Meeting transcript
IWWC Regular Meeting
July 14, 2020 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
I think I'm all set.
Alright. Then if you are all set, it is 07:00. This is Megan Malley. I'm gonna call the regular meeting of the town of Andover Inland Wetlands and Water Forces Commission to order. We'll do roll call with vice chairman George Elliott on the line. Present.
Thank you. We have planning and zoning Commissioner Jim policy? Think that was a here. And then we have commissioner Ed Smith is here. And is alternate Wayne Thorpe on the line? Okay. I believe Wayne Thorpe is asking. Did I miss anyone? Hopefully not. Okay. Alright. At this time, there's no alternate to seats, so we we won't be seating any alternates. And we have a full commission present. So we'll move on to item three on the agenda, which is our annual meeting, the June meeting or I have to check our file out, but we didn't do it in June. So this is our annual meeting for the the current fiscal year. So item a under that is the election of officers. And I will entertain any nominations.
This is George Elliott, and I nominate Megan Lalli, the Chairman of the Inland Wetlands And Water Courses Commission. I second the motion, Ed Smith.
Thank you. George, I should've done a refresher on this before the meeting. You're my Robert's Rules expert. Do I proceed with this motion or call for additional nomination? You could call for additional nominations. Okay. Thank you. Are there any additional nominations?
This is Jed, and I'd like to nominate George Elliott for vice chairman. I second the motion.
Additional nominations? Okay. Got to ask you something. Any additional nominations? Any additional nominations? Okay. Hearing none, I'll open the floor to discussion. I'm just gonna have to close the nominations. Thank you, George. Do we have a second? I say again.
Ed Smith seconds. Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for a vote on the motion to close nominations. We'll do a roll call vote. George Elliott, how do you vote? Aye.
Thank you. Jim Hallessey, how do you vote? Jim, you might be muted. Who were you asking for?
Jim Halsey. We can come back to Jim. Judd Larson, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. Ed Smith, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. Jim Hallisey, how do you vote on the motion to close nomination?
Can we move to temporarily table Jim's vote until he gets back on? I would recommend counting that as an abstention.
I think that's what we'll do. I don't think it would affect the outcome. Hearing no vote from Commissioner Hallisey, we'll count his vote as an abstention. I vote aye as well. So the motion carries four zero one. Alright. So there's two nominations on the floor. There's a nomination of Megan Alley as chairman, and there's a nomination of Jed Larson as or I'm sorry, made by Jed Larson, but for George Elliott as vice chairman. Any discussion? Alright. So I'll call for a vote on ICE chairman first. All in well, not all of your reps to go again. Apologies. Oh, sorry. Jim Jim just walked into the meeting room. But
you still can't speak. Do you wanna call him? I'm not sure what to do. Yeah. Try that. Try muting yourself and then calling in. Technical difficulties and trauma. Apologies. Alright. So we'll give I'm gonna give Jim a minute. He's gonna try and call in from his phone as opposed to using his computer audio. I'm just gonna go get my glasses. Okay.
Jim, are you able to join the line? Is Jim on the line? No, Eric. Let's see. Is there a way to call someone or invite them to participate by call? I Don't think so He
just has to call in the phone audio number Right, and then he should be able to put in his password and go Shouldn't normally, it's not too difficult. I do that at home when I have a really bad bandwidth. I use my phone for the audio since it's more reliable.
Are you able to landline call him downstairs? I think he's struggling downstairs trying to get connected. Sorry, everyone. It's a significant vote, so we should wait for all conditioners to be available.
Hey, Megan. This is Linda. Mhmm. Your audio is a little funky. My audio is? Yeah. I got some feedback coming in. It's hard to understand you a little bit.
I can switch back. Let's see. Let me fiddle with my controls and switch back to the the computer audio. I'm not doing that.
Oh, Jim, are you there? Can you hear me now? Okay. I'm gonna re rename you so I know who you are. Okay. Alright. So, Jim, could you hear before? Hello?
Let me change my audio first. Sorry. Alright. I guess I will proceed on my phone. Can everyone hear me? Yep.
Alright. Is my audio any better, Linda? It's about the same. So maybe it's somebody else, but someone someone's got some feedback going on. Yeah.
It might be because yeah. Oh, yeah. Because you have your phone. Okay.
Let me turn my headset up and join. Is it any better? Yes.
Okay. That that probably is what it is. Alright. Sorry. Joe was on his cell phone next to me, so that was causing issues. Okay. Alright. So Jim's on the line. We have all commissioners on the line. So we're doing roll call vote on the motion to nominate myself as chairman. So going down the line, George Elliott, how do you vote? Aye. You. Jim Halsey, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. Jed Larson, how do you vote? Aye. Ed Smith votes aye. Or I'm sorry, Jed Larson. Ed Smith, how do you vote? You're muted, Anthony. Alright. Oh, thank you. Alright. And Megan Molley votes aye as well, so the motion carries five zero zero. Alright. The motion to appoint George Elliott as vice chairman. George Elliott, how do you vote? Aye. Thank
you. Jim Halsey, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. Jud Larson, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. Ed Smith? Aye. Thank you. And Megan Malley, I vote aye as well. So the motion carries five-zero-zero. The next item on the agenda is alternate vacancies. Let's see. Do we have Elizabeth on the line? I mean, we have two on one person. I'm not sure who they are. Is Elizabeth Zipmiano on the line? So we had two recent submissions of applications for consideration for the alternate vacancy. Trying to pull up the first one. I sent these out to the commissioners. Hopefully, everybody had a chance to review them, but the first candidate for discussion is Elizabeth Miano. I'm just gonna double check. Elizabeth, are you on the phone call? Nope. Okay. Alright. So Elizabeth reached out expressing interest in we have two current vacancies as alternates. She expressed interest in filling one of those vacancies and submitted the resume that hopefully you can all see. So I will open the floor to discussion or motions.
I like her she's an Andover person and she's local good news.
Megan is it possible to enlarge the image on the screen that you're sharing, the resume. There, thank you. It's very fine print. Appears to have good qualifications. And obviously the interest is paramount.
Thank you, George. Anybody else have any comments? Okay. So the procedure would be that we can motion to nominate the applicant for recommendation to the board of selectmen. Ultimately, appointment is by the board of selectmen. So if anyone wishes to So moved.
Okay, so George Elliott motions to nominate Elizabeth Miano I apologize, maybe you cannot say her name wrong as an alternate candidate to the Board of Selection. Do I have a second? Ed Smith seconds. Ed Smith seconds. Thank you. Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none then, I will do a roll call vote. George Elliott, how do you move or how do you vote? Aye.
Thank you. Jim Halsey, how do you vote? Jim Halsey, how do you vote? Was 15 for the time being. Jed Larson, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. Ed Smith, how do you vote? Aye.
And myself, Megan Lally, I vote aye. Jim Hallowsky is coming up the stairs. Give me one minute. What's that? You wanna just do audio call? Can you call with a landline?
Alright. So Jim lost connection again. So he is going to sign back in. I lost my Zoom meeting, so I can't see any of you. I'm trying to figure out what's going on on my computer. I apologize. Wait for Jim to call in
Megan while we're waiting for Jim to get back up I just wanted to let you know I did not get any emails from you prior to this meeting
all right thank you that means my town email is not working
Same, Ed Smith, same, I didn't get any emails, but yeah, I know to go to the town webpage now. Okay, thank you. Likewise, no meeting materials.
So continue to email iwwcchairandoverct dot org if you need to reach me. I did set up a secondary email account in Gmail, which is more or less the same thing. It's andoveriwwcchair@gmail.com. If you need to email me, email both accounts so that ultimately when the town one hopefully starts working again, I don't need to forward a bunch of stuff. And I will try and email you from the Gmail account with the the town one cc moving forward so that hopefully you receive correspondences. My apologies about that.
What was the first email address you passed on, Megan?
So the first one is the normal one which is the iwwcchairandoverct and dot that's the official one And then because I've been having issues with that one, there's a Gmail account set up as a backup right now until we can resolve the issue. So it's andoveriwwcchair@gmail.com. For the public any wetlands inquiries should be going to the agent though so it would be wetlandsandoverct dot org. Jim, were you able to get back on the line? I am. Alright. Thank you. So Jim, we are voting on a motion to recommend Elizabeth Miano to the board of selectmen for appointment as a vacancy on the or as an alternate on the commission. How do you vote?
I just had a question first. Did anybody confirm that they were in fact registered voters or do we do that? Was the question Jim?
If anybody confirmed that these parties were registered voters. Oh. It's it's I don't mean to make an issue out of it. I just clearly, they they can't serve on a board if if they're not, but we're only making a recommendation at this time anyway. She's got an Andover address, which is partway there. She's from town. There you go. Is that a requirement? I mean, makes sense. Okay. You have to be an elector. She's in college, so she's old enough. Yep.
I don't have any reason to believe she isn't. Don't get me wrong. This is an appointed commission, not an elected commission.
And I don't recall any language in the charter restricting membership on an appointed commission to This might be a state statute.
Remember years ago trying to get somebody on the conservation commission
which is appointed and they were not on To be my sent forth to the board of selectmen.
We can always vote her in now and rescind it if she's not. Absolutely. Yeah, I didn't mean to slow things down. Honestly. Yep.
Well, then we're we're voting to make the nomination. If it turns out they're not eligible for some reason such as that one, then the board of selectmen should not appoint them. Sure. Think that's okay to proceed. Would you like to vote Jim? Affirmative.
Thank you. So the motion carries five zero zero with all in favor. The other candidate that we had expressed interest if my Same one.
So the second candidate, can you see a resume for Gabrielle Anderson? No? I can tell you. Yes. Okay.
So Gabrielle Anderson, also a resident of Andover, reached out in response to advertisement for alternate vacancies expressing interest in joining the commission. This is the resume that she submitted for our consideration, and I will open the floor to any discussion. Looks like she's got good skill sets. It just got blacked out.
Sorry. I was muting whoever was not needed to reduce the background noise. Okay. Can you see it again? There we go. So we can discuss. We can entertain a motion.
What's the name again? Can you scroll down a little bit? Gabriel Gabriel, I believe. Thank you. Gabrielle Anderson.
I make a motion that we accept Gabrielle Anderson as a alternate. Motion made by Ed Smith. Is there a second? I'll second Jed.
Jed Larson seconds. Any additional discussion? Okay. Hearing none, we'll do a roll call vote. George Elliott, how do you vote? Aye.
Thank you. Jim Halsey, how do you vote? Linda, is Jim muted? Aye. Thank you Jim. Jed Larson how do you vote? Aye.
Thank you. Ed Smith? Aye. Thank you. And Chairman Lawley I vote aye as well. So the motion to nominate Gabrielle Anderson carries five zero zero. Alright. So I can prepare I will prepare those nomination letters for submission to the board of Selectmen. The next item on the agenda for the annual meeting, let me close this out, go back to this,
is the the annual bylaw review. It's in our bylaws that at the annual meeting, we will review the bylaws. We can postpone this discussion until next meeting if we wish, which I would recommend given that we have a new agent coming on board tonight. But I'll open the floor to any discussion on the agenda item.
This is Jed. I'd like to I agree that we should move the discussion to the next meeting. That would give me a chance to review the existing bylaws before we discuss them. Ed Smith seconds the motion. So Jed were you making a formal motion? Yes. Thank you. Very important motion.
Okay Jed Larson motions and seconded by Ed Smith to postpone discussion of the bylaws until our August meeting. Any discussion? Okay. Hearing none, I'll call for a vote on the motion. George Elliott? Aye. Jim Hallisey? Aye. Larson? Aye.
Ed Smith? Aye. And Megan Lowley votes aye as well, so the motion carries five zero zero. Next item on the agenda is public comment. Linda, what's the best way to approach pub public comment for you? Should we unmute everyone? Have people raise hands?
Probably raise hands. If you start to unmute everybody, you will get a lot of feedback.
So everybody should have an option, where would it be to raise their hand to request?
Or if somebody wants to unmute themselves and just state your name. Okay, they have the option to unmute themselves? They should be able to, yes.
On the phone it's 6. I can't speak for the computer.
Oh, thank you. Alright. So it should be 6 to unmute yourself if you're calling in. On the computer, I think you click the, the red microphone icon that has a hash line through it to unmute yourself. You could also put in the chat box. Audio, can type in the in the chat box that you'd like to speak. We should have let me double check. Alright. This is our only opportunity for public comment during this meeting because it's the annual meeting. So, hopefully, anyone that wish to speak is not. Item number five, which is additions and changes in the order of the agenda.
Yeah. This is Jim Halsey. And I did 129 Hebron Road, Ruby Puerto. I do have an application and a plan. I also received a check. It did not make it to the the posting today. They had come in previously, and I was working with them to revise a plan and I did actually I did get the revised plan and I could not read it and I believe it's posted. And I was working with them on the revised application. I don't know what the time frame is for acceptance but I'm just bringing it to your attention and I'm just just a couple comments there is a lot of public their neighbors are following this closely
Well, so we're just adding or changing the agenda items. We're not discussing agenda items.
Okay. The reason I bring it up is okay. There was a reason I I brought that up, and that is if the commission wanted to set a public hearing, this was they would have to accept they would have to add it to the agenda and accept the application.
So did the town receive an application and payment by 4PM yesterday? They I didn't get a check until today.
Okay. So then we can't officially receive the application tonight? We would have to receive it next meeting? Okay. Alright.
So as long as everything's in, it'll go it'll be received next meeting. It'll be on the agenda for discussion. Okay.
Any other discussion on additions or changes in the order to the agenda? Me? Can you hear me? Yes. Who is speaking?
This is Russ Heinz, the applicant's surveyor. So just to clarify, I think my client is probably completely confused. So what would Jim want us to do? I guess that's the most important thing right now because this has been going on quite a while. What do we need to do? Jim sent the Jim, okay. Tom, please.
Yeah. Russ, I am no longer the wetlands agent. But I can Okay. Just so the commission knows, I did send comments to Russ. And I he sent me a revised plan, which I had difficulty reading. So at this point, the commission is prepared. I mean, if I understand, Megan, correctly, to accept the application. They have an application. They have a check, and I would leave I would defer to the the New Wetlands agent as to the the whether the plan is acceptable.
Yeah. So I'm gonna I'm gonna repeat what I said previously, which is we're not discussing applications or violations at this point. We're just making either changes or additions to the agenda at the moment. So we're gonna have to hold this topic for the time being.
So Alright. So let me just I want I wanna just gonna hang up then, but I'm gonna say what my client needs to do is we
We're gonna have to you can you can talk to the agent on the side, but out of respect for everybody else's time, we're gonna stick to Very the good. So
do the commissioners have any items they would like to add to the agenda or changes to the order of the agenda? Okay. I actually had two items. I was I'm gonna motion to add a new item nine f. We had discussed it at our last meeting and I caught my attention in the minutes but didn't make it on this agenda. So the item would be for the Hendy Road violation that was discussed at our June meeting. I believe the property owner's last name is Riviera. And the other agenda change that I would make would be to move item eight c, which is the town's application up under section eight from the new item eight a
this is George Elliott and I will move to approve those revisions to the agenda. Ed Smith seconds. Any discussion? Okay, roll call vote. George Elliott. Aye. Thank you. Jim Halsey? Aye.
Thank you. Jed Larson? Aye. Ed Smith? Aye. And Megan Lowell votes aye as well. So the motion carries unanimously. And Linda, are you okay on the changes? Yes. Okay.
The next item on the agenda is item six, the approval of the minutes. The first meeting minutes to approve are the 06/01/2020 regular meeting minutes. Move to approve. George Elliott. You do that okay. Do I have a second? Chad Smith. Chad, go ahead.
Alright. So I have a a motion to approve and a second. I am doing my best to pull them up. Here we go. Who is who who did the second? Good. Okay. Thanks.
Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll do a roll call vote. George Elliott? Aye. Jim Hallesley? Aye.
Jud Larson? Aye. Ed Smith? Aye. And Megan Levy votes aye as well. So the minutes are approved as written. Trying to get out of this. Can't pull it forward. So the next item is six b approval of the June 13 special meeting minutes. This is a sidewalk. George Eliot moves to approve. Thank you. Do we have a second? Ed Smith seconds.
All right. So there's a motion by George to approve, seconded by Ed Smith. Any discussion? I had one, note of discussion. I believe under, item three on the minutes, it states purpose of the fill is to raise proposed construction site one foot above the one hundred year flood level. I believe they're seeking to raise it two feet above the one hundred year flood level.
I believe you're correct. And I think I was failing to add the fact that they were anticipating an increase in the flood level delineations. But yes, it would be two feet above the present level.
Any additional discussion? All right, hearing none, I'll call for a vote on the motion to approve the minutes with the the correction, I guess, to change it from one foot to two feet. George Elliott, how do vote? Jim Hallisey, how do you vote? Aye.
Jud Larson, how do you vote? Aye. Ed Smith? Aye. And Megan Levy votes aye as well. The motion to approve the June 13 special meeting minutes is approved unanimously.
Item seven on the agenda is administrative approval. Excuse me, Megan, before we move on. I submitted those minutes in a PDF format. I shall submit I could resubmit them in a doc format corrected without the watermark saying draft. So I'll submit those to the town clerk as revised.
You can do that. Last time that we don't actually need to submit copies of the revised minutes, that the understanding is that any changes to the minutes in the next meeting's minutes, Linda? That are reflected in today's minutes. Okay. Right. Gotcha.
Okay. Item seven was administrative approvals. There are no current administrative approvals to discuss, which brings us up to our permit applications. Before we get there, I didn't organize this well, But I'm going to interject that we, as Jim noted, we did hire a wetlands agent. Jim Hallisey, our commissioner, has been serving as an agent in the interim while we could find someone. And we do have our our new agent online. I might have to mute myself to make this work, so we're not we're not cross talking. But, Joe, do you wanna introduce yourself to the commission?
Hello. I'm Joe. I'm glad to be here. I'm some of new wetlands agent, so it's my first meeting, first day. Nice to meet you all virtually anyway. Good luck. Thank you.
Joe, can you provide the commission with just a little bit about your your background and your experience?
Studied marine policy at University of Rhode Island. I've been on the Wyndham Inland Wetlands Commission for probably twelve, thirteen years now. I was a aviation mechanic for a while and done a bunch of different things. Always had an interest in environmental stuff, and then I like the commission.
Thank you. So Joe's last name is Wagner. So Joe will be, I believe, setting some some dedicated hours to assist the public with applications and enforcement activities. Today is or either today or yesterday. I believe it's his first day, so very new. We'll get that squared away. The public, if they need to reach us, the town, regarding this issue, could reach out to Joe first. You can use the wetland handoverct dot org email address for the time being or call town hall, and they'll directly direct you to or voice mail if not. And that information will be going up online soon.
The other thing I wanted to pause and point out before we get to the permit we did switch over to a beautiful Newtown website. Everyone's from there. But in order to find the wetlands stuff, we need to crash into the home.
I just wanted to quickly walk folks through it if they weren't familiar. It'll bring you to the page I was just on. And moving forward, you'll notice there's this applications button in the top left. There's also down here, meeting minutes and agendas. If you click on that, it will, which I assume you all found since you're on this meeting, it will bring you to links to either look up agendas or minutes for the meetings. Legal notices as we make decisions on application, those applications will post them under this.
If you're seeking to apply for a permit, that would fall under forms and documents. But the big thing for tonight is just know that under the applications, all pending applications will be up there. We did leave there's one application. This one has already been approved, but just so we didn't cause any confusion with the numbering. We did leave that one up for the time being. But otherwise, moving forward, it'll just be open applications just to promote public involvement and transparency. So any materials the commission receives will be posted online for the public to be able to view as well. So for tonight's meeting, the first permit application we have to discuss is an open application. It's application 20Dash21 for a subdivision and new residential development at 12 Webster Lane.
This property is located on the border of Andover and Bolton, and new materials received since the last meeting include two requested materials by the commission. We requested a conservation biologist ecological impact report on the proposed application and then also from Brandon Handfield, a civil engineer at Yantic River Consultants, we requested an engineer's review. I'm gonna pull up I guess I'll pull up Hank's first since it's listed. This should have been sent to the commissioners before this meeting. I apologize. It sounds like nobody received that email. So if you haven't had a chance to review, I'm gonna pull up the the letter now and hopefully we can review it together. Yeah I'll ask do the commissioners want a minute to read this? Is Hank online? Hank is here.
Maybe you could just summarize with a few sentences because I just read that due to a small size, narrow configuration and ephemeral hydrology, I do not believe that water courses provides high value habitat for wildlife. Maybe he could summarize.
Sure, I think that's a great suggestion. Hank, do you want to summarize your report for the commission? Sure, I'd be happy to. Can everybody hear me? Yes.
Okay. Yeah, I you know it's a it's a narrow wetland swale that's somewhat isolated. It's just south of a much larger system, the Warner Brook System. And when I took a look at it, you know, was specifically looking for the value habitat it would provide for the wildlife, in particular breeding amphibians, which can be typical in those systems, but it was a fairly dry ephemeral system. At the time of the visit, was very dry. I found only one small pooled area that really didn't hold water and I don't believe there would be any breeding habitat for the majority of our species in Connecticut. So from a standpoint of a general wildlife value, because of its small size, the narrow nature of it, and the ephemeral character of the wetland, I don't think it has extraordinarily high value from a habitat standpoint. The primary value that I identified is more as one isn't what we call an ecological corridor where it serves as because it is a wetland system. John It serves as a connector between other systems, in particular the Warner Swamp system and the daily swamp system, where it could provide some connection for various species of wildlife that might move between those systems. That's the what I consider to be the primary function of ecological value of it. So the recommendations that I put into the report were associated with trying to provide as much buffer capability around that corridor as possible. Looking at if there's opportunities to shift the, the, the, the site of the proposed, new house a little bit further away, potentially put some plantings there or leave an unmown strip that would give some buffer quality, both from a water quality standpoint, but also from a habitat standpoint. So that was the primary my primary recommendation is really about buffering the system to serve as an ecological quarter.
So I took away from your letter that you didn't think it would have a direct impact on the wetlands or watercourse. But to avoid indirect impacts, are proposing specifically this line here, shifting location of the new house further to the southwest of the parcel.
Doctor. Yes, that's correct. Would I don't see the direct impacts to probably would probably primarily be indirect. So the shifting and also maintaining the Doctor. Paul A little bit more of a vegetative buffer which can be accomplished either through some unmown strips or some plantings, low shrubs, various shrub heights that could give a little bit more of a buffer from, you know, from various effects that might be associated with the clearing in the new development.
Does the commission have any questions? Hearing none, I am going to see if I can get out of this and open the other letter that was received from Brandon. Okay. So don't believe Brandon is on the call because we didn't ask him to be. Did the commissioners have a chance to review this letter beforehand or would anyone like me to pause so you have a chance to review it?
This is George. I did not have a chance to review the letter until just now. And I would certainly want to hear back from the engineer regarding any proposal to relocate the structure, the construction. The buffer part is perfectly straightforward. But as I said, I'd want to hear from the engineer about any suggestion to relocate the house site to the Southwest. I'm looking at the math now, and it seems like there are some constraints that might apply.
I'm going to come back to the map. But before I do so, wanted to remind the commissioners that part of the requirements of approving an application are that there's no feasible and prudent alternatives. Mr. Hanfield has pointed out several reasonable alternatives that he's recommended the applicant consider to reduce impacts to the wetlands and watercourse. Regarding item number two, he did request. So these are the engineers recommendations for improvements to the site plan in order for the commission to be able to make an informed decision on the application. So he requests or suggested that we request showing the upland review area on the west of the parcel. And I just wanted to note in regards to Hank's report, I believe the answer to confirm if these areas are vernal pools, the answer is no. Is that correct, Sven?
Doctor. That is correct. I mean, you know, generally, you know, to evaluate a vernal pool, really need to look if there's anything breeding in it. Know, the time we look at this is sort of outside of the breeding season. It could have dried up. But based on my view of it, I don't believe it's it would hold water long enough. I don't think that there's a functional vernal pool on the site.
And then the other and then I think that was it. Provided North Arrow is on the last page, but I think we can skip that part. Is Jerry Hardisty on the line to represent this application? I'm through the people on the call to see if I see him. Jerry, are you on the line? So I don't believe Jerry Hardisty, who is the applicant's engineer, is available to provide feedback during this meeting. So with these two new items in mind, I'll open the floor to discussion for application twenty-twenty one.
Hi Megan this is Jed and a couple of comments. One the diagram that we're looking at here shows the primary leach field very close to the wetlands. The application that we received through zoning commission has that swapped over with the reserve field for the recommendation in the letter from the engineer that you had review it. And so I would like to make sure that when it comes to approving or disapproving, we actually have a consistent picture between wetlands and zoning with what it is that we're being asked to approve. I
did have a I'm sorry, this is Jim Halsey. I did have a conversation with Jerry very briefly this evening. And he had mentioned, I had inquired about an updated plan because Ted had mentioned one. I'm looking at the preliminary plan that it forgotten at the time that he was talking about the subdivision application. This is the plan that was submitted for wetlands. What he did say is that and it is true, with the subdivision application, you're not locked into, You have to show where you're gonna put septic system, a house, a driveway, etcetera. But you're not locked into that. It's not a site plan approval.
That might be true from the zoning perspective, from a wetlands permit perspective, we can only approve the activity presented before us. So if we approve the application as is and then you went to zoning with a different configuration, they would need to come back to wetlands for a permit. Yeah. What I'm saying, he wouldn't.
I don't believe that's true because otherwise how could wetlands make informed decision?
Well it's it's been a quick well he he can move the subject I'm sorry. The septic system further from the wetlands. Correct?
Yes. But the permit would be issued based on the design presented. So, I mean, it should be a relatively simple permit modification. But if there's a change to the design, then he would need to come back and request a permit modification from the commission. Okay. And this was just a few minutes before the meeting and I really didn't
I understand what you're saying. Wetlands permit approval is is a site essentially a site plan approval, whereas the subdivision is not.
I only got into a few I'm not familiar with the subdivision
stuff. Right. But I was trying to address Jed's quest Jed's the issue that Jed had raised.
Right. So I think it would be appropriate to so Jed, you're of the opinion that it sounds like the map that was the site plan that was submitted to zoning did address the recommendations provided by Brandon Hanfield? Yes. So
my recommendation was going to be that we request a revised site plan that addressed the recommendations of both Hank Gruner and Brandon Hanfield. It sounds like he may already have that done it just hasn't been submitted to wetlands. So I would recommend that the Commission consider postponing decision until we have a revised site plan.
I do have one other comment, Megan. In I know that Hank's letter talked about repositioning the house a little bit more to the Southwest to provide a bigger buffer to the wetland. One of the things that that I think we need to at least be aware of is the fellow that came to the last meeting. And I think his concern was that the house is already very close to his house in the back. And so if we move the existing home further south, which would be nice because it could keep us outside the 100 foot review area, it will make the situation worse as far as putting the house closer to the neighbors along the back boundary. And so I don't know what that, how that weighs in, when we make a decision to approve it, we should be sensitive to the proximity of the house that's being built to the neighbors in the back.
I think the neighbor, based on my, you know, observations out in the field, I think the neighbor that commented I would have to meet their house is kind of over in this area. I think they might be this property. Do we know whether he's 927 East Street or 917?
Yeah I think he's 927 And then there's another house just to the left, 917, that's also very close to that back boundary.
Right. And Hank, were you suggesting I mean, how what extent were you suggesting moving it to the Southwest if if feasible? I'm trying to unmute. Hank, are you on the call still? Okay. Hank's muted. I can't manually unmute him. I don't know if he is or is not on the call.
Megan, this is George. If I may interject here, I'm just now looking at the letter from Yantic, which again is new as of this moment. They mentioned rotation of the proposed house as a means of, again, increasing the distance from the wetland. So it seems to me that there are some alternatives that are a little bit beyond scope of our discussion right now. And I think you're right, we simply need to see a revised proposal that will address these concerns, both from a zoning point of view and from the wetlands impact point of view because as you're right we've got to be on the same page.
This is Jim Halsey. Can I have a couple of comments? Hank seems to have brought up two recommendations, really, towards the end of his letter. One is a buffer zone. And the other is reorienting the house. I guess if we're going to ask the engineer to revise a plan, we have to give him some direction as to what we're talking about. Are you looking for how would you maintain that? I mean, the commission is leaning towards the buffer zone, how would they maintain it? Maintain it meaning, how would that buffer be maintained in perpetuity? What would you put on the plan? How would you address that? The orientation of the I believe it's the house. I'm not sure if we're giving the engineer clear direction on that and and
perhaps Might have been addition of the the engineer. Yeah. The rotation of the proposed house was the engineer's recommendation. Right. Specifically engineering hand held. But to your point, yeah, I mean, I think I think Hank, you know, strives is a member of our conservation commission as well as, you know, professional conservation biologist. I think he strives to provide information to the applicants about best management practices that they could consider if their application was approved. Sometimes those recommendations are, you know, they're not practical for us to issue as, you know, conditions of approval, but I think it is a way to educate them about the possibility if they were not aware of it and were interested in being better environmental stewards. So is there a motion on the floor to postpone discussion of this until we have a revised site plan? So moved. Thank you. Is there a second? Ed Smith seconds.
I have a motion from George Elliott seconded by Ed Smith to postpone further discussion of this application pending submission of a revised specifically the site plan that was submitted to zoning would be sufficient by next month's meeting. Any additional discussion?
Only the site plan that was presented to planning and zoning did not have the house repositioned in any way. It is still exactly where it's shown on here. And I think our due diligence, you know, our regulations require that alternatives that weren't considered be presented to us with why they weren't considered, and that's what we should be asking for. We we need to make the decision based on the fact that
all feasible and prudent alternatives were considered and that there isn't an alternative available to the applicant that would cause less impact. Everyone could need their phones who's not speaking, that would be helpful. There's some background feedback. Alright. Any additional questions? Hearing none, I'll call for a vote. George Elliott, how do you vote? George, you're muted.
Thank you for giving me the cue to unmute. I vote aye.
Thank you. Jim Hallessey, how do you vote? Is Jim muted? Aye. Thank you. I'm gonna ring you. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Hi.
You show up as a a phone number. Okay. So Jim votes aye. Jed Larson, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. Ed Smith, how do you vote? Aye. And Megan Miley votes aye as well. So the motion carries five zero zero. We will revisit this application at our August meeting. Joe, can you follow-up with the applicant and let them know that we are requesting a revised site plan Well, testing that they submit a revised site plan based upon Brandon Fields recommendations and Hank Greenwich recommendations. Yeah. We do. Thank you. Next item on the agenda
Megan, this is Linda. You had wanted to move the town up to I 8
did. Eric, I'm surprised you didn't jump in. Sorry. All right so then the next item on the agenda is it'll now be 8B application twenty-twenty four from the town of Andover for road drainage improvements on Shawnee Mill Road. We, I believe, received this application at our last meeting. There was no site visit scheduled. Commissioners were encouraged to visit the site on their own if they so choose and the town did submit significant numbers of study photographs to try and help illustrate Or I can entertain a motion if Oh, are you waiting on me? Sorry. No. No. Eric, you didn't have anything additional to submit since the previous I did not. Okay. Alright. So if the commissioners would like to discuss or we can entertain a motion to make a decision on the application. Missus Jet, I move that we approve the application. Is there a second?
Ed Smith, second.
Jed Larson, motions to approve, seconded by Ed Smith. Any discussion? Hearing none, do a roll call vote. George Elliott? Aye. Jim Halsey? Aye. Jed Larson? Aye. Ed Smith? Aye.
And Megan Malloy, I vote aye as well. So the application is unanimously approved.
Madam Chairman and Commission members thank you very much and with that I bid you adieu. Thank you. Have a good evening.
Right Joe so up to work together to drop the permit to so for the record. Okay, the next item on the agenda which is now 8c is application twenty-twenty three for a new residential construction the Upland Review area and modification of a floodplain at 57 Hendy Road. William and Donna Phillips, is anyone from this application on the call? I see Megan Phillips. Yes. I'm Andrew Bushnell from Bushnell. Okay.
Yep. Okay. So there was this site visit. We approved the minutes associated with that site visit in June. Hank Gruner was able to attend as well, and new materials submitted in association with this application includes a report from, I believe, both I'm checking yes. Both Hank and Brandon submitted reports on this application.
Okay I didn't see a report from Brandon on the
on the Yes. There was an issue. Thank you for saying that. You are off of the top of your screen. I guess continuously
I think what happened was they were sent to for posting, and they were two two reports. The only one got posted, I believe.
Yeah. So let's see. Let's scroll down. Hank, are you still on the call?
Can you hear me? I'm not joined by phone because I lost you guys on the computer.
Oh, okay. So, I think submitted the reports. Do you want to summarize that report?
Sure. I'd be happy to. Can everybody hear me okay? Yes. Great. So, that stretch of the where the confluence of the Hop River and the Skunkamug River is pretty significant habitat for wood turtles, which are a state listed species. The primary use of the site is the floodplain habitat that is along the Skokamug River and that especially that open area on the property that is along the Hop River. Both of those are heavily used by wood turtles. I took looking at the project, the location of where the proposed residences and the activities associated with the development there, I don't anticipate any real direct impacts on any wood turtle habitat because everything is pretty much outside of the floodplain. There would be my main concern would be during
any construction activities or development activities for the residents and for the site would be to prevent any turtles from moving into the site and potentially being harmed. And that can be accomplished by some exclusionary fencing like sediment control fencing to keep them out of areas where heavy machinery is going to be used. So the actual development footprint is really not so much an issue. It's pretty easy to handle excluding the turtles. My primary concern is one more associated with the use of the property along the Hop River there on the Skunkamug. There's been some clearings there and there's been some gardens. And those are and there's a footpath that goes through there. And those activities, while not necessarily too impactful for wood turtles, they can be. They can have a significant impact if best management practices aren't followed. So if you look at the recommendations that I proposed, a fair amount of them are focused on looking at what activities occur within those areas and when they occur and how they occur.
Anything outside of the dormant season is best for the turtles because that prevents any potential impacts to them. And the impact is really one that is less on the habitat and more on trying to prevent mortality of turtles that may be moving into that area and utilizing that area, because it's used pretty heavily for basking by the turtles, some nesting by the turtles, and there's even some hibernation occurring in the concentration of them there and a stretch of the river right on that side. So in sum, there really are two considerations. One are those that are excluding turtles from when there's construction activity associated with the proposed development. And then the second is ongoing activities that might occur within that floodplain area or the upland area adjacent to the floodplain during the active season. So I provide various levels of recommendations depending on what planned activities might be there
might be planned to occur in there to provide alternatives for the landowners to consider. Folks there? Yes. Catch up.
I'm still trying to log back onto the site here. You're muted. Yeah.
Back up if I was on mute. Before I switch, did the commissioners have any questions of him? Okay. Did the applicant have any questions of Hank or the applicant's representative? No. No. Okay. Then
the other piece of information that was submitted requested the commission had requested a and, again, we requested this from Brandon Anfield as the engineer we had selected. Believe at the June meeting, but definitely at the the June site visit was to the applicant and the representative upland review area for both the Skungamook River and the Hop River is 200 identified as areas of special concern in the town wetland regulations. I don't believe we've received a revised site plan with that information provided.
Yeah. You know, so Jerry Hardison contacted me last week or the week before and wanted that plan. So I sent it to him. But I guess he's I I've been confused as to who's reviewing it, he contacted me again. So, I had sent it to him and nobody else. So I didn't realize that this memo was floating around.
So I don't know if Jerry's representing zoning on this application, but he's not representing wetlands on this application. So any materials for this application should be submitted to the commission through the agent, the Wetlands agent, and you're welcome to reach out to Brandon Hanfield directly to discuss his recommendations if you want. Okay.
But I I have not received anything from Jerry. Jim, I have you received anything? No. Okay. So at this point, the commission does not have that updated site plan. I don't know if it would have addressed the other recommendations that were made in the letter that I'm showing. Two
Yeah. I think a lot of these were were addressed, so I'm having a hard time reading. Oh, there we go. I can pull it up. Yeah. Yep. Does Okay. Have any questions of the applicant?
Megan, I would just like to comment that from a planning and zoning perspective, I am not aware of Jerry having any involvement in this application either. So I don't know why he was asking for it.
Yeah, and I I had stated that at the the field visit, and I had actually talked to Eric about that, and and he had indicated he would clarify that to Jerry. We needed an independent engineers review on two projects and he was the applicants around the other project it's kind of been a an ongoing challenge for Wetlands of using him as the town engineer to review our projects because he represents the applicants so we have the ability to, you know, hire someone other than the the town engineer. So we did so. For your own, know, I'm moving forward, I wouldn't say he's he's not the representative of wetlands on this project or zoning. Believe we were asking Brandon to look on Jen. Is that correct? From a zoning perspective as well? Yes.
Okay. Yeah. So you should be speaking, Andrew, with Joe, the new agent, and then Brandon if you need to speak with Wetlands' engineer on this one. Okay. Any additional discussion from the Commission?
Again, is George. I wanted to comment in the site plan in the details regarding revegetation. The plan specifies lime and fertilizers to be applied. And although I don't know that it's necessarily a requirement, would like to see, first of all, a soil test recommendation basis for the lime application. And secondly, consideration of fertilizers other than ten-ten-ten normal analysis for supplying fertility for revegetation. They could for the grass species that are being reintroduced, a turf fertilizer with a higher nitrogen analysis could provide the same amount of nitrogen with less phosphorus, which is a potential pollutant, which would be of a concern for a wetland riparian system.
I just want to make sure. Are you talking about the site seating notes?
Yeah. Under the site seating notes on the site plan dated 05/18/2020. Is that visible on the screen right now? Not on my screen because I'm not doing anything.
Sorry, I just stopped share, but I have to Well, try you just took away everything. Yeah, hold on. Get back Okay, to how about now?
Okay, I've got to move some things around so that I can refer to it. Sightseeing notes, you'll have to scroll down and, okay, the first thing is the apply limestone at a rate of two times it. So you had it there and If I zoom in, you can see it. It's in the first paragraph of sightseeing notes. Okay. Any additional discussion, comments?
Is it okay for me to make a quick comment? Yeah. Absolutely.
We'll just see the serum when we finish the septic system that we have the permit for at 57 Hemi, and we didn't need any fertilizer for the grass. So I don't think we can just take that out and off the print. Know, we just put the fertilizer we just put the seed and the hay down and didn't need to do anything but let it rain and it grew. So Any other commission comments?
If I may respond to that, I wasn't suggesting to not lime or fertilize. I was saying that the lime application should be based on a soil test and that a high nitrogen fertilizer would provide the nutrients with less potential for phosphate contamination or pollution.
I'm not sure what we can do without the application. The delineation of upland review area on the site plan. So the commission does need a copy of that in order to proceed with the decision. And it sounds like based on the letter I receive we received from the engineer, I would ask him to do a site review once he had the the updated site plan. Mhmm. Okay.
So it sounds like we'll unless I'd like to state otherwise, it sounds like we'll revisit this application at our August meeting. Sounds good. Okay.
Alright. So we'll move on then. The next item on applications is a new application. If you did not receive it from me, hopefully, you were able to get it from online. I will try to pull that one up. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative on the call?
Yes Jeff Paulimus from skips wastewater services on the call I
had trouble reading your handwriting did I spell your last name Yes. You you spelled my name correctly.
Alright. Just want to correct the record if not. Okay. So do the commissioners need a minute to review this application, was everybody able to it sounds like it's essentially a a new septic installation at 150 Side 157, excuse me, Lakes Drive. Okay. Jeff, do you wanna walk us through the application?
John and Janice, Benda have a septic system that's in need of replacement at their lakefront property at 157 Lakeview Drive. And they've hired us to design and install the system. We've met with Thad King from the health district done soil testing on-site submitted our plan to the health district for review and received an approval of the most recent plan. Actually today this morning from that king. With the design that we've submitted and shared with you for this application.
There was one question I was going to have. So I received two plans, and this plan with the approval is the same as this plan?
Yes, it incorporates the revised plan that was submitted with our application and a couple of updates that that King requested clarification on the depth of excavation and the type of material that would be removed in the area of the leaching system. That's in the notes in the third column below at the bottom of the page. And we also shifted the leaching trench to the north, which is toward the top of the page, about six feet or so, that is requested we move it away from the area of one of the existing leaching pits that will be crushed and filled and abandoned in place after pumping. So it would be in less disturbed soil. Made those slight modifications, which did not affect the proximity to the lake part of the time. We're proposing a new septic tank. Most of the house sewer will be replaced back to a point near the existing deck and new piping out to a single row of mantis leaching structure. It will be installed surrounded by new sand fill that will replace the below grade existing unsuitable fill and very topsoil that was found during the soil testing. So the final grade in the backyard, front yard for leak front owners is is not going to change much at all. The top of the proposed leaching structure is actually going to be below existing grade and the tank will essentially be below existing grade. We're done and out of there. Just have a new lawn and no disturbance to the lake or what. Any questions or comments from the commission?
This is Jed. I had a question about elevation of the tank in the trench with respect to the water level that's in that area during the winter and spring months. Is it out of the groundwater level?
Yes, our soil testing, the test pit locations are identified on the plan as TP one and TP two. TP one is test pit in the immediate area of the leaching system. And about halfway toward the lake, there was a second test pit. Both of those holes indicated groundwater at a depth of approximately 45 inches or indications of groundwater. We didn't see water in the test pit at the leaching system. See what that king wrote. Yes. So modeling was at '45. We had seepage of '64, the date of our soil testing last month. So our proposed system will be 18 inches above the high groundwater indications of modeling. And they're 18 inches structures. So we will only be I believe 27 inches into the existing grade, which is 18 inches above the maximum high groundwater in that area. Thank you. The
bottom of the tank, to answer the other part of your question, the bottom of the tank may may be set into the groundwater because the tanks are a pretty tall structure, five feet deep, although the elevation up slope is a little bit higher. It's probably going to be set in groundwater as most tanks in the area are, but these are watertight structures. Better than what was there certainly, but we were doing it at the right time of year and that there wouldn't be any water encountered in the hole for the tank based on the depth we found water at Test Pit 1 just a month ago. This is the right time to do this system installation.
Any additional comments or questions from the commission? Does the commission wish to request a site visit? Does the commission not want to do a site visit?
I don't see any particular value in a site visit for this application towards Elliot. Jed agrees with George. I'm good with what's presented. As am I.
Then going with the consensus of the commission, we will not schedule a formal site visit for this application. If any of the commissioners change their minds, we can, through Joe, the wetland agent, contact the applicant and and request individual. But otherwise, we have to wait at least fourteen days before we can approve any new applications that come before us. So we will plan to revisit this app our August meeting to schedule for August 1, I believe. I'm double checking. Nope. Good thing I double checked. That's a weekend. Monday, August 3. That concludes the permit applications before the commission this evening. Next item on the agenda is the agent report and enforcement. Given agent started yesterday, I'm assuming he has not had a chance to catch up on these items
with commissioner Halsey yet. Is that fair to assume? Yeah. I haven't caught up on anything yet. Okay.
How would the commission like to proceed? We can so agent Halsey or no. I have to correct myself. So commissioner Halsey can only serve in one capacity during neither serve as a commissioner, which is what he's been doing. Therefore, he needs to continue doing our service. He can't represent these enforcement items in tonight's meeting as the intervention as he's no longer the agent. So we can schedule a special meeting to discuss these items and postpone discussion until August. Reinforcement action can occur in between meetings by the agent if needed. So I'll open the phone to discussion by the Commission.
Again, this is George. I would favor a special meeting to review these, given that if we defer them to our next meeting, we're going to have a humongous meeting and an untenable amount of work to do. I would say that we obviously have to allow our new agent time to get up to speed. And I would suggest that we set the meetings when we have an indication from our new wetlands agent as to when he will be able to address those enforcement actions. We can do a special meeting with what forty eight hours notice. So I don't see any need to set a time for it now,
but I would like to see it set as soon as Mr. Wagner is able to comment. Any additional thoughts from the Commission?
This is Jed. I'd like to share that because we did postpone a week here, the next meeting is only three weeks away that will come up on us very quickly anyhow. I do share George's concern that we've got a lot of stuff to go over, but three weeks going to be Joe's going to have his hands full coming up to speed on all those issues before we get to the next meeting. Any other feedback or thoughts? Jim or Ed? Good. Nope. Nope.
Okay. So do you have an opinion on whether it would be helpful to you to hold a special meeting to discuss the enforcement items versus waiting to the
I think that it's since it's only three weeks away, maybe we should just wait till the August meeting.
George and Ted, since you were the only two commissioners that spoke up with an opinion, are you okay with waiting until the August meeting?
This is George and I'm okay with waiting for the meeting. Something's got to give though.
Well, we're hoping that now that we have Joe on board, Move super fast. I mean, are moving fast with Jim, but he was he was juggling a lot between being a commissioner and zoning agent. So our goal is to get Joe up to speed very quickly and then be able to but also do a some to close out our enforcement items. Jim, can you coordinate with Joe to set aside some time to go over these enforcement items I'm caught up to speed on what you've done so far. Yeah. Sure. Alright. So I will leave it to you to coordinate offline to find that time, and then we'll ask and Joe, you know, based on your conversation with Jim, follow-up as appropriate before the next meeting with any of these events and then we'll look for your reports at the August meeting along with hopefully not, but along with any new enforcement issues that may ever risen over the course of the month. So with that, I would I'll make the motion. All items under agenda item nine, agent report and enforcement discussion be postponed to the August meeting? I'll second that.
Okay. Any discussion? Okay. Hearing none, we'll take a vote. George Elliott? Aye. Jim Halsey? Aye. Ted Larson? Aye. Ed Smith? Aye.
And Megan Lowell votes aye as well. So the motion carries five zero zero. That brings us to item 10 under other business. 10 a was an issue that was requested by town manager Eric Anderson that the commission look into whether or not the commission would be able to provide some standard guidance or approval to the town regarding public works operations, things that they might not need to come before the town for a permit or that if there was a way we could issue kind of a standing permit for certain types of activities. He did share with me a thread from a listserv that he participates in. I don't know if it was town managers or it's not one I participate in so I don't recall. It seemed like a fairly complex issue. It seems like there was a range of ways that other towns address this. I was gonna recommend that the commission ask Joe to look into this issue for us and report back as to what he found other towns were doing or not doing and how they were addressing it.
But I'll open the floor to discussion and other thoughts. Sounds good. Yeah, sounds like take care.
I don't have any problem with that. In fact, I'd like to see a way of it might potentially even reduce some of our workload.
Well, I think that's the idea. It's to not unnecessarily burden town activities that are pretty straightforward and need to otherwise proceed the application tonight for the drainage improvements on Shotting Mill being a good example of that. Technically being a wetland oftentimes, you're only in a wetland because of the wetland being created by the you know, the drainage improvements themselves. So can we offer any any guidance? So Joe, sounds like we're charging you with following up with Eric to understand the question and then research what other towns are doing. I would encourage you to also follow-up with our special land use attorney Mark Grants because we don't necessarily know that what other towns are doing is legal so just you know circle back to him after you do your survey and make sure that whatever bringing to the commission is Okay. I'll do that.
Alright. Well, we will look forward to that report in August. Other business item b is the inland wetlands and water forces regulation update. We've talked about this for quite some time. We have some draft regulations that were updated to be in compliance, if not the right word. Several letters have come from the state suggesting updates to the model regulations based on other legal guidance that's come out of the state. We have a draft in place that reflects those recommendations or requirements in many cases. But the other issue that's come up and Jim brought it up several times when he was serving as interim agent is the fee structure. So I think we need to make a serious effort to revisit our regulations, see what needs to be updated in terms of the fee structure clarified, and then move forward with trying to bring something to public hearing for approval. Megan, I agree. I'm sorry, George, go ahead. Okay. Well, and again,
I believe that there was some thought about trying to hold a public hearing that might kill more than one bird at the same time. Encourage us to try, you know, especially when we're doing it with, we have to have a public hearing via Zoom. It's going to be an enormously cumbersome activity. So we should try to do it as efficiently as possible.
That's a good point, George. Jim, what were you going to say?
It's been a long time, I believe, since we've seen the recommendations come out of the state. Guess we'd have to put them together. I'm sorry, go ahead. I
also think that there was somebody had suggested doing a joint public hearing with planning and zoning at one point.
So I think initially the holdup was in the past there had been reluctance to hold public hearings due to the cost involved and we were trying to find an opportunity to tag on to a public hearing that was going occur anyway. I think that's delayed our, you know, following through on this item. So I don't think we should continue to worry about that. But I do think to the point of just, you know, the holding a public hearing on Zoom is a different beast from in person. It might make sense. It sounds like we might have one or two applications coming up that might warrant going to public hearing. We don't know at this point, but there might be opportunities to do more than one item for a public hearing item. But to your point, I don't think any additional letters have come out from the state regarding additional changes that need to be made to the model regs to reflect the current
state statutes. So there shouldn't be any additional changes from that aspect to the draft that we had come up with. I will recirculate that draft. We may, however, want to look at things like the application process or the fee structure. Attorney Brantz had indicated we don't need to include the application itself as part of the public hearing process unless we're making changes to the application requirements as part of the update to the application. If it's just reformatting the application but the same pieces are ultimately still required, then that doesn't need to go to public hearing. But we might want to consider looking at our application to prior to going to public hearing with any regulations revisions to make sure there aren't things that are potentially removed from application requirements as well. But I'm bringing it back up to the commission. I don't think we can do too much with it tonight, but to start to try to really know that Joe's on board,
complete the state training. He's already done it once but we asked him to do the newest version of state training again so he will be super fresh on the regulations and I think it'll be a good time for us to dig into this. Okay.
I'm making a note. I'm gonna sentence the bylaws and the I'll send the current regulations as well as the the revision that it's been at least a year that since we looked at them. I mean, reg should be online but just so everyone has that one email. And that kind of touches on item c was the the application revision. Know we've attempted this a few times without much success and maybe we can pair those two efforts of looking at the application as well. What I'd ask for the next meeting is have the commissioners be really prepared, have reviewed the regulations, reviewed the application, and come ready to suggest changes that we want to make.
Megan, if I can interject here. I believe we can work on the application revision outside of a public meeting. Yes. So
I think that this is something we could address in a workshop either virtual or perhaps even in person masked and socially distant and all that because frankly, trying to do it with a round robin email and all that has proven cumbersome and hasn't really got us very far. So I think this is maybe one of those things where we just have to, as they say, put your shoulder to the wheel and your nose to the grindstone and all the other things and your feet on the floor and try and maintain your posture. But if we can find a time to do that, think that would move the application revision forward very quickly.
I agree. And I think the only modification I would suggest is that we have tried to do it as a group. And like you said, I think we made some progress, but then didn't finish the job. It might be helpful to have one person try to really tackle it and present their suggestions for changes to the commission and use that as a a starting point. Jed, I don't know. I remember you had talked about potentially looking at it and and trying to do that. I don't know if you had a chance to. I know, obviously, you have more on your plate now so if you haven't I'm not going to ask you to.
I did start taking a look at that. My conclusion was that instead of a checklist, you almost need to go through the regulations each time. Don't need a checklist to have each one of the regulations be an item on the checklist. I think the better way to review is just go back and look through the regulations, make sure you've got everything. But that's my point of view, probably not I'm also a big checklist fan. In this case, I just thought the regulations were redundant to it.
So I did put together a checklist. I think I shared this at some point but we haven't really talked about it. So there was this which is not the application, it was meant to supplement application because the application is a little bit confusing and piecemeal but this was based on a review like exactly what you're saying going through the regulations and what they say is required from an application for it to be deemed complete. The specifications that are spelled out in the regulations about what's required on the site map. Certain situations are sort of some whether they need to notify the adjacent municipality, the reporting form that everyone's I have to check this hyperlink because it's probably out of date now needs to complete and then certain special circumstances that have come up along the way that we might just as a reminder to ourselves or likely to be requested of you if you have this type of application. So we do we have that piece. The part that we really haven't tackled is the the actual we call it an application packet, but it's not it's not really a packet. But this this piece, which I think can just really need some reorganization and simplification and some updating, like providing email and things like that.
I do have one recommendation. Think should get some feedback input from folks that aren't on the commission as well. Somebody that has to fill out an application. People on commission might not have the same might not have the same issues with it. I mean, it's the application is for the commission as well as it should be easy for the applicant or at least understandable.
Agree. Yeah. I think one of the things that would be helpful too is just making a fillable PDF, but just prior certain Adobe license that I don't personally have. I don't know if the town has it.
Right. I did make that recommendation to the the website committee and they asked me how how to do it. I just assumed that they knew how.
Yeah. Adobe Pro, basically. It's easier to start from scratch than to take something like this and and try and convert it. My understanding is the town is also moving towards Microsoft Office three sixty five, which has basically kind of a a forms feature built into it. So that might be another way to go about it. But just something that would make it easier. So you don't have to print it, fill it out, scan it, send it back, but you could just, know, type it in and save it and send it, I think would just be a nice twentieth century update.
Yes. Well, it's also COVID friendly. Let's let's try to tackle the public. That's true.
Alright. So let's be let's get serious about trying to make those two things happen. Take some time between now and August 3 meeting, and I'm hoping everyone can come to that meeting with specific suggestions, things you want to definitely keep on the application and things that you hate and would really like to see reworked and then we can go from there and focus on those problem areas. Sound like a plan? Yes. I'm good with that. Jed or Ed, any other thoughts? No. It sounds good.
Okay. So item 11 on the agenda is just a reminder. The next meeting is August 3 at seven. Are there any substantial conflicts with that? So I'll be out of town. So so George, I don't know if you're prepared to lead that meeting.
I should be able to depending on how complicated it gets.
Okay. I have absolute faith in you. But if you guys want to reschedule for some reason, we can do that too. We just need to make that decision sooner rather than later. But I will be in New Hampshire and I don't even know if I'll have cell or internet connection. So I'm not going to commit in any way to participate in that meeting. But I will offer my thoughts on regulations and permit changes for you guys to consider if you want to during the meeting. And with that, if there's no additional items that the commission wants to bring forward, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Make a motion to adjourn and submit.
All right. So we have a motion by George, seconded by Ed. I think George beat you to the punch Ed, so I'm going call yours as second. Then
I second. All right. Thank you. So we'll do a roll call vote. George Elliott, how do you vote? Aye. Jim Hallison? Aye. Jud Larson? Aye. Smith? Aye.
Megan Mallee, vote aye as well. Motions approved. Meeting is adjourned. I lost my phone at 08:50. Thank you.