Meeting transcript
IWWC Regular Meeting
May 4, 2020 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
07:02PM on 05/04/2020. This is the meeting of the Town of Andover Inland Wetlands and Water Forces Commission. I'm gonna read the standard virtual meeting intro that we read last time. So this is a web based call. So we're operating under the following procedures and I should introduce myself. I'm sorry. I'm Megan Lally. I'm the chairman of the Inland Wetlands and Waterforce Commission. So this session is being audio recorded, just like every other Inland Wetlands and Water Forces Commission meeting. And please be advised that today we are also recording the video of the proceedings. To ensure sound quality, the default rule for this meeting is that everyone will remain on mute. Commissioners and staff will generally remain on mute except when speaking or voting, keeping video of themselves on throughout the meeting. Applicants and members of the public should feel free to leave their video on or off. However, you will be asked to turn on your video when speaking if possible. If video is not available for you, you're not going to be precluded from speaking or providing public testimony.
If you are speaking at this meeting and have materials to submit to the commission, which were not distributed in advance of the meeting with the rest of the materials, please indicate that you wish to submit a document. You'll need to hold it up to the camera so that the commission and all members of the public may review it. In addition, you will be required to email the document or take a photograph of it and email it to buildingadminandoverct dot org, and we will include it in the permanent records of the commission. Please note that this is not a public hearing. There are no public hearings scheduled tonight. Members of the public may only speak during an open public hearing. If a member of the public creates an audio or video disruption, they may be manually ejected from the meeting upon recommendation of staff or the chair. Hopefully, will not happen. With that, we'll move on to item two on the agenda, roll call in seating of alternates. Megan Lowley, chair, is present. George Elliott, vice chair, is present. Jed Larson, Commission Member and Planning and Zoning Representative, is present. Jim Halsey, Commissioner, is present but serving as Wetlands Agent for this meeting. I do not see Commissioner Ed Smith on the call. Correct? Okay. So no Ed tonight. And then, alternate Wayne Thorpe does not appear to be on the call either. Alright. So we will continue with the quorum.
Item three, are there any additions or changes in order to the agenda? Jed, George, or Jim? Or I guess not Jim. I had the But I'll make a motion. Jed or George, did you have anything you wanted to add or remove or change? No changes.
Okay, I did want to add under topic six, permit applications, a new item D. We have a pre permit application regarding 26 Old Farms Road. There's an individual interested in doing a new residential construction and resubdivision of that parcel and they've been in touch with agent Halsey. So I would motion that we add that to the agenda under item six d. I'll second the motion, Jed second.
Thank you, Jed. Any discussion? There are materials, I'll display them when the topic comes up. We didn't have them in advance to to post tonight. Assuming the motion is approved. So hearing no further discussion, I'll call for a vote by roll call. Vice Chair Elliott, how do you vote? Aye.
Thank you. Commissioner Larson, how do you vote? Aye. And Chairman Lally votes aye as well. The motion carries 300. All right, the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes. The 04/11/2020 special meeting minutes, which was a sidewalk regarding application IWWC twenty dash twenty at 422 Lake Road. Any discussion? This is Jed I move we approve the minute. This is George I second the motion.
Thank you. The motion is made by Commissioner Mars Larson to approve the 04/11/2020 special meeting minutes and seconded by George Elliott. Any discussion?
This is Jed. I would like the minutes to reflect that Jeff McGuire was at walkthrough that we did as well.
Thank you. Any additional discussion? Okay. Would you like to modify the motion?
This is Jed. I'll modify I move to modify the motion to include Jeff McGuire as one of the attendees at the site walkthrough.
Thank you, Jed. I'll second the modification of the motion. We'll vote on the motion modification. Vice chair Elliott, how do vote? Yes. Chairman Larson, how do you vote? Aye.
I vote aye as well. The motion to modify the motion carries three zero zero. So the motion on the table is to approve the April 11 special meeting minutes with the addition that applicant Jeff McGuire or property owner was present as well. Any additional discussion? Call for a vote to approve the minutes as modified. Vice Chair Elliott, how do you vote? Yes. Thank you. Chairman Larson, how do you vote? Yes. And Chairman La la I vote I as well the motion carries 300. The next item on the agenda is 4B, the approval of the 04/14/2020 special meeting minutes.
This is George Elliott. I will move to approve the minutes of that meeting.
Thank you, George. And this is Jed, I second. Thank you, Jed. The motion made by George Elliott is to approve the 04/14/2020 special meeting minutes seconded by Jed Larson. Any discussion? Okay, hearing none. I'll call for a vote by roll call. Vice Chairman Elliott, how do you vote? Yes.
Thank you. Chairman Larson, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. And this is Chairman Lally. I vote aye as well. The motion to approve the April 14 meeting minutes carries three zero zero. All right. The next item on the agenda is item five, public comment. Are there any and I should so public comment is not intended to be comment on public pending applications. You can ask for clarification regarding details of an application such as location, but it's not an opportunity to provide opinion on applications. This is in the public hearing. That said, does anyone wish to provide public comment? Hearing none, we will move on to item 6A on the agenda, permit application IWWC twenty-twenty, application by authorized agent James Blair on behalf of property owners Danielle and Jeff Maguire for a wall rebuild and patio construction at 422 Lake Road. There were new materials submitted since the last meeting that have been posted online and distributed to the commissioners. Specifically, there is a letter of approval from Alma for the project. They document site photos taken by commissioner Larson during the April 14 sitewalk visit. Or I'm sorry. Yeah, no, they were by Jack. Jed, I believe you're the only person that attended that meeting. Is there anything you wish to share with the commission or summarize?
I thought both the plan to rebuild the rock wall and the patio looked to be positive for the homeowner, for the town, and in support of the wetlands. Everything looked good to me.
Thank you, Commissioner Larson. Agent Halsey, do you have any comments on the application? So I will entertain a motion if there's no additional discussion.
I will move to approve the application IWWC twenty twenty, as described. And this is Jed. I'll second.
So the motion is made by Vice Chairman Elliott to approve application IWWC 20 dash 20 seconded by Jed Larson. Any discussion? I have prepared the following special conditions based on the application and our normal kind of special conditions for projects like this. Number one, that the proposed regulated activities, specifically the patio construction shall not be installed closer than eight to 10 feet to the lake as described in the application. The patio construction shall consist of permeable material as described in the application and shall be maintained so as to ensure storm water infiltration during precipitation events. Number two, soil erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the 2,002 Connecticut guidelines for soil erosion and sediment control. In addition, no machinery will operate in or be placed on the lake bed. A salt fence will be placed immediately above the area of disturbance and approved by the wetlands agent prior to the commencement of any activity.
Tarps and plywood will be placed immediately in front of the wall in the lake bed and approved by the wetlands agent prior to the commencement of any activity. At the end of each workday, any loose sediment or material shall be placed on tarp and or plywood and securely covered. Staked hay bales will be placed on the lakeside of the work area to prevent debris from entering the water. Staked hay bales will be placed in any tracks or ruts that may develop. And at the conclusion of construction, these areas will be seeded and covered with straw mat to ensure revegetation. And soil erosion and sediment control measures shall be left in place until vegetation is well established. Any additional discussion? Ms. Chairman, can you email that to me? Yes. But I can. Thank you. I would also recommend that we approve the permit for a two year period. Any additional discussion? I will motion to modify the original motion to include the special conditions just read and to define the permit duration for two years. This is George. I will second that amendment. Thank you. Any discussion?
Akin, when you made your amended motion, I thought you said two years when you did the when you were reading the conditions I thought you said three years. No two years across the board. Okay no other question.
Okay. I'll call for a vote on the amended motion. Motion, Vice Chairman Elliott, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Larson, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you, Chairman Lowelley. I vote aye as well. The motion is modified three zero zero. So call for a vote to approve the application with the conditions outlined in the modified motion. Vice chairman Elliott, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Larson, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. And Chairman Lally, I vote aye as well. Motion carries three zero zero and the permit for application I WWC 20 dash 20 is approved as noted. The next item on the agenda, is anyone representing that application on the call? I'm going through my list here. I see Jim. I'm gonna unmute you, John. There
will be a letter sent out outlining everything that was just discussed with the permit. You have to wait two weeks before doing anything in case anyone wishes to appeal it. And there will be a wetlands and water courses impact fee assessed as well. That'll be need to be paid. Okay.
Any additional questions? No, no, it's very clear. And I appreciate everyone's help on this. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, the next item on the agenda is 6B, permit application IWWC twenty-twenty one by Manuel. Is Mr. Carrera on the line? Can we unmute Jerry? Jerry, how do you pronounce the applicant's name? We're saying Korea. Just like the country.
Oh, okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Okay. So application by is it Manuel Manuel? How does he pronounce it? He goes by Manny. Manny Correa.
Perfect, thank you. Okay, so application by Manny Correa for a new residential construction in an upland review area at 12 Webster Lane. I should note this application was previously characterized in our last meeting as a subdivision. That was incorrect. Jerry explained that this is a free cut as you would call it, so this is not a subdivision application just to be clear. I talked with agent Halsey today. Was a notification of the Andover application mailed to the town of Bolton?
No. No. I did not mail them a copy of this application. They are aware of this application because we got a permit from Bolton on this project.
Right. Prior to submitting this application. So there's Yes. This application at that time. So to be in accordance with the regulations, you need to mail a letter to them notifying them that there's an application pending in the town of Okay. Yep. In Eiffel. I know it's Dotting I's And Crossing T's. And then I think there was confusion about the fee payment. Has that been resolved?
Yes. Yes. I am short the state fee which is twice what it says on our current regulations.
You have to go to public hearing to update the regs but the current state fees are what is due which is $60. Once we have those two items on the record, the application will be complete.
One there's one further thing. In in our regulations, it says that if it is a insignificant activity it costs $100 and if it's a residential activity it costs $130 and I would suggest that this application would be of the lower cost type because there's no work in the wetlands at all. And if you if you look at the site, you'll see that there's a an existing fence that keeps everybody out of the wetlands.
So there's there's no filing fee for an insignificant application. There's no no language. I
I I'm sure I used the term incorrectly, but there is a discrepancy in the or some latitude in the regulations.
We have a fee determination worksheet that we use to standardize the assessment to applications. So the basic filing fee in this case would be a single family residence, which is $150 and then the additional $60 state filing fee. Okay, so the grand total comes to $2.10?
And a quick look, I believe that is correct. And then additional fees could be applied to the application, but for the filing fee, I think it would be $2.10. We can confirm that for you. Okay.
And okay. So we can't do anything tonight because I have not submitted a letter to Bolton. Is that correct?
No. I think we can proceed with discussing the application just to keep things moving. Certainly can't vote on it. Commissioner Larson or Vice Chairman Elliott, did you want to comment, questions, discussion?
This is George Eliot. I would like to ask, what exactly did Bolton approve? Since the construction that we're looking at is in Andover, the only portion of the project that's in Bolton would appear to be some kind of access, correct? Or how does this work when we have an adjoining town? And in fact, the frontage of the property looks like sort of a side or back lot development. And the only portion of it, as I say, in Bolton would be the access to the property. So what is the town of Bolton approving
when they approve the The chance oh, sorry to interrupt. Did you have a chance to review the town of Bolton's permit that was provided in association with the application? There was a copy. It should be posted online, but it specifies that it's the letter the permit letter reads the permitted activities within the upland review area are construction of a driveway and grading or excavation associated with the construction noted above presumably for the Bolton portion of the property. Okay, thank you. No, I did not see that.
So yeah, they can approve. To approve that piece of the application. Did the commission wish to schedule a site visit?
This is Jed, I do think we should schedule a site visit.
Well, is George. I would be amenable to a site visit.
Jerry, think it would be helpful to have you at the site visit. Okay. Unless you disagree. No. I'm I don't need someone to represent the application. Yeah. No. I'm fine. I'm fine. Okay.
Is there a day or time that works? We typically have done Saturday mornings. I don't know if that is an option for you. Saturday mornings fine with me, yes.
Commissioner Larson and vice chairman Elliot can you do this Saturday morning. This is George I'm available. Jed's available. Okay. So we want our standard 09:00? Sure. That sounds good. I'm fine. Yep.
Okay. So the commission will schedule a special meeting on this Saturday, the date of which is May 9 at 9AM. Where would be the best place to meet?
Probably right at the site. The address is 12 Webster Lane. There is an existing house there that is being remodeled, rebuilt. So nobody's there, but there's plenty of driveway space. And I'll let Manny know that people will be there and we can drive right in that driveway.
Great. Thank you. Standard social, I think we're still before the May 20 change. So standard social distancing measures will have to apply during the site visit. Okay, so what's that George? They say we'll be there with masks
on. Yeah, I've got several. All right. And the main purpose of the site visit would be to orient ourselves to the map that was provided with the application, the wetlands location, where the driver would go, where the main residents would be. And I'm assuming people should dress accordingly.
Megan, this is Jed. And I was not able to find the materials online associated with this application. I looked under the meeting for tonight, and maybe I missed it. If you can give me a hint, I'd appreciate it. It might be under
last meeting's materials because it was received last meeting. Is that correct, Amanda?
I had my materials in that folder from last meeting, yes.
Yeah, and I don't think there was any additional materials submitted since last meeting.
Down, Jed, to last meeting's materials. And they should be there.
Okay, I'll look after we get done here. I don't want to disrupt my screen and risk whatever might happen
that I did have I reviewed the application and for the type of activity, I think we could use some additional detail regarding question nine of the application in particular, Jerry, the erosion and sediment control measures or mitigation measures alternatives considered and subsequently rejected. If you can be prepared at the next meeting to provide greater detail on those questions, that would be helpful. Okay.
I think it would be appropriate too to ask the applicant to notify the neighbors listed on the application of the application. I believe agent Hallisey received at least one inquiry from a neighbor regarding the application. So there is interest. Okay, we'll do.
And then the only other note I had was if we could be given a written description of the construction sequence for the application. Agent Howessey, did you have any comment on that application?
Just wanted to clear that it's I have not reviewed it as far as the division of property I understand I realized this is wetlands I just wanted to let the record note that vision of property has not been reviewed and in part I bring that up because there was a lot of confusion with the recent application and it wasn't differentiated between the two and make sure that the record stated that early just wetlands review.
Any additional discussion on the application, before we move on? Hearing none then, we will move on to item 6C on the agenda. We have a new application, application number IWWC2 for Mr. Yanzinsky, who I believe is on the call. People keep moving on my screen. Oh, there you are. Okay, thank you. Amanda, can we unmute him? I just unmuted you. Thank you.
Okay. So this is an application. It should be posted online. There's several materials associated with the application for residential demolition at 40 Townsend Road. Road. I believe, agent Halsey, have you been in touch with the applicant about this application?
Yeah we spoke for two minutes the other day, only provided material. Applicant did have pre demo survey done by Mystic Air Quality which I believe a copy of that report was provided, and best this was abated and I believe a clearance clearance some provided but as a note what applicants proposing to do is is take the building down himself. It's really a deconstruction project as opposed to demo. Demo is building term. With there's vinyl siding on the property now, he intends to take that off. Underneath it there is no flat board. Now the house was built in the eighteen hundreds I believe and most definitely would would have been wood sided at that time. Apparently was removed so any lead there wouldn't be any lead paint. There's typically with a demo project very often they're wetted Building wet in order to minimize dust. Could be an issue. In this case it's not. In the fact that there is no there's no wood hiding. Believe he intends to reuse a lot of material.
Part of the reason I think he's taking it apart for what he is. But I did want to bring up a question. Are we planning to rebuild on the same foundation? No.
The reason I ask is could trigger some zoning issues. I will I will bring those up now and then. No, I'm not planning to rebuild on the same foundation.
Thank you. The application stated that you were going to be refilling in the basement and to current grade?
Yes, there's a small basement. It's not underneath the entire house, but I obviously need to fill it in. I'm not gonna leave a hole just sitting around.
If the commission recalls, we did previously do a sidewalk at this location. There was a previous application that was subsequently withdrawn. Does the commission wish to do another sidewalk? I don't feel it necessary or useful. Thank you. I agree with you.
Okay. I agree as well assuming none of the locational features of the property have changed which I don't believe they have. Don't think another sidewalk is necessary. We
will cross that off our list. So we cannot, we'll receive the application tonight. We need to wait at least two weeks before making any decisions on it. So we can discuss the application further at our June meeting if there's no additional questions for the applicant. I have no other questions. This is George. I have no questions.
Okay. Agent Halsey, could you draft erosion and sediment control? Can you work with the applicant to outline an erosion and sediment control plan should the application be approved? Certainly. You. You want that for the next meeting? Yes, please. Thank you.
Yeah, I believe the letter provided indicated that there wasn't specific measures outlined but that the applicant was willing to implement whatever measures were recommended by the commission. Correct all right so we will move on then
one comment please I'm not able to immediately locate this application on the town website, and it was not included in the email attachments for this meeting. So I would appreciate if we could ensure that we get a copy of this application.
So I believe Amanda has it currently displayed from the town website. Amanda, are you able to go back to Yes, John. Can everyone see my screen?
I can see the application on screen. It's showing page 107, yes.
Okay, yep. This is on the website. So I will show you all the information for this application. So everything for 40 Townsend Road is listed here.
Can you scroll up, Amanda, just to kinda show what page you're on? Yeah, so if you go
to boards and committees. Yeah, that's where I started. Go to appointed and then click on Inland Wetlands.
So you have to scroll down. And scroll down and scroll down and scroll The current moving documents. Wait a minute, I lost it.
I'm working on my other screen. Trust me, it'll look so much better with our new website soon. I promise. I think we'll access to the improved, yes. Coming soon, but for now it's all listed here.
Oh, okay, current meeting document. I shouldn't scroll down for now. Thank you. Got it. Okay, welcome. Merci. I'm
having trouble with the town email sharing documents, so I apologize. I will work to get them to Amanda and then send links to you guys, I think might be the best way to approach it because the email system seems to be removing attachments that I try to send out. That's been challenging for us. But everything I've received prior to today related to applications is up on the website.
So please let me know if you'd like to see any of these documents right now. Nope. Got that one.
So let's move on. Mr. Yanzitski, before we move on actually, do you have any questions of the commission? Yes.
So I don't want my application to be rolled in incomplete. I have not submitted payment for it yet or the fees. Yes. Could you tell me how much and is it just a check that I write to town of Andover and send it in or? Yeah, thank you. Your email actually prompted us to
include a note on this webpage to help clarify that for applicants. So yes, if you can make a check out to the town of Andover and we will confirm with you but I think it would be the $60 state fee along with for a single family residence $150 so $210 to the town of Andover and then you can mail it to town hall. Okay,
thank you. You're welcome. And we're trying to provide applicants with a little bit of leniency with the payment since you obviously can't walk into town hall and pay right now. We have it by next meeting. I think you should be okay.
All right very good so next meeting is next month first month yes
I believe June 1 I don't have a calendar in front of me pull my calendar up for you Well, that's easy enough. Okay. Just wanted to make sure we hadn't done a special date. Let me double check. Nope. It is still June 1. Thank you. You're very welcome. All right, so we'll move on to new item 6D, which is the pre application request for 26 Old Farms Road. These materials I will have to pull up on my screen because I did not have a chance to ask Amanda to post them. Amanda, how do I take over screen share? Hey, Megan? Okay. You can try now.
Hi. This is this is Eric Lateska. I'll be probably speaking to this pre application thing. I I actually have, another drawing that might be, a little bit better for for us to look at. I could share my screen if that would help. Can you do that Amanda?
So Eric, if you see at the bottom of your screen, the green button, feel free to share screen. Eric, how do you pronounce your last name? Oh good question, Loteska. Loteska, thank you. Okay we can see it. Yeah. Okay, everyone can see it?
Eric can you just tell us your interest in the property?
Yeah, so pre application is definitely accurate here. This is, we have no interest in the property other than perhaps a future interest. It's on the market for sale. We got to the point where we were negotiating with the sellers before the health crisis really took root and then it's kind of stalled. But we're still sort of hoping to understand a couple of things about what we may or may not be able to do with the property, that brought us first to the, Planning and Zoning Commission a couple of weeks ago, and now we're here with a new set of questions for the for the Wetlands Commission. Okay. Thank you.
I should say there's two of us here on the call. My brother-in-law George Correa, he and I, I guess, are both representing our households because what we have sought out to do, know, if not with 26 Old Farms Road, perhaps some other land, is to sort of, join forces, in acquiring some land, maybe splitting it in half, subdividing it, and then potentially building two separate single family dwellings on the land. We came across 26 Old Farms Road, and the acreage, you know, was in the neighborhood we were looking for, and we're basically in the process of trying to figure out whether or not we could essentially subdivide the property into two lots. And the issue that brings us before this commission is basically getting access to the land. The land is actually here outlined in red. I'm kind of going over it with my mouse pointer to show you what it is. This is on this drawing, lot 3. If you get rid of all the colors, this drawing was actually submitted with a building permit application where this orange area was, was the original plan for the buildable area. The current owners had this drawn up and submitted. We grabbed the records from the town and started drawing on top of it to show some concepts. Maybe most importantly for this group, what's outlined in red or rather green here is the wetlands as they were drawn back in the early 2000s. So we recognize that there's some, you know, some time has gone by, but that's what we're working with
for Quick the
question, sorry to interrupt you. So House Number 1, was that built as drawn?
No, a little bit of excavation was done and some work on a driveway accessing the land was done. A little bit of clearing and I think some materials were brought in, but no building, there was no foundation or anything poured. It stopped and the property's been on the market for some time.
Your background, do you have expertise? Are you a developer in construction?
No. So, actually, I, you know, I kinda when I was going through what I wanted to say here, I wanted to actually start off by introducing myself and and my brother-in-law really quickly. You know, there's two families involved. I just wanna, you know, for this commission, know, not not a matter of real, official business here, but, like, you know, we're two we're two close families. We're looking to move into town. My wife is actually a teacher at the elementary school. She's been there for almost fifteen years. My daughter's enrolled in the pre K program. Both George and his wife and then our family, we're looking to set ourselves up in the next community for the next phase of our lives here. We're not looking to develop and sell this property. My background is actually, I'm in insurance, but George, my brother-in-law is, and George, you know, keep me honest here, feel free to speak up, but George is a superintendent at a at a general contractor. He's got experience kind of overseeing a range of construction projects, working with the the officials in the building department, zoning department, things like that. And George, you know, George really kinda is the brains of the operation. If any difficult questions get asked, I promise you, I'm gonna throw it over to him pretty quickly.
And that's what I was trying to assess, was whether you're happy, if we had technical questions, whether your background allowed you to, you know, be able to answer them or not. Does the commission have any questions at this point?
This is George Elliott. And I wondered if, since there was clearly a lot designated and you mentioned some activities that would have been probably under the jurisdiction of the Inland Wetlands Commission at that time. Are you aware of any permit having been issued for that activity?
Yes, there was. There was an erosion and sediment control plan that was submitted and approved and that was the work that they started. So what they started to do was they set up a runoff pond, they set up silt fencing, and they began some work on the road or the drive going to the house buildable area that's highlighted in orange. And then that work started, but for whatever reason, it stopped and then the land went on to the market. Okay. Thank you.
So just so I I actually have another view that's a little more zoomed in, I think, on the important area that that, you know, we'd like to talk about specifically, but just to orientate you a little bit. This is a, this lot, Lot Number 3, is a rear lot. Old Farms Road is up here. It's actually not in the picture. You follow this up, this is a driveway. It's actually an easement with a driveway on it. There's a two way easement between the current owners of this property of the land, Lot 3, and this lot just beside here.
Therein kind of lies a potential problem for us. Guess the reason we're before the committee here is because we know having spoken with the zoning, planning and zoning committee is that you know basically there's two, there's three things that, need to happen in order for us to be able to access this land and to be able to get to two subdivided parcels. Right now the way the easement works is, you know, this this land would have access through the easement. The, in order to get to the second buildable area back here that we've just sort of conceptually drawn up at the moment, you know, a driveway could be, or a drive of some kind could have been, can be cleared giving access through, through the front part of the lot, I guess the front basically the way the drawing is showing here. Is the obstacles there are one, of course, getting the party that uses the driveway already to agree to the easement to make it three way. We're, we're unsure of the what the outcome to that to that could be. The another issue is, of course, the elevation on this map isn't really shown, but at least the way that this is drawn, we know that there's a pretty steep grade through here. Know, we'd either have to we think it's outside of the regulation. The zoning regulation may force us to either do some grading at least, if not do some paving, could drive the cost of the project up pretty considerably. And then, of course, the three way driveway actually requires a variance from the zoning regulations.
I don't know, you know, I don't get the sense that the outlook on that is, you know, is that it's impossible. So I think it's the uncertainty really comes from the other household that uses the driveway and then, you know, some of the issues with crossing the land. So, you know, we're before this committee to actually ask about this, potential leg, from another street, Pine Ridge Drive. This is actually land, that belongs to this, to this lot. This little strip of land goes up. George, I if I'm let me know if I'm wrong here. I think across the way, directly across perpendicular to the two lines, it's fifty fifty feet across. 50 feet. Okay.
And the radius up here says 75 feet. We know we can meet the zoning requirements in terms of the width of the driveway. The issue is, of course, that we run, you know, this would be going over this wetland area where runoff from Old Farms Road runs, and and goes through, you know, right through here. Have you walked the property?
Yeah a few maybe a dozen times or so we've we've walked we've walked this quite a bit. We actually just visited over the weekend to take some field measurements of this.
Okay can you understand that you're not a soil scientist or a wetland scientist, do you feel that that's an accurate depiction that there's wetlands in that area near Pine Ridge?
Yeah, I mean it looks you know very similar to what we see when we get down there. I will say we, you know, there's a low lying area, that seems to be maybe a little bit, bigger than this. When we scale this and take measurements, I think this area we came up with, George, 1,500 square feet or?
Yeah, in scaling the drawing from what was delineated as wetlands from this original sketch here, it comes out to about 1,500 square feet. But we went out and just field measured, you know, with a tape measure and we were closer to 2,500 square feet. Well, we believe 2,500 square feet. So it seemed a little bit bigger in field condition.
So this may be this may be accurate as as actual wetland. I think our measurement was really of, a low lying area that that extended perhaps a little bit wider than this, but I you know, we're we're thinking about the area that we we, you know, would need some fill and some construction and you know obviously the work to make sure that water flow isn't disturbed under any circumstances. I think the area we're talking about is more like 2,500 square feet.
It's curious to me that there's that kind of kick out to Pine Ridge. Does the current property owner have any insight on that? I mean, to me, almost would suggest that the intention was to develop it in that direction, but just curious if you know the history of the property and why there is that little piece to Pine Ridge.
We haven't been told any history of why that access was given to Pine Ridge like that.
But it's on the original subdivision plan, right George? Yes. So when does that date back to? Late 80s, '88, '89, I believe. Right, The Woodlands? Yeah, it's The Woodlands 2. Yeah. So how can I help you?
Okay, so thank you for, you know, first letting me go through all that. What we're trying to understand, one is like, we form some kind of an outlook of the way of what this commission would say? Would you be approving of something like this or there maybe if that's too much to ask, you know, without without an application is, you know, like, what's what are the the regulations that may permit or prohibit us from doing something like this so that, you know, we can get our bearings and and form our, form our own outlook. Because as I said, this is property that's on the market that we are, you know, perhaps looking to acquire, but I think, you know, understanding whether or not we're gonna be able to do some of the things that we we are trying to do here ultimately is going to probably determine whether or not we're making offers.
Sure. So wetlands, we try to be aware of zoning concerns and that's why we have a commissioner that is appointed to sit on both commissions. But we don't make our decisions based on any of the zoning requirements. Our job is to look at an application based on the impact to wetlands or watercourses regardless of who else might look at it and approve it. But we're a small town, we try to you know, save people headache when possible and point out, you know, possible conflicts that might come up. And we've been fortunate in the past to have someone who served both as zoning agent and wetland agent. And and Jim's currently, assuming that role in the interim as well, to try and help bridge that gap. So the zoning issues that you've brought up, I don't think we can help you with, in terms of wetland because it's it's outside of our purview. In terms of wetlands, I mean, we might be able we have in the past when someone came before us asking to subdivide a property, we talked to them about things, ways to be more environmentally sensitive with the design approach and gave them some suggestions to consider before submitting an application. I don't think it would be unreasonable for the commission to do that. Jed or George, I don't know if you want to weigh in with any thoughts.
Well, this is George Elliott. And it seems to me that, fundamentally, from our point of view, from the inland wetlands point of view, what you'd be looking for would be a permit for wetland crossing. Yes. Exactly.
And that's pretty straightforward. And as Chairman Lawley says, we have discussed such pre applications previously, and it wouldn't be beyond the scope of our effort to look at a preliminary plan for such a crossing prior to an actual application. So if we were But the point would be, you would be leading toward application for a wetland crossing. And that's what we'd be willing to
review and comment on. Well, just a point of clarification. If any of the activity is within 100 feet of a wetlands, you would need a wetlands permit. So just it's not just the problem if you end up, taking the other approach, you still may need a wetlands permit for this application without knowing distances offhand I can't say yes or no for sure. And in order to give you a permit either way, we would need a wetlands delineation probably in this case. So I think we would be inclined to request a new wetlands delineation for sure. Do you have a sense between the two driveway options? Is one longer than the other, I guess is the simplest way to put it?
Yes, so if we were to come in and access the back house from Pine Ridge that driveway would be approximately 500 feet or so. If we were to access that same rear house from Old Farms. Not including what's part of what the two way split driveway, it would be about 1,600 feet. And it would actually be closer to 2,000 feet or so, 2,100 feet from the house driveway to Old Farms. So that's another thing that it's a very, very long driveway. So
with that thought in mind, are you considering having both properties access from Pine Ridge Drive or is the only scenario from Pine Ridge House 2?
House 2 would be from Pine Ridge and House 1 would be from Old Farms. Okay. That's what we're thinking. Okay. Is that preferred application? Yes. Okay.
It also yeah. Sorry. Okay. With that in mind, because I think it's easier to discuss one scenario than multiple scenarios. Yes.
So let's talk is that we submit an application to wetlands, all other factors resolved by everybody else. House one would come in from Old Farms and house two would come in from Pine Ridge Drive. So that middle middle section of the driveway between House 1 And 2 would be eliminated. Correct.
Also, we've been talking with a civil engineer. It's Bushnell Associates. They were the outfit that originally did the surveying and they did the delineation of the wetlands and they did the deep hole percolation test for House 1. And he's very familiar with the area in this particular piece of property because I guess they've done quite a bit of work there. But he thought in his mind that they could fairly easily make a crossing there with minimal impact to the wetlands and virtually no impact to the water flow that goes through there. We would do like a culvert or whatever is required. We would get a hydrolysis to come and make a design for us and you know we would do everything with the least amount of impact and footprint to that area.
So I intentionally didn't mention this previously because I didn't wanna sway the conversation in any direction. I live on Pine Ridge Drive on the other side of the street from where the driver would be coming in. Oh, okay. So I don't think I would not benefit any more or less than anyone else in the universe from your proposal. So I don't think that matters. Other than that, I'm very familiar with, at least the manager side of the property. There was a case in town previously where someone was requesting an easement in that case through town property to do kind of an unusual construction. In that case, they had to span a brook. I thought in the materials that I had seen there was mention of a stream in this property. Is it just a wetlands or is there an actual watercourse?
It's seasonal. And when it rains, there is some water flow, but for the rest of the time, it seems that it's just, you know, like damp in, you know, in sort of muddy. Okay. But we went when we went there on Saturday there was water flowing there it was about maybe two inches of water flowing.
The lots are really small on Pine Ridge so one concern I would raise would be you know making absolute certain that whatever crossing was designed, there would be no concern of backflow or flooding of the adjacent property.
Yes, and that we would rely on a civil engineer in hydrolysis to calculate that and to make sure that that wouldn't happen. So I would basically over design it.
Yes. And we have no problem me knowing in going size larger what pipe or whatever may, you know, whatever is required to make sure that that we wouldn't be any future issues. Vice Chairman Elliott, did you want to say something?
Okay, I wondered if speaking of future impact, this water court you mentioned is essentially from Times Road and more or less downslope towards Pine Ridge Drive, am I correct?
It seems the water that's accumulated in this area from, it comes from two catch basins that are on Old Farms Road. And they discharge into an area alongside of 20 Old Farms Road. And then from there. That's where the. Eric, if you come up closer to the number 17. But know the other way. Yeah. The to catch basins discharge into an area over here, or the water then makes its way down the hill. And there's also runoff because there's a lot of slope in here where the two property lines are from Lot 2 to Lot 1. So all of the water that's running off the surface basically ends up down into that little valley where we wanna make our crossing. Okay.
And then the water continues on looking at the map to the left. And then I haven't walked down that way to see where it actually goes but it just continues on to the left That valley there, there's a it's about a it's about a 30 foot drop from out here to here maybe.
Oh, from there to the other side where the 75 foot back lot line is or so. Yeah. Yeah.
That's there's a it's about 100 foot crossing and it drops down about 30 feet.
Commissioner Larson, is there anything you wanted to? Any thoughts you can provide given you're sitting on planning and zoning as well and might have some sense of how it would be received there?
Well, I don't know if Jim had spoken to the applicant since the last discussion of planning and zoning, but we did have Jim and I when we talked about this a little bit following, we were concerned about the ability to provide frontage on both of the lots. And when we discussed it at planning and zoning, we thought the width of that little strip going out to Pine Ridge Road was 75 feet wide. And so you could have a rear lot using the open space subdivision with a minimum frontage of 35 feet, so you could split that. Now that it's only 50 feet, if you were to split it between the two lots to provide any frontage at all, you don't have the 35 feet per lot, which is the requirement for open space subdivision. I think the 50 foot that you have there is because that's the minimum for a rear lot under normal subdivision rules.
So I know Jim had a concern about, you know, having a lot with no frontage being problematic? And I bring that up in the wetlands meeting because I know time is of the essence for you guys. Yeah,
I thought it was it was my understanding that for a ARD open space rear lot with deed restrictions. It was a 50 foot. I'm sorry, it was 25 feet per lot, which that puts us at 50 feet and that's what we have there.
I'd have to go back and look, I can't remember and I don't have those regulations in front of me right now. Just I did my thinking based on 75 feet across there and thought that that would not be a problem for you. Now, I don't know and I'll have to go take a look at that. If you say you've looked at it and it's 25 feet, that could still work then.
Is the frontage, I mean, I know this is a zoning thing, but is the frontage here based on this radius or is it based strictly on this diameter? I mean, there's 75 feet of frontage to the street with a radius in it.
Well, and that's a fine point. The regulations talk about the width of the strip going to the rear lot, and that would be 50 feet as opposed to 75. Okay.
I'm sorry, Jeff. So I would ask Jim if you've got any insight, you know, based on you're looking at that over the last couple of weeks.
My recollection was. Looking at the screen at the planning and zoning meeting. I was caught off guard because one of the lots didn't have any frontage at all and I've spent some time with George looking at this and I don't recall ever that came up. I believe it's 25 feet 25 foot for the rear lot. Now that you bring it up, I'm not quite sure how it's measured, and I know how a lot width is measured, but but I'm not sure how the the rear lot for the ARD is measured, whether there's.
Jim, I just went to our chart and and he is correct. It is 25 feet required frontage for the open space subdivision.
Frontage or lot width? I mean, we use the term lot width. Lot width shouldn't be an issue And I don't know why it was 50 you know why it would have been 50 feet. It is minimum for a a road roadway. Might have been consideration at that time. It seems to work for an ARD subdivision. NARD, yeah, the open space. Relax.
Agent Halsey, since if they were to purchase the property, they would probably be leaning on you to help prepare both applications for zoning and for wetlands. Do you have any questions of the commission that we could answer right now for you?
Oh, I wanted to get a sense as how the commission might view. I I view this as an intermittent stream. And it I did I walked in from Pine Ridge Drive, not coming off of old farms. And it drops fairly abruptly as you as you approach that intermittent stream and that would be fair amount of fill you brought in.
So it drops down towards the stream and then climbs back up the hill to where the residents would be? Yes.
Okay. I didn't actually experience that climb just because I I stopped there. Okay. But obviously, that's
So understanding you're not an engineer, would it be feasible to put a structure across to span it?
Is that question for Jim or is that for us? Sorry. Anyone that feels like an answer. Yes. Could be yes. Okay, so it's not impossible.
No, no. Okay. My concern was was I know the commission looked at alternatives. Yes. And she's trying to identify deal breaker early on.
That's what the applicant obviously wants to do. Sure, likewise. I think as we walk through this application, it seems like maybe I don't know how the easement access came to be from the initial attempt at developing it, but it seems like it actually may have been intended to be developed from the Pine Ridge Drive side. Yeah, that could be true.
I'm not sure we can offer you much more than what we've given you tonight at this point. I don't know if this has been helpful for you guys or
It has been. Can I just pick a little bit of that last topic about whether or not trucking in some fill and having a culvert? I mean, think that's the distinction that's being made there. And I don't know if the intermittent stream versus just wetland has some bearing on the difference here with how we cross that area, but, I mean, if we weren't trying to build up the area, you know, to sort of match the elevation on both sides with fill, it would still dip down. Is that something that could work or are we really talking about having to have something span these two elevated areas?
I'm not sure about seeing the site or at least photos of it to really better understand the topography and hydrology there that we could answer that question. I think it's likely that commission would want you to be as environmentally conservative as possible with the application design.
Would it make sense for us to have civil engineer come up with an initial plan and submit it to you guys for some review?
I mean, that's up to you whether you want to outlay that expense. It's sort of a fuzzy zone. Don't know. I don't know if we've ever, know, like looked at a plan for a property that was owned by somebody else for the you know, the two parties in discussion were not, one of the owners. So
it start I mean, I think at some point, you guys will have to take a leap and you know, risk potentially being turned down at, other wetlands or zoning. I don't think from at least a wetlands perspective, I think there's certainly ways that unless there's something that hasn't come up like a, I don't know, I can't even think of an example. But based on what you presented to us tonight, I think there's certainly solutions that could be made because our job is not to prevent development. It's just to make sure that if it's done, it's done in the best possible way to protect. I do think there's solutions for that.
The zoning issue, can't help you with. If I could just address Eric's question perhaps, mean a culvert would still involve a significant amount of fill, not that you would be spanning that wetlands. You'd have both a covered and fill, significant fill.
Yep. I just, yeah, mean I just, I don't want to make it seem like there's a 30 foot drop in elevation we are going to span over 100 feet with fill. Is not, you know, whatever got designed, given that it is going to manage the water flow properly, I don't think we would fill any higher than we actually need to to make sure that the flow of the water isn't disrupted. Is that right, George? Am I describing that?
Yes, we would fill it in so that we would meet the minimum slope grading regulations that are by the town, which are basically anything less than 10% can be a gravel driveway, and anything between 10 to 15% can has to be paved, and nothing greater than 15% so we would be somewhere. Preferably in the nine to 10% grade and keep it gravel. So we would probably have to lift it up probably about, I'm guessing about 15 feet in order to make those numbers work. So we're looking at probably bringing in somewhere around a thousand yards of materials.
I mean, my guess is kind of knowing the site a little bit, it may be intermittent and not have a lot of flow, when it does not flow, I would expect a lot of flow coming off of that and fast. Yeah, for develops it, it would be in their interest to make sure that the design can handle that so it doesn't wash out especially if it's your only.
Yeah, and speaking with Andrew, who's the civil engineer that I was talking with, they would do it. I think the way he worded it was to the one hundred year flood or something along those lines. He thought they would probably be like a 30 to 36 inches pipe that goes across there, which is that's a big pipe.
Yeah, and so my, my background is natural resources. Do river and stream monitoring and stuff like that. So I have some, some knowledge of this stuff. I'm not an engineer, however. But just kind of knowing knowing the property a little bit, you know, not that particular location, but I would expect it to be a really, a really flashy system. So if it's, you know, draining that development up top.
Yeah, and he thought that it might even be multiple pipes too.
That's what yeah, I think if part of that fill is, know, culverts that are allowing water through them. I think there are options available too.
Megan, this is Jed. Is this something that we ought to take a sidewalk on before the next meeting or does that get the cart on the wrong side of the horse?
I think all things considered between the fact that it's not an application, coronavirus and everything else in between, I'm kind of inclined to say no on that unless others feel strongly in a different direction. Megan, this is Linda. Yes. The people presenting don't even own the property anyway, so True.
That was the point I wanted to make. This is George. And I think that given the fact that, again, the discussion is purely theoretical at this point, I don't think we should make any time to visit the location.
Okay. So it sounds like the commission does not wish to schedule a site visit at this point. You can continue to work with agent Halsey to try to put together an application if you'd like to submit one before the commission obviously to either purchase the property or finance arrangement with the current owner to be able to do that. But I think that would be the next step that we'd be able to entertain. Okay, thank
you for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. Yes, thank you. And sorry, sorry we ended up on the topic of zoning and planning, but we appreciate everyone's patience and thank you for all the information.
No problem. Thank you both. All right, so let's move on the agenda item seven a, enforcement actions. Agent Halsey, do you have any updates to report on the violation reported at Townsend Road?
Spoke to Beth Hagerty today. He indicated he's still recuperating from surgery. He indicated he would take care of the brush sometime in June.
Is that satisfactory from your perspective? Yes. Commissioner Larson or Vice Chairman Elliott, do you wish to comment?
This is George Elliott. I haven't seen any activity there. Again, as Jim says, conclusion. We wouldn't expect to see anything going on there. And I don't see any reason to pursue it any further at this point. I think that Jim is correct. The matter is in hand. Thanks, Jed. I agree with George. Okay.
All right. So we'll just ask, I guess, even how we'll see maybe revisit in June prior to our meeting and see if there's anything that warrants the commission to review. Okay. So we'll move on to item seven b. Notice of violation regarding a disturbance to a wetland at 28 Shotty Mill Road.
Yeah I did. I got a call on that I had gone out there, I got a call before I actually issued notice, right, and I went out and I spoke to the owner and I followed up with a letter letting him know that he needs secure a permit for any activity within 100 feet or at least go to wetlands he's doing any any work within 100 foot of and he was amenable to that. Basically I asked him to give me a call and go over the particulars. He had no real project going on. Owns some heavy equipment and he and he seems to be doing Genenza but I'll work with him.
Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Larson or Vice Chairman Elliott, any comment? George Elliott, no comments. Chad, no comments.
We'll move on then to item seven c, an order to remediate and we may wanna just combine discussion for seven c and seven d. There was an order to remediate issued for properties 41 Route 87 and 33 Route 87 owned by Sandra Nichols and Kurt Bohm respectively. Agent Halsey can you provide updates on the status of that enforcement action?
Okay I speak to Sandra Nichols owner of 41 Route 87. I had a little trouble getting a hold of her. She's working with an attorney. She wants some further information on contractor and she wants some oversight, and I am working on that. I also spoke to Bert Boehm owner of the property at 33 and he we discussed whether he definitively had to move the shed off the property or whether the Commission would entertain an alternative. We're looking at that as a possibility. Unfortunately, it's a pretty tight, very tight lot. There's not a lot of property. There's not a lot of space on that property that is 100 feet from wetlands. Looking at the possibility of presenting he's looking at the possibility of presenting an alternative application would allow for placing the shed on the surface he is able to
to do, he is not required to to put frost protection in per building code if it's a shed under 600 square feet. So that's an option that he'd like to explore. Hopefully I will have. A little better direction on the actual. Removal of. Material. In the near future, few weeks. Chairman Elliot or Commissioner Larson, any questions or comments? George Elliott, no questions or comments. Jed, no questions.
Okay, thank you. We will move on then to item 7E under enforcement. A cease and desist order was issued regarding removal and deposition of material into a wetland without a permit. We held a special meeting on the fourteenth. That was a show cause hearing associated with that. And agent Halsey, can you provide us with an update on that enforcement action?
I did get a call from the owner, Ruby, as she was encouraged to contact me at the last meeting. And she actually provided me with with a map of wetland soils. Apparently she had one from had one prepared when they did an addition on the property a couple years ago. So it's a start and I did speak to actually her husband, Ruby's husband, over the weekend and he's preparing them. He's having his architect prepare a plan it's rather an ornate fence and I've gotten a lot of calls, a lot of interest in this, a lot of concern. Hopefully I will have a plan
I did just ask to pull up the wetlands map that was submitted just so I see.
It should be relatively easy to transfer that information on the wetlands map that she had done onto a base map. Seems like it would be workable.
Is this it Megan? Yes thank you. So as I understood it in reading through the report basically the area within the bounds labeled number three was delineated as wetland soil.
I don't think this was the map that she provided but I could be wrong. It was colored colored map. It was on
I might not have received that map because I think this was the report that I was given.
Okay. What I've seen, and it seems to be just a generalized soils map with, you know, Woodridge, Charlton's, Paxton's, you know, various soil types, but I don't see this as delineating wetlands. Okay. She did Yeah, provide me
let me check my files real quick and see if it didn't. I think the only thing I received was this report. Yeah. I think what I what was posted was all I received. So if you have any additional Zoom that you can share, can you send it to us? I will send it. George, to your comment, the report does indicate that it was based on a field inspection where they Yeah.
But this attachment is simply of SOLS. I realized that a SOLS survey was done and a wetland survey was done referred to in the letter, but the attachment is simply an NRCS SOLS map. So
we're looking for a map that might include the pink flagging tape sequence stuff one through 12? Okay. Alright. If you have something additional, Jim, can you share it with the commission? Yeah. Right now, I will send I it don't mean right now. Prior to the next meeting. I will. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so I think that concludes enforcement. Was there any further discussion or comments on item 7E? Commissioner Larson or Vice Chairman Elliott? I'm sorry. I had no comment.
Okay. So hearing none, we'll move on to item eight public comment. Any public comment at this time? Amanda, is there a way to unmute all? Don't know how are people able to unmute themselves?
One by one and see who would like to participate.
Obviously, how do people tell us if they wish to comment? So first we'll start off with Janus. Hi, no comment.
Okay. Scott, Persson, did you want to participate at all? I'm all set, Amanda. Okay. Jeff Maguire, would you like to speak?
You're not good there. Hank, would you like to participate? No, I'm all set. Thanks Amanda.
Okay. Amanda, quick Thanks for Quick question for the board. Can everybody hear me? Yes. So I have asked a couple of times to get the town's potential project on the corner of Shawty And Wales looked at. Do we have any further discussion on that from the Wetlands Commission? I did speak with Jim about that earlier today and we decided not to add it to the agenda because we didn't have anything to look at. So I think if you can get us a a map or a photo or, you know, just anything that the commission could actually look at in order to discuss, that would be helpful. Okay.
We did also talk about, you know, if there's no, there's no language for emergency repairs in wetlands. But if it if it needs to be done, it can be done. And I know that the violation can be issued just to follow, you know, procedure and an application submitted after that. Understood.
So if you would like to submit an application at the June meeting, we can receive one then if you need us to do something sooner, we could call a special meeting if needed. Okay.
Okay. I think that covered everyone for public comment. Under other business item nine, I had put wetlands enforcement officer and duly authorized agent discussion. For the latter part, I had put that on last meeting's agenda, but if I recused myself from voting, we didn't have a quorum, so we just decided to push it to this agenda. But I did complete the state's wetland training. So if the commission wanted to, it could authorize me to serve as a duly authorized agent to review and approve permits in the upland review area that have only suspected to be minimal or no impact. And then other towns have put further restrictions on their duly authorized agents where if it's a commercial application, it automatically has to go to the commission. If it's greater than a certain acreage, it automatically has to go to the commission. I'm trying to think what other examples were put out there or just restricting it to things like sheds and decks and stuff like that. So I'm not advocating for it, not necessarily looking for more work, but I understand that it's been a challenge for Jim to fill in as in the wetlands role and that there's some things that maybe don't really need a thorough review by wetlands. So I will put that out there for the commission if they want to consider it. And on the wetlands officer side of things, just again thanking Jim for stepping up and agreeing to serve as wetlands agent. It was an interim agreement though, so I would like to remind the town management that we need a wetlands agent. We need one badly.
And I would hope that we can come up with a solution before our June meeting.
Megan, this is George Elliott. I would be happy to see you duly authorized, and I just sure hope we'll have a quorum at a meeting soon, in order to be able to take that issue, to vote.
Megan or Amanda, do you know if we have any applicants for the position yet?
Hi Jed, unfortunately we have not. I talked I spoke with Megan last week, and I know that it's a it's an issue, and it's one of my projects for this week to spread the word even more that we are looking for someone to fill the role. And I just wanted to thank Megan for all the efforts that she's put in. I know it's been a long time. And Jim. Oh, yeah. And Jim has really stepped up and we really appreciate it. And let's all put it out there, I would say, to any contacts we have. I know Megan sent us a few. So if you have any leads, feel free to send them our way. But it's definitely a priority.
I had previously looked into we are technically in the Eastern Connecticut Conservation District, but we sit right on the boundary of I believe it's the Central Connecticut Conservation District. So I think when Josh Narski first resigned, I reached out to the ECCD, the Eastern District, to explore using them as a wetlands agent. At the time we decided it was cost prohibitive. We have to pay an annual membership fee and then that would bring the hourly rate down to about $56 an hour, which was significantly higher than we had anticipated hiring at. However, we've had no success so far in recruiting an individual. So I've also reached out to the Central Conservation District more recently, they just hired an individual from Coventry to serve as one of their staff people and that individual will be serving as Coventry's wetland agent. She's new, so she'll be green and in need of training. But I wondered if it didn't make sense
to have her also serve as and over agent and maybe get a reduced rate given that she doesn't have experience even just to do some of the administrative stuff that Susan's not able to do and Jim really may not have the time to do. So I wanted the town to consider at least in the interim potentially taking on one of the conservation districts understanding that because the price is substantially higher than what we were hoping to pay someone hourly, the number of hours available would be reduced. But quite frankly, I can't keep doing the level of work I've been doing to support the commission. One of the things I wanted the commission to think about was election of officers. That's something we need to do nominations in June and my daughter's going into kindergarten in the fall so I'm gonna be less available than I've been. So I really need staff support if I'm gonna stay on as chairman, if that's something the commission wants and the town wants. If there's not an agent in place, I'm not I'm not going to raise my hand for that role.
And we also need more commissioners. Unfortunately lost Rick recently, we already had one vacancy. So his absence brings us to two. And then we do have Wayne Thorpe serving as an alternate but he hasn't been able to participate in meetings for quite some time now and I think know Ed Smith has been upfront that his availability is somewhat restricted as well. So having Commissioner Halsey service agent really further reduces our numbers. So this has become a significant problem for wetlands.
And I think I'm realizing that with our small town it's hard to recruit volunteers, because there's there are so many positions out there that we need help with, so I think maybe just figuring out how we can get creative and reach out to more people. Another thing to know is that Eric and myself and Jim and Susan are having a meeting this Thursday to figure out how the department as a whole can work more just effectively and efficiently. Everyone is working so hard, and we appreciate Susan and Jim's time so much. But, you know, how can I help? How can Eric help? How can we as a whole just make it more streamlined and figure out who's doing what and. Just make it better, because I think there's been so many changes
this past year and staff and we appreciate the Board of Selectmen approving more hours for the position because we know it's really necessary. So I think that will help to attract someone to the wetlands position. And I'm not sure if Scott is on, if he could, I don't know, if he has any ideas for us as a town to recruit more people to serve on wetlands. We also need members for ZBA as well.
Well, I'm just gonna tell you, Al right, I mean, as long as we're asking Jim to serve as our agent, if either George, Jed or myself can't make a meeting, a meeting is gonna be canceled. And that's going to start to be a real problem when our applications start to pick up. So it's going to be a problem for the town. Jed stepped up to serve as P and C chairman is my understanding. So I wouldn't be surprised if this availability is going to be at times more limited. But this is a problem and it needs to be brought to a higher priority than it's
happen to know of other people in town with interest in this or experience?
Unknown There are other people in town with experience, I think Hank probably knows most of them. But quite honestly, I don't feel it should be the responsibility of the commission to be knocking on doors. I think the Board of Select may
on doors. Just don't know who to knock on. How do we reach people, is a good question. I know we've been working on social media, a new website. We have our emergency alert, but, you know, how do we personally reach out to people? I'm not sure if, Scott or Jeff McGuire, if you have any insight or anyone that you may know that would be interested that I could reach out to. Are they on the line still? Scott, are you there by any chance? Hang on. There you are.
And Hank, I'm not sure if you're there right now either.
Yeah. I'm here. Any insight would be great. I know it's Yeah. We're having the same challenge with conservation commission. You know, I I I've approached some folks from that end that I haven't I've struck out with the Conservation Commission, trying to get some folks engaged. Yeah, you know, I don't know as many I don't know anybody else with more wetland experience. Mean, there's Steve Fish, who was from ex DEP, who did a fair amount of time in various commissions in town, and I don't think he's interested. I know I'm on some boards with him. I know he's ratcheting back his time. He's involved with One that comes to mind is Gordon Stratton, who used to be involved with the Lake Commission, I believe. I believe he's an engineer, but he was pretty sharp with environmental concerns and knew the town well. I don't know what his status is. Haven't talked with Gordie in many years now. You know, he comes to mind. I don't know, Eric, do you know him? Is he around at all still? Eric's on the call anymore.
I know Gordy fairly well. He's a industrial hygienist. So he's a good science background, but travels a lot or he has. I don't know whether he still is or not, whether he's still traveling.
I mean, and people with expertise are obviously great and phenomenal to have on the commission, but so are people with local knowledge. I think Rick Osborne was a great example of that. He didn't have a background academically in natural resources or anything like that, but he knew this town like the back of his hands and he could provide a lot of really helpful insight on applications. I wouldn't want to discourage people to feeling like they can't volunteer for the commission because that's not their professional or academic background. So just to put that out there. Good point. And would you be able to send me Gordon's contact info? Boy, don't even know if I have it anymore. I can get it to you. Okay, thank you.
I would offer one other thought for the board of selectmen to consider. This is not typically, something that's thought to be favorable. But a combined wetlands and conservation commission, I think in a town like ours where the population pool is so small, it might make sense to look at what it would take to combine commissions and the pros and cons of doing so. Because if neither commission is really being effective because it's shorthanded, then maybe a joint commission would be more effective. I don't know. That would require ordinance changes and charter changes and things like that. That exists in other towns? Yes. There's a variety of models across the state. This little history lesson, some of the initial wetlands commissions were actually called conservation commission. So towns, sometimes their wetlands commission is their conservation commission. Other towns like ourselves have two separate commissions. And then other a third option is where well, sometimes have no conservation commission by law, you have to have a wetlands but not a conservation. So I guess the fourth option would be towns have a joint conservation and wetlands commission, which in I think a larger town, you know, like I work professionally with the town of Greenwich, they have two commissions, they're a huge town with you know, a lot of you know, huge applications, it makes sense.
I think for the size of our town, maybe that's something we should think about as a way to be more effective across the commissions. I don't know. It's a thought I'll put out there because I think we're at a point where we need to think outside the box. I think that's a very good idea, Megan.
George Eliot here. Regrettably, any move to reconstitute the commission would require a change in the charter, which brings us to the same dilemma as our former charter revision committee was unable reliably to pull together a quorum in order to get a hearing or a valid meeting. And therefore, our last attempt at charter revision went absolutely nowhere. So just saying here, I think that it's a good idea and certainly worth looking at, but it's more than something that simply having the Board of Selectmen look at it would require. It would require a charter revision, and that's a whole process in itself.
There might be a loophole. So the authority of wetlands comes from the state statutes
And It's in the state. It's in the town charter. There will be a conservation commission. There will be a conservation commission.
I understand that. But what I was saying is the state wetland statute authorizes the town to make their own commission by ordinance. So there may be a poll in the meantime. I don't know. I think it's worth talking to lawyers and exploring if the Conservation Commission would be amenable to it because we're not recruiting new people. I don't know where to find people. I mean, especially right now when we can't leave our houses, it's not the best time to be trying to recruit.
Fundamentally, we do have a human resource problem for small tab and trying to get people, even though, I mean, I'm currently on the committee to select members for an advisory committee for the Andover Community Fund. In other words, we're trying to recruit people to give away money. And even there, it's difficult.
Now if you recruit people to get money, I'm sure you'll have much more success.
Right, right. But Megan, do think that that's something that we can pursue is to coordinate the both of those commissions. I think that's a very good idea and I'm going to look into it myself.
I think if you yeah even just kind of procedurally what it would take and then obviously just speaking for myself really not even for wetlands because we haven't had a chance to discuss this before tonight but I don't you know what I'm blindside conservation if they're adamantly opposed to it but I don't know of any other solutions at this point.
I think it's a good idea, Megan. I think the challenges though there are, you know, there's very different roles for a conservation commission and a wetland commission. You know, so I think from the conservation commission standpoint, we would want to be clear on the planning aspect. What the wetlands can't do is sort of the longer term conservation planning, which is what the Conservation Commission can do. So, So, I think we'd have to think. Now, there are other ways to get at that though. It doesn't necessarily have to come out of conservation commission. So, we'd need to think about that. And I think you're right. We do have a challenge and it may make because of the size of the Taliban and the pool of folks to get it may be a challenge to really populate the two commissions separately.
I think would you because I don't know which towns offhand have joint commissions. Would you be able to look into that at all so we could maybe ask them how they handle those challenges? Yeah, I'd be willing to do that. Know there are some. I know that, you know, that's a bit frowned upon.
You know, the Mackie Wickin folks, they started to really Yeah. Try to drive commissions to rather than having separate commission or rather than having a single commission to form separate commissions. And a large part of that, I think, was to try to get more effective conservation planning versus just focused on site by site regulatory, which I also I'm a big believer in. Have to do planning, you know, or you get behind the eight ball. But there are other ways to do the planning. It doesn't have to be through, as I mentioned, a conservation commission or a town's park. It can be handled through the plan of conservation development through some committees and so forth. Yeah, I can look at that. I know there are some that still, that have combined commission, but it's not many. But I'd be willing to look into that.
Thank you, Hank. And maybe, I think maybe we can connect offline too and brainstorm a bit. Sure.
We just have to be careful about being transparent government. So let's think about that with the connecting offline. That was all I had for this evening. I don't know if anyone else needs your last chance before we entertain a motion to adjourn. Okay, well, hearing no further discussion then I will entertain a motion to adjourn. I move to adjourn. Ten seconds.
All right. I'll do roll call vote. Vice Chairman Elliott, how do vote? Yes.
Thank you. Commissioner Larson, how do vote? Aye. Thank you. And Chairman La la I vote aye as well. So motion to adjourn at eight 51 three zero zero. Thank you all for your time.
Bye. Thanks for watching the show. Thank you all. Bye. Nice job. Hello.