Meeting transcript
IWWC Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
November 2, 2020 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
Thank you. Mr. And Mrs. Puerto, are you on the line? Yes, we're here. Perfect. Thank you. I'm just trying to connect my Bluetooth right now.
Second. I can wait until you're ready. I wanna make sure you guys are good to go. Okay. I have 07:03 by my clock, so we'll get started. Good evening, everyone. I'm Megan Lally, chair of the town of Andover's Connecticut Andover, Connecticut's Inland Wetlands and Water Forces Commission. It is 07:03 on Monday, 11/02/2020, and I'm officially calling the public hearing to order. I'll call the meeting to order and and open the public hearing. We'll begin with the roll call and if needed, seating of alternates. So vice chairman Elliott. Present.
Commissioner Jed Larson who's serving as PNC representative as well. Here. Thank you. Commissioner Jim Hallisey. Here.
Thank you. Commissioner Ed Smith has notified me that he cannot participate this evening so he's left the call. And then do we have alternate Commissioner William Monroe? Liam, are you able to turn your video on? Do you have video access? Yes. Perfect.
Okay, so I am going to see William Monroe for Commissioner Ed Smith this evening. So we have a full commission this evening. So next I'm going to read the legal notice of this hearing which was published on 10/23/2020 in the River East, and then again on 10/30/2020 in the River East. The public hearing notice, and Mindy, if you're able to bring this up, it might be helpful. It should be under applications, somewhere in the middle of, the materials associated with, twenty dash twenty seven, the top application. I'll continue. The town of Andover Inland Wetlands And Water Forces Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, 11/02/2020 at 7PM to hear testimony and comments on the following applications: WWC twenty dash twenty seven, Ruby Puerto and Najin Puerto, 129 Hebron Road, Andover, Connecticut. Application to erect a concrete stonewall fence, install an in ground pool with associated 15 foot by 12 foot utility shed,
and construct a 26 foot by 32 foot two car garage with accessory one bedroom apartment within an upland review area. Directions to participate in the Zoom meeting will be provided on the IWWC regular meeting agenda for Monday, 11/02/2020, and can be found here, URL provided. Comments, questions, or concerns may be presented at the public hearing or submitted in writing to the Andover Building Office, 17 School Road, Andover, Connecticut, twenty four hours prior to the meeting. Should any individuals need access to a public computer, please contact the building twenty four hours prior to the meeting. So having read the legal notice, I'm now going to provide a summary of the application and materials to date, and then I'll confirm with agent Wagner that there's no new materials that have been submitted prior to this evening, and I will confirm with the applicants that the information I presented is correct to them. So to begin, this is for application 20 Dash20 seven, which was submitted by Ruby Puerto and Najin Puerto, who are the property owners at 129 Hebron Road, Andover, Connecticut. The application was received by the commission on 09/15/2020 with all application fees paid. A site visit was held on 09/19/2020, and we are referred to the minutes which were approved for that site visit and are posted online. At the 10/05/2020 regular meeting of the commission, the commission determines that based upon the expert testimony submitted by engineer
Brandon Hanfield, that the application does involve proposed activity that may constitute a significant impact, in other words, a significant activity, and tonight's public hearing was scheduled as required by town regulations. The application accompanied by a site plan dated 11/10/2017 and revised 05/29/2020 includes several elements, including the following. Number one, a concrete stone wall fence to be constructed around the perimeter of the property approximately two feet inbound from the property line. Location includes wetland crossing. The original design proposed was a six foot high concrete fence with center tubes every eight feet. To construct the fence, the applicant would excavate four feet deep by one foot wide areas every eight feet around the property. The holes would be filled with four inches of gravel center tubes and 3,000 PSI concrete to construct six foot high pillars every eight feet. The finished pillars would be covered with natural stone railing would be installed between pillars. The finished height would be six feet tall and a design plan dated 09/10/2020 was provided with the original application. A modified design, which was modified specifically to allow, surface water flow beneath the fence has since been submitted to address commission concerns. The design is undated, but it's available online and labeled wall inlet outlet.
Activity within the 100 foot upland review area, is a 18 foot by 40 foot in ground pool, a 15 foot by 12 foot utility shed. Designs for the pool are submitted and available online. I don't believe we have designs for a utility shed online. A 26 foot by 32 foot two car garage and one bedroom apartment with associated gravel parking area, these are online as well. And I did receive confirmation from agent Wagner this evening that the septic system on the plan should be considered part of the application. It was previously approved by the health department but not by wetlands. So it does still need wetlands approval. A friend of the application submitted, the amount of disturbance includes removal of four feet by one foot by 720 feet of soil or an estimated 8.73 cubic yards from the wetlands or watercourse, and it's proposed by the applicant that the soil be reused on-site to level the front side of the driveway. Any remaining soil would be disposed of off-site. The amount in area disturbance in the upland review area was not provided, but based upon dimensions provided in the application, it's estimated to be seventeen thirty two square feet plus the proposed gravel parking area associated with the garage and accessory apartment. The commission requested review of the plans and application by Brandon Hanfield, a licensed engineer. His review is summarized in a letter dated 09/30/2020, which is available on the town website as well. In his review, Mr. Hanfield noted that it was his professional opinion that the proposed concrete and stonewall may be a significant activity, impact as defined in the regulations based on the following, and this is his language.
Excuse me. The activity, involves the deposition and removal of material directly in the wetlands. The wall creates a solid barrier, which could change the natural drainage patterns of the wetland by blocking stormwater runoff, either on the subject property or on the budding properties. The wall creates a barrier that may diminish the capacity of the inland wetland to support wildlife or other biological life. Without an adequate erosion and sediment control plan, the work may cause substantial saltation or sedimentation in a wetland. Based upon this expert input, the commission determines on 10/05/2020, that the application included a potential significant impact to a wetland and therefore warranted tonight's public hearing. Note that engineer hand fields review did not consider the following materials which were also submitted in association with this application. The updated fence design, which I noted previously, the proposed garage apartment design, the proposed pool design, which I mentioned previously, as well as a 09/04/2017 soil report written by, Matthew Davidson. Those materials are all available online. I believe that's all the information we have presented. Agent Wagner, is there anything I missed? Not that I could think of.
Mister and missus Puerto, is that an accurate summary of your application?
We, right now, we just want to submit application for the two car garage, the in ground pool and the tool shed. We're gonna, you know, just stop the fencing on the back, you know, we may continue with that project later around, you know, but today we just want the application for the two car garage and in ground pool and tool chair.
Okay, so if I understand you correctly, it sounds like you're proposing to submit a modified application that would not include the perimeter fence? Yeah. With that in mind, we'll open the hearing up to comment. I'm going to go over some rules for commenting. If you wish to comment, please notify the board clerk via the chat feature. You may also use the raise hand feature. If you can't figure either of these features out, then as a last resort, you can turn your video on and unmute yourself. We request that you try those two approaches first. The presiding officer for this meeting is myself. We'll call upon those who wish to speak one at a time. We're asking everyone to remain muted with their video off until they're called upon. Before speaking, you'll be asked to state your full name and address for the hearing record. And if there's a lot of interest in speaking, we'll limit initial comments to five minutes and then circle back to anyone that wishes to initial comment. Just a matter of procedure, all comments and questions should be directed to the presiding officer, not to the applicants or anyone else on the call. Can't poll individuals, take a survey, anything like that. We expect that everyone will be respectful of one another and each other's opinions. Interruptions and unruly behavior are not going to be tolerated. We will, start by muting and turning off video. And if needed, we will reserve the right to reject people from the meeting though. Hope that's not necessary.
Also just to remind everyone, the hearing is solely for the purpose of taking testimony to be considered in deliberations during the regular meeting of the commission. Commenters are asked to frame their comments relative to the criteria for decision outlined in section 10.2 of the Andover Inland Wetlands and Water Forces regulations. So basically, we want people to understand our the purview of our commission is very specific. This application may require other approvals, including we've talked about, health department or planning and zoning, but, just so the public is clear on on the scope of this commission, comments should address the environmental impact of the proposed application, feasible and prudent alternatives that could be considered, the relationship between the short and long term impacts of the proposed activities and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity of the wetlands and waterforces, irreversible and irretrievable loss of wetlands and waterforce resources, and any associated mitigation measures that could be considered, and the character and degree of injury to or interference with safety, health, or the reasonable use of property, including abutting or downstream property, which would be caused or threatened by the proposed activity or the creation of conditions which may do so. And finally, impacts of the proposed regulated activity on wetlands or watercourses outside the area for which the activity is proposed
and future activities associated with or reasonably related to the proposed regulated activity that may have an impact on wetlands or watercourses. Is. It should also be limited to scope outlines in the public hearing notice and we will remove the wall element from tonight's discussion based on the applicant's expressed interest in removing that component from their application. Excuse me, with that understanding, the commissioners will have the privilege of speaking first this evening. I will turn the floor over to Vice Chairman George Elliott if you have any comments or questions on the application.
Yes. Since we're not going to discuss the fence application, I wonder if the comments and concerns questions and concerns from Amy Knox, which were entered on the website recently, and the videos attendant on that will be part of the record for this hearing.
So I believe it should all still be entered into the record, just procedural reasons. But with the understanding that the commission is expecting the applicants to submit a modified application, We can discuss for when, but I would that answer your question?
Well, I lost the last part of it because you went on a web mute and I wasn't getting any audio you weren't muted but my audio just blanked out so in any event, I'll move on then to a question basically about the remaining components of the application, the in ground pool and the garage with accessory apartment. In both of those cases, our consulting engineer made some suggestions about relocation or reorientation that would mitigate potential impact on the wetlands. These are of course in the wetland review area, the upland review area, but they are especially with the pool there's a possibility of direct impact on the wetlands. The question I have for the applicants is well, a question I'm going to address to the chair for the applicants is will there be any consideration of those comments in our in the revised application that you intend to submit?
I'm going to ask the board group if she can pull up the letter from Mr. Hanfield to assist the applicants with responding to your question. Document would you like me to pull up again? Sorry. So it's under applications, the top application and then there's a letter from Brandon Hansfield. You can scroll down. Number four. Right, item four. Yes.
So the question to the applicants is these are proposed alternatives that the commission's engineer suggested to minimize the impact of the project proposal. Have you considered any of these for a b c or d? And if you rejected them, can you explain to the commission why?
Hello? Okay. Yes. Definitely, I consider the comment for the engineer and, you know, I already analyzed the situation just in case if I have to do it to relocate at the pool and relocate at the two car garage, I would do it. You know? But in in my opinion, because of the in ground pool, you know, I don't make any impact in the because I'm I'm out of the 100 I'm out of the the the women line. You know? So I'm I'm gonna do the in into the 100 feet. So I would say if we can continue, you know, to to do it in the same spot, I would be happy. If it's not, you know, if I have to relocate it, I will I will do it. Yes.
Okay. I think to help discussion, Mindy, can you pull up the most recent dated site plan? One dated ninenineteen, yep. And are you able to zoom in on kind of that top left box? It looks like that's either oh, here we go. Thank you. That's much better. Okay. So since we did that, I can't see the north arrow. Is this oriented with the top of the page being north? Okay, so just because he was referencing moving I think most of the items rest. So the proposed garage and one bedroom apartment up top. So you're saying it would potentially be possible to move those to the West closer to the home was the engineer's recommendation? So, mister Puerto, at the top of the drawing where the proposed garage and one bedroom apartment is, the the recommendation of engineer hand build was to move that, to the West closer to the existing residence. Is that The
Yes. To the west, more of this length towards the house? Yeah. I'm going to How closer? How much closer?
That's up to you guys. He give a specific distance.
But why does he want us to move it further down
or closer to the house? I'm going back to the letter here. Like to reduce clearing disturbance and or proximity to the wetland so it may simply be a matter of increasing distance from the wetlands.
Far is right now? If you see in a plant,
the the the two car garage is not in a 100 feet of the of the wetland line. If you see the point, it's it's more I think we are right off of that.
Can you help me find oh, I see now the 100. Mindy, are you able to find the 100 foot regulated line? Can you point out that kind of dark hash line in the middle of the drawing? Yep. Okay. So that that's the Oh,
okay. Yeah. That's the 100 feet. Yeah. We're gonna move I would say I can move 10 feet where the location is right now. Can move close to the house 10 feet more.
Okay. So that was one and it may be that, you know, the things you propose are not possible. You have limited material to go on. We just need you to discuss whether you considered it and you know whether it can be done and if not why. And then so the second recommendation for B in his letter was whether the proposed pool could also be shifted to the west so in the direction of Hebron Road closer to the house and or rotated 90 degrees.
Okay. 90 degrees. That would be like a torched face down to the two car garage?
Let's see. Then okay. So we can talk about this together. So four c was the proposed utility shed could also be shifted to the west or placed to the north of the pool. The west? Okay. So, Michael, I wanna be clear.
Regarding to the the tool chest Is there any way we can point on the map or no?
Mindy, are you able to give them any type of access that would allow them? Hold on, sorry. Don't know why it's doing this. I can, but if they explain it to me, I can circle or move things. Okay.
I know it's not ideal. I'm sorry. Do they want like, would it be an option to put the utility shed where it says a stalk pile area or something on the dock? Is that where he's advising to do, or does he want it on the other side where the step?
I think his recommendation to shift the tool shed West would be dependent on moving the pool of course, otherwise you'd be in the pool. So if you were able to shift the pool West also or rotate it, then potentially the shed could be moved, to the west closer to the road further from the wetlands as well. Okay.
So I'm just trying explaining my Can we okay. So can we move the pool? Right now, it's going it's it's horizontal if you see it from your computer. Right? So if we put a vertical location the but vertical, will they allow that?
I think that would be in line with his recommendation. Yeah, he had said if you rotated it 90 degrees and then it looks like based on 4C shifting the shed towards the road. Looking at the page to the left also then they'd both be further from the wetlands. Okay. And
then we will be rotating the shed or we can Would it matter where the shed will go or not necessarily?
Not necessarily. I think the point is just to see if you've considered. The way I read Mr. Hanfield's letter is basically what can be moved further away from the wetlands than it currently proposed to be. So I think it's up to you as the applicant to think about that. You have your septic in there too I think. Want my screen and I can't either.
Yes, it's in there. I'm assuming that's why they didn't even a bit more to the West. I'm thinking that's the reason too.
And there may be Commissioner Halsey or Commissioner Larson, if there's zoning regulations that you're aware of that would prevent these things from happening, please feel free to share that knowledge.
I am not aware of anything in the zoning regs that would preclude what they're currently looking to do. We'll have to go through in detail the details on the accessory apartment, but the zoning regs I think allow in concept what they're looking at here.
Are there, I guess what I'm asking is, are there minimum distances that, so if they're shifting the new elements closer to the dwelling, are there any minimum distances that zoning requires that they'd then be in violation of?
At this time, I don't know. We might have some regulations on swimming pools. I haven't looked at those in detail yet. I was more concerned on the wetlands issues at this point in understanding them.
All right. I just don't want us to encourage them to do something that then they're going to be told by the next agency they can't do. Okay, so I think generally we're already going to expect a revised site plan that has the wall removed from it. So I don't know if you want to work with your engineer to see what might be possible in regards to the recommendations that Mr. Hanfield provided to see what you want to propose to the commission, if anything.
Okay, so the next step will be, so we'll have to wait until the next meeting presents the new site plan, correct?
Unless the commission votes to so it's getting a little bit ahead of ourselves because we still have a lot to go through, but the commission could potentially vote to extend the public hearing to a later date and that later date may be sooner than the next meeting, but the commission can vote on that. Can I ask a question? Yes.
The public hearing was because of the fencing, right, or everything?
Vice Chairman Elliot, do you want to speak to that? I watched the video and read the minutes, but having not been at the meeting, I don't know if you want to speak to that.
Well, actually based on the letter from engineer Hanfield, there were two elements that could have made direct impact on the wetlands the swimming pool, backwash, and the fence. So those are the two elements that we considered to be significant impact and that would justify or warrant a hearing. If the revised application and plan delete the fence, if the fence is removed from the new application then we would reconsider the question of significant impact and the hearing would be pretty much this hearing would be moot in other words we would I don't think we would need to continue this hearing if we have an application
that that does not include the fence
yes okay because the pool at that time will be farther away from the wetlands as well since we're going to shift it to the other side with the expectation that you address the concerns raised by engineer Hanfield.
Is there anything else that we can do? That way we don't have to be like pushing it and like if I can do something else and just be more prepared and then hopefully have it approved by December?
Yeah. So we're gonna keep going and hopefully by the end of this hearing we will have those lines. We do need to continue with the public hearing, even I think although you have indicated that you'll submit an amended plan until we have that plan, we're going to move forward with the hearing, allow the public to comment on it. If you come back with an amended plan, as Vice Chairman Elliott said, those comments will be moved because there won't be a fence in your design anymore. But we'll just waiting for now. Vice Chairman Elliott, was there any other questions or comments you had?
My husband, I'm sorry. No, I have another question. There is any way we can get an approval today under a special secret that we got condition to get a new plant and respect the condition for the engineer. Because, you know, we've been waiting for these projects months and months and months. And the next year, something else may come up and and I think we already have all the information and I you know, the pro is gonna be on the condition to submit a new site plan to relocation the two car garage and the swimming pool two ninety degrees, you know, and by the time because after you, I have to go to build an insomnia, which already has a plan and already pay the fees for everything. So it's going to take time. So I would like to know if we can get a vote today under a special circumstance, right, to get a new site plan?
So not during the public hearing. So the public hearing is to collect information on the application itself. So we'll give all the commissioners a chance to comment on the application, ask questions of you, then the public, since we called the hearing, they have the chance to provide their input Once we feel like everyone's had a chance to answer questions, ask questions, we'll close the hearing. And then during the regular meeting, it'll be up to the commission whether they wanna continue with the decision on the application. So we'll either close the public hearing, I'm sorry, I'll correct myself, or we will determine that we need to continue the public hearing because we need additional information from you. But I'd like to keep going,
to let the other commissioners express a chance and then do the public portion. You'll be able to speak. So once the commissioners have asked all their questions and comments, then we'll switch to proponents of the application, which presumably would be yourselves. So you'll have a chance to add anything else that you want to. And then we'll give a chance to opponents of the application. And then at that point, we close the public hearing, which is just kind of an information gathering portion. So just to be direct the hearing, which is one part of our meeting tonight, we can't make a decision within the hearing. Sorry, it's very ambiguous. Keep moving forward. Want to resolve this issue as well. Vice Chairman Elliott, did you have anything else you wanted to ask or comment? No, I'll pass it along to another commissioner.
Okay, thank you. I'm going to turn the floor over then to Commissioner Larson.
At the last meeting, we had asked the question of what the impact from back flushing the filter from the pool would have on the wetlands. And I don't know what the back flushing would do, but that also has the potential to be a significant impact on the wetlands as well, I think. And I wondered if the applicants could address the backflushing.
Yes. Regarding to that question, nobody flushed the entire pool. You know? Basically, if I have to change the filter, what I would do, you know, just take a few gallons, whatever needs to be closed out, but I I don't think it's gonna be a lot of water because nobody entered the pool. You know, everybody, what they do is is maintain, you know, every year with the and everything necessary, which already is in the application and the pipeline for the pool. They already have information, you know, specific everything, how it's gonna be the cleanup. And, definitely, I would like to respect, you know, all the the regulation for the food, but I don't think, you know, you need to empty empty it out the entire food. It's just like, you know, just empty few gallons, we change the pool. That's what used to be done.
I'm going to admit my ignorance here. Can someone explain to me what back flushing of the pool means?
This is agent Wagner here. What I know if you hook a
plastic hose up to the filter and then run pool water backwards through the filter to clean it out, to clean the debris out that gathers in there from just regular pool filtration. So it can be like, 20 to 30 gallons of water maybe. I'm not sure the frequency. I think it depends on how much debris gets into your pool. But every once in a while, you have to run the water backwards through it to clean the filter out. And, also, those hoses, they're usually long flexible hoses, so they can be positioned. Like, you could run it from the filter outside of the upland review area if you wanted to, and then just pump the water out there. That would be my suggestion, I think.
Water is typically discharged onto the property that the pool is on when you're doing that flushing? Yes. But
you said 20 to 30 gallons, not an entire pool is typically
No, you wouldn't. It would just be enough to clean the filter, so not nearly the pool contents. Commissioner Larson, was your question adequately answered?
If the volume is 20 to 30 gallons, I think that gives me an appreciation. I didn't know if it was 20 to 30 to 100 or you know just how much that was. I do know there's a an amount of water that has to go back through the filter to get the debris out of the filter and that's water that's got the chemicals from the pool in it that have to go somewhere.
Do you have any further questions or comments, Commissioner Larson?
If we're not going to discuss on this application the building of the fence around the property, I do think there is a requirement that there be a fence around the pool to prevent people from going into the pool. And I would think that the fence should be addressed on the revised site plan that gets presented to us.
That was a good point. Any additional comments or questions Commissioner Larson? That's all. Thank you.
Okay. I'm going to turn the floor over to Commissioner Hallasing. Do you have any comments on the application or questions for the applicants? And are you able to unmute Commissioner Halsey? Yes. Okay. Think he's good. Yep. Can you hear me now? We can hear you.
You just muted yourself again. Okay. You should be good. Okay.
I had some questions about or concerns that plan that I've seen, the plan that was the most recent plan that I saw, it doesn't always differentiate between what's there and what isn't existing and proposed. And I I was wondering if that could be clear clarified with with a revised plan. And I'm just also looking at item eight b on the application, and it gives you a calculation of of material that that and I maybe I'm mistaken, but, I mean, there's a there's a fair amount of material out of the and where the pool where the pool is going in in the garage. They don't they don't see it on the applications or its material. Just a comment. Other than that, I'm all set.
Alright. Thank you. Mister and missus Puerto, when you submit a revised application, is it possible to, make clear to the commission which elements are proposed and which are not? I thought you had. Is there something in particular, Commissioner Hallisey, that is on a site plan that's not clear whether it's proposed or existing?
Well, portion of the actual fence, which may be a moot point now, and but iron pins were were it wasn't clear whether they were some of them are to be set and some of them have been were in, I believe. Maybe that's been clarified, I don't know. I also had a concern about this note on the the plan. Existing dwelling no footing drain. That's pointing to nothing as far as I can tell. That is not I mean that's referencing the house I believe. It looks like, to me it looks like a standalone structure. It's simply a note on the plan, I believe.
Mister or missus Puerto, can you speak to that note on the plan, whether that's meant to indicate a structure or a comment regarding one of the other existing or proposed structures?
Yeah. That's just a note the engineer put it there. There is no footing drain. That's what it is. It's nothing. So I I just think it's gonna be there.
Well, it's no footing drain where? I mean, what's it referring to?
Well, I mean, engineer the the engineer, he does the plan. Right? He knows better than me, but what he told me is just to let us let the commission know there is not gonna be a footing drain there. You know, just so you be clear so we're not putting any footing No. There's not gonna be footing drain where? It's a pointing thing. Exactly.
It's this you know I guess my point is I think that could be clearer. Whatever whatever it's intended to to Yeah. But today, it should be clear.
Okay. If you see the note, it's right off of the 100 foot line. Okay? This is more for the house, not for this matter we are discussing right now because this is right at right outside of the 100 feet. You know? So I think, I mean, I understand your question, but this is not into what we're talking about right now because it's just a note. It's nothing. And also, it's right off a 100 feet line. Did you see that?
Is it possible to remove that note in your revised site plan that you're going to submit?
Yes. Yes. I would tell my engineer to take it off because it's making completion. Yeah, I think. Okay,
all right. So just to summarize, that square is not meant to delineate a structure. It's just a note about the existing dwelling. And the recommendation is to remove it if a modified site plan is submitted. And I concur with Commissioner Halsey one of their requirements and I don't know if you can answer this offhand or if it's something that you need to come back to the commission with, but in the application, you did provide the amount of disturbance in the wetland area, but we also need to know the amount of disturbance in the upland review area. So not in the wetlands, but within that 100 feet adjacent to the wetlands. And that's where I think in the beginning, just based on the dimensions of the structures that you had provided, gave an estimate, having a more accurate, one of my questions was there's a proposed gravel driveway in association with the garage and the bedroom apartment. It looks like most of that would not be in the Upland Review area, if we could, and you could put it right on the site plan itself, just calculations of the area of disturbance, a, in the wetlands and then b, in that Upland Review area. Okay. Commissioner Halsey, was there anything else? Any other questions or comments?
Yeah. One more. I do I do recall a sidewalk at the sidewalk, which is not on this plan. A sidewalk along the drive driveway.
Yeah, Yosta. You can hear. Okay. It's like I say again, this is not is this is not into this Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction because that's called by the building department, not by the Weldman Commission. I would like to stay focused into the 100 feet, you know, any question into the 100 feet for the Weldman area, I will brief to answer, but this is not for this.
So just to be clear, we did speak before about the front of the property when the wall was under discussion. And I recall that we, I think did a formal vote that was out of our jurisdiction. That vote was specific to the activity. So the commission can, this is a common point of confusion which is why I'm stating it on the record. It is possible that activity outside of an upland review area could be under the jurisdiction of a wetland commission if that activity can be expected to impact the wetland somehow. So just by being outside of the upland review area, it's not outside of the commission's jurisdiction, but the commission would have to point out the connection basically so that the sidewalk is likely to impact the wetland or water course. In that case, then it would fall within our jurisdiction. I don't know if anyone feels that way. I don't personally think a sidewalk is likely to impact the wetlands on the back of the property.
It's in the front of the property. The sidewalk is on parking lot. Right. No,
a sidewalk on the front of the property I'm saying I don't think would impact the wetlands on the back of the property. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Yeah, no, no, we're on the same page there. It's actually along the side of the property,
the front. And I just, I understand what you're saying, Commissioner, Chair, Chair McMillan. I It seems like it's part of the project for me. Further comment.
Okay. Chairman Lally, if I could add to that, please. Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Larson. As long as we're going through and revising a site plan to present the proposal to the Wetlands Commission, it would be nice if that site plan was the same site plan that would be going to planning and zoning so that we're looking at the same drawing as the inland wetlands. And in that case, it would make sense to put the sidewalk on right now even though we may not be discussing that particularly with this approval. It's just good to have the same drawing reviewed by both We submitted the same site plan but
it doesn't need a permit to do the sidewalk, so that's why it's not in there. Exactly. You already talked to the building department and already asked that question if that needs to be addressed to the planning to say no because that doesn't require. But if it's necessary just to please the board, you know, I would do it.
Okay. Maybe we'll we'll come back to that one. Commissioner Larson, any other questions or comments? No. Okay.
Let's see. I think I skipped by accident. Apologize. Commissioner Smith is not on the call. Commissioner Monroe, do you have any questions of the applicants or comments on the application? Mindy can you unmute William Monroe if he's muted?
No I don't have any questions on this. It seems pretty The answer, a lot of questions were answered, especially about the wall. It seemed like that wall doesn't belong there, but. It seems like. Doing everything they can to try and move things a little bit away from the wetlands and get it out of the Upland review that that that seems productive. Other than that, it looks sounds fine. Looks looks good. Thank you.
Thank you. I had a few notes written down from my review. There are two site plans online and can you refresh my memory What I was having trouble finding the difference between the plan. It wasn't the revision date wasn't updated, but we have it labeled September 19 versus the plan that was initially submitted. Is there a significant change between those two plans? Yeah. Sorry, mister and missus Barto.
Well, the difference between both is just that on the first one, he didn't change the date. Once they requested the change of date, he just changed it.
But there's no, in terms of the Oh. Okay. All right. I couldn't find one. Thank you. So that was one question. Another question I had, the wetland delineation that's on the site plan, is that the same delineation that was performed by Mr. Davidson and described in his summary letter dated 09/04/2017? Yeah. Okay. It is likely that the commission would want to see on an updated plan a note to that effect that he was the certified soil scientist that conducted the delineation. I believe that was one of, engineer hand field recommendations as well. So you would want to, add that. I know we've removed, we're talking about removing the fence from your design. I don't know if it's come up. I didn't see it in the previous meeting.
Have you considered if you revisit the fence in the future and we don't need to go into great depth of this if you really want to just drop the fence conversation but not placing the, I guess it would be the eastern edge fence on the property boundary but placing it to the west of the wetlands. So basically moving the fence towards Hebron Road so that the wetlands would be on the outside boundary of the fence.
Can you say it again? Yeah, that was not articulated. I'm not too good with the Southwest,
it gets me confused. No, okay, so as you're looking at the site plan, so right left, we're looking at the same plan. On the right side of the plan, you have a property boundary that the proposal that you had submitted originally is to put a fence along the property boundary considered since the main concern is you know the impact of the fence on the wetlands themselves and I'm wondering if you've considered moving the fence to the left as we look at the site net orientation so that it would be to the left of the wetland delineation mark. Exactly where the shed is right now? Basically, where the utility shed?
So it would still be, if you want to keep it a straight line, kind of you've got the vertical line with the triangles to the right of it is your wetland delineation and then the darker diamond shaped line which is your silt fence estimated location. So kind of where you have those two, have you considered the possibility of if you revisited the fence, just not putting it on the wetlands part of your property but moving it more to the left of the site plan map so it wouldn't impact the wetlands at all.
There is any way I can take it out the fence? Because I talked to my engineer. That's one of the points. I don't like to be put offence right there because I don't wanna move my house to properties at once. If it's a You you cut out. Yeah.
I'm saying when I talk to my engineer about this plan and I say there is any way we can remove the fence because I don't want to have like my property looks like two property in one. If it's not necessary to install a fence I will remove it.
Okay I think that answers my question. Let's see what else I have here. You addressed that already. Hello?
Yes it looked like there was an erosion sedimentation plan provided with the application. I think that was one of the concerns. Can you hear me?
I can hear you. Can you hear me? Can me? You Can anyone hear me? I can hear you Megan. Can you use chat?
Just logged off. I don't see them anymore. Okay. All right, let's hold on a minute and see if they're able to come back online. Chairman Lalia? Go ahead, Vice Chairman Lalia. Could
you ascertain if there's any public or members of the public that are going to wish to comment on this application while we were waiting for the applicants to
return to the meeting. So I know Agent Wagner received some correspondence that if the individuals don't wish to speak tonight, those at least need to be presented. Mindy, did you receive anything via chat regarding people wishing to speak this evening? Not that I could see currently. If anyone has an interest, we're gonna wait a few more minutes in speaking this evening. Can you use the raise hand feature on your Zoom? So if your screen looks the same as mine, at the bottom of the screen, there's a participants button. And if you click that, it should, on the right side of your screen, show all the individuals in the Zoom meeting this evening. And then there's a button down at the bottom right that says raise hand. If you click that, so I'll do it for mine. There's a blue hand icon that'll show up next to your name that tells us you wish to speak. So you can go ahead and do that or there's also a chat option, on the bottom of your screen that if you click that you can type a message into the group chat to say that you wish to provide,
comments during the public comment period. Hello can you hear me now? Yes, yes. Alright, so while you were off the call we were just looking to see if anybody from the public that's on the call wish to speak this evening. So far no one has indicated that they do So that's all you missed while you were off. The question I had asked was one of the issues that Mr. Hanfield's review raised was that there wasn't an erosion and sedimentation plan provided in association with the application. Is that something that you have prepared that you could share with the commission?
No.
That something, so am Okay. I correct, do you intend to submit a modified application with the fence design removed and an updated site plan? Yes.
Can you submit an erosion and sedimentation plan with that? And I think agent Wagner would be happy to work with you on that if you need his assistance.
Yes, because I have no idea what that is and to see who can do it.
It's basically, I mean, silt fencing you have on site part of it, it's just addressing, know, particularly during any construction phases, how you're gonna control erosion and sediment from leaving the site into the wetland or the watercourse on the property. We want to know that in advance of approving any permits.
Is the steel fence on the plane something permanent or is something temporary?
No, typically they're temporary. It's just installed as a barrier between the the area of concern. So in this case, the wetlands and the the area of activity, during Do we have to put it up? Is it necessary to put it up or no? The self fence, well, it's on your design. So if you don't intend to put it up, just take it off your site plan design assuming you were going to do it. Yeah, so the silt fence, you've probably seen them driving around, it's usually a black material with wooden stakes, maybe one, two feet high and it gets partially buried typically or secured in some other way and it just prevents
stormwater sediment from leaving the site where you're working and entering the wetlands. Usually it's temporary. The wetlands agent inspects it before activity begins and then once the activity is complete, it's typically removed once you have wetlands, agent approval at the site stable and it's okay to do so but it's not a permanent feature. It's a way to But it's not our requirement either.
It's not a requirement, but I think the commission would expect you to address in some form how you were going to protect against erosion and sediment leaving the site and entering the wetlands during construction. Another way you wanted to propose doing so, that's a fairly typical common way, but that's up to you to develop that plan. Okay.
All right, so I think do any of the other commissioners before we continue on have any other comments or questions that weren't addressed during your chance? Yes chairman volley go ahead vice chairman elliott I
want to urge the applicants to work with their engineer to address the questions that we have raised and additional questions in the letter from our engineer Hanfield because for example the septic system is mentioned and you know that's going to be a factor in your application We're not engineers and we can't tell you exactly what you need to do. You have to work with your engineer to make sure that the site plan is adequate and reflects all of the elements that are required in the permit.
So agent Wagner was there anything you wanted to add before we move on to the public comment portion? Not nothing I can think of. Alright.
So with the commission having had its chance, we'll open the floor to statements for components of the application first. We would start obviously with you, Mr. And Mrs. Puerto. Is there anything additional that you want to add? No. Okay.
Is there anybody else on the call this evening that wishes to speak in favor of the application proponents of the application? Please raise your hand or use the chat feature now to indicate that you're interested in doing so. Okay and if there is someone that wishes to do so but is struggling with either of those you can also, I'll wait a minute if you want to unmute yourself or your video to go ahead and speak. Okay, I don't see anyone expressing interest, so we will move on to, hear comments from opponents of the application. I believe agent Wagner received some correspondence that needs to be entered into the record. Agent Wagner, I'm going to turn the floor over to you if you can review, any comments that you've received prior to this evening's meeting.
Yes, I I a bunch of let's see what I get. I got a letter from. Don't know if Mindy could share it on the screen.
Yeah, so we should we should be specific names, addresses, and then read the letter.
Okay. There's a letter from Amy Knox from 8 School Road, this is in a butter to the applicant's property. And she had some comments. That's a different.
I think the one that Joe's referring to might be posted online.
Yeah, I believe it is. I'll look up the title. It says questions and concerns from Amy Knox. It's posted on the website.
Is miss Knox on the call this evening? I don't see her name listed. Okay. If you could go ahead, Agent Wagner.
Would you like me to read them? There's one in her words. I do not know the technical difficult differences of intermittent stream or seasonal or storm event, but I did not appreciate mister Puerto indicating that he had not noticed water in the last few years. There is some kind of stream running through my property from 129 Hebron Road for a majority of the year. I wish the committee had looked at my side of the property more during the sidewalk on September 19. I am concerned that more projects at 129 Hebron Road means more litter floating downstream from the carelessness. They don't seem too concerned with placing their tree branches and such on their back property line. I wonder how mister Hillman feels about it. There is a stream running through my property from 129 Hebron Road most of the year. My children play in it as well as being used for various by various wildlife, deer, raccoons, birds, reptiles, etcetera. I do not want this disturbed. I have not seen enough information about the septic and its location, etcetera, for a decision to be made should slash did they have already have put a septic in, one that was required for the addition.
Do they want to move it or add to it? I am unsure. Are there plans to move the proposed pool? I saw no plans for an elevated fence just to comment that it will happen. I am not trusting this. If he says he hasn't noticed water, how will he put these in the proper location? Without clearly delineated wetlands boundaries, I am not sure how any decisions on these projects can be made. Thank you for your time and consideration on these matters.
Okay. Thank you. Since Ms. Knox is not on the call, we can't ask questions. Does the applicant wish to respond to any portion of that? You don't have to. We can move on to the next comment. It's just to give you a chance to respond. The question is, if do we have to, is this in reference to everything or was it just for the sanction? Can answer that. Only Ms. Zugz can answer that. So it's just to give you a fair chance. Any information that's presented, if you want the opportunity to respond to it, you as the applicant have that opportunity or we can move on to the next piece of information that was.
What do you wanna do? Back on the phone. You wanna answer? Okay. He says just move on. Okay. Okay. Next, Digit Wagner.
The next was that letter that you had posted. It's not on the website.
Sorry to interject the video one and two, were those? Oh, yeah, those are also from,
Amy Knock. They were submitted by her. They're taken on 04/14/2020 from her property 8 School Road, looking south along the brook towards 129 Hebron Road. One of them is that one is, some garbage that that she collected that washed out of the brook. Then the other one is just a video of the the water flowing in the stream.
Alright, so we can move on to the next. I don't believe it was submitted online because it was received after Amanda left. Mindy, do you have a copy of the other information that was sent to agent Wagner that you could show? Is that this letter?
Yes, this letter. I received it today. Too late to post on the website. Would you like me to read it in the record? Dear commission,
chairman Megan Lolly, we, the undersigned of this public record, respectfully advise the Andover Inland Wetland and Water Courses Commission of our strong objection to the proposed construction of the concrete stone wall at 129 Hebron Road as indicted and depicted on plans submitted to the commission, fence drawing revision, 09/10/2020, and wall inlet outlet drawing. Such construction would pose a serious and significant negative impact on the wetlands as well as disturbances within the regulated upland review area. There have been concerns with the excavation of soil, the depositing of rubbish, the cutting of trees, and the depositing of these trees a abutting neighbor's property in a regulation area. These concerns were expressed verbally to Andover public agents during spring and summer months and in writing to the commission in September. We respectfully request an investigation of all pertinent facts and necessary requirements before any permit for IWWC twenty dash twenty seven Ruby in Nejon, Puerto 129 Hebron Road, Annover, Connecticut for the in ground pool with associated 15 by 12 foot utility shed and a 26 foot by 32 foot garage with an accessory one bedroom apartment within an upland review area is granted. Respectfully submitted, Maria Tooman, William Hegner, Amy Knox, James Hillman, Joan Foran, Patricia Billings, Russell Billings, Mike Talaga, Melinda Hegner, Jessica Talaga, Dennis Foran, and Kathy Stern.
Was there any information submitted in association with this letter?
There were some pictures that I had sent to Mindy. They're again too late to post on the town website. And then there was some maps with locations of where the pictures were taken.
Mindy, are you able to pull those up? And while we're waiting for Mindy to do that, George, I see Vice Chairman Elliott that you have a hand raised.
Yes, indeed. I wanted to ask about the video depicting the water course. And there were string. Was this some kind of property boundary? Joseph, do you know?
These were taken 04/14/2020. So I believe that's the string for the wall that was built and the trench that was dug that has since been filled in. If you could clarify Ruby or Nehan, but I think that was for the wall that that's in the string no longer there. Okay.
Yeah, that that looks similar to what I saw when we first received a complaint. I went out to the adjacent property and that was what I observed. So I'm pretty sure it's from I don't know which property number it is, but if you're facing the house of 129 Heathen Road from the road, the property to the left, my guess is it's looking towards their property from back there. But I think that string was the original digging line that stopped. Does that answer your question, Mr. Maniliot? Yeah, that's adequate. Thank you. Okay. All right. Agent Wagner, go ahead.
Let's see. This picture I can look at the I'll just look up the pictures and then read what the description is. This is a picture six five seven four shows it was taken 07/03/2020 shows a filled in trench near the boundaries with 125 Hebron Road and 8 School Road properties. This one's 6585. Also taken July 3, lumbered trees and branches. The corner boundary metal pipe with pink tape showing boundary line between 129 And 139 Heber Road.
That's not for the boundary line. That's for the wetland. The boundary line is further down. It was another color.
Okay. This one's 6588129HebronRoad log pile. 6591129 Hebron Road log pile next to skunk cabbage. 6594139 Hebron Road, Ridgeberry soil, abundant understory growth. What is that, the other one?
The description is 139 Hebron Road, Ridgeberry soil, abundant understory growth. It doesn't say where it was taken.
But what is that affecting? Like, why they're showing, trying to show or showing? I'm
not sure. The person who submitted it isn't here to comment.
I would really love them to be in here today, honestly, to answer any questions that they might have.
Is 6595 Wetlands at 139 Hebron Road, Dense Tree Canopy. 6405. This was taken on April 14. It is stream at 129 Hebron Road.
So they were all over my property, and I didn't know.
Yeah. Because if you see the position where they take the the pictures, it's right into my property. I think this kind of raises the way they do it because maybe because we are Spanish. Let me tell the commission how I feel it. Because by the time I buy the property, know, I just try to leave a noise and have my kids safe. Okay? No matter how the people like the way, you know, they live, I respect them, you know, my part. But I see all the sign and all the comments and everything. And I see the position of the creature is right into my practice. I mean, it's for us.
And the last time, you know, when we walked into the property, the the commission saw a lady Amy. Amy crossed by my property without my permission. And I think, you know, all the proof they present there, I'm not saying they wrong, I just say we have no knowledge about this all these matters, but I think we need to be more professional and more human beings. Because my family deserve respect. My kids deserve a safety place. We're not doing this project because we're gonna bother my neighbors. No. But by the time I get there, I'm being suffering for my neighbor. And and I'm telling you right now how I feel because there is no way I can be quiet. Right now, I'm in this point because everything is a problem. Whatever I do is a problem. And I and I know that it's a man. He's he's not my neighbor. He's, like, two house up there. He's the one who was taking a picture without my permission. He's my property.
I'm telling the commission right now, if I see anybody else in my property without my permission, I will call the police and and I will do I will take a legal matter because I feel, you know, all this is just because I'm trying to eliminate. That's my first offer because I don't understand. Or do people
or are always are people always, like, this cautious when it comes into a project that is in the wetland area? Mean, with your expertise, do you see this all the time?
Excuse me. This Vice Chairman Elliott. It appears that Chairman Volle is now off the call.
Okay. She just joined via her phone. Oh, okay. The 1203?
Yep. Okay. Very good. I just want to say I think this discussion has gotten out of line here photographs could have been taken from outside your property depicting your property and the point here is that we're looking at evidence of first of all water movement a stream on your property this was not evident during our site visit because we did our site visit during a very dry period
Mr. Elliot, can you stop speaking for a minute? I just need to get logged back on. Sorry, I think I'm in a windy area where unfortunately it knocked me off the internet for a minute. Okay.
I think getting closer. I apologize. Alright. Let me pull up the Zoom meeting. Mister and missus Puerto, I am sorry. Mister Puerto just started speaking as I cut out. See if I can get the password. So what I was going to say while I'm logging in here was for the applicant. The commission has to allow the public to speak. The commission then has to take the information that's presented and Okay. Okay, I think I'm in. Let me start my video. Sorry about that. So I'm just gonna encourage the applicant to just hold off on uncommenting. Just because information is presented doesn't mean that commission is going to consider it as part of its decision. If it's not relevant to wetlands or it's not
related to the criteria for decision, it won't be considered. And I just don't want the conversation to get off course. So what agent Wagner was going through is he was I believe emailed a series of photos with a description list of those. So by law, we have to read all that into the record, put it in the audio and video recording for the meeting. And then if there's anybody, I I don't know. Was there anything after this, agent Wagner, that you had received prior to the meeting? No. That was that was it. Just these pictures. You did you make it through the pictures? No.
Okay. So I am trying to find mister and missus Percho's video. Okay. Where you guys are? So we're just gonna go through all the pictures. He's gonna read what was sent to him by email so it's on the record. And then if at the end of that you want to comment, you're welcome to have a minute to do so. But let's just get this on the record so that we can keep moving forward if that's okay. All right. Go ahead, agent Wagner. Alright. This is, 6407,
taken 04/14/2020, excavated trench with disturbed soil. Next the 6408, also taken 04/14/2020. Stream with skunk cabbage, sim simulocarpus footitis. It's a scientific name on it. K. It's six four one five stream with skunk cabbage taken 04/14/2020. Six four one three, 04/14/2020, excavated trench slash stream near soil disturbance. Six four zero nine, 04/14/2020 stream. Six three nine two, February 20 or no, 03/20/2020. Excavated trench westerly and near Route 316 facing east. Six three eight nine taken 03/20/2020, 125 Haven Road property, well location. Six three eight eight, 03/20/2020, excavated trench groundwater diversion. Six three eight six, 03/20/2020, excavated trench, groundwater diversion from an upland source. This is, six three eight three, 03/20/2020, excavated trench. Six three eight two, 03/20/2020, excavated trench. Six three eight one, 03/20/2020, excavated trench. Six three seven nine, 03/20/2020, stream flowing across excavated trench with disturbed soil. I believe that's it. Yes. That should be it.
Would you like me to bring up the maps that they had? Yeah, if you can, so it's on the record.
Yes. One shows locations of photos taken on 03/20/2020. It's got dots on it with the photos numbers, so it shows where each photo has been taken from. Just one of the locations of the photos taken on 04/14/2020. The stock corresponds to the numbered photo. And this one is the locations of the photos taken on, 07/03/2020. And this is the list of the descriptions that I read off earlier.
Adrian Wagner, we just need to make sure that all that gets posted, with the rest of the public hearing information, preferably tomorrow if possible. I'll just comment I think the intent of a series of photos is to demonstrate to the commission that there is a wetlands and a possibly intermittent water force involved in the application. And I don't think there's any question about that. The applicant submitted a soil scientist report that pretty much says that. So I don't think they're in dispute with that. I'm looking for the language I'm looking at. So in the letter, summary, 09/04/2017 that the applicant submitted that was written by their soil scientist Matthew Davidson, he noted the delineated area is a seasonally saturated wetland draining from south to north along the eastern boundary. Delinated wetland is also characterized by inclusions of moderately well drained soils, which were not delineated. Portions of the wetland interior, particularly to the north where the topographical gradient increases exhibit channelized flow and meet the definition of an intermittent water force. So I don't think that's under dispute. I just wanna make that that clear,
to all involved. Agent Wagner, did you receive any other materials prior to the meeting? No.
Okay. Does the commission have any I don't know how well we can answer them since the, the individuals that submitted it aren't on the call this evening, but does the commission have any questions or comments before we proceed? Okay, hearing none, we will move on. Last call, does anyone on the call wish to speak, either in favor or in opposition to the application? I'm not seeing anyone raising their hands or I don't see any chat. Mindy, do have anything on your end? Nope. Okay. Does the Commission have any additional questions or comments of the applicants? And does the applicant wish to add anything further, to the public record? I don't think so right now.
Mr. And Mrs. Puerto, based on this evening's public hearing, I believe it's the Commission's understanding that your intent is to submit a revised application?
Yes, we are going to because we want to move on with the project.
Understood. I think based on that, I would entertain a motion. It seems appropriate to continue the public hearing until that information can be received by the commission for review. Vice Chairman Elliott, you're muted.
Chairman Lalia, I would move that we continue the public hearing CINED until we receive an amended application, a revised application with the requested and necessary revisions before we can entertain the application.
By regulation we have to provide the applicant with the date and time of the continuation.
Okay, then it should be held in conjunction with our next regular meeting.
The motion is to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting, which is scheduled for Mindy. Can you help me? I believe it's December 7, but I don't want to speak incorrectly. December 7. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Second Commissioner Hallisey. Okay discussion. I think it's nondebatable.
Does Do you believe you could come up with a revised application sooner than the next regular meeting?
Yes. I wrote everything down that they asked for today. And so we will also do the revised side plan as we discussed today with the changes. I just have a question. So if I have everything, I submit everything until then the public hearing will be scheduled, but once we have the revised application and all the paperwork necessary, then it's not a public hearing anymore, right? Because of the other stuff that we are changing?
So we would close the public hearing at that point and then we would discuss the application within the regular meeting. Okay. Public hearing has been convened it needs to be carried through. So yeah. If we set, I don't know if the commission's willing to do so, I'm gonna suggest the commission consider meeting sooner than the next regular meeting if we set that date sooner and you're not prepared at the next, at the meeting, it would obviously be problematic. So do you want to give yourself buffer time and stick with motion and look at the next regular meeting?
Yeah. We can do that just in case because I don't know my engineer, how soon is he is he gonna be able to do the changes and stuff?
Okay. I think that's probably the safe way to go. I know you're eager to proceed with this.
Let me ask. Hold on. Hold on. So he says, can we do the hearing in two weeks? Or it has to be or we have to wait until the next meeting? I was kind of lost there.
So the motion on the floor made by Vice Chairman Elliott is to hold it in conjunction with our next regularly scheduled meeting which would be December 7. I can open the floor. The floor is open for discussion by the commission and I'm asking the commission if they would entertain holding a special meeting public hearing sooner. Chairman Ali? Go ahead Vice Chairman Ali.
Okay. The motion right now is to continue the hearing. If we have a special well, if we have a hearing at a date sooner than the next regular meeting, we would then also have to have a special meeting specifically to review and discuss the revised application, correct? Otherwise, the application wouldn't be addressed until our December 7 meeting. So it seems to me that it would be simplest just to have a continuation with our in conjunction with our regular meeting because really we won't deal with the application until that December 7 meeting. We're not going to approve, we wouldn't be able to approve the application any sooner if we have if we continue the hearing at an interim date. In other words there's no idea.
Yeah. I was confused. I didn't understand. So it's okay. We can wait until December. Alright. I know that December meeting was fine.
Okay. Any additional discussion by the commission? Okay, so then I'll call for a roll call vote. So the motion on the floor is to continue the public hearing until our next regularly scheduled meeting, is December, make sure I say the right date, December 7 at 7PM, most likely via Zoom, but we will confirm that, prior to the meeting. So vice chairman Elliott, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Halsey, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Larson, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Monroe, how do you vote? I'm gonna take your hands up as as an eye. Aye.
Thank you. I vote aye as well. So the motion carries five zero zero. We will reconvene the public hearing at our December 7 meeting at 7PM. So with that, I will accept a motion to adjourn, the public, the current, session. To close the public, I don't know what's the language. Somebody help me. I'll make a motion to adjourn the public hearing. Thank you. Second the motion.
Okay. So there's a motion to adjourn. Seconded, motion was made by commissioner Larson, seconded by vice chairman Elliott. I don't think there's any discussion. So we'll do roll call vote. Vice chairman Elliott. Aye. Commissioner Hollissey. Aye. Commissioner Larson. Aye.
Chairman Monroe. Aye. And Chairman Lally, I vote aye as well. So motion carries and the public hearing is adjourned at 08:40PM. Okay, so agent Wagner, if you could please work with Mr. And Mrs. Perto to make sure that they're clear on what the commission is looking for in a modified application prior to the December 7 meeting, that would be wonderful. Okay. Alright. So with that, I will call the regular meeting to order at 08:42PM. I will do a roll call vote just for formality. Chairman Lally is present. Vice Chairman Elliott. Present.
Commissioner Hallisey. Present. Commissioner Larson. Here. And Commissioner Smith is absent, so I will seat alternate commissioner William Monroe, who is present in his place. Okay, so moving on. I think I'm just gonna kinda go out of line here. Missus Puerto, just so you know, and I don't have you sitting here, so we won't revisit your application, the rest of the meeting. So we'll talk to agent Wagner in between, and then we'll, we'll talk to you again at the December meeting. You're welcome to stay on the line, but I just want to make that clear. Any additions or changes in the order to the agenda? I had one. I would like to motion to move item 11C, which is discussion of duly authorizing agent Wagner to become, it would be the new item five on the agenda. Chairman Loeley, I move to relocate 11C to five. Thank you. And everything subsequently renumbered accordingly.
So I have a motion by Vice Chairman Elliott. Is there a second? I'll second.
Commissioner Larson, discussion? Commissioner, my rationale is that there may be items on the agenda that if the commission chooses to appoint agent Wagner as a duly authorized agent, he could handle in between now and the next meeting. Correct.
Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, I'll do roll call vote on the motion, which was made by vice chairman Elliott and seconded by commissioner Larson to move the current item 11 c up to, a new item five on the agenda. Vice Chairman Elliott. Aye.
Commissioner Halsey. Aye. Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Monroe. Aye. And Chairman LaLee, I vote aye as well. So the motion carries. Okay. Any other additions or changes in order to the agenda? All right, hearing none, we will move on to item four on the agenda, which is approval of the 10/05/2020 regular meeting minutes.
Chairman Lawley, I move to approve the minutes as subject to discussion.
Thank you. Do I have a second? Thank you. Commissioner Hollisky seconds. Okay. Discussion?
Yes. A couple of points. For the recording secretary, a global correction. My surname is spelled with two L's and two T's. More substantively on page three, line two, I would move to delete the word, strike the word automatically in the sentence, this would automatically trigger a public hearing on the application. The word automatically represents my misunderstanding of the regulation. I would like to strike that from the record. Further discussion?
There's one typo on page four, line four. Okay, yeah, the word need is singular, not plural. And on line eight, there's the phrase amended an application.
On page four, line four, the line that begins with close proximity.
Wait a minute, I may have gotten my pagination incorrect. Don't notice? The glasses.
Andy, can you mute, Krishna Halter? Oh, no, he's back.
It's really just a typo, so we can pass on with that. I'm sorry, got my references wrong in my notes here. It's a PDF file, so I couldn't annotate it in the file. I
had a few corrections while Vice Chairman Elliott is looking into that. So under item 5A, the current minutes read that the September 15 regular meeting minutes were, basically approved as amended, but I watched the video and there was no amendments to the minutes. So I think that should be corrected so not to mislead anyone in the future. Under item 5B, I just wanted to make the comment that the terms watercourse and wetland are defined in the regulations in sections 2.3.6 and 2.3.7. So any questions regarding those meanings, you should refer to those definitions. And then on page two, the paragraph that begins with Jay Larson moved also reads that Jay Larson seconded. So this is the fourth paragraph down. In the video, Ed Smith was the second on that motion. Also on page two under item B, the second paragraph that starts with G Elliot noted, site walk, it's a minor correction, but that should be sidewalk, not sites walk. That may have been it for for my edits. Oh, is sidewalk dotted on the site walk?
Oh, yes. Oh, okay. Thank you. So strike that one. Sorry. I was reading quickly. All right. My eyes jumped. Any other discussion on the minutes? Okay, I'm hearing none. We'll move on. Roll call vote. Vice Chairman Elliott. Aye.
Commissioner Halsey. You're muted Jim. Can you unmute the commissioners? Mr. Halsey how do you vote on the motion to approve the minutes as amended? Permanent, aye.
Thank you. Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Monroe. Aye. And I vote aye as well. So the motion carries five zeros. Okay. Next item on the agenda is the new item five which was previously item 11 C discussion of duly authorizing agent Wagner. Agent Wagner did complete the required, DEP municipal inland wetlands agency comprehensive training program on 08/17/2020. And agent Wagner, how many how long have you been with the, the town now?
Since that was the July meeting was the first meeting I attended. I think that was also the first day I started.
That's right. So coming up on on five months, I guess, I'd like the commission to consider, duly authorizing agent Wagner to do approvals in the upland review area. The commission could limit such approvals to certain types of activity. And agent Wagner noted that, he participates in a wetlands commission in his own town. They have the practice of applications still come before the commission but then the commission basically can delegate them to the agent for approval. So that could be a compromise as well would be to still have all applications come to the commission but then if the commission reviews an application feels it could be approved by the agent and not have to wait until the next, regular meeting that that would be, that could potentially expedite some applications as well. Were you going to say something, Vice Chairman Elliott?
I was going to make a motion basically to the effect that we authorize our Loveland's agent to the same extent that you are currently authorized. I don't remember the exact wording there but I believe that it's to approve activities in Upland Review area.
So the limit to what he would be allowed to, if we gave him the full scope of what's possible is it has to be within the Upland Review area and it has to be expected to be not a significant impact to the wetlands. So anything that was within the wetlands or was likely to be a significant impact, the authorized agent has not gone. The commission can further limit what he would be allowed to approve. If it still chooses. Think I interjected before there was a second. I apologize. Is there a second to vice chairman Elliot's motion? I will switch that motion. Commissioner Halsey. Any further discussion?
I'll just comment. I don't see any need for further restriction of the agent's authorization. Commissioner Larson or commissioner Halsey? Commissioner Munro? Additional? No comment.
Thumbs up from Commissioner Monroe. Okay. I personally feel that agent Wagner has done an excellent job since he started and I feel comfortable, supporting authorizing him in the, for agent approvals in the Upland review area. Does the commission want to grant him the authority to do that on his own? Basically the way that we did in the past when John Valenti was the agent the applications came through him and he would screen them if they were up in review area only and he felt that he could make an agent approval he would do so. So he would just report on it at the next meeting to the commission and we wouldn't see the application prior to that
model that agent Wagner indicated that they use in his town is slightly different. The applications still come before the commission and then the commission makes the motion to say we're going to pass this back to the agent to do unauthorized agent approval. I don't know if the commission has a preference on how it would like those to be handled, whether we would like to still see the applications come before us or, defer agent Wagner's judgment as to which should come before the commission?
First, I would like to defer to agent what comes to the commission. I think it's just imperative to to move. Commissioner Larson.
I'm happy to have the agent act on those he feels appropriate and refer them to us when needed. Commissioner Monroe? I feel the same way. Mr. Manila.
As I said, I don't see any need for further restriction. And the whole idea is to reduce the workload for the commission. So let's leave it with the agent.
Agent Wagner, any comments before we No. No comment. Would you be in support of the commission making you a duly authorized agent? Yes.
Okay. Alright. Then let's do a roll call vote on the motion to approve agent Wagner as a duly authorized agent to make approvals on behalf of the commission for activities that don't involve a significant activity and are located within the Upland Review area. Vice chairman Elliott, how do you vote? Aye.
Policy? Aye. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Monroe? Aye. Thank you. And Chairman Lally, I vote aye as well. Congratulations, Agent Wagner. You've just increased your workload. So all right. With that, we'll move on to what is now item six on the agenda, public comments. If anyone wishes to comment from the public, please either raise your hand or use the chat feature to indicate such. Okay. I'm going to move forward seeing no one indicating, an interest in commenting, to what is now item seven on the agenda, which is a, combined show cause hearing and jurisdictional review, regarding, activity that's tentatively been given the identification number IWWC1 in the event that an application, is warranted, it will have that same number. But at this time there's not an application. Chris Cassidy, who's acting as an agent on behalf of Andover Sportsman's Club, who's the property owner at Route 6, was issued a cease and desist order related to a timber harvest and associated activities in a watercourse and associated upland review area. Prior to the issuing of that notice, we did have the item on our agenda, as a jurisdictional review, activity that might warrant an inland wetlands permit either, all or in part. Agent Wagner, do you want to introduce the items the commission?
The application for well, it's a jurisdictional review of the timber harvest Landover Sportsman Club, you know, 122 US Route 6. Let's see. I have here the notification of timber harvest form that was posted online. It was filled out on 10/12/2020 by Forrester Chris Cassidy of Hull Forest Products. I have a letter from mister Cassidy detailing the notification of timber harvest describing the project. That's also posted on the town website. I have a copy of the timber sale agreement between Hull Forest Products and the Andover Sportsman's Club that was dated 07/30/2020.
Was a copy of the order that was issued posted online?
I think it was. Let me check. I'm pretty sure it was.
The only thing that I see in enforcement actions is 31 And 44 Route 87. Can you summarize the enforcement order?
Order, to cease and desist, sent 10/29/2020, following activities have been observed to have occurred on your property located at 122 US 6 Andover, Connecticut. A timber harvest within the 100 foot upland review area of a wetland prior to a jurisdictional ruling review by the Andover Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Commission, and crossing of a wetland prior to jurisdictional ruling review by Andover Inland Wetlands and Water Coordination Commission.
So I see Chris Cassidy is listed in the participants. Are you on the call, mister Cassidy? Yeah. I'm here. Thank you. Thank you for waiting. Oh, no worries.
Can I get my picture up too or no? Yeah absolutely.
Cool. I think it says your video is on but we don't see you. Well I see you it's okay can you hear me all right? I hear you excellent. So I talked briefly with Agent Wagner about how best to discuss this, and I think it makes sense to start with a jurisdictional review to determine whether Wetlands has jurisdiction or not. If the answer is not, then the cease and desist order, I presume, would be removed. But let's start there. I'm asking Mindy, can you pull up the map that Mr. Cassidy sent to Agent Wagner? Perfect, thank you. Okay, can you describe the proposed activity, walk us through it?
You'd like me to walk you through it? Yes, please. Okay. Well, what you're looking at is kind of our timber harvest map of the area and a network of skid trails that were existed. We harvested this property probably fifteen years ago. So, all these roads and crossings are existing woods roads. You could see the town line that goes through it and the wetlands crossings. There's two of them in Andover and one in Bolton. We've already gotten the jurisdictional ruling from Bolton. When I first started this project, I invited both agents out for a sidewalk. Barbara came at that time and approved that back one kind of on the spot. And then I heard from you guys kind of a little later down the road. It's a very conservative harvest. The main objective was to liquidate the ash that's dying from Emerald Ash Borer, clean up any of the dead oak from the gypsy moth and drought and kind of just lightly thin the rest of the stand. You can see our landing areas, there's two of them. They're on existing gravel access roads up near the trap area. We're doing the project cut to length, which means a harvester is cutting the smaller trees down and processing them to lengthen the woods and they're being forwarded to the landing area
with a forwarder. And then the larger trees of course are still cut by hand. There's a three foot slash height on this project. All the wetlands have been delineated and the harvest edge has been delineated by myself in the field. Pretty straightforward operation. Are you a certified soil scientist? I'm a certified forester.
Okay, forgive me. I'm gonna show my ignorance. Are certified foresters trained to delineate wetlands? Absolutely,
yeah we need to know where the wetlands are. Okay,
thank you. Can you explain what a landing area is? Sure, that's where the forwarder
takes the logs that he's drawn out of the woods and stacks them up for the log truck to come get them.
And on the map is that is purplish on my screen?
No, it's cross hatched in orange. Yeah, that's it. That's one of them. And then there's a No, I'm sorry. I had a follow-up question. The
town line is what I was trying to distinguish. Is that the kind of purplish?
That's it right there. Okay all right thank you. The one running north and south the other one is a weird lot line. Okay. For
the commission's reference, activity to the left of that line is in Bolton. Activity to the right of the line is in Andover. Agent Wagner, is it my understanding that you went out to the site? Yeah. Yeah. I visited it today.
Walked the site. What are or comments you want to share?
I looked at the two wetlands crossings. Yes. There's some pictures of it. There are existing crossings. This is the one. Let's see. Yeah. This, west of the shooting range. It's near the center of the map. The culvert you can see the old culvert that was installed previously. And then Chris informed me that they put the the timbers on top to protect the culvert when they're doing the logging operation. And then here's another shot of the same crossing with the timbers across it to support the weight. And then this is the other wetland crossing on the southeast corner near the airline trail. It's got some old old logs. You can tell it's been there for a while.
There's a culvert in there somewhere you can see barely see it on the next picture. It's kind of in the center of the picture. It's kind of like a dark pipe there, a little lower than the arrow. Yeah, right there. It's kind of overgrown.
Not a ton of flow through that wetlands at all really.
Yeah, looked pretty dry when I was there. And so yeah, the two west, the wetlands crossings that they're planning to use are established already and they have the pipes in there.
So all of the crossings that are depicted on the map were existing crossings? The ones that are in Andover.
Okay, yeah sorry in Andover. Minnie, can you yep, perfect. Thank you. Read my mind. All right, so is there any new activity in the wetland or watercourses? No, not that I saw. Okay, So no new placement of material in either? No. Okay.
Alright. So the first question well, I'll open the floor. Does the commission have any questions or comments?
Yes, Chairman Lolly. I questioned the Okay, it looks like, again, they were using timbers or corduroy on the wetland crossings. Would that constitute a deposition? I remember the discussion that we had in relation to the Route 316 proposal for a jurisdictional ruling where they were going to use corduroyce for wetland crossings. And our attorney advised us that that would be a deposition of material in a wetland, and it would therefore be under our purview and require an application.
Correct, so that was when this letter was submitted to agent Wagner and he passed it on to me. I did have, I believe it was Mr. Nidauer who had come before us with a timber management plan on his property that was the advice of our land use counsel based on that application that Corduroy in his legal opinion constituted placement of material in a wetland and therefore was not permitted as a use as a right. Same with any stream crossings.
I would say that these are temporary stream crossings and the corduroy is going to be removed. Anything that we add would not be considered deposition in the wetlands because we're going to remove it.
Stay with me. But I think the photos that agent Wagner just shared kind of changed things from my perspective. These aren't crossings. So I feel personally in looking at those photos, it looked to me more like placing wood on top of an existing crossing, which I think is somewhat different than creating new crossings. But maybe Joe, if you can bring, or Mindy, actually you're in charge, if you can bring those photos back up. So I think everyone was involved. Commissioner Monroe wasn't. So we had a previous application that I'm assuming it was only a few months ago. So the legal advice shouldn't have changed significantly, but attorney Mark Grant, who's our special land use legal counsel, advised the commission that they should rule that the portions of the proposed timber management in that application that involved placement of any material, including material that consisted of trees that were felled on-site into the wetlands did constitute deposition of material in a wetland and required a permit. It wasn't to say it couldn't happen, but it required a permit to happen. This is a slightly different case. It looks like a property where there's been logging occurring previously as Mr. Cassidy noted. So the question before the commission is whether it feels that this constitutes deposition of material into a wetland or not. Chairman Lalli. Go ahead. I'm
inclined to agree with your interpretation that this is being placed upon an existing crossing. It's essentially reinforcing an existing crossing. It's not a new deposition. So I would not regard this particular utilization of corduroy as a new deposition. Any other discussion? Commissioner Larson, Holisey Monroe.
This is Jed. I'm just trying to process that because I did review the previous case before the meeting tonight. And I'm trying to get an appreciation. Said these were temporary crossings. I don't, I'm trying to, should we have removed the material that's in the crossing, rather than make it a permanent crossing when we're logging, maybe once every fifteen years, I guess, that is my question I don't understand. Can I chime in or? Yes, go ahead.
It varies from town to town. This interpretation of the rule of whether corduroy is a deposition of the wetlands. From a realistic standpoint, working in the forest, The key is to open the channel back up but leave the approaches stable. And by leaving quarter right in on your approaches a lot of times that makes a more stable situation as that decomposes naturally into the roadbed and then when you revisit that site, you can then add to it and of course treat the channel if you need to. So kind of working knowledge within the industry, that's how we treat it. But certainly every town has a different way of viewing this type of thing. If these were new crossings and we really had to beef them up with a lot of brush and a lot of corduroy to stabilize the soil I would say yeah you're looking at something that could be skewed as a deposition because that material is going to stay there but in these situations like you said it's, you know, these are kind of foot trails and woods roads that the club uses for their three d archery shoots and their their sporting clays, so we're just kind of protecting the crossings that are already here. Does that make sense?
So perhaps you can clarify, are these roads specifically for the timber harvest or are these existing roads that are being utilized for the timber These
are multiple use roads. They were roads constructed by previous harvests that the club maintains as open roads for their passive recreation. If shooting guns is passive recreation, I think it is. That's a walk to get there. Don't know. Yeah, to each his own, you know.
I think that's well outside the purview of this commission to that point. Okay, any further questions, comments, discussion? The commission needs to make a, a jurisdictional ruling on, the, even though the project has already occurred in part, on the proposed project, the project that's, on the paper, whether it is, under the jurisdiction of wetlands and therefore requires a permit before, activity can proceed for that portion of the project.
Chairman Lawley. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. Would you rather have this motion in a positive or negative? I could move that it's not an activity in our jurisdiction and we could vote yes. Or I could move that it is and we could vote no.
I think the latter, although it's counterintuitive, is the preferred format.
Okay. So I'm going to move that this is an activity within our jurisdiction and would require an application. Do I have a second? Can you repeat that, Commissioner Elliott?
I'm moving that this is an activity, that the proposed activity is within our jurisdiction and that would therefore require applications, not an activity as of right. Can I still speak or?
So just, Mr. Cassidy, just so you understand what's happening legally, if we make a motion that it is within the jurisdiction and then everyone votes against that motion, we've made a clear decision. If we vote it's not and then the voting gets weird, there's outcomes that could be interpreted as us not having made a decision. So don't worry about the motion. No, no, don't,
you guys can do whatever you want to do. Just kind of want to lay some more information out on the table that a year ago I had a very similar project in Andover. Existing roads, we've logged it before. I submitted the exact same information to John Valenti. He called me, we reviewed it over the phone and he said, yep, no problem. This is within my jurisdiction to approve this. So that's kind of why I went forward with this because I did not anticipate any issues or permits with you folks.
So just so you're clear, the legal training I've been given is that only a commission itself can make a jurisdictional ruling. So even if it's completely obvious, an agent cannot make a jurisdictional ruling. It has to come before the commission.
Do you remember that project? I do not. It was for the yeomans on Bunker Hill Road, it was like a year Well, didn't come to the commission, did it? Certainly should have. It came to John.
But if John approved it without bringing it to the commission, then the commission had no knowledge of it. And quite frankly, and in relation to certain other activities, the feeling has been expressed that in some cases our former agent somewhat exceeded his actual authority. So let's just attend to the motion
that we have on the floor and move on with it. Well, I wanna make sure because Mr. Cassidy is gonna be doing business again in Andover, I imagine. I'm sure he's clear on the process and laws are subject to interpretation. They're not black and white. But the current commission and the current agent are going under the advice of our current attorney. And the advice that we've been given is that only a commission can make a jurisdictional ruling. So if there's a question, it has to come to the commission. The agent can't answer it. And the agent can only issue approvals in the upland review area. So if it was a new activity, there are a lot of aspects of the forestry that are considered agriculture and are permitted as of right. Anything that involves deposition of material into a wetland or water course is what DEEP would call a kick out and probably requires a permit.
So just so you don't get yourself in trouble, Agent Wagner may interpret things differently than Agent Valenti had in the past. So it's best to call him, which I think you did. I did, I I did. Well, I understand what happened and it is what it is. So you did give notice, you assumed based on your past experience that one thing would happen, we responded differently and it is what it is. Just want you to know going forward so that we're all on the same page. So Vice Chairman Elliott, you've made a motion that the proposed activity presented by Mr. Cassidy is under the jurisdiction of Wetlands and Refinery Department. That's correct. That's my motion. Was
that seconded by Commissioner Halsey? Yes. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, I'll do a roll call vote. Vice Chairman Elliott? Nay. Thank you. Commissioner Halsey? Nay. Commissioner Ellerson? Nay. Commissioner Monroe? Nay.
And Chairman Lely, I vote nay as well. So based on the information presented to us today, Mr. Cassidy, the commission has effectively voted that you do not need a permit for the activity. Okay.
And that vote, just so we're clear, is based on the activity that was shown to us at this particular site. So future activities at different sites, you need to touch base with agent Wagner. Okay. And the commission.
Right, who will then probably kick it to us, but just start with him. All right, so I think the jurisdictional ruling part is clear. So there is a cease and desist order. Joe, are you able to email it to Mindy or something so we can pull it up on the screen? Yeah, I can do that.
So when, agent Wagner, sent out the order, it was partly a timing issue. We wanted to make sure it sent out in enough time to able to hold the show cause hearing tonight and not have to do it on a separate date. But we weren't aware of the previous activity on the property. So there was potential. We felt that there could be, jurisdiction of the commission, but since the commission just rolled, that it doesn't feel it does have jurisdiction on this activity. I think a motion to remove the order, would be appropriate.
Mindy could you enlarge that one more notch? Thank you.
Can you scroll down, Mindy? Yep. Perfect. If If you can scroll down to the second page. Mr. Cassidy, so it is the cross hearing. Is there anything further you would like to share with the commission at this point? Well, I'm sorry.
Okay, that's fine. All right so as a reminder to the commission at the show cause hearing we have to make a decision does the order remain in place as written is the order removed or does it remain in place with modifications are basically the commission's three Chairman Lalie, I'll move that we withdraw the order.
Okay, thank you. So there's a motion by Vice Chairman Elliott that the cease and desist order issued for 122 Route 6 be removed. Is there a second? Larson seconded. Okay,
Commissioner Larson seconded. Any discussion? Agent Wagner, is there anything further you want to add? No. All
right, then hearing no further discussion, I'll do roll call votes. Vice Chairman Elliott. Aye. Commissioner Hallisey. Aye. Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Monroe? Aye.
And Chairman LaLaye vote aye as well. So the motion carries five zero zero to remove the cease and desist order that was issued for 01/2006. Great, thanks. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your understanding and good luck logging. Yeah, thank you. All right, so we'll move on to item what is now eight on the agenda, authorized agent approval. Mindy, if you can pull up the, I believe it's under applications. Let's see. I'm looking for the approval letter on this one. Okay. So it's under applications, that page. It's 20Dash29, the permit with conditions of approval final. Okay.
So, an application came to the commission through agent Wagner that was within an upland review area. Basically no significant impacts anticipated. So I did go ahead and issue an agent, duly authorized agent approval on behalf of the commission on this one. It was for the removal of two dead oak trees within 25 feet of the shore of Andover Lake. I asked agent Wagner to go out and inspect the property, which he did, And he agreed that he felt issuing the approval was appropriate. So the commission can disagree if they want. But otherwise, I am just reporting on the approval so that you're aware that it was issued on behalf of the commission.
Yeah. This is Callison. My recollection of previous similar activity, which would have been by the Hop River, was that the Commission had no jurisdiction selected for your removal.
I think it's a case by case basis. I don't remember the specifics of that one. I think I don't think there was any harm in the individual applying for the permit in this case. I think it's appreciated, you know, on behalf of the commission. But the commission they could have asked for jurisdictional ruling and and the commission may have may have ruled that way. But since an application was submitted, I just went ahead and issued the approval for simplicity. Okay. Was trying to
Chairman Lawley? Yep. I can comment. I believe in this case, Jim, there was a the commission did approve the logging on the Hop River, which is of course in the wetland, as opposed to this application, which is in the upland review area.
I don't have any problem with the activity itself I just I was trying to clarify my mind. Yeah. Don't was the difference.
Think Vice Chairman Elliott may be right. I'd have go back to those minutes. I don't recall offhand and I don't know if agent Wagner was with us at that point. No. Okay.
So we can't comment. I don't think we can revisit if it's of interest to the commission. But if there's no motion to overturn that approval, we can move on to the new item nine on the agenda, permit application. Okay. Hearing none, I'm gonna keep going. So we have, let's see, I believe I just wanna make sure I get these right. So twenty dash twenty eight is the first one on the agenda. That's a new application, from mister Bohm regarding 33 Route 87. Agent Wagner, did you work with mister Bohm to prepare this application? Yes. Can you present it to the commission?
It's an application to install a 12 by 32 foot shed in the 100 foot upland review area of an unnamed tributary to the Hop River. It's a basically, it's a position, the shed. Let's see what the if you could share it so I could refresh my memory.
Andy, can you pull up the site map associated with the application?
Yes, so it's a move the 12 by 32 foot shed feet northwest from the existing location. So onto the driveway by 10 feet closer to the house. So you gotta mister Bohm, the applicant would cut cut the driveway out and then drag the shed onto where the driveway was. And, there's a hay bale erosion control on this on the keeping the any fill from going into the stream. And then there would be any banks would be stabilized with fabric and covered with six to eight inch rock riprap to prevent erosion in the future.
Does this application satisfy the the remediation requirements of the cease and correct order that are in place for the site?
Yes. All the all the items that were recommended by engineer Bushnell and the remediation plan, I think it was I forget the date. It's on the application. But they've all been included into this into this plan. And actually, the other plan, I believe it was six feet. Move the sick the shed six feet north. This one is 10 feet, so it's actually going beyond engineer Bushnell's recommendation. Is there any wetland involvement in this application?
Not in the shed placement. That's all in the upland review area.
What about the the removal of fill in concrete and all all that activity? Yes. As part of the remediation,
like, the the movement of the shed would allow the remediation of the fill that was deposited in the wetland previously to be to be removed, and then it would be stabilized along with the rest of the bank. Does the commission have any questions? Chairman Lawley. Go ahead.
This is not really or this plan really adequate to our purposes. It doesn't show a lot of detail about topography or other elements of design relevant to our decision and I just want to make sure that the commissioners are happy with this map before with this plan before we you know we're not going to we're not going to consider this application until our next meeting we're just receiving it tonight correct so did you want me to answer that question
yeah I'd like I'd like a sort of poll of the of the commissioners
So part of the reason I asked Agent Wagner is whether there was wetlands involvement is if the commission feels that the activity that's being proposed is in the upland review area and doesn't constitute a significant activity, we could defer to him for agent approval. That's an item for the commission to discuss. As to the map, I'm interested in hearing other commissioner's thoughts. Chairman Lele? Go ahead.
Based on our previous sidewalk, I would recommend that we do a follow-up site walk. I know when we started talking about moving the shed six feet, that was an awful big shed and it would just be nice to see in relation to the screen in the change in elevation going down the bank there, you know how how it actually all gets laid out. I think that would be crucial to making the right decision. Mr. Halsey or Commissioner Monroe? Chairman Lawley. I
agree with Commissioner Larson. The key question here is, will moving the shed allow for remediation of the deposition that is the subject of our cease and desist order? And you know again without seeing delineation of the topography or and absent a sidewalk I don't think that I can make an informed decision on that question so I would be amenable to scheduling a sidewalk as well. Agent Wagner do you have anything to add?
Based on my multiple visits to the property, I feel like this would, this plan would move the shed to a place where you could, you could remove most of the fill associated with the the slope and then bring a slope to a reasonable level to limit the erosion. It's it's a plan that was endorsed by engineer Bushnell. The six foot one, which would have an even bigger slope. This one would be less, so it's a more conservative plan. So I don't I don't see an issue with it. It's a it's a shed in the Oakland review area. I don't think he needs to make a he's not building a a gas station or anything.
Okay, as I said, I was just concerned about, you know, moving the shed enough to make sure of remediation, because that was the sticking point on the previous application. That's why the Commission felt that the proposal to relocate the shed in the previous application was inadequate. But I respect your judgment and we'll take that as adequate testimony to the plan or to the proposal at hand.
Agent Wagner did you have thoughts because the activity does involve complying with the cease and correct order regarding how a permit could be worded to ensure that that order was complied with while also potentially granting a permit for the, the location of the shed?
I don't know. Because the the shed would have to be moved in order for the cease and correct order to be rectified. So I think that I feel like the permit has to happen before you can do the the cease and correct order. I feel like that I mean, that one is enforceable in its own right. So if the shed was moved and no remediation was done in the wetland afterward, then we would still have the original cease and correct order to enforce. So I think they're they're almost independent, and that the the permit has to happen first in order for the season correct order to to be able to happen. They could take it a machine down there to to get the dirt and fill out of the stream.
So if we were starting, I don't know if you can answer this, but if this application was starting from scratch and not from the existing violation, would fill need to be placed onto the property?
Yes. Yeah. There would be some fill, I think, that would have to be put on there.
Do you have any sense for the volume of fill and whether or not it would impact wetlands? I mean, know it's already there, I'm trying to understand this application, not relative to the violation, but relative to the preexisting conditions. The previous conditions, sorry.
Just looking at the original contours, there was a lot of fill placed there to build the original driveway. Probably when the house was built and you can see the line. I'm sure we all saw it during the sidewalk. So there would be some additional fill that would have to get added if there was no shed there. It wouldn't be enough of a slope to interfere with the wetlands. So I don't think it would be it would be clear that and then and then there's more it seems like as you get closer to the road, the area of fill kind of comes out closer to the river anyway, to the brook.
Okay. I'm gonna ask Mindy to pull something up. Mindy, I just sent you a link via chat to the photos that were from our site visit when we first, I think, first went to the property. I'm visual, so it would help me to see or to hear agent Wagner's thoughts. Okay. Yep. No. Perfect. There you go. So agent Wagner, that is the current location of the shed for orientation purposes. Are we looking at the short end of it or the the long end of it? This is the long end of it.
Yeah, so you're looking at the long, like 32 foot size side of it.
Okay, so basically where I think it might be Jed and vice chairman Elliott are standing in the photo, the Jed would be moved 10 feet to the right of the photo?
Yeah. Towards the right edge of the photo. So the end was about the where the edge of the window is, I believe, when it was done.
And how much of the fill that's there would be removed?
Well, enough to stabilize the bank. I would think to bring it to a shallow enough slope to prevent erosion. It's well drained. It's all gravel and sand. So erosion, I mean, even now, you can you can see the erosion isn't really a huge factor there. But we would use that it would use engineer Bushnell's recommendations to stabilize the bank after the fillers move. I don't know if he had a slope on there. You can look at the look at his letter just to verify. What was the proposal for stabilizing?
It was to remove the fill, put a layer of fabric over the fill and then put six to eight inch riprap over the top of that. Would there be any planting, receiving, anything like that?
Not in the riprap, but I believe around near the brook there was seeding that would take place.
Is there any possibility of creating a design where that slope was vegetated?
I guess you could. That could be a condition of approval too.
I think that was all my questions. Sorry, I'm hogging the floor. Does any of the other commissioners have any questions?
I do have one last question, Megan. Looking at the site drawing that we had, it looked to me like an option would have been to rotate the shed 90 degrees to get the back end of it further away from the wetlands. From this picture, I'm not sure that that is good an option, but again, I think seeing it would help making sure we're doing the best that we can.
I think that was addressed as an alternative in the application. Is that correct, agent Wagner? Yeah. Yes. It was a
that you could place it. You could rotate it 90 degrees and place it along the driveway, but it wouldn't increase it wouldn't decrease the impermeable surface area at all compared to sliding it 10 feet northwest and placing it where the driveway was, which would actually reduce it from its current location.
As Mindy to pull up one of the aerial photos that we had grabbed early on and looking at the violation just to kind of try to get a sense for what the property looked like before the shed was there and it's hard to tell but it does look like that kind of road front portion of the property may have already been level. I don't know if you agree with that. It looks like it.
And is there a second page? Okay, so that's what the shed. So with the shed, okay, this is helpful to me. I don't know if you have a sense for moving the shed forward. How much, it looks like there's a fairly wide area of driveway there. Is it a matter of having a turning radius to be able to pull into it that needs to be back further or could it be pushed forward even more?
I think the 10 feet was the number just to give it, yeah, for turning vehicles around and being able to load and unload them with supplies from the shed.
Think Mr. Baum is on the call, correct? Did you want to add anything Mr. Baum?
No, I'm all set. Agent Wagner pretty much described everything. He's been over here a couple of times and we've gone through a few things. So, I'm just trying to get everything put to rest.
Okay, if there's no further discussion or questions, from the commission, I would entertain a motion on how to proceed.
Mrs. Larson, I make a motion to conduct a seitanism. Okay, is there a second? I'll second that motion.
Any discussion? Say I don't personally I don't think it's necessary. Think think agent Wagner has a really good handle on the site and I think we've been out there. And I would like to see, the site improved from where it's at and the enforcement order complied with. But if the commission, I would be comfortable authorizing agent Wagner to do an agent approval and work with Mr. Boehm to move the shed and restore the site. But if the commission wants to do a site visit and proceed with a full application, that we can do that too.
Megan, I agree. I'll just say, Chairman Lolly, I agree. We do really don't, with agent Wagner's assurances and having seen the property before and having considered previous application I don't need personally another site visit. So if we have one I won't be there.
Any additional discussions? Okay so the motion who made the motion? Sorry. Jed? Jed. Okay, seconded by Vice Chairman Elliott? Yes. Okay. Is to schedule a site visit related to the application. Mr. Chairman Elliott, how do you vote? Nope. Commissioner Hallisey, how do you vote? You're muted, sorry. Still muted. Negative. Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Monroe. No.
And I vote nay as well. So the motion is defeated four-one-zero. So there will not be a site visit scheduled. The other question to resolve is whether the commission wants to ask agent Wagner to pursue this as an agent approval or not. And I will entertain a motion.
Move to approve that. That'll be referred to the Yeagen for. Thank you. The motion. Final approval.
Refer the matter to agent Wagner for duly authorized agent approval. Is there a second? Second. I'm gonna give this one to Will. Commissioner Monroe, please. Commissioner Monroe, Discussion?
This is Larson. And my concern about doing that is when we went out to conduct the initial site visit, that was the most egregious violation of a wetland that I had seen since I had been on the commission. And I'm not sure that it's fair for us as a commission to not see the proper restoration of that.
Chairman Lawley. Go ahead. I believe this motion is only agent approval of the shed location. The commission would still be responsible for the cease and desist order and the remediation order related to the deposition of materials, the activities that preceded the shed, and that were tied up with the shed. You're absolutely right about that. It's egregious, but we're not signing off on that by and we're not allowing the agent to sign off on that either. We have to the commission still has to enforce and sign off on any enforcement action.
I disagree. And the reason is that if we allow the shed to be positioned where it says it's going to be on fill that was put in there to support the shed, and we won't be able to remediate that after we've authorized the shed in the position that it's going to go.
I think we have a difference in understanding here. My understanding from agent Wagner was that the relocation of the shed would allow for remediation and removal and of course the shed can't be moved the remediation can't be conducted until the shed is moved so we're not going to get anywhere with remediation until we have an approved plan for shed relocation.
I think there was significant fill put in that sheds on top of. And I just, from my recollection from being out there is that it can't be removed if we move the shed 10 feet forward. Maybe it doesn't need to be removed, but that's why I thought we should go out and take a look at it so that we can make that firm decision of the remediation going forward.
Any additional discussion? Okay. Hearing no additional discussion, the motion on the floor is to authorize agent Wagner to do an administrative approval, of the relocation of the shed in the upper review area. Onto a roll call vote. Vice chairman Elliott. Aye. Commissioner Hallisey. Aye. Commissioner Larson. Nay. Commissioner Monroe. Aye.
I'm torn but I trust agent judgment on this one so I'm gonna vote aye as well. Motion carries four one zero. Agent Wagner, we'd like to see a really nice restoration plan once that that shed is moved. Okay. Or got it.
So you'll need to write up the, the administrative approval, and present it at, our next meeting. The public needs once you write the approval, notice it so the public has a chance to appeal it to the commission if they so choose, and keep Mr. Boehm in the loop about that. I think we'd like to see some progress on the remediation side of things now that we've got an answer on the shed. Okay. Okay.
The next item on the agenda is a newly numbered item nine b, which is, application IWWC 20 dash 30. It's an application by Patricia Clayman for 25 Sider Mill Road to construct a bridge across Saddle Brook and install a price drain associated up in review area. Agent Wagner, did you help prepare this application?
I, assisted. She called me a couple of times and then they applied for it on their own. I I didn't provide much assistance with this one.
Anyone on the meeting to represent this application? Okay. Any discussion by the commission?
Chairman Lalai. Yeah, looked at the application and I would again, we're just receiving it at this meeting. But I felt that, first of all, with respect to the application for a bridge across Stoutlebrook, there was no indication of the purpose of this bridge in the application. Why do they want to put it there? And the site description is really inadequate. There's no topographic indications. There's just really nothing to see how that proposed bridge would affect the water course.
So to your first comment on page four of the application under project description, it does state the bridges to gain access across Saddle Brook for a mini excavatormachinery to perform necessary work on the property.
Okay, but is is this then to be a temporary bridge? I Agent Wagner I don't see any roads associated with the bridge. In the diagrams we received. Oops, wait a minute a second here.
Mr. Wagner, am I correct in remembering that I thought we confirmed or you had correspondence that they did want this to be a permanent bridge?
Yeah, they do. At first, I thought it was a temporary one, but based on the application, it was a bit confusing. But, yeah, it's a it's a bridge that's gonna sit on the rocks and across the brook, and then it's gonna allow a small mini excavator to get into the backyard because they have no access to their house other than a walkway. Now what they were gonna do is install a French drain, which is also should be on the permit. Yeah. I saw that. Is
there a reason they're not proposing replacing the existing footbridge?
I think it's too the the crossing is too high in that area. Okay. And this would allow you to, it's the shallowest slope in the area where they're proposing the bridge across the brook now to drive the excavator over.
Do you have any understanding of the French drain or the need for it?
I think there's a slope going down to their house, and then the French drain would just direct the water away from the foundation down towards the brook.
Just a quick show, Alexey. I have two comments. One is I'm looking at the bridge, and it would appear to me that there's considerable there'd be an approach on either side that would require fill, and I don't see that on the plan. And I guess I thought it was a temporary crossing as well, and it seems to me it would fall under driveway requirement. It would be an integral part of the driveway. I don't know. I did not review it respect to that. I don't know what standards there would be for a bridge of its nature.
So even though it's not connected to the driveway, you're saying you think there might be a zoning component or
I'm not sure I understand. Well, I guess maybe I misunderstood it. I mean, would be in effect the the usable the driveway. I mean, is it Is it a second driveway to the? No, that's it to the house. Mindy, can you pull up on the application? I mean, it would require another curb cut, etcetera.
Jim, you're right. I'm familiar with that property on the side of Mill Road. And that driveway shown on the map is the only one coming down from Cider Mill Road to the banks of the brook and accessing the footbridge. Charmelelli, I'm gonna have to go off call for a moment. I just got a low battery on my, I'm gonna have to get a charger.
Mindy, can you pull up the map? And then I noticed online, I hadn't seen it previously. There's a photo that that one as well. Yeah. We could take a look at that. Agent Wagner, have you been to the site?
No, I haven't. I was sent this picture by the applicant. But I guess the the the bridge is going in this area.
How does the commission want to proceed? Does the commission want to do a site visit? I think once you'd order, Is that a motion?
Would you like a motion? Yes, please. Move that a site visit 25 Cider Mill. Be scheduled for the date certain.
Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, mister McElliot. Discussion. What is everyone's availability to do a site visit if one were to be scheduled? Typically, do Saturday mornings. If we were gonna do that, it would be the seventh, the fourteenth, the twenty first. We probably should avoid the weekend after Thanksgiving. I think this week is actually supposed to be relatively nice. I would vote for the seventh. Likewise.
Anyone not available on the morning of the seventh if we were to schedule a visit then? I'm not. No, okay. I'm not too. You're not as well, okay. Could you potentially go see the site at another time, Joe? Yeah. We could do the fourteenth as well. It's also a Saturday morning. Commissioner Larson what's your availability. I'm available either those days. Okay. Likewise. Okay. Commissioner Halsey? Available either day.
Commissioner Monroe, could you do the fourteenth if we did that day? Yes. Seems like the fourteenth might be a good day then. Do we want to amend the motion to do the fourteenth? Yes. 9AM? Earlier or later? Nine's good.
We'll amend the motion to include that the date and time of the sidewalk would be, November 14 at 9AM. Hopefully, the applicant is available and, if not, we'll ask them if they can flag out the area. Joe, are you available then? Yeah. I can do that. Okay.
So if they're not available, we'll I'm gonna follow through on the motion. But if they're not available, can you ask them to flag and delineate, you know, the area where they'd be looking to cross? Okay. All right. So the motion is to hold a site visit in association with application IWWC 20 dash 30 on Saturday, November 14 at nine a. M. Vice chairman Elliott, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Halsey? Aye. Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Monroe. Aye.
And Chairman Lely I go aye as well. So the motion carries five zero zero. Okay, so we will do a site visit on the fourteenth and then revisit this at our next meeting. Next application. Thank you, mister Miner, for waiting patiently. IWWC 20 dash 32, is an application, presented by Jeff Miner, acting as agent on behalf of Richard Risley, who is the owner of 85 Lakeside Drive. The application is to construct a new lake wall along Andover Lake. Agent Wagner or mister Miner, either of you is welcome to present the application to the commission. I can if you wish. Mindy, can you pull up the application?
So yeah, we're proposing to build a seawall approximately 120 feet of basically from property line to property line from the Alcoa right away to the Denley property. 90 foot of the wall is going to be somewhere on two and a half feet. And then at that point it'll drop down The last 30 feet would be about one foot. I'm estimating we're going to be excavating approximately 400 square foot of area to be excavated out. And that would be filled behind the wall with crushed stone and filter fabric to, prevent any sediment coming from the property into the lake. And then just would be grass up to the wall line. We're also proposing a possible fire pit on the wall. We're not 100% sure the positioning of that is to be determined at the time of the build. It's just a small field stone fire pit, five to six foot diameter, probably built with the same material. The wall material is going be a natural wall stone as well. As you can see in the drawing, there's a footing drain above to the right that's existing, which we would block with straw bales. And then above that at the house, all the downspout drains were, brought into catch basins by the, by the builder. So there's no, there's no runoff from the, from the house drains while we're excavating that we would be worried about. And,
as in other operations we've done on the wall, we put a self fence on the, on the lake bed, to prevent any runoff that could occur. And if we know there's going to be heavy rains, we always straw any disturbed area behind the, the wall where we're building to try and prevent any runoff or if we see an area where we think is going to be an issue, we will put additional bales in place. So, that's pretty much it in a nutshell is not a lot of, we're not gaining any. I know in the past, John Valente has been concerned with us gaining,
square footage into the lake area. You can see the bump out by the fire pit. That's kind of a natural bump out in that area already. So we decided it would be a nice feature to the wall to just kind of continue that. But we will be bringing mostly field stone from an outside source.
This is a new wall construction, correct? This is not it is Okay. Correct. Does the commission have any questions?
Is the wall been approved by either Elma or Elpoa, whoever's the approval
of that? I have submitted applications. I have not received word from them.
Any additional questions or comments? Does the commission wish to schedule a site visit? Not hearing any motions. Last chance. I would. I'm sorry? I would like
to visit the site. Yes. I'd like to schedule a site visit. Okay, so a motion by Commissioner Hallisey to schedule a site visit. Is there a second? I'll second.
Okay, any discussion? I would propose we try to tag on to our, November 14 visit if at all possible. Works for me. Immediately follow. Yep.
I was saying 09:30. Do you think that'll be enough time at the other site? Yes. Yeah.
That's proposed, Saturday, November 14 at 09:30. Any additional discussion. Alright, I'm hearing none I will call for a vote Vice Chairman Elliott. Hi. Commissioner Halsey. Hi. Commissioner Larson. Hi. Commissioner Monroe. Aye.
And Chairman Lally, I vote aye as well. So the motion carries five zero zero. Okay. So Mr. Minor, we'll meet you approximately at 09:30, depending on our our prior site visit. So hopefully, we won't keep you waiting. Alright. So the next item, I believe, is yours as well. IWWC 20 dash 33, mister Mayer, this time presenting as the property owner for 97 Lakeside Drive, an application to reconstruct a seawall and remove a dock along Andover Lake and to also construct a patio in the Andover Lake Upland review area. Mindy, if you can pull up this application.
Mr. Minor, the floor is yours whenever you're ready. Okay, so this is an existing seawall we would like to rebuild pretty much using existing stone. There will be some stone brought in and that's kind of to be determined is how much we would need depending on how things go with what's there. Same thing property line property line from the Scheinermann's to the Brennan property line, approximately a foot and a half high. Again, the field stone we would if we have to bring any, it would be an outside source, natural field stone. That's same deal. So fence on the waterline. The downspout drains are all up high over 130 feet away from the build site and we would straw those as well. Is the patio party application?
So that's a pretty cut and dry, but it would again, it's an approximate. I don't really have a design in place yet for that. But that's going to be roughly that size. I will be limited by my septic area on the patio. I thought I had put measurements on there, but I guess I did not. As far as this guesstimate size of that patio. And
that will be made out of pavers. So the approximate size of that patio from the from the width of the back of the house about 18 feet. I'm looking at it from this perspective on the left side, that'd be about nine foot from the there's a bulkhead door there actually, it would be about nine foot from that. And then on the other side where the bump out is that would be roughly 20 feet from the house.
What is the small square on the left that meant to pick up? It's just like a pillar possibly.
The lighting in or something like that. Again, that that design there is just a kind of a guesstimate. I'm not haven't really designed it yet. I don't know. I'm not sure if that's something that needs to be put in place for this permit or I mean, I could follow that design if that's something you felt you really had to have. A response on the commission's?
I have a question of the applicant to the chair, if I may. Yeah, go ahead. I don't see a cross section on the stonewall. It didn't come up in the last wall. Can you just sort of paint a picture of what that base is? The base? I'm not sure I understand the question. Okay. Isn't a new wall or is this a rebuild?
The one that's on 97 Lakeside is a rebuild of an existing wall. And there's actually, it looks like there's poured concrete there, I guess is what's there. Poured concrete base? It is, yes. Which was there when we bought the house. We would probably utilize that and just leave that right in place and maybe go over it. I don't see a reason to take it out. But if we did decide to take the concrete out, we would not. I think your question was what's the base underneath the stone wall. Typically do. Yeah,
didn't occur to me that there was a concrete. I was assuming you're rebuilding.
Are rebuilding but it's partial compoured concrete and partial field stone. And I would take the field stone part and rebuild it. And then probably if we can do it, build over the concrete that's existing. But if need be, I would remove that concrete. I don't know if you know what's under that concrete. I don't know if that wall was permitted. I highly doubt it.
Think regarding on your question about the patio design, we had an application recently for shed construction in the Lake Upland Review area and we were concerned about mitigating the increased impervious surface. So we would probably want to see some detail to that effect. How you were going to I'll get leave it to you to answer that question. But given that we just asked another applicant to do that, I think it would be appropriate. Does the commission have any other questions?
Chairman Lawley. Go ahead. One quick question. The patio is to replace an existing deck,
correct? There is a wooden deck on the house, correct, that would be removed. Yeah, and what's the area of that deck? That's a very good question. It's very small. It's the width of the backside of the house. I would want to say it has a depth from the house out onto the lawn, maybe six feet with stairs in the middle of it it's basically an unusable patio or deck rather it's pretty small.
Any additional questions? Okay, does the commission want to schedule a site visit for this application?
Well, wouldn't be a bit of short hop up the road from our previous site visit. Is that a motion? Probably the same parties involved so why not? I'll move to schedule a site visit at no later than ten a. M. On Saturday November 14.
Okay is there a second? Second, Allison. Okay any additional discussion? Okay So Works for me.
I think she froze. He'll be back on soon. She said she's gonna be calling in. Megan, can you hear us? I can now. Yep. I was waiting to be admitted. Sorry about that. I think it looks like I can get back into the meeting again too. Alright. Sorry about that. It's bad bad Internet day over here for some reason. So I don't know if you guys continued without me. I was calling for a roll call vote on the the site visit. Vice Chairman Elliott. Aye. Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Hallisey. Aye. Commissioner Monroe. Aye.
And I vote aye as well. So motion carries five zero zero. So we will have a site visit for application 20Dash33 immediately after application twenty dash thirty two site visit. So somewhere between 09:45 and 10AM and I would expect. Okay. All right. Any questions, Mr. Minor? No? Okay, great. Thank you. All right. So we will move on to item ten and ten b on, the agenda, which are enforcement actions at 33 Route 87 and 41 Route 87. And I'll ask agent Wagner to give us an update on that.
Well, my discussion with Kurt was that we needed to get a plan together for moving the shed before we can work on getting rid of the material. And he wanted to do he wanted to schedule the contractor who's gonna remove the material to do everything all at once. Just that was reasonable. So that's why we did the permit. And then, I'll work out with him on, getting I think it's about Mark Williams, the contractor, scheduled to do 41 Route 87 And 33 Route 87 at the same time.
Access and permission issues been resolved for 41 Route 87?
Yes. Kurt, from 33 Route 87 has a letter, from Sandra Nichols giving him permission to access or giving his contractor, not him, Mark Williams access or permission to access 41 Room 87.
Do you did mister Bohm, mention disposal of the material? Do you know how that's gonna be disposed? I'll have to look into that. I think it was getting trucked out, but I'll have to double check. Okay. Just want to make sure. I believe that bill came from somewhere else in town, so I wouldn't want it to end up in a new location. Rotating it around town. Anything further to report on those enforcement actions. No, not yet.
Questions, comments from the Commission? Bring them, we'll move along. Other items? Item 11 on the agenda now is agent report. Any other items to report? No. No complaints, no violations you've investigated? Nothing that we haven't already talked about.
Great. Under 12, other business, item A was resignations and appointments. Nothing new to report there. I believe it was covered, at the last meeting. Mr. Monroe is official and, Gabrielle, she stepped down right after she stepped up. So we are back to two alternate vacancies. If anyone knows anyone that might be interested. And then the last piece, Mindy, do you have the calendar that you could pull up? It's not posted online, but I think I emailed it to you. So I put together a calendar of proposed meeting dates for next year, sticking with the first Monday of the month, and then highlighted in yellow are any months where that first Monday fell on a holiday in which case I bumped it to the next Tuesday, Tuesday of the week following
which I think in these cases all happen to be the second Tuesday of the month. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at it and compare it to your schedules, but I'll open the floor to comment and discussion.
Megan, I just have a question. Is the reason you moved them to Tuesday of the week after because of the availability of space? Yes. Okay.
I don't recall who, but somebody is meeting on the second Monday of the month. So I know right now we're meeting virtually still, but in the event that we went non virtual, we would have issue finding space.
And even in cyberspace, we don't want to conflict with other boards and commissions.
That's true. That's a fair point too. And I don't know how many zoom lines we have or anything like that too. So, that actually could still pose problem. Are there any dates that people know outright they have a conflict and it's not gonna work for them? Would anyone like to motion to
approve submitting this schedule to the town clerk? I'll make a motion to approve the schedule as listed.
Thank you. Commissioner Larson. Second. Second by Commissioner Hallisey. Discussion? Mindy and Agent Wagner, do you have any substantial conflicts with this schedule? None that I know.
Nope, I cross referenced it with think it was PZC and Coventry Wetlands and I'm all set. Okay, great. Okay. Any additional discussion? All right, we'll do a vote. Vice Chairman Elliott. Aye.
Thank you. Commissioner Hallisey. Aye. Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Monroe. Aye.
And Chairman Lally, I vote aye as well. So we will approve that meeting schedule. I will submit to the town clerk and hopefully the board of selectman doesn't bump us again this year. Unless you hear other, this will be the 2021 meeting schedule. Okay. We already discussed duly authorizing agent Wagner and I had a feeling we were gonna run late tonight. So I took everything else off of other business. The next regular meeting is Monday, December 7. We'll have our site visit November 14 prior. And if there's, is there anything else anyone wants to bring up before we motion to adjourn? Last call? Okay, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
I'll make a motion to adjourn. Thank you, Commissioner Larson. Second? Second.
Policy seconds. Vice Chairman Elliott, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Hallisey. Aye. Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Monroe. Aye.
And Chairman La la I vote aye as well. Motion carries five zero zero. The meeting is adjourned at 10:30.
Thank you all. Good night and see you in two weeks.
Mindy you can stop the meeting. Were you recording Mindy? I was. Okay good. Okay if you want to close out the meeting Mindy I'm going to sign off. Okay Thanks.