Meeting transcript
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission - Regular Meeting
July 13, 2021 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
Meeting of the Town of Andover, Connecticut Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Commission to order at 7PM on 07/13/2021. On the screen, I see Commissioner William Monroe and Commissioner Jed Larson present. I was expecting Ed Smith, but he's not on the call yet. And I also see our agent Joe Wagner, So, we'll take that as read for the roll call and seating of alternates. The next item would be changes in order to the agenda. Are there any proposals to revise the agenda? Okay, if we're good to go, then we have, next on the agenda, the approval of our minutes from our last meeting, a special meeting on May 27. I'd like a motion to approve those minutes. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.
I'll second that, but there is one what I thought was a typo. Could well be.
Section eight D, it says code complaint instead of I think probably code compliant. Okay. Let's see. Which, okay. It's item eight b d as in dog. Oh, sorry. Yep, fourth line down in that paragraph.
Okay, I see it as code on my well, I'm looking at the current posted version. Okay.
But take note of that and we'll move on to accept the minutes as corrected. I second it.
Okay, and let's see, I don't know if we need a roll call vote, but we'll go ahead with it. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Munro? Aye. And I, acting Chairman Elliott, vote aye as well. So, the motionoh, I see now that Ed Smith is on the call, so note that for the minutes. It's being recorded. Ed, we are approving the minutes of the May 27 meeting, but I believe you were I don't recall if you were present at that meeting. I've got to go back on them and see if you are okay, you were absent, so you would abstain in any event. So, we have a motion carrying three -zero-zero-two pass to approve the special meeting minutes.
Mr. Smith.
Sorry I'm late. I went to town hall. Should have read everything more clearly. I can barely hear, so I'm going to hook up some speakers while you're talking. Okay,
that's why I have headphones, not to mention the fact that there's noise canceling, so we can zone out some of the background. I got kicked out of my office because my kids and grandkids are visiting, and my study has been commandeered for my grandson's bedroom. Okay, that was an aside that doesn't need to be in the minutes. Okay, so we've got approval of the minutes and go back to the agenda. Okay, the next item, number five, would be public comment. Are there members of the public? I only see one present, but do we want to have any comment on any of the items on the agenda or inquiries of the Board Commission?
Yes, this is Kevin Shays. I bought that property, my wife and I, at 436 Lake Road. Mhmm. And we're interested, as we talked about on the site walk back in December about taking down some trees to get a view of the lake and. I my builder had spoken with Joe Wagner early on the process and the feedback we got that this was something we're going to need to bring before the board. I want to know if this was the appropriate time to talk about it, or at least suggest maybe a sidewalk or find out what I need to do to
advance this.
Well, in fact, speaking for the Commissioner, I can say that we could discuss in a general way your intentions, but really what we need is permit application to form as a basis, you know, for further discussion and for subsequent approval of the intended work. Since it seems my understanding from Agent Wagner is that, and per our discussion previously with the Commission, it did seem that what you were proposing was beyond the scope of what we had expected on the previous sidewalk and in discussing the application. Somehow, from what was conveyed to us by Agent Wagner, it seemed that the scope of the work you were proposing as your builder or your arborist or whoever was going to be doing the work was more extensive than we had expected and considered approved. So, we would need another permit application to go forward with that, or even if just the agent were to review it, you know, require permit applications. So the general gist, I guess, is that you want to open up some vista, correct, from your residence. The latest correspondence I saw suggested that you were proposing, at the very least, to wait until you had your 1st Floor kind of in place so you had a sense of what needed to be removed
to achieve the desired view, and that seems like a very sensible process. And I would think that at that point we could certainly entertain an application and do the sidewalk to get a clear sense, and from your point of view, you know. Right now, if we visited the site, it would be an abstract imagination, as you will, and if we wait until there's something more concrete to talk about, I believe that that would be best for all concerned.
Doctor. Agreed, and where we are with the project now, we do have the 1st Floor in, foundations in 1st Floors in. So we would we would have a pretty good idea of what we would want a better idea now of what we'd want to do than we did early on in the project and time of year with the leaves in full bloom, this would really be an ideal time to look at it.
Especially the wash with the weather that we've been having lately. Yes. Okay, well, so as you say, my recommendation would be to give us a proposal, you know, make an application for it, and so that you can work with Agent Wagner in order to give us the Again, it's really about a framework. You're going to be talking about essentially applying to take down trees in an upland review area. Agent Wagner can certainly evaluate on-site the proposal, the specific work that you want done, and then convey it to the board at our, I'm sorry, to the Commission at our next meeting. So, know, in between that time, and we would you know we can't you know without an application really it's like not having a motion on the floor for a meeting. You don't have anything really to talk about. We can't
approve anything if there isn't an application to be approved. Okay, okay.
Yeah, that sounds fair enough, and I'll be in touch with Agent Wagner, and we'll proceed accordingly.
Okay. Any comments by other members of the Commission? Okay, then we'll return to the agenda. Item number six, the agent's report on enforcement actions.
Hey. I got a something has been closed out. Yeah. I don't have anything this month. I know it's closed out 33 Route 87. It was mister Bone's property. We talked about that in the last meeting. And also the Route 6 gravel pit too. The order was lifted. I don't have the actual date, but it was mid June, maybe early June, I think.
Also Good. Stuff that in the last meeting too. Okay. And nothing new, I take it? No. Okay. Good. No news is good news in this instance for sure. Okay, then the next item on the agenda, because this is the first meeting in July of the new fiscal and electoral year, we have to have election of officers. And basically we need a chair and a vice chair, and there are only four of us on this screen that are eligible to apply.
So, I'll make a motion that we elect George Eliot as Chairman. I'll second that. Now somebody can move that the nominations be closed. I'll move that the nominations be closed. I'll second that. Okay,
we'll take that as read. So, I just want to make one comment before you all raise your hands and say aye, and that is that when we get to item number nine, my continuing to serve as chair is somewhat contingent on the outcome of our discussion there, insofar as that I feel quite comfortable in chairing a Zoom meeting where I can put on these noise canceling headphones where everybody's speaking directly to a microphone, and the hearing impairment from which I suffer does not impede my ability to conduct the meeting. In person meetings, not so much, and I don't know how hybrid meetings are going to work, so just saying. And having said, we can move on, and I'll ask for vote on the motion, which is to elect Moi as Chair of the Indian Wetlands and Water Courses Commission for twenty twenty one-twenty twenty two term. All in favor, raise your hands and say 'Aye' for the record.
Aye.
No. The motion carries three zero one abstention. Anybody willing to serve as vice chair, which just means you gotta be back up in case I'm out of town during a meeting. Although that's no excuse if we're doing it online, is it? Ed, would you be willing to serve?
Is that a Bill, were you gonna say something? Bill, were you gonna say something? No. Alright. I'd like to nominate Jed Larson for the vice chair. I would second that.
Chad, are you willing to serve in this capacity? I know you have other commitments.
I am not willing to serve in that capacity based on being the chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Point well taken. So, we will consider that nomination withdrawn.
Well, then I nominate Lee Monroe for the Vice Chair. Watch out for this guy. And I will second that nomination.
It looks like you've been sent back, William, but I hope that you are not unwilling to sort of really doesn't require a lot of coaching.
I just don't think I could handle leading a meeting. I don't even know the I haven't really even figured out how to be a commission member quite yet. So I'm not real confident about being a vice chair. I would only be, it would only be like, in, you know, like just, kind of. I would define being vice chair until I had to be the chairman and then I'd be like,
I don't know what to do. I hear exactly what you're saying there.
I believe Bill's background and talents far exceed mine. I am the weak link on the committee. I am more there to fill in for lack of quorums. So William, I would suggest maybe you should do this.
I know I'm required to have a vice chair. I think it says in the bylaws, right? I know I serve on Wyndham's Wetlands Commission, and we don't have. We just have a chair. We don't have a vice chair. Let me, let me just check on that. I don't have the
bylaws open, but I'll have them open now. It's in Section 7.2. Under electional officers, says it doesn't refer, but. Yeah, I think it's Section There are five references to a vice chairman throughout the document.
Yeah, Section 5.1 says officers of the commission will consist of a chairperson and a vice chairperson.
Now, I would have to point out that the Vice Chair essentially is required only to preside at meetings in the absence of the Chair. The rest of the obligations pertain only to the chair. So, I guess the question is, do you think we can get you up to speed running one of these meetings, which basically consists of following the agenda? You know, if it comes to that, you know, we can always cancel meetings in the absence of someone to preside over the meeting or hearing, but of course that's awkward and doesn't serve the public as well. Ed?
So here's my offer. If we have to have a Vice Chair and Mr. Munro is not going to do that, I would be willing to do that, but under the stipulation that Jed Larson, if I have to take over a meeting, Jed Larson will continuously update me with if I'm making an error messing up, you know, or what I should do next. You mean a little backup here in the running of the meeting? Correct.
Jed, do you think you could work with, especially for online, know, can do this with chat, you know, send a message to everyone or to just to Ed Smith.
I can certainly try that. I have not done the chat thing yet, but I think I can get through that. I think you have not missed a meeting, George, chairing a meeting since we've started, and so
Well, I would hope not to reschedule one. As a matter of fact, but I'm just saying that that's really the only responsibility of the vice chair. And with backup, if Ed would be willing to serve in that capacity, we then have some name to submit to the Board of Selectmen.
Just to let you know, I'm now totally deaf in my left ear, and there's a constant ringing, so I really have hard it's funny. I really have a hard time picking up with my computer what's happening. And even in the hall sometimes it's hard for me to hear what's, I always got to turn my right ear. So that's part of my handicap here. Yeah,
I commented on that myself earlier, and I will commend your attention noise canceling headphones and a jack to plug into your laptop or whatever computer you're using, it will save you a lot of grief in terms of truly time have a
I've found it almost indispensable myself working as the chair of this commission. Okay, so back to the matter at hand. I think we can agree that by unanimous consent, Ed Smith will serve as the Vice Chair of the Inland Wetlands and Larkwurst Commission. Thank you. Now, back to the agenda. Okay, item number eight, the revision of the IWWC regulations. As you will no doubt recall, actually Bill, you weren't on the commission, we made a stab at bringing our regulations up to date via the state of Connecticut, which of course the Department of Environmental Protection Department of Environment and Energy, excuse me, will periodically update regulations. Periodically, the legislature will update the law that underlies the regulations governing inland, wetland, and watercourse activities, and we were trying to get our regulations in sync with those changes. Now, we got to the point where I think we were ready to roll, except that we would need to hire, well, we would need to schedule a hearing and have our attorney review it prior to submission. The last time we discussed the matter, I contacted our attorney, Mark Brantz, and inquired about what the turnaround would be like and so forth, and he indicated that it would be well to wait until the end of the
past legislative session just in case the legislature passed something or made some changes to the applicable statutes or created new requirements that might have an effect on our regulations. As far as I can tell, nothing like that has happened. And I checked with the Haller and Sage website to see about that, and I think that we would be clear now. So, what I would like would be a motion to submit our proposed new regulation, our proposed revised regulations, for legal review prior to a hearing and potential adoption by the board.
I'll make a motion that we submit our updated regulations for legal review. I second the motion.
Okay, so we have a motion and second to, again, seek legal review of our proposed regulation revisions. Any further comments, objections? Then I'll ask for a vote. Those in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, so the motion carries four-zero-zero. George, I have a question about that. Yes, Will.
Is that in the where the can you find that information?
You know, I think I'll have to email you a copy. I don't think that they're, you know, they're certainly, you know, the regulations that we are nominally operating under are posted online, but those are last reviewed and revised ages ago. The proposed revision is in draft form, and of course I have that file, and if I make a note to myself here, I will send you a copy when I have convenient access to the email server and all that, okay? And then you can take a look at it. I think I'll try to send you the copy that's been
annotated to show you what's being updated, But in any event, I'll get you the most current version of our regulation revisions. Thank you.
George, is there any chance we could get that posted on the website as a draft update?
Think it would be good. I would like to do that prior to the hearing. Okay. I think that's a really good idea, but let's run it through legal first, then we can post it for public accommodation prior to the hearing that's required. And hopefully with enough lead time. My thought on this is that we could hold a hearing immediately prior to a meeting, piggyback the two events, as so to save time and effort, and be able to then following the hearing if approval is on the agenda, and we can do it, barring, of course, some glaring problem brought to light as the course of a hearing. Next item on the agenda, resumption of in person meetings. Obviously, some boards and commissions, I believe the board of selectmen, is meeting, and will be meeting at least partly in person or maybe some hybrid affair. So our choices are then to resume in person meetings, to resume meetings in a hybrid format that allows for remote participation, or to continue with remote meetings solely. And as I conveyed to you in the email message, I believe that the the advice from Hallor and Sage, again, the firm to which our own attorney is associate, would be that we could do any of those things. So, we really could continue to have meetings virtually or meetings online as our sole format. I'd like to hear what other members of the Commission have to say. Going screen wise, Bill, you're up. Do you have any thoughts about whether we want you meeting, person, or whatever?
I'm fine with the Zoom meetings. I live pretty close to the town hall, so I'd be fine driving down there, and I'd be fine if everybody wanted to go down there. If you wanted to do do what you're doing from home, I'll be okay with that too. I'm really flexible on this. Okay. Good. Let's see. Next in order, Judd.
Well, I've wrestled with the same issue over on the Planning and Zoning Commission. If we were going to try to do our next meeting in person, I'm not sure that we'll get there because I'm not sure that we have the technology things worked out for the hybrid or whatever. So I'm going go over and look at that tomorrow with Jim Halsey. But my thought is, as you had mentioned, the acoustics this way are much better and easier to hear. And I find that displaying information is also much improved on a Zoom platform. Everybody can look at their screen and see whatever document or diagram or whatever we do. I do think there's a lot of advantages to continuing the Zoom. Not to mention, like Bill, I live very close to town hall, easy for me to get there. Not everybody is. And I think we stand a better chance of getting, whether it's the town engineer or our attorney or whatever, much easier and other members of the public to join us if we're doing it electronically.
So I think I'm kind of leaning toward. I think there are some significant advantages to doing the meetings online. But it's been so long since we had one in person. I was going to do one just so I can see how it goes. But there's a lot about Zoom I really like. Ed do you have any particular feelings about?
I was going to say either Zoom or town hall but Jed made some really good points and I definitely lean towards Zoom but doing the hybrid I just did that for a whole year was at school and I never want to do that again for the rest of my life.
Okay, what were the issues with the hybrid format? I'm just curious because I haven't experienced it myself.
Well I would have 13 or 14 students in my classroom live and many of them were disruptive students and then I would have 13 or 14 students at home and when you look at the screen you're not looking at the students in the room, stuff starts to break down in the room, I'm now leaving the kids hanging at home with no, I'm not paying any attention. I prefer everybody to be in one place.
Gotcha, Okay, well that's reasonable, and frankly, I said earlier, I have a strong preference for continuing with Zoom, because it makes my life as chair much, much easier, and I think that I can be much more effective at recognizing what either commissioners or members of the public have to say and not have to ask for repeats. So, I'm going to propose that we continue with Zoom meetings. And that we be open to the possibility of either in person or hybrid meetings if it appears that members of the public or persons with business before the Commission would be better served by in person meetings. Sounds fair enough. Okay,
well let's take that as read. We'll schedule our next meeting for Zoom, and we'll keep, as I said, we'll just keep the possibility open. But so far, it seems to me that everyone who's come before the Commission with business or you know whatever issues they may have had, everybody's been well served by this process. I don't think that anybody has been left out of the process by holding the meetings on Zoom. Okay, so item number 10: Agent Report. We've got some pending applications, all of them that are eligible for administrative approval.
Yeah, I got a a few of those. I had four of them. It's actually working. I posted the legal notices today, so most of them are approved. I have one, which is one zero four West Street. It was a geothermal closed loop geothermal system. So as well, he pumped the pumps down into the ground through its own loop and then back up. That was in a 100 foot upland review area. The site map on the online that shows where it was, but it's like right on the edge of the 100 foot upland review area. Another one that installation is 420 Lake Road installation of a standby generator and an electrical outlet, which involved a trench. And that's that was in the front yards on the Lake Road side of the of the property. And that was within a 200 foot upland view area of Andover Lake. The other one is at 242 Lake Road. This construction of a stone stairway and a walkway within the 200 foot upland review area. The property slowed down. They're gonna put some natural stone steps in there. They're gonna excavate out. I think it was four yards approximately
of of dirt, and then they're gonna put some gravel drainage underneath the stairway to help with runoff going down towards the lake. So doing that with the excavate, put the gravel, and then put walk stone walkway around the deck in the back of the property. So on the on the lake side of the property.
Quick question here. I just interject. Jed, under the lake regulations, is that kind of hardscaping count as impervious surface that has to be remediated or accommodated?
I don't know the answer to that right off the top of my head. And I would think I'll have to go take a look. We had talked about putting in a driveway, but I hadn't really considered the walkway. Now you can consider it, your walkway is kind of like a patio. Depending
on how it's constructed, it could certainly be a more or less impervious surface. And if it's like pavers, not so much. If it's gravel, not so much. But again, I wonder if that
Excuse me. Yeah, I would ask Agent Wagner to go over and make sure that he's in sync with Agent Halsey on how that plays out. I'm hoping to meet with Jim tomorrow so we could talk about it a little bit, get our ducks in a row before Joe goes over and talks to him. Yeah, I think that's the
lake rigs have kind of This is some conflicting because you know it might not be like wetlands doesn't really have jurisdiction over you know like a zoning like you can't force somebody. Yeah, you know what this doesn't have jurisdiction that is a the remediation
part is on lake regs are planning a zoning but you know, hey, there's probably not going to be a building permit pulled for a for a sidewalk, right? So, Maybe this is the only chance to bring it to the attention of planning and zoning. Don't know.
So I guess the question I had there on this particular issue is how does the walkway go all the way down to the lake?
No, it doesn't. There's a site plan posted online, but basically it comes there's a driveway, and then the stairs are going go down the hill, and then basically to the end of the deck. And then there's a walkway going along the deck. Not to the lake. No, it's a it's on the far like it's closer to I think he's it was 193 feet or something from the lake, so it's pretty far into the Oakland review area. Yeah, I was wondering that too because the the walkway I think if it went down to the actual water would probably have to get reviewed by the full commission because it would be at the shore of the lake.
I'll have to ponder that one and go look and see what, you know, if we were less than 100, I guess it's going to hinge on do we define the walkway that they're going to put in as impervious or not? If it's impervious, it probably triggers some sort of remediation. If it's a pervious design, it might not. But I'd like to go take a look at the actual regs to figure that out a little bit better before was give a final conclusion on that. Didn't really consider walkway.
I was confused as to whether or not like. Like if it doesn't. It seemed like the way the regs were written that you needed to if you were applying for a zoning permit, so you would need to, like a zoning permit would need to be required before the nutrient worksheet would be triggered.
I'm not sure that's true. We're looking, if there's something that wetlands agent or the commission is acting on and it has it needs remediation because it's increasing the impervious surface, we're expecting that Wetlands Commission would uphold, you know, ensure that that were done as part of their approval process. Now if we don't have our words quite right on that, and I recognize that the first go around on issuing all those regs, we're probably far from perfect on ginning those things up. And that's why this happens to be the first issue that's come up since we've approved them. So it's good that we're looking at it and
we'll have to go take a look to see if there's some weak spots that we need to improve or maybe we like the way it is. But we'll take a look at it. But I don't know the answer to that question right off the top of my head.
Well, there's no action we can take here, but it was, in this instance, really, just a thought that pertains to something that we would normally leave to the agent for review. As he pointed out, 193 feet from the lake is damn close to 200. It is, yeah. And really only minor differences in construction would make a difference between whether we regard it as an impermeable surface or a permeable surface. So, that has to be, I think, a discretionary item, but again, some communication with the building official. I don't think that a nutrient allocation worksheet is necessarily required here, but certainly some thought toward potential remediation.
Well, the worksheet's not required if it was less than 100 square feet.
Well, it looks like there's over 200 square feet of surface Yep. When I look at the plan there, it's about 31 by five and then about 35 by five. So, you know, due to arithmetic, and we're well over 200 square feet. And again, it's illustrated as stone steps, and stone steps, although the stones are impermeable, they have cracks between them that make the surface semi permeable, reducing runoff. And as think Agent Wagner pointed out, it's going to be on top of some kind of substrate sand or gravel, typically. Yeah, it's not crushed
I'm looking at it now. So crushed stone. Stone for, as a base for the steps. It could well be a semi permeable surface, and
I think that was their idea when I spoke to the applicant. That was his idea because they're having runoff issues from the driveway. So the thought was to excavate, put the crushed stone in as a as a catch, kinda like a catch base and infiltration base, then put solvents on top. And then they made sure to indicate that they weren't going to mortar the joints of the walkway so that the rainwater had a chance to get into the stone. So in a way they're already providing for some some runoff control in the plan.
Okay. That would be the best of all worlds. There was a big article, I don't have my link reg file sitting out in front of me right this minute, I don't want to get it, But in the Hartford Courant a couple weeks ago, there was a big full page article on rain gardens and designing them and all this and how people are proactively going off to do this to minimize stormwater runoff. And that's really what we would like to have the philosophy be. What is each person who's living along the lake doing to try and protect the lake? And I imagine Jeff Hayes, because he's part of the Alcoa, you know, don't know what his thing is there. We can find out tomorrow night at the Alcoa meeting, but I know he's, certainly wanting to take care of the lake. Okay.
Okay, enough discussion on that. Continue to look again back to Major Wagner to continue with the actions.
Yeah. This one, the last approval was Jim Halsey's application to construct 12 foot by 10 foot wooden deck within the 100 foot Upland review area. So it wasn't directly attached to his house, but it was pretty much right up against it. And it's a. Yeah, it's in the Upland area. It did that a while ago. Sure if there was pretty straightforward application, there was an intermittent stream that flowed through the back of his property. And the deck is looks like it's about 40 feet from the from the stream. Like I said, it was right off the back of his his existing screen porch. There are some stone steps there, and he wanted to replace it with a small deck. So that was that one. That was approved approved in mid June, June 16. So that was it for the permits for this month.
I did have a question, Joe, on the, I saw in the paper that you had approved the permit over at 85 Lakeside Drive for the shed. And I was wondering if you had gotten with Jim and worked through the issues of, the water runoff mitigation with respect to that particular permit. Because I know Jim's been not as available as he would like to be. Yeah, that was a
it was difficult with the the lack of like admin support and the billing department and then Jim's Jim's personal issues. That one that one was kind of on the wetland side, I issued it to take care of the permit. But yeah, did. It did have some zoning issues that still need to be still need to be addressed. There's some miscommunication that the property owner wants to cooperate. Well, shed is up. Yeah, I know. He had been I spoke with him and he had he moved it back. According to what. Mr. John Valenti had told him previously. What he thought was the appropriate step back I don't think I think it's
37 feet from the lake now. And I think according to Jim, has to be 50 feet.
Okay, yep. And those issues, I was strictly concerned about the nutrient allocation worksheet for putting the shed back there. And do you know if there was a nutrient allocation worksheet?
I don't think there was, but I can't say for sure. Yep.
So my overall assessment is for whatever reason, we're getting off to a rocky start with this, how to implement the late Greggs. Yeah, think that we need some clear
definition like when when we when we need to. When we need to require the nutrient allocation one would be good because I don't I'm not really sure. When to ask for it or even if I can ask for it, you know, I can refer them to. Yep. The zoning agent, but I'm not sure what else I can do other than that. Well, in when I should, you know, Like I should withhold a permit or if I can legally.
Well, I'll go take, you know, the next follow on question is that, you know, I don't know that he got the building permit to put the shed back I'm pretty sure he applied for one.
Yep, I know he's applied for it. Just don't know that it was ever approved. Yeah.
And that was supposed to be the final catch for nutrient allocation worksheet. But I'll work on that one with Jim. But you and Jim need to be, you know, working together as much as you can. We're
doing what we can right now. No, I mean, the billing department is a bit of a mess right now. So we're trying. Nope, gotcha. I just wanted
to hear your side of the story before I go talk to Jim tomorrow. Yeah, yeah, I mean, I'd like to get it straightened out so I know, you know, when to bring up the allocation worksheet too. I mean, it feels like it's almost more of a wetlands issue than than a zoning issue, but.
Right. In a sense, I think you're right, but the way it was constructed, we had input, and we discussed those regulations, but it was absolutely a planning and zoning commission and planning and building department implementation. I think that the role in the wetlands here was to sign off on, Oh, this is a good idea to protect the lake, but we're not responsible for enforcement of that regulation. It's not part of our regulation. So, I think that what we're looking for inland wetlands is simply a heads up, you know, since applications will come to inland wetlands first, you know, we have to sign off before planning and zoning is going to take it up. So, I think that we and you as agent could be raising the need, but you're not responsible for reviewing or approving or anything of that sort, or even making sure that it actually gets done.
Yeah, that's the thing I was running into was like sitting on a pending application for multiple months that really fit all the you know, it fit within the bounds of approval in the wetlands, I felt, but I, you know Yeah, right. You're
enforcing the wetlands regulation, and then the ball has to get passed to somebody else to take up the matter of whether it meets zoning regulations, and that includes both location via the boundaries and satisfaction of special regulations for protecting the like.
Well, do encourage you know, the working together on this because I think that it's in the zoning regulations because we have the ability to locally create regulations where I'm not sure that the Inland Wetlands, I could be wrong on this, I think the Inland Wetlands Agency is obligated to issue regulations consistent with the state. And so that's why there's zoning regulations. It's to protect the wetlands, protect the lake. But we had the only ability to put in any sort of an enforcement mechanism. So we do need to work closely together on that because it's to protect the significant environmental issue with the lake is what it's intended to do.
Okay. Well, in any event, we have the report on the agent actions. So I'll ask now if there are other items to bring before the commission. Is there any other business? I did. I
think it probably Jed might know this. I have a tree on a piece of land down on the lake that looked like it got hit by lightning, and it's probably about 30, maybe 40 feet from the lake, maple tree. Just wondering, do you need a permit to cut down a hazard tree like that or is that just get it out of there type of thing or what? Well, think that that's really
the question for agent Wagner, but because I've got a tree that's struck by lightning And I'll tell you what I was going to do. And I thought about talking to Joe and I said, no, we've got, you know, the tree companies are coming by for the town stuff and cutting down trees all over the place. What they don't do is they don't stump grind. And so I think if you cut down a tree and leave the stump in place, you're not impacting the wetlands or the upland of the wetlands. And that's how I kind of looked at the application as we've gone through this. But if you were going to grind down in the stump, remove the stump, grind the stump, whatever, then I would feel the need to put in a wetlands application. Now that I've given you my thought, we'll let the expert
provide the real answer. I might demur on that myself, as a matter of yeah, Agent Wagner, what do you think about that kind of situation? We have some serious dead tree issues around town, and a good number of them are going to be in wetlands or in upland review areas.
Yeah, I know the regulations regulate what they call clear cutting, and they have kind of a weird the definition for clear cutting is open to interpretation. Freaking. I'm trying to think where it is. But it's like a certain number of trees that are a certain size within a certain area, and it's like if you remove all of them. So really, like, one one tree here or there wouldn't fall under that definition of clear cutting. Mindy.
In Coventry, I know that we, and I don't know, I think this might also be a state regulation that people have the right to maintain their property as of right. So if they have a tree that is a hazard, they have a right to take it down for property maintenance. I could be wrong, but I know there's like some as of right property maintenance thing in there as well. Sure.
Pulling that thought up because we can certainly look at our proposed new regulations to make sure that something like that is in there.
I think there is a definition of clear cut in there somewhere. I was just looking at planning and zoning, I thought it was there. But I do remember when we were talking about the pond over off of 316 there, and Agent Wagner discussed that if it was on private property, we could cut down those trees. Because homeowners have a right to go do maintenance. But since that was not a private homeowner, they needed a permit to go in and do that. And that's why we decided to require the town to submit a permit to go in and cut the trees down around the edge of the pond.
Yeah, because they were working in the wetland per se. They were working in a water course.
Yeah, they're going to pull some stuff out of there. Yeah. Well, was both, but I remember Agent Wagner citing chapter and verse out of the wetlands regs because I was pleased at that point to know I wasn't a lawbreaker.
Okay. So, we'll check that out. But yeah, we have it seems like rational speaking, let's say, it shouldn't be required a permit should not be required for that kind of activity. And what we want to do here is to double check the regulations to make sure that that is the case. Back to the agenda. Okay, item number 12, our next regular meeting will be held on the first Monday of August, which is August 2. It will be at 7PM, and as we previously discussed, it will be on the Zoom platform. You all may be aware that our excellent board clerk Mindy is departing that position. And even though I tried to induce her by keeping it in a Zoom format,
I'm afraid that we're going to have to find a replacement. Let's put it this way, we're going to have to hope that the folks down in town hall find a replacement for us. Mindy, thanks very much for your assistance. You've been a good aid and with valuable contributions based on your service in other towns. So again, our appreciation, and good luck with whatever it is that comes next.
Thank you. Thanks for having me. I've definitely learned a lot throughout Wetlands, PDC, and all the ZBA meetings, so definitely I've learned a lot, and I've loved listening to hour long meeting, multiple hour long meetings. And the billing department does I think have some people interested. So that is some good news, but I definitely will miss taking the minute. You did a great job, Mindy.
With that, I believe I could entertain a motion to adjourn. I move we adjourn.
Second. Okay, motion by Smith, second by Monroe. All in favor? Okay, all in favor? Four-zero-zero. The meeting is adjourned at 08:03PM. I look forward to seeing you all in a few weeks. I will be available for that meeting, so nobody else is going to be on the hook.
Well, and if I could just, before we go Before off you go. I appreciate Ed stepping up to be the Vice Chair. I know George has got tremendous experience doing this wetland stuff. I have struggled a little bit harder than I think George does on making sure I'm ready to go run a planning and zoning meeting. And so to think that a vice chair can step up at the last minute and serve the public well, I think that's a bit we should always consider rescheduling to where the chairman can do it because he's the guy who really has the continuity of all the little other things that are going on in the background that you bring to the meeting to help guide it in the right direction.
And I'm certainly willing to accommodate that, I really don't want to have to pass the buck on any of these meetings. And again, my sole qualification really is that I've had a lot of experience running meetings. And you do it well. Thank you. Okay,
so once again with that, the meeting will stand adjourned, and we can depart by pressing the little red leave button down in the lower right hand corner of your screen. Good night, everybody. Good night. Good night. Live long and prosper.