Meeting transcript
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission - Regular Meeting
March 1, 2021 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
I'm calling to order the regular meeting of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission for the town of Andover, Monday, 03/01/2021 at 7PM. It is of course a Zoom virtual meeting which will be recorded in audio and glorious video taking up gigabytes of server space someplace in the cloud. For a roll call, I see Commissioner Halsey, Commissioner Larson, and alternate Monroe present and alternate Monroe will be seated for Commissioner Smith. Additions and changes in order to the agenda item number three, there are several changes that need to be made here. First of all, the addition of an item 8A new business, a permit application dated twenty twenty one-three for the proposed work around the Doris Chamberlain Nature Pawn. Since we are adding an Item eight, we will subsequently renumber all items following. We can delete the item presently 10A Doris Chamberlain Nature Pond brush clearing since that will be covered under the new application. We can add an item 11d resignation of chair and an item I'm sorry should have given you first 11b as in boy a revision of regulations and schedule hearing. Mindy we got that? Okay good. Are there any other changes or modifications to the agenda order that any commissioners wish to propose?
If we're adding the resignation of the chair, would it be the appropriate time to fill that slot?
We're adding that as item, Pardon, we'll discuss it under 10D. I'm just saying other business. You're saying except resignation. I'm sorry, should be eleven. I
only heard resignation I'm suggesting that we also address filling that slot as well. So, that would be part of the discussion. Thank you.
Okay, I'd like to have a motion to revise and modify the minutes as noted. So moved. And a second. I'll second. Okay, we've got a motion and a second to revise the agenda as previously described on well. Have to again do this by roll call and scrolling across the screen acting Commissioner Monroe yes
Commissioner Larson aye Commissioner Halsey and Vice Chair Elliott also votes aye motion carries four zero zero. Next item on the agenda approval of the 01/26/2020 special meeting which was posted on the web and which I'm looking for on my desktop now. Do I have a motion to approve those minutes? I'd like to move to approve minutes as presented. Okay, have a second. I'll second it.
Okay, motion is second. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none again roll call. William Monroe. Yes. Jud Larson.
I will abstain as I was not at the meeting. Okay. Jim Halsey. Aye.
By Sherri Elliott also votes aye so the motion carries to 3,301. Next would be the minutes of the regular meeting of 02/01/2021. Again, I'd like a motion to approve those minutes.
I'll make the motion to approve the February 1 meeting minutes.
Okay, and a second. Second it okay so motion by Larson second by Monroe to approve the minutes any discussion Okay, just a couple of minor comments. Well, sure.
On page three, at the top paragraph, bottom line there talks about a B100A compliance plan that should show a code compliant area. The word show is missing. On page four, the top paragraph, the second line says application to application to construct so we should eliminate two application. Correct.
And on page five, the top paragraph, second line, Townsend Road instead of Towson Road, T 0 W N S E N D. And that was all I had.
Any other noted corrections? Okay, so we'll take that motion to be to approve the minutes as corrected. And I'll ask for roll call vote. Mr. Monroe. Hi, Mr. Larson. Aye. Mr. Halisey. Aye. And Vice Chair Elliot also votes aye so the motion carries 400. Next item on the agenda number five public comment. Do any members of the public present have any comments on the business before the or business on the agenda for tonight's meeting? Okay, seeing none, I will move on to agenda item number six, legal guidance updates. We had some correspondence between Agent Wagner and now almost ex chair Raleigh regarding some questions of policy and procedure regulations with Attorney Brantz and I was copied on that and I'm going to give you just a little brief summary for now. We can discuss it some points further under the topic of new business or other business, excuse me, now number 11. The first question subsequently had to do with when we should hold hearings. You may recall we had a discussion of that with regard to the 26 Old Farms Road application will be on the agenda momentarily. The close reading of the regulation in question suggested that we need not hold a hearing however, it was foolish of me to have interpreted a regulation based simply on logic and close reading. Attorney Brantz's opinion based on case law and experience with hearings in both wetlands and zoning context is that when in doubt, hold a hearing or the default should be a hearing for any activity that we deem significant. Again, we can talk about that further when we look at the item I proposed for the agenda regarding the
Commission regulations. Procedurally, however, it will mean that we should determine at the first receipt of an application whether or not it is a significant activity per regulations and therefore whether or not we should have a hearing. The second question had to do with the timeline for the application for a permit modification. Now, the short answer is yes, we should wait at least fourteen days even though it's a modification. It is a permit application first and foremost. The third opinion, again pertinent to the application for Old Farms Road had to do with the Army Corps' wetland impacts regulations and permit process. It's complicated but the bottom line is that it's no concern of ours. We don't need to worry about it. It's not germane to our permitting process. It's an entirely independent matter and while there may be some coordination between
requirements, it's up to us to decide if this application is qualified for approval based on our regulations and state statutes. Okay, again if there are questions or discussion about this, I'd prefer to hold off until we get to the other business portion of the meeting. Just want to give you that summary because some of it is pertinent to an application that's on the agenda for tonight. Okay, well that sinks on. We'll move on then to the aforementioned application IWWC twenty-thirty six for application to construct wetland crossing at well with the present frontage 26 Old Farms Road. Since our last meeting, we have received additional correspondence in response to the questions that were raised, particularly by Mr. Gruner, who I see is now on the call. The document labeled '26 Old Farms letter twenty million two hundred ten thousand two hundred twenty six REMA
was distributed in an email from agent Wagner and I believe that members of the Commission should have had access to it however I found that when I clicked on the link for that letter on the website just about half an hour ago or so, I found that the link was incorrect. It went to a previous letter labeled 1.22. Okay, so I'm hoping that through the miracles of technical assistance and desktop sharing the correct version of that letter can be brought up. There we go And I believe that George Logan is on the call. Is that correct? Maybe you could unmute. That is correct. I'm here.
Okay. And rather than having me summarize this response, would ask that you do us a favor.
I will certainly do that. So again, George Logan, Re Mycological Services. I'm out of Manchester. Right now I'm sitting in my home in Vernon. So the report basically addresses some of the comments that I heard or saw in the minutes of, I think it was the minutes that you just approved. Right.
And gave some thought to it. I went out to the field. I think it was in February 12. We had some discussions with Mr. Bushnell, who's also here in attendance. I walked the site with Mr. Korea, one of the applicants. The question that I had is, having seen the crossing before, and that was addressed in my previous letter that you said was 1.22. I want to take a second look and maybe focus a little more on sort of the biology, whatever biology one could see in the winter, which is surprisingly more than you think. I also talked with Mr. Bushnell and Carl Simov, who is I think the hydraulic engineer that's also been involved in this project, wanted to define the sizes of the watersheds for the Western Stream versus the Eastern Stream. As you know, those two streams have a confluence just
below the crossing. And then, of course, there's another confluence with another watercourse and eventually gets down to the Hop River. So what I did is I found out that the Western Water shed was twice as large almost as the Eastern one. So the Eastern one is a much smaller watershed. The Western one is a larger watershed, which makes sense because when I first looked at the stream after the end of a significant rainstorm back in January, that was the only one that was flowing at the time pretty well. You might have remembered some of the pictures that you saw in that report, Whereas the Eastern Stream wasn't flowing at all at that time. It hadn't responded to the storm. There's a couple of reasons for that. Not only the small watershed, but there's also a midstream upper wetland that probably has some capacity in storing some drainage before it's released downstream. I wanted to see the streams for a couple of reasons. First, I wanted to make a differential assessment if there was one of these two stream corridors. And at that time, as you remember, there had been the term riparian corridor or riparian habitat had been put forth. And so that's, as you saw from my report, went into talking about what that is and basically admitted that technically any corridor that is associated with a stream, whether the stream is intermittent or perennial,
is a riparian corridor. There's no doubt to that. But amid the differentiation that in the real world, so we speak, there is a gamut of functionality between intermittent streams with a small watershed versus ones with a bigger watershed versus what we would call semi perennial streams. Usually those are the ones for a variety of reasons might have more water flowing for a longer period of time before they dry out in the summer. And of course, perennial streams. So there are services, ecological services that are much more pronounced in perennial streams and then lesser and lesser as you go into intermittent streams. Of course, every stream has to be looked at as site specifically. So I did that and I walked up the smaller stream, which by the way, immediately from that little Panhandle that comes off the road, which is the right of way, I guess, for a potential driveway, you can see that the Western Stream climbs up a little bit up in the topography, but for the most part, it's a wider corridor. It's it's flatter or more gentle slopes as good bit of water should, and it's associated with more wetlands that are that fringe the watercourse on both sides as you go up the corridor. A lot of this wetlands are actually the backyards of a lot of residences. Now I would have wished to go look in that stream too, but
I've had experiences where people don't want me walking in their backyard. So I said, better not do that. Let's do a little more of a look see from afar and sort of a desktop evaluation. And then I walked the smaller stream and I think I trespassed a little bit, but only for maybe 100 feet or so before I went back into the site. What I discovered was there was some flowage at that time in Eastern Stream, not a lot. As you recall, that stream has a pitch to it. It has a higher grade, goes up moderately steeply, is in an incised ravine.
So I walked all the way to that bathroom that I mentioned. What I discovered along the way as I turned rocks and did a cover searching was that the only life that I saw, and again, I compare what I saw on that day with what I saw just a few days after another stream, which is also intermittent in the town of North Haven and Hampden. So I have a comparison in my mind. The Hamden Stream had a slightly bigger watershed, obviously. It was loaded with macrobenthes, stoneflies and caddisflies and other Macrobenthes. But this one only had case caddisflies. And this is something that I have seen over the years in these streams that will flow for, especially if there's a wetland upstream, they will flow for a period of time, but they dry out pretty fast or they're intermittent in the sense that they're temporarily flooded during a storm. Right after a storm, the watershed continues to put some base flow out and then it dries out and then it waits for the next storm. That's exactly what these case caddisflies will do, is they have the ability to weather the differential hydrology, if you will, because they can basically shut down and keep moisture in and then wait for the next moisture event. And then they will continue on their business and foraging
the substrate. So that's the only thing I saw. Did identify potentially the family of those species. Incidentally, particular family is indicator of very good water quality. Yeah, better Gossa somatidae. I didn't take it a genus or species. I'm sure that your chair at that time would have appreciated that, but I didn't have the time. So having had that firsthand experience looking at sort of what one stream, how it differs from the other. And then in my background, having some of the things that Mr. Bruner, who's here, who I've known for a very long time. Hi, Hank, how are doing? Some of the comments that he had, especially regarding the ecological integrity and connectivity of streams as the stream corridors. Focused a little more on the wood turtle, which we know is in very good abundance on the Hop River still, thankfully. Put all that to mind. Then we had some discussions which really
don't pertain as you talked earlier so much to this commission. The discussion was with the Army Corps of Engineers with a couple of staff people up there, specifically Corey Rose was one of them and Paula Kohlberg was the other one, to kind of get my head straight as to what the core thinks about even intermittent stream corridors. So we had a discussion which kind of informed me a little bit going forward, something else that we will have to do pass this commission. The decision was made, I'll let Mr. Bushnell explain that a little more, that the more significant corridor for a number of reasons, and even for wood turtle because if it reaches up to this part, which is questionable in my mind, but let's say it does, The topography and the width of the corridor, the quality of the corridors is much more it's it's better suited for for wildlife in general, also for wood turtle. Whereas the other one in the East is not because of the grade and I could not see a turtle going up and spending ecological capital, if you will, and energy to do that. There's nothing for it there. So the idea was, okay, let's
let's put a a box culvert. Let's embed it into the substrate. Let's recreate the the watercourse underneath the intermittent watercourse. Let's make sure that it passes at a minimum of a fifty year storm without creating a head behind it, which was one of the things that mister Hanfield had put in his report, which I see he's also in in this meeting. It also complies with Army Corps of Engineers guidelines that we will have to deal with later. So that was the the major, if you will, in my mind. Let's do this. This will be better overall, allowing for this connectivity to continue without restriction, especially for the Western Corridor, which is in my mind the most ecologically significant. In the meantime, one of the other things that I had heard from the commission,
actually from my client and also from the minutes, was the question about mitigation. And that was part of my report that you see there. Typically, so we have 2,000 some square feet of disturbance, at least with the previous plan, and it's probably very similar with the box culvert. And typically in many, many towns, including your own, we look for opportunities for in kind mitigation, which means specifically restoration and enhancement and then creation if that opportunity exists. But usually the creation and the restoration components blend together because we don't want to take something that's already has an ecological value, whether it's upland or wetland, and take trees down to create a wetland just to create a wetland. So we always look for opportunities to restore first. If you have a degraded wetland, we go after that. If there's a wetland that's not functioning particularly well, we can enhance it, we do that. And then creation is sort of the last thing that we do in that hierarchy after, of course, after the avoidance part. And the avoidance part is have we minimized the direct impacts to the extent possible? That's the feasible prudent alternative test. Having said that, I did not see any opportunities for wetland restoration per se, or for creation on the site. But I did see some opportunities for wetland enhancement, which it's part of the restoration as opposed to depends on how bad it is. So what I said in my report that you can see there
is that as you follow that intermittent stream with a smaller watershed up the grade where the grade becomes a little more gentler, you leave this very narrow stream border, which has no wetland, no fringe wetlands. And this wetland opens up to a more gentler slope. And you've seen it that delineated on the site and actually extends more off the site, you can't see that. But it's a significant wetland, it's possibly a little south of an acre altogether if you string everything together. That unfortunately is infected with Japanese barberry. And so my thought was, okay, here's an opportunity, especially next to the intermittent stream, to take a section of intermittent stream from the point where it flattens up coming up the corridor, which is where the where the barberries increase and follow for about a 150 linear feet, go about 15 feet on each side, and remove all of the barberry, which if you look at the understory there, and I wish I'd create a picture, I would say it's 75% of what's there. So it's an infestation. And it points back to the agricultural pastoral use of this wetland probably several decades ago, probably in the fifties. So the idea is to remove it mechanically. No pesticides, no herbicides involved for this one species. It's very effectively removed by yanking it. When the ground is moist, you can use a weed wrench or you can just snip and take it off, remove all that mass. So that's year one. And then year two, you come back and you just remove the seedlings. In my experience, it very rarely comes back once you remove it mechanically. And so the only thing you have to deal with is
a few seedlings which you yank on year two. And then the second part of the mitigation plan that I was suggesting is to, know, in the spaces that are creating after a year, not immediately, because you want to see if anything good comes up, and you also removing the seedlings, is to look at those vacated places of the understory and put in a minimum of 50 shrubs. And the 50 shrubs would be the smaller size, so the number two pot, I guess it's a gallon. And they're usually two to three feet, maybe four tall. The reason for that is because it is kind of rocky terrain up there. So you basically gonna have to find a small nook and cranny to put this shrub in. And so I selected a few species there that I thought based on the fact that this is a shaded area would do well. A spicebush would do well. Winterberry would do fairly well. Gray dogwood, of course, always does well, and nannyberry. The first two species are the wetter spectrum and the second two species are the slightly drier facultative.
So we would have to select the appropriate areas for that. But there's a lot of microtopography already. You can choose a slightly higher area versus one that's a little lower. So that's kind of in a nutshell what I have come about. And of course, my conclusion is there in the end of the report tells you that I believe that this is the feasible and prudent alternative, especially something that would likely satisfy the use of Army Corps of Engineers. Although I know, I understand this is not your immediate concern, it's our concern. And then of course, the mitigation there, I believe that the functions and values of this wetland for the crossing and its ecological continuity and integrity will continue. So that's what I have to offer and I'd be happy to answer questions. But before I do that, let me tell you that I have a double meeting in Madison that I need to get to as soon as possible. So
you may ask me any questions and then I'll, unfortunately, I'll have to leave.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Logan. I will, begin coming back asking the commissioners if they have any specific questions or comments on Mr. Logan's report.
Bill Monroe, I have one question about the size of that box culvert.
Yeah, I think Mr. Bushnell will be probably a better candidate for answering that question.
Oh, okay. So let's hold that. I was going to ask Mr. Bushnell to comment in just a moment, but deferring to Mr. Logan's need to get to the other meeting, wanted to specifically look at his comments and recommendations. Was speaking for myself, was happy to see the recommendation to eradicate barberry and to replace it with native shrubs, and I think these are good choices that should be successful, as Mr. Leung pointed out, in specific niches according to the kind of micro habitat preferences for the individuals. But I think that if you look at it with a ten to fifteen year picture in mind, driving across that bridge flanked by good cops of well especially spiced bush in the spring will be a real treat for the owners.
This is Jed, and I did have one question. And I don't know the critter type necessarily that we were looking for when you're studying the reptilian waterways and all that. But being that this has taken place in February, would we expect to be able to draw the proper conclusions on that this time of year?
No, point is well taken. So the idea was to see, so you can look at the Macrobenzas, you can see what uses the stream during this time of the year, and that gives you a better understanding of what the ecology is. Now, I know, generally speaking, the kind of critters that will utilize this corridor, the small one and the large one. And so I don't see the with box cover, that shouldn't be any problem for just about any species of small bodied or even medium bodied species, whether they're forbearers or herptiles to come through, others will just climb over and head out. Of course, they're not going to go through a eight foot by three foot opening, which I think is what we're going for. The other side, again, my understanding is that what we're doing there is we're keeping the 36 inches pipe, which is going to pass the fifty year storm, and we're embedding it slightly so that there's more of a natural stream bed, if you will. But that, again, my assessment is that something that we're gonna have to work out with the core. But in my mind, for this purpose for now, from a hydraulic perspective, that it is sufficient from what I'm told. And I think for small bodied
animals and also for the Macrobenthes that I saw, that shouldn't be a problem. So for instance, if this was a fishery kind of habitat, a perennial stream, I'd say this is completely unreasonable. You'd have to go with a box culvert with the openness ratios and so on that the core guidelines specify. But this is not the case here. This is a minimal stream with a small watershed, and its ecological connectivity will be preserved by the 36 inch pipe. George, this is Hank.
Can I speak? Absolutely. Was going to invite you to speak as a matter of fact, thank thank you.
I think George is correct from the ecological connectivity standpoint. And in think my view, you know, that's not really the issue here. And that's not the issue that I really focused on are primarily raised in my in, you know, when I took a look at the assess the property and submitted a letter. It is, you know, You know, it's, you know, wood turtles may use come up to that area where the confluence is but that's not really an issue. And I, and I think the stream biota is George mentioned is not really the issue. To me, the real challenge here is that it's it's much more of a complex system than just a Single channel, it's you have a, you know, you have a hydrologic system there that's coming off that that those uplands that is part of a larger riparian corridor that includes the Hop River, which is just downstream from that. Also joined by another another stream coming in just south of the crossing there. So
the concerns that I've raised that I still maintain problematical are the physical alterations that will occur. Doctor. In the area where it, you know, you the crossing is in where it's a very wide it's it's almost like a wetland at that point. It's a larger land. If you look at the soils between that, I mean it's pretty mucky, it's a there's a lot of subsurface flow there, I would suspect. And my concern is the physical alterations and the potential change to the hydrology and potential impacts that will then carry on to the downstream systems, including the Hop River. It's more about the physical characteristics and the hydrological characteristics of that site. Now you can look at it for as being able to support a fifty year storm event from a drainage and that's great. But remember, we're in fairly changing times and we're seeing extremes and you know you're going to get you're going to get flashiness in there. It's clearly a you know it's a well defined fairly wide system there. I'm less concerned about the ecology of the, the animals that are using it as habitat because as George mentioned, I believe that's minimal. You
know, there's certainly a part of it, but I think it's more to do with the impacts to that wetland system those those that corridor and its connection to the Hop River. I'll, I'll say one other thing. George mentioned Sparrow feasible and prudent alternative. You know, when looking at this, you know, one feasible in my view anyway feasible and prudent alternative to this is not to do any crossings at all off of here, but to look at a common driveway that comes off of the entrance off of old farms that because you could avoid any of the upland review areas associated with though the wetland systems. Now, normally, I don't recommend lengthier cuts in through forested habitat with driveways. But as I recall, this one might have been a gravel driveway. But in lieu of, you know, the considerations of the potential of the wetland crossings that are required and the complexity of it. Mean, I think this would be a little different if it was a single stream court or you know that we had fairly. Doctor.
Distinct upland edges and it wasn't opening up into a confluence there, it'd an easier. Brian Plan for a cup for a for a crossing. So, you know, I guess I would say that, you know, there may be another fee. Prudent and feasible alternative that avoids crossing altogether. I don't know all I profess that I don't know all the ramifications of that, but I do believe that our our planning and zoning regulations allow for common driveways. So that may be one thing to think about.
Okay, thank you, Mr. Greer. I'm going to turn this over to the applicant, III George Correa, and Engineer Bushnell. I think that there were the alternative of a driveway, a shared driveway, as I believe already been ruled out. I'm asking the applicant to comment on that and engineer Bushnell as far as the engineering aspects of the revisions and modifications and their impact on the stream and the wetland hydrology.
If I may, because again, I apologize, but I have to leave momentarily. But I just want to leave you with a few thoughts. I'm glad to hear that Hank recognizes the ecological integrity where it fits in the spectrum of things here. I understand and I agree that it you know, any stream that's this connectivity with another stream, there's you know, it's a complex system. And I agree that it's the physical stuff that we need to look at because at the end of the day, it's the physical impacts that the commission regulates. You don't regulate the ecology per se, you do indirectly. But when it comes to hydrology and when it comes to hydraulics and whether this stream can be passing during fifty or one hundred year storm and all that kind of stuff, I will defer to Mr. Bushnell who has the qualifications. Certainly, don't. I can have opinions as soil scientists, obviously. The other thing I want to leave you with, and I think Mr. Vice Chair, you did talk about the fact that I believe that you can't have another driveway from the top, is when you look at feasible and prudent alternatives, very often we just focus on the feasible part and we ignore the prudent. The prudent also brings into play
the social economic benefit. Economics are part of it, as long as they're not the only part of it. It's a balancing act. Something is feasible from an engineering perspective, but something might not be prudent because it's so economically unreasonable that it just basically undermines the objective of the project. But that's something enough for me to make a decision, that's something for the commission to make a decision. Unless you have another question of me, I will have to depart for the evening.
Last opportunity. Again, you're free to leave and thanks for your participation. Thank you so much. Have a pleasant evening, everyone. Thank you. Bye bye.
So this is Eric Lateska, the co applicant here. I'll just, you know, maybe give a little bit of the history on that. The alternative on the other side there, the access to that, to the property right now is through a two way, easement, through somebody else's property, to just, just to give access, driveway access, from Old Farms Road. This, because what would follow here is a, a subdivision application, going from the other side would then require a three way easement, which is a variance from planning and zoning regulations, but more importantly, it's something we approach the owners of the property on the other side with, and we're not able to get them to agree to. So it is not an option for us,
unfortunately. Okay, thank you. Thank you for clarifying.
Mr. Bushnell, your comments on the hydrology and engineering aspects that were just raised.
As far as the hydraulics of it, you know, ran some new calcs using the three by eight box culvert buried 25% on the west side and maintaining the 36 inches culvert pipe on the east side, again, buried to 25%. And we can pass the fifty year storm just with the Box Culvert on its own. We'll pass the storm from both watersheds, the fifty year storm with no pressure in the Box Culvert. So, neither the Box Culvert or 36 would have any pressure in them in a fifty year storm. Likely what would happen there in fifty year storm, you're getting a lot quite a bit of flow since the Box Culvert would be a little bit lower elevation than the 36 Inches Culvert. A lot of the water would go through the Box Culvert in that situation. 36 would still take water, but some of it would start to flow towards the Box Culvert there because it is pretty flat down in there, was mentioned.
Based on the photographs, it seemed to me that there would be very little visible alteration of that depositional area below or downstream of the proposed crossing where it seems to go into sort of it's like a delta almost with the channels crisscrossing. Yeah, think you're correct.
Any other questions regarding the permit? Oh, I did ask one question. Have these proposed changes been reflected on an updated plan for our files?
Not as of yet. Mean, we just came to this late last week and we're waiting to hear your feedback tonight and then we'll go from there. Okay. So any other questions or comments from commissioners?
Is this where we should talk about potential public hearing?
This would be as good as time as any to bring that up, yes. So do you have a proposal?
I would make a motion that we hold a public hearing on this application. Okay and that motion would require a second. I'll second it.
Okay so we have a motion and a second discussion. Anybody else want to speak? I would ask specifically what additional information we might expect to obtain as a result of holding a hearing.
I would hope that we would get the opportunity for other members of the public to come in. I can't remember if we as a commission asked Hank Bruner to provide input to us or if he came on his own volition as a member of the Conservation Commission. And then we also had Scott Persson in attendance at this meeting. And the last one is an interested member of the public. And so as we have the first application since I've been on the commission that's been deemed a significant activity, I think we would be well served to see if there are any other public inputs that we should take before we make that decision. And that was my
rationale for providing the motion.
Okay. Any other comments or considerations? I will say, Commissioner Larsen, agree with you that it's probably desirable to at least solicit additional public comment and looking forward to having more articulate regulation regarding holding hearings. I would also propose that we set such a hearing as a prologue to the regular meeting as we did with the hearing that we held for the application at 129 Hebron Road so that we could essentially have the hearing and then proceed to the meeting where the application would be considered. And I would hope also by that time we would have sufficient information based on the record so far and any such comment as might be received in a hearing we would be able to vote and make a decision on the application. We are still within our legal bounds, but with the code extensions, but nevertheless this process has been going on for some time and I think we owe it to the applicants to resolve that process and bring it to completion.
Any other comments on the motion to hold a hearing? Seeing that I'll ask for a roll call vote again following screen or William.
I couldn't hear you because you went in and out for a second. What was the question.
Okay, I'm asking for a vote on the motion for the public hearing. The motion is to hold a hearing with regard to this application. Yeah, I.
So it's been moved in second to. Okay, Commissioner Larson. I vote I as well.
Commissioner Hallisey? Aye. And Vice Chair Elliott also votes aye, so the motion carries four-zero-zero. As I've suggested in the discussion, I think we should schedule this hearing to proceed our next meeting at which this application would be considered. As far as I know that would be the regular meeting for I believe March 5 and again we couldn't handle the matter pardon April 5.
April 5 sorry yeah unfortunately not April 1 So April 5 meeting would be again, we could proceed that with the hearing, and I might also suggest that in lieu of that we could truncate any public comment on the regular agenda. So, it's agreeable to the Commission to have the hearing prior to our regular meeting on April 5.
Can I add something? Is Agent White. Sure, Agent White. I was just looking at the calendar for the town. It looks like the next wetlands meeting is on Tuesday, April 13. Oh, was there a conflict for our? Looks
like the three meetings, the three other meetings on the first Monday.
Is there any reason we couldn't hold a special meeting? The conflict is less of an issue if it's a Zoom meeting.
I think the conflict may have had to do with that first Monday being the day after Easter. I don't know the school schedules or whatever, but I remember something about vacations and Easter being a cause for moving that.
Jed, I believe you're right it is precisely because it is the Monday following Easter that we unfortunately, information has not gone on to my calendar. Can we just leave it for now at our next regular meeting? And we'll check the date and make sure that it gets properly assigned in the minutes, okay? And of course all the typical warnings and so forth that have to go out. We'll have time to accommodate the hearing timeline. May I ask a question? I'm
just wondering if we have any duty here to mail the abutters for the public hearing? That actually
is the obligation of the Wetlands agent for his staff. Okay. But that yeah that you paid for that in your application sheet.
Okay. Agent Wagner, think we I we included a list in our application. You have a list of the abutters
and yeah, it's a responsibility under the regulations for the Commission or its agent to notify the abutters of the hearing. It also has to be published, I presume, in the River East twice at intervals that are prescribed, you know, well before and shortly before the actual hearing. Okay. So, no, you don't have any requirements as far as the obligation is concerned. Okay,
anything else regarding this application okay then just wait a minute I gotta pull up the agenda again So I guess we can move on now to item number seven B, IWWC 2,037 ms for modification of a permit that was issued for 344 Lake Road. I believe we have the engineer representing the applicants on the call. I am on the call. Thank you.
And let's see do we have any agent Wagner do we have any other do we have any new information or new considerations for this application? No, I haven't received anything.
Mr. Hanfield, did you have any, comments to bring up anything new to, relate to the Commission regarding this application?
Nothing new there were a couple minor questions in the last meeting that'll just check off for the record Brandon Hanfield with Yannick River Consultants. One of the questions with regard to the length of the regulated area and I just wanted to point out our plan does reference a 200 foot regulated area and shows a 200 foot boundary. I'm not sure where the 100 foot comes from but I just wanted to point out that our plan does call out a 200 foot regulated area and our entire property is within that 200 feet. And then there was also a comment about moving a utility pole on our property and yes, that utility pole will be relocated. We're not sure how or when the power company will move it and how they want to move it but in all likelihood it will be moved closer to the street. It can't be moved closer to the lake. That's really the only open questions I had from the last meeting but happy to share the plan again so people so everyone can see it or answer any questions.
Okay yeah that would be helpful Mindy or if you could give Brandon the desktop so we have that plan in front of us. I have it on my own desktop but I can't share it. Yep, I just made him a co host.
Okay. I just shared the plan and I'm zoomed in so we're only looking at the subject building site. I'm happy to zoom out or show other details as need be But the proposed addition is outlined in bold with the dark gray. It's about 800 square feet and footprint. There is a proposed deck on the lakeside of the new addition and what you see in a dashed line around that that goes all the way and attaches to the garage is the addition that was approved in 2018 by a different applicant. So you see that the proposed building is generally within that original footprint and any changes to that footprint are on the driveway side not the lake side of the addition. Okay. Again, any questions from commissioners regarding the application?
Is the soil stockpile that's indicated on the drawing pertinent to the septic repair or is that to the job that's coming up?
It's the job coming up. What I tried to do is take a realistic approach. So the leaching field's in, there will be no changes to the leaching field or the septic tank. They are code compliant. So I picked a location where they can't stockpile on top of that leaching field and we're kind of boxed in by the garage. So this location here, they've already take they took these two trees out actually these four trees out as part of the leaching field repair. So it's open and it's easily contained within silt fence there. So that's the location I chose. It might not be that big but I thought it was a reasonable location rather than on the other side of the leaching field closer to the lake. Thank you.
Okay, any other questions? Okay, seeing none, I think we're now at a point where we can consider a motion to approve this application. We've received it, we've discussed it and the statutory time limit has elapsed so again I would entertain a motion to approve IWWC twenty-thirty seven ms.
I'll make a motion to approve IWWC twenty-thirty seven ms at 344 Lake Road. Okay and could I have a second to that? I'll second it.
And I will add that we have found that the activity is within the scope of the regulations and that no feasible or prudent alternative exists to the proposed activity so that we have all of our i's dotted and our t's crossed. Would you enter your hands or what the duration of permit usually that's going to be the two or five year permit duration?
If I were to say two and I wanna hedge a little, if I were to say two without the applicant online, we just come can back to stick with two. I think construction will take a year and they will start it within two years is that how it usually goes?
Okay because we can easily I think we could as easily approve it for five year period to give you that leeway. I would feel more comfortable but okay.
Anybody else want to weigh in on that question? Adrian Wagner, have you experienced any problems with an extended timeline.
I don't see why that would be a problem. Okay. I feel like given the extra time would be would be good.
Who knows the property might change hands again no unlikely I hope not okay so we have a motion and I believe we had a second right and any further discussion okay seeing that I'll go through the roll call Mr. Monroe aye Mr. Larson. Aye. Mr. Halsey. Aye. And Vice Chair Elliot also folks aye. So the motion carries 400 the permit will be issued with standard conditions with a timeline and of course there's the fourteen day waiting period etc. But I guess that bottom line you're good to go. Appreciate it. Okay, well moving on we added an item eight the application for essentially maintenance work at the Doris Chamberlain Nature Pond this was received last Thursday Major Wagner was it but it hasn't it was so it's too late to go on the agenda but the application is complete and I believe posted on the website
Ken, I guess I'll ask our meeting administrator, Mindy, if you could find that and bring that up. Essentially, is an application by well let's see now okay so the application is basically by the town. Chamberlain Pond or the Doris Chamberlain Nature Pond as you may know it is used and I guess probably used since it was first created for winter skating and that of course is a use permitted as of right, a recreational use of the watercourse, but over time the trees surrounding the watercourse have decayed, branches falling and branches overhanging and the room for skating is getting awfully narrow. So, the application is to essentially clean up debris from the margins of the pond and I suppose probably removing some material from the pond per se where you have branches that are emergent and therefore, again, obstacles to the use for ice skating. Regent Wagner, do you have any comments? I know you went on a sidewalk with that and most of us are familiar with the pond.
Yeah, I just visited it. Got an explanation. And, yeah, they basically I I took the pictures, the branches that you can see sticking out of the ice, the lower ones. Basically, lower ones are the ones that were they're planning on removing. And then the dead ones that are in the water, you can see that one that's frozen in the ice. And then some of the ones that are overhanging, and they were gonna leave the ones that were taller that you could skate underneath, But, basically, just clearing enough of the the dead and hanging ones. Yeah. Like, where it's circled there, the the more horizontal branches and and brush. Area looks a little clear over there, but Their hope was to do it before the ice melted. I don't know if that's gonna happen because the ice is gonna melt pretty quick, probably pretty soon, but, they were gonna do some of it when it was sliced over and then do the rest once it melted with a with a boat either by boat or by waiting.
George, this is Scott Persona. If you need any questions, further questions asked, Jeff
told me that I could speak for him. Okay, fine, thank you. I think that from the Commission's point of view the only thing we really need to determine right now is again getting back to our earlier discussion whether this is a significant activity. My own opinion is that it would not be, but I think it would be helpful for the record if we had a motion to the effect because again if we have the motion to deem it a significant activity, we vote no on that motion, then we've answered that question and we can proceed with the application on that basis. So, just as a matter of process, I would ask for a motion again a motion to the effect that this is a significant activity so that we can make that determination.
I'll make a motion that it is a significant activity.
Okay, thank you, Jed. And a second for that motion. Second. Allicy.
Okay, so we've got the motion and a second. Discussion? I already discussed it by saying that I don't think that it is a significant activity. That's really in a sense although a tiny impact on the watercourse per se, mostly what we're looking at is on the shore of the watercourse, and it's really enhancing the use of the watercourse for what I mentioned before is a permitted activity. Any other comments?
I guess I'll just ask the question, are we sure that it is an activity that requires a permit? I'm not sure that I would have recognized that had it not come my way.
I checked the regulations, Jud. And yes, recreational activities of water courses do not require a permit. They're permitted as of right. Now, if they wanted to dredge the watercourse to enhance its value that might be another thing but as I say right now we're looking at a permitted use and simply maintenance around it. Mr. Hollisey, did you have a comment?
That was confused. I mean, my understanding is Jed had asked if it required a permit and your response was that it was a use of right.
The recreational use, the ice skating. All right. Yes. I
recall that Commissioner Wagner bring addressing this in a previous application that recreational uses is use of right but not construction of recreation that working in that area. Does that sound familiar Joe.
Yeah I was looking for the exact regulation because I looked it up for this one and it's yeah because recreation would be like the act of ice skating or fishing or something, but trimming trees or cutting brush or removing anything, though it's to create an area for recreation that's not actually recreation. So I was looking for the one. Yes. Section 4.3 All the regulations are of activities in wetlands or water courses involving filling, activating, dredging, clear cutting, clearing, grading, or any other alteration. Not specifically permitted by the section, which under section 4.1, it has provision for a residential home. Use is incidental to the enjoyment or maintenance of residential property. So if this was a residential property, I would say this one wouldn't need a permit, but because it's not a residential property, it does. It doesn't fall under section 4.1 d.
So it falls under section 4.1. You answered my question, agent Wagner. I know I'm not a lawbreaker now when I go out and trim the bushes. Thank you.
Again, the question here is the motion has to do with significance and my remarks were simply to underscore what I believe to be the incidental nature of the work for which a permit is being requested. Simple fact that it's that, you know, they're not asking for permission to create an outdoor recreation area. It's already there. They're just asking for permission to do maintenance and most of that maintenance is on the perimeter of the water course, not within it. We will still be considering a permit for the maintenance.
Agent Wagner isn't there something in the regulations that says maintenance of existing. Structures or roads.
Yeah. There is. I'm looking for the specific section. Yeah. There is, but it doesn't it's not it's like maintenance of drainage pipes. Let's see. Yeah. Maintenance relating to any drainage pipe on property, which is where you can remove vegetation to clear like a drainage pipe that was installed prior to 1974. There's nothing for for maintenance of a pond, though.
Again, as I say, we're not considering the question here whether or not a permit is required. It's just the only question that we're addressing right at the moment is whether or not the proposed activity is a significant activity under regulations. And once again, I would argue that it is not and that we should vote no on the motion and thereby deem that it is not a significant activity. Any other questions or comments on the motion? Okay, ask for a roll call vote. Commissioner Monroe. No. Commissioner Larson. No. Mr. Halsey. No. And Vice Chair Elliott also votes no. So the motion is defeated 40. And we can now move on with that application. Again, we'll have to wait until our next regular meeting
to make an actual determination on the application, but this would certainly be an appropriate time if commissioners have any questions that they might address to selecting person who is speaking for the, I guess, representing the applicant in this application.
I have a question. Sure. Who would be doing the work? Would this be the Conservation Commission?
I think that Jeff Murray and the Conservation Commission were involved with this. Yeah. Thank you. I was just curious. Any other questions, comments.
Anybody want get a great idea the a lot of good works going on over there at the last year so it's looking much better than it did and I think.
Just trying to look at make it look nice and usable this year they could have used it for you know a couple months now but.
Couldn't skate around there. Do we want to have a bedding pool or whether or not you'll be able to get on the ice or what day the car will fall through the ice is just the betting pool, right? As the agent Wagner said, it's not looking so good for being able to get out of there to do the work for the near future. We'll be taking a boat.
Canoes and kayaks will be the mode of operation. Okay, well I guess that's really all we can do on that application for now. So, we'll have the application on our agenda for our next meeting and hopefully at that time we'll be able to make a determination. So, then moving on Oh god, yes, number nine. What's now number nine? Enforcement actions. We are still looking at the conditions on 33 Route 87 agent Wagner the last time I drove on Route 87 that trailer that that shed was still where it had been has there been any change No, it was a couple of weeks ago. No,
spoke with Kurt. He said Mark Williams, the contractor, has been waiting for the weather to warm because the shed is frozen to the ground So I can't move it without damaging it. It's probably getting pretty close to being able to move now. Except the ground will be too wet. Yeah.
But yeah, so it's a nothing's nothing's happened there in the past month.
Okay, well, same old same old. Commissioner, has anybody got anything to say? Any comments, questions, suggestions, COVID or Dicta? Okay then eight or nine b the situation at 27 Hendee Road.
Yeah, I found looked up the plan for construction, at the property. There was a site plan submitted to the town on 05/17/2018. Shows a silt fence. So according to the plan, there should be a a geotextile fabric silt fence, which extend from the northwest part of the property, south along Hendy Road, and then turn north along the existing driveway near the house and then it should follow the driveway north. It turns to the east and it turns north again, falls at the tree line at the top of the hill to the west of the Hop River. And the soap fences aren't currently installed. So I sent a certified letter to Mr. Rivera asking him to install the soap fence when the weather permits. So that's where I'm at with that. Okay,
was there any observation of erosion or siltation on the site?
I couldn't see any when I looked there. I mean you could see some through the trees I don't know if the construction was caught was causing it and then and then of course there was a lot of snow cover up until right week or so.
Okay still in all if there's a permanent requirement we should require it. Yeah. Okay, any other questions or comments regarding the enforcement actions? Okay, that would segue then into what's now on-ten. Agent Wagner, do you have any other items to report? I believe there were some upland review permits issued something like that. Yeah, there was two
upland review permits. There was one for the Hillside Self Storage Center on 132 Route 6. They're reinforcing the existing timber retaining wall, replacing 400 cubic yards of stone riprap in the upland review area between the existing timber retaining wall and the delineated wetlands. I met the engineer Andrew Bushnell on the site February 5. He explained the project they're gonna use the excavator to place the riprap from above. So they're gonna go from the the storage area up above and drop the riprap down just to shore up the wall because it's it's timber and it's all starting to deteriorate and collapse. And they're gonna place it to the edge of the wetlands, which were delineated and they're all flagged. And then I was contacted by the property owner earlier today, and he said they're probably going to start work as early as this Thursday, but probably Monday March 8 is the likely date for that to start. And then there was a second agent approval on 33 Gilead Road, which is a
removing an eight foot by eight foot shed that's at the end of a gravel driveway and replacing it with a 12 by 24 foot prefabricated garage, which will be sitting on a 14 by 26 stone pad and it's going to be placed in the area of the old shed and onto the existing gravel driveway. And that's all an upland review and it's all lawn around it so it's pretty minimal impact so yeah those were the two for this month
Okay, any questions from the Commission on those actions? Okay, hearing none then we can move on now to agenda item number 10 number 11 our other business category and again per the previous modifications we dropped the discussion of the nature pond brush clearing and substituted then well then that leaves Former B as the next item, the possible action on the revised bylaws. Last meeting and prior to last meeting, had well, Agent Wagner and myself had gone through the previous edition of our bylaws to make such changes as might be advisable or required. Agent Wagner made considerable revision on some of the language and I made a couple of additions regarding conduct of meetings and hearings, especially when they're held here are now on a virtual platform. We left off a discussion of the proposed revisions to the bylaws, noting that we would have to wait until this meeting before any action could be taken to approve the revisions. Again, that's a requirement. So, at this point, I would like to entertain a motion to approve the of the bylaws and then we can go on and discuss that motion. So, motion again a motion to approve the revisions to the bylaws. This would be the document so we're all on the same page it was bylaws revision 2021 gs was the last version that was distributed. Make a motion to approve the updated bylaws.
Okay, motion. Could I have a second? Second. Okay, so we have a motion by Larsen and a second by Halsey to approve the revised bylaws. So now we can open that to discussion. Again, a brief summary I gave you and I would hope to hear from commissioners who have gone through it with a fine tooth comb and found the typos and misstatements that almost invariably get through any such process.
I have two items I'd like to bring up. Okay. One is item four-three. It talks about, if it's four-three, talks about filling vacancies. Just a second, I'm trying to open that document.
Bylaws themselves are rather confusing to me. And I went to the charter and the charter was a little confusing as well. I think what I'd like to point out is we're talking about filling vacancies that arise. And the charter speaks about filling vacancies initially or July 1, which are so those are filled by the the Board of Selectmen. But if you look in what's proposed, it would seem that we're sending, it's very unclear what happens to me, at least it was very unclear to me what they were trying to say. I believe the intent is that the commission itself fill the vacancies that arise outside of an election period of the cycle, the election cycle. That's correct.
It's that way the proposed, I believe it's section four-three. Hopefully I'm referencing the right section.
Okay, the revised section 4.3 prescribes the process of notification for vacation notification of vacancies arising from a resignation or other cause And then the process, which the acceptance, the initial appointment is made in this situation, the appointment to fill would be made by the Commission membership. Now, remember that would only be good for the remainder of the term and reappointment and in fact that would be communicated to the Board of Selectmen and it would be then the privilege of the Board of Selectmen at the reappointment the seat. And of course it also provides that if we don't do it, the Board of Selection has to take care of it.
Okay, you know, it's clear to me now. It just, it hasn't been handled that way in the past. It's kind of led some confusion. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. One other minor issue is you look at section 6.3 and it's I believe responsibilities are off duties of staff. I believe this is just a typo for the weapons officers. Look under the last one appear at court proceedings by order of the court at the direction of town council or the commission. I don't know whether, I don't know what they mean by town council, whether it's meant to be board of selectmen or town council spelled differently as in town attorney. It's one of the other though. To the board of selectmen or town council.
Good point. Good point. Share a note. It would wonder where that boilerplate came from.
I would guess it would be the Board of Selective. Although I well I would guess that's referring to
that would certainly be the only other reasonable agency that could direct the wetlands enforcement officer.
Well I mean really it should be the town administrator. I mean staff doesn't staff works for the town administrator.
That becomes right so that yeah the the direction would come from the Board of Selectmen to the town administrator right or from the inland wetlands commission okay so shoot so essentially we should revise that from town council to town administrator? I think so yeah I think that's more appropriate.
Okay. Okay I got that. Any other comments, questions? Okay, right now the document still has a bunch of markup in it and you know everything's highlighted in different colors and so forth and so on but what I would do is assuming we vote affirmatively I will complete the revision including the language we just discussed and I will date the revisions today 03/01/2021. I can send that I guess I should send that to you Agent Wagner to get into a finalized one on a PDF that can be then posted on our website to replace the current version of regular bylaws that are posted on our page. I mean, there's an administrative approval or procedure for getting stuff onto the website right yeah once it's once
it's finalized by the Commission then I can yeah I can put it in
Okay, so basically, I'll give you the penultimate version, and you can take it from there as far as getting it posted. And, of course, distribute it to the to the Commission. Okay, so we've got a clear idea of what we're going to do there. So, getting back to the motion, we have the motion and a second to approve the revised bylaws and I'll give one last chance for questions or comments and then I'll go ahead and ask for a vote. Commissioner Monroe? Aye. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Halsey? Aye.
And Vice Chair Elliott also votes aye so the motion to approve the revised bylaws carries four-zero-zero. Okay moving on. Going back to the agenda which is now buried three deep in other documents okay oh that was upland review permit approvals I think that may have already been handled or was there some other additional question or comment there agent Wagner just
I don't think so, I think that was already approved, that was something that
Okay, so I was just a carry over. Yeah, I think it was it was kind of a duplicate.
Okay, then the final item under other business would be the item added to the agenda, well two items added to the agenda. First, let's take the matter of the resignation of the chair. We have the letter that was distributed by Megan Lolly resigning effective immediately in a letter dated today. I guess that it would be prudent of us to accept that regulation and then discuss how we should move forward from there. So I'd like first a motion to accept the resignation.
I'd like to move to accept the resignation of Megan Lally as Chairman of the Inland Islands Commission with regret. Yes. Second. I'll second.
Okay. So a motion by Halsey, second by Larson to accept with regret the resignation of Megan Lowell as Chairman of the Innerlecans and Water Courses Commission. The vote on that motion would be in order. Commissioner Monroe. Aye. Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Hallisey. Aye.
And Vice Chair Elliott also votes aye. And again, our appreciation to Ms. Lalie for the service that she has rendered. Moving forward, I will, as Vice Chair, am willing to continue pro tem as Chair. I hope, although I have not consulted yet with Ms. Lawley, that she will assist me as a sort of Vice Chair. There may be times when I won't be able to serve and we certainly need to have some provision for a designated alternate to run the meetings if I can't. But as I say, I'm perfectly willing to take the helm as vice chair and simply I will ask Megan first and then if any of you want to get a little administrative experience on this Commission, I would welcome your input and participation.
Would it be appropriate to not to make a nomination at this point?
You know, it's not covered in the bylaws. I couldn't find anything in the bylaws about resignation. We have, of course, provision for resignation of members, but Ms. Lawley expressed a desire to continue on the commission but as a regular member and the only provision of the bylaws is for an election at the regular time at the end of the year at the end of the fiscal year. So, what I would suggest right now, Christian Halsey, is that we hold off until the next meeting as I say I would like to sound out Ms. Lolly as to whether she would be willing to kind of swap roles pro form a and then we can discuss a kind of an interim appointment to make it official or feeling that we can grasp at straws. Okay earlier in the meeting we were talking about legal guidance, I mentioned that some points of contention arose with respect to interpreting the regulations and the let's see I got to find the document but in the communications with Attorney Brantz there was he acknowledged the fact that okay here I have I found it again he acknowledged that the language of that of regulation 9.1 about public meetings public hearings excuse me is vague or it's confusing it's simply there's there are some double negative implications in there and I think that that my understanding is this that the regulation we have in our regulations is boilerplate from DEEP suggestions that have some history and this is an area where we might want to address a little bit of revision to make that regulation actually say what we want it to say. The question, as Humpty Dumpty said, is who's to be mastered?
So, let's get that regulation fixed up. Now, we've been holding fire on regulations. We talked to it's been over a year, I think, since we dealt with revising the regulations and adopting all of the updates to the regulations that were necessitated by changes in Connecticut state statutes. And we have, I think, revised regulations that are pretty near ready to go but we do need to finish I think the revisions that I just mentioned and we need to have a hearing. Once again I think we could have a hearing simply to proceed the regular meeting since frankly I wouldn't expect a huge amount of public comment on the regulations
since the revisions reflect only statutory requirements and clarification. We're not introducing anything new on our own so I can't see a whole lot of public comment coming out. So, think it's the sort of thing we could handle with a brief hearing prior to the meeting which we can then discuss adopting the revised regulations. It's something we really need to take care of. So, any comments, Any suggestions Is as to where we
there a copy of the updated regs online? It's been a while since I recall us talking about that. And I certainly haven't looked at anything new so I wouldn't be prepared to discuss it tonight but if it's out there to review I will.
Jed, I don't believe that those have been posted. What's posted online is our current regulations right dating back to whenever they were last modified but I will I have in my files a copy of the workup you know the document we were working on for revisions and I could certainly distribute that well in advance. I won't say I'll do it tomorrow but I can certainly guarantee to distribute it well in advance of any meeting or here. It would have to be posted prior to the hearing and of course the hearing has to be appropriately warned. We can't I mean my feeling is probably the May regular meeting would be the first occasion when we might be able to hold a hearing and discuss it and, you know, discuss adoption. Now, if I get the revisions out sooner, we could certainly have it as a topic for discussion on the other business at our April meeting. So we might want to shoot for at least having a quick look see at the provost, you know, kind of sort of get back up to speed
on the revisions at our next regular meeting and then the following regular regular meeting could accommodate a public hearing component
Yeah. Commissioner Elliot. Yeah. I am assuming that there would actually be an application involved required coming from the wetlands commission. And I also, I don't know what the comment period might be, who the revisions would be distributed to for comments such as Capital Region Council or Governments, whoever, I don't know, and what that turnaround is so just just throwing it out there because sometimes it's all right good point I will I will certainly want I'll
definitely look into that I don't recall anything in the regulations about modified but off the top of my head I don't recall anything specific about that but I will certainly look. Okay
thanks. Yeah it's probably not there George because we had the same issue come up with the lake regulations. And I was surprised, just like you are, when Jim brought that item up. And there are requirements to go out and get them looked at by other folks. I don't know where you'd expect to find that but Jim knew about it. Okay. I was thankful for that. Well,
now that I know look for there's at least a known unknown as opposed to an unknown unknown. So that's progress. Okay, anything else on that subject? I did have the opportunity to look through Attorney Brantz's comments, you know, very often this is a matter of just, as he says, looking through the right end of the telescope. I was looking at the regulation point of view of what does it say and he's looking at the regulations for what does it want you to do? And considering that what we wanted to do is the important thing we want to I think make sure that the language says what we wanted to do rather than trying to strain our interpretation based on language that's unclear. Okay back to the agenda and lo and behold I believe that is it as we previously discussed our next meeting will actually be on April where's my calendar going is it Was it April 15 Joe. I think it's the thirteenth.
Okay April 13 so Tuesday 04/13/2021 our next regular meeting. Yeah.
So that will be a regular meeting and remember we need to schedule a hearing prior to that regular meeting for the Times Farm Road application. Okay and finally last but not least I will entertain a motion for adjournment. So moved. And a second? I'll second.
Okay, the proposition is non debatable, so we will act by clicking on our no, we'll vote on the motion. Commissioner Monroe? Aye. Larson? Aye. Policy. Aye. Aye. Motion to adjourn carries four zero zero. The meeting is adjourned at 08:53PM. Thank you all for contributing to the meeting and I'll look forward to seeing you next time. Mindy, if you have any questions about things that were said or brought into record, contact me. I have most of the documentation that might help fill in the blanks in the recording. Okay, thank you.
Hey George, nice job on the filets. I know there were a lot of work, thank you. Thank you.
It wasn't what I signed up for but you know I guess it was. I thought Vice Chairman okay I can do that but I just said freedom. I didn't didn't mean to get promoted okay but we'll see what we can get done and again appreciate your assistance so we look forward to seeing you next time and we can now click on the leave the meeting button. Good night everybody. Good night all. Good night.