Meeting transcript
Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting
December 21, 2020 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
Call the meeting to order. We will start with a roll call in the seating of alternates. I have myself present, Anne Parme present, and Susan England who is an alternate will seat her for the vacancy. And we've got Anne and Kevin, our new alternates to be that just have not made it through the swearing in process. So for purposes of the meeting tonight and the discussion of the regulations and that, you're welcome and encouraged to participate in those discussions. But I can't seat you on the commission to actually vote on anything until we get you sworn in. So happy with that. Moving on to Item three, addition or changes to the agenda. I would like to add one item to the agenda and make that Item 6C under new business, and that would be to approve the budget for next year. And so to get that well, first let me ask, are there any other additions or changes to the agenda that anybody else has?
I have a question. On the agenda, under the Rights Away discussion, is there an address there? I do not have the agenda in front of me.
There An address on the agenda? It is on the agenda, yeah. It's new business 6B.
But is there an address? No, there's no address. No, there is no That's fine. It's fine. There doesn't need to be. Okay. And
I am prepared to put up the picture of the lot if we need that to help out that discussion. So again, the one change to the agenda is Add Item six, Charlie, twenty twenty one-twenty two budget. And I need a motion to add that to the agenda. So Ann or Susan?
I move that we add Item 6C, approval of the budget for fiscal year twenty twenty one to the agenda.
Thank you, Susan. Can I get a second in? Second. Thank you, and Taking a roll call vote, Ann, how do you vote? Aye.
Susan? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Motion carries three zero, zero to add the budget to the new business agenda. I see nobody present from the public. So I guess there'll be no public comment at this point. Moving on to old business. I show new old business. I wrestled with myself whether the Lake Reg should be old business or new business. But I figured we'll let that stay in the new business there. And so we'll move on to item 6A, which is the lake regulations. And I was hoping that Scott would at least be here. He's been having, I know he's pretty interested in that. Not sure why he's not here tonight, but anyhow, we're gonna, we'll go through them and Mindy, if you can allow me to do the screen share, I can call up the regulations and we'll go through those.
All right, you should be able to now enabled screen sharing for everybody.
Okay. Okay, so this is the draft of the proposed lake regs under section two, which is the district's section of our regulations. This would add down here the Andover Lake Watershed Protection overlay zones. Now one of the things I changed from the previous draft was I put a Z on the end of the acronym there. I still don't know how to pronounce it, but that gave the first letter of all the words instead of leaving zones out of that. So that was no big deal, but that includes our overlay zones into the discussion on the different districts there. If we come down under item 2.2, it talks about the zoning map for the town of Andover, which is promulgated at this point,
and that shows the whole town and shows where the Lake District is, where the industrial business districts are, that sort of thing. And it says this is included in Appendix one. If you were to go to our website right now, you would see that on the section that has the different documents for us, that's listed as Appendix A. So we're going to need to change that on the website so that it's consistent with our regulations. So that's pretty straightforward, no big discussion there. The amended map, you would go down and we're talking about the Andover Lake Watershed Protection Map and it says adopted, you can see back we thought we would get this adopted in 2019. Didn't happen there yet and it'll end up being 2021 before we get it adopted but that's the watershed map and for the benefit of Anne and Kevin, let me just see if I can call that up without losing where everything's at there. So that's from the presentation we went through before
and talked about the yellow being Zone A along the lake, light blue is Zone B, the purple Zone C, and then the brown is outside the Lake District and that's our Zone D. So anyhow, that's the map. That is not an approved map and so we'd have to get that approved at the public hearing where we go through our different regulations. So that's it on the establishment of the districts. Anybody got any questions on that? And that takes care of the two comments that we've got in there as well. Moving down into new section 7.6 which is in the section of our regulations on the Andover Lake District and it goes through a bunch of intent for the first section here. There was a comment, I think this was by Hillary, our Liminologist, and she was saying depends on the size of the disturbed land and construction projects, possible deep enforcement. The enforcement we're looking at there is whether or not DEEP would require us to put sewers into Andover, which is very costly and we don't have the money for that right this minute. I think if we can avoid that, that's probably good. That was that comment. Talked about phosphorus and nitrogen transferred directly to the lake by stormwater runoff. Unless the velocity of surface water is reduced. That takes care of one of her next comments.
Moving down here, what I've highlighted in yellow are words that I have added to since the version that's currently posted in the pending regulations on our website there. And I tried to put in some words that took care of the next couple of comments here. So comment five is talking about reducing runoff volume and increasing infiltration of green water. I added that in there. We were talking about mitigating increases due to development and increases in impervious surface. Mitigation measures also help maintain the water table at healthy levels. And I didn't want our regulations to be the technical manual that somebody goes to to figure out how to take care of the lake. And so I put in some words that were specifically commented on but I don't think anybody that lives around the lake or in the Lake District is going to go read our zoning regs to find out how to to maintain the lake healthy. But maybe it's an education process for us. It certainly was me. You know, one of the comments later on, Hillary, you know, suggested that certainly if somebody's building the house or doing a significant upgrade, we ought to encourage them to do extra, above which required mitigation measures. And so the next paragraph here talks about that and talks about Jim being available to help determine the most effective place to mitigate stormwater runoff. So we'd like the property owners to do more than is required and that takes care of that. And then the last one is just a comment I added. I don't know if it would work or not, but as a property owner on the lake who might be thinking about improving something later on, would somebody be worried about
not taking action to mitigate stormwater runoff because then you don't have that to do or get any credit for it the next time you want to improve your property. So I put that in there and that can be a discussion with the zoning agent as well. So that's why I added those couple of things in there. I see the next comment and Jim, if you can mark this down for me just so I remember to go back to it. I see we go right from 7.6.0 to 7.6.2. I didn't notice that before. So I've got to get the numbering system down here. Hilary was asking about the stormwater management plan, is it available? I sent that to her. It is available in our regulations. And she asked who designed the nutrient allocation worksheet and that was something borrowed from the town of Columbia, modified it a little bit, but that was in there. So that took care of those two comments and I fed that back to Hillary as well. In the requirements section here going down, so it says once implemented all best management practices shall be maintained, kept in working condition by the property owner and such obligations shall be contained in the declaration of covenants and restrictions in accordance with the form contained in Appendix four. My question there was, do we have, well, know we don't have an appendix for it. All we have is appendix
one right this minute, but we don't have that form either. And so, you know, I was talking to Jim about that. If we need to keep a record of the mitigation measures if somebody did, we can do that without having this declaration of covenants and restrictions form, which we don't have and I couldn't find anybody who knew anything about that. So I'm just going to go ahead and eliminate that. And again, I'm just rambling through here. If there's any questions on any of these things, please don't hesitate to ask. I'm just trying to go through a couple of the comments that both our attorney and the linologist that we had to take a look at it, go from there. Now, I'm wondering, Jim, do you know if the agenda on the website had the correct link to get into this? I know I sent out an updated link to everybody here. And I know Linda Derek, who's the head of Alma, Andover Lake Management Association, was planning on joining the meeting tonight. I wouldn't expect her to be here necessarily right off the bat. She might think that it takes us a while to get other things done. I'm just wondering if that's precluding anybody from
Jed, you had sent that email to Amanda as well, correct? I don't responded know.
And said, I believe, thanks for pointing that out. Okay, I didn't know if that came from you Jim or if that came from Amanda. Well, it didn't come from me.
Well, anyway. Okay, Leanne, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you, Leanne. Yeah. Okay. It just took me fifteen minutes to sign in. Okay.
So I'm not sure what's going on. Well, working our way.
We added one item to the agenda, which is going to be a budget discussion item under new business 6C. And we're working our way through the comments from the the late regulations that that I got there so far. Leanne, did you have problems because of Yes, the
I had problems with the passcode. First, it kept hanging up. You know, the recording didn't give me time to enter the passcode. I tried entering both the passcode and meeting ID, five or six times, and the the recording would hang up on me before I could get through it. So I had just kept trying until I got a different screen. But I still can't see all of you. Normally I can, but at least I can hear you and you can hear me. Okay. I don't know why it was so abrupt.
And that probably means so then you're not able to see the regulations as we go through them. And I'll just have to make sure that I'm vocalizing the comments and that sort of thing. Am I seated?
I will seat you as of sevennineteen. So yes, you are seated.
Okay. I'll keep trying to get in where I can see everybody. You can never see me, but I'll keep trying to get to that part. Very good.
Chad, I just had a question before you move on. Yep. So it says Appendix four. I know up above we changed Appendix one because it's referenced as Appendix A on the website. Is Appendix four going to be Appendix B on the website?
No. So there is not going to be an appendix four. I can't find anybody who knows what this form is. You know, it's not something that we had or had been using for other things. And so we will just put a list of the mitigation factors in the building file for the particular home. So what I expect, and let me just cover the appendices for a minute. So we had appendix one was going to be or is by our current regulations, the Andover zoning district map. Appendix two is going to be the watershed overlay zone map. Appendix three was going to be the nutrient allocation worksheet. And what I would like to do is, my intention is not to have the nutrient allocation worksheet be an actual part of the regulations. That is just a tool that we have available to us to help us implement the regulations and it's going to be something that Jim as a zoning agent is using. So I got rid of the reference to appendix three that talked about it. And that gives us the ability to, as we see process improvements with using that worksheet, I can change those without having to go back to public hearing because it's helping us easily implement the regulations. Doesn't have anything to do with actually defining the regulations or anything like that. So there'll be an appendix one and appendix two and that's all there is there. Okay, yep, so now we're down to and we're still really just
providing the basic framework for what these regulations are all about. In 7.6.4, I added some words in here based on our discussion at the last meeting. When an undeveloped lot is developed, it would be very difficult for the property owner to reduce nutrient allocation runoff to achieve the required reduction required by the nutrient allocation worksheet. In this case, at a minimum, the property owner will mitigate stormwater runoff by capturing all roof and driveway runoff in a dry well or detention basin. And I wrestled with myself on this a little bit. Do I need to keep the words driveway or dry well or detention basin or just leave that up to Jim? Jim, you can weigh in on that a little bit. We also talked about giving some allowances for roof, driveway, and lawn. And I went through a case study on just a basic lot. I said, well, just doing the roof and the driveway isn't going to be enough because most of the runoff into the lake comes from the lawn. It runs off doesn't absorb in the lawn and that sort of thing. So I didn't like Scott's recommendation last time. And then we went to the last inland wetlands meeting, we had a potential property owner. I think they're going to buy one of the lots that's for sale on Lake Road. And they were going to the Wetlands Commission with their plan. So I mentioned to them it'd be nice if they captured all the roof and driveway runoff. And they said, well, the backside of the roof runs towards the road away from the lake and so does the driveway. And so they weren't enamored with just doing this much. I think the thought will grow on them. It just caught them by surprise. But what they did do
is they had a very small lawn on that two acre lot. And so in keeping with spirit of the regulations, I thought they did a great job there. I asked Jim, is the guy who's going to have to go work with the property owners and enforce this, which would you prefer? And he said he's happy with just mitigating the roof and driveway runoff and he is not a big fan of big yards and the couple remaining lots on the lake, I think are well suited to have very small yards around the house here. So I will go with Scott's recommendation, barring any pushback from anybody here.
I do have one comment. Last sentence there in paragraph. We use the term drywall or detention basin. I'm wondering if we couldn't just use storage capacity. Two reasons. One is it would leave the applicant open to use any other means, meaning like a rain garden or whatever. Yep. Which is also allowed elsewhere. And dry wealth to me is not a very clear word. I don't think it's clearly defined. It's used differently by different folks or it has been over the years. I don't think it has a real specific definition from an engineering
point of view. So if I, you said storage capacity? That's what I'm thinking, yeah. Okay, and so there it is. Water storage capacity, perhaps.
Okay, so you like that? Yes, I do. Okay, very good. So that's what that will be. Thank you. In the next paragraph I just added, all that does is that references us down to a section later on where it talks about if you can't comply with the nutrient allocation worksheet, you can submit a special permit and take that to the Planning and Zoning Commission. So I put that in here because it seemed to be a good spot to get that thought in our instructions as we go through there. So that's that and it doesn't really change the content any. Leanne, are you able to see us yet or are you still flying blind?
No, I've done this at least eight times and I'm putting in the passcode. I've checked your email to us today. I've checked the one on the town website and it just says it's wrong. It's 331889.
331889. Yep, that's the passcode. At least that's the one I used to get in.
I don't know what else to do unless I go out and smoke again. I just try the phone, Leanne? Just try what?
I was gonna say the phone, but then you don't have the visual, never mind. Yep. So I think we're doing as good as we can there at this point. Yeah. Jed, I have another comment. Yep. The property owner can submit a special permit. It's really semantics, but I mean, submit an application or apply for a special permit. Submit an application for a special permit. This is
There we go. That one's done deal. Okay. Thank you. Now we get down to where we're actually talking about the regulations in the overlay zone. And so of the, So we're expecting a 10% reduction in nutrients running off into the lake when all is said and done. And then we throw additionally the site plan must demonstrate that it will infiltrate the first two inch flush of storm water or volume of two inch rain event. So that's on top of that 10% reduction. And I said, well, maybe we're asking for too much. And then I said to myself, well, one of the feedback things I did get from Hillary was she thought she was hoping that we would have used a little more technically refined and accurate reduction technique. She thought it was overly simplified. And I agree that it is overly simplified, but we probably need to keep it simple
because even then, it takes a while to get the handle of it. And I didn't want to make it too difficult. But one of the things that certainly comes into play is our regulations do not account for the slope of the property running down into the lake. And a lot of the property has some very significant slopes and so all the water is gonna run off into the lake. Very little has a chance to soak in unless we do something there. So anyhow, I decided that my recommendation is we're going leave that extra two inch flush in there. If it gets to be too cumbersome and everybody's saying they can't do it, then we'll have to look at modifying the regulations. But I think we should try to go with a little bit more and see how we do there. This is where Hillary made the comment, if the homeowners went through the trouble of hiring someone to create best management practices to infiltrate this water, they should be encouraged to infiltrate runoff from existing structures. And I agreed and that's why I put that comment early on in the intent about doing that. But this is where the actual 10% reduction for zone A is our requirement with the two inch flush for the additional impervious sections. And so after that, I'm gonna go down to Zone B, which is the same as Zone A with the exception of instead of a 100 square feet
increase, it would be greater than 200 square feet. So we're a little further away from the lake, a little less restrictive, and instead of a 10% reduction, we're looking at a 7.5% reduction on the nutrient runoff. Then we still have that two inch infiltration of water. Zone C, very similar. Instead of 100 or 200, now it's 300 square feet. Instead of 10 or 7.5%, now it's down to a five, we're expecting a 5% reduction. So that's what all this goes through. Then we get into overlay zone D. And you don't have to do the nutrient allocation worksheet. We're just going to look for a mitigation of that two inch flush of storm water off the newly impervious surfaces. Modifications to the nutrient allocation worksheet. So this just says that if you're doing something and we don't have on our worksheet a coefficient for that improvement to reduce the runoff, you can have your engineer propose one. Jim agrees to it, we can use it, we might include it on our list. But if you recall last time when we were going through,
I think we took, we were talking about how did we get the reduction coefficient when we took roof to a dry well. And if I had taken roof to lawn, it would be you take the runoff for roof, which I think is one point zero, and then lawn, which is 0.3, and you'd get the reduction of 0.7. That's how that worked and that's how it should have worked. There wasn't any reduction for a dry well. I think it could have been zero. But there were things on there we didn't have coefficients for. And so I think by good engineering practice, they were developed over in Columbia and we just continued to use those here. Mitigation of one time small surface change in the A, B and C districts. And again, if you're less than 100 square feet in zone A, 200 square feet in zone B, 300 square feet in zone C, You can put a trench under the roofline and capture the rain and you don't have to go through the process of nutrient allocation worksheet and all that. There was some thought and I
think that the thought has some merit. If you're digging a big trench in the Wetland review area, are there times where you would be doing more harm than good by digging this trench in the wetlands area? And that could be. And if Jim is the zoning agent and Joe is the wetlands agent. We're to conclude that that was the case. They can come to us and say we really think it's best if we don't do that for this small improvement. Not worth doing. But I did like having the basic trench or the stone pad, know, preventment under a shed or that kind of thing and we'll keep that in there. And I talked, once again, we talk about recording in the property records, the form contained in Appendix four, that covenants and restrictions form, which we don't have, and I'm just going to go ahead and eliminate that. Now we get into a section that talks about the best management practice for reduction of nitrogen, and that's just good things to do. Again, don't think anybody's going to be looking in our regs to figure out how to do that. It could happen, it gives us ideas of things that we can talk to the property owner about when he's coming to us for an application and say, could you consider doing some of these things here? Down here, we had something maintain a mulched area, especially on the downslope of lawns and hard surfaces, especially at the edge above the shoreline. I thought, okay, I can do that. But I'm not sure if you put the mulch in there, does that add nutrient to the lake? I used to have a leaf pile down by the shore and I dumped all my leaves there in the fall.
And I stopped doing that because I thought that would increase the nutrient running off into the lake. It certainly prevents the water running off into the lake because it gets absorbed into the leaf pile. But based on that's what we had, I left it there and I'll still count on my ability to get smarter as we go along and figure out best how to take care of the lake. Not an expert on that yet. But that was the question on this. It also talks about planting shrubs along the lake, and I think that's a good thing to do too. Okay, so this is just modification of lake watershed protection requirements by special permit. And this is where it talks about and Jim, see if we got the words that you like here in a case where unable to comply. Okay, so it sort of avoids the issue. It just says the Commission may modify the requirements by special permit. So I guess that's fine with the way that's worded there. And that's what I tied back to that earlier process just so that you knew as you were looking through the regs if there was a problem and you couldn't meet it, we had an out for you on how to go.
This is a comment by our attorney. As we write our regulations using the word exemption is no longer in vogue, I guess. And you got to put the restrictions, the specific restrictions. It can't be that the commission can do whatever they want and go implement something. We just can't grant an exemption. We have to have conditions specified so that we're fair across the board with everybody who might be into that condition. So he says we'll have to keep an eye on this. And so I didn't think that that meant we had to change it right now and I didn't see the word exemption in there. I did use the word exemption, we did, later on, and he didn't have a comment on that, and so I left that for now too. And this just talks about so called first flush infiltration system either has been employed to the max extent possible or not possible as determined by the Commission.
And this talks about some soil things we'd have to get help from Jim and the wetlands on when that's not possible. I certainly don't have the technical ability to make that determination. I can see you now. Okay, great. What was the trick, Leanne? I don't remember. Tried so Yeah, many
I've been there, I know how that goes. It happens when I'm working with the TV all the time. You do that. I don't know. It just did. And this talks about what we do do should be attached to the building zoning permit applications filed on land records. And again, nice to have a record of that. We don't have that appendix four form, but there we go. The next demonstration, that property is not within the Andover Lake Watershed. We talked about if somebody is doing a modification and it's not within the watershed, even though he's in Zone D, get he to the zoning agent, they can agree on that and make that determination that he doesn't have to do that. The attorney's comment was that is a decision, We need to make that formally. The zoning agent can still do that, but we need to publish it in case somebody wants to appeal that. But we need to be very formal in our process, we just can't go out there take a look and say yep, looks good to me and we're on our merry way. So that's the caution that we've got to take there.
More voluntary actions on what to do with the watershed protection area. And this one's got to do with okay, Jim, I got so here's the second comment for you to do that didn't strike out at me. The initial draft we were looking at had all the voluntary actions in one paragraph. I wanted to split those out and I did split them out, I just didn't move 7.6.14 down into 7.7. So these are all the things that we can do to improve our septic system in the leach field, but it just needs to be in the septic system in the leach field section of the regulations. So I'll cut and paste and move those down here under 7.7. But that was all the comments that pertained to the rainwater stormwater runoff into the lake. And at this point, so I'd ask
the folks who are listening to me babble on, is this a helpful way to go through the regulations or is there a better way? How can we make this a more meaningful process to you folks who are doing the listening? What am I not doing well? This is the first time I've gone through reviewing regulations. I know we had worked hand in hand as a commission in the past on the regulation development. I thought that was too cumbersome for everybody. Tried to make that a little simpler. Anyhow, any feedback before I get into the septic stuff on the regulations?
Jay, I just want to comment on the use of wood chips. It's been pointed out on a number of occasions on recent wetlands walks that a lot of these chips are either non native or died. Perhaps we'd like to look into that a little further and insert the word approved wood chips or something of that nature.
Yep, and do you have a section that that's referring to where it goes talking about the wood chips? I don't offhand, but
I'll find it. Okay, yep. So yeah, make that the third comment that you'll email her after we're done so I can make sure that I get this updated right. Okay, so anyhow, now we're talking about the subsurface discharge. We know we've got a lot of small lots, we've got some old septic systems, and we know that there are some failing septic systems around the lake. So we're trying to figure out what to do to get that really, didn't have any teeth on that. The Eastern Highlands Health District regulates that. And unless you're going in to build something, they don't get involved too much with it. But we wanted to improve the septic systems and there's a lot of folks who thought that would be where we would get the best bang for our buck there. And so, Hilary had made the comment to me, you know, seven point seven point two point one was conditions requiring a new septic system. She said, well, can't you upgrade your existing septic system so that it's fully functional? And I think that, yeah, you probably can. That sounds like a reasonable thought. You shouldn't have to tear everything out to put it all in to get there. And if there's a professional engineering plan that the health district signs off on, that's fine with me. So anyhow,
we said you would put in a new or upgraded system unless and here's where we use that word exemption, and I didn't get any legal pushback on that. And maybe it's because we do have the existing restrictions in here. But the cases for not having to do any improvements to your septic system, and these are probably the most important thing in the whole article, was we want your leach field to be greater than 18 inches above the max high groundwater table. The initial the earlier drafts that we had talked about this, it was 12 inches, the state or the health district requires 18 and I thought that we should want that too. We're trying to protect the lake, let's increase that distance to whatever the rate requirement is. So I did, I changed that from 12 to 18. Then we had, dependent upon what version you looked at, it said that the septic system leach field had to be, one version said 35 feet from the lake, another version said 50 feet from the lake. Feedback I got from the health district was that
they would like to have it 50 feet from the lake, but on some of the smaller lots along the lake, they reduced that down to 25 feet. And so I couldn't figure out a way to put the right distance in there. You know, 35 didn't sound right, 50 didn't sound right either. And I didn't want to put 25 in there because then when we could get further away, we wouldn't. So I just changed it to exceeds the Eastern Highland Health District distance requirements from high watermark. And so we'll look at that on a case by case basis, but the guy who's having a professional engineer certified that his on-site septic system's good enough, he's going to have to explain to us why whatever distance it is, is correct. And that goes back to, know, a lot right down the street from me here, 294 Lake Road, they just put in a septic system and it was the state
who asked us to allow it 21 feet from the lake. I went back looking through that application trying to figure out what that was based on and I couldn't figure out why it was. But if you got a failed septic system, and then you're putting in a new one in the health district and the state both agree with it, who am I to say that that's not an improvement? And so I said, well, just leave the words there fairly nebulous. The third one, as I mentioned, I didn't understand well why we're only asking for exceeds 50% of the size requirement for a new system. But I went back to the Connecticut state statutes and that's what they have, and so I left it there. And they also said it doesn't meet the technical definition of failing. And then here's some extra credit words that we don't want a professional engineer to just go out there and look at the ground and say, looks good. We're putting some
conditions by which he must do the inspection on the septic system to make sure that it's meeting the requirements we're looking for. So I added those words to that since what we posted online is the draft version there. Overlay B is the same. God bless you, whoever that was. We allow the numbers to be a little bit different here on increasing square footage and net floor area and that sort of thing. And so it's a little less restrictive but the requirements for the septic system are the same. We're further away from the lake, so nobody should have to go into that 25 foot
requirement rule. So I left the 50 foot thing in for the Zone B. And that's all there is for the septic stuff. We had talked last time about definitions. I did add some definitions to the definition section of the regulation based on what we were talking. This is not a perfect product here. I took these, I went to Google and tried to get the definitions there, putting these in. And then I went back and looked in our stormwater management plan from our regulations and they have a handful of definitions too. And some of these words aren't exactly matching
that there. I don't know if these are better or worse. One of the things that's probably not the greatest in our regulations is I think that we have a section in our regulations on definitions and then each subsection has its own definition thing. So I'll be trying to give some thought on where the extra definitions can come. This references the other places that some definitions. And that's not all inclusive. There were other, but this is the stormwater management and this is the definitions in the back of the regs. But that that takes us to the end. And so what I guess I'm looking for feedback. We as a group think these are ready to go to public hearing when I make those couple of changes and clean it up, getting rid of the highlighting that I had, get rid of the comments and all that kind of stuff, send them to Jim? Or is there someplace that we're off base going forward? And I know Ian Blanchard and Kevin probably haven't
been as familiar with all this. You haven't been living this for the last three years as we've tried to develop them. So maybe it's not there, but you've probably got the outside view and say, well, this isn't making any sense at all to me. And if there's some of that, I wouldn't mind hearing that too. My only thought would be to move the definitions up at the top
so that you get the definitions as a preface before you start reading them. Okay,
that's probably a good idea. And I will look to see that it's not totally inconsistent with all the other chapters in the regs. But I think that's probably that's that cold body look that I was looking for. I think that's a good idea.
Okay, yep, thanks, There's been comments made about taking a look at the definitions throughout the regulations. They appear in various sections. I just think we should keep that in mind. Just take a look at the other definitions and make sure we're not doing something inconsistent. I like the idea of having them first. One problem that in our regulations overall big picture is a lot of things are hidden in our definitions. Yes. Words are defined in our definitions that are not necessarily common sense definitions. It is a problem for folks
and myself as well. I was wrestling today with what the definition of site plan is because that talks about trying to figure out is a public hearing required, recommended, whatever, and the site plan versus subdivision plan, and I was trying to find a definition of site plan in our regulations and couldn't do it. That's an important term that we use. A lot hinges on that. So I do understand the more definitions are good when we try to tie our ends here. The other one that we're wrestling with, it's kind of funny, and Jim will talk more later on, frontage versus lot width. And we all thought that our regulations all had to do with width. And now we find out they have to do with frontage or vice versa, I can't even remember. But what we thought and what were actually in our regulations were sometimes two different things. It's always good to go back and reference them.
Kevin, do you have any thoughts on the regs or do we put you to sleep? Oh, you just put me to sleep. Okay, very good, yep.
I mean, I think they're pretty clear. I read through them the other day, and I didn't find anything that I thought was leaving me scratching my head saying, don't know what the heck you're talking about. I think everything from my point of view was, You know well defined like you said I'm not really familiar with lake regulations or establishing lake rags at this time but. From an engineering point of view, I would say that everything looks pretty clear. Excellent. Okay. Leanne, Anne, or Susan, anything there?
I just have a question. I was wondering if you had received any comments on the draft regs from Alcoa. Only that they like them. Okay.
And again, you know, I was hoping to get Hillary to join us and she's been extremely busy and this is kind of not her real job is to work on zoning regs and so she's trying to get her real work done and hadn't left a lot of time here. But I did have a conversation with her and she said she wished they would have been a little more restrictive. So I guess nobody on Alma is unhappy with what we're doing. They like what we're doing and they wouldn't be unhappy if we went a little further with it. I know that Linda will try to get some of the Alma Alpoha folks to join us for the public hearing to lend support to those thoughts when we get to public hearing.
And the comments that we're looking at were primarily from Hillary or our attorney.
Yes, there was a couple of purple ones in there that were w use that because I couldn't figure out how to make my initials go in there. If you I forget, you know, there was a way that I was able to tell whose was whose, but in a lot of the attorney comments when I went through the the group that we gave had so many administrative corrections and wording improvements, change in happy to glad and that kind of stuff that I just entered them all and that cleaned it up and that put a bunch of the attorney's comments in there so that when I got through and read his comments, said, yep, okay, well we've already done that. So some of them were intuitively obvious, I got rid of already.
I just wanted to make sure that these comments that were in there, went through with you folks tonight before I just dismissed those to make sure that I had a little backup on what I was doing there. Okay. The I think the calendar works in our favor. Jim schooled me a little bit on. Have to send these out to the Crogg and I forget what that stands for regional government Connecticut regional government must be capital regional council of governments. Yeah.
Council Governments. We have to send it out to the surrounding towns, give them time to take a look at it before we actually go to public hearing. And we got to give them, I think, thirty days. And because of the Martin Luther King holiday in January that puts us off by a week, we have that opportunity to get these out to everybody after I make the couple of corrections that we talked about tonight and still go to public hearing in January. If we don't make it to where we get everything sent out in time to meet that, we'll do it at our meeting in February, not
the end of the world. I think we're sneaking up on the end of the road here, finally.
I did have one thing that I thought of, Jed. I know we referenced a two inch rainfall event on Do a few of the we define the event anywhere saying like what the duration of the rainfall is? Because depending on the length of time you could have buffering capacity that takes place while the event is happening. So I don't know I'm just thinking of what things people will come up with in the future. So if that's over twenty four hours, that's one thing. But if it's an event over forty eight, then that's another, you know, someone installs a system that's buffering an inch of rain every twenty four hours, then they're buffering out part of the event while it's still happening.
Let me think about that. That's a good comment. And I was a little, so when we were developing the regs, we recognized that in the first quarter of an inch or a half inch of rain that falls, that's what's going to flush all the nutrients into the lake. After that, follow on water isn't going to have a lot of nutrients in it because they're already flushed into the lake at that point. I know John Valeni, when he was working on these, he started out with a one inch and he said, well, we're, you know, it seems like we've got an awful lot of the one hundred year storms going on lately. So he made, he raised the number to two inch. The Commission thought that was good. So I left it there. I think we all understood that to be in a single rainstorm. But you're right, somebody could
Yeah, I know if that's typical for someone to bring up or argue, but I just wondered if there should be a time duration associated with it. Yeah, this is Halsey.
I believe we did discuss that with John Valente, who was our former Wetlands agent, actually zoning agent as well. And it was just decided that it was, we weren't gonna use, we weren't gonna get into it. That it was too complex, trying to keep up a regulation that it's a zoning reg, you know, it's not an engineering
Right, it opens up a little bit of a can of worms, I understand that. Yeah,
so, yeah, I think it can be understood to be a rainstorm and sometimes a rainstorm goes for two days, you know.
But we're saying we're using the calculator for two inch. Yeah, we're not allowing, we're just using the two inch calculation, we're not taking into account any effect
duration would have on it, no. But the actions, well, guess the actions that we take, the size of the trench you have to dig or the storage thing, it matter because it's based on two inches of volume strictly. Doesn't clear Yeah, you're
just saying two inches at an instant you need to be able to hold a buffer. That's
right. And so it really doesn't matter how soon it comes down. If it comes down slower, that's better. Okay. It comes down all at one time.
That's something we would use for pipe size calculations. No, we chose not to. Right or wrong, that was a conscious decision.
Okay, so at this point then, what I would like to get is a motion that we schedule a public hearing to discuss the regulations at our January planning and zoning meeting? So moved.
That was you, Leanne? Yes. Okay, thank you, Leanne. Do I have a second, Susan or Anne? Second, Susan. Okay. Any discussion before we go to a vote?
Yeah, this is Halisey. I'm just gonna insert this now because I may forget. What I intend to do is make the revisions with you Jed, the revisions discussed, post that on the town's website, or actually change the existing regulations that are listed there as proposed reg change along with copy of the application. Actually, I thought the agenda was structured so that you accepted the application and set the public hearing under new business.
Okay. It does say receive application and set public hearing. Hearing. I've never done that before, so I don't know how that goes. So if you got some help, Ray, you can ask. I
if we go to, I don't know, when we get to that item, is coming up, right? That's where we are. Okay, so simply accept the application which, know, when we spoke, I said I wasn't gonna post it until it was accepted, but I should have posted it as a draft application, just like any other application, but I didn't. Okay. But the application is simply a request for a modification to the zoning regulation that lists lists the regulation change, and it refers to the plan of conservation development as to why, how it conforms to that. So I intend to post the regs with the changes, the application, as well as the map that is referenced, the second map referenced, the lake, the watershed map. Yep. Sounds good.
And that will be posted under proposed regulations under the planning and zoning
page. Okay. And that doesn't mean that we can't change these regulations. So the way it works is we'll go to public hearing, get input from the public on what they like and don't like, and then we'll do that before the meeting. Then we'll have the meeting right after the public hearing, and we'll do whatever deliberation we need to do to get this the way we finally like it, and then we can either vote on it and approve it in January, or if we got some more work to do, it'll go to February before we approve it. But we will act on the regulations following the public hearing, and we can change them at that point, even. So after the public hearing, we'll deliberate. We'll just go through them like this, see if anybody's got any comments, changes, and if not,
we'll decide whether or not we get a motion to approve it at that point. But that's where we are in the process here. And I'm hoping that by the January meeting we have both Anne and Kevin sworn in so that we can have you seated if needed and participate in that discussion. So that's it. We're back. I'm going to look to Susan, who is probably our most knowledgeable person here on Robert's Rules of Order maybe. And we had a I can't remember what the motion was right this minute. Mindy, can you help me out with what motion we have on the table?
Motion to schedule a public hearing. Have L. Hutchinson moved and S. England seconded, and we did not do a roll call vote. Okay.
So I think the motion should have really been to accept the application and set the public hearing for January whatever I don't know. How about just the regular meeting in January?
Regular, yes. Okay. So Leanne, can you modify I guess we need a proposal to add to the motion to accept the application.
Okay. I'm looking for the exact language. Is that all you need to modify it to accept it and set the public hearing because the motion it stands right now is just to set the public hearing without actually accepting it yet? Yes. Okay. So I'll modify my motion to say that we you can correct me and second with it if you need more wording but to accept the application and again, don't have the exact wording. I'm looking for the way it's word on the agenda. The zoning amendment, parentheses, leg regulations. And set the public hearing at the January meeting.
And to set the public hearing at the January 2021 meeting.
Okay. And can I get a second to that motion? I second. This is Susan. Okay.
And I know sometimes you would vote on the modification and then vote on the whole motion. But at this point, the modification is the same as the new whole motion. And so I'm only going to do one roll call vote. And this is a vote on the motion to accept the application and set the public hearing for the January Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. And so with that, Anne, how do you vote? Aye. Susan? Aye. Leanne? Aye. And I vote aye as well. The motion passes, four-zero-zero. Okay, so that is new business item A. Done. Moving on to new business item B. Jim, this is your discussion of the use of the down owned rights of way. Okay.
I'm going to stop sharing my screen now, get rid of that.
Jim, you're up. I'm up, okay. Minnie, do you have the, no, you don't have the plan. I didn't send the plan. Okay. I was approached by. Do you want me to put the picture up, Jim? I got a drawing of the It's not the site plan. It would be the actual free cut. There's two. Okay. Okay. And this drawing
Let me show you what I do have, and it might help your discussion.
Okay, this particular map plan, it shows a free cut, I don't want to get into the legitimacy of the free cut. The object the function of this discussion is about the use of the talents right away. This is a very unusual situation. If you look at the, towards Wheeling Road, as most of you know, maybe not all, I mean, the large swath of land was taken by the state of Connecticut for Route 6, and that is off to the left. You can see Connecticut on the just the words Connecticut. That's where the highway was going. As part of the plan, the state was also going to relocate Wheeling Road, realign it. You see Wheeling Road on the towards the bottom of the map and then you see here's Wheeling Road proposed and here's where they're proposed.
Okay, so when this lot was created, it was that property was owned by the state, I believe. And then it was subsequently deeded over to the town.
Well, it was originally owned by this property owner here.
State took it. The state took it, yes. I'm sorry, yeah. It was owned by the Sheehan family. They owned property on actually both sides of this swath, two lots. And this was, so this was rendered, well, when the lot was, and the lot to your right here was cut off, with the house was cut That's off and this lot. So there's the lot on the left, which is presently not an approved lot. And it's part of the reasons it doesn't have a septic system. But that's, I'm not asking you to weigh in on that. What the issue is before you is, is the use of the town right away. There is effectively no frontage. And like Jed had said earlier, the town somehow, the regulations went from using the term frontage to lot width in the zoning regulations. Frontage appears only there is no specific requirement. Now everybody pretty much crosses the town right away to get to the road, but normally most of us cross about 10 or 12 feet of the town's land. In this case, I don't have the right scale, but it's about 50 feet it's proposed. And it just, it doesn't really, in my opinion, fall under zoning per se. And we did get an opinion from Mark Brantz, which I hopefully shared with you. He didn't really have a problem with it. Now, Mark Branch, just for the new folks here, is our land use council. He provides legal counsel to the all the land use commissions in town. He he basically said it's it's effectively that property is was designed for road use. But I mean, I don't think it's a zoning
agent's decision. I think it's somewhere someone else's. That's which is why it's here. Whether it's the Board of Selectmen issue, I mean I've at some point I will be asked to sign off on a building permit, on a zoning permit for a dwelling, and right now there is literally no frontage. I don't know whether the commission I'm not asking for action on this particular address. I'm looking for a policy direction really. And I don't know whether it's the Board of Selectmen that should be setting that policy.
So I think, Jim, I will probably cheat and discuss it with Eric. Okay. And get a recommendation from how he would handle.
Okay. If the Commission bumped it to the Board of Selection, he would ask that I put together a memo, which I'm prepared to do. Yep. Is that the direction commission would like to go?
I think you should prepare that memo as if it were going that way. We'll talk about it. I'll talk to Eric and we'll For go
the other Commission members looking in tonight, one of the things that was interesting about this piece of property is it's questionable whether or not well, Jim had mentioned, our records aren't very good on what's going on here in all cases. But this could have been a free cut, but it would have been a free cut made to a lot that didn't have any frontage, which shouldn't have been a permissible lot. And so maybe that shouldn't have been done. And so is it a legal lot now? I don't know the answer to that for sure. One of the things that bothered me a little bit about
this thing was the lot used to have plenty of frontage on Wheeling Road until the state came in and took it away because they were going to build a road, modify the road. And if the state had modified the road, it still would have had plenty of frontage. But the state didn't do what they used as the rationale to take the land. And then when I don't know what the process was, but the land ended up back belonging now to the town. And so it's kind of a goofy thing, but for the people that own the property, that didn't really work out. Something doesn't smell right
on the way that all worked out. Well, my understanding is that the lot was when the free cut was taken in whether it's legitimate or not. I'm not going to get into it but it was it was assumed that that was they would be using Wheeling Road and I think Mark Brantz was he he basically backed. He didn't have an issue with the frontage issue, frontage question. Nope. He just, he said that, and he really thought it was okay to use that right away. But that's why I'm here because I don't think it's particularly zoning. It's up to the zoning agent. And I thought maybe the commission might wanna at least be aware of it and perhaps voice their opinion.
Jim, do you know how wide this is here? At the property line, is that, you know, I guess it looks like it's a little bit bigger than Wheatley Road. It probably Yeah. I
don't see the scale and it's shrunk. If you look at the house, that's a relatively small house near the road that's probably roughly 24 feet front to back, you know, is about the same dimension we're talking about. Well, where the driveway is, it looks closer to 50 feet. Okay, yep.
So, the point is that this happens elsewhere, not a lot, but I was dealing with a lot on Hendy Road that, I don't want to say it's similar, but nonetheless, it is similar in some respects that the, there's more, the road was realigned and it makes it very difficult to apply the regulation. The goal of this discussion was just to
Really make you aware of it. Make you aware of it and
we're going to have to do something with it. There's a lot of problems with how we got to where we are today. I wish it wasn't that way but it is that way and so now we've got to deal with it and go from there. Jim just thinking out loud, if you were to put a driveway down here at the skinny part where that is, that would be way more acceptable to me than putting it down here through the fat part of the town land. And so if we go to the Board of Selectmen, we ought to take that into condition that we ought to be able to restrict where the driveway goes on that lot. That's just thinking out loud at this point. Yeah, I think the actual site
plan was really driven by ledge septic soil conditions. Okay.
Anyhow, we just wanted to show you that this issue is coming up and it's not all cut and dried and it is very similar there are more places in Andover that have funny things happen to them because of trying to reroute Route 6 and all the different things with that. I was surprised. Didn't think you'd ever see anything like that. Now I've seen it twice. That's that.
It doesn't make sense to me with the town has that land but it should be with the homeowner the homeowner should be given access to that or else be able to purchase it for a small amount because yep like this one the state took it and they didn't give it back to the homeowner they gave it to the town that doesn't make sense. It doesn't and I don't know if the property owner was given the option to buy it and chose not to.
My understanding was that the property owners were given the opportunity to buy it back. And chose not to.
Wasn't the case. I think the price was pretty steep.
Well, should have been whatever they got for it. But anyhow, we're gonna follow it. It's an unusual situation and it's shown itself twice in the less than a year that I have been the commission chair here. So we'll go from there. But that's just to whet your appetite for future issues that we'll be dealing with.
Jed, this is Leanne. I just have a question. Because I know you just mentioned two incidents of this in town, but at the same time, you said it's kind of unusual. So do we want to say that we're creating a policy or suggest that the selectmen do it, or should we take it on a case by case basis?
Yes. We're trying to sort out the answer to that. I think we do want a policy. We do need to take it through the Board of Selectmen. It is not a trivial matter to sell a little chunk of that property back to the property owner because that takes eight twenty four referral, town meeting, all that stuff. So it's even for a very small piece of town property to give it away or sell it.
I'm not sure the town has the ability to give given the fact that it was given to them by the state for future road purposes, I believe. Don't know whether county has the ability to sell that or not. So
anyhow, that is what we're looking at, what is the best way forward. Jim and I will keep looking at it. But the other folks on the Commission will probably have to weigh in on whatever action we decide to take, whether it's to raise it up to the Board of Selectmen or grant an easement across there like you would any driveway going onto a road or whatever. We're trying to wrestle with that, but we didn't want to spring this situation on you cold so that you're trying to come to grips with what the scenario is at the same time that we're asking what we should be doing about it and having that discussion. So that's the purpose of bringing that up tonight.
So these people may want to build like this spring?
Maybe. I don't know if it's that soon. Somebody was looking at buying the lot and they saw this little comment over here, not a buildable lot. And they were trying to do their due diligence on, well, what does that mean? And they were told that you'd be able to get a septic in there, which you couldn't do in the past. They came through that, but they were concerned about the fact that it had no frontage. And so they were asking Jim. And now Jim's trying to figure out, okay, well, how do we handle this? And we have to have a consistent policy because it has come up. There's another similar lot over on Hendy Road where and to make it just a little bit trickier, the person that owns this lot is related to Eric. So there's a little conflict of interest. There's potential there. Eric, he just wants us to do what's right. He doesn't really care, but it's important that probably you're aware that he does have a relationship with the current property owner who's trying to sell it. But if we make the wrong precedent with what we do here, we just have to make sure that whatever precedent we set with this is good anywhere. Because it can't be looked at that you guys did this because that's relative to Eric's and you won't do that for me. And that is what we cannot allow to happen or even the perception of that happening. So So right now, the Cheehan still own it? Yes. Okay.
Wait. They own They own the lot. They don't I mean, the town owns the strip along Wheeling Road. Yep. Okay. Yeah. Yes.
Mean, in addition to the court's Wheeling, it's the proposed Wheeling. They own that triangle. Okay. Given to them by the state of Connecticut.
So they want to know this for purposes of selling it?
Yes. Yes. Somebody was ready to buy it and then he said, let me just let me just check with town hall that everything's good here. And it wasn't a simple question.
Okay. Because I was just looking at I don't have it up on the screen now, but I was looking at Mark Brantz's comments about somebody supposedly trying to prove something at the time they bought it. I'm just trying to establish you too. And
so Mark Brantz is trying to make sure that the lot was properly divided. I don't know what it means if we determine it was not. And we'll get some more help from Mark on that. But that's where Mark's concern was. He was pretty tolerant of cutting across the Grant Enon easement through the town property just like we do through any other property on any other room. But again, we need to make sure that because we had similar difficulties on a different property, which for those of you who are on the call where that discussion degenerated into a can of worms on the Hendi robot, it's just not easy to see what the right answer is and what the right thing to do is with it.
Anyhow, that's where we are as of tonight. No action required by the Commission at this point. Okay.
Thank you for your patience. Could have been clearer, I'm sure.
I'm going to move on to the new item we added, which is the budget for next year. And to make a long story very short, I am going to recommend to the Commission that we have a budget that is identical to last year's. I worked hard at trying to be creative and I was going to change it a little bit. I was going to put some money down here in the contract planner because I think by the end of next year we'll start working we're getting started on that plan of conservation and development that we're going to have to do. And you can see that so far on legal and professional fees, this is saying we've only spent $962 Jim and I think we may have spent more than that, but we certainly aren't going to come close to
spending the 5,000 this year, don't think. Good, I did get a new figure. It was 3,700. Okay. I sent you an email or a text, it was late this afternoon. Yep, okay. So
we've spent $3,700 Yes. Yep, that's a fair amount, more than $962 Okay. Yes, so we need to leave that $5,000 in there. But if we were to get somebody to start helping us on the plan of conservation development, would come out of the professional services or if we use the services of our professional engineer, we could take it out of that budget as well. So anyhow, after thinking about that a little bit and I left the $5,000 in there, The board clerk money that was provided by the treasurer, I didn't come up with that one but that's the same as approved for this year. Training and mapping, that $300 is what was will pay for that map of the Watershed overlay zone that we used last year. I'm not sure why that doesn't say expended to date. Because I know, Jim, you were working hard on actually getting that bill paid so that we could get that map. But I left that at $300 training for $350 and that comes out to a grand total of $7,000 exactly what we did last year. And so if anybody's got questions on the budget, I'm ready to entertain those.
Hearing no questions on it, if somebody would be willing to make a motion that we accept the budget as presented.
I make a motion to accept the budget as presented. Thank you, Anne. Is there a second? I'll second, which is Leanne. Okay, thank you, Leanne.
Any discussion? Hearing none, call for a vote. And Anne? Aye. Susan? Aye. Leanne? Aye.
And I vote aye as well. The motion passes four-zero-zero. And that takes care of all of our new business. Next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from November 16. And let me stop sharing there. Okay. Hopefully everybody's had a chance to read through the minutes. Does anybody have any comments on them? I do.
I don't have them up in front of me, but I believe on item 5B in the minutes, they talked about voting for Anne and Kevin to be members of the board as alternates. And there was a vote taken to make me a permanent member, and that wasn't mentioned in there, reflected in there. Okay. I think that's at the end, right? Yeah. Now, I'm looking at my paper copy here, Susan.
Okay. It could be that I looked at an earlier copy of the minutes. I looked at the minutes that came out right after the meeting, and I didn't see it there.
The very last line says, Scott Person moved to make Susan England a regular commissioner of the current vacancy. Ankara May seconded, motion carried five-zero-zero. That's fine then. I missed my error. Very good.
Other Under administrative reports, it said that I talked about the turtles on gravel site. Just wanted to indicate that that was information provided by the town's herpetologist, Gubank Groom.
Okay, so Jim Halsey said the town's what was that word that Herpetologist. Nick guy, consultant. Conservation consultant. Hank Gruner. Yeah.
I just want to clear that I didn't make that decision on my own. I did say it. You got that addition, Mindy? Yes.
Okay, thank you. And then under the administrative report item A, it says zoning violation complaint update property of Jason Salisbury 44 Wales Road. And then it goes on to say there is an accessory apartment being marketed for sale but is not permitted. So the accessory apartment is an issue at 151 Whales Road. And the violation at 44 Whales Road is the one that Jim was going to send a letter and potentially file a notice in the land records for. So I think item A should say property of Jason Salisbury 44 Wales Road. The zoning agent is going to send a letter and potentially file a notice in the land records. Is that a fair statement, Jim?
I said I would look into the possibility of the land record, filing on the land records. Okay.
And then under B, there should be there is an accessory apartment being marketed for sale at 151 Wales Road, but it is not permitted? Is that a fair statement, Jim? Yes. Okay. And I had no other comments on the minutes. Anybody else have any comments on the minutes? Hearing that, I'll call for a motion to approve the minutes as amended.
I make a motion that we approve the minutes of the November 16 meeting as amended. Thank you, Susan. I second the motion.
Thank you, Leanne. Any other discussion? Hearing none, call for a vote. Anne? Aye. Susan? Aye. Leanne? Aye. And I vote aye as well. The motion passes four-zero-zero. Item eight, correspondence. Jim, we have anything in the correspondence file? No. Okay. Moving on to item nine, administrative report from zoning agent.
I do anticipate a special permit application for a standalone accessory apartment on Hebron Road. That project went through, was approved by Wetlands Commission at their last meeting. I don't have an application as of yet. Wetlands Commission also approved. No, I'm sorry. Yeah, the Wetlands Commission also accepted an application for two lot open space subdivision with frontage on Pine Ridge Drive. And I expect that that application will be coming in a month or two. After probably after the approval of by the Wetlands Commission. They may run them simultaneously. I don't know. I did issue a cease and desist to Jason Salisbury. There is a copy on the on the website and I have gentlemen or the realtor that has 151 Wales is looking into the possibility of subdividing the property. And I will work with them on coming into compliance with with the regulations on that as far as the accessory apartment. I've not gotten a letter out as of yet.
Realtors looking to do that or the property owner? The realtor on behalf of the property owner made an inquiry.
So do we know whether or not they're do do we know whether or not they they think that that they're covered for it all the time, that's why they're advertising it this way? Or I mean were they under the impression that it was a legal accessory apartment?
I don't know. Don't that's still gonna contact them and just let make sure that the owner is aware of that regardless whether the realtor follows through on on the subdivision or not. I just get a letter. Okay. So, they're aware of it. Or a letter. Okay. To the owner. You just have it. And that's 151 Wales. Yes. Okay.
Other than that there's just a number of inquiries about lots whether lots are buildable a lot of that digging such as about it as far as report, administrative report.
Jim, would we expect the next action to be from Jason on the forty four Whales Road?
Compliance is my goal. But the letter went out last week, gave him thirty days to come into compliance. Specifically, to stop using the trailer. There's an RV that's being used intermittently for habitation. And I have to monitor that. After that, it would be turned over to the town attorney.
Okay. Anything else, Jim? No. Okay. Next item on the agenda is commission discussion. Anything anybody on the Commission wants to talk about tonight? I see a lot of heads shaking no. Okay, I guess that does that. Moving on to public comment. I see we got nobody here for that, too. Do you have any comment, Leanne? Me? No, sir. Okay. With that, I'll accept the motion to adjourn. I move that we adjourn. Thank
you, Anne. I'll second. Thank you, Leanne. There's a motion that we adjourn at 08:44. Roll call vote. Anne? Aye. Susan? Aye. Leanne? Aye.
And I vote aye as well. The motion passes four-zero-zero. Again, our next meeting is going to be a week later than normal because of the Martin Luther King holiday. And I'd like to wish everybody here, I hope you have a happy holiday season and a healthy holiday season. And take care of yourselves so we can head off back to a better 2021. Yes, thank you. Doing well. Good night, everybody. Thanks, everyone. Good night.