Meeting transcript
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission - Regular Meeting
December 6, 2021 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
At 7PM on Monday, 12/26/2021. I note by the participants in the call that, Commissioner Judd Florissant and Commissioner William Monroe are present, as well as myself, Chairman Elliott. And I note also that alternate member Ed Smith is not present. Item three of the agenda. Do we have any changes or additions, changes in order or additions to the agenda? None that I'm aware of. Okay, and seeing none, I'll proceed then to approval of the minutes for the meeting of 11/01/2021. And to get things going, I'll make a motion that we approve those minutes. A second would be appreciated. I'll second. Okay,
so moved and seconded to approve minutes. Are there any necessary revisions? I did not note any in my perusal. Give the members a moment to refresh. Nay.
Okay, if there are no revisions suggested, I'll proceed to ask for a vote on the motion by roll call. Judd Larson? Aye. William Monroe? Aye.
And I vote aye as well. Okay, we have now an opportunity for public comment. If any members of the public, anyone on the call, wants to comment about any of the agenda items or any previous actions of the Commission, this is the time. Oh, wait a minute. I just noticed that Ed Smith is on the call, so you can revise that for me. Thank you, Abby. Okay, seeing no hands raised, I'll proceed to item six, new business. We have three new applications or well, we have two new applications and a jurisdictional review. First of all, Inland Wetlands Watercourse Commission 2126 from Todd Perkins at 1 Lakeside Drive, who wishes to rebuild and remortor an existing stone wall on the Andover Lake Shoreline. Let's see now. Is the applicant or representative present on the call? I'm
right here. Can you I hear see you there. Okay, yeah. Okay, great. Good evening. I'm Todd.
Right. First of all, let me just run by the commissioners. Do you have any immediate questions based on looking at? And then I'll ask Mr. Perkins to walk us through.
I didn't see where we had the Alma approval letter in the file there. I know it was as well. Mr. Perkins?
That was applied for the same day that I went down to the town hall and submitted for the permit. I'm not sure what the holdup is. I'll have to look into it.
We'll hope that it's ready by our next meeting. And yeah, it wouldn't be a bad idea to check it out. So, Perkins, did you want to speak to that application there, which we have open now?
Well, I mean, I bought my house here on Lakeside Drive back in 2016, and the wall wasn't in noticeably poor condition, or I would have asked to have it fixed before I settled with the mortgage company. But it has sense, and I'm not sure if it's ice or not. I don't know what's destroyed it so much, but it's It's toppling now into the lake. And as it does so, I can see that it was mortared before. It's a very old stone wall. And I found a private person who does this kind of thing, and I would like to get it repaired. It's as simple as that. I'm not changing anything. I'm having him restock the stones that fell down and re replace the the mortar.
And the mortar portions of the wall. Right. We have, we have, of course, photographs that Agent Wagner provided, documenting And the condition of the I think your point is very easily taken well, you'll recall, William, Robert Frost, something there is that does not like a wall.
So, whatever That's my neighbor's property. Oh, there we go. That's
my neighbor's. That's that's the application 27, Abby. I think we want this is number 26.
Yes, that's my mess right there. Doesn't look much like a wall anymore.
I noticed some activity in the fifth photograph on the area alongside the dock and where it's going to be remorted. Yeah, he's ready to go.
Okay. Was there a fill in there or what's that activity from all that So fresh
what's happened is because the integrity of the wall has been breached so much, Cheney Brook is pulling dirt out of my property little by little over time and creating a hazard behind the wall land side. So I put some dirt in there to try to fill those. I mean, some of them you stepped in them, they were at least a foot deep. So that's why that's there, but it's clean fill. It's all clean. And then the Mason guy, stuff is in the background there, is itching to get started. I keep telling him that I have to wait until I have approval from y'all.
Indeed, and Technically, probably that fill activity should be included in the permit also. Don't know. Agent Wagner, do you have any, thoughts on that?
Was that to me? Yeah. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Okay, I'm sorry, the question,
I'm noting the fill on photograph number five. I was speculating that technically that might be, perhaps should be included in the permit application since it is an activity, you know, in the Upland Review area, not to mention right on the lake shore. You know, impending the Alma approval, I don't see any issue with it, but just, again, as a matter of form, the entire activity should be subject to permit.
Understood. So I would go down again to the town hall and write an addendum perhaps?
I think that would suffice, yeah. Okay. Or just submit it by, you know, just, I think if you submit it by email to Agent Wagner, that would be sufficient.
Okay. Yeah, we could just add a comment to the existing application. Okay. Moving on, any questions from the other commissioners? Nay. Okay. Jed, any comment or question? No, I'm all set. Okay,
well, Ms. Perkins, you're aware that we can't act on this application tonight. We have to defer that to our next meeting. And so, in the meantime, we can take care of that little addendum and also hopefully get the approval from Alma on record so that we would be able to act on the application
at the next meeting. Okay. Okay? Those are the I two think Joe spoke up. No? What was that?
I I thought you said that you had something to add.
No. No, that was a I was just saying we could add, you know, we'll just add the fill to the existing application. Yeah. A little write up. It's nothing.
I'll do that by email. I'll also email Alma and see what the holdup is. Think that when I went down to the to the office, they told me they had to wait for a couple weeks. I think it was a couple of weeks at least.
Yeah, usually most applications, though, the the ALMA approval comes in, you know, halfway through the the next month. It seems like there's a little bit of a lag. I know the other two that we have, they they came in, the week after the the November meeting.
This was submitted on eleventwenty three. I'll email her tonight. I don't expect to hear from her tonight, but I'll get that ball rolling.
Okay, great. So, we'll move on then to the next item on the agenda. Mr. Perkins, you can be excused from the meeting if you want to click on that little red button. Okay.
Next application is IWWC 2127, Gary McCullough, right next door, who wants to restore an existing beach and reconstruct a dock on the shoreline. I see that Mr. DuBois is on the call. And okay, so let's see now. I guess the circumstances of this application is that the work is as it were already underway with several loads of sand, in place and ready to spread. So, Mr. McCullough, Ms. Oops, wait a minute. Who are we on here? Oh, Mr. McCullough is the oh, I'm sorry. Misspoke there. So, Mr. McCullough, if you wanted to speak to the application there.
Yes. Hi. Can you hear me? Yeah. Oh great. So yeah, I'm a new resident and so you know there was an existing sand beach there was you know kind of dirty and kind of just you know, hasn't been attended to. So it was my own ignorance that I didn't know I had to do to, you know, apply like this when I had the sand delivered because I, you know, heard the lake was lowered for maintenance things and that's what people did. So for that, I apologize for my ignorance there. So as soon as I found that out, then I started the application process, provided the information. And there's really kind of two things. One is the
replenishing the sand and then the removal of the existing dock, which was very deteriorated, rotting and barely able to stand on. Know, wanted to get rid of that and at some point replace it. But, the first phase is really just kind of clean up and go from there. That's really my objective is to do that and do it in a proper way.
Okay, yeah, I get the point here. I take it that the Alamo must have approved sometime in the past creating a sand beach on what would otherwise be a mudflat at this time of year, and dock likewise must have also been approved at some point. But my question was how much of theokay, the drawing that I have herethis is again in the supporting documentation, Abby. I guess the last two pages of the application, and hold on a second here. I'm gonna reorient the figure so that it's a little more visible. I'm working on my own desktop here as opposed to Abby's desktop.
So, are you wanting to look at the site plans?
Yeah, as you said, it seemsyeah, right, theyeah, site plans. So, it looks like you have 25 feet of lakefront there that you're proposing to restore with the sand? Yeah, 25 across in like.
And about and about 20 feet, so about 500 square feet area that you're going to restore with fresh sand. And to hand you're spread that, weather permitting and all all that. Okay, yeah, and then the then the dock is on. A different portion of the
yeah, it's yeah, it's just to the right of the Sandy Beach there.
Okay, yeah, yeah, that's I see that it's clear now from looking at the plan there. Okay, they were clear on what needs to be done. Any question from members of the board?
I I got a question. Yeah, go ahead. Oh, I see those that one lakeside. That's your neighbor on one side and the seven lakeside is your neighbor on the other side. I was I was thinking that that there was look look like on this drawing, it was like a lit the lake was on both sides of it. But it's just dresses that are put on there. I don't have a question, actually. I answered my question.
Good, best way to do it. Commissioner Larson, questions or comments?
So is the sand intended to actually go down onto the lake bed?
It goes out probably about five to 10 feet, I'd say. There's an existing sand bed out there, So I was just going to go cover over what's already there.
And have you approached Alma asking for their permission, concurrence, whatever it is they give to go do this?
Have emailed them asking if there's required permission for, you know, refurbishing an existing, sand bed there, but I didn't really get a response. And I did follow-up and asked what should we do in parallel with this activity? And I was reading through some of the rules that I could find about that. And all I could find was like if you were to repair a dock or replace a dock, you know, it would have to be in the same same spot that the original was in. And there was a list of approved materials, but there was nothing from Alma there that I saw that said, well, if it's an existing, you know, sand play, you know, sand area that they would require an email or something of approval. I mean, I I can reach out to them again, but are are they invited to these meetings or?
The okay. The Admiral Lake Management Association is technically the owner of the lake bed. Yeah. Therefore, their permission is required for any activity that intrudes onto the lakebed, and that would certainly include depositing sand on the lakebed, you know, any place below high water mark. And so that's why all repairs to walls and so forth on the Andor Of The Lakeshore concurrently require approval by Alma. Now, think that your situation, sand beaches are not very common on Andover Lake, with the exception of the Alpoa Beach Lake Road, that you know, they may not have a specific policy in writing, but you know from this Commission and from the regulations that we're working under, as they say, since they are the property owner of record, we have to have a statement from Alma to the effect that they have approved your proposed activity. Okay. So, just make sure that they understand what you're doing. Again, as agent Weyer pointed out, typically there's a lag between the time that permission is granted and the time that we hear from them, or you as the applicant hear from them, but we would hope that it would be in advance of our next meeting in January.
Right. Okay.
So again, as we, as we said previously, we can't deal with your application tonight under state statute, we're required to wait at least two weeks, and practically speaking, that means we won't deal with it until our next regular meeting.
Okay. So what I need to do then is, well, I guess I'll call. I do have the number of a couple of the members there. So I'll call and get that moving.
I don't recall off the top of my head who usually issues those permissions. It's on a couple of letters that I have buried in a folder on my desktop. Joe, do you remember off the top of your head? Some of them say, he is.
Yeah. Yeah. Just just as an aside or just for clarity, I I did speak with somebody, and I was left with impression that they needed like input from you guys saying it's okay from your perspective. It's kind of like the chicken or the egg here, right? So you guys, we can't move until or you know, you can't approve it till they say it's okay. And then I kind of got the idea that the next step was to get your okay. And then they say if it's okay with you, it's okay with them. That kind thing. I think they were, I think you may have been, there may have been a little misunderstanding
there because, you know, we are quite clear on that, and we have applications in hand, where we have the permission statements, and we're, you know, now going to act on them, having received that permission from Alpo from Alma. Excuse me. Alma, yeah. Yeah, it's definitely we've got to have Alma before we can rule on the application. Okay, well, it's clear now.
So, Chairman Elliott, would it be inappropriate to discuss concerns with the application with respect to inland wetlands commission tonight or do we wait until we're quite open to comment
at this point. And if you have comments on the application, go right ahead.
Well, I do have an application because most of the, you know, people living on the lake are concerned with the extent that sediment is filling up the lake ever so slowly, but it only heads one direction. The lake gets fuller and fuller of sediment. And in the action proposed here that actually increases that rate of sediment or sand going into the lake. So I think that is quite detrimental to the health of the lake.
I would tend to agree with that comment and note that it seemed to me likely that some of the sand that is currently extending out onto the lake bed below the high water mark probably came from whatever sand was deposited there by previous owners of the property.
Yeah, I'm not sure, you know, how well I know that inland wetlands watercourse regulations have had increased emphasis over recent years. I think there's several pieces of property around the lake that have sand there and it's not replenished probably because of the detriment to the lake.
The right now, well, yeah, that side of the lake is kind of, it's not very deep at all, right? I mean, it's Right now it's all kind of dirt all the way out. So it's very shallow. I don't know that it would, you know, travel very far. It's only about five feet out now. So it looks like that was there. But I mean, I'm I'm no expert. I'm just stating, you know, what what I see. But, yeah, I guess we need to get with Alma.
You know. Mean, this analogous is all case that I can think of is the lake wall proposal on the other side. I can't remember the address off the top of my head, but the original proposal called for creating a seawall that went straight along the way and basically cut through a tiny little cove, but they had proposed to actually fill in that area. And our wetlands agent at the time, Mr. Valente, was quite adamant about not wanting to approve that little bit because it would involve bringing fill into the lakeshore. And so, although obviously we don't want to be ruling prematurely on this, I certainly think we want to have a statement from Alma and a considered opinion on whether they still consider this to be an appropriate activity. Okay. You know, the original sand may have been deposited under guidelines that are well or under considerations that have been subsequently modified. Are these guidelines published someplace? Well,
I I would have to say informal. And no, as far as I'm aware, there there are no published guidelines from Alma. Jed, are you aware of any?
I just know that if you go to the website, it says that any activity that takes place on the lake, whether it's a dock in, you know, that's the one that we most commonly see or the stone wall that requires Alma's permission because they are the property owner. So it would make sense that in this case we would need Alma's permission too. Although I think it's clearly stated in our wetlands regulations that we don't fill in the wetlands.
Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I don't know all the regulations. It's just like, from my perspective, was, you know, sand. I'm just kind of putting, you know, some sand on the on the ground to have a little beach,
but But we we understand the intent, and again, I we we would certainly, the bare minimum, we would need permission from ALMA for that. Okay. And, you know, and further, I think that we need to have a discussion about the, you know, the second point would be then the overall propriety of essentially putting fill in a well. Yeah, it's not much. It's a few yards, but fill is fill and wetlands are wetlands, and we have state mandated regulations regarding wetlands activities. So, I think we need to take a close look at whether this action is permissible under the, again, the statutory regulations that we are obligated to enforce.
Yeah, yeah. Okay. So, I mean, I'm just through this whole thing. I've been kind of looking for guidance, so I'm getting that now. And so the guidance is to get with Alma, get their feedback into this, and then submit that feedback back to you and then have another meeting.
Right, yeah. And again, I urge you to communicate, whatever you have you get from Alma. Communicate that to Agent Wagner. And, you know, as I said, that way we'll make sure we get it into the record for this application, and we'll have it to consider it. You know, we'll have it for our review and action on the application at our next meeting. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for the guidance. All right. Any other questions or comments on the application? If none, then we'll move along to whatever is next on the agenda. Okay, yeah, the jurisdictional ruling. Mr. McCullough, thanks for jumping into the call. And as I told previous, you can certainly excuse yourself from the meeting now. I'll make sure you're dying to see how everything works here. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Okay, so next we have a jurisdictional review. Hold on a second while I open this. So, we're being asked essentially to determine if a wetlands activity application is required for proposed timber harvest on a property at 37 Boston Hill Road, the owner Kathleen Sedaris. And let's see now, Donald Dubois or Dubois or Good evening. Is the forester, I guess, in proposing to do the work. Who'd like to speak to the application?
I would. Can everybody hear me? Can everyone hear me? Yes. Great.
I'm Don Dubois, founder of Dubois Forestry and Land Management Professionals from Brooklyn, Connecticut. I'm here tonight on behalf of Kathleen Sedaris, who owns land at 37 Boston Hill Road in Andover, Connecticut. Before you, you should have a notification of timber harvest regarding the removal of some dead and dying ash trees from the property due to the emerald ash borer, dead and dying oak trees that resulted from recent gypsy moth defoliation and some red maple with defect. The property has a perennial brook called Straddle Brook which bisects the property from west to east. In front of you there should be a forest type map, a vegetation type map, and a topographical map which shows it clearly. We proposed to install a temporary stream crossing across the perennial brook straddle brook as to prevent any impact to the stream channel. These are if you're not familiar with portable bridges, wooden mats that you've probably seen moving about in town on trucks here and there. And they're meant to be placed over the stream above the water flow, not to restrict the water flow, but to
prevent the movement of sediment and erosion into the stream channel during the tree removal operation. The completion of the operation, temporary stream crossings are removed. Most forest products harvesters today own their own bridges. Bridges. There's a secondary crossing prior to the Straddle Brook Crossing, which is an intermittent brook. If you go out there right now, you would probably find that this brook is not flowing. Even though we've had all this water this summer. This crossing requires just the placement of a little bit of corduroy into the channel and then its removal at the completion of the tree removal operation. So our goal here is to remove dead and dying trees in order to concentrate the growth potential of the site onto the better quality trees. There are some really good quality trees here, including sugar maple, hickory, birch, and some of the oak trees that have actually responded from recent defoliations, and they're doing quite well. This is typically referred to as a salvage or a release thinning. We're removing dead and dying trees, we're salvaging those trees, and we're releasing for future growth the advanced regeneration in the understory. This property was thinned about thirty years ago, and in the initial thinning, there was a lot of natural regeneration that came about. And so we're trying to shed some sunlight onto this advanced regeneration and to promote its growth.
The log loading area is located in the property's Southwest corner just off of Boston Hill Road. There is an existing log loading area that was utilized thirty years ago It's not no. Thank you. Yes Do you have a topo map handy? Can we go to the next is the topo map available There you go. There you go. Wonderful. If you look in the lower left hand corner of the property, just next to the word hill, you'll see a red dot And that is the proposed log loading area. This is an area that was used previously. If you drive by there now, you will see remnants of logs and woody chunks that were left there thirty years ago. But if you look just to the east of this landing area, there's an existing access road that comes on to the property and actually goes straight back to the, what do you call it? There's a structure there. It's a metal building, a military building. What was it called? You see, I forget the name of the structure, but there's this existing driveway that goes, to the structure and is simply a better location for the road. It's it's further away from the wetlands. It's more stable. It has a better log loading area is level and well drained. So you know based on our site inspection we decided it would just be a better location for the log loading area in order to mitigate any impact to wetlands and to prevent any movement of, soils onto the public highway. So if you look at the site, it's it's I can't I I'm drawing a blank. I'm sorry. I'm just drawing a blank on the name of the structure. It's a it's a metal frame but that's it hot that you're talking about there thank you
yes their existing driveway that used to go that goes to the quasi hot if you drive in there it's it's just a perfect location and as you drive into the left it's well drained it's open Just it just makes sense to locate it there rather than on the existing log loading area, which is just it is a high risk of impact if you use the existing area. So we're proposing to move the log loading area just slightly to the east of of that red dot that you see in the map and the landowners are in agreement with this
it's pretty straightforward the forest products harvester is hull forest products they won the job they're going to be required to harden the log loading area they're going to be bringing in a riprap stone This is to, you know, prevent any movement of soil onto the highway. Typically referred to as a, I don't know what you would call it in town, but it's just a hardening of the area with riprap stone. Once underway, this operation should take about ninety days barring any, you know, unforeseen interruptions. We are concerned about erosion and runoff on this site. This property has several intermittent drainage ways or fingers of water that flow from west to east. We're looking to do this job during mid winter conditions, during hard frozen conditions, hard freeze conditions, or during mid summer conditions when the water tables are at their lowest level. The property is
rectangular in shape. The property of butters have been notified by regular mail other than that it's a pretty straightforward operation we're just looking for a jurisdictional ruling this is a silvicultural treatment and I believe it's a permitted use ever as of right activity I have Joe Wagner who was very helpful. He just sent to me by email the town of Andover, Inland Wetlands and Water Causes Commission application. I'm not familiar with that. I have not had the opportunity to meet with the landowner and to secure her signature on this, but I'd be more than happy to do so, and get that to you, pre before the next meeting. Are there any questions?
Okay. I think that since we're being asked to make a jurisdictional ruling here, I'm going to begin the discussion by making a motion to the effect that a permit will be required for the portion of activity that involves actually crossing water courses and where you have what we have been advised is the deposition of materials in a wetlands or water course. So, again, I'll make that motion and ask for a second by a member of the Commission. Jed will second.
Okay, so we have a motion and a second. And with that on the floor, we can discuss the proposed activity. First, any comments from the members of the commission?
Wouldn't us having jurisdictional authority be consistent with what our legal attorney has given us for guidance in the past and what we've done in the past?
Exactly so. We have, you know, there's already precedent for requiring a permit for this activity. Again, it's not the silviculture per se, it's the wetlands crossing or watercourse crossing and wetlands disposition aspect of the silviculture operation, which the silviculture is, as you observed, permitted as of right under Connecticut statutes. But that sort of that's not inclusive of every aspect of the operation. And again, we were advised by legal counsel and have previously required applications or permit applications for forestry operations and silviculture operations that entail crossing watercourse and using either temporary bridge or corduroy to affect that crossing. It's again pretty straightforward based on our previous dispositions, and as I said, the advice of our attorney, who's of course, versed in what was regulations. I don't know if you've run into this in other jurisdictions, this is a while, but that's the way it's played out recently Me on this matter? Yeah, go ahead. Okay.
I think the key word here is, I'm fine with making an application. I don't have a problem with that. I get paid for what I do. I think the key word here is deposition. Depositing something inorganic into a wetlands. I think you'll find that's how the legislation reads. The placement of a permanent a temporary stream crossing, a portable bridge, is not by definition the placement of something into a wetlands. The first crossing, which is a corduroy crossing, which historically was used as a corduroy crossing previously. Yeah, you're putting organic matter, which is in this case logs, into a temporary stream crossing and you're removing them later. That by definition could be considered deposition of something into a wetlands. To get around that, if you'd prefer, we could put another set of portable bridges on the first crossing, thereby avoiding any deposition and not putting the corduroy in and just using two portable bridges. I think by definition, we've now avoided on both crossing any deposition of anything into a watercourse or wetlands. And that's how I understand the legislation. I just wanted to open that discussion.
Okay. Agent Wagner, do you have any comment on that point? Again, as I say, our attorney advises that exactly analogous activities, that is temporary crossing, temporary bridging, or corduroy, would be regarded as deposition, even though it's deposition and subsequent removal.
The the the thing that those previous applications that he was referring to were, the the temporary crossings were corduroy placed into the stream, which as, Mr. Dubois pointed out, where, well, you know, that could be considered film. I believe there were no temporary bridges, which would,
if I understand it correctly, that would that would the one Kieber Road did involve temporary bridging. I wasn't on the commission at that point.
Right. I know you weren't the agent then, but I'll have to go back into the record to get the exact circumstances. I'm working on incomplete memory here. But as I said, the fact is that we were advised, and I would have to, again, I would want to review the statutory, well, the regulation. I do have here. I got it out. Okay, good. It's
Was this section 4.1? The section of it that pertains it would be the provisions of this subdivision. So the following operations and uses shall be permitted in inland wetlands and water courses and upland review areas as of right. That's grazing, farming, nursery, gardening, and harvesting of crops and farm ponds of three acres or less essential to the farming app operation, and activities conducted by or under the authority of the Department of Environmental Protection. Then the one that pertains to us, the provisions of the subdivision shall not be construed to include road construction or the direction of buildings not directly related to the farming operation, relocation of wetlands with continual flow, filling or reclamation of wetlands or water courses with continual flow, clear cutting of timber. That's what pertains to it. So when I when I look at it, I see relocation of wetlands or watercourses with continual flow or filling a reclamation of wetlands or watercourses with continual flow. So placing corduroy in the wetland would probably fall under that, whereas placing a bridge span or the water course would not. So that's what what I would see. I would I would my my thought would be that a permit would be required if corridor was placed in the wetland, or if any kind of fill was placed in the wetland, whereas a bridge span over it would not be considered fill.
Okay. Let me add here that I think we'd be, speaking to the Commission. I believe we'd be disposed to approve this activity. It's just that, given our understanding of the circumstances and the actions that you're proposing, that a permit is required for the crossings. Again, under the OCNIV 4.3, which basically says that unless it's specifically permitted, it requires permit by regulations. And I don't see anything in the regulations that specifically state that you know, temporary bridge or corduroy is permitted as an activity or rut.
I beg to differ. I'm not here to argue you, but Joe Wagner just read the regulations into the record. And his position is that a temporary stream crossing is not a regulated activity under state jurisdiction. I propose that if you have an issue with the corduroy and the first crossing, that we would install a second set of temporary bridges, which I'm prepared to do, which would be non jurisdictional based on Joe's interpretation of the regulations. Again, I'm not trying to argue. I'm just pointing out facts. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I have no problem whatsoever with filing the application with you and coming back to the next meeting. I just want to clarify that in any other jurisdiction in this state, the placement of a temporary portable bridge is a non regulated activity. But out of respect to you and your commission, I will file a complete application for the next meeting. Have no problem with that. I get paid to do what I do. Right. Well, we're still in the process of deciding whether you need to do Okay. Okay?
And again, I'm basing my comments so far to the previous situations where we've had stream crossings as part of silviculture operations.
I remember the last operation I did for the town of Andover behind the Andover School, which that property we've thinned twice so far, there was a temporary stream crossing that was hardened. Weren't required to place temporary bridges. It goes back a long time ago. John Valenti was involved then, great guy. And so but the rules have changed since then, and regulations get interpreted differently. And I understand that. I'm very comfortable with filing a complete application if you want me to do it. No problem.
Right. Okay. Let me ask again for comments from the commissioners. Mr. Wasson?
Yeah, so, and again, it might not be something that we would have jurisdiction on with this temporary bridge, but I'm not familiar, know, and I didn't see any information in the package on the temporary bridge, but just seem to me if we were bringing logs across temporary bridge, that would have to be a pretty robust structure. And I don't have a feel for how big the stream is that we're crossing with this temporary bridge. I think that's a stream that's in our regulations listed as a stream of significant concern or whatever the special concern. And so, as a commission member, I guess I'd like to know more about the bridge that we're going to put over it. The only experience I have with a temporary bridge is the property that we were trying wrestle with putting a temporary bridge across on, I think it was Cider Mill Road. And I don't know how that ever came out. I just know it got real hard and I can't remember what happened after that, if we ever approved it or not, but it was not trivial. And so from my own personal understanding, I'd like to have a better understanding of what the loggers do to make a robust enough temporary bridge to span this without any detriment to the wetlands or the watercourse near it. Yeah,
I agree. I think Jed is right on, absolutely. I don't know if Joe had time to get out there and do a site walk and inspection. I'd be more than happy to meet with Joe and other commission members to look at this stream crossing, talk about the placement of bridges. I can also demonstrate what these bridges look like. Having been in business for forty years, I've got plenty of photos showing how they should be installed properly. I mean, sometimes they get installed wrong. You got to do it right. And then how they're removed. And then what remedial actions you take to stabilize the stream bed and to, you know, make it good. I'd be I'd be more than happy to go out there with Joe and any commission member, and we can take a look at hopefully, before the snow flies. It's it's a long it's a long walk out there in snow, so maybe we can get it done sooner than later.
You're muted, George.
Oh, George. Yeah, I know. I I muted. I could see the little red thing, and I was fishing around for the unmute option. Okay, so yeah, again, I take your point, and we would I think that a sidewalk would certainly be appropriate if there's an application. And again, we haven't decided yet whether you really need to make an application. Right.
Pretty straightforward. I mean, I have it right here. I mean, it could take me literally twenty minutes to fill it out.
I realize it won't take a look. So I guess I'll ask the Commission if we should just sort of cut to the chase right now and decide, take a vote on the motion to require a permit or to require an application for a permit. Are we okay with doing that? Do think we need further discussion on parsing the statute and regulation, or should we just, again, rule on the question of whether or not an application will be required?
I got a comment on that, Bill Monroe. I seem to agree with Jed on this. I'd like to at least be able to see this bridge that we're talking about so that we can make a clear decision on it on this if we feel we need to have an application or if it's just not going to do any damage at all and just okay, it is a right of property owner.
Excuse me, concur with Bill. Maybe I was remiss. I should have included photos and I do apologize. Thought everybody was familiar with these structures. If you go to YouTube and type in Dubois forestry, you'll see a clear picture of what these structures look like. But again, I'm very comfortable with meeting with any of you, Jed, Bill, Joe, take a walk out there. We'll look at where the bridges are going. I can bring photos at that time and you'll have a clear understanding of it. And I think you'll feel more comfortable looking at it and so will I. I'm fine with that.
We have photos on record. There was a previous application. The one that was most recent was over on Cone Road. And there you would this is again for the commission. I don't remember the application number, but it involved basically the same sort of activity, although the stream crossing reduced. It was an intermittent water course that was being crossed. But we have photographs that Bill could access showing the squares that are used to do the bridging. Again, as Commissioner Larson pointed out, we had the application for a temporary crossing of Saddle Brook lower down below Route 316. This was for a different activity, but again a permit to cross the stream using a temporary bridge that was approved. You know, it wasn't They first, I think, asked for perhaps a permanent bridge and then got modified to become a temporary bridge, just the sort that you're describing and proposing to use on that property. This is the portion of Stout Brook that's just above the swamp, right? It's directly where it's going to run-in. So I think that we can I don't want to delay this too much? We defer a ruling, then Well, let's put it this way. A if you need an application, we're not going to be able to consider it until next month, and then we can't approve it for another two weeks. So you know that kind of puts you behind the eight ball with regard to getting out there while the ground is frozen and hard. Exactly. So, you know, I don't want to throw up that kind of obstacle, but at the same time, I want to make sure that we are the Commission is acting in accordance with its own regulations and precedents,
and that we're not making too many ad hoc decisions about what is a permissible activity as of right. As I said, it seems to me that this would be a permittable activity. The other question is whether it's a permittable activity as of right or whether you need a permit to apply for the permit. Again, that's what is current subject of discussion and the motion on the floor to require a permit. Now, if that motion is defeated, then you're free to go ahead. Are operating as of right, and you know we trust that your proposal meets best management plan and all that. If we decide that it does need an application, well, you've got the application in hand and can submit it rapidly. But as I say, there's no way we can consider it before our next regular meeting. Understood.
Is it possible that under the circumstances, because this operation isn't going to start until mid winter, so I don't have a problem delaying it, but if it were a jurisdictional ruling, could Joe and I and other commission members get out there kind of on short notice and take a look at the crossing and assess it and then get back to the commission? Is there any way we could expedite this? Again, I'm not trying to push it along because if we don't get frozen ground conditions, it's not working this winter. We're gonna going to be out there until next summer, maybe. And then this past summer, we had like five feet of water. So you can't even work in the woods these days. It's unbelievable. I know, I know. We're waiting for things to dry up and it never did. Good luck.
Well, I think once we have an application, we could we might be able to schedule a special meeting to receive the application. And, you know, we've got to do all these things as notice meetings, right. So I think the fastest way we could do it would be, if you were to submit the application, we could schedule a special meeting to receive the application and to take a sidewalk, you know, to see what you're doing. Those would be permissible, I think, under FOI, but we would still have to wait from our, you know, from our official receipt of the application. We'd have to wait two weeks by statute before we could act on it. Now, of course, with the holiday season coming up, I'm not going anywhere, other people might, and you know, I can see where
it doesn't seem to me impossible that we could do that. Can I add something? I
was just thinking that the other option might be to not rule on the jurisdictional ruling this month, and then schedule a sidewalk. And then. At the January meeting, you would either rule that it. It's an as a right use or that it requires a permit, then you could receive the the applicant, you could either make the jurisdictional ruling
that if it needs a deferment, you could accept it. Yeah, that would that would push us off if we receive the application at our January meeting, you know, assuming we I just don't see any benefit to deferring the jurisdictional ruling. I think that if we have a jurisdictional ruling that's clear cut, that's yes or no, and the circumstances of what of exactly how the bridge is being laid and exactly where it's going, which is what we see on the sidewalk, isn't entirely material to the jurisdictional ruling. Again, the question is, does it need a permit or is it activity as of right? For nothing. Excuse
me, I'm sorry, but not for nothing. I would have had your permit completed and into you by today. I couldn't get to it and it requires a landowner's signature. But certainly in the next couple of days, I can fill this application out and meet with the landowner, secure her signature, and deliver to the town hall. So I don't have any problem by getting that to you. If you could perhaps schedule whatever you call a special meeting expedite it to allow the forest products harvester time to get in there, say in January or February when ground conditions would be ideal, that's great. If you could help us out with that, great. If not, I understand. Understand.
So Chairman Elliott, what date is our January meeting? Do you happen to know? I can't remember if we deferred from the third It's January 11.
So I'm looking at my calendar also, which means we would have to receive the application absolutely no later than Tuesday, December 28. Now clearly we could, know, you're obviously in a position to do it sooner than that. Now, the question is, can we schedule a special meeting? And here's where the commissioners have to kind of weigh in. Is anytime. Mean, typically we do our sidewalks on Saturday mornings, but it can be anytime that the commissioners are available and that you're available and that the property owner will permit us to come on the property and have a look. I guess that would be the first question. Could we have a special meeting? Let's see, we need to warn that in advance. So, let's say practically speaking, week, or maybe the eleventh.
I don't remember off the top of my head how soon we have to warn it, but we have to, for a special meeting, we have to post it in advance. So how does it look to the commission? Jed, do you have your calendar?
I Either the eleventh or the eighteenth would work, and I would hope that we could have a special meeting to accept the application and a site visit at the same time, so then at the January meeting we'd be ready to Exactly,
we'd be in a position to vote on and approve the application on January 11. And you know, that's about, you know, hey, that's as fast as it's going to get done if we decide to exercise jurisdiction, okay? We decide not to exercise jurisdiction, you're home free.
So, I'm going to fill out the application no matter what, correct? I should fill that out and drop it by in the next few days, right? I mean, that makes sense.
Yeah, if we decide you need an application, obviously we want that ASAP. And then we can see, we're looking at penciling in Commissioner Monroe eleventh or eighteenth. Okay, by you. Eleventh is fine. Okay. What about the eighteenth in case we didn't have an opportunity to warn the meeting? The eighteenth is okay. Okay,
and I'm okay for the eleventh or the eighteenth. So, we can pencil, you know, depending on the receipt of the, know, the application is in, let's say, when it's in Agent Wagner's hands, and we can warn a special meeting. Okay? So the special meeting would be either the eleventh or the eighteenth, typically 09:00 as a target date and time for a sidewalk. And as I say, it would also be our opportunity to formally receive the application and put us in a position to vote on it. Okay, so we're all clear on that on on the contingencies. Okay, so we still have to vote on the motion. I still have a quick question for Joe.
Just if I get this application filled out and signed by the landowner, do you work out of the Andover town hall office? Yes. Yeah. So I can deliver it to you there physically?
Yeah. You can well, you can if I'm not there, you can deliver it to the building Okay. Admin, and then I can get it. So or you can email it either way. Yeah. I'll give you a hard copy. Okay. My paper is long memory.
Okay. So George, can I make one quick point? This is Eric Anderson. Yeah, we're And that is, you would have to have, if you're gonna do a special meeting on Saturday, because the town hall is officially closed Friday, you would have to notice that on Thursday.
Okay, so thanks for that. So it would have to be noticed on the ninth for the eleventh and no later than we'll we know we'll have it in time to warrant it for the eighteenth. The only tight schedule would be trying to warrant it for a special meeting on the eleventh. So thanks for chiming in, Eric. We'll know how we have to move once the application is received. Again, depending on the vote on the motion, which I'm going to call that because I think we've discussed this just about to death. I'm going ask for a vote on the motion regarding jurisdictional regarding the Commission's jurisdiction over this activity and whether an application is required. Again, the motion was that it was affirmative, that is to say that an application would be required for the portion of the activity occurring in wetlands that are crossing the water course. And so an affirmative vote is that you would need to file that application.
So, by roll call, I will ask for a vote. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Mr. Monroe? Aye.
And I, Chairman Elliot, also vote aye. So, the motion passes three-zero-zero. We have ruled jurisdiction and an application is required, and we expect it will be forthcoming. We'll try and move this on as quick as we can and expect to meet no later than December 18 to receive the application and to take a sidewalk and have you explain the activity.
Two more questions, if I may. Yeah, go ahead. At the sidewalk, is a quorum required by the Commission? Yes, because it is a meeting.
Okay. Well, I just want to make sure that no one's wasting their time and having an inadequate number of members show up and not having a quorum. That would be I'll
poll beforehand to make sure that we will be present. Okay, wonderful. We will, you know, yeah, I understand the frustration of, suppose they had a meeting and nobody came. We will certainly want to avoid that. And yeah, we will have a quorum for a formal meeting. And you know, and as I say, any sidewalk is technically a meeting. We have to have a quorum. We have to mourn the meeting. We have to provide minutes to the meeting. It will be straightforward.
Joe, or who will be notifying me of the date whether it's the eleventh or the eighteenth who will be telling me what date it is?
I could I can send you the the date. Okay.
I was gonna say our our agent is generally in charge of setting up the agenda and posting the morning online for the meeting. So yeah, you'll hear from him. And again, as I said, I will make sure of a quorum beforehand. Okay.
All right, I'll get this application to you, Joe, in the next, I mean, probably the next few days. If you're not in the office, I'll just drop it by the office. This building is closed on Fridays.
Yeah, yeah, they're open. Building apartments open till 01:15 every day except for Friday. That was part time. So and then there's a drop box in the front that if no one's there, you could leave it in there.
Alright. I'll find you. Yeah. Are you still downstairs on the right where where John Valenti was?
Yeah. The well, the building office is on the right, and my office is on the left, but, yeah, we're in the same area. Okay. Somebody will be here. Alright.
Very good. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time and patience with this process. Okay. Okay, moving on then. We now find the agenda again here. Oh, yeah, okay, we're next, we're going to actually deal with old business. We have three permit applications that are currently pending. The first, application number 2121 from the Kohl's for rebuilding a stone stairway into Andover Lake. To facilitate moving on this, I'm going to make a motion that we approve the application, and I'll take a second. I'll second that.
Thank you. One more. Okay, so we have a motion and a second to approve the application, and I'll ask if there's any discussion. I'm all set. Okay. Commissioner Monroe, did you have any? All set.
Okay, yeah, it seemed to be pretty straightforward, and I think we covered it thoroughly at the last meeting when we received the application. So, seeing no further questions from the Commission, I'll proceed to a vote. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Munro? Aye. And I also vote aye. So, the motion carries three-zero. Next, we have Permit Application 2,122, applicant Jeff Miner for the owner Ellen Galmott at 326 Lake Road to rebuild an existing lake wall. Again, to facilitate, I will move that we approve the permit in standard conditions, two years duration. Any Okay, Anita, we need a second. I'll second.
Okay, so I moved and seconded to approve any questions or comments on the application? Commissioner Larson, any questions or views?
I can't remember from the drawing of this one, but the question for Marcy would be, does this have the crushed stone behind the stone walls to act as a little filtering medium or whatever to as we go to the stonewall.
I said, yes, does. Yes. Actually, I'm Jeff Miner. That's me in the hat and glasses. Okay.
That's my nighttime attire. But to answer the question, yes, there will be crushed stone with a fabric as a filter.
And would that crushed stone go all the way to the surface or would that be up harsh way and then covered with dirt?
It would be probably within five to six inches of the top level of the wall, then yes, it would be backfilled with topsoil and seeded with an erosion mat. Okay, I have no other questions. Okay. Commissioner Monroe. I'm all set.
Okay. And, yeah, I think that the well, Commissioner Larson already asked a question about the wall rebuild, and I think, again, we covered the area and so forth. So if there is no further discussion, we can proceed to a vote on the motion, which is to approve the permit application with standard conditions and for a two year duration be adequate?
Yes, it would be for me, yes. Okay, so two year,
again ask for a roll call vote. Commissioner Larson. Aye. Now, Commissioner Monroe. Aye.
And I also vote aye. So the motion carries three zero zero. I guess that as soon as the ground is ready, you can get going on the work. Awesome. Two weeks, and two then Two weeks? Yeah, right. There's always that delay required for public comment and the publication of legal notice.
Sounds good. We won't be ready before that anyway. Okay, and
I'm sure you'll be in touch with Agent Wagner if the activity proceeds. Sounds good, thank you.
Okay, moving on. Let's see now. Let me close out this one. I can never decide whether shuffling paper or clicking on files is slower and more prone to error in finding what you're looking for. '22, we're looking for a permit application number 2123 from the town of Andover, and of course, that's the sidewalk that we completed on Saturday. Okay, yeah, here it is. So, again, I'll kick it off by making a motion to the effect that we approve the application with standard conditions and for a two year duration. Oops, I keep clicking on new folder rather than open. One second.
So we have a motion and a second to approve the application from the town of Andover. And I see that our town administrator, Eric Anderson, is still on the call and probably wants to refresh her memory on what's going to happen here. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners following the sidewalk on Saturday? I'm all set. Okay. I am pretty much too. We saw and Jay described what's going to be done, the trail going up across the rail trail and upward towards Merritt Valley Road, presumably with eventual access to the Stearns Park area across Merritt Valley Road from the town owned property we recently acquired along Cheney Brook, and the clearing and work that would be done to create a picnic area. So, if there are no questions or comments from the members, I don't have any. Thought it was pretty straightforward and willing to proceed to the vote. So, Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Monroe. Aye. And I also vote aye. So, the motion is approved three zero zero. Alright. You can have them get to it as soon as they can get a get that round to it.
Fair enough. Gentlemen, thank you all, for your attention to this matter. And with that, I will bid you a good night. You are free to leave.
Take care. Okay, moving on with the agenda. We don't have any active enforcement actions, and we have only one permit under the AGER report. Major Weiner, did you have any comments on that permit application 2125?
I just had a one actually, if we could go back to enforcement actions, I just had an update. On 93 Townsend Road. The shipping containers in the Upland Review area. They were moved out of the area on December 2. Notified me that they were gone. I took a ride by there. No longer next to the wetland.
Good enough. But here that hadn't been downtowns and road for a few days, so I hadn't seen that done. Yeah, it was just it was late really late last week.
And then the the permit application, the IWWC 21 Dash 25 was just a it was a gravel driveway and associated they they made a proposed a little grass strange whale that would kind of follow the existing contours. And that was within 100 foot upland review area of an unnamed Brook, there was it's if you're heading down, like heading north on West Road, down towards Andover Lakes and the Brook is above an elevation above the proposed driveway. So everything that they're proposing would kind of keep the same contours and the same drainage pattern and drain it into the culvert that goes under the road. So that's a pretty straightforward, pretty detailed application. But I wish more of them were like that.
Yeah, don't we all? I take it that, yeah, I saw the photographs, and in this case, the upland review is actually downhill of the brook, but still within the radius. And so, can expect obviously minimal impact clearly from rural. I take it they're going to develop that property if they want to drive it. Yeah, you needed access. The lot is in the rear, so needed to access the building area. Yeah. Okay. Okay, well then moving on, item 10: Other business. We do have I was remiss. I overlooked in the IWWC chair inbox with Microsoft Outlook. I don't review it very often, and I overlooked the memo from Prime Minister, well, from actually from Amanda about the annual reports being due about a month and a half ago, and so I finally got around to it last week. I distributed that to the commissioners and wanted to see if I think I copied you on that also, Joe. So, anyhow, if anybody has any corrections or whatnot, I'd be happy to entertain them. Otherwise, I will submit it forthwith, with apologies
and humbly contrition.
My only comment, George, was should we put is one of our goals to get some more members on the Commission?
Yeah, I think that's a reasonable goal. Since I did comment on the fact that we're presently operating with a bare quorum. And the only thing I can add a sense to that effect.
One thing I saw in there was that I remember talking about this when I first. Got the job here. We're talk it was it's goal number two on there, developing separate applications for administrative approvals, permit modification requests, and jurisdictional ruling requests. I'm not sure if we ever do that permit link thing, that's only, it's like one application, and then I, you know, after thinking about it, I kind of think it's a lot less confusing if we just stick to one application, because then, you know, basically the same amount of information required for either an administrative approval or a regular wetlands application. You just need enough information to, you know, make a determination. So I think I think just keeping one application would be good. And then same with permit modification. It makes a lot easier for the billing office too if everything was just under one, so they wouldn't have to guess which one they needed for certain things if there was any question. And then as for jurisdictional rulings, I think I've seen other towns that have you fill out an application along with the jurisdictional ruling so that if you make the ruling that a permit's required, then you can just receive the application at the same meeting. I think that's a good idea. That's kinda what I was trying to get mister Dubois to do, but he kinda ran out of time because it was it was submitted a little late. But my my thought going forward was we try to get him to put the application in and then, yeah, if you
if it's as a right, great. If not, then accept the application at that meeting, and then, you know, have to delay any any more necessary.
Right. But that's just a process thing, not a separate application. You're right. And frankly, just carried that forward because, hey, it was in our previous annual report, something we hadn't done, and we still hadn't done it. So, I figured that it should be carried forward. But I take your point, and I have a quick poll in the commission here, whether this is a goal we want to retain here. Again, this is future goals and priorities number two. Okay. So anybody want to weigh in on that, Jud? I
don't have a copy of the annual report in front of me. I just read it online, so I can't remember what it said. But if it has anything to do with getting that application in when we do the jurisdictional ruling, I think tonight proved the point on how that's a great idea.
Yeah. No, the point here was whether we want to retain, again, reads, developing separate applications for administrative approvals, permit modification requests, and jurisdictional ruling requests. That was stated as a goal for FY twenty twenty one-twenty two, and Agent Wagner is pointing out that maybe that's a goal that's not worth retaining, with which I've been calling to agree.
Yeah, I agree with Agent Wagner that we should be using the same application for, you know, either case.
Okay, Commissioner Munro, anything you want to weigh in on? It sounds like it would be wise to just have one application.
Okay, so one application with maybe an improved process regarding jurisdictional reviews, but I can drop that as a goal. So, consider that excised from the draft annual report. Okay. But oh, apropos of, goal number one, I still haven't heard from Department of Energy and Environmental Protection regarding whether a hearing or whether they have any comment on our proposed update and revision of the IWWC regulations. If we don't hear from them, or if I don't hear from them by our January meeting, I think we can probably just go ahead and schedule a hearing pro form a and be in a position to approve those regulation updates finally after about two years of hit and miss effort. So, returning then to the question of the annual report, if those are the two things we basically add a goal of bringing our membership up to full capacity with five members and three alternates. God, that's a lot of people. But anyhow, we'll see what we can do about, you know, Addison's goal, a substitute of Goal two for the present Goal two. Again, I'll circulate that for a quick review before I submit it to Amanda for the record and for incorporation in the annual report for the town.
With respect to membership, you know, the way I understand it is if we have a five member commission and three members are attending a meeting, so we have a quorum, all three need to vote in favor of a motion before it can pass.
Which is a constraint, but you're absolutely right. If if there's any dissent, then it fails.
Okay, yep, just want to make sure I understood what the rules were on the voting.
So, that's another good incentive to try to restore our membership. The tentative inquiries we've had haven't resulted in any further action, and I guess there were constraints on some interests with respect to being a registered voter and so on and so forth. But I guess it's probably time to get out and beat the bushes, figuratively speaking, and try to again try to enlist at least a couple of members to get us up to voting strength. So, any other comments on the annual report? Okay, if not, we can move on to the subject of number 11, which I must say took me by surprise. I didn't know that Zoom had a time machine function. In fact, our next regular meeting will be Monday, 01/11/2022 at 7PM. Oh yeah, screwed
that up. Yes, Tuesday, January 11, right? How easy it is to carry things forward one way or the other. Okay, writing the wrong year done early.
Okay, we'll get it right for the minutes, right, Abby? So, with that, I can ask for unanimous consent on adjournment at 08:36PM. Seeing no dissent, we'll consider the meeting adjourned. I will thank you all for participating, and I still don't have an answer from Abby. Down in the chat. Oh, I sent you a message back at the beginning. This has got nothing to do with it. It's got nothing to do with the meeting.
I don't think I got a chat. You'll have to tell me other somewhere else. Oh, well, asked you if you planted garlic. Oh, yes, at the garden, ready in the summer. A had
warm fall, I figured it would probably be okay. It should root up. And in fact, the stuff that I planted at home in early October, which is normally when you should be planting, is all sprouted up. And of course, it's all going to get the green above ground. It's all going to get totally frozen by the time it's time to grow again. It was an oddball. That really may have been a little mistake. We'll see how it works out when comparing notes next July. Okay, so that was the extraneous conversation. And once again, we'll consider the meeting adjourned. Then everybody can press the little red leave button, and Abby can end the meeting at her leisure. Good night, everybody. Night. Not at all.