Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission - Regular Meeting

And you're streaming also. All right. Good evening. This is the Inland Wetlands Water Course Commission meeting for January 20th, 2026 for Bloomfield. Um, and tonight the roll call is myself, Lorenzo, Glenn, Stephen, Byron, Adam, Kevin, David, and Paul in transit. [laughter] Okay. All right. First order of business, election of officers. Um let's start with uh are there any motions for um secretary? Anybody want to be secretary? Especially if you have been

So So if I if I may speak up, seeing as I am either the current secretary or the outgoing secretary, uh the job description is this. You do absolutely nothing with the exception that every so often you receive an email from Peter or Peter's office saying, "Please come into town hall and just put your name on a few documents. It's the easiest thing you've done since first grade." But it's an important thing. I didn't say it wasn't important. I just said it was one of the easiest jobs I've ever had. So that's good. Yes. So would you like to keep doing it?

Well, that's not the question. The question is, would anybody else like to do it? Would like to have the opportunity to uh have the the title of secretary of a wetlands commission after their name. I' I've been on the commission now for about seven years or more as is as has David Leupa. So, you know, I don't need to hog the the limelight. So, if anybody else would like to uh jump in and and offer to do that role, uh I'd be happy to step step aside. Anybody else?

At the same time, I'd like to make a motion that we uh that that Alan Bukovski remain as the chairman. Anybody would like to second that. I'll second that. I would second that. Okay. And same thing with me. If anybody else wants to take a shot at it, be my guest. You two go to Yeah. Okay. Then I'd like to make a motion that we accept or that we we have Paul Shipman as our vice chair

because that's a vital that's a vital role because every so often Allan's been known to uh pass out, fall down [laughter] and not make a meeting. Um, only once. So, you're trying to have two two a Dairy Queen. You can have two active motions on the floor at the same time. Yeah, we we could do it as one slate. If there's anybody want to be secretary, we could do it as one slate. True. And if that's the case, then I will withdraw my uh or actually if nobody else wants to be secretary, I have to withdraw my motions because I can't make a motion for myself, can I? Well, can make a motion for you.

There's no other uh there's no other candidates. If if all else fails, I just got here. This sounds like a light lift here, but I'm available should I be called upon? You want to step up? Yeah. Yes, please. Okay. Very nice. All right. I'm sorry. I need a second for the vice president motion. Vice chair. I second that. Paul, I second that. Lorenzo. All right. We need somebody to make a motion for Lorenzo Jones to be secretary. Well, I'll make that motion. I'll second it.

All in favor of those two positions say I. I. I. I. Opposed stayain. Okay, Paul, why don't you take nominations for chairman? Uh, okay. Um, do we have any uh do we have any nominations from the floor for chairman? We we do. We need you to ask to to ask for a vote. Oh, I see. You want an actual

uh call on the motion? All right. Well, I I I move that we uh we name uh uh Alan Bowski, chair of the uh Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Commission. I second that. Okay, Paul, call a vote. Oh, that's right. I have to. It would be unseammly. Uh so, all those in favor I I uh any opposed? Any abstain? Okay, I think we have a unanimous vote for you, Alan. Thank you. I think [laughter] our trust.

How do I do? How'd I do in my first uh administrative effort? That's good. No. Didn't Wouldn't you acting commissioner when Allan wasn't around one time? No. Oh, okay. No, I'm I'm a first timer. Yeah. Okay. Longtime listener, first time caller. Okay, thank you all. I think Allan is Allen is no Rush Limbaugh. [laughter]

Um I have to uh I have to jump in and say that um as as secretary when plans were approved, Mr. Will Cox, can you please come in and sign a set of plans that we have waiting here for 529 Cottage Grove Road? uh tomorrow. Okay. Yeah, anytime is fine. Okay, I'll be there. That'd be great. Okay. Okay. Moving along. The wetland's permit for nine Proer Lane. That was tabled from the previous meeting. We need a motion to remove it from the table. So moved.

Made by Kevin, seconded by I'll second it. I all in favor? I oppos. Okay. All right, Peter, where are we on this? I New plans were submitted. Yes. Um, can I Yeah, I can promote. Okay, I'm promoting Daniel Jameson and Dennis and Sharon Clark. Good evening everyone.

If I can manage to hit the buttons right. Okay. How are you Daniel? Doing well and yourself. Good evening everyone else too. Happy new year. Good evening you too. the applicants, Dennis and Sharon Clark, and I believe Ian Cole is also on with us.

So, Peter, we have new plans. We Peter to go. Yeah. Yes, we do. I'm pretty sure Mr. Jameson's going to want to review him with us, so yes, I'll let him do that. Okay. All right. So, if I would be allowed to share my screen, let me go to screen. All right. Is everyone seeing the um plan on the screen? Yep. Can you enlarge it a little bit? Got it.

I can zoom in on it a little bit. All right. Well, for the record, u my name is Daniel Jameson, professional engineer in the state of Connecticut and I'm l and um the here on behalf of the applicant Dennis and Sharon Clark. Um here with me today is uh Mr. and Mrs. Clark and also our wetland scientist, Mr. Ian Cole. Um so what you're seeing here is our revised plans. Um we made some changes based on the comments made during our last commission meeting. Um with that u the big changes to the plan was a great reduction in the uh well we eliminated all direct wetland impacts. Um so we we had originally uh 46 total square ft of wetland disturbance that included 375 ft of wetland fill and 31 square ft of temporary disturbance for the uh installation of a foundation drain in this area here. Um now we uh have completely removed the uh permanent wetlands fill um to reduce our total wetland disturbance to just a temporary 31 square ft. Um so this was accomplished by um first you know there was an original proposed detached garage to accommodate the accessory dwelling unit on the east side of the structure. We removed that detached garage and we also um reduced the main unit garage to be a single um car garage um and also shifted the structure and drive um east to allow us to grade and protect this wetland finger um that was originally proposed to be filled in. Um in addition to that we also increased our uh mitigation area from uh 750 square ft to 925 square ft um through the recommendations just considering the recommendations of Mr. Castali um to provide some plantings along the limit of clearing which we placed in this hatched area here. Um this mitigation

area will include a selection of plantings um which includes two trees types red maple and river birch trees as well as um some shrubs that include uh silk sweet pepper bush. Actually I'll go to the planting plan here so we can see that um sweet pepper bush, silky dogwood and um spice bush. So these are the location of those proposed plantings that would be placed uh planted right along the limit of clearing adjacent to the wetlands um to provide that protection of the transition area uh to the wetlands there. Um other changes to the plan include a reduction in the driveway width. Um it was 25 ft wide. We have went down to 20 ft wide to reduce the impervious areas there. Um and then we also uh received further comments from Mr. Gustaldi uh where he asked for a potential increase in the mitigation area to extend the uh transition plantings that we are proposing at the limit of clearing um to continuing along the south side, east side and north sides of the property and we are happy to work with Mr. Castaldi um if the commissioner so moves to uh grant us the that as a condition of approval today. Um uh other changes to the plan include the uh separation of an additional erosion control measures to um break out the uh erosion controls particular to or specific to the installation of the sewer relocation um plan and also for the house construction. So I'll just go over the relocation plan erosion control measures considered. U we're now showing where the temporary sewage bypass pump station would be located. Um this would be put in place per MDC requirements um to allow for the conveyance of flow through the uh pump system while the sewer um is relocated. We're also showing some temporary sediment traps with spillways that would diversion swells to control the flow of sediment

uh to these areas so they can be dissipated prior to um being released uh over the spillway um into the wetland areas. Um and then for the uh uh house construction plan uh we're just showing the additional dewatering measures necessary for um the excavation of the foundation of the basement. Um and also um just um you know we removed the bypass pump station and we're just showing that all erosion controls are to remain. Um we are proposing a double row of sediment logs and um this was off the recommendation of Mr. Laupa who uh said that the sediment logs would be better for wildlife during construction. So in and listening with that recommendation, we uh switched the silk fence for uh sediment logs to allow for that uh wildlife to transition through um the site during that time. And we're proposing a double row of sediment logs adjacent to the wetland and then you know the sediment logs to go around the perimeter of a clearing um in lie of um silk fence. So, uh, with that, um, I think that is pretty much, um, all we have, uh, today. Um, Mr. Ian Cole and the applicant, Sharon and Dennis Clark are available. And, um, we did also receive the conditions of approval as stated in the, um, memo from Mr. Gustaldi, and we are in agreement with those conditions of approval and would, um, be happy to work with, uh, Mr. Gustaldi to, um, provide the additional mitigation measures um, as requested. So, more than happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Um, Peter, do you have a staff report? Yes, I do. Um, it's in this it's in the package. It's dated January 8th. Um, and I uh I want to uh I want to point out that I think um actually uh Mr. Jameson, can you zoom in again on the on the work the area of of of Yeah, there you go. Um and and make it as big as you can on your screen. um make the uh the frame as big as you can on your screen. So, uh this uh this plane unfortunately also shows um where the wetlands were flagged um and where they where they were on the on the uh official map. So, they're a little bit different, but the ones that count because the map amendment was approved are the green lines with the uh um with the little triangles and the numbers.

I'm sorry. Is the blue line there a water a water course? Yes. The dark blue line is the surveyed water course and the lighter blue is the uh water course from the town of Bloomfield's official.

Okay. So, um that's, you know, that's the closest point. Now I said to the water courses the the little wetland finger that they're now saving is really a um uh you know it it's pretty steeply graded through there and it's a fairly narrow channel when you get in there but that's what was flagged by the soil scientists. So, you know, that area there might be a good good one for uh um you know, for additional mitigation if if uh some plantings would be helpful in there. But um the most important thing I think about this project to think about is that it's in two phases. So, the first phase is the relocation of the sanitary sewer. And Mr. Jameson um uh briefly mentioned that there's that there's two uh you know there's two sets of erosion control measures. Um most of the time you we think of sanitary sewers as being fairly deep. This one is not. So it's not going to have a lot of excavation but it does require a separate permit um from MDC or approval from the MDC. and the house really can't be built um without moving the sanitary sewer. So, it's a two two-step project. Um and I think it's important to understand that um the MDC moves very slowly. So, it's going to be, you know, it's not that they can start on part of the house while while the MDC is working or deciding or approving this thing. they they've got to do that part first. Um, and that's in one of my recommended conditions. Um, but there, you know, they there's uh flagged wetlands and uh uh official map wetlands on the property

uh on the map at the bottom. There's also uh some over on the right hand side or the the east side of the property and there's a clearing limit there and I think that's a good spot for more mitigation as was mentioned um uh by Mr. Jameson u but I don't think it should be planted where the MDC has their rightway. They probably have a even have a restriction on that. Um but it maybe not. I mean it doesn't really matter. um they will have an easement and part of the part of this whole project is is revising the existing easement. Um and so there's a lot of parts. There's definitely a lot of parts. So um if we could uh now um back out a little bit so we can see the the whole property. Oh, at the bottom of the screen there in blue is a vernal pool and so the entire property I believe is within 500 ft of the vernal pool. Uh most of the work is also in the overlapping upland review areas for um uh from the wetlands and from from the water courses. So, the the the relocation of the sanitary sewer and the work to um uh to build the house, all of it is in the upland review area or the vernal pool um buffer zone. Uh so, the I've got a pretty long list of conditions. Most of them are pretty standard. Um, and I'm I am recommending uh that two-phase project. Uh, so uh I'm recommending a 500 a $5,000

bond. Um, pre-construction meeting notice before any trees um are cut. Standard erosion control notes. At the end of the project, we we'll look for an asbuilt plan uh a final inspection and um uh pinning of the property corners for the CO. Uh the permit authorizes them to disturb no more than a half an acre of the vernal pool habitat area which is overlapped by the upland review areas. Um, as I mentioned before, uh, also 0.5 acres, that's the same.5 acres. That's not two different halfacres. Um, and 34 acres within the vegetative buffer zone. Uh, let's see. I'm uh asking that the MDC sewer main be completed and approved prior to the excavation for the foundation or installation of other new utilities. Um let's see. Um, I'm also looking for a uh uh recommending as a condition of approval a uh uh uh contingency replanting and restoration plan uh that would identify the areas to be replanted if for whatever reason the property is is cleared and the work doesn't go forward. Um, and I think that the uh originally this plan included a uh a wetland mitigation area, an actual area of created wetlands. Um, and it doesn't anymore because they're not doing any direct wetland impacts. The upland view review area impact mitigation uh doesn't include the creation of wetland. And so

condition number 19 um doesn't apply to the uh um you know doesn't condition 19 would be for a created wetland area and although I would like to have some kind of um uh monitoring or uh you know uh checking of the wetland I mean of the plantings um um it doesn't need to be s supervised under uh um the care of a wetland scientist for a minimum of three years. So my my preference would be to uh not include condition number 19. Um let's see. Uh I'm not going to go through them all, but that was an important one I think I think. Uh, and then if any other if any changes come through from the MDC or state of Connecticut or the health district or anybody else that change this this plan, then I'm recommending that it as a condition of approval that it come back to the wetlands commission for review. Um, okay. I have uh let's see. Did you hear me, sir? I wanted to point out that in the recommended conditions, I think I I didn't include the revised plan date. So, We got if the motion is to approve with these recommendations, we have to

identify this plan which is revised to January 5, 2025. That's all for me. Thank you. Uh any more from the applicant? Does the applicant accept accept all these conditions? Yes, we do, Mr. Chair. Pardon? Say yes, we do. You do? Any questions from the public? You have somebody in the waiting room with their hand up. Yeah, Richard.

Yeah. Rebecca, can we bring them in? Alan, he's muted. I'm not sure what's Pardon. He's muted. I'm trying to get him to unmute. Yeah, I guess and Mr. Paul is here for a for a different application, I believe. [clears throat] Okay. Okay.

No. Thank you, Rebecca. Uh, so no questions from the public. Any questions from the commission members? Mr. Chair, I think maybe just a a clarification. Um, two actually. One was uh Peter, you mentioned uh a revision date of January 5, 2025. Are are we talking about 2025 or are we talking about 2026? No, you're right. I I'm sure I said it wrong. 2026. Um let me Can anybody hear me now?

Make sure that that is the right date. Mr. Jameson, you got that right, Mr. Castali. It is uh January 5th, 2026. There's a date on the plan. Great. My mistake. No problem. Thank you for catching that. And the other the other thing I had uh I don'tate mine. Mr. Jameson uh talked about some of the mitigation efforts. Yes.

And I believe there was some discussion of an extension of that. And and Peter, I was confused uh based on what you were talking about with the the the change in need here. We're talking about the the review area beyond the vernal pool. Is that still something that we have on the table that that Mr. Jameson's offer needs to be included into the the requirements or are we good with what is currently in the plan? Well, my my uh my recommendation uh recommended condition of approval includes uh extension of the proposed plantings uh around the rest of the um

right limits of clearing. Um so can we go back to the original page then? Yes. So perhaps Mr. Jameson, you were just restating what you and Peter had agreed to, and I'm I missed that part as we crossed a railroad track or something. No problem. So, condition um 11 and 12 um

indicate uh mitigation shall be provided for these direct impacts with the planting of trees and shrubs at the limits of clearing and as shown on the final site plans. So there's uh u number and species of new plantings uh shall be subject to the approval of the wetlands agent. So my recommendation is to continue the plantings to the new to the edge of the new easement going east and then heading north from the easement up

to okay to to the front there. The edge of that grading. I mean that's the uh you know that's the whole limit and and it's not specifically um uh sp uh discussed in the in the motion I mean sorry in the recommended conditions but I think it's in the in the discussion that these trees and shrubs you know can be um partially within the you know within the limit of clearing. They don't all have to be outside because when you clear the you clear the trees out even in this pretty much disturbed piece of land. Uh there's going to be a sharp break

between the lawn and the and the woods that are going to remain. So we want to provide some kind of transitional plantings. Okay. Okay. I think that that clears it up for me. It sounds like they are addressed within the plan here and uh I have no other questions. right now. Thanks. Okay. Um, just a quick comment. Uh, the plan revision date is 1525. That's on the plans. Yes. So, that would be corrected in the final plans. That's a error on my part. Okay. So, it is 26. It is supposed to be 26. Yes.

Okay. Uh, Dave, did you have a question? Yeah. Uh, Mr. Hall is there with his hand up now. Uh, if he He's stuck. Can anybody hear me? He is talking. Yeah. Can you see me? Yeah. No. No.

As I've I've tried two different computers now. Is it is it a setting in terms of how you've invited me or something? I I uh I have the mute button in the lower lefthand corner of my screen. I have no uh video uh button to turn my camera on or off uh visible on the Zoom in the Zoom window. And when I go to settings and I go to video, I can see myself. My camera's working. Um uh but I just it's not appearing on the screen. Okay. All right, Mr. Oh, we'll take You're here for what? The the church. No, 22 Toby Road. 22 Toby. Okay. So when we get to that, we'll discuss your camera. Okay. Thank you. Let us finish up here. Thank you. Sure.

Um All right. So So I I I do have Yeah, I've got some questions though. Um so during the last meeting, um I had a lot of concerns that the the um importance of the vernal pools weren't covered in the wetland uh report. Is there an updated report or some language that addresses my concerns that I brought up last time?

So, there wasn't an updated report uh submitted, but um our wetland scientist Ian Cole is here and he's more than happy to answer any of those or elaborate on any of the details within the report um to answer any of your questions.

All right. Well, I'll I'll start with uh my my first question about the vernal pools. I'm going to start by reading an excerpt from our wetland regulations and then ask a question about it. So section 6.5B says all application shall shall identify known or potential vernal pools on the application forms and indicate vernal pools and the 500 foot vernal pool habitat area limits on the plans. The applicant shall limit the disturbance of the vernal poolool habitat area as much as possible with the goal of disturbing less than 10% of the vernal poolool habitat area located within the subject parcel. Your impact table shows a 33% impact to the vernal poolool habitat area. So what's your proposal to reduce that down to 10%? Well, a lot of the clearing is related to the relocation of the sewer and just um clearing around uh the structure um you know installation of utilities. So, you know, in honoring the uh importance of that Verna poolool habitat area, um that's what we're willing to offer the mitigation that we're proposing um which is uh you know over 20 to1 ratio uh to the 31 square ft of wet temporary wetland disturbance. Um but there isn't uh you know in order to provide grading uh to support the driveway um and um just kind of our transition back to the existing grades um uh in lie of uh reducing the disturbance to a 10% uh limit. Uh we are more than happy to offer additional plantings to um offset the transition uh to the limit of clearing um as recommended by Mr. Stali. Um but um yeah, we uh the the clearing

limits that we show are pretty much going to be uh necessary for um you know to to construct the home and to um regrade this the site after the uh driveway is installed. Okay. Um

for the record, this is Ian Cole, so scientist record for the application. Um to address [clears throat] the concerns about the vernal pool, uh we did do an analysis of the vernal pool uh of the 500t buffer. Uh for context, um generally speaking, the uh 500 ft buffer zone is a roughly about 67% forested and about 33% already developed. Um the proposal as discussed here leaves the vernal pool in its entirety untouched along with the 100 foot upland uh 100 foot vernal pool envelope within that 500 ft buffer. Um it I think it should be highlighted that there's 10 existing homes uh fall within that 500 ft. Um and the site is also within the 500 ft is fragmented to the south by Burham Drive and to the north by uh highway 178. um I think is discussed generally speaking within the I know it's 33% on the property uh in terms of the impact number but if you look at the 500 foot buffer overall um I believe you'll find that you do fall within under that 10% uh threshold for that vernal pool uh generally speaking uh the numbers I have on a table here uh have over um 21,564 square f feet of the vernal pool habitat will be disturbed on the site. That's essentially the development envelope here. But the 500 foot buffer to the vernal pool is over 252,000 square ft, which is essentially, you know, roughly about 5 1/2 to 6 acres in total if you did 500t buffer around the existing pool. So when you look at it at that context, um the the application does meet the requirements of section 6.5 in my opinion.

Okay. I strongly disagree because it says within the subject parcel. Um so um basically the undisturbed or well I'll just say you're not it doesn't look like you're going to hit the 10%. Um was there a consideration of a reduction of the house size to one unit instead of two? At the moment, um no, we uh the applicant still is would like to consider the potential to uh construct the primary unit and accessory unit. Um and with the changes that we made, we and considering the comments from the last meeting. Um we reduced the the footprint or the spread of the structures by removing the detached garage and and as such. But um uh essentially um you know in in reducing the unit we would still uh we would potentially be able to reduce the uh disturbance a little more but I don't think it would make a big difference to the limit of clearing um that is presented. So more than um that that's why we are offering the mitigation measures um as I mentioned but um but yeah the applicant at this time would like to consil uh pursue the intention to um construct the structure that has a primary and accessory apartment.

That's all I need. Thanks. Um just for the regular I believe record I believe the the state uh recommendation was 750 ft for the Vernon pool. Yeah that's federal but yeah but we reduced it to 500. Yep.

All disturbances are more than um 2 38 ft from the vernal pool. Um, so you know, we we do understand that we are within the 500 and it just so happens that that vernal pool is on this property which puts the entire property within that 500t buffer. But um in respecting that um we reduce disturbances to the max our what we consider the max extent practical um to allow us to uh construct this uh or you know use the property uh for the constru or to propose this development on this site and um you know want to work with the uh the wetland agent Mr. Gustaldi to um ensure that we provide a nice transition back to that wetland area. Okay. Um, any other questions from the commission members?

Yeah, I think I I'll ask a couple questions. So there are plantings being done on the west side as already stated with the different trees and different shrubs in progress.

But on the east side where the disturbance from the MDC relocating the water line or septic um there's nothing being planted over there. We will when the as as the condition to um satisfy the condition of approval, we are more than happy to extend our measures that way um in order to you know provide that buffer transition again. Okay. So will you be just adding more of the same plants or do you have any just a general ball ballpark as to what you might do? Yeah. So for pretty much

I'll hold you to it. Understood. Um but no, we would just continue the same uh types of plantings. Um those were the plantings that were identified on the site. Um so you know we just are doing a a mix of the sweet pepper bush and the spice bush and the silky dogwood um transitioning uh throughout this area. I mean that this the viewport is um kind of center or focused on the west side where those plantings are. But essentially this mix of um shrubs and trees um respecting the spacings that are um uh required for those or suitable for those plantings would extend to the east and right up to the uh sewer easement and then go on the east side and then up into this region as well. um based on to satisfy that condition of approval.

Okay. Thank you. No problem. Um Peter, where do you stand on the Vernon pole? Sorry to put you on the spot.

Well, that's okay. Um and uh David is is right. the regulations uh specifically um do address the the amount of uh vernal pool um uh disturbance. Uh and you know that's something that I should have addressed more thoroughly in my wetlands um in my wetlands memo to you guys. Um but at the same time I think there is uh you know a uh um there there is a there is a uh it's already a fragmented vernal pool habitat area and you know overall the the impact on this property to the vernal pool habitat is you know you said you're 200 and some feet away from the vernal pool habitat. I mean from the vernal pool. So that you know

no disturbance would be no no building. So to reduce the disturbance in the in the vernal pool area the the only way you can do that is to reduce the footprint of the building and the disturbance of the of the forest because that is the that is the habitat the forest. So, I think numbers were thrown around, but I'm not sure if they were um clear. Uh is there a table showing the wetland impacts on the first sheet

and let me know if anyone wants me to turn or uh convert it to acres. But you know we are um you know the total disturbance is uh 21,564 square ft and um you know the entire site is within the vernal pool uh habitat area. So um yeah we are disturbing about a a third of that vernal pool habitat area. That is the entire site. Um and uh yeah, I mean the Yeah, I mean essentially to achieve a 10% performance standard here, you're talking about you'd be limited to a disturbance of under 6,400 square ft. So it would be deemed unfeasible to build a structure on the property at that point. Is there anything on the site? um to keep the buyer of this property or the tenant of this property from walking into the Vernon pool

that is a well distance away as we said about 280 ft 238 ft away from the clearing kids like to play kids like to play in the woods.

Yeah. [clears throat] Um is uh well not at the moment but um you know it's not a a very deep depression. It's very flat. Um you know it'll just be a little wet feet if somebody did want to forest through that area. But I wouldn't find it as any safety concern if somebody was to uh go through there. But it would be you know we do are proposing those wetland plantings and the trees so that it is an identified buffer um to you know uh present a kind of a feature to limit or provide a um defining uh limit for where that wetland's uh line starts. So it would be somebody would know that they're walking into the wetland at that point. Um but you know we we we're not proposing for that to be cleared and uh the applicant is going to own this and they are aware of where the wetlands are and they would make sure that the tenant is aware of where the wetlands are and that you know the tenants shouldn't take it upon themsel to clear any of the trees within that wetland area.

Yeah. But I think I'm looking for more something more permanent. Um, would you be willing to put like a picket fence across the property, you know, 2 ft high with signs that says do not enter, run the pool? Yeah. Applicant, Mr. and Mr. Clerk, David, did that help you? Um, well, a little bit. [laughter] No, it doesn't. Okay, that's all right. Recording in progress.

If you if the commission would like us to install a fence along the the wetland limit, we're the applicant looks to be in um agreement with that. If that would like the wet the commission would like to add that as a condition of approval. Yeah. It's unfortunate that Vernon pool regulation came about what like 10 years ago, David. Yeah, a little less, but yeah, that it was a while ago. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. What was your phrasing, Alan? Unfortunate designation came about. No, it was a great thing that it came about. It wasn't an unfortunate No, no. Regulation.

I didn't say that. I said when did it come about? Yeah. In other words, this land was here and then the reg. Yeah. Um, you know, I believe it's an important regulation. That's where I'm torn. Yeah. Okay. Question. Sure, Steve.

So, um, I just pulled up the regulations uh for the vernal pool habitats and and I I see 6.5.B, which talks about the subject parcel. Um, it does seem like there might be some additional consideration in 6.5. C, but I'm not sure if that was fully covered, which would be, you know, the additional analysis, um, you know, taking into account, you know, the the broader um, I guess properties that have pull. So I I don't know um you know if looking at both B and C does that give us a little more um leeway.

Yeah. I think what C does is actually impose uh a requirement that the applicant talk more about it which is what I was getting at in the last meeting. Correct. which I don't think they effectively did until we kind of pressed them on it a little bit. They it there was discussion about the overall cover type um on and beyond the parcel. Um but there's no analysis done to show to demonstrate how proposed development within the vernal pool will not have an adverse effect on the vernal pool or vernal pool habitat area shall not have a adverse effect. So it does say that an analysis to demonstrate that

correct. Was there a habitat study done of the Vernon pool?

No, a formal a formal uh vernal pool assessment was not completed. Uh it's obvious that it's a vernal pool. So it was just assumed that it provided vernal pool habitat. Um the lot's you know very constrained. Um, as you can see, the applicant's taken uh all of the suggested uh concessions from the commission and has addressed them to reduce its footprint uh to the extent practical while still providing, you know, a viable residential development here. Um, you know, we've discussed that to meet the performance standards as per the rags, uh, really you it would be almost infeasible to put a dwelling on the property, you know, and for those reasons, I think the applicant has provided what would be considered, you know, probably the most feasible and prudent alternative to develop this property. Um, with those things being said, you know, the the applicant, uh, I, you know, I guess I rely on D, we have no problem in doing a study on on this area. Um, but I don't think it's going to show you any information outside of the fact that, you know, this is still a minimal development that can occur on this property.

On that, any uh additional questions from the public? Any additional comments from the public? I'm saying none. All right. Any more questions from the commission? Any comments from the commission?

Yeah, I think I'll I'll speak up and support David and just have a couple points. It was stated earlier by Mr. Cole that this development and the um vernal pool habitat already has whether nine or 10 houses built in it or within it. Not in it but within the the range. And to me that almost sounded as though well how much more damage can one more house develop within that area be? And my point would be that when we reook at our regulations, we should be looking at the vernal pool habitat area, determining how much has already been disturbed and therefore denying homes or other developments from being done within that habitat. Not saying, well, we've already done this much. What what more damage can we do by adding more? I think you can do a lot more by doing a lot more damage by adding more development. Uh there was one other thing said that I'd like to comment on if I remember what it was now. Uh come back to me if there's anybody else who has a comment.

Yeah, I mean I'm concerned about the Vernon pool. I mean, we took the trouble to put that in our regulations and I really hate to see development chip away at it. It is an important um habitat and I'm having a hard time voting for this one. So, Ellen, I have a question. Has there been any other houses in this whole development within the 500 uh foot uh range other houses that have been developed since the vernal pool regulation came into effect?

In other words, have there are no houses that have been developed. Not new one. Not new ones. Not new ones.

Across the street was uh That was 2005 and what's this one? This one was um 1968. Now there there is unfortunately a precedent that we have set in the past and I think it was in one of the developments on Jolly Drive. I mean I my mind is not what it could be or should be. Uh, and I seem to recall that there was a vernal pool over there with all those like the industrial or the the medical buildings and whatnot. And a lot of that habitat was already used up as asphalt and we still allowed more development. Yeah.

So, regrettably, we have a precedent that goes against our regulations, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should going forward always go against our regulations. Right. I mean, what you're talking about, I believe it the road divided it, right? Right. That's right. There. That's right. There were the response on both sides. Yeah. Yeah.

Whereas this one is still intact. Um, who owns the piece in the back? Uh, Mr. Hollesson. Um, if we let this one get developed, we got to be worried about the parcel to the rear. So effectively we're talking about indirect and cumulative effects um or direct and cumulative but cumulative effects nonetheless. Um and it's been demonstrated that this parcel is contiguous and undisturbed within the habitat area of the vernal pool. Um whereas there there are other parcels in the same 500t habitat area that have disturbed it. So, you know, it seems to me that that's all the more reason to to save what we can of what's left of the habitat. Um, so, you know, I I understand that 10% may not be feasible. Um, but a a further reduction would be um more appreciated. Um, so, you know, it's it's difficult to uh to squeeze what you want onto a lot that's restricted in this way. Um but you know if we're looking just at our wetland regulations um and not you know this is not an economic development commission um you know we have to we have to look at the resources that we're trying to protect.

Yeah. Okay. Any more comments commission? All right. Um, we'll give the last word to the applicant. Before we do that, I want to remind the commission members that if this uh application is denied, all those that voted against it um have to disclose why they voted against it. There'll be a roll call. Okay. All right.

Yeah. So, I guess I would just um cuz you know we we would we would um you know understand the concern of the commission and uh you know as a state Ian stated like that 64,000 square ft of disturbance would limit us to about.14 acres of acceptable clearing. Um so we're at half an acre now and um you know we probably could tighten it up a little bit. Um but I guess what percentage would the commission find acceptable if that is an appropriate question to ask. Um you know we we do understand and respect the values of the vernal pool and um you know the applicant has uh you know done the wetland uh flagging through Mr. goal and um you know we identified the vernal pool and placed it on a plan um and um you know it was confirmed with town staff um and you know in honoring the area and the importance of it um you know we the applicant is uh completely willing to offer the additional measures necessary to um you know offset the intended disturbance. Um the structure although yes it does house an accessible dwelling unit but um it is limited to 1,000 square ft um it's not a large accessible dwelling unit by any means. Um so with that, you know, we we do completely understand the concern, but we um just would like more direction, I would say, or um if if appropriate to ask because you know.14 acres of allowed disturbance under the regulation um would be very difficult to achieve. So we would even if the applicant was to

um you know offer to um revise the plan again and uh come back to be heard again um you know I would just if if [clears throat] possible to get better clarification on what the commission would deem as acceptable since we're we we no matter what we do we would have to be more than the allowed 10% on this property. I'm gonna backtrack a little bit. Peter, does a Vernon pool fall into the same category as wetlands as far as mitigation? Could could they enhance the Vernon pool and make it bigger?

Not without creating more disturbance in the wetlands. No. Okay. I I I want to chime in too, Alan, just to um the the habitat area um is it's sort of a a seasonally it serves a seasonally different purpose than the pool itself, right? So that's why we have language in there specific to the habitat area. Um the vernal pool is it's also important, but they're both critical. Yeah, it's the habitat, not so much as the wetlands. Right. Right. Okay. All right. Any last?

Yeah. And in some cases, it's also important to remember that in some cases, the upland uh the vernal pool habitat area extends beyond the wetland area. But in this case, it's it's you know, mostly the the habitat area on this property is mostly wetlands.

Okay. So, uh, David, you can you can add some extra language to this part if you'd like. Uh, I believe what David's telling us is the habitat area is as important as the vernal pool itself because the animals, the insects, the maybe not insects, but uh, amphibians and turtles and whatnot, the creatures of a vernal pool may start their life in the spring in the vernal pool, but then they spend the rest of their life out of it and then maybe go back to it for laying eggs and so on. So, it's the habitat area that is as crucial as the vernal pool itself.

Yep. That's pretty much it. Yep. In a nutshell. Okay. All right. Last word from the applicant again. Anything else?

Uh, no. I mean, just still wondering if anybody could how much over 10% would be acceptable. Well, in my mind for me me personally, I mean, if it was down to 15% and you did a full study of the of the Vernon pool, I could probably vote for it. I'm not guaranteeing it, but I could tolerate it. I am concerned about the effects on the Vernon pool. So if we were to offer to do the uh study on the vernal pool and you know offer the analysis I don't know and Mr. to stall. I don't know how much time we have. If we could add to uh offer to uh request an extension if possible to give us some time to prepare that study and um you know enable us to uh offer maybe some additional mitigation measures or um some way to uh you know better preserve the vernal pool habitat area. Yeah, Peter, correct me if I'm wrong if I'm wrong, but the Vernon pool study really has to be done on a multi-seasonal basis. Is that correct?

No, not necessarily. Okay. No, it identifying the vernal pool is one, but the habitat thing that's seasonal, but I think, you know, looking at the existing and proposed uh uh you know, development within the vernal pool habitat area isn't seasonal,

right? So the the two different things are if you're doing a vernal pool study that's identifying the the the critters if you will that are using it and the the the different um uh qualities of the of the pool itself. So looking at like pH and temperatures and things like that. So that's the vernal pool study but uh our regulations ask for vernipole habitat area. Um basically uh it's a a review of the required elements for habitat. So that can be done when the vernal pool can't be studied if you will. So you know typically you you would do a vernal pool study in the early spring um to look at the critters u but in this case this is looking at the habitat area. So it's identifying fragmentations uh you know potential cover um food sources and things like that. So it's it's two different studies and it can be done offseason

and the public hearing can be extended again uh with the consent of the applicant if we want to consider that too. For how long? For another month. Yeah, until next month.

But is that enough time to do a study? And it don't forget we're getting weather with uh you know down to zero degrees and and daytime temperatures not even getting above 10 degrees. So uh that's not necessarily conducive to going out and doing a study of any sort. I mean can can that be done? Can can they do that in that you know next 30 days? I don't know the availability of the uh the uh person doing the study, but it's possible. Um I guess that you know are we going to gain enough information to to really make a difference?

Yeah.

Um I I don't know. I mean, if we Well, the the the big thing I would say, I mean, granted, the habitat with the plants that are available for food for said critters, uh, is one thing, but then does the area even have critters at all, which we can't determine at this time of year. And if that is a dead vernal pool and it's not supporting any kind of wildlife, then that would be be one thing in their favor. Uh maybe not in ours, but definitely in theirs. And I think that would be an important thing to know. Uh you know, to what extent is that vernal pool teameming with wildlife in the springtime? Um

yeah I think I uh short of having an actual vernal pool analysis have having been done already you have to just go under the assumption that it's supporting whatever it has the potential to support and then you have to look at the habitat area and see if there's proper cover um proper you know breeding habitat and food sources and things like that. So, you know that the study couldn't be done until late March, early April at the earliest. At the earliest.

Now, Peter, is there a is there an option for them withdrawing this permit and getting back their permit fee and then reapplying later on? Sorry, you're muted. Uh yes to part of your question. They can withdraw the application if they if they want to. Um they can um but typically uh the commission has to decide if they have to repay the fee to re reapply.

Okay. So I I think we should, you know, if if uh if the commission is is uh concerned about that report, that's uh you know, that's a uh um you know, that's something that you'll have if you're going to be uh if you're going to want the full report with identifying which critters are are there, that will have to be in the spring, right? And so that's still a few months off. We can't extend the public hearing that long.

Alan, David, anybody else on the commission, do you think I'm wrong in requesting that? Oh, no. No. Um, I don't know. I I would be in favor of them withdrawing their permit, their re application now and resubmitting it when they have more information and then we could deal with the the fee late down the road. If they come back and say we're not going forward, then we can decide. The staff already spent time and money on this project. You're right. Right. You know, my my only concern is and and you know, we we do require that study as part of our regulations. Yeah.

My my concern is and I I don't want to I don't want to waste people's time by having them spin their wheels if they can't reduce the impact. Um, you know, I I'm I'm not saying all the way down to 10%. And I I I'm hesitant to throw out an actual number, but you know, if they if they want to have a house that's a certain size, um, it's going to take up space on the property. So, you know, I I don't want people to waste their time if it can't be done.

But also on on the same token, David, if the the report comes back and says the Vernon pool is inviable, Yeah, I I I'm I'm well I don't want to get into long-term life of vernal pools, but they can always be they can always come back if the habitat exists. Um yeah, so you know it's right now it's been identified as a vernal pool. Um and we have to look at it at face value. So we have vernal pool, we have the habitat area,

right? Yeah. Then again, it's also a vernal pool right in the middle of a residential neighborhood that was also at one point agricultural land and there's really no no notion as to how much arsenic, copper, cadmium and everything else has been applied to this area. But you know, you can't go with that. You have to go with like you said, Vernal Fool's been identified. And also don't forget there's another parcel to the rear that's vacant which they could come forward and say hey I want to build a house here too. Well that's why we have the cumulative effect. That's why

we say with the goal of disturbing less than 10% on each parcel with the understanding that every parcel could impact 10% and it adds up. Right. Yeah. the other, you know, can do we want to take a straw vote and see how it'll go. Alan, I have one uh comment question from the public that came in through the Zoom chat. If you don't mind if I share it. Yeah, go ahead.

Sure. So there um Shamar Kiner uh home address 89 Cold Spring Lane in Sfield asked um if a fence will be needed and or required if this application um moves forward. That wasn't determined.

Okay. That I I I think that will satisfy his question. Thank you. You know, the other thing we didn't really consider with that two- foot high picket fence is that may stop children maybe from going into the wetlands or further into the vernal poolool habitat, but that will also restrict the movement of the vernal habitat creatures from going where they need to. Yeah, it would have to be designed in a way that allows for passage of the critters that may be living in it, which could include spotted turtles. I mean, which, you know, you got to give them a couple inches. Easy. Easy. Yep.

Why don't we uh What's the consensus of the commission, Len? How do you feel? Well, what what I'm feeling is that we're seem to be tending that if the structure is of the current dimensions, uh it sounds like the vote is going to be negative. Um so I think the applicant has to be thinking how much do they want to reduce the um the size of the of structure uh and still make it worth their while. Um I vernal pools are important and um uh the regulation is there for a reason. Um and and this vernal pool of I remember being at the site and it's uh very accessible uh to people on Proer. If you go up Proser Road, it's it's very accessible to get to that vernal pool. If you're in this the area where the house is is going to be built, uh it's not very accessible. you got to go through some thick woods to get to the vernal pool from that end. Um, but that's that's that's what what I'm thinking.

Okay. But I hate to see somebody spend a lot of money um on a study that um um may or may not uh uh clarify anything. That's true.

Uh Lorenzo, you have a feeling how you're going to vote? Um, yeah. Um, I'm torn because I like and I think Glenn just did a good job of kind of like articulating that. It's like I'm torn because it is because of the the it's because the size of the the site, the size of the house, you know, it it's in 238. That's a deep cut. It's a deep cut into like the regulation of, you know, 750. Um, it's not a third. Um, I like the I I I was open and I'm willing to look at the fence idea um with the with the study. Um, but then the question of logistics and timeline um and turnaround. So like I'm torn. I wish I could I I I would have to say no because the because of the vernal pool. Um but oh that's still a soft no if there's a if there's something we can make work here,

right? um just that the most obvious thing is a smaller house. Um which is kind of like the elephant in the room. Also, does the the fence that we're talking about does that that does that mitigate the disturbance of the of the um habitat? I don't think so. Right. No. No. That just that just keeps people from wandering through after everything's done said and done. But the uh the other thing is it almost doesn't matter. I mean, it does matter how big the house is, but we're still going to have a fair amount of disturbance just because they're going to be changing the sewer line, right? Can't you can't get around that. That is there

regardless. Even if they put in a 10 foot 10 putt, they're still going to have to move that water or septic line. So, uh I I think maybe maybe requiring more remitt uh more of a design as to what they can do after the disturbance and after everything has been laid to rest and the house is is done. You know what what else is going to be done for remediation and what you know after they've cut down whatever trees, how many more can they put back? Mhm.

So like is there some work we can is there some work that could be done afterwards that could help the pool? Help that help the pool, right? But planting more pool planting more trees doesn't necessarily help the vern pool. No, no, it's not helping the vernal pool. It helps the habitat habitat.

Uh Paul, do you have a opinion? uh you know I you got me in mid-ransfer of train but as other folks were were speaking and you know we're talking about the size of the house I'm not sure this is um applicable but could folks build up instead of out you know I was thinking that same question pardon I did I I Yeah. Yep. We We're limited to a 35 ft height with zoning regulation.

Okay. Okay. Cuz I mean I'm I guess I'm in the same boat uh as Lorenzo. You know, I I uh I'm hearing the arguments about the vernal pool. I'm feeling the development around the site already, but uh I do understand the cumulative effect. So, uh I'm I'm I'm very sad to say I am leaning toward a no. Understood. Adam, are you still here?

I'm here. Uh yes. I I I also agree with the cumulative effect and I do not see the fence as a realistic deterrent. I don't see that as a long-term it's a it's a great temporary solution, but I don't see that as a long-term solution to protect the vernal pool. Are you leaning towards no on this application? I guess I I would be leaning towards no.

All right. So, my suggestion is that we take a vote and if it's denied, um the the applicant could rethink if they want to spend them more money on this project and come back in the spring or um you know do what they have to do. Could I could I ask for the extension and then I could discuss with the applicant and um Mr. Cole and, you know, see if we would like to um just withdraw and come back cuz I know the denial has its own timelines associated to it.

Um and I don't know if it would prevent us from applying um over a certain period of time, but um if we could uh if so, I guess Peter, do we have to request an extension or do we have until the next meeting? Daniel, can you hold on one second please? I miss By Byron. The photos didn't come up all together. I thought Byron, do you have uh how are you leaning?

Yeah, I I guess I was pretty torn also. And I wasn't [clears throat] sure when the uh presenter asked what exactly would we be looking for [clears throat] in terms of a reduction if there was ever any concrete answer to him. that he could use to then make a judgment on it. So I I and I do respect the the regulations with the vernal pool, but I was just curious about the reduction uh to the question that he asked. What would we be looking for as an alternate Yeah.

alternative? I think that there's there's like a catch 22 with that, Byron, because if we say XYZ and they come back and they fit XYZ and we say no, then there's legal ramifications to that. It's better if they come back and they've figured out A, B, and C, which is different from their original design, and then we work off that. It's hard to hard to give something that that they can go with because if we still say no, then that's that's a real issue.

Yeah. Uh Steve, do you have an opinion on how you're leaning?

Um pretty much the same as as everyone. I mean that see seeing the the regulation with you know the the goal of the 10%. Um also just comment on the fence. I mean, I'm not sure if that's feasible with limiting passive recreation to the an entire property. Um, and then the comment that it's actually more accessible from, you know, pro than it is from the Laughler side. So, you know, everything else aside would make more sense to, you know, have, you know, be at least when, um, uh, Peter Casaldi mentioned just adding the additional buffers, that was at least a a better way to extend that, but um, that really didn't address the habitat area. Well, if if you if you want to uh postpone it, um two things you have to keep in mind. U Vernon pool habitat and assessment of the Vernon pool and also how close you can come to 10%.

Which is a big problem I think. Yeah. I mean, you can spend money on a study and say, "Oh, I can only do 20%." It may not fly. And you know, you unfortunately it looks like you have very little wiggle room, but if you can wiggle Yeah. see what see what we can we can compromise with.

Understood. Well, I do appreciate the um soft uh discussion and kind of thoughts on where um all the commissioners will be leading towards. So, I really appreciate that and like I said, we'll um take that information and I'll discuss with the applicant and and um Ian and then we'll um see if we want to uh try this again. But um uh I think I'm leaning towards asking if we could table it one more time if possible and then we will make a decision in the next few days on whether what we're going to do regarding the application. Okay. And discuss with Peter a timeline for a study if you're going to go forward with that. 104.

All right. So, is there a motion to table it till the February meeting? So, moved. Made by Kevin. Second. Second by Glenn. All in favor? Post. Thank you all for your time. Yep. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. All right. That was only number one. I'm going to get fired. [laughter]

All right. So, map amendment for 15 Blue Hills Avenue, right? Peter, is there anyone you'd like me to? Um, yeah. I'm going I'm doing uh Mr. Frank Vodka. Um, did you already get him? You going to get him? I'm sorry. My my list is screwy. Ian Con's not with this one, right? No.

Here he is. There's Frank. Um, who else do we need to promote, Frank? Uh, good evening, Peter. Uh, can you all hear me? Yeah. Uh, could you please promote Marabel Tucci? She's the She's also the soil scientist.

Okay. And we can uh we can take um Dennis and [clears throat] Rebecca, how can we how can we uh take the folks from the last public hearing uh out of the Um, oh, I'll uh demote them.

Yeah, I see. Remove them, but that takes them Well, maybe they don't need to be here anymore. I know. Removes them removes them from the meeting. Yeah, there's a button that's just uh changed to attendee, which I'll Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. Same with Ian Cole. Yeah. Uh, and Mr. Richard Hall is here for on way down. Can we take him off and bring him back?

I don't see him as a panelist, only as an attendee. Okay. Okay. So the commission has to open a new public hearing. Yeah. Before Peter, before we do that, is this for a subdivision also? No, this is strictly already a separate parcel, right? This is only for the map amendment.

Okay. But this it's already a separate parcel. No, there's one one big parcel according to our records that includes the the uh uh the first cathedral building and the parking lot um to the south where this proposal is, but the wetlands were flagged throughout the property. Okay. All right. So, if they're going to break it off as a separate parcel, then that's another public hearing. That's right. Okay. All right. All right. So, is there a motion to open the public hearing?

So, moved. Made by Glenn, seconded by I'll second. Okay. All in favor say I. I.

Opposed. Same. It's unanimous. And before we get into it, let's go over some rules. Uh this is a a wetlands um map amendment. Um to the public, we're only concerned with uh wetlands issues. Um and to the applicant, we only want to hear about this parcel. Um if we can leave the entire parcel out of it, it'd be a lot quicker. Uh we try to adjourn by 10. Um, we will allow public to have questions, commission members questions, comments on both sides, and the applicant will have the last word. Um, if you're asked a question, please try to be precise so that it doesn't drag on. And I apologize if I sound rude, but my function is to keep the meeting moving.

All right. Yeah. or recount. I'd also like to say that if you're an attendee and you want to be promoted for this particular application or to ask questions, you have to raise your hand. Yeah. In the in the uh in the box for letting us know that you want to speak. Yeah. Down on the bottom of the screen it says raise your hand. That's how we know. It's not like, you know, it's because we can't see you. Yeah. I'm sorry. You have to hit the raise your hand button. And there's nobody on Is there one person on the phone? Yeah. I'm not sure who that is, but yeah, we got a phone.

All right. When we get there, we'll we'll promote that person and see what's going on. Okay. All right. Um Okay. So, here's who's here for the applicant. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Francis Vaka from the BAC Group. I am here on behalf of the applicant the first cathedral and grow America. I also have a representative from me also from BSC group Marbel Tucci who is a professional soil scientist.

I will share my presentation at this time. Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Again for the record my name is Francis Vako from BSE Group. I'm a professional engineer licensed in the state of Connecticut. I have a representative with me this evening, Marbel Tucci, also registered soil scientist. We are here on behalf of the First Cathedral Grow America uh for 11 uh for 1151 Blue Hills Avenue wetland map amendment uh for for the said property. Uh obviously the project team, the first cathedral of Bloomfield, they've been in town for a number of years. They have one of the largest if not the largest church in the state and they also own uh their their property is 40 acres and they are looking at uh developing some additional components of that. They have partnered with a uh affordable housing team grow America for the first initial phases of this project and I'll talk about that bit more in the future. Uh BSC group we are consulting uh interdisciplinary firm. I am the senior project manager. Ethan Sneezby is the was the lead uh soil scientist uh for the project. He was unfortunately unable to join uh this evening, but one of the other uh associate soil scientists, Mayor Beltuchi, is here with me uh who was also very familiar with the site and has performed some of the delineations tonight. We would like to respectfully request the approval for wetland map amendment in accordance with section 15 of the inland wetland regulations for wetland water course boundaries field delineated at 1151 Blue Hills Avenue. Tonight I'm just going to go over the brief the the existing site. I'm going to go through the existing Bloomfield GIS. I'm going to basically relate those to the field delineated wetlands and boundaries that were produced uh over the last year. uh field delineations and briefly touch on the proposed future development, but that'll only be one

slide. This is the existing site. First Cathedral is the large church located at the intersection of Winterberry A and Blue Hills Avenue. The actual property itself is uh rather large though. There is there is it's 40 acres. So, the main church itself is located to the north, but there is an auxiliary parking lot connected via a small wooden bridge and a a road access that will get to the main church area on the northeast I sorry, the the southeast portion of the lot. And then on the uh southwest portion, there is a small field complex with some uh with a tennis court and a few other uh recreation amenities. the wetland complex associated with the site uh basically runs essentially through the center of it here identified this is from the town GIS mapping. Uh I would also like to point out the red line that you the small dash line you see here is a conservation easement that was uh put in place at the time that the initial development moved forward. uh any of the development that we are proposing not necessarily associated with this application but nothing is impacting any of the wetland areas. So basically we zooming in on this because our the main plan that we have provided as part of the requirements for the section 15 of the regulations basically identifies both the original GIS information that was that is considered to be the factual locations of the mapping and then I have identified on here also the the field delineated wetlands and in my coordination with Peter through the process there is substantial enough difference to warrant the need for the map amendment. I'm going to go through this in detail and uh make I have a bunch of

graphics so it'll be clear for you to understand what's actually taking place. So, as far as the uh total wetland area shown on the official mapping, it is 12.74 acres identified here in green. And then field delineated uh it was delineated by Ethan and Marabel uh in December of 2024 and throughout the year and completed in December 2025 to update a few minor areas. There is an increase in the wetland area of 17.27 acres which is identified and you can see where there are some minor differences. There are some portions that have been removed. There are some portions and end of it here that have been added. Uh there's a significant piece just we like to bring up the there's a a wetland section that is located in essentially a grass area that was original based based on the the history of the site. there was a larger wetland complex essentially stretching through this area but it was filled uh when they put in the auxiliary parking lot that wetland area that was shown uh does not exist anymore so it is not identified as part of the wetland matrix any longer. There are other portions where the wetland has extended uh as identified here in the uh darker green areas. As far as water courses associated, this is what is identified, 1,800 linear feet. Um, it is a rather wide water course area identified on the wetland mapping uh for the town. uh what is actually observed on site are these smaller uh yellow areas which are the field delineated water courses and Marbel can speak uh a little bit later on the specifics associated with the water course and what makes it specific to a water course versus just

essentially an open area. Uh, and that's why they essentially and like I said, and it's hard to read the text, but it was observed on site that the the the actual delineated water course essentially fades into uh a lot of the the wetland areas. So, those are the only true defined water course areas that were identified and delineated. As far as open pond, we had originally delineated on the entire site and there are some portions here that are cut off. They're essentially located below the edge of the screen. Uh there are 3.6 acres uh that was originally defined and then following uh Ethan and Marbel's delineation, it's only it's been reduced down to 1.46. The yellow here um the other areas uh were were not field identified as being open ponded areas. At this point, I'm going to briefly turn the uh presentation over to Marbel uh to speak very specifically on a few, you know, more technical items that she has definitely more experience with than I do. Marbel, if you could.

Yes. Um hello. Um so, I'm just going to sum up what we found in the field. Um so the wetland soils that we observed in the wetlands here correspond closely with the mapped skitico shaker and Mayabid soil series um which are characteristic of poorly drained and for very poorly drained landscapes on low gradient terrain which is essentially what we found here. Um uh we in our field eval evaluation we identified some low chroma matrix colors and frequent redux concentrations throughout the upper horizons. Um, like Frank mentioned, um, we delineated, um, two intermittent water courses that traverse the wetlands and flow north towards the on-site pond and the other water course flows west towards the same pond. Um, we determined that those are intermittent water courses that just diffuse into the larger wetland complex. Um, and then just to go over some of the hydrophidic vegetation that we found, um, mostly pin oak, weeping willow, speckled alder, silky dogwood, and reed canary grass were identified on site. And as far as the delineated pond, um, the associated bank is located within the wetland system and the pond consists of low gently sloping margins that transition directly into hydric soil conditions. U consistent with the surrounding wetland. Um and so that generally sums up our delinations, but if anybody has any other technical questions pertaining to the the delineations, I'd be happy to try to answer those questions at the end of the presentation.

Peter, do you have a staff report on this? Oh, one final thing. What? Well, or unless you we can you know, we can be finished at that point. I just my only all I was identifying was in in accordance with the the remaining piece of the uh section 15 is we have a we have provided an updated survey and that survey does uh fully delineate all the wetland flags as required per the the uh section 15 regulation and then we have also identified all of the uh soil types which is also a requirement. Okay, thank you. Okay, sure. No problem.

Put my camera back on. Uh yes, I would like to ask the soil scientist just to give uh for those folks that may not be uh familiar with how you determine where the wetlands are or how you how how that actually occurs because I think most people on the commission understand that. Um but I'm you know if there are people here uh um and there are a bunch of folks just give a brief you know h how do you go about determining where the wetlands are?

Yeah. So um during our evaluations um we're specifically looking for um signs of hydrophic vegetation hydraology and hydric soils um especially for our federal wetlands. Um and in Connecticut we are paying close attention to um any poorly drained very very poorly drained aluvial or flood plane soils as well. And so that includes doing um just observing the landscape um but then also digging um into the ground with our augers and evaluating the soil. We color, we texture um and we determine if it uh keys out appropriately. Yeah. Um,

okay. Yeah. And and to the public, so uh wetlands is determined by soil type in Connecticut, not by water. So it's what type of soil is beneath you know the surface

essentially what yeah the the the the keying out that Marbel indicated basically there was a there was a color chart that essentially is is followed and when you basically using the it's a very specifically developed industry standard color chart which essentially identifies uh various types of uh soils and those colors are very specific And there is an entire series associated with what is considered to be wetland soils in the state of Connecticut. And essentially that is essentially the the process that would be used to essentially verify if a piece uh of verify if soil identified on the site is considered to be uh wetland type soil. which is why over time uh and reason why we're here for the presentation is uh those those delineation boundaries ultimately change over time and this is essentially documenting the fact that it has updated

and and also when Marbel was talking about an augur it's not a big augur it's like a little cup on a pole and somebody actually physically walks out and turns it and digs a little hole and they I don't know how far They dig down a foot and they pull it up and they see the different color soils and that determines the wetlands, but it's not a big augur. You know, I dig I dig many small holes. [laughter] [gasps] And then they're flagged and put on a map. Yes. All right. Ready? Good, Peter.

Yes. Thank you. Um uh I uh I was out on the site uh a few times and um I I looked at uh most of the flags. I didn't look at every single flag, but I looked at most of the flags and I think I'm um I think I'm good with the delineation. Uh Frank, can I ask you to put that shared screen back up? Oh, sure. Absolutely. And I'd like to look at the the other set of plans.

Okay. This one you're Okay. Yeah, that's good. All right. So, um, one of the things that our official map shows, but it's not very clear. Um, can can you back up to where all of the water courses are highlighted from the map? Well, there you go. Right there.

So, on on our official map, there's no dist distinction or clear distinction between these blue areas and the actual pond. And these these are supposed to be the swamp areas that you would see with a little uh grass plant symbol on a typical topographic map, but they come up as water courses. So, it's it's a little bit, you know, these areas aren't holding water like the pond does, but they probably have some times out of the year where they do hold some water, just not all the time. Anyway, so uh you can see um in the northerly part of the property there or of the delineation that there was a a bunch of areas that were not considered wetlands on the official map. They've been flagged as wetlands. We looked at a majority of those and they're all pretty much defined by the topography. Um meaning that they're they're at the toe of the slope of the developed area around them. So, they're at the toe of the slope at the parking lot at the at the bridge uh you know over on the uh uh the west side where there's a recreation area. They're at the toe of that slope. Um and they're like I said pretty much um uh defined or pretty well defined by the topography. Couple of areas that I had some questions about were um in the uh area north of the driveway in from Blue Hills. Yeah. Can you zoom into that?

Sure. Absolutely.

So, uh the numbers are actually easier to read on the ones that uh that um you guys have in your in your package. But um let's see how do I describe this from that bulge right there where your where you are uh where your cursor is the some of the numbers in that area uh didn't make sense. It looked like there were two sections or two sets of numbers and uh I met with uh with the soil scientists out there and we looked at those and there were the second set of delineation numbers was for the state defined wetlands um sorry federally defined wetlands and the numbers that we that I had in question that seem to be out of out of sequence are the state only or Connecticut only wetlands and and that's what this commission is concerned about. So I was able to to um uh clarify the one area that I had problems with. Um but otherwise um I'm recommending approval of the of the application with um four conditions. Uh, let me see. Make sure I didn't miss anything important. Um, yeah. Can we uh we is it Frank? Do you have a picture? Uh, maybe we have to go to the other set of plans to show where the wetlands are on the on the furthest south. the the main set the the the

the survey. Uh, sure. I can I can jump over to the survey right here. The I what I can do is we look at that page that back page. Sure. Give me Yep. You get give me one second. I do have that uh open. Let me see if I have the full I have the full property survey open right here. Yes. So, one second. I will drag this. So my point my point is that there's a there's a large area in the southerntherly part of the property

that is is not flagged uh is not uh indicated as wetlands on the official map but was flagged as wetlands and you know for the most part um you can I don't know can we see both wetland lines maybe not so hold on what I can do is I'll I can draw on this quickly give me one moment Okay. Uh, so I can grab uh There we go. So, yeah, this may not be the best picture.

Sorry. Essentially, you're referring to the So, this is the initial boundary or this is one main boundary and this is the second boundary for the for the southern piece. So in other words, I think what I understand you're saying is right essentially this entire area is now delineated as as wetland which it was not under the uh the the town. Correct. Uh exactly. I

I want to make sure that that's clear and that I'm in in agreement with that flagging. So, I'm recommending the commission approve the application to offend the uh amend the official map of wetlands and water courses. Um uh with the following condition recommended conditions um per permit shall submit a separate wetland map amendment plan which incorporates all technical revisions. And what I'm looking for uh for the technical revisions is essentially the information that's on this plan which is a property survey and the other plan which was the wetlands delineation map be combined. Sure.

Uh and submit three sets of paper and one myar to be filed on the land records. Um I mean for signing and then the permit shall file on the land records. That's number three. Number four is um the official map shall be modified to include the soil scientist flag wetlands line uh where it crosses the official map wetland map sorry the official map line between wetland flags W I or W1268 W1269 which are over by Wittenbury Avenue side and wetland flags W1 101 and 102 which are on the Blue Hills Avenue side.

Understood. Yep. So that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Um any questions from the public at this point? You have to raise your hand by going down to the bottom. Do we still have the person with the phone number? No. Zoom is great, but if you just if you get on by phone call, we can't there's no way to raise your hand. So, all right, there's a couple of questions in chat. All right,

if those are for this application, I wasn't paying attention. Looks like they are. Uh, Lawrence, where's Lawrence? All right, Lawrence, do you want to ask the question? We just need your address for the record, please.

The question is, can the applicant explain more about the pond located to the southeast of the property near Highway 178? They only showed a portion of this pond on their presentation. Let me jump to the I have the Let me see if I have the official wetland map. One moment. What I actually, you know what I can do? I'll jump back up to that in the presentation. I have it right here. Uh, can I clarify that this is the this is the pond on the southeast that is being questioned?

It makes s I would say yeah.

All right. uh to the best of my knowledge and uh Marbella you probably don't have any additional information on this but at the time that uh uh Ethan uh who did this portion of the wetland delineation down here when he identified uh the wetland boundary in this area uh he did not identify any standing water or pond identifiable associated with this particular portion. If if you examine the what Peter had mentioned a little bit earlier in the presentation, the fact that the swamp as identified here by the uh single solid line with the three dots, this is probably a portion of what would be considered a a water course area that is associated with um I probably mistakenly identified that on the uh the pond portion of this where that most likely should have been identified as a water course and therefore encapsulated entirely within the the full wetland complex. So that may I apologize for that. It's probably a mistake on uh my earlier part of the presentation.

Hey Frank uh he actually had clarification saying that he was referencing the southwest portion. So there may be the confus yeah they live at Camelot. So that's where it's over in the other corner. Understood.

So similar to this, there may not be I may not have a substantial amount of information on this because we from the very beginning of this project knew that we were not planning any proposed disturbance within any of the wetland areas or within any of the conservation easement area. So, I know that this portion of the wetland area was pulled around and basically stopped at the boundary line. I don't know that he explicitly analyzed any of the standing water for any of the ponding associated with this. But what I can tell you is that any of the proposed development will not be anywhere near any of the uh wetland conveyance in this portion of the southwest portion of the property. And no, none of the proposed design will affect any of the uh water course associated with wetlands water course or standing water associated with any of this development.

Thank you. All right. Any other questions?

Uh David Lupa raised his hand. Yep. David, you have a question?

Yeah, I do. Um so it it's sort of along the same vein as the uh questions from the public. Um those are indicated as water bodies um and and maybe it was mis misidentified on the map. Were those investig what what time of year were those investigated? the the time frame at which the delineations occurred were uh December of 2024 was the main delineation time frame was about a week in in December of 2024 and then there were some modifications to modifications and updates to ensure that we had accurate uh pond boundary information in uh early December of 2025.

Okay. Um was there any um indication that there may be an intermittent water body um meaning a vernal pool basically um because the the time of year is not ideal for looking for vernal pools but you can look for depressions that may indicate that there's intermittent water bodies. uh to my to the best of my knowledge there was no identification of any of the intermittent water bodies that would convey you know the the potential uh appearance of a vernal pool in the springtime. Marbel I know you have a bit more information on the uh the soils report itself and in your discussions with Ethan uh can you provide any additional information on that? Uh yeah, no I would agree um with you Frank. There when I was on site um we didn't see any low-lying vernal pool areas. Um usually in these wooded areas too there was a pretty dense canopy. There weren't any open uh spots of like depressional spots with an open canopy. Um, we did not investigate uh very like super far south um like Frank um indicated. We wrapped our line around. So yeah, in that area um we I was not there for that. I'm not sure if Ethan investigated and walked around in that area. Um but yeah, other than that, we did not identify any potential vernal pool areas, which we are used to doing with most of our delineations. We have our eye out for those.

Okay. Yeah, I know the I know the the area in the southwest corner was a constructed mitigation for the for the initial impact from the project. Um so it's it was originally a pond. Um it's I'm sure it's infilled with cattails and it's it may have portions that are effectively acting as vernal pool, but I know it's it's not it's probably not at that level. Um I just was unsure about the southeast corner. Um, so and just for everyone else's edification, a water body is a water course by definition, which is important when we get to our our uh buffers. So that's it. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission? Any questions from uh any more questions from the public? Any comments from the public?

I have a comment from um Mr. Lawrence Jagon again. Where do you keep getting his comment? Pardon? Where do you get these? Oh, the question down at the bottom. Q&A. Yeah. Uh his comment is the applicant needs to investigate if there are more water bodies near this location before any changes are made.

And that's all I have for public comment. Thank you. Um, [clears throat] for those of you that have not been around on the wetlands commission for a while, I was here when this was first proposed. Um, and there was a great deal of recreating wetlands, which I believe was in the area that we're talking about where these ponds are. Is that right, Peter? Yes. So, there was a lot of considerable amount of wetlands recreated over there and things were shifted around

in the in the southwest corner. Yes.

Yeah. Okay. So, any comments from the commission? Last word from the applicant. We will take all of that uh into consideration. What I can say with regard to the southwest is that would be associated with phase four of the development uh which and the master plan for the total site has been approved. Uh but that would not come until much farther in the future. Uh so uh I definitely will take that into consideration and at the time that we would be proposing for site plan associated with anything associated with the southwest portion of the property uh I will ensure that we would get a a vernal pool analysis. We have uh in-house vernal pool experts at BSC and I can uh ensure that we will get that as part of the site plan application for phase 4.

Okay. All right. So that's the last word. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? So move to close. Second. Seconded by Kevin. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Abstain. It's unanimous. What do we want to do? We want to vote on this now. I don't see why not. Somebody want to make a motion on this application. Come on. Come on. Come on. Come on.

Nobody. [laughter] And Paul's on a train. That's his excuse. He's He's the vice chair. I I was about to chime in. I'm I'm willing to take the plunge here from the train. I saw Byron raise his hand. Oh, well, Byron, have it. Byron. I was if he wants to he can but if not I will let he make yeah Paul

I'll make a motion to approve the wetlands map amendment 1151 Blue Hills A unique ID number 7895 property owner and applicant First Baptist Church so soil scientist Ethan Sneezby and would include all the comments in the and Peter memo dated January 8th, 2026. All the comments and recommendations. Is there a second? Is there a Is there a map uh date with that? Uh I didn't see one on there. Yeah, I don't I don't see one either.

A second. There's no map date. July 3rd or is that different? December 3rd. No, July 3rd. But I'm not sure if that's right. That's the big the big map. It was in our Are you Are you looking for the date on the survey or the date on the the main application? On the wetlands map amendment plan?

Uh, sure. for one one moment. I apologize. Um should have that directly in front of me. Well, in my uh on page two of my memo, I am uh I think that that that map may be undated. And the two sheet property survey that we also reviewed uh and I believe is included in your package was dated July 3rd, 2025 and revised to 1113 2025

and you are correct. There is no specific date on the uh wetland amendment plan. Uh the date on the survey uh you are correct. It is it it is 1113 amended wetland delineation information. So yes, the date on that is 111325. Okay. That was seconded by I'll second it. Second by Glenn. Um Frank, you accept the uh recommendations of staff conditions. Seconded by Kevin.

Yes, I accept the uh the conditions. It's kind of after the fact, but all right. Okay. So, all in favor say I. I. I. Opposed? Abstain. It's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Moving on to number two. Not done yet. [laughter] Yeah. Peter, is there anybody additional that needs to be added? Not not for this one. No. Thank you.

If I may, commissioners and and chairman, uh, I'll make this easier for everyone. Um, before we go into anything, there have been substantial changes associated with the buildings specifically, not necessarily with the site. Uh the buildings are actually looking like they are getting smaller. Um they are we are potentially looking at going from a fivetory down to a fourstory, but it's currently being investigated and essentially the site plan that was presented under the init the the next public hearing for the site plan. Uh the the ownership team is requesting the withdrawal of that. However, I would like to request of the commission uh due to the the fee associated with that. There was a $2,700 permit fee for that. We would like to request to the commission the ability for us to hold the permit fee until we are able to uh resubmit and our time frame for resubmission is probably going to be in the next uh 3 to four months is what we are looking at. What we are looking at and I would like to request to the commission if that would be possible.

Do you want us to give money back? No. No, we would like to we would like to keep the money that we already gave you. We'd like you to keep, but we don't want to give you anymore. All right. All right. All right. All right. So, you're So, you're withdrawing your your um application

the site plan application for phase one as phase one and phase two that was originally submitted that had the information on it. that will be changing. The site portion of it will not be changing substantially, but it is enough that and the buildings will be changing enough that um we don't believe we will have time enough to request extensions for the public hearing. So, we are requesting uh the withdrawal of it with the potential resubmission the next two three to four months. All right. and any funds will be applied to the next application

at the commission's discretion if that's possible. Yes. All right. Um Peter, do we need a motion for that? I don't think so. No, I don't think so either. Yeah. Okay. Um but if the commission is looking to uh you know to uh you know not require fees for the next application then that should probably be a specific request by the applicant when that application comes in. Yeah. Yeah. Think to forward the fees from this one to that. Okay. Right.

All right. That's good. All right. Thank you very much. Very good. Thank you all for coming. And I would like to I'd like to point out that I was joking when I said, "Aren't we done yet?" You don't have to leave. If you have a presentation you want to give it, go ahead. I'm here. I would love to, but I I will what I will do is I will promise I will come back and give a presentation uh in the next three to four months. How's that sound? Sounds good. That'll be good. We'll still be here. Thank you all very much. I appreciate your time this evening. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Number three, request for a jurisdictional ruling 51 Douglas Street.

Okay. For this one, we need to promote um uh everybody's leaving. Mr. Rostic Dasco, he's the bottom of my list, so I'm going to promote him to panelist. Um, and we can ask him who else needs to be uh promoted. Here he comes.

Roastic, are you there? Yes. Hi, Peter. Who else do we need to promote? Only me. Okay. Okay. So, um, uh, do you want me to share my screen or do you want to share yours, Rostic? Uh, I do have the map pulled up. Uh, okay. So, I I'm I'm fine sharing, but I don't know if if you and I have the same one. I'm assuming we're looking at the same thing.

Well, why don't you share your screen and and we'll take a look at what you have and then we'll go from there.

So, for the commission's um information, this request is for a jurisdictional ruling for tree clearing. Um with the last update of our wetlands rags, which is in 2023, um there was a requirement that um any uh um tree clearing um of land within uh the upland review areas or within land that drains to a water course, wetland [clears throat] or a water course. um that a request for a um jurisdictional ruling be filed. And the jurisdictional ruling is a request um to be excused from requiring a permit. So in other words, this is um uh a a request made by the property owner uh in this case to do some clearing of trees in preparation for a future project. Um and they the request is for that they do not need a permit. So um Mr. Ross, can you make your picture on your screen bigger?

Sure. Um see normally there's a button to zoom, but I'll see it. Is your window optimized in the upper right hand corner big as it could be? Is that better? That's a little better. Okay.

Um Okay. So, uh here's the we asked them to do a tree survey. And if you look at all of the all of the uh highlighted yellow um circles, I guess on the property. Oh, I we should first say that the property's on the west side of Douglas Street. Um uh adjoining the existing uh Bloomfield Tennis Club property. Um, and so, uh, there's off-site wetlands and water courses, and on this plan, um, shown in, uh, in blue is, uh, 200 foot upland review area from the water course. Shown in red. Closest to that corner is the 50 foot upland review area limit. And then in between is a 100 foot upland re view review area limit. The 50- foot line should be a 50- foot vegetated buffer zone. So um the uh um there's also a vegetated buffer zone from the water course and it's at 75 ft and it is essentially the same line as the 100 foot upland review area. there are practically the same the same line. So as the note in red say says the proposed tree removal will not encroach within the 50 foot vegetated buffer zone uh which also correspond approximately to 75 ft from the stream removal of appro this will result in a removal of approximately 79 trees. So in my staff report um I am recommending that they um

save more trees. Um my recommendation is that they use um uh that they keep some additional trees in the in the westerly third of the property. Um, Rosta, can you share your preliminary site plan to a I think it was. So, so this does not look like the same 2A that I saw um in uh

let's see so the this picture is rotated 90 degrees from the other one. So the proposed correct

the proposed clearing is for the for um this future project but still needs to get wetlands and planning approval and the uh um the area uh of the parking new parking behind the building um wasn't that clear on the plan that I was looking at uh the earlier version of this plan but I think there's there's additional um trees to be saved, you know, to the rear of the building. Um, I think, uh, I'm recommending the the back third. I don't know. No, it's the same plan. So, uh I'm recommending that additional trees outside of those buffer zones in the westerly part of the property be be retained. Um, this plan doesn't show any uh it doesn't show any um storm water improvements, but that would be for another another plan. Uh I mean another application. And so um sorry, I'm looking back at my staff report here. Um, I'm recommending that the proposed

limits of clearing shall be modified to retain all existing vegetation within the westerly most 0.3 acres of the property as indicated on option 2A, west of the west parking lot. Uh tree stumps shall not be removed but can be ground up in place. Soil erosion uh control measures must be installed before any trees are cut and with the removal of I forget how many 80 trees or something like that. There will be heavy equipment on the site. So precautions are going to be needed um at a construction entrance or or landing zone and uh for catch basins out in the street. Um also this clearing falls within the realm of uh approval by the town planning and zoning commission as well as this commission. So u also recommending that the clearing of trees shall not be started unless also approved by the town planning zoning commission. Well, those are my four recommendations. If the commission votes to approve this request, the commission has to decide if their request is reasonable or if the applicant should return with a application for a wetlands permit.

Okay, that's all I have. I got a question. So, this is number 45. No, this this lot is number 51. 45 is the existing building to the north. Okay. I'm Yeah, to the north. On the GIS town GIS mapping, there's a number 47, which is the racket club. Okay. Maybe it's 47. It's 45. It's 45. There's an existing building there. Correct. The existing tennis club is located at 45. We we bought 51 Douglas Street to the south a few months ago in order to uh expand expand the club and that was a house on it.

That was a house, correct? Which will be demolished. Okay. All right. Now it makes sense. Okay. All right. So my question is to the rear you have a steep grade. How do you plan to get these trees off the property? Are you going to drive heavy equipment in and uh drive over the wetland soils and tear everything up or are you going to helicopter them out? Well, my understanding is that there are no wetlands on this actual piece of property.

Did you do a um a soil uh analysis? We we we our engineer did um go out there uh and and he did not find any wetlands within the site.

Peter, did you do any test moings?

I did not. Um, our official map indicates uh that there's a there's a perennial water course that runs um to the south. And on the map that's up on the screen here, you can see behind the existing building, there's a real steep grade. And at the toe of that slope, there's a water course. Um, I'm not sure if this plan shows the wetlands. Um, can we zoom into that to that north west corner? Yeah, I'm sorry. I think I think based on this I see wet a wetland flag. number in that upper left hand corner. So that's actually where the wetlands are on the site. And at the bottom of a slope like that, they they're not coming up the slope.

So I no, I did not look at to see if there were wetlands. I uh relied on the the official map and the distance from the property. Yeah. [snorts] Um, I'm I'm not comfortable voting on this until at least, you know, Peter, you've been been able to walk the parcel, you know, and say you don't believe it or, you know, you don't believe that there's wetlands there. Is that reasonable? I don't know. We haven't done one of these yet. Um,

yeah. I mean, we're kind of voting on it blind. Well, when you say when you say voting on it blind, you're talking about the jurisdictional rule ruling. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. We don't know. with with the fact that they're clearcutting with a supposed or possible proposed development yet there's no concrete go-ahhead to do that development. We really want somebody to just go in and clear cut. Yeah. Well, yeah. This is the purpose of the jurisdictional ruling.

Yeah. Regulation. It's really a choice. How do they able to provide some context as to why we're trying to do this a little uh prematurely? Sure.

Um so the the plan is to expand our indoor club and and build these um additional pickle ball, padell, and tennis courts that you see on the plan. And ideally, we want to get it built and open by next by by November of 2026. So, we have a very tight timeline. Otherwise, if it's not ready until January, February, March of 27, we we've lost an entire indoor season. So, to help with that, we were thinking we can cut down the trees uh ahead of time just to save us a few weeks in the summer. So, ideally, we would cut the trees if they're going to be cut anyway, get the plan approved, and then start construction immediately when the plan is approved, so we don't have to spend a few weeks cutting trees later on. I'm not crazy about this because a million things can happen if you cut the trees between now and getting it approved and you don't go forward and then you got a strip lot. I I think you got to follow the process, but I'm only one vote, you know.

And and David, I do apologize. Apparently, I interrupted you. You were about to say something and I just barged in. I was just waiting to be called on, so I'm good. He raises his hand. Kevin, [laughter] what are you trying to tell me? You want more? You want more decorum? [laughter]

That's fine. That's fine. No, I I I I wanted to uh ask a couple questions. What? So, in the application, you you referred to sections 4.4 and 4.6 of the regulations. And I'm not going to read the whole thing, but the end of 4.4 Four says commissions shall rule that the proposed operation and use or portion of it is permitted or non-regulated operation and and use or and use or that the proposed operation and use is a regulated activity for which a permit is required. So basically we have to decide if this is um you know permitted or not a permitted use or not. Um, so one of the things that I always consider when thinking about cutting trees and brush in a regulated area, because upland review areas are regulated, is ground disturbance. Um, so are you proposing to flush cut the trees? Are you proposing to stump? Um, and you know, the the the plans also indicate that there's it says brush trees and brush on the plans. Um, are you planning to use a flail mower to remove the brush? Um, what what's the I guess what's the sequence in the in the in the plan?

Uh, honestly, I I guess I'm not sure exactly how these companies would remove it. I mean, we've gotten quotes from the Butler company and other tree removal companies that have the capability of of doing something like this. I'm not sure exactly their method of removing the trees, but the thought was well when at a certain point everything will need to be cleared including the stumps uh for for for this building and parking lot. So uh ideally we want everything cleared including the stumps if possible. Um, but if it's something where the commission only allows, right, prematurely for us just to cut it down and leave it in place or just leave the stumps in place, it probably doesn't make sense to do that and then pay a tree company again to come back. So, in which case, we would probably just wait until we have proper approvals to to to hire the company to start the the the process,

right? Yes. I so I see a scenario in my at least in my my opinion a scenario where if you wanted to prematurely cut the trees you'd have to agree to not do significant ground disturbing activity which would be stumping basically. Um, and so that would be flush cutting the trees and not mowing down the brush until you're ready because the brush and those, you know, the tree roots are what's really going to hold the soils in the event of, you know, a a storm event or whatever the case may be. Um, so we need some type of assurance that there's not going to be, you know, a a relocation of that slope down slope into the wetland and water course. So in my mind, it makes sense from a wetland, you know, regulatory perspective to disturb the soils as as little as possible, which may allow for flush cutting but not allow for stump removal. But that's just that's my thought. And [clears throat] you know, just so you know, the the elevation looks like 115 from a quarter of the way in from the road down to 100 ft. So it's a 15t drop to the rear of the property. So if you clear cut and you get wet spring, there's going to be mud flowing down the hill. My recommendation is to wait and come back with a full plan.

So, I'm sorry. I'm I'm flaunting tradition here, not raising my hand. Uh the other thing is if if the permit process goes through uh we can also request that if they do clearcut and there is no building done that they then replant. Yeah. As we desire. Whereas if we go through with this jurisdictional ruling we can't ask them to do that. Right. Right. And we can make them post a bond with that too, right?

Yeah.

So, do we want to vote on it or you want to withdraw the application? Uh, I mean, if this gets denied, will it affect anything we do in the future in terms of the actual approvals for the permits and future clear-cutting proposals? No, I don't see how. I mean, there's no guarantees in life, but I don't see how. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I think the commission should vote that a that the request is denied and that a wetland's permit is required. Okay, that sounds good. That sound good with everybody? Yeah, I agree with that.

Yeah. All right. So, who wants to make the motion? Well, we got to make the motion in the positive.

I'm pretty sure the the regulations say you have to decide one way or the other. Not necessarily a like you would for a a permit application, but has to decide whether it's a permit or not a permit. So, we can make a motion to deny a jurisdictional ruling. No, it there can be a positive. Um the because it's a ruling that it's a permitted use. So it's the the jurisdictional ruling. The ruling is permitted or not permitted basically. David, would you like to make the motion, please? I can try if if if it's agreed that that's correct. So

yeah, go ahead. All right. I'll give it a shot. All right. So I I move uh that the the jurisdictional determination or ruling for 51 Douglas Street unique ID 851 for tree clearing property owner 54 Douglas Street LLC is a permitted operation and will require well it's a permitted operation um so cannot be viewed as a non-regulated operation. Is that too much? I think you you wanted

or just a permitted operation meaning a permit is needed. A permit is needed, right? So it's it's a per A permit required operation. Yes. Okay. A wetlands permit. Yes. Wetland permit required operation. Okay. Over complicate it. Oh, I should refer to the uh the map. Um uh with reference to the map dated September 2025 as submitted.

I'll second that. Yeah. Okay. So, just for my clarification, the motion is Wait, Byron, you have a question? Yes. Uh, is there any reason why he can't withdraw this versus us having to vote it down? I asked him that. He doesn't want to. It It won't impact future applications, right? Yeah. I mean, if if it truly won't, then I I guess it really doesn't matter to me what whatever you guys think is best.

Why don't you withdraw it then? Yeah, withdraw it. Okay, I'll withdraw. Now we have positive thoughts on you. [laughter] Okay, thank you. Thank you. Good night. Well, there was one other thing though. I think there was a motion on the floor that we might Well, he withdrew it in between. Okay. [clears throat] So, all right. Thank you. Good night, guys. Thank you. All right. So, point of order is you you make a motion, it gets seconded, and then there's discussion and after the discussion, you do the voting.

So, during the discussion period, he withdrew. Correct. To clarify. Thank you, Kevin. Hey, I'm working on no sleep, so if I get a little chatty, that's why. That's all right. All right. Your comments are always welcome. Uh 22 jurisdictional ruling 22 Toby Road. Who's here for this one? Yeah, Mr. Hall is here for this one. Mr. Hall is is here. I I think if you guys promote me to something, I can Oh, join us.

Yeah, both of you are here, Mr. Hall. So, can you can you see me now? Okay, start video. We can't see you. Oh, there you are. Now, we can see you. There we go. How about that? So, there was nothing wrong with my computer. It was just I needed to be a panelist, but that's cool. [laughter] Uh do we need but we don't promote anyone your application comes before us otherwise your face is in everybody else's face. Yeah. Yeah. Um uh Peter if you want I can start off. Is there anybody else we need to promote? No not. Okay.

As far as I'm concerned. Um all right. So uh for the record Rich Hall Borgghazi Building and Engineering 2155 East Main Street Torington. I'm here on behalf of 22 Toby Road LLC. Um, uh, specifically, uh, Pur Bertram and John Pur, uh, being the owner. Um, and we're, uh, requesting a jurisdictional ruling regarding our proposed project currently under consideration with planning and zoning at 22 Toby Road. The project consists of a 10,000 square foot addition to the existing manufacturing and assembly building and 22 additional parking spaces on site. There are no construction activities proposed uh in the wetlands, water courses or upland review areas. I verified that on the GIS map uh of the wetland delineation areas and the upland review areas. Therefore, we are requesting a jurisdictional ruling that no wetlands permit be required in accordance with section 4.6, the inland wetlands and water course commission regulations adopted May 15, 2023. Um, Peter has um seen the uh obviously the request for jurisdictional uh ruling and a full set of site plans and uh I came back with some recommendations. And if I can uh share I'm going to share my screen with you right now. Um let me just throw this up here and share screen. Uh and I'd like it to be this screen. Share

[clears throat] So, can everybody see the uh the site plan that's before me right now? Yeah.

Okay. So, I'm going to jump right to this. This is um actually I'll I'll let's begin at the beginning. Just real quick overview. So, this is our site plan SP1. I'm going to zoom out for just a second so that you can see the whole thing and then we'll zoom into a closer detail. So, this is 22 Toby Road. Um uh it currently has uh two buildings on it connected by a connector here. Right here, this is the proposed addition that we would like to uh uh put up. This is the additional 22 parking spaces here. This is existing parking. This is existing parking. Pretty tight site. Um this is a uh uh detention and uh infiltration basin that we're proposing. You can see clearing limits on on this as well. We're going to jump to the next one. Uh it's a uh a little bit larger scale. Again, uh I think I'm going to move pretty quickly right to the um uh to the landscape and layout plan because that's where the information is that we're really concerned with. But uh just in a little closer detail, I'll actually I'll stop here for just a second. We were asked uh as well, I've heard it referenced earlier, to do a tree conservation plan. And so everything that you'll see, and you'll see this on the landscaping plan as well with an X on it, are trees that we're proposing to remove, there's 18 of them. Um, uh, uh, unfortunately there's a number of of larger trees here. That being said, uh, if you've been out to the site, you would note that the quality of these trees isn't isn't the greatest. They're not in the greatest of shape. Um, so I know I'm talk talking fast because I know you guys want to get going here. Um the uh uh Peter had made uh the following recommendations based on on this plan and I'll I'll just point them out. Maybe if I zoom out here. Does is everybody able to see this? Okay.

Yeah.

Okay. Landscaping and lighting. Um so this is where we address the the concerns that Peter had. So the proposed limits of clearing tree removal shall be clearly indicated on the plans with those trees to be retained called out. So, we've got a um a uh a uh symbol uh key over here. So, existing significant trees to be removed and then TBR or existing trees to be retained. So, if you studied the map a bit, you'll see all the TBRs here. All the ones that are going to be retained are in the lighter gray without an X. The lighter gray with the X are the ones that will be removed. As I mentioned, there's 18 of those trees. Um uh we also delineated clearly the the clearing limits. We had our clearing limit line turned backwards and we turned that around and and uh I think we're in good shape there. Now trees shall be planted along this second recommendation. Tree shall be planted along with other site landscaping areas north of the proposed storm water basin and addition. The number of and species of trees shall be coordinated with what the wetlands agent. So, we didn't talk about u the species of trees just yet. We uh Peter did say he'd like them to be deciduous trees as the uh that's what we're removing. So, we specified for the time being 10 Armstrong red maples that we will put back. And you can see they're placed actually pretty nicely around the end of the uh detention basin and all along the back of the detention basin. and I think that they'll complement nicely the trees that are to remain that I'm pointing out right now. We're also creating uh one additional island on the on the property and and we're going to position a tree here at the back corner of the existing building which I think is going to look nice. Um just uh well actually let me continue with the comments and we can talk generally. Clearing of trees shall not be started until revised site plan is

approved by the town planning and zoning commission. Um uh understood we're uh we have a uh PNZ we're on the PNZ agenda for Thursday night. So I intend to be spo speaking with those folks and we anticipate approval. Um site plan shall be revised to more clearly indicate the intent proposed drainage runoff across the fire access road to include guardrail or curb stops along the north side of the proposed fire access road and to include the limits of weekly mowing. So, um, that was also a, uh, a comment that Rob Trraier or Trudier had also made. Um, so I'm going to just bounce back to because it's not shown on this landscaping plan, I'm going to bounce back to this one, which is our, uh, site plan to um, our which is just a site plan. And in the comment was to more clearly define or or indicate what was going to happen with the groundwater. So, um, [clears throat] as always, we we employ, you know, best practice in terms of surface runoff and detention basins and infiltration basins and so forth. Um, originally, we had this stone strip that um, hovering over right now up against the back of the parking. Um, the fire marshall indicated that he was uncomfortable with the turning radius and access that he had with his apparatus to this building. So, we subsequently added this 26 foot wide gravel uh uh drive so that he has access in here to the building with his uh ladder truck and get in there. We moved the stone filter strip to the back of this gravel drive. And our intent is that this will be sheet flow generally in this direction. If you look at the uh contour lines, you got an 86 here. You got an 89 up here. We're uh 85 down here on the other side of the driveway. 84 into the basin. So uh the arrows that we have here where it says grade to drain are indicating our anticipated sheet

flow across the um gravel drive through the 4ft filter strip across the seated area um and then into the detention basin. So there's quite a lot of surface uh uh uh infiltration and filtering going on uh as it as it goes to the basin. Um, the other uh uh comment here somewhere, I think I probably breezed over it too quickly, but you wanted to see the limits of mowing. So, we've um let me just bounce back to the landscape plan. We've we've hatched in these seated areas um to be mowed. We've marked them to be mowed. There really isn't a lot of it to be mowed. There's the the the island and this strip along the building are just going to be seated areas with the tree in it. And then this back here will be seated as well. That's that's what will be mowed on a weekly basis. And then we've specified for the detention basin that we'll put a wetland seed mix in there tbd in terms of what exactly that seed mix is depending on what's available at the time. So um I think that we've addressed all of the all the comments or the recommendations that uh you had. Uh, Peter, if you can certainly chime in and and uh I'm willing to take questions. I just also note that um we've we've done a pretty exhaustive this is the third revision, third submission. Uh we're pretty proactive about this stuff trying to handle it before we get in front of the commission and waste people's time. So, we've we've answered on count the other day of probably 65 um comments and uh and recommendations between the planning and zoning folks um Rob Troier and Peter as well. Uh and uh we think we've addressed everything. So, I'd be more than happy to take any questions that you guys have um uh if uh

if you have them.

Peter, do you have a staff report? Uh I do um and I am um recommending that the commission if they approve uh the uh request for for a jurisdictional ruling um to um uh include some conditions which uh were just reviewed by um by the applicant. So um uh clear limit of clearing um clearer which he's done on the plan. Um uh additional trees to be planted north of the building and the and the uh storm water basin and they've shown those trees. Uh one of the trees I noticed was very close to an existing another existing big tree and would need maybe need to be shifted a little. Um, and I'm recommending that the uh uh clearing of the trees not be started until revised site plan is approved by the plan and zoning commission and that um the site plans be revised to more clearly indicate the intent of the grading which they have done on this revised plan. Um, I wanted also to point out that this area is a long way from many wetlands. Um and the the um the jurisdictional ruling uh you know uh regulations require that uh they get a jurisdictional ruling for clearing of land that drains to a water course through the storm drainage system and that's what this does. So there's um there's uh drainage in the um in the

front of the building. There's drainage to the to the west at number 24 and all of it goes to um Toby Road and then eventually drains out to the wetlands on the south side of Toby Road. Um but again this um this property has uh has no wetlands on it and is uh let's see closest to um closest wetland is 172 feet to the west. Didn't we approve a building to the rear of this for um cannabis?

Uh no. Uh it was way north at number 10 Mosy Drive. Okay. Because that had wetlands on it. Oh yes. But no, these are these are actually on the property of 10 Mosy Drive. But they're literally due due west of the northwest corner of number 22 is is the wetlands on 10 Mosy Drive.

So, you know, this one in my mind isn't as controversial as as the uh as the previous one. Um, but the commission may not may not agree with me on that. And you know, that's uh again it's up to the commission to decide if this if this qualifies as a nonregulated uh uh um activity or a permitted activity uh you know a per that is an activity that requires a permit. So those are the two choices. So,

so why do you want to jump the gun and and and cut the trees before you get approval for the building?

We we don't we this my understanding and and and I've been in and read the regulations relative to the jurisdictional ruling is that this is just is this isn't an approval for us to start. This is just to answer the question, do we or do we not need a wetlands permit? and we're proposing that we don't need one because we're nowhere near any wetlands. Um and uh that's the reason for a jurisdictional ruling is to say, "Hey, no permits required. We will not um we will not commence clearing or anything until we're ready to build this building." Um and and that will come after planning and zoning approval and after a building permit is obtained.

Okay, any other questions? Kevin, nothing. [clears throat] Oh, you raised your hand.

Why not? Well, I finally figured out where that was on the screen. So, uh I don't really have a question. And I do have a comment and the trees that you are planning on putting in and around the uh storm water retention basin are Acer Xfree Mani Armstrong and that is a hybrid of two of our native trees. I would sooner you had a true, you know, an actual species than a hybrid. Even if it is of two of our native species, they can possibly form natural crosses in the wild, but the likelihood of that on this specific area would be kind of slim. So, I would sooner see you go with like a a true acer rub.

So,

as opposed to the hybrid. So, I I was actually I've been writing the specification for this project as as we're [laughter] as we're having the meeting, and I just wrote in the specification, uh the the the Armstrong red maples are just a placeholder to say we're going to plant 4-in deciduous trees for you. And and I've written in the specification to the owner in his contract that they will be red maple or uh uh alternate species specified by uh by the wetlands commission. So, you I'm more than happy if you guys say you want oaks there or maples or we'll put whatever you want in there. As long as it's not something that we have to like pay a gajillion dollars for and get from the other side of the planet, you know,

you know that, you know, there's no reason why you couldn't mix and do, you know, even ab like, you know, absolutely. However, I agree with you. I honestly I don't think a a row of just red maple is going to look good out there. I'd like to see maybe some there's some oaks and ash and what what whatever is appropriate. I'm not a botonist, but you know I I uh uh Yeah, def definitely. Well, like the our native red maple, any of the oaks that you would want, whether black oak, red oak, oak, anything would work for you. Yeah. And we'd be happy to mix it up if if you guys have suggestions or have something that you would like to see. I'd be more than happy to put it on the plan.

No, I I'd say mix. and you you've got a good grip on it, so I'm I'm fine with that. Okay. Right. Any any uh deciduous tree that's growing out there now that's going to be retained or even some of the ones that are going to be removed would be, I assume, ideal picks for replanting. Well, providing they're native. Yeah. Yeah. You don't want to you don't want to plant Japanese notweed. No, [laughter] legally, you can't. [laughter]

Yeah, I we we want to we always this just who we are. We want to do what's right. So we want to improve the improve the quality of the vegetation out there would be our objective, right? So if if that means uh uh species that are present or some other species that we would think or you would think would be advantageous, we're more than happy to do that. Next, Peter, with a jurisdictional ruling um application, there's no conflict of interest form. No, it's not an application. It's a written request.

Oh, sneaky. Thought you had me on that one. No, it's it's it's really just, you know, it's a request. really is a request from the commission to make a ruling as about whether the proposed tree clearing in this case again needs a permit or from the commission or doesn't need a permit from the commission. No, I was just looking at the members and the u and attendees or the panelists the attendees and I was wondering what their involvement in this project was but that's not a wetlands issue. I thought maybe it' be in a conflict of interest form, but that's fine.

Okay, let's move forward. What's everybody thinking? Sounds okay to me. I I would agree with Glenn. This seems pretty clear. Y yeah. Yeah, I agree. Okay, David, you want to make the motion again? Sure, I can take a swing at it. Thank you.

I'll I will make a motion uh on the jurisdictional ruling for 22 Toby Road, unique ID 5293 Tree Clearing Property owner Toby Road Associates LLC. Um in reference to I can't read the map date on that. Uh it should be 115. Uh is the latest revision. It was uh actually let let me just go to it. Um so the uh the date it's 1113 2020 20 uh 2025 latest revision 011526 okay with a map date revision of what was it 0126 0151526

is is a non-regulated operation and therefore will not require a wetland permit. Is there a second to that motion? All second. Made by Paul. Paul, are you home? Just got in. We've completed the train and automobile portion of our day. All right. [laughter] Okay. Um, all in favor? Anyway, any comment? Further comment. Okay. All in favor? I opposed. It's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Okay,

have a sparkling evening. All right, moving along here. New application official public hearing golf course number five. Yep. Does anyone need to be promoted? Yes. Uh Dave Molesco if he's there. Yeah. And um I'm going to be sharing the my screen the screen for this one.

So um this is a new application which we Okay, hang on. I got to go back. Where's the another tree removal? All the trees are going to be gone. Not quite by a long shot. Okay, so Oh boy. I hope I can rotate that. Uh oh.

Um clockwise. So this is a map that that uh I assume you guys can see um this map that was included in your in your application packages. Um the golf course is here at um uh I think it's 206 um uh Terry Plains Road. The golf course was built with cart bridges at the 11th hole and at the 17th hole which run right through the water course. I'm sorry, right through the wetlands and bridge over a water course. I'll show you some pictures in a minute. And the uh application is to do some tree clearing within these wetland water courses areas um 50 ft on either side of the of the cart path um to remove existing standing dead trees and trees that are leaning towards the cart bridges. They've already experienced some uh damage to the cart bridges from the uh falling down trees and um the uh uh the question for the commission is um whether they need a public hearing. They've submitted an application to do tree clearing within the upland I'm sorry, not in the upland review area, in the wetlands and water courses. Um, I'm going to stop sharing this and go share some photos. Let's see. How do I do that? Here we go.

Hang on. Share. The point of information. I was on that 17 old bridge when part of a tree fell onto it. Oh wow. You were okay. So So do I need to recuse myself? Uh [laughter] I don't think so. So this is a uh a photograph of of the uh I don't know which one this is. I think this is the seven. Yeah, this the path between 16 and 17.

Okay. So um the this is a a timber bridge right through the wetlands. And you can you can kind of see in the background here's a bunch of trees with no tops on them. You know, they're they're not in great shape. And this is typical of both of both bridges. Um we went out and we walked it with uh um our public works director, the town engineer, the uh site superintendent, the golf course superintendent, and myself. Um and we looked at what you know kind of vegetation is there and what you know what is is uh proposed to be cut and I think it was agreed that um the uh 50 ft on either side of the cart bridge would be marked in the field uh flags or stakes or something. And then we were going to do an evaluation within that 50 foot strip to see if there are trees or shrubs that can stay rather than be removed. Um, but what struck me mostly, and maybe it's on the 11th hole, is that the majority of the trees within that 50 ft area are either already dead or they're dead and fallen down. Uh the proposal would also um leave the cut trees in place but would not take out stumps. So the trees would be cut down and left on the ground. So the the application was submitted and uh officially received tonight and the commission has to decide if they feel like a public hearing is needed. Well, I guess the only issue I have with it is since this is the town of Bloomfield property and since we're all appointed, not

elected, I think in the interest of transparency, we probably should have a public hearing. Do we have a tree warden? Yes, it's the director of public works. That's why he was there. Can the tree warden, you know, say, "Cut this tree. Cut this tree." And that be that be the end of it. Um, I'm not sure. I believe the the tree warden is responsible for trees on town rightaways, and you can't cut a tree in the rightway unless it's flagged and noticed by the or hazard. Yeah. or or even just, you know, maintenance for

for whatever reason. If you're going to cut a tree in the town right away, you got to get the okay from the tree warden. But the on the golf course, I don't know if he can say, you know, if he can he has the authority to say cut this tree down. I don't believe he does. Yeah. Typically, it's it's hazards to town infrastructure. Yeah. Well, it's a town golf course and the infrastructure is these is these bridges. They're they're all in hazard, you know, what could be considered a hazard. Yeah, agree with the public hearing. Um, my instinct I'm sorry, what you say, Lorenzo?

I say my as I'm listening my instincts around the public hearing, you saying like to air on the side of caution even. Yeah, I agree with you. I I I second Lorenzo on that. I I think and and you Allan, I I really think given that it is a uh a town facility and uh you know uh the issue of being as transparent as possible, uh it's a good idea. Yeah, Kevin got his hand up. [laughter] You like that?

So, how about if How about if we build a public hearing and see if anybody shows up? [laughter] Ingenious. Yes. Okay, that is the plan. All right, [snorts] so everybody agrees public hearing. Yes. Yes. Disagree. I could just see somebody showing up and saying, "You know what? I like one person and they've got like two hours of argument because we didn't have a Yeah, there won't be two arguments. There'll be two minutes. [laughter] But no. Yeah, I agree.

Yeah, Dave, I think the better better route to go is have a public hearing." I agree. Yeah. Point the finger. Yeah. I'm I'm only talking Kevin because he said my name, but [laughter] I I do like the fact that the trees are going to be cut and dropped and not uh dragged out and and that the stumps are staying. Um, but I I I think, you know, [snorts] because it's not not only because it's public land, but it's publicly accessible and, you know, frequented by the publicity,

it's probably best to keep everything, you know, open for everybody to have the option to to weigh in on. Yeah. All right. Just just out of curiosity, since you had the tree warden there, did he make any determinations as to what the trees are, whether they are ash trees or uh uh our native elm tree? Because that would be my two picks because with the ash trees, they're all dying from the emerald ashbor. And the elm trees have a cycle of once they mature, then they get killed off by the fungus.

I don't remember that we identified any elm trees, but there were definitely ash trees that were dead or dying. Yep. Kevin, there's a there's an elm um I don't think it's an American. I think it's a slippery elm. Um on right on the 17th T. Slippery Elm is not our American elm. It's the slippery elm, but it's also a native elm. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Well, none of the clearing is proposed near the near the TE's or the greens or the fairway for that matter. So, no golfers will be hurt. What's that?

No golfer be hurt. No, no guarantee. If you're outside the red the red stakes, you're out of bounds. Okay. So, we'll do a public hearing for for next month. Yeah. Shout out on the uh on the uh Catty Shack reference, though. [laughter] Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate what you did. Okay. So, that's that's it. I don't think the commission has to make a vote. They just have to decide that. Yeah. It's a public hearing. Yes.

Okay. Um, we're going to do the same for two new applications that we got for uh 141 Wittenberry Avenue. Um, this is a property that's on the south side of Wittenberry Avenue um and west of the town park opposite uh Federation Homes. Uh it's a several acre piece owned by the um uh um

owned by the Seabberry folks. And uh the proposal is for it's a CEK solar project to um uh build a solar farm on this property. Um they're going to do a wet they've submitted an application for a wetlands permit and for a map amendment. So, both the the wetlands permit and the map amendment I I think require public hearings. Um, but the commission may want to consider bumping them to the March meeting because our February meeting is going to be pretty crowded already. Yeah. Not not the town, but the seabberry we can bump to March, right?

Yes. Yeah. All right. So, keep the town in February. Yeah. What was the address of that, Peter? 141 Wittenbury Avenue. Okay. There's uh there's a it's it's a mostly wetland area that they feel they can somehow build a solar solar project um and at the same time respect our requirements for for mitigation for direct wetland impacts. Um, so we'll see. Okay, I'm going to go to March for that one.

All right. And it's Seabberry that is making that application. It is not Seabberry. Seabberry is the property owner. The company uh that's going to build the project, CEK Solar, I believe, is the applicant. Let me just double check that. Hang on. Is this going to the sighting council? Uh there's a limit on the on the uh yeah the wattage. Right. And I as I recall they're um they're just below that limit. Okay.

Um but I I'm rem remembering back from the one that was done at the uh the school on Blue Hills Avenue. Um that one was just under two megawws I think it is. They split that into two two applications so that they can stay under the limit. Yeah, two. Yeah, maybe it's only one. You're right. I think it might be one. I don't know how many megawatts this is. Um but it's a fairly significant project and will certainly require public hearings. Yeah. Okay.

We all to do the public hearings in March for the solar project. Okay. So, uh

the next item on on the agenda, if we're ready to go, is the Blue Hills Avenue 1451, uh the TJX Homegoods Warehouse. I approved that a wetlands agent permit uh with some conditions. They're building um uh license plate readers, you know, cameras, and they need to put in some underground conduit, some of which is in the upland review area. Um but I'd I'd like to move on quickly to uh to um item seven, um the notice of violation. Yeah. All right. You want to tell us what that's about, Peter?

Yeah. Let's uh let's see here. Um we need to promote Mr. Hardy and I'm going to do that now and then I'm going to go Hang on, folks. Still looking. Um, okay. Uh, let's see if this is going to work. So, um, this, uh, violation was brought to my attention by the zoning enforcement officer. Um, the property is located on the west side of Charter Avenue. And here is a GIS um, plot of that area. Um, Graanby Street is on your left. The unimproved Charter Avenue right ofway is in the middle and Central Avenue is on the on the right hand side. The parcel in question is this one right here that I'm

outlining number 69 and the right ofway as well. Now this is a this is a 50 foot wide rideway and so this lot is you know approximately 100 by 100 and wet this is the wetlands line this green line uh according to our official map this line is not based on a field survey of of the wetlands. Okay, now I got to go and share something else.

We're keep We're keeping her up. Yeah.

No, I got to go back and open it again. So, here's two photos that I took from the site on the 12th of January. And the site has been cleared. It has been filled with millings. Um, and this is uh this is the picture looking to the to the right hand side. This is the picture looking to the left hand side from the same location. And there's there's an existing water course here that was channelized. uh it was you know removed from its existing uh you know somewhat natural channel. I wouldn't say it was a a pristine channel was certainly a natural channel and and uh this is the this is the violation. Now, it's my understanding that the uh um the applicant has um uh has employed or or has hired a soil scientist to to review this application uh or review the the the violation and that they're proposing to submit an application for a permit for these regulated activities. Um my uh recommended corrective actions would be to take this material out and restore the wetlands. Um h how exactly that would be done may

be necessary to do some some test holes in this area to find out where the limit of the wetlands actually were. Um, but the uh, you know, the the I I believe I believe that 50oot rightway is where these heavier trees are between here and here. So, I'm going to go back and share that other one again. Okay, so we're back to the to the GIS plot and I think I was right about here somewhere when I took that picture. So I was look we're looking AC across the right ofway and there's wetlands and water courses in the right ofway or across to this piece this 100 by 100 piece at number

69. Now the the wetlands here like I mentioned before are from our official map but they weren't the subject of a wetlands uh limit you know wetlands map amendment. So they had they weren't flagged in the field. So this may not be an accurate line. The only way to determine how to take this stuff out or how far to take it out would be to you know figure out where the wetland's limit was. I mean uh as I'm saying that maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe it just all needs to come out. Um but there's also uh um impacts or or uh you know existing there's some existing encroachment in this rightway. Um and regardless of the ownership of the rightway there's regulated you know activities happening in it. So, uh, the commission can, um, uphold or, um, withdraw the notice of violation. Um, and I think, if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Hardy, the property owner, is here. I'm going to ask him to unmute.

Yeah. Ian Cole has his hand raised also. Okay. and he needs to be promoted again. Thank you, David.

Here he is back. Where is the property owner, Arthur? Is that you? Yes, I'm here. Okay. You want to explain what happened?

Um, it was so I I I bought the property with um pre-existing things going on and I was just basically just trying to clean it up and also trying to uh you know get the trash that was left behind that was on 69 uh Charter A that was left behind from 80 Graanby Street. So basically it was just you know trying to clean up make the property like I how I've been doing over the years to improve it and make it better but I wasn't aware of the wetlands. I thought you know it was just the property that I paid taxes on and you know I'm able to do what I needed to do to clean it up with you know the rotted some of the rotted trees and the trash that was tires and oil drums and everything that was left left behind for me to clean up the mess. So that's basically what I've been doing just you know trying to improve the property and you know make it better but now you know I'm understanding about wetlands and that's why I hired the um Ian the soil scientist to um help me better understand and you know to be able to move forward and uh you know get through the violation.

Are you the owner of Diesel Transportation? Yes, I am. So, you own the whole block across the street. Yes.

I used to belong to the um to the Brewers. I don't know if you know them. No. Okay. That's who I bought it from. And it was just a mess that was left behind for me. So, I just been trying to clean up the property over the years. Is that road pre paved yet? It's not Yeah, they finally paved it. They paved it a couple years ago. I think back in 2020 they might have paved it. Yeah. Well, somebody was trying to buy all that land and build a um a Lowe's or something. Yeah. Uh I think it was Walmart. Walmart. Yeah. And get then he died. Oh, he died. Oh, okay. Well, yeah, that project was or that that property was at the north end. This is at the south end of

Yeah. But he was trying to buy all those properties in there because a lot of them are paper roads in there. Oh, exactly. And [snorts] and central I mean Charter Avenue in this location next to number 69 is a paper street. There's no pavement there.

Right. All right. Uh for for the record, Ian Cole, just want just wanted to add real quickly. Um my office got a call from Mr. Hardy, uh who forwarded me, uh uh town staff's report and the notice of violation. Uh my intent is to meet Mr. Hardy out there this Thursday morning to do an initial inspection of the site. Uh with the understanding that, you know, we just got a substantial amount of snow. So you know to what extent you know field delineations can be completed right now we're we're going to investigate it and I do know that Mr. Hardy has also uh engage the services of deep design professionals uh to to update some survey work. Uh so uh things are in development.

Yeah. So Mr. Hardy, you didn't bring this the fill in. You just cleaned it up. I just cleaned it up and I just put um millings on top of it to use it just for a parking pad. That's all. Just outside storage. Okay. So, that's where the uh zoning enforcement officer probably saw you removing all the debris. No, it was uh 80 Graanby Street. He was he's got some violations himself and he was pretty upset that he couldn't use it as outside storage. Oh, what's 80 Graanby Street? That's not That's uh You You remember Shayaylor Tire?

Tire spot. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You got had some problems and it was tires and oil drums and everything, car parts. I pulled all that stuff out of out of the woods over there. Yeah. My question was going to be like this sounds like you kind of purchased the property with a bunch of stuff going on and then in the process of trying to clean it up got some violations. Is that what we're hearing? Yeah. Well, yes. Do

you have a date range of when you purchased? Um, and and and and I'll before you answer, I'm looking on on Google Earth and the historic photos and as of March of last year, 2025, there's there's trees there. So, when did you purchase the property? So, maybe two years ago,

right? So, in March of last year, there were trees. There was stuff that that have been cut before I before I purchased because I was working here for another company, uh, Morassi Transportation, and they were operating out of here. So, I was just I was just an employee and there was things going on far as improvements and Yeah. He bought it January of 23. Oh, 23. Okay.

Okay. There's no evidence that Phil was there in the aerials prior to that. [clears throat] Yeah. All right. Well, I would say based on the photos that Peter shared, it's significant enough that we should uphold the uh violation. Yeah. Yeah, I'm just not a big fan of violations then file a permit like backwards

because if you if you have a permit then you you have permission to do something and you and you don't have to do it. Yeah, it's not a requirement. I understand. I'm new to this and I'm just learning as I go. I I think this should be treated as a standalone violation and if a permit comes later that's fine. All right. When do you think you'll be filing a permit?

Uh as soon as I get the report from uh Ian Cole and uh also I'm doing the the site survey as well too. So, that's going to take some time to uh get that done as well, too. Are you going to do test borings? I'm sorry. Are you going to do test borings? Test borings? I'm sorry. I don't understand what drill down to the ground and see what's there. What kind of soil? Yeah, I will have Ian do that. Well, whether it'll support a building or not. Okay. You may hit a, you know, pile of junk when you do that. Okay.

All right. So, let's uphold it and we'll see what happens in a couple months. But don't do anything to the land, you know, don't take anything out or put anything in on it. Okay. So part of that violation which we're deciding if we're upholding includes the removal of all fill material within 60 days. But we have to determine how much fill was brought in.

Right. I mean Peter could probably get a better hand on that. I don't Well, 60 days would be within the I think by the April meeting, right? Right. No, March meeting. Sorry.

Yeah. My my uh corrective measures include a property and topographic survey um to be submitted within 30 days, fill materials from 69 Charter Avenue and the Charter Avenue rightway to be removed to their existing grades. Um and material removed from the site within 60 days. Um, fill materials within and around 69 Charter Avenue and the disturbed areas of the Charter Avenue rightway shall be moved to the depth of the undisturbed organic soil level and stabilized with winter rye uh seed and hay mulch for temporary stabilization. Um, if no organic soils are found, then six inches of organic sail sh soil shall be placed prior to doing the temporary stabilization. Um, and then I'm recommending that the uh disturbed areas be planted um for permanent stabilization by May 15th. Um, soil erosion controls are necessary and uh um uh I'm requesting that they submit an application for a wetlands permit for the ongoing operations uh within 90 days.

Okay. I take back what I said about don't doing anything. Let's go with Peter plan Peter's plan. Okay. So, we definitely need a vote on upholding the the notice of violation. Is there a motion to for that? I can make the motion. I do not have that piece of paper in front of me anymore, so I can't do the uh the the numbers. So, if somebody else has that right in front of them, I'll uh I'll be the second. It's 69 Charter Avenue and it's unique ID number 5976.

Okay. Okay. So, I would move with that information that we uphold the notice of violation and the corrective actions prescribed by the wetlands agent. Uh and uh I I think that's all we need to have. We don't have any discussion of a further timeline. Correct. Correct. So we the motion should include um when the applicant comes back. When do you want to hear it again? Okay. So February or March? Let's make it March.

I Yeah, I think it's March. I think it's March mostly because you know it's also you you had 60 days on some of that stuff. So yep, that makes sense. So we'll so to return at the March meeting. Yeah. The date of that March meeting is March 16. Okay. Okay. Do we have a second for this? I'll second it. Glenn. All in favor?

I allo opposed. Abstain. It's unanimous. Okay. See you in a couple months. Thank you. Good luck. Thanks, Mr. Hardy. Thank you. Okay, what else we got? I think we should go right to the minutes unless you guys want to hear about ongoing projects. I have a couple of items for other business, too. All right, let's go to the minutes. Okay, Kevin, what do you got to say? I found I found the one letter that Peter omitted.

Oh my god. Oh, [laughter] hold on. It's on page four. That's pretty good. If it starts on page four, a couple on page four. Okay. Oh, really? Oh, well, like I said, I didn't get much sleep last night. So, first paragraph, the very last sentence or last line where it says, uh, Cole noted that he functions. It should be the functions. The functions. Yeah. See, look at that. You intentionally omitted a letter for me to find. [laughter] Yeah, I had that one. Really? I don't I don't mean to.

You're not supposed to hide a needle in a hay stack because you can always find a needle because it's not hay. Yeah. Just burn the hay down. Okay. Sure. That's all I had. Anything else on the minutes? Anybody else? Yeah, I do. on that same page. The next paragraph, um that would be the second paragraph. Um last sentence, he also asked would prevent the filter. It should read what would prevent what would Yeah, that was that.

Oh, s you're right. Yeah. So we'll add what between asked and would. Okay. And in the next paragraph, first sentence ends with um surrounding butters for their deeper and then it ends. That should be wells, right? Deeper wells.

Yes. Okay. Anybody else have more? Is there a motion to accept the minutes with the changes? So moved. Seconded. Second. Who said that? Second. Glenn. L. Okay. All in favor? I opposed abstain. It's unanimous. I have to abstain, Alan. I wasn't there, but my name was spelled right in the absentees.

Okay. Okay. All right. Um, Peter, where' you want to skip to?

Yeah. Other business. Um, two things. We had a request for uh staff input for a a reubdivision of some lane uh Crystal Lane uh lots. Uh Crystal Lane is is off of uh Stillman Road uh west uh sorry east of of Bloomfield Avenue. And there's some lots down there that are in the flood plane and they're kind of awkward uh in in how they're laid out. And the the uh proposal is to come back with uh a plan that doesn't create any new lots, but significantly rearranges the lot lines. And so the question for the commission on this one is whether um they want to be involved in approving a uh essentially a lot line revision map. I think only uh it involves four lots I think on the north side of Crystal Lane on the west end. There's four lots there and they want to just uh like I said rearrange some of the lots because the parcels down there are are restricted by um uh utility easements and the flood zone. So um

Oh, that's where our buddy was. Yes. Yes, he was. Uh so the question for the commission is do uh commission normally approves subdivisions of property that contain wetlands and water courses. Does the commission want to see um the uh the reubdivision um as an application? Peter, wasn't there um an outlet for the the brook there right at the end of the road? Sorry, let me rephrase that. Which ones are the res want to redo the last 34, 22, and 18?

Let me go there and I'll tell you in a second. Um,

what was number two? They're doing uh 38, 34, 22, and 18. Who's JDS Developers? I don't know who they are, but they own all those lots over there. Yeah. And one of them the guy was dumping on. Um, yeah. I don't remember if that was one of uh he may have

I think it was number 34. I I was just about to say I I seem to recall that number. Yeah. Yeah. Yep.

I don't know. You got the brook back there. So, who's submitting the plans? The town or the uh the owner? The owner uh wants to submit the plan uh and their their engineer surveyor is is FA Hesk and Associates. Yeah.

So, they've got a good a good firm. I really don't have any objection to it. As long as it doesn't make, you know, like uh an unbuildable lot or a lot that could be reubdivided later, you know, it's it's kind of a kind of a you know, that kind of thing. So, what does the commission how does the commission feel about hearing it as an application? Yeah. Can can we deny it? I mean, it's a subdivision. Is that part of our jurisdiction?

Yeah. Yeah. If the lots have wetlands and water courses on them, the uh the wetlands regulation said that the commission has to approve a subdivision. Doesn't say it has to approve a lot line revision. You know, if it was a re-ubdivision where there's four lots and they wanted to make a fifth lot, that would be clear. But they're not doing that. They got four, was it four lots or five lots? And they're keeping that same number. So they're just redrawing the property lines to make it, like you said, probably one will be unbuildable because it'll be wetlands and the other Yes.

Yeah. So there's four existing lots and they want to create they want to keep that number, but they want to shift some of the property lines. I'm sorry I don't have a map to show you but uh actually I can share this if you want to map. Yeah. Yeah. Let me share that. I'm getting better at this. See how quick I was in. Yeah. Whoa. Look at you. [laughter]

Okay. So, these are the lots 38 34 22 and 18 Crystal Lane. This is Washbrook. And how do I get rid of these guys? Oh, wait. That's by my house. It's around the corner. Yeah. Yeah. So, that's Here is the flood. I'm turning on the flood zone. Yeah. So, you know, these lots are are really restricted. And then if I turn on the easements, this lot in particular is is restricted considerably restricted to what can be what can be built.

That's a sewer line through it. Yes, there is a sewer line that runs through there. So I'm going to turn these off so it's a little Oh, not that one. These ones a little easier. So what can they redirect? What can they Well, they want to move this line to the to the east. They want to move this line way to the east and they want to move essentially move this line to where this one is or a little bit over so that they have a buildable area about the same size on all of these lots. Um, but again, they're going to be mostly restricted. I didn't turn on the wetlands, but the wetlands are only here. It's the flood zone that's going to get them.

Yeah. M you know on this map the uh the pink hatch where this AE is is the flood way. The next the yellow hatching is the 1% or 100year flood zone. And then this blue hatching above that is actually the 500 foot uh flood zone which shouldn't even be on there because it's confusing. But you know these lots have you know pretty small areas where they can build. Was it delineated anytime recently? Cuz there may be floodplane soils that move that line closer to the road too.

Move the wetland. No, they were not recently delineated. Yeah. Because if there's floodplane soils then we've got wetland. Oh yeah. Yeah. Uh the wetland according to our official map, right, the wet wetlands are restricted to right around the right around the brook. Yeah. I what I was saying though is if if the flood plane soils more closely follow the wet the the flood plane edge, then it's closer to the road. Further restrict. Well, we would definit any any uh building in here, we're going to have them flag the wetlands. That's for sure. Yep. Yeah. They would be back for permits on on that regardless.

Yeah. Yes. So, again, the question is, does the commission want to review the lot line revision plan? I would say yes. I I'm I'm curious to know whether it's really necessary because if they decide to do any development, they're going to come before us anyway, right? Yes. It won't matter where they put the property lines. Yeah. And with the way you're saying, if they're keeping the lines in parallel, they're not turning them perpendicular,

right? So it's not like they're going to So they're they're looking to really just be able to build on all four. Yes. By shifting the lines. Awful close to the wetland the flood area. Yeah. Yeah. Very close. Yeah. I I personally don't care about the lot lines. Um, I care more about whatever their development plan is, right? Yeah.

Right. That makes sense. Well, Peter, you will bring to our attention anything that you think is untoward. Yeah. And not not correct. Right. You're on mute, Peter. Peter, you're on mute.

There we go. I will let you know if anything comes up unourred. Uh, and I will communicate your your uh wishes to the to the applicant or to their engineer. Okay. Well, I mean, are we all in agreement? Yeah, I can I can live with that. Yep. I I Yeah, I agree. I mean, Lorenzo, as I said, we'll see them. We'll see them when they want to develop. Yeah, I go with Kevin and uh David, [laughter] don't let us sway you. Yeah.

I'm like, listen, no, that's like a block from my wife walks there, my kids walk there, like and we've watched them doing stuff over there. So like, yeah, I want Kevin and David on like they eyes on this close. Don't disqualify yourself so quick. Yeah, Mr. Secretary. [laughter] Oh man. Yeah, I agree. Okay. All right. Uh, any comments? Actually, I have one more, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

What's that? Um, last month, um, an application was filed by the MDC to do a, uh, pipelining project, uh, in several areas around town. Um, the, uh, commission decided that they needed a public hearing um, in uh, and and and scheduled it for the February meeting. Um and the applicant has come back and asked if the uh commission would um reconsider the requirement for a public hearing. Um and they uh their their reasoning was uh that if we have a public hearing, they will have to notify everybody within 500 ft. And it's a big project and it's going to be a lot of 500 foot of butters. So I asked them um you know to uh uh um you know to try to come up with a with a a number of 500 foot of butters and they they weren't able to come come back to me. But it's you know it's uh a lot of pipes in in out of the way places and there's a lot of direct abutters. There's a lot of 500 foot of butters. So, um if the commission u wants to discuss it or or not um if we can um not have a public hearing but notify the directors in other words the people whose property it's on um might be a good compromise. Um, so I'm asking the commission whether they would consider uh reconsidering their uh um decision from last month or two months ago to have a public hearing.

Doesn't our GIS give the butters like you can just get list? Yeah. Yeah, but they have to mail something out to everybody. You're muted again, Peter. Sorry. It it it does uh Stephen, but the the uh it only allows you to choose one parcel at a time. Yeah.

And then you get the 500 ft from that one. If you pick the next parcel down, you get 500 feet from that one, which includes at least 300 of the ones you got from the one before. So yes, it will generate it will generate uh mailing lists. Um but they would have to do a 500 foot of butter mailing list for each parcel all the way down their their lines and it would be it would it will be a significant bunch of properties. They could consolidate that with

you can they you can you can delineate I'm sorry um you can ask it to give you a a spreadsheet. Yeah. Yeah. But there's also a big cost that goes along with that too. There is all by certified mail, right? It has to be certified. Okay. Well, does that really matter to us though? I mean, shouldn't shouldn't we No, but that's what they're crying about.

I I understand. But if there's a determination of significant impact that that says that there should be a public hearing, then there should be a public hearing. You know, if if if there's not a determination significant impact or one that says there's not significant impact, then there's not a need. So, I mean, it's not really our problem if it costs them money and time.

Uh, well, the the big question is this. If we force them to notify people within 500 ft, will that affect how much I pay for water? [laughter] Yeah. Most specifically, our bills go up even though our neighbor's going up. Sorry, your water bill's going up. Don't worry about it. Yeah, I know. I was going up anyway regardless. Yeah.

I mean, haven't we typically I I seem to recall at at least within the last 6 months we had a conversation about some easements with MDC and didn't we opt for public hearings on that as well? I mean, this is Yeah, that's that's what we're talking about.

Yeah. Okay. I mean, they're they're a a utility. uh it's you know I I think again this is the kind of thing that in the interest of of uh transparency in the interest of dealing with a public utility uh I would opt for for a hearing for for notifying of butters I would say because there's so many of them that we should do that it should be the case because it impacts so many folks if the list is that long that probably makes sense to do it.

So, um my understanding of the project is that it's a there there are no permanent impacts to wetlands and the only temporary ones would be if they need to access a manhole and can't get there right without crossing through the wetlands. So, can't those parcels be uniquely identified if they know where they're going to have impacts, right? Can't we call out those specific parcels? Well, I think we have No, I think if we're going to have going to notify the 500 foot of butters, it has to be 500 feet from all of the abutters, the entire project for the project, not just where there's wetland impacts.

Well, that was their problem. They they should have split it up. Well, the plan the plan that's up here, if you're this is their their overall plan. Um, and I know it's I know everybody's getting late, but the uh um uh the custodian is here saying he he's closing the building at 11 o'clock. So, we got [laughter] All right. You're getting kicked out. Bailing a football game. The janitor is our salvation. Yeah. [laughter] All right. Yeah. So, let's let's go with transparency and have them notify. Okay. Yeah. All right. Makes sense.

Yeah. Any public comments? No. No public. All right. Anything else? All right. Congratulations on your reelection. Yeah, you too, Paul. [laughter] And Lorenzo, good luck. What's the date? What's the date of our next meeting? I don't have it on my calendar. Uh, February 16th. Did I February 17th? Another Tuesday night. Okay. Holiday. Yeah. Thank you. Are you going to be here, David? I may. I probably will be. Okay. I hope so.

Paul, you gonna be on a train? I hope not. It was okay, but I don't need to do it again that soon. Yeah. All right. Is there a motion to adjurnn? Yeah, I have I have my hand up. I've been trying to adjourn for the last minute. Take that hand away from them. What What is it, Kevin? Uh I I move that we adjourn. Okay. Seconded. Created a monster here. Uh is there a second? Seconded. Seconded by Adam. All in favor? I opposed. Abstain. It's unanimous. Thank you all. Sorry, it's late, you