Meeting transcript
IWWC Regular Meeting
March 6, 2023 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
Four of that spot. Yeah. Not what I expected to hear on Friday. First and foremost, regardless of the races, the playoffs, the waivers, our our real wishes when Chase gets back and be back at 09:00.
But I've been in a situation like this where your driver was injured or sick and it's hard on everybody's hard on behind the wheel of a race car, why wouldn't he afford the opportunity to go out and then snowboard something that can be dangerous? What is the reaction from the driver when you hear a question like that? Yeah. I mean, I'm gonna you you never want something that needs to happen, you know? But at the end of the day,
and it can be dangerous at times as well. So I feel like it's very important to disconnect from racing a little bit. And every single driver has different COVID, different distraction, different kind of training.
I mean, it's very We try to be as safe as possible, but there is always a limit at risk without the partner. The next step will be the ruling on the medical waiver there. Yeah, if I talk to Max Carr about that this weekend, they said, yeah, we have received the request from Hendrick Motorsports. They go back. They evaluate all the information. I can't imagine that they will not give it to him. I think back to 2015, Kyle Busch injured in the Xfinity series race at Daytona in February. Yes, he came back to the all star race but he officially didn't come back to race number 12 at Charlotte Motor Speedway. One race number 16 but remember, back then, you had to get to the top 30 in points That is going away. Chase out against the waiver. He comes back and wins in the regular season. He should be in the playoffs. Most importantly, we want Chase to be unwell. Get healthy. We hope to see you back in the track soon. So Josh Barry gets the opportunity where we chase not driving to drive that night car on Sunday afternoon. This is a very difficult circumstance for a driver that's going for the Xfinity championship. Yes, same situation as a nine team. He gets on an airplane and fly Las Vegas. He's thinking, oh, I'm doing driving Xfinity series rakes on Saturday. He and my family's gotta go back home And think about it. You're stepping in the most popular drivers number nine car. You only have two cup starts. You have never raced the next gen car. Unfortunately, this was in the race right here. Gets in a turn to what we saw Kyle Busch do it twice. But when I think about a twenty ninth place finish, I go, whoop, that's the other teams ran one, two, three. But again, this situation right here in a race that only had four cautions and in a race that 35 of the drivers of the 36 that started were still out there, he did exactly what he needed to do, run as many laps as possible and be there again. You know, the cup series is very difficult. Competition is very difficult. Even when you prepare yourself, even when you do simulator, even when you watch film and you watch so
We got the coverage for the box 03:00 Eastern side. We look forward to what is kind of our first short track race of the year. Even though the officially needs a file, it's not a short track with that. I am called to order the Andover
Inland, Wetlands, and Water Courses Commission. I see on the call Commissioners Larson, Nashke, Monroe, and Fife. Of course, I'm here too, so we got a full board, alternate Smith not present. Are there any suggested changes or additions to the agenda?
I would like to add a brief discussion of the work taking place at 409 Lake Road. That's Lot 22.
Okay, should we add that to the you want to add that to the agent report? We can, yep. Okay, so we got a motion like a second. I'll second that Commissioner Monroe seconds to add that item to the agenda that will be then. We'll call it 8B. Just to make sure that it's duly noted. Anything else? Okay, and moving on, we have approval of the regular meeting minutes from our previous meeting Monday, February 6. And again, those were distributed, should be in hand. I'll give you a second to run through them again and ask if there are any
additions or corrections to the minutes as posted. Okay, anybody have anything? Okay, I've got a couple of items I noted when I was reviewing them earlier. First of all, in item one. What was that a little static? Okay, there was a. Okay. It was once again a public meeting, not a hearing in the call to order. Okay, in the roll call, seating of alternates, Ed Smith is an alternate, not a regular member. Okay, in Item nine, which was the other business, commission vacancies, there's a sentence that says George Eliot motioned to move Duncan Fife as a regular member of the IWCC, sorry, WWC. Two things there. First of all, it was a motion to appoint and the spelling of Fife should be with a Y rather than an I. Then with an I, would be fifa as in fifa drum corps.
Okay, let's see now, is there anything else? Oh, and finally, in the footnote, the motions are not officially approved by the IWWC. I think you're mixing your commissions there, Carol. We have our own authority over our minutes, and we do not rely on our companion agency. Okay? Okay, noted. Thank you. Okay, that's all I had. So, if there are no other revisions, corrections, I would ask for a motion to approve those minutes.
I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Okay, and a second. I'll second them. Okay,
got that. And I'll take a quick roll call. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Mr. Mashke? Aye.
Commissioner Monroe? Aye. Commissioner Fife? And I also vote aye, so the motion carries, five-zero-zero. And moving on. Okay, there's oh, I see a member of the public, so I will ask for public comment if there's anything on our agenda.
And excuse me, George, may I have Hank's last name?
Who? Hank? Hank, that's Hank Gruner, G R U N E R, who is with the with the Conservation Commission. Thank you.
Okay, so no public comment. The next item is old business, the permit application, IWWC 20 three-one, given to us previously by Jay Tuttle, the town of Andover Public Works Director, and the permit, general nature of which is to cover routine activities associated with right of way drainages. We had an extensive discussion of this, of course, at the last meeting. However, some revisions from the original application project description were advanced as a result of discussions at the meeting and then subsequently between Agent Wagner and Mr. Tuttle. So, with that background, I'll ask, since I see that Agent Wagner is on the call and not Mr. Tuttle, if Agent Wagner would direct us to the important changes that were made in the application documentation.
Alright. Can you hear me alright? Yep. I had to switch to my phone for some reason. I wasn't getting any audio on my computer, so Yeah.
Yeah. We work with Jay to kinda make it more a little bit more detailed, limit the the scope of the work, kinda in accordance with commissioner Larson's comments. So the big changes were the last two bullet points on the, project description, which were, they said, repair or replacement of defective drainage structures and or systems to include catch basins, culverts, and or wing wall, the inlets or outlet, and any drainage pipes in the same location. And we deleted the drainage structures in our system, culverts, any drainage pipes in the same location, and then we added another bullet point under that that said replacement of culverts or drainage pipes 24 inches or less in diameter that do not contain a watercourse as defined in section 2.36 of Andover's in the wetland regulation. Let's see what else do we do. I think the other changes in the last paragraph, we added the an individual wetlands permit application will be filed for any public works department projects that do not fall under the scope of this general permit, such as new projects, replacement of culverts containing watercourses or culverts greater than 24 inches in diameter, or projects that require significant redesign of existing structures or alterations of drainage flow. So those are the changes in wording. Okay. Any questions or comments from any commissioners here?
I guess I still got a little bit of a concern on the, it's the new fifth bullet down where we're talking about repair or replacement of defective catch basins, I got that, for end or wing walls at inlets and outlets. In my concern there is, you know, I think the wing wall could be a pretty extensive project in close proximity to wetlands. At least the one that I have in mind is the wing wall where Basola Road comes into Lake Road and it's crumbling away, that's a significant project with a huge culvert. I was thinking maybe the wing wall on a 24 inches pipe or less, but you know a project of that magnitude I would think would still warrant you know bringing an application to the commission.
Wouldn't that be covered by the size of the culvert and the fact that it carries a water course in this situation? You know, of those being circumstances that would require a specific application.
I don't know that the culvert needs to be repaired. I think it's just the wing wall that's crumbling and falling apart out there. And that's why when we broke that out, I got concerned on that. I don't know if work needs to be done on the culvert itself or whatever. All I know is if we were to go out and and do whatever to that wing wall, think that that warrants a permit regardless of whether we're going to work on the culvert or the drainage pipe.
Yeah, I think I take your point. Do you have a suggestion for modifying the language? This is in the nature and purpose of project document, right? The one that's titled IWWC twenty three-one General Permit and over DPW project description?
Yep, I think the same words. Right. The same words are in the the permit itself too. On page two of the permit they've got the same six bullets that are here under this nature project.
Okay, well, the salient language would be in the actual permit. So again, you a for how we could modify that language.
Well, I think my recommendation would be to just eliminate the words or indoor wing walls at inlets or outlets. That still allows, you know, to repair or replacement of defective catch basins without anything here, which is, you know, what I thought was a reasonable approach. You know, I don't think we've I don't think we've overtaxed the public works department by, you know, having them come to the commission too often.
It's true. There haven't been that many applications before the Commission in the past few years, and there were probably none at all before that, given the way things used to work. So yeah, if you feel that it would be not too restrictive, I don't know where or what, how much, wind wall or how much end wall repair would certainly, if they're gonna go after culvert in less than 24 inches, they're almost invariably going to be dealing with some ancillary structure, right? And I think that we have to give them some reasonable leeway to get the kind of work done. If you're talking about catch basins and so forth, you know, other essentially masonry type structures, whether they're stacked stone or concrete, know, it's hard to see where they could well, you know, would those occur
only in larger projects?
I mean, are we trying to do it with the regular maintenance portion of it? So, that doesn't sound like that's a regular maintenance.
Well, that's exactly the question I'm asking. I don't know if it's if some of the kinds of, you know, if activities involving headwalls and windwalls would be part of their routine maintenance, you know, going into a drainage system and trying to correct problem with flow or deterioration of the structure with age and salt and all of those things. Agent Wagner, do you have, any sense of work that there might be a cutoff? Again, I don't want to just completely exclude things that we don't need to exclude.
Yeah. I was trying to think of, if we could reword it to, you know, replacement of culverts or drainage pipes 24 inches or less. If you could add the associated catch basins or and their wing walls because, you know, if you if you could limit it to or you could just leave that out. I mean, not sure if those small drainage pipes have wing walls. I'm just trying to think of an example of one that I've seen. Yeah. I I don't know the engineers. Those are probably the the larger culverts anyway, which wouldn't fall under this, the ones that had water forces in them. And
again, the purpose of having a two or three year review thing is if we find out that we miss the boat somewhere on this thing and there are a bunch of wing walls on the smaller pipes, know, we can fix it. The only example that I'm aware of is the one at Mazola Road and it's a huge wing wall. Right, right.
Yeah. I mean, if you could if you wanted to strike that out and then see how it went, I mean, I'm sure you probably could or, know, because, I mean, the replacement of culverts or drainage pipes is 24 inches. The last step bottom statement would probably cover the stuff that's associated with those things, and then, you know, then there wouldn't be any confusion, I guess. That was my thinking. Yeah. So you could and then the the bullet above that could just say repair of or replacement of defective catch basin, and then that would be it. Would that make sense?
I would agree with that. Okay.
Okay, I think in order to get our ducks in a row here, we should have a motion on the floor to approve the permit application, because then the modifications that we're making can be entered as amendments to the motion, okay?
The only question I had was there was some talk on the last meeting about the length of time, you know, two to three years versus the five years, and it looks like it's written for five. We'll address that in just a moment, Janet. Okay. That's
definitely going to come up. First, I'd like to have a motion to approve the application because then we can proceed to amend the application and have it on the record as a formal process.
I will make a motion to approve the application for permit IWWC 20.
Okay. Okay. I got a second on that. I'll second it. Okay. So, I moved and seconded. Now, can, again, as a as a motion, Commissioner Larsen, if you would again move to amend the permit and application to delete references to end or wing walls.
I would like to make a motion to amend the application under the typical maintenance activities that would be covered under this permit on the fifth bullet down to remove the words or end or wing walls at inlets or outlets.
And that will also apply to the, well, we've got the document, that's a general permit and over DPW permit draft, and the revision that we're looking at is from March I'm sorry, February 9. So we're looking to, again, eliminate the language from that as well, right? Yes.
Okay. So we got the motion to amend. Any other and a motion seconded. Do we have any discussion on that point? I mean, we've already talked about it, so if there's any further discussion. Okay, if not, I'll call for a vote on the amendment. Commissioner Larson.
Well, did you want to address any of the other any One other items or just amendment at a time. Okay. Okay.
That way we can really keep a clear record of of where we're going. Okay. I got you. So, Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Matsky? Aye. Commissioner Munro? Aye. Commissioner Fipes? Aye.
And I also vote vying. So, motion to amend carries 500. Moving on, there were other things to consider. One that Commissioner Manski just brought up, the duration of the permit that is currently blank, so we have to fill in the blank, and I would like that in the form of well, we can have some discussion first, but we'll need a motion to set the duration of the permit to add to the record. I think there was general consensus at the last meeting that five years might be a bit much. I'll throw out a number that I think would be reasonable, and that would be three.
I'll make a motion to amend the permit to be valid for three years.
Okay, got that. And could I have a second? I'll second it. Okay, so I'm moving to second. I think it's a reasonable length of time because, you know, again, as we pointed out, we haven't had a lot of applications from the Department of Public Works for these kinds of activities. So, I think, you know, we have to have a long enough period of time to see how it plays out. And again, as Commissioner Larson pointed out, we may find that there are routine activities that we have excluded from the permits, or there may be activities that are perhaps a little more than we had anticipated. So, we have motion second for three years. Any other comments? So, again, I'll take a roll call on that. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Mashke? Aye. Commissioner Monroe? Aye. And Commissioner Fife? And I also vote aye, so the motion carries 500. So, the permit duration will be three
years. Now, do we have any further discussion, suggestions for amendments, or alterations on the main motion, which is to approve the permit. I have one other comment. Go ahead.
And that we have attached to the permit the standard conditions of approval. And Correct.
I know some of those conditions, I'm not sure if they'd approve, if they'd be valid or not. Maybe it's not the biggest deal in the world. But when I looked at item six, this approval is for the activity within the regulated areas surrounding a wetland or watercourse is indicated on the following map. Yeah. Don't need revision. And I felt that if we could comply with all the rest of them, I don't know that we could comply with that one.
Not since it's a permit for any area of drainage in town, so it would have to be the map of the town and its wetlands and drainage systems, which we don't have.
So So to make it technically correct, I would recommend that we eliminate standard condition number six. Okay, then the formal motion.
I'll make a motion that we eliminate standard condition number six from permit IWWC 23Dash01.
Okay. And a second? I'll second. Okay. So we got a motion and a second to, eliminate that particular item six on our standard conditions. Any discussion? Seeing none, ask for the vote. Doctor. Larson? Aye. Mr. Mashke? Aye. Mr. Monroe? Aye. Thank you, Mr. Five. I also vote aye, so the motion carries five zero zero. I did have one questioncomment in thelet's see, I've got to find that on there. Sorry.
Okay, the permit and thewell, at least theyeah, the project description portion talks about brush removal in swales, ditches, and water courses in and around drainage culverts where normal flow has been obstructed by overgrown vegetation. My comment there would be, do we want to set any limit on the distance from the drainage feature? SayI am thinking back, for example, on the Shawty Mill Road where they obviously had to go off road to clear drainage swales that were feeding into a culvert system. And you know, there are, of course, are bounds to how far they can go within the right of way per se. And Mr. Tuttle described consulting with landowners, know, abutting landowners and securing consent if he felt he needed to go further than the right of way to get the work done. Again, I'm just throwing this out. I don't have any particular thoughts about how far or what boundaries might be appropriate if they're in fact needed at all. So, just, you know, again asking for comment there, does that seem like a reasonable restriction to place on the road cruise activities?
Well, I I had read that, you know, thinking that if the removing brush from where normal flow has been obstructed, it can't be very far from where the normal flow goes. We're not talking about in a flood situation or something. I thought Jay was just talking about, you know, removing it from where it accumulates in these, you know, water flow paths. So I was okay with that the way it was written.
Okay. I'm, as I said, you're tossing it out as an idea. Other comments on that? No. I haven't made a motion so that we don't really have to act on that comment. If there are any other comments.
I have one here, Elliot. I would think that, like, say if there was a tree down, like, you know, even if it's a 100 yards away, if it's there's a tree down right in the middle of your culvert that's feeding your your drainage system, you would think that you just wanna get it out of there as fast as you can. That's what I would is that what you're asking? Those kind of things like a tree down? Again,
if they're it's hard to see how again, you're you're right. A tree fall, then it falls in the drainage swale or in theI'm thinking more of if it came into a water course that fed you know, coming down to a drainage feature. Again, thinking about the Shawty Mill Road project, there was a definite water. It was a seasonal water course that required some work, and that's how we came to note it. But again, accumulation of brush, tree fall, anything like that, yeah, in the immediate vicinity of the drainage feature, yeah, that makes sense. But if it's a water course specifically, I wonder if we want to have a little restriction on that. Again, whether it's a seasonal water course or a continuous water course. Yeah, if brush fall on the culvert crossing on, say, Stout Brook RoadI mean, Stout Brook Creek at Townsend, something like that, we would expect the road crew to be able to clear that. But if it's, you know, 100 feet upstream, yeah, it's going to alter the watercourse flow, but
do we want them just charging off into the brush to do that? I guess this is one of those things where maybe we should just let it play out and see if, you know, three years' time will be soon enough to decide if any adjustments are needed. Right. Okay. Other than that, I don't have any other comments. Does anyone else can, sort of last call, comments, suggested revisions, and so forth. So, we can return to a vote on the main motion to approve the permit with the modifications in the timeline specified. Commissioner Larson?
Are you looking for a vote or a motion? A vote. Vote. Aye. Okay. Commissioner Mashke? Aye. Commissioner Monroe? Aye.
And Commissioner Fife? I also vote aye, so the motion carries five-zero-zero, and the permit will be issued. Commissioner or Agent Wagner, I expect he'll be in touch with Mr. Tuttle and work out the, you know, point out the details and of course be in contact with him as time progresses, and work under this general permit actually gets undertaken. Okay, moving on. We don't have any new business, so no new applications to consider. And now for agenda item eight, the agent report, including the additional comments requested by Commissioner Larson. So, Adrian Wagner?
I didn't hear the, first part when my audio wasn't working, but I'm assuming commissioner Larson wanted to hear about, 409 Lake Road. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. I'll do that. I have that at the end. See, I I've been trying to get in touch with the owner of Scott's Tree Farm about cleaning up that tree debris in the pond. I've sent I got some notes here. Let's see. I visited, talked to him. I think I updated you guys about that. That was back in October. In January, I mailed him a letter. Didn't hear back. In February, I called him. I didn't hear anything. So towards the end of the month, I found another email address and emailed him. Finally got a response from him saying that he's well, his employees are laid off in the winter and that he would work on the cleanup when he got back for the season. So once he got some employees back, which I think
at this point, because we're getting into springtime, it would probably be best to do it in July or August, which is what I told him. So, yeah, I've been basically documenting everything. I've got photos. So, you know, my thought is to push in the summer. And, if nothing happens, then I got everything kind of set up for, you know, taking more action on that. Just try and get some some of it cleaned up. And then, so I got another one, 131 Route 6, Connecticut Meditation Center. We're driving by and seeing the big statue and an enclosure that was built there. It's within a 100 feet of a brook. So I sent them an email that they needed to apply for an aid and approved permit for work in Upland Review area. They responded quickly saying that they were gonna work on an application to get it into me. I don't have it yet. That was last week. I got a pending permit application for ground mounted solar panels in the Upland Review area at 187 Lake Road. Still waiting for a bunch of information on that. The guy is, the homeowner's working on it himself. He is in Florida. He's kinda not in a big rush,
so he hasn't you know, I'll post that on the website once I get everything in. He he filled it out on a perm, but it had hardly any information. So we're working on that, getting a more complete application. I got another one last week that's probably coming in. That's, 115 Lakeside Drive as a wall repair in the Upland Review area. It's, I think it's about 60 feet from the lake. So, they got a plan in there. They're working on getting their permit link application in. I'll get that up on the website once I get everything for that. And then 409 Lake Road, they started clearing that lot on Friday. It made quite a mess. Commissioner Larson's emailed me about it, and, public works act also asked me, if I knew about it. So I went and checked that this afternoon, took a few pictures. Yeah. They went in and they kind of sticking to the limits of clearing as far as going across the wetland, but they don't have a tracking pad. They don't have any erosion control in yet. So I called the builder. He wanted me to give him till the end of the week to get it taken care of.
So thought I'd just see what see what happens, see if we can clean it up. He said he got a had to get the log out of the way so he could put the tracking pad in and then start working on getting the silt fence and getting the wetlands crossing built. It's kind of a flat area, so I don't know if the erosion risk is is super high right now, but it is it is quite a mess if you drive by it. And that's that's what I got for the report. So any questions on that?
Well, were were you informed, Joe, that two days prior to the start of the work is our permit required?
Yeah. I saw that. That's they didn't no. They didn't inform me. They were I mean, they he was in here doing the building permit, so I kinda knew it was gonna start soon, but I didn't get a call anyway. So, yeah, there was Yeah. A few few things in the order of the permit and then the conditions that we added that haven't really been followed so far. So that's kinda what I what I let him know when I called him today.
Because I know when we approved this, you know, and we were talking about starting to work during the dry summer months. Now I couldn't find, know, I guess maybe that's bad on us that we didn't specify anything in the restrictions. I can't find where he violated anything there. I don't think that made it into the approval because I remember he added all those conditions onto the plan. I don't remember seeing that. Yeah. And but we certainly we talked about it and the expectation was that it would be done. Now I know when I went by Friday, they had a big wood chipper, you know, and it was stuck in the mud there. They couldn't get it out.
They picked a terrible time to start. I think. Yep.
And so I went back and looked at what the permit did say, I would have thought that if they'd come and had a discussion with you two days before they started, we could have alleviated a lot of that stuff. And I don't know if it's a good story that they can't get the tracking pad in there now. I think they can. They got the logs off to the side. Certainly, you know, they're getting all the heavy equipment, you know, through there into the back and that's what I was expecting to be, you know, put down first is that, I know, you know, we don't want to fill the wetland with riprap but we we don't want all the mud going out onto the road and get washed away and all that kind of stuff so I was kind of expecting that to be step two. Step one is they talk to you. Step two, they put in the tracking pad and not make the big mess that they did there.
Yeah. And that's a know Jay drove. I think he drove by there today and Jim House, he was gonna give him a call to to try and push him on the tracking pad. At least get that in to protect the road and stuff. That's I mean, it's not really a wetlands issue protecting the road, but still it's part of the plan. And Yep. Trying to chew it in order is is kind of important. It kind of gives you an idea of how things are going to go, you know. And remember
when we approved that permit, you know, that ridiculous Larson fella made a big point about the fact that we make these plans and then the people who execute them never even look at them. They just go out and do whatever it is they think they want to do. And everybody said, nope, that's not going to happen here. And it seems to me that that's exactly what happened here. Yeah, it's it's frustrating.
We don't have any much mechanism to enforce those provisions, like especially the notification provisions. It's all well that Agent Wagner has a general sense that they're going be starting, but that's not the same as being notified we're going to be starting in a couple of days. Well, that gives Joe the opportunity to ask some questions.
Like he can go take a look at it and see, oh, where's the tracking pad?
Yeah, out there, walk the site. Yeah, those kind of things are helpful to do, make sure everybody's on the same page.
Okay, nope, I just, as you know, I walk by there just about every day and said nope, that wasn't what I had in mind when we approved the permit.
Yeah, I was kind of pushing him to get it done. I mean, I I wanna I don't wanna it it annoys me too because he put a lot of time and effort into this stuff, and then people just do whatever they want. So if nothing's done at the end of the week, I don't know. I might have to take more action. And
it often falls short of what you would want to consider an enforcement action.
Yeah. Yeah. We could. I mean, in the future, there's there's I mean, we could do some kind of bond with those type of things. You know? You can't do that with this permit, but maybe that's something to consider in the future if you had to take a little cash deposit from them to, you know, hold on to it to make sure everything, all the conditions are followed, maybe something to consider future project. It might help their memory of attention. Good point. Absolutely, there should be some recourse.
Okay. That's all that's all I wanted to you know, I just wanted to make sure that we all had similar expectations of that we ought to follow guidance that we work hard to come up with.
Point well taken. Any other comments on the agent report? I hadn't realized that Connecticut Meditation Center was in Andover, and we certainly wouldn't want that guilt Buddha to be left uncovered. I hope that they do get their permit taken care of. So, let's see now. Next, other business, really just some announcements. Remember, commission vacancy is a perennial. We finally have five commissioners. We still need alternate, especially since, well, Ed Smith has been listed as an alternate more or less pro form a since he was willing to attend meetings if we couldn't get a quorum otherwise, but he hasn't attended otherwise. And I think that we could stand to have an alternate who actually attended meetings. That's the point of being an alternate. And also, oh, along those same lines, I will probably not continue on the commission at the end of my current term, and you may have noticed that the the Ender website lists commission vacancies now as or commission terms as expiring in November 2023, contrary to my expectation based on the charter, which says that our terms run from 07/01/2021, to 06/30/2023, whereupon, of course, we may be reappointed. Now, I understand that for elected commissions, such as planning and zoning, the new election cycle, having municipal elections in November rather than May. That would require a reset for the terms for elected commissions, but we are an appointed commission, so I'm not sure how that's all going to play out. I inquired. Carol Lee is out of the office, and so I'm going to check back in a week or so and see if I can find out more about that.
But as I say, as far as I'm concerned right now, the charter, rules and our bylaws, are geared toward an appointment from July 1 through June 30. So, it remains to be seen whether your terms will continue through November. I trust that everyone has been informed of the need for training, mandated training on sexual harassment. It was circulated widely, and I hope everybody will comply. I sat through the state of Connecticut CHRO training. I found a pro tip here. If you haven't done the training yet, You can read faster than they can talk, so if you turn YouTube sound off and turn the playback speed to 2x, you can, zip through in half the time.
That violates the rule, George. It has to take at least two hours.
They said a two hour training session, right? And, you know, if you look at the timelines on those videos, it is two hours. Well, yeah, there are advantages to Zoom training as opposed to having to sit in the room, you know? Okay, that's all on that. Again, as you see, I'll continue to make inquiries about the terms of office and whether or not you can expect to be re enlisted in July or November. Any other general items for the Commission? Okay, seeing none, our next regular meeting will be on Monday, April 3, same time, same place virtually. And with that, I can ask for a motion to adjourn. I'll make a motion to adjourn. Second.
And I will second it. Okay, that's a nondebatable motion. So, signify by saying aye. Motion is unanimous, and we can now stand adjourned. I thank you all for participating. I'm glad this was a nice short meeting, and hopefully, though, the Commission will have some work to do in subsequent months, maybe when construction activities start picking up. So, I will look forward to seeing you in April, and until then, keep well.
You too, everyone. Bye, everybody. Have a good night. Bye all.