Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission - Regular Meeting

Live streaming on too? Live streaming?

Yep, it's just loading. Just give it maybe 30 more seconds. All set.

Okay. I only see one up there.

I see the live streaming in the upper right corner. Over your head like a halo, Alan.

My head like a halo?

I couldn't resist. Shiny.

Okay, there's the recording. All right. All right. So we'll call the Bloomfield Inland Wetlands Water Course Commission to order. Today is August 17th, 2026. The time is 7.02. And we have currently Glenn, Adam, Byron, Paul, Stephen and myself and Rebecca as recording secretary. And Peter is here. No old business. New business is an application of Duncaster wetlands permit modification. Peter, where do we stand on this?

This was a... An request, it's not actually, our regulations allow applicant to request a minor modification to the permit. And they've made some minor modifications, so that's what they're requesting. We did get some information by written letter by the neighbors with, um, understanding that it would become part of the record. And as soon as that's fine.

Before that, this is not a public hearing, right? This is not a public hearing. Correct. So the neighbors can't, well, okay. First of all, let's, Paul has some concerns about, uh, whether he has to, uh, recuse himself. You want to go over that, Paul?

Uh, sure. Um, I just wanted to be upfront that one of the two letter writers, Harry Basilakis, is a neighbor, and we are active together in our homeowners association on Kenmore Road, and we have socialized somewhat. So I want that to be upfront and am willing to recuse myself if there are concerns.

Um, I mean, do you feel you can participate in your usual above board manner?

Yes, I do. Actually, I feel pretty, pretty comfortable about it. Um, you know, I think, uh, people can have connections with each other and still be clear about the matter at hand. But I wanted to be upfront about it. And if there are any concerns from the commission, I am happy to act as decided. But I feel pretty comfortable about this.

Okay. Anybody have concerns about that? I don't. okay all right so you will stay on this one okay um peter if it's not a public hearing why do we allow the public to send in written um letters and notes um i think it's part of our regulations that allows written testimony um

But we can't refuse it if it comes in. So there is, you know, I think there's been some precedent for hearing written testimony. But I'm trying to remember if it was within the, you know, the structure of a public hearing or not.

Yeah, during public hearings, definitely they can write in and become part of the record. But if it's not open to the public, how can they be allowed in? I mean, if they were raising their hand and wanted to talk, we wouldn't let them talk because it's not a public hearing.

Correct. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm going to go to the regulations and look. If I can get out. Well, the request for minor modification is in section 11.17. So I'm centering through now the parts of public hearing section nine of the regulations. I'm not finding it. I'm sorry. But you asked me earlier where we were with this application. And where we are is that this is the official receipt date for this request. So I didn't put it under... new applications requiring, officially received in determination for the need of a public hearing. But it was, it's my understanding that for a minor modification, public hearing is not usually part of the process. But the commission can decide if a public hearing is appropriate in the public interest on any application. is anybody here to speak on that from them was there or is it just strictly from you no I believe there's folks here from from Doncaster Ron should be promoted I have Joseph Williams raising a hand is that familiar yep he's the attorney yeah I mean

If anybody else needs to be promoted, please just raise your hand.

Stephen, did you want to say something?

I just wondered, do we need to have a quick overview before we can even determine whether it warrants a public hearing?

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking, too. Okay. So who's the lead on this project? That's me, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. Good evening.

So if you could give us a quick overview and then we can determine whether a public hearing is necessary or not. Sure.

Nice to see you all again. I'm attorney Joe Williams, land use attorney and partner in the law firm of Shipman & Goodwin, One Constitution Plaza in Hartford.

I represent... For the record,

no relation to paul correct okay the shipment who founded our firm uh did so a little over 100 years ago okay and i'm not that old um so i represented duncaster on the um Prior application that you approved in 2024 and we're seeking a minor modification we view it as a very minor modification that's really just a few beneficial improvements to the proposal and our. civil engineer Ron Bombingen is here and I would ask he be admitted as well. He can show you the plan on screen, but to give you a very brief synopsis, what we have done is move a few of the cottages that are closest to Loeffler Road back another 40 feet off of Loeffler Road so that for zoning purposes, the setback will be 65 feet. And the on the ground reality is that they will be The cottage is about 100 feet from the edge of Loeffler Road. And in making that change, we reduced two of the units, we eliminated two of the units, so reduced the total number of units by two from 32 to 30. And that resulted in a reduction in impervious surface by 8,000 square feet. But none of that change is proximate to wetlands and we're not changing any of the regulated activities that you previously approved. And that's why we think it's appropriate for minor amendment. Ron, are you on now? I am. Can I ask Ron just to show you the changes on the plan, Mr. Chair, and then I can come back and discuss the public hearing issue.

Sounds good. My name is Ronald Bombingen. I'm a professional engineer with Fust and O'Neill. And I just want to make sure that everybody can see my screen.

Can you point to the units that are being moved?

Yeah, I'm going to go through it for you. I have a nice overlay that'll show you the difference between what you had proved in 2024 and what we're proposing now. But what you can on the screen now, and Joe already covered a lot of these bullet points where we increased the buffer along Loeffler Road by shifting the development further away. The overall development itself looks very similar to what we had before. We kept the same buildings. We just shuffled them around a little bit and reconfigured a few of them. And like Joe said, we have a reduction of two total units. And with the changes that we made to the site plan in order to incorporate that additional buffer, we have approximately 8,000 square feet of less impervious area for this project. So overall, the total disturbance is less than what we had approved in 2024. And there's no changes to the quantity locations or the types of alterations within the upland review area, as well as vegetated buffer zones. So you can see we were approved for three acres, 130,700 square feet of approved within the upland review area before and 0.6 acres or 26,150 square feet of disturbance within the vegetated buffer zones. But that has not changed. The activities haven't changed in the locations of those activities have not changed. um the in order to uh also what we have to do is update the stormwater management report and that has been submitted everything continues to comply with the town of bloomfield zoning regulations engineering guidelines as well as the state of connecticut guidelines for stormwater management as well as the erosion sediment controls Now what you can see in the plan now is the color rendering itself is the proposed layout. The yellow highlighted areas that you see overlaid on top of it is our old design. So you can see the yellow cul-de-sac ends and the yellow buildings have been shifted further away from Woffler Road. I don't know if you can see the arrow, my mouse, but on the left side of your screen are the three buildings that are directly adjacent to the regulated area, the wetland areas. Those three buildings have not changed at all. And all of the activities within the regulated area to the west of that have not changed at all. All of the changes have occurred to the east of that wetland area and all the activities, all of the line work that has changed in the design has happened outside of the regulated area. So you can see the cul-de-sacs move further away from Loeffler Road, which is running horizontal along the bottom of your screen. The quad building on the west side, I'm gonna call it the left leg of the development, we eliminated the quad and now we just have a duplex. two duplexes along the left leg there. The quads and the singles remain in the center leg. They just got shifted further to the north. And on the east leg, again, we lost a duplex and replaced it with a single unit and reconfigured, shuffled around the other buildings to have a better layout within that right leg of the development. So all in all, it's a very similar proposal site plan that we're looking to get the minor modification approved for. It's just everything got further away from off the road. And again, we have an 8,000 square foot reduction in impervious and no changes within the regulated areas or the vegetated buffer zone.

So thank you, Ron. Mr. Chairman, just to address the question that came up, I see no grounds to hold a public hearing on this minor modification. There's certainly nothing in the modification that could create a significant impact on wetlands. This commission has approved the overall development previously. No one appealed it. So that's a final approval and we're asking to make a Pretty slight change that does not in any way, as Ron just described, change the regulated activities in the upland review area and from anybody else's perspective. Should be viewed as beneficial changes that reduce the units and the impervious surface and how close the development is to Lafleur Road, which will result in a greater vegetated buffer. to Loeffler Road, and that's really it. So I respectfully submit the public interest doesn't warrant a hearing here.

Thank you. Kevin, I know you came in later. The issue is, if it's not a public hearing, can the public submit written comments? And also, do we want to make this a public hearing?

Well, Mr. Chair, I probably should state, and I do apologize for being late, that for this permit request, I'm going to have to recuse myself as having once been an employee of Duncaster so that I'm not viewed as either skewing the vote or doing something in favor of the vote.

Yeah. I apologize. I forgot.

Yeah. I forgot about that.

Yeah. Okay.

Thank you.

All right. So my personal feeling is, well, let me ask you this. Who are there? Who's your soil? Oh, Ronald. So is there any additional impact to the wetlands or upland review area?

No, there are no changes within the upland review area or regulated activities. It's exactly the same as what we had approved in 2024. All right.

So my question is, what would a public hearing do? I mean, you're not going to lessen the impact because there is none. Am I wrong? All right. How do the rest of the commissioners feel about this? Should we keep it a non-public hearing?

With no increases, but only decreases to what we already approved, I'm not sure how we're going to go, why we would have a public hearing for something that's already been, we have the public hearing on, and it's only a lesser impact.

I would tend to agree, Mr. Chair. It seems that it fits within our capacity. within our regulations as a minor revision and any revisions that are on the table here are not germane to our jurisdiction, it seems.

Mr. Chair, through you, I agree also with Steve and Paul. I don't think there's a need for a public hearing.

Yeah, I agree with that as well.

All right, so if there's not a public hearing, then there's no public comments. That's my take of it.

Makes sense.

I believe that is correct. All right. Peter, you want us to make this a motion? Where do you go? Where'd Peter go?

I'm here. The commission, you know, made a determination. Typically, when there is a public hearing, the commission does take a vote. So if you're not going to do a public hearing, then I think you should take a vote.

Well, do we have to approve their modifications?

We haven't even gotten into the discussion about that yet. I thought we just had that. No, no, no, no. Discussions... We heard about the modifications, but there should be a vote to have no public hearing and a second vote to approve the minor modifications that they're proposing. And there's some additional comments in my memo about the original conditions of approval.

Okay.

Peter, why don't you take us through your recommendations for conditions?

Okay. So I'm reading from my August 10th memorandum. And with reference to the three maps that were sent as part of the request that I also sent to the commissions. They should be in a set of three with the third sheet showing both the 2024 approval and the 2026 request. Essentially exactly the same thing that Ron just showed us. His graphic was a lot easier to understand. But so the Development includes the Legacy Edition in the northwestern part of the western parcel and Doncaster East in the east parcel. And there's no regulated activities associated with the Legacy Edition. There are, of course, as we've just discussed, regulated activities associated with the Doncaster East part of the project. In 2024, the application for this development was approved with original 26 conditions of approval. Conditions 1 through 17 and 19 through 22 don't apply. due to changes or other modifications to the plan. So condition 18 was, any areas disturbed for the project shall be restored to their previous existing condition as much as possible. With the approval, with the planting of trees and shrubs in or ground cover, if the project is canceled or delayed by the applicant. At the time, there was no plan in the set for that. There is now a plan in the set included as sheet RC107. So there is a replanting revegetation plan in the set. So the last sentence of that of that condition 18 has been complied with, but just the last sentence. So that's the modification to 18. If we turn the page and go to number 23, number 23 says the plan shall include an improved storm drainage inlet at the southeast corner. The plan at the time in 2024 included an outfall from their storm drainage system that went down to the existing catch basin at the corner of Loeffler and Mountain Avenue. The new plans have been changed so that that outfall is actually to the storm drainage system in Mountain Avenue, the town storm drainage system. And the contributing area to the inlet at the southeast corner has been significantly reduced and a new storm connection is proposed. So that one doesn't really apply anymore. Number 24 is the walking path shall be moved to the east side of the southerly stormwater basin. The new plans have no walking path at the southerly stormwater basin so that one doesn't apply then number 25 is snow storage areas shall be shown on the plans and the snow storage areas are shown on sheet rc 102 uh so the uh um The first sentence of number 25 does not apply because they're already shown. And I guess 26 as well. The plans shall clearly indicate straw bales rather than hay bales for soil erosion and sediment control. And straw bales are indicated on the detail sheet CD1, I'm sorry, CD501. So that one doesn't apply either. So all the rest of the original conditions still are relevant. They still apply. And let's see. The plans are revised to July 18, 2026. And I think it would be appropriate if the commission votes to approve the modification that, um, those, uh, changes and eliminations of some of the conditions of approval that we went just went through should be included in the motion. Um, that's really all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. The applicant, um, approve of all the changes and modifications, the conditions of approval?

Yes, we do. Thank you. We're fine with everything Peter said and agree with his recommendation. Okay.

All right. So moving forward, as Peter suggested, I believe we should vote. So let me make a motion Can we do a no vote for a public hearing? Or does it have to be in the affirmative? Or is that only on applications?

I don't know.

I'm really stumping you today, huh?

Yeah. I think, I mean, To be safe. If they want to take a motion to have a public hearing and assuming that it fails, then there won't be a public hearing.

Yeah, okay. So if somebody makes a motion to have a public hearing, anybody?

In the negatives?

No, make it in the positive, and then if we don't want it, we vote no.

I'll move for a public hearing for the wellness permit modification request of Doncaster.

Okay. Is there a second?

A second.

Second by Glenn. Okay. All in favor? Adam, you're in favor of the public hearing? totally i just never mind the negative positive thing lost me i apologize okay so you're not voting in favor so now i'm not voting in favor all against no no no all right it's unanimous abstain okay it's unanimous all right um did not Mr. Wilcox abstained? Mr. Wilcox abstained because he was a former employee of... Okay, so the vote was none in favor, six and one?

Five, six.

Six in favor. Six, again, no. Zero in favor.

Six opposed and one abstention. Yeah, one abstention.

Oh, there you go. See? Got to make sure that that's clear.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Now we have to vote on the motion on the application. Is there a motion to approve the application?

So this motion has to include all of those things that Peter said?

Yeah. You can reference them.

I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion that the commission vote to approve this request for a minor modification to the permit in accordance with section 11.17 of the wetland regulations with reference to the site plans prepared by Fuss and O'Neill at various scales dated November 17th, 2023, and revised to July 18th, 2026, subject to the original 26 conditions of approval except conditions 18, and 23 through 26 as noted below and all the other additional staff comments that Peter might have made.

Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second that. Seconded by Paul. Now this is a positive motion, Adam. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain is Kevin. Correct? Yeah. One abstention. Two, four, three, six. Yeah. So six in favor. None against. One abstention. All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, people.

Thank you. Take care.

Okay, new applications received in public hearing. Did we get it?

I got a bunch of them. We received a map amendment application for 66 and 62 Granby Street, and I would recommend a public hearing in September. Who is that? It's just the property owner at Their LLC is 66 and 62 Granby Street. There's an existing building there and an empty lot. Okay. And they're just flagging the wetlands. I assume they're coming forward with an application for a permit, but at this time they just submitted the map amendment. And I also got a map amendment and permit application for our farm folks. They want to do, uh, right now they have a gravel driveway in, um, and it's quite long. It's 3000 feet or something. Um, and they want to pave it and they want to do some, um, storm drainage improvements, some of which require them to have a small amount of indirect, um, small amount of direct, I should say, wetland impacts. Oh, excuse me. So, um, Folks that are familiar with the site, they have a long driveway in and they have a 4-H school club happening kind of in the center of the site. They have a lot of buses that come in for kids in the summer. They have a summer program for like a summer camp up there. And so they also want to expand and pave their existing parking up there. They have mostly gravel roads. The first couple hundred feet is paved in off of Simsbury Road. They have quite a bit of, they're going to have quite a large amount of regulated activities in the upland review area. They are doing some storm drainage improvements. They're also planning to box out or excavate the entire road to a depth, as I recall, of 15 inches and then build it back up from there, including, I think, I think two inches of blacktop. It might be three, I forget, but it's, it's quite a project. Just the repaving of the road, if they weren't going to rebuild it, you know, may not have even qualified as a, as a, regulated activity, but certainly the excavation that they're going to do will. So my recommendation for that, for those two at Auerbach Farm is also public hearings in September. I have to remind the commission and remind myself that next month's meeting is on the 20, I want to say the 22nd? Yes. Yes. Yes. I had to look at my calendar on the wall and that's a Tuesday. So it's an odd, it's an off night for us. I think there's a religious reason. So that meeting was scheduled and, you know, hopefully everybody can meet it. I see, make it there. I see Rebecca is looking not crazy about

Peter, you have muted yourself.

Thank you. So my recommendation is public hearings at the September 22nd meeting for all of these applications. That would be three public hearings, and I won't schedule a fourth one because that's a lot going on, but That's my recommendation. How does the commission feel about that? That was good.

Yeah, I'm okay with it.

Okay.

Well, also, maybe if it's on a Tuesday, David Laiopa will be here and we can do Vernal Pools.

Yes, I think that's absolutely right. Okay. Okay. I'll talk about Dairy Plains Road under other business. I haven't received any new wetland agent permits for this month, but they tend to come in. quite a bit on a regular basis, but I guess not all that regular. Rebecca, is Andy Morrison in the participants?

Yes. Would you like me to promote him?

Yep, because we're going to do the 1236 Blue Hills Avenue. So the commission, if we're ready to go on to the next item, the commission in their PAC got a memo from me and a memo from me dated August 10th. Um, and another one incorrectly, um, dated July 20th. It should have been, should be August 20th. Um, and, uh, I'm sorry, that's the other way around. My, my mistake. Uh, that's the correct date, but I also have, I believe, here we go, a, uh, secondary letter from me that went out, unfortunately, on Friday. So let me back up. The original enforcement action letter was written on the, let's see, I don't have the day here, but I sent out the letter, a warning letter. It was incorrectly addressed, and the certified mail was returned as undeliverable. The letter was subsequently mailed to Ms. Dunn and Mr. Morrison at 1236 Blue Hills Avenue on the 7th of August. Our regulations require that we have a hearing for a formal notice of violation or cease and desist order within 10 days of the receipt of the order. And so this meeting was just too close. It's not a arbitrary thing. It's so that if a notice of violation is issued, there's a speedy hearing. So I didn't issue a notice of violation. I sent another letter saying that there's additional regulated activities. So, you know, commission, most of you weren't there, I don't think, in 2021. The Wetlands Commission approved a wetlands permit for the development of 1236 Blue Hills Avenue. the application or the project proceeded to planning and zoning where it was denied. And right now, Mr. Morrison is in the process of reapplying for his planning approval. The wetlands approval is still valid because it was approved during the COVID era where permits were given an extended period of time. And it, you know, I think it's still valid, but the final plans and all of the Cross T's and I's were not done and the approval is good, but a permit, a wetlands permit has not yet been issued. So my feeling is that we should have a discussion with Mr. Morrison and I will make another site visit somewhere around the 12th of September or so that we can determine so that I can determine whether a formal notice of violation or cease and desist order is necessary. Um, and, uh, you know, there's, uh, ongoing regulated activities there that are not, or were not part of his 2012, uh, application. So, um, Let's hear from Mr. Morrison.

Peter, before we begin, are all previous violations cleared up on this property?

Yes.

Well, how previous? There's new. There's new ones.

Okay. So there are some current violations. All right. Yeah. And that's why Mr. Morris... Morrison is here. Okay. All right. Okay, Mr. Morrison.

Good night. Hello?

Yeah, please proceed.

Basically, whatever Peter and Mr. Alex is telling me, I'm in violation of our working on getting everything straightened up. But yeah, our intention is... definitely proceed with trying to develop 1236 Blue Hills as previously discussed in previous meetings.

Can you tell us about the violations?

I guess there's some wood that we had taken down like four or five years ago in my backyard area. We moved over to the project side because we're trying to clean up and get a usable yard for the actual residential side. And I guess I must have put it in an area that is approaching on the wetland. And we did receive some material for bringing up our grade. And I guess I might have accidentally spilled over into the wetland area because the flag, I guess, at some point, something took off with the flag that TJ put in. But nevertheless, I had it re-flagged as they requested. And we saw that the clearing limit, as far as material, was over to the wetland side of the, what is it, the north side, Peter? Yes. And then the logs that came from behind the house, I put it on the backside of the property that approached on, I guess, the wetland as well. So we're working on removing it as we speak.

Yeah, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I should have mentioned the steps that have already been taken by Mr. Morrison. We requested that the... 2021 limits of clearing be staked in the field by a surveyor along the north property line. And the surveyor was able to do that. They also set some wetland flags, but it's clear that there's been encroachment beyond the 2021 approved limits of disturbance in uplands and in wetlands. Mr. Morrison has already started to move the material away from the north-westerly most part of the property. So he's working on getting the material out of there. But recently we also, it was just last Thursday, I visited the site with Alex, who Mr. Morrison mentioned earlier, who's the zoning enforcement officer. And we essentially walked the site. And there's other material in the wetlands, mostly wood chips, that need to be pulled out. And I think a planting plan, restoration plan, needs to be implemented. Now, there are large amounts of material on the site I'm not sure all of it is going to be needed for Mr. Morrison's site grading, but there's no grade stakes out there to measure it. But there is a lot of material on the site, and part of the 2021 approval was that there would be millings surface for lay down in the contractor's yard. Mr. Morrison's business part of his business is to sell firewood so he's got a lot of cut down trees as he mentioned some are in wetlands he's got some some cut firewood in bins and in a container shipping container that's also in the wetlands that needs to be removed and so there's you know there's quite a few things I have to say that Mr. Morrison has made an effort already before coming to this commission to try to satisfy the requirements of that initial letter, August 10 letter. I did send Mr. Morrison an update, but it doesn't look like I sent it to you guys because it's not in the It's not in the package that I'm looking at. I apologize for that. In that updated letter, I recommended that the 2021 limits of clearing be staked on the entire property, not just at the northerly end. And that there be a step program, kind of like what we did for the Lincoln Terrace, uh, notice of violation where we gave him, uh, deadlines to meet or, or, you know, goals to meet. Uh, and I think that's, you know, that's a reasonable, reasonable way to go. Um, uh, I also am recommending that we, that, uh, you know, there be some kind of documentation of what's being, um, removed from the wetlands and how that all is going with, um, weekly inspections by me and Mr. Morrison together. So right now, the commission, unless you have some questions, my recommendation would be to give Mr. Morrison some additional time and see where we are in three or four weeks. Okay. Does Linda have to sign off on this? No, this is two separate things. Wetlands is separate from planning.

Okay. All right. So what's the commission's favor? Give them to the next meeting? Is that enough time, Mr. Morrison?

Plenty.

Do we need that in the form of a motion, Peter?

Yeah. Okay. I think that would be the right thing to do.

Okay. So there's no violation notice. It's just an enforcement action.

Right. And if things aren't going along as smoothly as we might like, we can always up it to a formal notice of violations. But again, I'd have to wait until 10 days before the 22nd meeting. So you mean 10 days?

Yeah, it would have to be the week of the 14th. Yeah, so if we give him until September 11th to rectify the situation, or September 10th, And then if there's a problem, you can issue a cease and desist or a violation notice on the 11th?

No, it would have to be the 14th. Because the 12th, 10 days before the meeting on the 22nd, is a Saturday.

Okay. All right, so we can give them to the 14th. And if the work isn't done by then, you can issue a...

Yeah, that's four whole weeks from tonight. Yeah, okay.

But you'll be there on Thursday as well, correct?

Yeah, I'm going to come with Alex. We're going to do it together. His regular Thursday inspections, I'll be tagging along.

Through you, Mr. Chair, a quick question for Peter.

Byron?

Yes.

Go ahead, Byron.

Peter, what's the difference with an outstanding enforcement issue versus an actual violation?

For wetlands, under the enforcement action section in the wetlands regulations, the first step is a quote-unquote friendly letter saying there's a violation. Come and talk to the wetlands commission. It's a less formal first step.

So it's like progressive discipline?

Right. So the next one is there's a notice of violation going on, and you need to do something about it. And the commission is going to be reviewing it at the next meeting. And then the cease and desist order is the next step, if you will.

So right now you're in the first phase.

Right.

Okay, so after the 14th, if that's not completed, if everything's not completed, then it goes to the second phase? Correct. Okay. And that's when it becomes a violation?

That's when it becomes a formal violation, yes.

Thank you.

Okay. So we need a motion to extend the enforcement action to September 14th.

So moved. Hold up, folks. I think we need to say to the 22nd, that's the meeting.

Right.

And with a caveat or with provisions that there be a determination by the 14th of whether a notice of violation is appropriate. So when are we giving him to? What date? September 14th.

Isn't that what I just said?

Yes, but we're not continuing it to the 14th. Continuing it to the next meeting. Continuing to the next meeting.

Okay. Yep, you're right. But giving him those changes. 14th to complete the work needed.

I accept the changes to the motion.

Is there a second?

I'll second that. Thanks, Paul.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? It's unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Morrison.

Thank you, gentlemen and ladies. Trish, can you help me take this apart?

ongoing projects Peter oh boy do we have ongoing projects yeah but I didn't write them down so I'm going to have to wing it let's see the senior housing Peter what happened to your arm that was quite a vacation I strained some ligaments working too hard in the garden was pulling weeds, but it's, it's getting better. It's getting better. Um, the, uh, so the senior housing project on blue Hills Avenue is moving right along there. You know, they're shooting for, I believe for, um, some occupancy, uh, either late this year or early 2027. Similarly, the condominium project at 17 Watkins Road is also moving right along. Although they're running into problems with their MDC approvals, that same developer is also developing the the condominium project on Blue Hills Avenue. I want to say 1240 Blue Hills Avenue or 1140. And they have, they have the same, they're having the same issues with MDC. Recently, probably in July, they got the okay to do the water and sewer hookup from the mains in Blue Hills Avenue into their site And they're still waiting for approval for the site, private water and sewer. So they're having some fun with that. The self-storage site on Douglas Street, 59 Douglas Street, is complete. They're looking for a CO so they can start renting storage. They've got, I don't know how many it was, 144 or something like that, storage units out there. And let me think. 529 Cottage Grove Road is well underway. I'm sure everybody can see that going by on Cottage Grove Road. You may also see, and this really isn't a wetlands thing, but you may also see a lot of work being done on signals on cottage grove road. The DOT is, is upgrading the signals. Uh, right now they're, they're strung on, on wire between poles across the intersection intersections. And I think they're going to be doing, uh, uh, mast arms as they call them, uh, without wires across the road. And, uh, you know, there's, uh, several other projects that are getting ready to go, including the new house at 50 Burr Road, which some of you may remember from last year or the year before. They finally submitted final plans. It was 2024, now that I recall. They submitted final plans finally with a smaller footprint and particularly a front loading garage instead of a side load. So it saved them a lot of, a lot of space between the, between the water course and the, and the house. Let's see what else is going on. There's projects that are finishing up. Oh, another project that's underway is some improvements at the McMahon library. on Blue Hills Avenue. They're doing a back of the building. They're redoing the parking lot. And they're also making some storm drainage improvements and putting in an outdoor patio out there. And they're working. They're going along pretty well there. That one did not require a wetlands permit. Where are they putting a patio? If you're familiar with the back of that library, there's a loop driveway parking area.

Yeah.

And if you were to go in around the backside of the loop, there's a pretty good-sized area between that pavement and the building, and that's where they're putting that patio. It's going to be an outdoor reading place. Let's see. No, I can't think of any others offhand. That's a pretty good list. Does anybody have any questions about projects?

No, I can't think of any. Peter, quick one through you. Through you, Mr. Chair. Peter, is Popeyes starting to do something else now?

No. I can tell you that John Coleman, the director of land use and building, has been pushing Popeyes to get the thing done and has gone as far as to write letters to the um the owner of the popeyes company to find out what's going on and just today i heard that the contractors that are building that particular popeyes are also building a whole bunch more of them that's why it's taken them i think now a year and a half to build a popeyes shouldn't take that

The reason I say that, it looked like the dirt mound has been leveled. There was a huge dirt mound there, and now it looks like it's gone.

Okay, I didn't notice that.

Yeah, I noticed it today.

Yeah, that's good. What John Coleman is asking them to do is to, one of the things was to move that pile, and also to put up canvas or plastic or something on that fence so that you can't just look right into the site.

Oh, okay.

You know?

It looked like they did move to Powell. I thought maybe they restarted the project.

Yeah, yeah. It would be good. People ask about it all the time.

All right.

Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Any other questions? No.

Actually, can I ask a question that's not necessarily related to wetlands? It's more of a procedural question.

Yeah, go ahead.

All right. So when you have large construction projects, housing projects, say, for instance, what was talked about in Simsbury for the former Hartford Insurance Company, where they wanted to put in some 600 plus units. If they got permission from wetlands and then the town's DPZ, do they then have to petition the state to have some sort of like traffic study done to see if the road can handle that many extra vehicles?

I would say typically any large project has to have a traffic study. Okay. And that site, I believe, was off of Route 10, right?

Yeah.

Yeah, that would be a state traffic commission or whatever they call themselves now.

It was an 8-30 project. So the town has a lot less say in it. Right. It was proposed to be, I think, 300 units and the town shot it down. And then the legislature passed this 8-30 project regulations and they came back with 600 and something and the town had a lot less say and went you know on it and and i think glenn is that the project you were writing that was in a newspaper or was it no that was in cheshire oh cheshire that's right yeah that's right there was a project in cheshire where wetlands voted it down um it's going to be, you know, it's in the courts now, but we'll see what happens.

Yeah. I think, I think a lot of that may have to do with, um, affordable housing and the ratios and where the towns are with affordable housing. I don't know exactly the numbers, but I do know that Bloomfield has a lot of affordable quote unquote, affordable, uh, houses that were above the minimum threshold.

This Cheshire project was affordable housing. And town engineers approved it, but the commission rejected it. Thank you.

All right.

Minutes from the July 20th meeting.

My apologies. They've been spotless the last few months, so I didn't even get a time. I didn't have the time to read them. Figured there probably weren't any mistakes. I'm here for you, Kevin. Thank you.

Thanks for you.

I found a few, very minor. Yeah, I found a couple of minor ones too, but it was pretty good.

Agreed. Um, if you want, uh, Glenn, do you want to, do you want to go first?

Yeah. I'm on page two, uh, the halfway down, um, paragraph that starts the onsite wetlands and water courses, um, down around the third line, it's got Winton Berry, a venue, and then. the same thing on the next line. Then down at the bottom of that same page, questions from the public. There's a space between the second line, infiltration in parentheses, and a an extra space between that and the word and. Kind of a Kevin Wilcox.

No, no, Glenn. Actually, I wouldn't pick that up because they're spacing it so that it's equaled out for the line.

It fits in the line. Yeah.

Yes. I think it's a justified paragraph. Yes.

Yeah.

But it jumped out at me too.

Yeah. And then I go to page six. Almost at the Roman numeral five, Mr. Castaldi stated that he received revised plans from the Doncaster. I think just Doncaster, the D should be out of there.

Yeah, some of their identifiers they use is the Duncaster Life Care.

Yeah.

You want me to put that in? Life Care?

I think Duncaster is the typical way it's referred.

Yeah. The Duncaster Life Care is more of a service. It's got the entity.

Okay.

That's all I had. I'll go back to page three. Two things there. Under comments from the commission, I would either add Kevin's last name or remove his first name and add commissioner. Secretary. Secretary. Secretary. There you go. We could just say the one and only. That goes without saying. There is no other. There is no other.

Aren't you happy about that?

And then almost at the end of the page, the paragraph that begins with discussion ensued. One of my favorite transpositions, it's okay instead of oaky. I do that one all the time. And that's it for me.

Anybody else? Is there a motion to approve as corrected?

So moved. I'll second that. Secretary Wilcox. Secretary Wilcox. The one and only Secretary Wilcox.

Abstain. It's unanimous. It's unanimous. All right.

Stephen, you abstained, right?

I did. Okay.

Just making sure.

Comments from the public? Do we have any comments?

I only have one attendee, and I believe just listening in. If you'd like to speak, please raise your hand.

The only public here is Bonnie.

She may just be listening in.

She's just keeping an eye on us, I think.

Alan? Yeah. A couple months back, or maybe half a year or so ago, There was somebody from the public who asked a lot of questions, and they were really good questions. And after she was done, you asked her to apply for being a commissioner. Right. Do you recall who that was, and have you ever heard from her?

I think she did apply. I know that the committee on committees was interviewing two people for wetlands, and I think she was one of them.

Was she secretary material?

No, you can't say that.

I'm willing to give up the position.

No.

All right.

You do it too good.

Yeah, right. Speaking of which, Mr. Saldi, do I need to sign any documents?

Yes, please come in at your convenience.

Okay, tomorrow afternoon, okay?

um yes tomorrow afternoon is good um i have something uh we're not going to hear or discuss the vernal pool and riparian buffers without commissioner uh yeah for david yeah okay so i'll i'll keep that one on the on the other business but the other other business that i wanted to talk about was 32 terry plains road um Alan, you and I talked about this last month. There's an emergency septic repair that needed to be done, was ordered by the health district, and it actually went to court, and there's a court order for this septic system to be repaired, essentially rebuilt. So the present old septic field is failing, and there's almost no room to do a new one. But the health district did some test holes and they did some, you know, they're finalizing a design. And I had a meeting the other day with our public works, our new public works director and the health district, including the director over there. And the question is whether they should have a wetlands permit. And in other cases, I have not required a wetlands permit because it was an emergency repair. And that's how the health district is looking at it. So I'm not going to require them to get a wetlands permit for work in the upland review area for this septic repair. I think the benefits of having it done sooner rather than later outweigh the need for a formal application and everything. And the property owner there is not cooperating. So any kind of an application that was submitted has to have a signature from the property owner and the health district felt that they wouldn't be able to get that. Uh, so, uh, they're going to be rebuilding the septic system at 32 Terry Plains road, hopefully this month. And, uh, I just wanted to let you guys know, uh, driving by, you see septic guys out there. Um, Alan, you sent me a detail of a low-profile septic leaching system, and they're using a very similar one. Okay, good. Because the conditions there aren't great, they need to spread out the leaching area. You know, typical septic system has six-inch or four-inch pipes, you know, spaced 18, 12 or 18 feet apart. And you only get credit for the leaching part of it in the actual trench. So these things, I think, are like three or four feet wide. They're very narrow in their profile. So it's a good use of this more modern technologies. Unfortunately, there's no sanitary sewer there to hook up to.

Who's paying for that? Upgrade, Peter? The homeowner? Well, yes, but through a lien.

I believe the health district or maybe the town of Bloomfield is paying to have it done. And then they're going to lien the house.

I was going to ask you about that.

So when are they going to start? So nobody's going to sign the application?

No, because the property owner isn't cooperating. And it's being considered an emergency, you know, urgent emergency repair by the health district. So I'm not going to require them to get a wetlands agent permit for this. Right.

However, you are still somehow monitoring the situation?

Oh, yes. Yes. They are close to wetlands on the side of the house where they want to put the septic, the new septic system. And they had, if you know that area, there's three or four houses there. I think it's three. And under each driveway is an open culvert. And there's a channel in between. And the wetlands are in the channel. And all of this drains down to the reservoir to the north on Terry Plains. So there are wetlands close. I will be checking, especially with the beginning of the project is when things usually go wrong. So I will be monitoring it, yes.

Now is the time to make a motion to adjourn?

Yeah, that would be good.

Okay. So moved. I'll second that.

Okay. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Abstain? It's unanimous. Thank you.

Oh, so that Unanimous vote there was seven.

Yes. Didn't have to abstain from that.

Okay. And Kevin, did you see they cut down that tree?

What, your pine tree? Yeah. No, I didn't notice it. When did they do that?