Meeting transcript
Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Commission - Regular Meeting
December 7, 2020 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
I'll begin with a roll call and seating of alternates. I see, let's see now who's present, Jed Larson. Yep, here. Jim Hallisey? Here.
And I don't see Commissioner Smith on the call. I do see alternate William Monroe on the call. So I'm going to see alternate William Monroe in place of Commissioner Smith. Okay. Again, the agenda for this hearing is consideration of IWWC application twenty-twenty seven, Rubio Negen Puerto at 129 Hebron Road, the application to erect concrete stone wall and fence, inground pool, utility shed, and two car garage with accessory apartment within the upper review area. We should note, of course, that the application that was considered in our previous hearing has been subsequently substantially modified. However, in order to affect the completion of the hearing, I will ask first if there are any comments by any of the commissioners. Again, any comments or questions? Okay.
Yes. I my name is Jim Halsey, and I have questions for the chair. I I'm just looking for a clarification as to what the application includes insofar as the septic system, what approvals are in place.
Maybe agent Wagner could speak to that. All I know is what's posted on the website. Yeah.
This is agent Wagner. The septic system is on this application. So it needs to be considered as part of this application. Oh, and it's it's on the plan, the new site plan that was submitted. Thank you.
Okay. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? Okay. Okay, seeing no further comments or questions about the application regard to the hearing, I will entertain a motion to adjourn the hearing so that we can proceed for our regular meeting. Jim Halsey, move to adjourn the public hearing. Mr. Halsey has moved. I need a second. Don't be shy. I'll second.
Okay, second by Commissioner Larson. I'll ask for a vote on the motion. I have to do it, of course, by roll call. Commissioner Halsey.
Chairman Elliott, could we have I have a question before we proceed to the vote.
Wait a minute. You want to back up and talk about the application is this for the hearing? Yes. Only I question say that.
My only question is were we going to solicit input from the public during this public hearing? Oh, I just heard you ask the commissioners. I'm sorry. No, then subsequently asked if there was any further public input
and didn't see any hands raised or comment to that effect. So as I say, let's proceed now. We have a motion on the floor seconded to adjourn the hearing. Again, by roll call, Mr. Hallisey has already voted to. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Monroe? Aye.
And I, Vice Chairman Elliott, vote aye as well. So the motion carries four-zero. We will now move to the regular meeting, which commences immediately following the public hearing at 07:06. The roll call and seating of alternates will be as for the hearing. And the next item on the agenda is the additions and changes in order to the agenda. I have been advised of at least a couple of additions. And I would first propose that we add to Section eight, Permit Applications, IWWC twenty-twenty seven, the application that we just considered in the hearing. We have to have it on the agenda for the meeting in order to consider whether not it should be approved. That's I will, as Chair, make that motion to add that item to the agenda. And I'll ask for a second. I'll second. Yes, we have a motion and a second. That was from Commissioner Larson to add IWWC application 2,027 to the agenda as there would be item 8A. And of course, subsequent
applications would be re designated accordingly. And I'll now call for a vote on the application on the motion again by roll call. Commissioner Hallisey? Aye. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Monroe? Aye. And Mr. Elliott also votes aye. So the motion to add to the agenda carries. In addition, we have received, subsequent to the printing of the agenda, but in time for inclusion on tonight's agenda, a new item, which I'm trying to dig up here. Okay, an application 2036 for construction at 26 Old Farms Road. That would be item number 7B on the agenda. Could I have a motion to add that, please?
Larson makes a motion to add that to the agenda. Ballasty, second.
Okay, so we have a motion and a second to add. I believe WC 2,036 in the agenda. I'll call for a vote again by roll call. Commissioner Hallisey? Aye. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Monroe? Aye. And Vice Chairman Elliott also votes aye. So the motion carries four-zero-zero. And finally, we received a request to consider modification of a permit previously issued for construction at 344 Lake Road. I'm going to propose that that be added to the agenda as item number 6B, because it seems to be essentially a jurisdictional request regarding, again, the conditions for modification of a permit that has already been issued. This just came to my attention this afternoon from agent Magna. About ten minutes.
So again, I'll need to ask for a motion to add that agenda item.
Allicy, move to add request for modification at 354 Lake Road to the agenda. Do I have a second? I'll second that.
Thank you. Commissioner Monroe, I believe. Okay, I'll ask for a vote again by roll call. Commissioner Hallisey? Aye.
Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Monroe? And I vote for Elliot. Also vote aye. So the motion carries four-zero-zero. Are there any other requests for additions or changes in order to the agenda? Okay, hearing none, I will move to agenda item number four, approvals of minutes. First, the minutes for the regular meeting of 11/02/2020. Again, I'll ask for a motion to approve so that we can discuss.
Larson makes a motion to approve the minutes from November two, twenty Second.
Okay. Any commissioners have any comments or questions about those minutes? I have just a couple of really minor items. On page five, under the consideration of the request for jurisdiction ruling at the Andorra Sports News Club for timber harvest, There's a sense that these harvest of dying emerald ash borer, which should be harvest of ash trees dying of emerald ash borer. Don't we wish that the emerald ash borer were, in fact, dying? Okay. And in that same paragraph, there's a sentence, the project is cut to length, which doesn't make sense to me. It may be forestry's talk. And if anybody has any suggestions on that one, I'd be happy to entertain them. Okay. Well, I guess we'll just have to read where it stands. So any other revisions to the minutes for that meeting? Okay. I'll ask for a vote on the motion to approve the minutes as with revisions as noted. Commissioner Halsey? Aye. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Monroe? And I, Vice Chair Elliott, also vote aye. So the motion to approve the minutes carries four-zero-zero. Then we have the minutes of the 11/14/2020 special meeting. And again, I'll call for a motion to approve.
Larson makes a motion to approve the special meeting minutes from Saturday, 11/14/2020. Second, Allisie.
Any comments? Need for revision? Okay. I'll ask for a vote then to approve the minutes as received. Once again, Commissioner Hallisey? In favor. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Monroe? Aye.
And I, Vice Chair Elliott, also vote aye. So the motion carries four-zero-zero. The minutes are approved. Item number five, public comment. This is the time for public to comment on the items that are on the agenda for tonight's meeting. You should probably try to raise your hand or text or comment to our board clerk, Mindy, because I may not see if somebody does want to make a comment. I take it there are no public comments. We will then proceed to item number 6A of new business, a jurisdictional review for IWWC twenty-thirty four JR Joseph Thoreau, who's present at the meeting, on behalf of Ronald and Joan Cherny. You see Ronald Cherny is also here. We're the property owners at 110 Cone Road who wish to harvest timber on a site property they own, which involves activities in a watercourse and associated upland review agents or upland review area. Remember, this is a jurisdictional matter right at the moment. We don't have an application. Essentially, question is whether this activity requires a permit. I'm going to ask Agent Wagner to speak to this issue because I believe he has some discussion and familiarity with the inquiry.
Yeah. I don't I don't have too much. I didn't visit the site. I talked to Joe Thoreau. He went out and took some pictures of the wetlands crossing sites and the picture of the material that they're using to make the temporary bridges. Put them together and they're posted on the town website. Hopefully everybody got a chance to view them. Yeah. Nothing's been started yet. As far as I know, last time I talked, they were unloading stuff there, but I think mister Thoreau would be able to provide a better description.
Okay. So this is this is Joseph Thoreau. Right. Yes. Crystal Christopher Leveque is the logger that's gonna be doing the work there. He has deposited both of his pieces of equipment on the property, but that has not really gotten going yet. To facilitate removal of timber, we have two two wetland crossings in the town of Andover. If you look at the cutting plan, the first one is labeled WC1, and the second one is labeled SC3. WC1 or Wetland Crossing 1 is a very, very narrow here. Jimmy, can you bring those up as a share?
Is it on the submitting and pending approval? This map?
Mr. Thoreau is that the map that you were referring to
I'm not virtual. I'm just here on the phone, so I It can't see what's going does appear. It's a map that shows the property at Cone Road. Yeah, I think we can see that. Yep. Okay. So you said So if
you look right at the town line, there's Wetland Crossing Number 1. That's gonna be used to to access the the western portion of the property. Several of those portable bridges that you see, the photos of will be laid out there at the completion of the operations. The logger picks them back up and, you know, seeds and and mulches mulches the crossing sites. Crossing SC 3 is a narrow intermittent stream crossing. It's a very rocky site. Same thing. He's gonna be using the same portable bridges. Very, very small amount of timber is actually coming out of that that small upland island, if you will. And that'll probably be towards the end of the end of the job. The same thing at the at the end of the at the end of the operation, he'll remove those bridges and, you know, back blade or grade grade the skid trails on either side, the seed and mulch the the crossing sites.
As far as the timber harvest is concerned, this is a a management cut. We're just simply we're taking out about maybe a quarter to a third of the volume of the timber. Again, just to really remove over mature, poorly formed disease, and oaks that were in decline. I'd say the time frame of the operation probably run more or less three weeks to a month, provided he has good ground conditions. We don't get too much rain. If during, you know, the operation, if ground conditions tend to get muddy, then he's a very he's a good operator. He shuts down, waits till the ground conditions to improve. That's basically it, but I can entertain any questions you may have.
Okay. The the the big question here is there there don't seem to be any existing crossings. These would be new crossings. Correct?
Years ago, this this timber was cut, and there are most of it actually where you see those those skid trails or main haul roads is labeled, There were old trails there. Yes. Yep. So I'm actually using existing crossing sites.
Crossing sites. Okay. Yep. Okay, any other commissioners have any questions or comments?
This is Commissioner Larson. I had a question from the pictures. I did not understand why we would be seeding and mulching following the crossing when it doesn't look like there's any vegetation in the area at this point.
Well, what happens is when the machine goes over those bridges, there is there is minimal disturbance there. And of course, the the skid trails on either side of that crossing site are bare mineral soil. So it's always important to put in water bars and seed and mulch on either side of the crossing site because what that does is it stabilizes the it stabilizes the the soils. So in the spring, when, you know, when when everything greens up, it's it's it's definitely a better a better way to do it. You don't just not not seed and mulch. The hay that and just put simply putting the hay down also helps to stop it when it rains, you know, that you don't get as much disturbance. This is a common common practice on on stream crossings and and wetland crossing sites
do we have any other questions or comments from commissioners? Okay, well, I guess we have sufficient understanding at present. Again, the question here is whether Inland and Water Crisis Commission has jurisdiction and has whether a permit will be required. And for the purpose of proceeding with the discussion, I would like a motion to the effect that a permit is required for this activity.
Larson makes a motion that a permit is required for the logging activity? Well,
the wetlands crossing activity, if you would. For the wetlands crossing to support the logging activity. Thank you. Alex Segal second that. Okay, comments, discussion of the motion.
Mr. Chairman, can I speak or no? This is Joseph Thoreau.
Yeah, this is a discussion for the commission with respect to the requirement for a permit, not the activity itself per se. We've got recently Are
you going to allow me to speak or no? Well,
Okay. Is your comment germane to the question of whether or not you need a permit? It is actually.
It's germane to the fact whether this is a permitted use as of right or whether it's a in fact a regulated activity. Okay Then I'll I'll entertain your comment.
I'm a I'm a wetlands agent for six different towns in Eastern Connecticut. And in I I I have yet to have any commission rule that the temporary stream crossings used for forestry operations are regulated activities. If you look at at section four of your regulations, if you look under the definition of agriculture, forestry, and silviculture, they are specifically permitted uses as of right by definition.
Right. That's correct. We have heard that assertion previously. And I will call the attention and ask the commissioners to recall the legal advice we obtained from our attorney, Mark Brantz, that case law suggests that deposition of material in the wetland and watercourse is not permitted as a right, even though it is in support of an activity that may be permitted as a right.
So Mr. Chairman, how do consider the placement of a portable bridge that's being removed deposition. I I I feel deposition of material means, pipes, culvert pipes, fill materials, filter fabric, things that are meant to stay in place permanently. These are just some simply structures like log corduroy. They're placed to simply protect the wetlands, and they're taken out afterwards.
I understand that. And again, I'm only relaying the advice of our attorney to the effect that No, your attorney. In a previous discussion, where, again, our previous jurisdictional ruling, we were exactly that question. Again, it was a consideration of an proposal to use temporary crossings, such as the ones that are proposed for this activity. And again, we were advised that, according to case law, that would be considered a deposition. And frankly, I don't want to get involved in the adjudication of that question. I'm simply relaying that to our commission as a point of departure for this discussion.
Commissioner Hallisey, recall that evening in a marks attorney Francis recommendation was calling basically, he included temporary fill. That's saying, I I mean, I'm sure, tracks of land are logged all the time as a use of right without permits. I agree with Chairman Elliott in that. That was certainly Attorney Branch's call. That was his recommendation there. I have to say he's wrong. Complete idiot.
Okay. Commissioner Larson, do you have comments or recollection on that advice?
I recall the advice just as you had stated it, Chairman Elliott, and when we were discussing the Andover Sportsman Club, that was the difference between that and the previous application where we went the other way. So think your recollection is exactly what we were provided by our legal counsel.
Yeah, the Andover Sportsman Club issue there were already crossings in place. So there was no new activity to regulate. In this case, we seem to have and that's why I asked about whether these crossings were existing crossings or whether as they appear from the photographs, they appear to be de novo crossings that would, again, involve even temporary deposition of material in the well for the purpose of facilitating the crossing. And I appreciate that this is good practice as forestry and that there are reasonable differences of opinion and interpretation on this activity. But I think that given the fact that we have been advised by counsel and have previously ruled that this specific sort of activity should require a permit, think that we're pretty much obliged to
continue to request a permit in this situation. And one other comment, if I may. Commissioner Larson?
I'd like to go on record saying I think our attorney is not an idiot. Would you repeat that for me? I'm sorry. Disagree
with the comment that our attorney must be an idiot. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments from commissioners? Can you hear me? May I speak? I'm Ron Cherny, the land owner. Yeah, I suppose so.
Thank You may have spoke. Should be. Yeah. I think two things. One is that the land was clogged not too long ago in 1988 after Hurricane Gloria and Jo Nichols from the town in Boag there she was the state forester in charge of that operation there and like Joe Thoreau had said I think that we're using some of the same existing crossings there so I don't see how this is anything any much different than what it was done just a while ago and also I'd like to have Joe Wagner make a few comments on this whole thing, if we could. It has to go through this permit process.
Well, again, that's the question here. The commission has to determine whether or not a permit is required.
Okay. And what saying is not too long ago in my lifetime, it was pretty much the same as what's happening at this point in time. I don't know if anything has changed that makes makes it much different than what was just done. That's basically my comment. I don't know if Joe has been believe up with that plan if he has any further comments on this. Can you repeat the question? Who's who's speaking?
This is Joe. I I I was just asked a question or No. No. Joe Joe Wagner. He he's
he's the wetlands guy from Andover. So I just was curious on his comments. How is this any different that was just done in recent time about thirty years ago? I don't believe any permit was required at that point in time.
Yes. Agent Wagner here. I'm not sure that was well before my time. The comment that I have for the commission is, just, like, if a is there more information that is needed for the wetlands crossing to make the decision? Like, I I'm just like, practical looking at the practicality of applying for a permit, like, if it's gonna be just the same information as this notification but in permit form, it just seems like it would be would be unnecessary because it's not you're not asking for anything new. Whereas if you needed more information to make a decision about the wetlands processing, that might be different.
I'll respond to that, again, Vice Chair Elliott. The fact is that a permit requires an application. Right now, we are being asked for a jurisdictional ruling, which is a different matter. If we were to decide that we don't have jurisdiction, then that would obviate the need for a permit. But if we do decide that we have jurisdiction and permit is required, yes, the permit will incorporate much of the same information. And we will be making a decision on we will make a decision on the permit on the basis of the same information. But in fact, much of the information that is being presented in this jurisdictional request isn't about the jurisdiction. It's about the proposal. And again, this is a very narrow ruling that we're making. And the fact that we're asking for a permit simply means apply for a permit. And I can't again, speaking a little ahead of ourselves,
I can't see any reason why we would deny that permit because it seems to be a perfectly sensible forestry plan. The question is, again, based on precedent and for this commission and based on advice of our legal counsel, I believe that we do have jurisdiction that that specific aspect, the wetland crossing aspect, is under our jurisdiction and that a permit will therefore be required. And again, I don't think that I don't want any further public comment on that question. This is a question for the commissioners to decide, again, based on our understanding of requirements.
All right. This is Halsey. And I appreciate the applicant's input here. I also do remember what attorney Branson said as a commission. I think we should follow his advice. Curious if as an alternative, this is jurisdictional ruling, whether the commission has, whether the commission, their permit is required. Is there an alternative? I mean, this would, if there was an app, if there was a permit, an application in place, is something the agent could handle on his own. I apologize if I I I just don't really understand that process about as very well if you have to make things go to me. We haven't had a agent authorized.
No. This is well, this is the activity in the wetland, so it would have to go through the commit. All right, so that is not an alternative,
you're saying? Right. If a permit is issued, we could definitely hand it off to Agent Wagner. I mean, if an application is filed, if a permit is filed, permit application is filed, we could definitely hand it off to agent Wagner for determination.
Well, the agent can only approve activity in the upland review area. So and if this was the activity in the stream processing
and you think it needs a permit, then it would have to go back before the commission. I see. Thank you.
Okay. Any other commission comments, questions? I would like to proceed then to a vote on the motion. The motion, again, is to the fact that the commission that the Andover Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Commission has jurisdiction and that a permit will be required for the wetland crossing and upland and activities in the upland review area. Mindy, is that a fair statement of the motion? Yes.
Okay. Without And further discussion, we'll go to a vote. Commissioner Halsey? Can we go over the motion one more time?
Okay. The motion is the fact that the commission has jurisdiction Jurisdiction, yes. And a permit will be required. Aye. Okay. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Monroe? Aye.
And I, Vice Chair Elliott, vote aye. The motion carries four-zero-zero. Again, we'd be happy to entertain an application for a permit for the forestry activities, which could be submitted for our next meeting in January. Okay, moving on. We added agenda item 6b, inquiry regarding a previously approved activity at 344 Lake Road Construction And Clearing. Let's see. This just came in today. And Agent Weiner, could you introduce this? Because I think you've had a lot better handle on the correspondence than I. I saw the copies and looked through it. But I believe let's see, is engineer Hanfield on this call? I am, yes. Okay. You're 860798. Hopefully I'm on the
there you are. There we go. Okay.
Joe, do you want to introduce it or do you want me to make a run?
I'd like agent Wagner to just briefly introduce it and then hand it over to you. At
engineer Hanfield, I'm sure knows much more. It was a while ago we talked. But
yeah. Basically, I guess the permit was previously approved by this commission a couple years ago, and no action was taken with it. And the new owners wanna basically do a similar thing. So engineer Hanfield is wondering if he could if we could modify or use the existing permit. So that's what I know.
Okay. Mister Hanfield, could you briefly explain? I don't know if let's see now. Mindy, can you bring up for screen share the proposal, the site plan? I don't know if it's posted online or whether it an email or what.
It was an email. I'm not sure if it's going to be there.
Oh, if it's an email, I probably don't have it. Oh, Okay.
You allow us to share a screen? You've got a screen to share, Mindy, can you let him
Yeah, hold on one second. All right, you should be able to now. Okay, I'm going give it a shot.
Hey. Can everybody see my screen? Yep. Okay. Great. So this is the are the minutes from April 1738. And just wanted to basically show that it was approved unanimously. Presentation.
Right here. Approve the proposal. Sorry. Too far. Here we go. Approve the application at 344 Lake Road. And this is the plan that was presented to you that evening. So what you see in orange is the existing house. And in between, the the front end of the proposing and the disconnect to. And in addition to that, they were proposing a large septic system to the east. They were going to basically take out the existing town drainage pipe and realign it in the road. And there was a significant area of clearing here to do all of that work. So this is the limited clearing. This is a reference of what was approved. What I submitted today was basically the preliminary plan of what the new owner wants to do. And what I did is I overlaid the original limit of clearing and seal prints to give an idea of the original disturbance limit, which is in magenta here. And then I also overlayed the proposed house in orange with the original footprint, which is also in magenta. It's a dash line again connecting the two. So you see that the new addition is smaller. It doesn't connect the two structures anymore. But it's within the original footprint of what was being proposed. In addition, there's no longer a proposal to put in a septic system or move the town drainage pipe and all of the grading associated with it. So basically, we're going to propose to use the same temporary construction road that was proposed originally.
We're going to scale back tilt fence and clearing limit line to only cover that temporary access drive and build a smaller addition within the same footprint that actually it results in a substantial reduction in the disturbance of the upper review area from what was approved. But again, it's within that same footprint and is generally the same project or scope of project minus the septic system. So what this proposal allows us to do is use the existing septic system and that's why the house would step back like that. So I can field any questions, but we're we're hopeful that we can get confirmation that this is in line with the original permit approval, and then we can pull the building from it based on that from it to improve.
Okay. Yeah. So the essential question here for the commission is whether or not this requires a permit revision application. And the salient factors are, first of all, a new owner, and secondly, the downsizing essentially of project parameters, both in terms of the structural and the site modification. Believe, Agent Wagner, I believe you were advised that the provision in our regulation and our conditions for permit regarding non transferability is probably non enforceable. Yeah, that's what I was told.
So let's just drop that one from consideration and raise the question then of, again, is this activity a revision that would constitute requirement for reapplication? I'll ask for comments from the commissioners. Mr. Halsey?
Yeah, this is Halsey. I'd like to know what the conditions the original approval were, particularly the duration. I know they typically run between two and five years. And the conditions that I've read said you cannot renew an expired permit. I believe this one was actually a five year permit. This was a five year. Okay, then that's not an issue. Thank
you. Although nobody seems to be able to Mr. Hanifield, have you been able to find the actual notification
on that? It seems to have gone into the other zone. I went as far in just for full disclosure, the previous owners were my in laws. And I went as far as asking my mother-in-law if she had a copy. And she's pretty diligent about her paperwork and does not. So I'm not aware of anyone has a copy of the actual letter of approval. All I have for the minutes in my conversation with Mr. Valenti, but that's all I have. Okay.
And I believe Agent Wagner also made some effort to in the town files. I couldn't find it there.
Okay. So again, absent that, we will take it as read that it was a five year permit. That's what we understand.
Vice Chairman, Elliot, what was the address that we're talking about here? I think I got confused with the Shea application when we were talking No, this
is a 344. And again, it's an old application. It was approved in 2018. So we don't have anything. There's nothing posted on that. It's all been simply email and phone correspondence to initiate this inquiry. Okay. Well, seeing no further comment or questions, I like a motion to the effect that well, again, based on our previous procedures, we should make a motion that a permit modification an application for permit modification is required? If we don't think so, we can vote no. So could I have that motion?
This is Larson. I'll make a motion that a permit modification is required to 344 Lake Road. I'll second. Second?
Hollis. Okay, again, as a point of discussion here, frankly, don't think that this does require affirmative modification. I think that since it's a reduction in the scope of the project and really no other essential changes in the project that would impact wetlands, I think that the owners should be free to go ahead with the plan as revised. Further modifications might require application. But what we've seen tonight, and what was presented by engineer Hanfield, seems to be perfectly acceptable and should not require an additional application. Anybody want to argue that point?
This is Larson. And I guess my concern is that if nobody has a copy of the permit, why we wouldn't expect to start it over so we do have a paperwork document to go back on when we're doing something. I don't know how we can proceed without having a copy of the permit to modify.
I take your point. We do have proof that the application was approved.
Yeah. I think this is agent Wagner. And according to the regulations, the the minutes count as a permit. I'm trying I'm not sure what part of it is, but I remember reading that.
Yeah, mean, have the original application, right? And again, we have the minutes of the meeting where they were approved. The documentation that's missing is essentially the notification. Do we have the application? I haven't seen that.
Again, I think that that was was the application, Joe, among the documents that were circulated by email? Yeah, I think they were. I can double check.
Is that something that was circulated to all the commissioners? Because I got the afternoon email from Joe talking about the Shea application, but it didn't mention anything about this.
Okay. I received that in an email. I don't know how well Faradkai distributed, to tell you the truth. They came in this afternoon.
I would prefer to defer the decision until the next meeting where we have a chance to at least review the information that we're talking about.
Yeah. There's a copy on in that list of emails. Megan Lawley had a copy of the application. I can send it to Mindy. If you have it, you can share your screen if you have it right now. I enabled it so everybody has permission. Okay. Where do I do that?
So if you move your cursor, it says share screen and it's in a green button in the bottom middle. And then the pop up windows and you just select whatever window that's in it. See that? Yep. Yeah. This is the application.
So essentially what we're looking at is the conditions of the application. And again, the proposal here is simply to do somewhat less than what was originally requested. Since that activity was permitted, I don't see any need to revisit that application.
I understand what you're saying, Vice Chairman Elliott. I just fundamentally opposed to something coming before the commission that we've had no heads up on. And it comes here during the meeting where you don't have time to review it and to make a jurisdictional decision on it. I think that is the wrong way for us to be doing business.
That's a valid point. And I would entertain, first of all, a withdrawal of the motion and a subsequent motion to defer further consideration until our next meeting.
If I may say one thing. Mr. Hennfield. Thank you. I apologize. I didn't mean to spring this on anyone and create confusion. We were actually trying to do as the development of the plan came along, I tried to get it in Friday, and it was on me that you're not open Friday, so I missed the deadline. But what we're trying to do is make sure we're doing the right thing by basically showing you the plan and being upfront with that information that we are moving forward with the project. It is a similar project, but it is significantly less in scale. And we don't want to go forward with that whole project. But we wanted your blessing. So I understand the last minute notice and would be understanding either way,
but with full discretion. We really wanted to make sure you could see the difference in the plan and how much less we are proposing and be comfortable that we would hopefully fall under that original permit because we do believe we could construct the original permit and and the activities that were proposed on it, but we don't want to. We wanna scale it back. And but we'll we'll we'll go either way. And and, again, I apologize for the last minute.
Returning to the question at hand, we do have a motion on the floor. And we'd have to withdraw that motion and the second there, too, in order to defer action. So who made the motion? The motion did. Okay. You want to withdraw that motion? I would like to withdraw that motion. Okay.
Mr. Halsey, I believe you seconded I will withdraw my second, yes. Okay. So back to the question. Mr. Larson, I think the motion here to defer further consideration to our next meeting would be in order.
I'll make a motion to defer consideration on the application for 344 Lake Road to our January meeting? It's actually jurisdictional rule. It possible to see the two plans? You want to see the plans again? I'm sorry. Not today.
Yeah, think we get those posted on the website and get all that stuff taken care of.
Yeah. Saying if we could see both the approved plan and what's
currently proposed. And by the way, I did like the overlay that you did showing the difference. I'll make sure you have both documents. Okay. Thank you.
So back to the side, we've got a motion to defer further consideration. Can I have a second? I'll second that.
Thank you. Let's go to a vote on the motion. Commissioner Halsey? Aye. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Monroe? Aye.
And aye. Vice Chair Elliott vote aye. So the motion carries four-zero-zero. We'll take up the 344 Lake Road at our next meeting. Thank you. Okay. Next, we have new applications. First, IWWC thirty-thirty five for activity construction at 436 Lake Road. Again, because this application is received effective this meeting, we will not be able to act on the application until our next meeting. But at this point, we can certainly entertain questions or comments from commissioners regarding the application and the supporting materials that were posted. If folks had a chance to look at this application. I have two questions. First to Commissioner Larson, Chair of PZC. Wouldn't this make a great test case for the proposed lake regulations? It would.
Secondly, for all commissioners, should we schedule a site walk? Larson thinks we should.
I think we should. Saturdays at 09:00 seem to our go to time for site walks. This Saturday is supposed to be in the low 50s with a small chance of rain. But that's about as good a condition as you can ask for at this time of year.
Like to make a motion that we schedule a sidewalk for this Saturday at 09:00. Policy would second that.
Okay. I'll ask for a vote on that motion. Policy? Aye.
Larson? Aye. Monroe? Aye. And Elliott, aye. So sidewalk, 09:00. We'll get an agenda up. And we may have an addition to that on our next point.
Is Jeremy Elliott Yes. We have any other discussion on this application tonight?
Sure we can. I had asked for it earlier and didn't see anybody's hand raised.
Go ahead. So on the application in paragraph nine for the proposed erosion and sediment control and other management practices, it does talk about minimizing pollution or other environmental damage, maintaining and enhancing the environmental quality. So I think those words and under it it says see the attached sheet and I did not see an attached sheet that talked about mitigation factors that might be put into place to minimize the effect of the runoff into the lake that would be going on due to the proposed development. So I wondered if I was missing something.
Very good question. We might address that. Okay. Does the applicant or engineer on this call? Think yes, I see. I think fingers with us.
I I think the attached sheets was the drawings, the site plan, which shows sedimentation and erosion controls that has said fence down gradient of all this this disturbance. Sorry. I I don't have the technology to show you the drawings, so you you have to have the drawings in front of you. But I believe that's what what it was. I'm filling in for Jim Dutton. Jim Dutton had a ZBA meeting in another town, and he did the actual detail of the site plan. I've reviewed it. I'm his engineer of record.
I did look at site plan and what I was hoping is the intent of our zoning regulations for the lake and it's to encourage property owners who are developing along the lake to provide at the time of construction significant mitigation to minimize stormwater runoff into the lake to prevent with the weed growth and algae growth and all that sort of thing. And so I was looking for maybe some measures like running the gutters from the house into a dry well or something like that to mitigate the runoff from the driveway something. And I didn't see any of that on the site plan.
Well, the driveway. The driveway drains towards the road. And, and the gutters in the front of the house or on the road side of the house, I guess it would be the east portion of that. All those gutters are directed to drain away from the the lake. Eventually, it'll end up in the lake. But this way, it has much longer run. There's a grass swale along the driveway. So those were some of the things that are proposed. There's a let out proppants in the area. So dry wells, I'm sure we could find one if if if that was insisted upon. But there was some thought taken to to direct the runoff away as much runoff as possible away from the lake.
Okay. And that's the kind of thing that we are looking for. As you say, the runoff, even if it goes towards the road, will end up in the lake eventually. And so we are trying to minimize all of that to maintain the quality of the lake. And I'm sure that the new property owners or the potential property owners have a vested interest in making sure that our lake stays healthy going forward. And when they're building the property, that's the time to put these measures in in the most cost effective manner. So I would ask for their consideration of looking at that.
Correct. And Jim Dutton, he'll be at the sidewalk Saturday with plans. He can expound on some of the details. The plan is very detailed.
If I can add to that, it's not just avoiding and mitigating well, but act with measures to enhance the property and its ability to absorb runoff. So active certainly minimizing the impact is the first step, but then measures to enhance quality as an offset for that construction activity. Okay.
And again, I think Commissioner Larson has the greatest current familiarity with the proposed regulations and can probably offer some guidance on trying to achieve those goals. But for now, we'll again look forward to seeing you at the sidewalk at 09:00. And again, we'll take up this application at our next regular meeting. Okay. Thank you. Any
further questions or comments on and on 3035? Oh, one thing. I noticed that some of the PDF files associated with this application online were actually mislabeled and referred to 2030 Three-ninety 7 Lakeside Drive. I expect it was just an accidental cut and paste in renaming
files but yes was that on the plans or it
was it was on the plans as they were posted you know the final things that were posted online But that's probably whoever I don't know who actually uploaded those to the town website. Oh, Okay. It's a common It
wasn't your number. It wasn't the engineer's numbering. It's very common for somebody to miss cut and paste. Okay,
moving on. We have another new application. This is IWWC 2000And36 for Number 26 Old Farms Road. Again, that's an application that we received in time for the meeting, but not in time to be included on the agenda, which is why we added it. This is an application that was stemmed from we previously discussed the proposed work. It was brought to the commission previous meeting as a sort of hypothetical. And we now have the actual application. Again, since it's a new application, we won't be able to take action, but I will ask for questions and comments from commissioners if you've had a chance to review the application at this time.
Yeah, this is I have a question through the board, whether they feel it's significant activity that would require public.
That's a good question in two parts. First of all, is it a significant activity? There's probably good grounds for saying yes. However, I've re evaluated. I looked closely at the regulations, and the regulations state that we shall hold a public hearing only if we determine it to be a significant activity. The regulations do not state that we must have a hearing if it's a significant activity. In other words, being a significant activity or significant impact is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a hearer. My previous understanding again, this was based on oral communication from our former wetlands agent was to the effect that if it was a significant activity, we have to have a hearing. I now question that interpretation of the regulations based on my reading. Got that?
I do. Okay. I was just trying to avoid setting a public hearing later in the process.
If Yeah. I agree. We can have a hearing, it to would be determine it now rather than That's my point. Later. So other comments? Mr. Larson, any
I just reached over to get my regs because I was under the same misconception as you were that if it was a significant activity, it would require a public hearing. I'm just getting the book out so I can lay my eyes on the words as well. So I'll defer for a moment.
You know, on the other hand, is a sidewalk is going to be set. Commission may feel more comfortable making that determination after such time as you've seen the site.
Part of well taken, and I certainly have on my notes for this item that we should schedule a site walk. Would it be agreeable to continue the special meeting site walk from 04:36 Lake Road and go across town to Old Farm Road.
If you're looking for a motion, I'd be happy to make one. Is that okay? Yeah. But
we'll set up a sidewalk for '26 the 26 Old Farm Road application to immediately follow Lake Road sidewalk on Saturday. Okay, motion It'll be circa 09:30. Larson will second.
So we have the motion for a sidewalk. I'll call for a vote. Came by roll call. Commissioner Hallisey? Aye. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Monroe? Aye.
And Vice Chair Elliott also votes aye. So the motion carries four-zero-zero. We'll have a sidewalk following Saturday following the sidewalk on Lake Row. So that will be our agenda for that special meeting. Okay, returning to the question about whether or not it's a significant activity.
Mrs. Larson, I would like to make a motion that the proposed activity is a significant activity. I'll ask for a second on that. I'll second it.
Okay. We have a motion and a second to the effect that this is a significant activity as defined by regulation. Any comment or discussion on that motion? Commissioner Larson, you could speak to the basis for that.
Well, the different conditions for significant activity, does any activity involving disposition or removal of material which will or may have a major substantial effect or significant impact on regulated area. I have not seen the property, but I am under the impression that the proposed driveways in fairly steep section of the property and would require a significant amount of fill. And that's why I think that it might be a significant activity.
It does involve fill and in fact construction of concrete retaining walls for that fill over a culvert in the stream, a culvert to carry the water in that stream. And if you look at the site plan, you'll see that they're using interlocking concrete block to hold the fill. So I'm inclined to agree with you that it is a significant activity, significant impact on that watercourse. Any other discussion or comments?
I do have a comment going back to the proposed sidewalk. Yeah. I think we should clarify where folks should meet.
Yes, indeed. Good point well taken. Do we have a suggestion from the engineer or owner as to an appropriate location to begin the sidewalk? I I would think that the entrance to the driveway or the proposed entrance to the driveway would be reasonable. Yeah. So I think go ahead, George.
Yeah. We can meet at the turnaround at the cul de sac of Pine Ridge. Jim, does that answer your Yes, it does. Okay.
Okay. I'm looking at just lost it. Section I'm sorry, I lost my place in the document regarding Okay, Section nine, public hearings. Section 9.1 says, the Commission shall not hold a public hearing on an application unless the Commission determines that the proposed activity may have a significant impact on wetlands or water courses, comma, a petition signed by at least 25 persons who are 18 years of age or older and who reside in the municipality in which the regulated activity is proposed, so forth. So we may issue a permit without a public hearing, provided no petition provided for in this section is filed with the commission. So again, based on my reading of Section 9.1, the determination that it's a significant activity does not entail a hearing. It authorizes. It allow us to hold a hearing. It would justify a hearing, but it doesn't require it. Larson, I agree with what you had just said.
Good. Glad to have a court here. So returning then to the motion regarding significant activity. We have the motion and second. We've had discussion. Any further discussion? I'll call a vote on the motion. By roll call, Commissioner Hallisey? Aye. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Monroe? Aye. And Vice Chair Elliott? Aye. So the motion carries four-zero-zero. We have ruled that it is a significant activity. And we have scheduled a sidewalk for, let's say, it'll be about 09:30, 09:45 before we get there. And I suppose that if we have some means of notifying you, we could do so immediately as we leave the prior site, I give you a heads up.
We can pass a phone number on to maybe Joe to get that distributed. Yeah. Yeah. We can do that. K.
Okay. That'll work. Great. Okay. So I think that we can now move on to the agenda. Pardon? Chairman would Yeah. I just like
suggest that you maybe have the applicants give a quick presentation of their application. We'll
have the we really can't consider the application until the next meeting. And it's something that's come before the mission previously, at least in a conceptual manner. And we've got a rather lengthy agenda here. So, I'd rather move on. Again, we'll have the sidewalk. We've got the plans, the detailed site plans. And I think we'd be better off to defer further consideration of this until our next regular meeting, when we'll actually be able to take action on the application. Unless any of the commissioners wish to hear more about the application at this time. Okay. Thanks to the applicants for your attention. And again, I would like to move on, because we still have several items to consider. In particular,
item 8A, which has been on our plate for quite some time now, outpatient visit 2027 for activities at 129 Hebron Road. As previously noted, during the conclusion of the hearing, we have a significantly revised plan. Would the applicants or their agent like to summarize and present those revisions? Can you hear me right now? I can
who am I Can you hear Russ Heinz, applicant agent? This is 860798? Yes, 7986160. Okay. You're not identified on screen here.
Is your name again? Russell Heinz. I'm a principal with Tarbella Heinz, the preparer plans. All right. Thank you. Okay.
So I just quickly, I didn't think we could talk after a public hearing was closed. We are now in the meeting.
Okay. I realize that. But I thought I was supposed to present my stuff at the public hearing, but I will present it now. So I was told by Joe, New York Wetland agent, and you are as the commission that you are not happy with the location of the pool, of the shed, of the garage and we moved it as much as I could to meet the health code and to stay away from the wetlands as far as I could and keep what my client wants to have and which is what you have in front of me. And I did try to make it a little more clear to you how we what was existing and what was proposed. And I believe the shaded is the proposed and everything else is existing. And we are far as plan revised eleven-twenty five-twenty.
Exactly. And as far as the septic system, that was approved back in, I want to say, by the health department. I've not really changed that. And the only reason that's not been built yet is because according to the health code, until that system fails or until they add any additional as in the garage, which has got the apartment, if they hook that up, if they need to add something to that system, then that has to be put in. But until now, as of right now, that septic system does not have to be installed. So that's kind of where why the way it is at this point. But the addition is all been done. The house has been built, and they're just really wanna put their wall up.
As I look at the plan, the fence now stops at mark about 100 feet Basically at your regulator. Outside of the regulator, correct? Yep. Terminates outside The the pool and the garage apartment have both been moved closer to the existing structure, so further away from wells. From the wetlands.
Right. Okay. Then I would like to ask commissioners if they have any questions or comments regarding the revised application. Commissioner Halsey, you had questions regarding the original application of these revisions. I don't. Have no. Okay. So, these revisions essentially satisfied your original questions? Yes.
Okay. Commissioner Larson, do you have any questions or comments regarding revisions?
I just had a question on septic design going to the leach field. Am I reading the drawing correct that we're pumping that uphill? It's not flowing downhill, we're pumping uphill. That's correct. Yeah, that was the only question I had.
Commissioner Monroe, did you have any questions about the proposal?
It looks like the wall is going to stop right along that 100 foot upland review area? Yeah.
That's what I was told by my client to do, or I was told by that's what you wanted, and that's my client agreed to that, and that's where it'll stop. K. I'm happy with that.
So let me just make sure that the commissioners are ready to act on this application. Obviously, we've been on it quite some time now, and we've seen some extensive revision of the plan in relation to concerns that we raised. Again, I'll simply point out for the record, these were not things that we specifically requested, but asked to be addressed based on the input we received from reviewing engineer and from public comment on the previous hearing. So as far as I'm concerned, I would be ready to entertain a motion to approve the application with standard conditions as it is currently revised.
Chairman Elliot, I was wondering if we could get the agent to address if there were any additional conditions of approval that he would recommend to us for this application. Certainly. Mr. Wagner?
I can't think of anything specific that I would want to add.
Currently, we're looking only at activities in the Upland Review Area. And with a portion of the building and the pool both being within the Upland Review Area, at least in almost majority of those construction activities would be in the Upland Review Area. We've really taken all of the wetlands impact off the table at this point.
Mrs. Larson, I'll make a motion to approve the application subject to standard conditions of approval. Do I have a second for that motion? I'll second that.
Thank you. So we have a motion and a second to approve the application as modified with standard conditions, application IWWC twenty-twenty seven, 129 Hebron Road. Any further discussion on the motion on the application? I'll call for a vote by roll call. Agent Commissioner Hallisey. Aye.
Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Monroe. Aye. And Vice Chair Elliott also votes aye. The motion carries four-zero-zero. Agent Wagner, we'll pass the ball to you to issue the that will be in two weeks because, of course, we still have to allow for public comment on the application. Okay? Okay.
There you go. So moving on with the agenda, the next item is application number twenty-thirty for the bridge activity on Cider Mill. We haven't received any further information on the application per se. However, there has been some communication with our attorney and with the applicants regarding that. Agent Wagner, could you bring the commission up to speed on with a summary of what's transpired with respect to this application?
Nothing really. I haven't gotten anything new. We did the sidewalk on the fourteenth. That was that was it. I I don't have any new I didn't have any requests from the commission to seek any more information from it, and we didn't receive any. So
Right, well, of course, as of the sidewalk, we were just gathering information. And I think now is the time for the commission to speak up on the application and its adequacy or inadequacy as the case may be. I do have some comments, but I'll wait for other commissioners to put an order in first.
I have a question. Yeah. Is this a temporary bridge, or is this gonna be permanent?
According to my reading of the my understanding of the application, they intend for this bridge to be a permanent structure.
I just asked that because I've seen that, Brooke. I'm sure you have go crazy. When it floods.
Exactly. You've raised a very good point there. Essentially, it seems to me that the application is far from complete. We just don't have enough information about the construction of the bridge or its potential environmental impact. We saw on the sidewalk approximately where it's gonna go, but there was no delineation of the exact landings on either the east or west side of the brook. We were told that it would be land on the west side of the brook such that it would avoid the steepest part of the grade on the Western Bank. And on the Eastern Bank, it would land on what appears to me to be floodplain that would be northerly of the existing drive way pad. Everybody had that same impression, but there was really no plan for the bridge. We had a sort of a generic bridge design. And we had a general location and a general assertation that there would be no excavation for footings to support the center of the bridge, which would be two spans meeting in the middle. But as I said, we just really don't have much of a plan there. And questions such as Commissioner Monroe just raised about flooding events. So we've seen Staddle Brook
in full roar. And I can't imagine that a bridge at that level wouldn't obstruct flow and catch debris, and so on and so forth. So it would have to have impact on the water course. But we can't evaluate. Anybody else wanna weigh in on this?
This is Halsey. I I do have concerns. Obviously, bridge that would require an approach on either side, which you have to assume require fill and grading. I understand too the applicants was just some feedback whether they proceed far into this. I do appreciate that. That's what concerns with what happens on the other side with any vehicles. That's a fairly steep hill. I say vehicles. My understanding would be, only intended right now for equipment for repair, But nonetheless, it's a bridge that's going in there in perpetuity for all intents and purposes. Yeah, I have a big concern about, also the I'm curious as to whether, would trigger a stream encroachment. I don't know the I don't know when that when a stream encroachment permit required it. Just came to mind that you weren't required it.
Point well taken, And I certainly couldn't address that question myself. Again, as we say, it does seem that it's quite likely to interfere with the water course, maybe not under normal conditions, but under anticipated high water conditions, it almost certainly would interfere with flow. There's also the question of whether any alternatives exist. I'm gonna have to switch over here. Excuse me. I'm gonna pull up that application. Minnie, could you put that application on the screen for sharing? So 20 dash 30. Yep. Thank you.
What part would you like me to scroll to? Scroll down to
well, essentially, we're looking at number nine, which calls for alternatives considered inseplicately rejected by the applicant and why the alternative set forth on the application was chosen. All such alternatives shall be diagrammed on-site plan or drawn. Well, we don't have a proper site plan. We've got a sketch. But we don't have any consideration of alternatives. And again, my understanding here is that there may be a possibility of accessing the property, by an easement from an adjoining property. Now, that would be complicated, but that's not our concern. So again, what we have is a generic drawing for a short span timber bridge and an approximate location on the map. But we don't really have a site plan showing any of the topographic features. None of the detail that I think would be required for evaluation. With that in mind, I would propose that we defer further consideration of this application pending receipt of further information from the applicants. I certainly don't think we could accept this Yeah, Commissioner Allsey?
I'm just curious if the applicant is available, and maybe we could give them some more direction.
Right, yeah, we do need to give them direction on that. And I don't know if the applicant or agent on the call? Doesn't look like it.
Perhaps agent Wagner and I could work together to summarize the aspects of the application that wouldn't require attention.
Yeah, I could come up with a list and send it to them, work with them to try and get a more detailed plan for next month.
Yeah. Again, the real key is the site plan, the impacts, and potential alternatives. Again, as in the email correspondence that you had with Attorney Branch.
Vice Chairman Elliott, did you say there was some information from Attorney Branch with respect to this application?
It was not on the application per se. It was more an advisory regarding such applications and especially the question of the alternatives. We can certainly forward that information to the commission. I don't know if it should be part of the record for the application or not. I want to take that under advisement. But I I I certainly think that it could be shared with the commission. I
would also recommend that one of the alternatives that they might consider is making the bridge where they proposed it a temporary bridge. They're moving the equipment in and out during dry season, that's totally different than having a bridge there year round with the significant
rushing through the brook. Right. So, yeah, that would be a good question to raise. Would a temporary bridge, a temporary span suffice for the purpose. The only downside I could see there, Jerry, was to be that if they wanted then subsequently to do some more work, they have to reapply for a permit for another temporary crossing. But yeah, that would certainly having a temporary crossing in the dry season would obviate a lot of our concern.
The reality is it's not a timber bridge. It appears to be a designed lumber. It's an engineered lumber bridge, really. Yeah, exactly. I mean, says timber on one, on the little picture, cross section, it's engineered lumber. And it's significant projects. Yeah, it's a bridge. A lot of expense for it, don't worry.
Not quite on the same scale as the covered bridge downstream, but still. No.
Okay, so anything else on this? We don't have any motions or anything on it, so I think we can move on if we're ready. And again, the understanding is that we'll communicate our concerns and requirements to the applicants to be addressed at our next meeting. Okay, application number 203285 Lakeside Drive. We've had one new well, we've got additional information on that, namely we received notification of approval by the Andover Lake Management Association. So it's good to go from that point of view. Okay, I see Mr. Miner is patiently online as a representative for the owner. And I'll ask, let's see, any questions or comments from commissioners on this application?
This is Larson, and I had a question concerning the transporting of the rock for the rock wall down to the lake. And I guess my question is in the form of a surprise as I walk around the lake at 422 Lake Road where all of a sudden I see a temporary road installed that leads down to the lake. And I know that's a very reputable contractor that's putting that wall in over there. It was just certainly not expected by me when we discussed the application. So I was wondering what kind of precautions or whatever you were taking to protect the ground or whatever to get the rock down there.
Typically we use a skid steer when we did the property and I believe it was 210 Lake Road last year. We just use the skid steer to bring the stone down to the site. What little bit we used there, we didn't use a lot there to be honest, but and there was not a significant, I mean there was considerable amount of traffic with heavy machinery going up and down the hill between the excavator and the skid steer. And there was not really a significant amount of soil erosion to the property. And although the site on last year's project, the hill, I would say is comparable in pitch is to 85 Lake Road. It's not as long. It wasn't as long last year's project wasn't as long of a run. But we didn't experience and we had some pretty heavy rains and like I mentioned on the sidewalk, we always keep bales of hay on-site in case we are predicting any kind of heavy storms coming. We didn't really have any issues with runoff into the water. The hill on the last year's project was much closer to the lake than this one. There's there's a much more flatter run out at 85 Lakeside. So I don't really foresee any issues with that. I was surprised myself to see the stone dust road that the other company put in. I can't remember the name of the company now. I've never seen anybody do that before, to be quite honest.
Jeff, could you perhaps mulch your hauler out? I know that's one way of avoiding compaction or erosion in those situations.
You could put mulch down, yep. Or just wood chips kind of thing. Yep. In my opinion, I would be concerned about bringing a foreign wood chip material and have that run-in to the lake, to be real honest with you. That was my actual thought with that stone dust driveway that the other company put in over at McGuire's property. I was a little surprised because, I mean, that's an unwashed material that they brought in from a sand and gravel pit. I mean, if we had that heavy rains and that were to wash into the lake, I don't know what kind of impact that would have on the lake. That would be my concern only. I know last year John Valenti asked us to put wood chips behind the wall, where we had seated. He wanted to see wood chips there. And, and that did wash into the lake during some heavy rains. So I'm not sure if that's a viable option. Like I said, we don't really, we don't really have a lot of issues with the runoff. We've done two walls on the other side of like two years in a row.
Years we didn't have any issues with it at all.
This isn't a case where you wait until the ground is frozen necessarily.
The ground doesn't really freeze anymore. So no, we don't. I would rather the ground be somewhat frozen except for obviously when we're excavating the, you know, the lake area where we're going to build the wall, I'd rather it not be frozen solid. As of right now, nothing's frozen. I don't see any cold weather in the near future. So, but again, like I said last year, the last actually past previous years, didn't experience any runoff whatsoever done into the lake. Okay, thank you.
Any other questions or comments on the application? Okay, I'm certainly ready to entertain a motion. You've got mail.
To approve the application for construction of the lake wall and fire pit at 85 Lakeside Drive, IWSWC 20 Dash 32.
Clarkson, I'll make a motion to approve application 20Dash32 for 85 Lakeside Drive. I'll stop you, Matt.
Okay. So I have a motion and a second. Sorry, I was distracted by a couple of incomings. I'll go for a roll call. Commissioner Hallisey? Aye.
Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Monroe? Aye. And Vice Chair Elliott, also aye. Motion carries four zero zero. Again, Regent Wagner will communicate decision two week lag time, etcetera, standard conditions to apply. But you'll be good to go. Now let's move on to the really vexing application, February. It doesn't look like we're going to be able to take action on this one tonight because we don't have any new materials And in particular, we don't have any indication of ALMA approval. I believe you said that, Jeff, that you'd have requested it.
I did. I'm not really sure Sorry. What happened Somebody got to go shake the shake the branch as it were. I have to shake the tree one more time, I guess. Yes. And I'm not overly concerned about that. That was not my primary application that I was concerned with. The 85 was my priority for now. So, I'm assuming a job, excuse me, a paid job. Yes, a paid job is more important than spending. Home improvements.
So yeah, I guess I will have to, contact Alcoa and find out what happened with that. I talked to Jeff Hayes, I believe it was Saturday. He said he was emailing over his approval letter. I assumed obviously wrongly that that implicated, multiple letters, letters, I guess is the word I was looking for. And he only approved the 85. But like I said, I'm not going to lose sleep over that.
Okay. Truthfully, we could use somewhat better detail in your plans and proposal for that activity. Sure, what would you Well,
again, better detail on the wall. Discussed when we had the sidewalk, you showed us the patio area, but we still don't have dimensions areas So that would be something that's closer to an actual site plan.
For both the wall and the patio? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, the wall and the patio. Yeah, do realize I was somewhat vague because the whole thing was kind of like, well, let's get two permits while we're getting one. And I hadn't really put too much thought into the lake house. Honestly, it probably won't even get done this year, all right. Better site plans. Okay, I can do that. Wall and patio. Okay.
Anything else from commissioners? Larsen, you already commented on the hall route for the previous one, so I suppose that that question would also apply, and the answer would be just about the same if you're having to move I
would also make a follow-up request that the homeowner consider mitigation measures for the storm water that runs down into the lake there. In the ideal world, that would include gutters draining into a drywall kind of thing when you're putting the patio up. Right. That'd be great.
Right. We did talk about that. And, yeah, we haven't solved that conundrum with the whole driveway. I think we have probably more runoff coming off the driveway than I, than we do on the downspout drains. And I haven't quite figured that out just yet. But yes, we did talk about downspout drain, dry wells and and whatnot. So I will make note of that. Okay, any other questions or concerns regarding the application? If
not, I think, Jeff, we can let you go and proceed on to our next agenda item. Excellent, thank you.
Item number nine, 9A and 9B both being tightly linked enforcement actions. Let's start with number 41. We did receive some additional materials on that. Agent Wagner, would you care to pick up the ball here and describe what you've seen? Mindy, if you could bring up the photos that were posted online regarding the remediation at 41, enforcement action at 41 Route 87. And I see that the owner is online and now visible. Okay, here we go. Now this is a different set of photos. This regards 33. The photos, and I'm sure I can't share my screen here.
Are they emailed to me, or are they on the website? They should be on the website.
Yeah, they uploaded. It's labeled 41 Route 87, photo submitted, bone violation pictures, right? They're under enforcement actions, not application. That last one. Okay, agent Wagner, take it away. I
spoke to Kurt, the property owner for 31 Route 87 last week. They were in the process of doing this work. I haven't visited the site since it was late late last week that I talked to him. He sent me these pictures. This one's a view. Let's see. View of remediated section of 41 Route 87, looking Southeast section of 33 Route 87 towards 41 Route 87 property. So you can see 41 Route 87 in the background there. You can see the straw bales. Then they mentioned, Kurt mentioned that they're going to put straw and grass seed down to stabilize the area as much as the grass will grow in December. Then they're guy doing the site work painted a line to demonstrate the areas that where the where the film is removed. This is a view from the opposite way looking towards Route 87 from the back of the area.
Okay, so we have some indication here that the approved contractor has engaged in remediation efforts on the 41 Route 87 side of the water course. Yes. But you haven't yet visited the site to verify the scope of the work and whether it's essentially adequate? Not yet. Okay.
So at least some progress is being made. Now you've represented also that there would be no that activities on the other side of the creek at the 33 Route 87 side would not commence until the work at 41 was completed, and they have to move the shed.
Yeah. That no. The appeal window for the permit just, that just expired on Saturday. So they didn't they started the forty one first. That was the priority according to Kurt.
Okay. And, again, you haven't visited to ascertain if anything has been done subsequent to that communication? I have not. Okay.
Now, on the other side of the creek, we have some communication from the property owner and a couple of photographs. I don't know if those have been posted or is there or no, Mindy, you have those, right? In the email, the photographs you started to show of views of 33 Route 87 from 41. Right, okay. Now, I can't interpret these photographs, but I believe the photographer the landowner is on the call. So Ms. Nichols, if you could explain what you're trying to convey here.
Hello, miss Nichols, can you unmute? I'm sorry that I was muted. So the corner that you could see, that's the flat area. That was the work that Mark Williams has been excavating. And the view that you are seeing with all those rocks, that's the part that's on the other side of the hay bales that you don't see. And this deposition was done, as you can see, in December 2019. And one year later, it is still there. And that was needed to be put there so the shed that was not permitted can be platformed. And those boulders are still there. And I just wanted to make sure that that is going to be part of the remediation. When I spoke to Mark Williams, he told me that he was focusing on the land that was closer to the stakes. And that's what you saw that he did work on. That's why it's all flat and gradient. But he was not going to do anything with the bank of the stream because that's not what he was contracted to do. So that is when I took the view of these rocks and boulders because he gave me the impression that this was something that he was not even going to touch. And that's clearly in the wetlands area. And I know that you said that the priority was 41 Route 87.
No, not priority, but simply the first order of business.
Okay, because the violation has been since February. And now, all of a sudden, December 1, it seems like it's a priority. So I just wanted to make sure, because of what he did for the shed, that's where all these boulders are. And that's not even the first thing that he's working on. He's working on clearing his land and making that flat rather than working with the area that could potentially directly affect the brook, the wetland area, which is obviously my concern with my house being down a hill that empties into a brook that could potentially be dammed. I just don't know how much longer this needs to go on, where we just wait for Kurt's our priority and an enforcement action. I've been to seven different every month I come to this meeting and something is always prolonged because it's not Mr. Boham's agenda or priority and we just doing whatever he wants to do on his agenda rather than anybody else's and it's just very very frustrating as I state in every meeting and I'm hoping that it gets recorded in the minutes each time that we look for progress. And it's only when it's convenient for Mr. Bohum, not when it's convenient for the other people that it's affecting.
Take your point. And again, without having a direct familiarity with the work that has been done. I can only refer this to Adrian Wagner to follow-up. And again, as we said at our last meeting, we really do action on this, but the commission does not enforce. The commission rules. We can only work through our agent to get things done. And I know that agent Wagner has been active and tried to communicate And Mr. If Mr. Boehm isn't following up, the only thing we can do as a next step would be to try to, well, we would basically have to take it to court.
Well, we've been saying this, I mean, in September, mean, I hopefully recorded the minutes, of you stated if that shed is not moved, I don't care if he moves it to his front yard, we will take action, we will take action. I continue to hear the same thing. Agent Wagner stated, he talked to Mr. Boheme. He said, this is what he's doing. We've been talking to Mr. Boheme since September. It's now December 1, and now we are just starting to take action. And again, it's just a recycled saying that I'm just hearing over and over again the same thing. We could only do so much. Well, it seems Mr. Bohum could do whatever he wants. So we're at the point where we're going to do what we want to our side of the book because it doesn't matter. The commission is not going to do anything.
That's basically the I
don't that attitude if I were you. I think it would be ill advised to take matters into your own hands here. Just my frustration is The point is, yes, I realize it's going very slowly. And that there have been a number of delaying factors such as getting approval for the contractor. I mean, that was a big hitch for a long time there. And then contractor got approved and the contractor was ready to do the work and seems that he started the work. But again, based on the information we have present and the information you provided, obviously, he hasn't done but half a job. And a lot more is going to be required, including moving the shed. I don't mean to cut Because the shed has got to be relocated. I know what's going be done on I the
don't mean to cut you off, but I know what needs to be done. I know what's been done. It's just very frustrating when I come to meetings. I've come to 12 meetings, 12 meetings, and we're still having these meetings about it. I have a contractor's information since August. He started December 1. So my time is valuable, just like I appreciate your time is valuable. But twelve months on the same issue, we all know what the issue is, but we also know who is dictating when it's going to be done. So I don't understand where the enforcement is.
Again, appreciate your concern. And I think we will continue to try and get things moving. But as I said, the commission per se cannot enforce. And frankly, the regulations are such that the process is slow. Will
So how do I contact your lawyer or attorney to You don't. The next level? You don't. Well, then why would I want to come to a meeting and even have this on your agenda if nothing is To provide information
about what's happening. Because absent that, we don't even know that there's still an issue. We get some follow-up, but you were the one who initiated the action in the first place. Right. And we're relying on you in part and your role here.
So would you like a weekly update every Monday? Should I give an update? No, because we won't be able to receive it. I'll send it over an email. I
can send You it up in two can certainly be in contact with Agent Wagner.
And I do hear I appreciate you sends me the email for the agenda, and I respond with concerns. But I don't feel my concerns are being addressed. They're just being appeased by putting me on the agenda. I mean, if you look, I have all the agendas printed. I have twelve months of agendas with my name on it. Twelve months of That's right. It's a continuing problem.
Well, then how do we rectify this? We just wait for somebody else to be convenient for them? And I hope that my basement doesn't flood or my front yard doesn't flood and then I have issues? I just have to cross my fingers and hope that Mother Nature is going to be good to us.
And we, the commission, have to continue to try to get Mr. Bohm to act. We do that, as I said, thirst by our agent and feeling that we have to initiate legal action. Trust me, will not be fast either.
Right. In my January minutes sorry, my July minutes, it says that you would be contacting your attorney to look into legal action. That was the July minutes. It is now December. So should I be the one asking for the attorney follow-up? What is the action that you are now taking? This was in the minutes that you guys have posted that you would be contacting the attorney for legal action. So how do I
don't believe that we said that we would. We said we might consider, and that's a different matter. We said failing action. And in any event I'll have to Legal action would be a matter of last resort. You won't get anything, nothing will happen quickly if it has to go to court, especially under present conditions where court actions are curtailed. Concern is that COVID restrictions. Understand your concern. You're worried about flooding. And that's a valid concern. Our concern is how to get this done and how to light a fire under Mr. Boehm to make it happen. And again, I'm going to have to refer to Agent Wagner as the point person for that. And I hope that the commission is in agreement that this should probably take highest priority in his activities. We know what needs to be done. The plan for remediation and the approved relocation of the shed are all there. So it seems to me simply a matter of getting that work to be done. Given that we know what needs to be done, how do we get Mr. Bohm to follow
on those requirements?
This has been since February. He knew what needed to be done, and you've been asking him to follow. That's just
Well, that's not entirely true because there was the whole shed issue, and the shed had to be moved before anything could be before the fill on his side of the creek could be addressed. And the permit for the shed was first denied and then approved. Delays, structural delays, systemic delays occurred. And well, that may be aggravating.
It's also Well, due respect to Commissioner Elliott, I mean, I don't want to you guys have been on for two and a half hours. We don't need to rehash. We all know what's been going on. I just wanted to be listening to what the commission was doing about it. So you don't have to rehash the timeline. I know that. We all know that. We are all part of this. So whatever you need to do to move on.
Vice Chairman Elliott, I do have a question. Yeah. At the last meeting, we discussed the fact that we would be getting a remediation plan. And I see we have not got one of those. Do we have a due date by which we expect to get the plan from Mr. Bohm?
I can't answer that question immediately because I've got to refer to the documents. Let's see now.
I know I didn't see anything new online on a remediation plan. And so my suspicion is that we probably have not given him a deadline to present the plan. And we need to do that so that we can be ready to take legal action.
On your August 3 minute, it states, George Eliot said the commission can construct a timeline in terms of the legal requirement of what the commission needs to do for the next steps. And they would contacting the attorney if they don't get any action. And that was on the August 3 meeting. That I know was speaking to the timeline of action, But again, that was discussed back in August about steps not being followed and what is the timeline for that.
Yeah, that was in response to a letter from your attorney about effectuating the order. And I think that that was sidelined by the SHED application and the discussion stating that you had given permission for the contractor to access the property. That's what I'm seeing from the last minute. Right. That was It on the seemed at that point that things were beginning to move forward. And obviously, they moved very, very little. I mean, the forward motion is simply it's moving, but it isn't moving very much is the problem. The job has been started, but it doesn't seem to show any signs of current you're saying there hasn't been any current progress. And the issue now is to, you know, how can we get Mr. Boehm to get the job finished?
So when I go back and then look at the September 15 meeting when you were asking for information for a permit application for the shed as well as to remove all the deposition material from that area in the slope. That's when Agent Wagner recommended Mr. Bohum to follow the plan and remove the material concurrently with the file permit modification. And agent Wagner confirmed that no action at that time was taken or to remediate. And agent Wagner said that attorney Mark Bram was informed. And the next step would be for the town to take legal action through the state Supreme Court. They corrected Wagner to contact Attorney Brantz if no progress was made and draft a motion for the next step discussed at the October meeting. However, at that October meeting, there was not this discussion. So it was noted in your September minutes that this is what the steps should be, but that was not followed up in the October meeting.
Again, I'll simply state that it seemed that progress was being made without recourse to legal action, and that it now appears that such action is proceeding simply by fits and starts, and that we need to goad Mr. Bohm into finishing the work that's been started.
And then on your October meeting, again, you said the next step of the commission would be communicate with your attorney regarding injunctions, fines, and superior court. And Agent Wagner should communicate again the next step and the importance with Mr. Bohum. So again, there's three months in a row where you are stating that there should be some going forward with information, talking to your attorney and some legal action. And then unfortunately, I wasn't able to go to the November meeting, and there seems to be no discussion. When I wasn't present at that meeting, There's nothing listed in the sorry, I take that back.
We did actually discuss that. And that was when we came up that I just I'm sorry. I lost the minutes there. Yeah. I found them. Yep. And it looked
Our minutes from the November 2 meeting do indicate that we had continued discussion.
Yeah. Basically, it also states just suggestion on where the shed could be moved. Again, But it's talking about still waiting to receive the permit. And the cease and correct order should be enforced independently of the shed. So again, now this is three months prior. We were talking about following up with legal action. Then we had something a little bit. Now the SHED application has expired, and there's still no change.
Let me ask Agent Wagner here about the situation with the SHED. We basically turned that over to the shed application because it was an upland reviewer.
The permit was issued to relocate the shed 10 feet. There was a fifteen day appeals period. I should forget what day. Was like mid November that I issued the permit. But anyway, the appeal period just expired Saturday. So that would be a I advised Kurt that it was probably best to wait till the peer the appeal period was over before this did anything with the shed. And they were, you know, at the time I was talking to them, were in the course of working on 41 Route 87 anyway. So I kinda lined up time wise that they could start working on the shed. And I said, I haven't been there. I haven't talked to him since then. So I don't know what's happened. That was Thursday. Nothing.
Did we not have a remediation plan before we actually execute the non plan?
We had engineering recommendations for remediation that included removal of debris, installation of geo fabric, and rip rack. All that has been communicated early on in the process.
So it seemed to be sufficient. We as a commission didn't act on that to say whether or not that was sufficient. That was by the same engineer that recommended moving the shed four feet.
That was my follow-up question. That's Andrew Bushnell, the civil engineer. There were seven recommendations that he gave when I talked to Mark Williams. I want to say he was only going to do four of those. There was nothing that had to do with the grading of the slope and that he was basically just removing and putting the bales of hay. So that's why I also wanted to follow-up to make sure that I would guess either Agent Wagner or Andrew Bushnell be the one to go and sign off that it was done back to its original? Again, my bigger concern and you saw that pile of rocks is that because of gravity, they're going to fall into the stream, and it's going to dam it all up. I think they're at their angle of repose.
Any event Well, they weren't there originally, and they're on my property. So I guess then I will have to do a trespass thing or something.
That's what I'm just trying to figure out. Yeah. But it sounds like, from your communication, the contractor may be misinformed as to what's really required here.
And that's, I think, what I wanted to make sure that was communicated through Agent Wagner is, like Commissioner Larson was saying, we have this remediation process. But that doesn't mean that that's what's communicated to somebody who's actually commissioned to do the work. Right. So that was something I also wanted to make sure. We have this plan in place. And is it being filed, is it just somebody else's interpretation of what needs to be done to satisfy the commission when, again, yes, it's the wetlands. Yes, it's my property. So if I have to do something from my end for my property, that's what I need to do. But I was really hopeful that the town was going to do that because it is in the wetlands area.
Okay. Jed, you raised the point about remediation plan. All we have that I can find is the original order to remediate, which the final, penultimate paragraph, the order states that they have to be remediated within 100 feet. I believe that let's see now. Where are the recommendations from I have those.
Engineer Bushnell. Was that included in the permit application for the shed, the permit application that we denied? I think you were treating them separately. But they were linked. Again, we could
Yeah, the seven points that I have from Andrew Bushnell is that the shed should be relocated six feet north. The field was going to be removed and relocated closer to away from the stream in a level area. Hay bales will be installed for erosion control, removal of any visible debris or large stones from the embankment. And then this geotextile should be installed along with a layer of riprap rock over the geotextile and then loom, seed, and mulch. Those are the seven recommendations. Right. And
And it's my understanding that Mr. Williams was communicated about the hay bales, removing stuff that was on our property line, but he didn't even go near the embankment in there.
Okay. So, Agent Wagner, do you have the recommendations from engineer Bushnell regarding remediation, especially as regards to the removal of materials following the relocation of the shed. Well, they're they were incorporated into the application.
Yeah. That's what I thought. And so but since since the original application, you know, those carried forward? Sorry. My recollection didn't serve. Were those recommendations carried forward into the reapplication?
Yeah, the geotextile, the riprap, the removal and fill, then relocation of the shed has changed from six feet to 10 feet. Okay, So we so getting back to commissioner Larson's
question. Yeah. There is a sufficient plan for remediation. Again, the sticking point is to get Mr. Bone and his contractor to get the work done. And since the work has started, it's a matter of making, you know, getting some progress and getting some progress that's not just in fits and starts and not just dependent on, well, my contractor wants to schedule at some other time or, you know, and I don't know, again, legal action, although perhaps the threat of legal action might speed things up, legal action per se isn't going to make it happen any faster.
They will prove a point to him that it's not on his budget when it's convenient for him.
I think that's what we have to communicate. As I say, the legal action would simply defer any action, any activity until it goes through the courts. Well, I like that think we'd rather Commissioner would rather see it gets get done sooner.
Talking about a timeline. There's no timeline. It's basically whenever it's convenient, so I like Commissioner Larson's suggestion of having a timeline.
Can we agree that it perhaps. The agent agent. I agree with her discuss the parameters of work, the extent of what work is actually required. That seems to be the big issue right here. I mean, there's equipment on-site, pay bills are there. I have no idea what the contractor schedule is. It seems to be moving forward. Problem that as I see it is, seems to be, the extent of work isn't clear.
It might be clear. It just, I don't know what the timeline is. And like I said, they're working on one particular area, and that's not even the area to me that's near the wetland that is going to, the slope and all that stuff. I get it. He's clearing that area. It's off my property. But what about the other part of the property where the actual brook is? I would have thought that would have been the first priority, getting the deposition away from the brook. And when I talked to Mark Williams, he wasn't under the impression that he was going to have to do the slope or anything like that. So that's why I was like, well, wait a second. Yeah, it's nice that you're to get it off of my property, but my bigger concern is the brook. What's gonna happen to the brook?
So I guess there just needs to be some clarification as to what is responsible for.
Right. And I think that is covered in the remediation plan. And agent Wagner pointed out in the application to essentially relocate the shed prior to the removal and remediation activities. But it does seem that the contractor may not be fully informed of the scope of work. And so I guess that at this point we should, as you say, have agent Wagner communicate those requirements, and it would be up to us to determine if we want to, what would be an appropriate timeline for completing this activity. Frankly, I have no idea what would be, you know, what kind of work is required or how much time it will take to get the work done. And we're not really certain right now as to how much of the work has been done, although it seems like it's very little. Major Wagner, could you weigh in on this and give us a sense of when you can what you can see as a potential for getting this done? And as a plan and what it will take?
I'm not yeah. I'm not really sure what your question is.
What is it gonna take to get this done in your opinion?
Well, the I mean, just doing it. The paperwork's in place. The permit is in place. The appeal period is passed. So that should all the wetlands red tape is out of the way. So now it's up to Curt and the contractor to just do it.
Okay. And can you communicate a sense of urgency to Mr. Vaughn about getting this work done? Yeah. And
maybe raise the stick of what it would be entailed for enforcement action. If we have to take it to the next step, what's going to come down on him?
Can I ask you one question based on a picture that I sent? Is the one that you saw with all the boulders, are those going to be removed?
That was my understanding that any material that was put in there as fill will have to be removed. I
just want to make sure that I was clearly understanding because, again, that was put there to make space for that platform. All right. Gentlemen, I am sorry that I have to take so much of your time. And I do appreciate what you're trying to do. So thank you again. And I will see you, I guess, for the January meeting. Is that the next one? Our next meeting will be in January. But feel free to contact any time. Oh, I will. Thank you again. Okay.
So I return to the regulations. It's not really clear, exactly what would occur if we have to take legal action. But I think we can be assured that it would not be favorable for Mr. Baldwin. I just want it to get done. And
don't as I say, I think that that would really constitute a delay of the game. But at the same time, if the work is ready to be done, and Agent as Wagner says, everything seems to be in place for it to be done, then I don't know what else we can do to get it completed. I'd be happy to entertain any suggestions from the Commission. Okay. Well, I guess that the commission right now should simply continue. And I don't know. I'm not sure that I understand what sequence is now. Agent Wagner, you mentioned something that had expired. Which what had expired now?
The appeals period for a public to appeal agent just an agent's decision to issue the permit.
Oh, okay. Right. I got you. I got you. The the two week. Yeah. Okay. So he can now He can act on the permit. He can act on the permit. Yeah. Okay. So I guess that, we'd like you to communicate with him about actually going ahead and moving on the permit. Yeah. Okay.
Well, this is the this I mean, I feel like it should have been done earlier, but it's like every all the steps are now, like, it's got a permit to relocate a shed. He's got permission to access the land. Right. Like, everything's out of the way for the project to get completed. So the next step would be legal action because that's the only thing left. Right. But And that's where that's where we're what we've been working towards. And now that if if nothing gets done, then legal action is the next practical thing because we have a trail of we we issued a permit. We've come up with a remediation plan.
Right. Permission. And especially now that the permit appeals has expired.
Yeah. Already no Yeah. Place to do it. So now it's on him to do it. And if he doesn't do it, then we can do legal action knowing that we've done every step previous to
Right. Okay. So we've had, what, about two weeks since the
appeal period expired. Right? No. It's it expired Saturday. So Oh, just the Saturday. Okay. Yeah. It's been two days. Okay. So there's still a little window.
Yeah. It's just because the whole process took so long. I mean, it's it's kinda like we should've hit we should've got this point probably in the summer, but with the turnover with agents and everything, it it just didn't happen, I guess. Yeah. And again, the denial
of the first permit request kind of threw a wrench into the progress and into the process. He really couldn't do anything without moving the ship. Correction, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay,
so Would it be fair to say that it should be complete by the time we get together a month from now? I would like to see at least substantial progress.
Can we On on day have agent Wagner ask Kurt Bohm when he's gonna be done?
I can do that. I can ask him for a date. I was under the impression talking to him that he wanted to get it done as quickly as we want him to get it done. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but that's what he told me. So
Well, again, if he has the permission to move the shed and can then subsequently remove the fill and remediate the disturbance, then there's no reason for him not to go ahead. And I think it would be correct for you to ask him for, okay, when are you going to get this done? Give me a date. And communicate that to us so that we can determine whether it's a reasonable deal and not, well, do it when I get around to it kind of response. We need a hard deadline. And again, communicate that failing that, we're going to have to take legal action. So if you can communicate that and get it back to the commission, I think that that would resolve well, that's as much as we can do right now. Yeah.
But I do think we need to make a priority having it complete. And we're already late because we wanted this complete before we got done with the drought so that if we do get a lot of rain and it starts washing through there, it doesn't wash those boulders down to block the creek.
We're living on Bora Of 9 suspect that those boulders are at their angle of repose. And it would take a hellacious flood to move those objects. But still in all, yeah, it's getting wet. And it's not going to be any easier to get the work done. So I agree with you, Commissioner Lawson, that we would like to see this done by our next meeting. Next time we have to talk about it, I want to hear a report that says it's finished. We can have done with that cease and desorce order. Okay, anything else on the issue? Are we clear where we need to go? Major Wagner, any questions? No. Okay. Then I would like to move on to the agent report, which I suspect we have already heard most Thank you. I
don't have anything other than what we've already talked about.
Joe, have you have you seen the temporary road that's been put on in on 422 Lake Road?
No. I talked to I think it was Jim Blair. I went and visited the site with him before they started the work, but I haven't seen it since it started.
I would think that the I was surprised at the material that he put in there and with the heavy rains that we have had recently. I can't tell from walking down the road how much he's run down the hill into the lake from that. But sedimentation of the lake being the concern that it is, I would think that that road would have aggravated that as opposed to helping it.
Jed, do you recall the application number for that? You're talking about the stonewall at the other side of the lake from where we're looking, what was that? I do not have the application number, but I do recall
doing the site visit there, there was no discussion of a temporary road or anything like that? Yeah,
would call that a haul route. But nevertheless, the fact is if it wasn't in the application, I think we do have an issue. I'm just trying to find out. Okay, that's application number 20. At a quick glance, I don't see any mention of putting in a hauler out or stone dust hauler out for moving materials for that construction. Now they talk about using the excavator. They talk about measures for erosion control and so forth, but again, nothing about that.
It could be that he has silt fence down there that's stopping any of that material from getting in the water. I was just very surprised at the extensive nature of whatever you called it. To me, it was just a temporary road to all the stone back down that way.
Yeah, exactly. And again, the purpose of that stone dust is to prevent compaction and tearing up the ground while you're doing it. But I think perhaps we could ask Agent Wagner to check-in on that, see what the skinny is in terms of, again, avoiding impact from that material. Are there controls in place to avoid erosion? What's the long term plan for that haul route?
Yeah, I think when I talked to him, they were going to remove it when they were done. I remember him talking about putting gravel down. Okay. And then he was putting a soap fence, you know, on the water side, and then he was put tarps down to do the work. And then when they're done at the end of the night, they would fold the tarps back up Mhmm. To cover the wall as it was under construction. Right. Right. K.
So it should be there's, two the tarps and the the silt fence will both prevent any of that from getting into the water. It should. Okay. So But I can take a ride down there and and take a look at it.
Yeah. I'm not saying he's doing anything wrong. I know he's got a great reputation for doing doing good work. It just surprised me with the type of material that was being hauled in there to create this road that I said, I was just surprised because we had no discussion of it.
Yeah, as you say, especially since it wasn't mentioned in the in the application. Okay. Well, any other business? K. Hearing none, our next regular meeting will be in 2021 on January 4 at 7PM on the usual well, on your usual device, I guess I could say, rather than usual place. And with that, I would be happy to entertain a motion for adjournment. I move we adjourn. Second to that motion?
Looks like we lost Bill. It's up to you, Jim.
Okay. Jim's muted, but I can tell by his lips that he's saying yes. So I will now ask for a vote on that non debatable motion. Commissioner Hallisey, raise your hand if you are in favor of adjourning. Commissioner Larson, same sign. And I also vote to adjourn. The meeting is adjourned at 10:15PM. Thank you all. Thank you, Mindy, for hanging in there with us. And again, we'll be in touch with communications, about the enforcement action and so forth, between now and the next meeting. And we'll see you all on Saturday morning beginning Thanks, Joe.
Okay. Good night, all. Good night. Good night. Now click on leave meeting.