetland is Cause Connecticut basis wetlands on soil type. So they literally dig in the ground and look at the dirt to assess whether or not it's it's wetland in that location. And so for us to, so what I'm thinking is there's potential to permit part of the activity. You could apply for a permit for all of the activity. I don't know if it's likely that the commission would, you know, approve construction of a fence across the watercourse, that could create some challenges, but it's possible. But if you did come before the commission for a permit, think one of the first things we would ask would be we need a wetland survey to tell us where exactly on the property the wetlands are to be able to say, you know, yes or no, it's okay to put a fence in this location or that location.
I mean, if it's needed, I I think we can do it once everything this pandemic passes, probably. I don't know. I don't know if they're working right now, and they're willing to come out out here. If we have to, and we need to, then I believe we can do it. Get somebody or just the if the landscape contractor won't do it, if it's something that it's
needs someone like a soil scientist, like you said, I think we can, we have to do it. The reason we wanted to do the fence is because I have four children and when they go outside, you know, it's not it's not safe for them to be, like, in the open and stuff. That's why we wanted it tamped around. But if it's a big issue because of the wetlands, that's that's the issue, right? That's the reason is not because because of the the front fence, it's the back. Is that right?
Without having a wetland survey in front of me to to rule out, you know, that the front fence is a a problem, I would say from the wetlands commission perspective specifically because that that's all we can speak to. I don't know if it, you know, presents other challenges in town, but I think the concern for wetlands would be the the intermittent stream on the back of the property and then any associated wetlands with it, and make sure that any activity that takes place, either doesn't impact those resources or that we think about ways that the activity can be done, to minimize those impacts. That's generally our job as commissioners.
Usually a structure can be built how many feet away from the wetlands area. Let's say once let's say if we bring a soil scientist and they said, Okay, up to here are the wetlands and from here from whatever that stops and how far can we build the wall if we wanna build it in the back?
So unfortunately, I can't give a great answer to that question. What I can say is that the regulations basically say that anything within a 100 feet of the stream or the wetlands needs to come before the commission to see if it needs a permit and if so, to be permitted. And through that process, we would make the determination of whether or not, your proposal was something that the commission would be willing to either totally or partially, permit. So that would be the next step is if you wanted to proceed with with, you know, extending the fence,
we would need you to come before us with a permit application to discuss that and and, you know, show us what it is that you're proposing to do, where the wetlands are, and then we could make a determination as to whether or not that that would be a suitable project. Chairman Molly. Go ahead, George.
I believe that in this case, a soil scientist will be required to delineate the wetlands, the offender here would be well advised to find a professional civil engineer or landscape architect that can develop a plan for an application based on the soil science and based on a knowledge of the regulations, which are, of course, statewide.
So yes. So I want to separate out the activity that's been done versus, potential future activity to continue. So the activity that's been done, the burden is on the commission to prove that there was a violation, just as a reminder. If the property owner wants to extend the wall, the burden is on them to come before us with a permit application to explain why it should be, you know, either not a regulated activity or or permitted as such. So there's sort of two pieces of the puzzle. I hear you Ruby saying that you would like to extend the wall if possible. So I'm going with that assumption. Is that true?
If it's possible, yeah, just transfer around. Just the thing the difference is that we're not putting a regular metal fan. It's just it's just different. And, yeah, that's that's all we wanted to do, honestly. We didn't want to harm anyone or or get ourselves in trouble. And I I honestly apologize. I had no idea. That's all I wanted to do. And and then here we are. I'm willing to do the right thing, if I have to pull permits or do whatever we have to do. Hopefully, we don't have to spend thousands of dollars on all that stuff. Yeah. Because I don't pay for the labor. I mean, my husband is we do construction for a living, so I just have to pay for the material, basically. But if we have to do the the soil testing, that it's it's it's something that I guess we can do if
if we decide to move and continue and do the wall around it. My question, because as as you guys can tell, I mean, that has come here, we're also working in the front. So the CCNDC is only for the back or for the wall or the stone wall, the stone work that we're doing on the stairs in the front. Everything has to stop as well or it's just the structure of the wall. Itself?
Double check the order before I answer this question. Okay. So I don't know the distance of the front of your property line to the wetlands in the back of the stream. Jim, I don't know if you have any insight on that, whether it's greater than 100 feet. Yeah.
Oh, sorry. Sorry, Jim, you were muted. Can you repeat whatever you said?
It's at least 200 feet from the road to the rear of the property. I'm not sure where the rear property line is, but it's it's close to 200 feet.
Well, no. I'm saying From the the stream to the front of the property line, do you have a sense for whether that's, you know, definitely well beyond a 100 feet or if it could Yes. I guess it would be close to 200 feet. At least a 150, 175 feet.
Okay. So the regulations say that if it's within a 100 feet in this case, there's exceptions where it could extend to 200, but I don't think they apply in this case, then it needs to come before the commission. So if the the front of your property line is greater than a 100 feet from the stream and wetlands, which, commissioner Halsey acting as agent for us is confirming he thinks it is, then I don't think we have any jurisdiction over that part of the project. I don't know if the the commissioners wanna weigh in, on that.
And, again, this is George Elliott. I would like to point out that it looks like the activity in the front of the property, although maybe away from wetlands, I think that the owner should be advised that it could well be within the right of way of the Department of Transportation because this is a state route. This is Route 362. We had him, the supervisor
came over. I'll tell you when he came on Friday, April 3, And I have an I have a a letter that he sent he sent me, and he brought me a letter, a printout letter, and it says that it was okay that he came. The the main guy, the DOT, that's the one you're talking about, right? He came and he said that we are in the line. I mean, we hire a surveyor. When we bought the property, we paid a surveyor and an engineer and he came and he measured everything because, you know, I didn't want to go into someone else's property and stuff, so we hired someone and he came, he marked everything and told us because from the beginning, the idea of fencing around the house and everything, because of the additions that we did to the house, so we had to hire someone. All the plans were submitted to town hall. So, in regards to the work that is being done in the front, the DOT came last week. I believe it was on Friday the third that he came because they also he also received an email from
the neighbors, I guess, I don't know, saying that we were to come and check out. And so I read all the emails the people sent over. He showed them to me, and and he came out two three people actually came out, and they said from the DOT department, they said that we were that we were in our property. So we were not in the state's property, so he said it was good. I believe also the inspector came over and talked to my husband as well from Andover. I don't know his name, though. The building inspector before we we did the the cement. Was the fence on the original building plans?
No, the fence was not. The the the plans that we submitted was the for the additions that we already did. Okay. I just wanted My husband just talked about but the zoning a zoning agent, I don't know his name either when we talked about it. And he said that we didn't need a permit because my husband told him that we were gonna do it six feet. It wasn't going to be anything higher than six feet. And so he says for that height, we didn't need a permit. So that's why we went well but when my husband talked us a while a couple of months ago, it's just that right now, being the the time being that he's not working, he said I'm not gonna be home sleeping and I'm just, you know, do something productive. So we didn't think it was gonna be a big deal. I'm so sorry. That's okay.
Commissioner Larson, did you have any questions or comments you wanted to share?
I did not look but I was curious Megan if you had a chance to look on the crog diagram to see if it showed any wetlands in the area on the property.
I found that the parcel scale, I can actually pull up that website, think. At the parcel scale, that map is not very reliable In situations where I know where the wetland is and then I've looked at the parcel map, they they haven't aligned with each other, but I can quickly pull that up to show you. Those are meant, they're not they're really not meant to be, you know, used as a a definitive boundary at at the parcel level. Think they give you a general sense that there there could be a wetland in the area, but you you can't go by the direct line.
Let me see if I can pull that up. It's one quick thing. Not necessary. I was just curious because the first thing we were trying to do was determine if there was an offense that was committed. And I didn't know if that would help us or not.
Can you see the CROG viewer? I don't know if what I did is sharing. Oh, it's paused. All right. Resume share. Resume share. Sorry. Learning Zoom as we go here. Can you see the crowd viewer?
Yes. Yes. Yes. And it does show wetlands about in the vicinity of where that temporary screen is.
Yeah. So, you know, without I think based on Jim's expertise, I I really don't feel that the the front wall, whether, you know, people feel it's aesthetically pleasing or not, I don't think it's in the jurisdiction of this commission to regulate, the wall on on this property line. I think a case could be made for, you know, continuing to, repress work being ceased on this line because there could potentially be, a connection hydrologically between, you know, the trench and and the stream if it was continued. But I I don't see any reason why the property owner shouldn't be allowed to continue building the fence on the front property line. I don't know if just feel differently. And and the order, just to be clear, didn't didn't apply to the front property line
if it's stated as it as it does, that it's only for activity within 100 feet of the wetland.
I understand and I agree with your assessment that we do not have regulatory authority over the wall along the road. The other three sides, we probably would.
I agree. This is George Eliot again. And I agree that the front of the property is probably outside of any well in review area. However, that purple band does suggest that we certainly need to see a better delineation of the wetlands before we can do anything else or speak to any other part of the project.
Yes. Okay. So the translation for, I think, our show cause hearing today is it sounds like the commission is leaning towards leaving the order in place, which means that any activity within a 100 feet of the wetland or watercourse has to stop. So that would not include the front property line, but it would include, any activity along the side property line. If you wish to and as part of that order, it did request a revegetation plan. If you would like to come before the commission and submit a permit, to apply to be able to extend the fence around the entire property. As you mentioned, that that's certainly an option to you. It's it's sort of, step two. It's separate from the cease and desist order and the show cause hearing. And I think
the commission is is kinda saying, it would be advisable to as part of that permit application, we can't, at this time, we can't, you know, force you to do so, but it would be advisable to have a a soil, scientist come out and and delineate the wetlands for us to be able to have a clear sense of of where they are and where they are and if we're gonna consider an application.
Can we do it, let's say if front of the house is here, right? So you're saying we cannot work on this side. If you're standing in front of my house, we cannot work towards the left side of the house. Can we continue working on the right side where there is no wetlands?
So over here you mean? Uh-huh, yes. So I would say anything basically anything within a 100 feet of a wetlands, whether it's on, you know, the left or the right side of the property, should be stopped, and not continued. And the only way to really know where that 100 foot line is is to have a wetland delineation done to say, okay, you know, here's where the wetlands were, we're definitely a 100 feet away from it. So the sidelines are kind of a fuzzy zone right now for you. I think we feel comfortable that that the front property line, meaning the the one adjacent to the road, is not within a 100 feet of wetlands. So there's no no permit required for for building a wall on the road, basically. It's not within purview of of our commission. We don't have jurisdiction over that.
But walls are I keep doing my concrete work, my stonework that I'm doing on my stairs and then and the stonewall that I'm doing, like, on the around the basement edge in my house. Like, I can do any of that work for right now. So because we're gonna put, like, granite slabs on on the front stairs. So I just stopped everything because I didn't know I get any more trouble. That's Oh, another
I apologize. When you say the front, when you refer to the front of your house, are you talking about the side that faces Hebron Road? Yes. Just
so we're on the same page. I don't see any reason why that activity couldn't continue based on the conversation we've had tonight. I don't think that part of your property is under the jurisdiction of wetlands.
Like if you came to my house, you see that we put some, how do you call them, stone I guess it's called, that we put it all the way in the front. So the plant is gonna go all around it, around it's like on the basement side of the house. So it's gonna go around the whole entire house. So can I can continue to do that? I don't think that has anything to do with the wetlands, but I just wanna make sure. I don't have people all over me taking pictures every day in my house while we're working that's why I'm asking.
Understandable. I mean I think maybe the safest thing to do then would be it doesn't need to be you know an engineered plan but to try and put something on paper of what it is you're you're thinking of doing and and bringing it before the commission to kinda because you obviously have a vision in in your mind, but we don't necessarily know what it is. So putting it on paper is always helpful. Jim, do you have thoughts?
Yeah. Just wanted to touch upon a couple of issues that were raised. One of them is along three sixteen in states right away. A number of people brought that up and I did speak in an attempt to get contacted department transportation. I spoke to the highway foreman who indicated that had a conversation and it wasn't an issue with the right of way. I haven't seen the letter, but I have his word on that. And as far as stopping the work, my concern was that there's potential for water to run down the trench along the north side of the property. Right now trenches filled in in portions, I think just because of runoff and just water running through it.
And I think regardless, there should be some sort of attempt to stop to keep water from flowing from from the road, or at least from the property near the road towards the stream bed, towards the intermittent stream, which I think could be handled pretty simply. Literally by. Hay bale in the trench. That looks pretty clean. I was out there today and you know, it's eroded a little bit just from rain or what have you. Seemed to be going back very in very close proximity to the stream bed. And this stream may have been a little bigger today too. Previous shots. I'm muted. No. Thank you. My concern too, I wanted to just see the project as a in its entirety. Trying to get a handle on on what property owners were trying to do before they move forward.
Ted and George, do. Either of you wish to make a motion to remove the order in its entirety. Unmute judge for some reason.
I'm just not certain that if we undo the order in its entirety, is the property owners are only going to be working on the fencing along the road at that point?
I'm not asking you guys to. I'm just going through the options. Does anyone want the commission to consider our three options are basically leave the order as it is and say, yes, it needs to remain in place, modify it, but leave it in place, or remove it and say it it was a miscommunication. Remove the order. I'm starting with that one.
I would move to leave the order in place. The the current order has submitted to this meeting. Any modifications to that order or no? No modifications.
Did you want that to be considered an official motion or are we still discussing? I would make that as a motion. Okay. I'll second the motion.
It's you and me. Okay, so there's a motion on the floor to leave the order in place as is. Discussion?
Yes. Megan, could you bring that back onto the screen with Jim, whoever you whoever was sharing that screen with the latest version of the enforcement order so that we know you know, I want it in front of us while we're discussing it in case there is any need to modify. Can you see it at the moment? Yeah. Okay.
Alright. So the current order says that within a 100 feet of the regulated area, which would be the wetlands or the watercourse, there can't be any removal of vegetation, including cutting of trees, and there can't be any deposition of material, or construction or structures. It also requests that a restoration plan be submitted, basically undoing the activity that's been done so far. And that's pretty much the extent as the order is currently written. I think based on agent Halsey's input, I think it makes sense to, order stabilization measures, be it hay bales or otherwise, on the the trench that's been dug on the north side of the property, I believe they stated, this trench.
And hello? Yes. So should we put the dirt back in there in the trench or don't do anything?
So there's the legal side and then there's the human side. The the legal aspect of this, if we were to motion and approve the motion to leave the order in place as it is, then essentially, yes. That's what the commission would be asking you to do. You have the option even if we do that to come before the commission with a permit application, requesting to continue either doing what you had hoped to do to begin with or a modified version of that, and then the commission would consider that as well. To Jeff and George, I was trying to kinda since it it seems apparent that the property owner would like to continue constructing a fence in some manner around the property, which I I don't think it's unreasonable to want to, you know, keep your children safe.
There might be alternative designs that the commission could, consider or propose. I would think it's appropriate for them to, you know, come before the commission with an application.
Megan, could you return to the or Jim, could you return to the order? The order is in two parts. It's one, quit what you're doing and second, give us a plan either to remediate or we need an application for the work that you propose to do.
As it's written right now, the order is to stop what you're doing and to correct it.
Well, says order to submit a restoration plan. In other words, don't start filling things in until we see the plan.
Okay. I don't interpret continuing installation of the fence as restoration. I interpret restoration as putting back what was taken out.
Right. But we don't do it until that plan has been submitted. A restoration plan? I'm not sure I understand. No. We need a restoration plan. That's the first order of business. And we may I'm I'm trying to make this clear that we need a restoration plan per the order. And what you're suggesting is an application for a permit if the owner wishes to continue or to somehow find another way to accomplish the goal of directing a fence.
Think I'm suggesting that we consider something in the middle. The order as it's currently written to me doesn't seem to allow for opportunity to continue the activity. It it says stop doing it and and fix what's done. So I'm suggesting the commission consider modifying the order to help guide the property owner with, the process and and what should be done next if they do wish to submit a permit application. Well, think we should what are your cyst
within 100 foot of the wetlands as best we can tell from the Crogg diagram until we have a soil scientist come out if the homeowner wanted to continue. And we could put in a remediation plan like Jim was talking about with some hay bales in the trench to filter the water that was running down towards the wetland area.
Might be nitpicking, but that's a sediment and erosion control plan, not a remediation plan. Okay, thank you.
Which I do agree. We should incorporate into the order.
But that's also assuming that the homeowner will be coming to us with a permit in a plan that successfully addresses running a fence through the wetland area, if that's what she chooses to do. And if she didn't choose to do that, then we would have to go through with the full restoration plan because they weren't going to put a fence in, they'd have to restore it to the previously existing condition.
Attorney Brantz would join the call. Alright. So what I'm hearing you and Jed say is to keep the order in place, add erosion and sediment control plan as discussed by agent Halsey, request submission of a restoration plan. And if the applicant or I'm saying applicant. If the property owner wishes to instead submit an application, for continued activity in the upland review or wetland area, they can do so. I think that would be acceptable. This is George. I would agree with that.
Okay. Do you want to amend your motion or how do you want to proceed?
If we can accept a informal amendment without motion, sure. Let's amend the motion as discussed. Okay. So Obviously,
we wouldn't have the ability to do it instantaneously, but we understand that the order will be modified to include remediation and the potential for a permit application with a plan for continued activity. And I think our understanding here is that filling that application, then the restoration remediation is in force.
I'm going leave you here. I'm going to pee. And do we have any guidance, the property owner on whether I'd like to give a clear answer. I don't feel like we've given one. So basically jurisdictional ruling as to whether the activity in the front side of the lot facing Hebron Road is are they okay to proceed with that activity activity or or is is that that regulated regulated essentially? Essentially?
Well, is Jed. And I guess based on Jim's assessment from being out there looking at the property, it seems like the wall along the road is not a regulated activity, shouldn't be part of this. And so I would think that we should allow continued work along the road, but I would be hesitant to have any work on the north, south, or East Side until we know exactly where the wetlands are.
Joe, this is George. Are you proposing that we modify the order specifically to state that the activity on Route 316, Hebron Road, is outside our jurisdiction, but pending further delineation of wetlands, the other activity should be ceased. I think that sounds great.
I would recommend that we not include the statement regarding Route 316 or Huppen Road in the order. There's a whole world of things that aren't covered by the order. I think it just fuzzies things to put it in. Think as written, I think we can make a separate motion to clarify for the property owner that those activities are outside of our jurisdiction, but that it doesn't need to be written into the order.
I know that I am looking at not the latest copy, but on the last page where it says order, maybe that's what we're looking at here, where it says you are hereby ordered to cease and desist from any further work described above. And I don't know how we get out of that with our current wording.
Well, it says within the regulated areas or within 100 feet of a regulated area.
Okay. Yeah. I guess so I'm looking just at an outdated copy and that's the same place. I thought this was a different place in the same document. So that's fine.
Okay so I'm gonna circle back to the motion on the floor. Alright so the motion on the floor as amended is to leave the order in place and to modify the order to include the addition of the requirement for submission of an erosion and sediment control plan to ensure that the wetlands and the brook are protected from any basically any stormwater backflow that might occur, from the trench into the wetland or the stream system. So cease and desist all activities within a 100 feet of the stream and the wetlands, submit and then implement upon approval on erosion and sediment control plan, and submit and implement upon approval a restoration plan. Jed and George, are you okay with that?
I am okay. I was expecting something to say either submit a permit to build the fence through the wetland area or a restoration plan if they chose not to build the fence through the wetland area.
I think the problem with that approach is if the permit is denied, it kind of leaves us in a gray zone.
I agree. I think the order has to continue to require restoration plan, and that a successful permit application could obviate the need for restoration. But we don't want to lose that. Okay, I'm good with that.
Okay, so are you comfortable with the motion as I reiterated it? I am.
Amanda, do you feel that you are able to transcribe that motion? I can't unmute you. Oh, sorry. Right now? Did you catch that motion or do you need it repeated? Well, let me
Or do you want to read back what you have?
Megan Lawley amended the original motion to leave the order in place, but modify the order to include the addition of a sediment control plan to ensure the wetlands are protected from any storm water backflow that might occur from the trench to Along the northern property line, just to clarify.
And to cease and desist all activity 100 feet within wetlands and for the owner rather to submit a sediment control and restoration plan?
Okay, so the first piece should be the addition of an erosion and sediment control plan. And then the last part, take out sediment control, and it should just be, submit a restoration or remediation plan. Okay. Okay.
Thank you. You're welcome. So do I have a second to the amendment to the motion? Ted will second.
Thank you. Any further discussion? Okay, we'll call for a vote on the amendment to the motion. George Elliott, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. George votes aye. Jed Larson, how do you vote? Aye. It votes aye. Aye. Megan Lally vote aye as well. So the motion to amend the original motion carries three zero zero. Now I'll call for a vote on the amended motion as just read back. George Elliott, how do you vote? Aye.
Thank you. Jed Larson, how do you vote? Aye. And Megan Lally, I vote aye as well. So the motion to leave the order in place with the modifications noted carries three zero zero. Okay. So agent Halsey, can you draft a revised motion or a revised order, excuse me, to be sent out to the property owner? Certainly.
Okay. So, Ruby, what that means is if you choose not to submit a permit and a permit is not approved, then what needs to be done is that the trench basically needs to be filled back in and planted over. In the meantime, you also have the option of submitting a application for a permit to do either your original vision for the wall or a modified version based on, I would recommend, discussing with agent Halsey and see if he has thoughts for how you could potentially continue, with fencing in the property without impacting the wetlands, and talk to him first before coming before the commission with an application. That way it's more likely to,
be received well by by the commission. Does that make sense? Sort of. Yeah.
So you're gonna get another order in the mail. Yeah, I under Okay, just just so you're not alarmed and you understand that piece of it. That basically says the same thing as the first order.
Yeah, I I kind of understand that. What I'm confused is when I submit the application, you said to bring it to the commissioner, so I don't bring it to town hall or everything is the same thing?
Okay. That's a good question. So right now things are squirrelly because of the virus situation. So we're asking for everything to be submitted electronically, so that people don't have to physically interact with each other. So Jim Hallessey is actually a he's a commissioner on our commission, so it's sort of confusing, but he's serving as our wetlands agent, in the meantime because we don't have a a wetlands agent at the moment in town. So Jim is serving as our wetlands agent, but he also sits on the commission. So that's a little confusing. But the point is, I would encourage you to reach out to Jim after this and talk to him about what you were thinking of doing, and then whether or not he thinks that's possible. And if not, what modifications might be available to you to kinda still achieve the goal of fencing in the property without, affecting the wetlands and water courses significantly. And then based on your conversations, work to put together a permit application that would get submitted to the commission.
And the literal way you submit it would be by email to, there's an email address buildingadminandoverct dot org. So basically, the next step for you is to call Jim and talk about what your options are.
You tell her where to find application on our website?
That's a good point. Yeah. So if you go to the town website, under appointed commissions, there is a link for the wetlands page. You find the agenda for tonight's meeting online or was it?
No, I just got the paper. Was just mail yesterday and I found it. I sent a letter, so that's how I found out.
Had I don't want you to have to announce on the recorded video what your personal email is, but if you send an email to wetlands@andoverct.org, that's the wetland agent email account. That's the one Jim uses. He'll then have your personal email and and can communicate with you by email that way so you can share documents and stuff as needed. Can you tell me the email again, please? Yep. So it's wetlands, w e t l a n d s, andoverct dot o r g.
Okay. Okay. Yes, if I have any more questions, will call Jim. Just to do things the right way now. Is
George still on the line? George, are you still on the line? Okay.
And see if he reconnects because if he does not, then we do not have a quorum and need to finish with the rest of the meeting. Amanda, do you wanna give him a quick call? So what I was hoping we could do is just make a formal vote to capture our conversation that basically said the the front property line is is not under the jurisdiction of, wetlands. So you'd have a a clear answer on that, but we need three commissioners to be able to do that. And our third seems to have dropped off the call.
I'm calling him now. Okay. Thank you. George is trying to reconnect now. Thank you.
Okay. George is going to call in from his phone because his Wi Fi is not working.
Okay. Thank you. In the meantime, I just wanted to share,
Ruby, the reason why I'm here is to clerk the meeting. So that means I'm the secretary, and I'm just recording everything that happens in all town meetings. And the meeting minutes are always posted on the town website within forty eight hours of the meeting. So that would be helpful to you to read the minutes as well, just to summarize everything.
That's Amanda Gibson. She's our assistant town administrator. I don't know if you two know each other.
Ruby, do you have Wi Fi? Are you able to access the town website?
Yeah. I just never I've I've never got into any of this stuff, so I don't usually I do receive letters when you guys have meetings and stuff, but I I really don't have the time. But I will do it today because of course, I'm involved in this. You're getting on the right track. George, did you just join the call?
Yes. I just phoned in. Can you hear me? We can. Loud and clear. Thank you.
Happy to have you back on the line. I was hoping I'd like to make a motion to capture our previous discussion that the commission has ruled that the fence along the property line adjacent to Hebron Road or the activity along the property line adjacent to Hebron Road is beyond a 100 feet from a wetlands or watercourse and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of the commission. Jed will second. Thank you, Joe. Any discussion?
So is this a change to the cease and desist or this is something, independent of that? No. I wanted just to provide clarity separate from the order,
for Ruby that basically the conversation we had to provide a vote to So it will just exist in the minute?
It's jurisdictional ruling that portion of the activity, if if approved, the motion is approved, is not under the jurisdiction of the commission. So, any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, I will call for a vote. George Elliott, how do you vote? I vote aye.
Thank you. Jed Larson, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. And this is Megan Lally. I vote aye as well. So the motion carries three zero zero. Okay. So you have on the record, Ruby, the commission made a determination that the activity on the front property line is is not in our jurisdiction. So as long as that activity does not in some way impact the wetlands. So for example, to make sure you have erosion and sediment controls that there's not gonna be complaints of, you know, sediment leaking in the front property line and and going towards the back of your property or something like that. But otherwise, it's not in our jurisdiction. So, we can't tell you that you you can't do that activity. Or the neighbors. So
okay. I think, unless anybody has any other, well, not anybody, but if the commission or if Ruby has any other questions or comments or agent Halsey acting as agent Halsey. I think we can move on from this agenda item. Okay. Alright. You are welcome to stay on the line, Ruby. You don't need to. You're you're welcome to to leave the meeting as well too. Alright. So the next item on the agenda is, item five, other business. I pulled the agenda so everyone can see it. And I wanted to bring this up for the commission to consider. Basically, we've talked about this in the past. We don't currently I'm trying to find you all again. Sorry. I lost my I don't know where you went, but hopefully you can see me.
I did complete the state wetlands training, so I am eligible for the commission to authorize me to make decisions for the commission in the Upland review area as long as it's a minor activity, if the commission so chooses. Unfortunately, since there's only three of us on the call and I would recuse myself from voting on this issue, I think it's probably best if we leave this agenda item until our next meeting And just if there's any discussion. Sorry, I'm probably making a mistake trying to find my screens.
Ed thinks it's a great idea and hold it in a band until the next meeting.
I'm not looking for more work to do, but it's become apparent that I think some of the smaller items like sheds and decks and an upland review area that clearly have no impact on a wetland. If I could just sign off on those, for the commission so the town can proceed with those applications, I I'll find the time to do that if that's the commission wants me to do.
I have a question, not to confuse things, but would Jim be able to be seated for this or is that too I wish Park was on the line.
I think for two weeks, it's probably not worth it to confuse things in case it isn't legitimate. Right. Your next meeting is May 4.
You would know better than me. The first Monday of May. So yes, May 4. I guess I will motion that we table that agenda item, until the the May regular meeting given the absence of a quorum to vote on the motion if I recuse myself.
Jim Halsey, can you clarify that for me? You're talking about administrative approvals without commission. How about just review of applications, projects that are clearly outside the review for you? Activity that actually has to be published, correct? That type of thing. I think of administrative approval, I think of the kind where the agent approves it and then has to publish something in the paper.
Yeah. So administrative approvals based on the state statutes, and our our regulations, kinda echo the state statutes through the model regs, they are only applicable in the Upland review area. So if be it an agent, a commissioner, whoever is duly authorized by the commission to make approvals, they can only do so in the upland area. They cannot do so in a wetlands or watercourse directly. The other caveat, it well, there's three caveats. It has to be only in the upland review area. They have to have completed the state wetlands training, and, the activity has to be deemed minor, and unlikely, basically, to impact the wetlands or watercourse. So typically, when John Valenti was our agent, if there was any questions about third piece,
he would bring the application before the commission. But the thinking behind it is usually it's called like, I forget the exact terminology, but like the decks and sheds cloth. So if somebody just wants to put a deck on the back of their house, they're clearly nowhere near a wetlands, that they don't need to wait to go to the next wetland meeting to move their application along. So it's really intended for that purpose, not for bigger decisions. Whether it's the agent, myself, whoever, you cannot make jurisdictional rulings as a duly authorized agent. So I wouldn't be able to look at an application and say, that needs to go to wetlands or no, it doesn't. So that that's something that only the commission can do. So it it would maybe help us a little bit for for minor applications that come through that clearly don't have any wetlands impact in an upland area, but it wouldn't wouldn't take a huge burden off of the commission, to be honest.
But who would make the determination whether something is outside the air the Upland Review Area? Yeah, you could do that. You would have to do that. Well, I wouldn't have to, but Can
I sign off on wetland permits that are currently outside the Upland Review Area?
That's where I'm going with it. They shouldn't need a wetland permit. So you mean like, are you signing off that they don't need a wetlands permit? I'm
signing off on an administrative permit, yes. And a plan review. This doesn't need to go to wetlands. That's what I'm getting at.
Yeah. I think it it it's probably a question to give to Mark because I think it's kind of a a gray one because technically nobody but the commission can make a jurisdictional ruling regardless of where the location is. But at the same time, common sense would say if it's, you know, 500 feet away from a wetland, then it's just the construction of a deck, not gonna affect the wetland. So that's sort of one of those fuzzy zones. Okay.
I guess I'll I'll pose the question to Mark and whether I would ask him just so you have Just try to just to get practical side. I'd like to get legal opinions in writing so that my my my bottom is protected. Okay. So I motioned. Did anyone second Amanda? No? No one seconded. Jed will second.
Thank you, Jed. Any further discussion? Is George still on the line? I am unmuted.
Okay. I'm gonna rename you so I know it's you. Okay. So hearing no further discussion, I'll call for a vote. George Elliott, how do you vote? Aye.
Thank you. Jed Larson, how do you vote? Aye. And I, Megan Malley, vote aye as well. So motion carries three zero zero. We will table, that agenda item to the May regular meeting. So that brings us to the final item of business, which is adjournment. Move to adjourn.
George. George Elliott moved to adjourn. Jed seconds. Jed Larson second. George, remind me, do we need to vote or not? We do need to vote. We can't debate.
Okay. So we have a second, then I'll call for a vote. George Elliott, how do you vote? Aye.
Thank you. Jed Larson, how do you vote? Aye. And Megan Lally, I vote aye as well. So the motion carries three zero zero, and I will join the meeting at 08:40. Thank you all