Environmental Protection Commission - Regular Meeting

This is the Environmental Protection Commission regular meeting and public hearing Wednesday, September 2, 2026. This is an in-person meeting. The first item of business is a public hearing, EPC 22-2026, PL 26-815, Oak Park Avenue, Jay Bertoni, to maintain a playscape and related features proximate to wetlands and watercourses. The property lies along the west side of Oak Park Avenue, approximately 220 feet north of West Avenue and is identified as map number 23, lot number 12. The zone is R1 to 3rd and it is approximately 0.2 acres. Rick?

Chair, we received an extension request for 65 days to move the public hearing forward to the next month's regular meeting. The commission should vote to continue the public hearing until next month, just based on that.

Okay. Carolyn, do you want to make a motion to continue? Sure.

I make a motion for EPC 22-2026, 5 Oak Park Avenue, for an extension to our following meeting in October.

Second the motion to extend the public hearing.

All in favor? Okay, now we get to our regular meeting, new business, EPC 22-26, PL 26-815 Oak Park Avenue, Jay Bertone, to maintain a playscape and related features approximately to the levels and watercourses. The property lies along the west side of Oak Park Avenue, approximately 220 feet north of West Avenue, and it is identified as map number 23, lot 12. The zone is R13, and it is approximately 0.2 acres.

I don't believe that as my read of Section 4.4, this is an appropriate use of this section. Section 4.4 speaks about proposed operations and the word proposed is used four times and it's also very clear that 4.4 is to be used and shall be used prior to the commencement of any such application or operation so in this case we don't have a proposal and this is not prior to commencement so i'm not sure that 4.4 is appropriate here i'll give it your commission members a chance to read for 4.4 to read the

For the public, I'll just read it here. To carry out the purposes of this section, any person proposing a permitted operation and use or a non-regulated operation and use shall, prior to commencement of such operation and use, notify the agency on a form provided by it and provide the agency with sufficient information to enable it to properly determine that the proposed operation and use in a permitted and non-regulated operation use of a wetland or a watercourse. The agencies shall rule that a proposed operation and use or proportion of it is permitted or a non-regulated operation and use of that proposed operation and use as a regulated activity and permanent

So it's very clear to me on reading this that, one, this affects proposed operations, proposed permitted operations, and that in any event, this should be invoked prior to the commencement of such operation and use. And again, this is not prior to, this is antecedent.

Okay, I would also suggest that there's another thing that will provide the agency with sufficient information to enable it to properly determine. Okay, we very clearly don't have that. So, I don't know, is there any other conversation by anybody here?

So do we have to? I can either do one of two things. I can either raise it as a point of order, and under Roger's rule, you, Mr. Chairman, can make that decision, or I'd be happy to make a motion to remove this item from the agenda, in which case it would take two-thirds of the members to vote in favor of that for it to pass.

Let's take a vote.

Okay, so I would motion that we remove from the agenda regular meeting EPC 22-2026 related to the request for a declaratory ruling per section 4.4 of the regulations.

Can I have a second?

I second the motion.

Okay, all in favor? Okay, so removed. So I guess we'll see Mr. Bartoni next meeting.

Can I ask the Commission?

Sure.

State your name once I get to the podium, please.

allowed. It is allowed.

It is allowed, but you've heard a fellow commissioner state that. If you would come to us beforehand, okay, I don't know what the determination would have been, but you would have had standing to do it. But this is very clearly after the fact.

Right. But I guess the thing I'd like to bring up is the fact that it's proposed versus not. There's two things. One, I spoke to some of the EPC officers, and Mr. Ginsburg is not here, asking about the form. He's an exhibition member. Yeah, okay.

We're missing one member here, Trevor, and you can speak to... employees of the town that work for planning and zoning, etc. But ex-part-time communications, okay, which are discouraged, okay?

Okay, I guess I was talking to the commission, I'm sorry, not the commission, the officers of the town, including Mr. Ginsburg, I'm not sure his exact title, who confirmed that there is no such form. to fill out in terms of getting regulatory approval prior to this judgment, this 4.4 determination. Did you ask for it? I did. Before, before? No, but I confirm that does not even exist, which means it's never been used before.

The paragraph says the request comes on a form, what's utilized is a letter. and Jeremy reported that the letters were used in the form. The critical element is, you know, what you've discussed this evening is do you have to ask before you actually seek a declaratory rule or 4.4?

Yeah, and I guess the other thing is that, you know, again, I'm just asking for a determination on whether this is a regulated use. prior to but I guess what I'm here to ask is on a going forward basis to determine is this a regulated or not regulated use of this of my property right so whether it was before or after it doesn't change the fact whether it's regulated or not and I'm simply asking to make a judgment on whether it's regulated or not because that's going to determine the entire path forward so I don't think it's appropriate to just skip it Because it wasn't done prior to the request, right? We're here. We're looking forward. It's there. And the request is to just make an assessment on whether or not this is regulated or not. So I don't think we have to just, we can just not address that because of that.

Do you have a survey of your property? I do. Did the surveyor demarcate? Go water course on your property?

Yeah, and it's within the, it's definitely within the 50 foot setback.

What's within the 50 foot setback?

The play structure.

It's not a setback, it's an upland reviewer.

Within the 50 foot upland reviewer.

So you have a document stamped by a professional engineer, correct?

With, yeah, I have a survey.

With demarcation.

No, he has a very specific question. It's a survey, updated survey, with a stamp, with an official stamp by a surveyor.

I have a survey of my property. Is that, that's the question? Yes, I have an official survey.

Well, you can have a survey that shows the corners of your property. Yeah. You can have a survey that shows proposed structures. You can have a survey that shows the actual structure. you have a survey that can show any environmental elements and the distances from that element, which would include the 50-foot upland review area and the 100-foot distance. So the question is, when you purchase your property or when you, prior to these regulated activities that you conducted on your property, Because you did renovation on your house, correct? Yes. And you had to supply something, some similar document to show that the dwelling was not in the, or no, not not, you had to show where the dwelling was relative to the water course, correct? Yep. And if it was in fact in the upland review area and you were proposing renovation of your home, you would need to take the town.

Yes.

Aware of that, right? Of course. So based on what we just described, to what we just described, do you have a map survey that's stamped by an engineer that shows where your upland review areas are from the water course?

Yes.

Okay. So by definition, those would be the regulated areas.

Okay.

Go ahead. There is a there was no indication that there were wetlands on the property, nor was there a soil scientist to report at that time.

Okay, so I was intrinsically including that. I'm not going to go line for line. I presume from what I heard, you guys have had quite a bit of discourse, so... My expectation is that you would be knowledgeable of this, or you would bring a representative to represent you here this evening or in future meetings. This body is in here to, we're being, for lack of a better description, kind in engaging in discourse, but you're supposed to come prepared to present your application to us. It is not normal for applicants to come to hearings and ask for clarifications on the application process.

Right. I'm not asking for any of that. I'm asking for Section 4.4 determination going forward on whether the structure should be deemed as regulated or not.

4.4 is not applicable to this situation. 4.4 is not applicable. 4.4 is only applicable when someone presents prior to the commencement of any activities on a regulated area.

But we're just going to ignore it.

We're only authorized as much as 4.4 authorizes us. And 4.4 does not authorize to do it. And moreover, it's not even on the agenda right now. Because we took a vote to remove the item from the agenda.

Yeah, okay. Right, so Section 4, Act 4, just because it wasn't done beforehand doesn't make it regulated.

It says, any person proposing a permitted operation shall, prior to commencement of such operation and use, well, this is after.

But what else does it say? I'm asking for a determination of whether it's regulated or not, not the nuance of prior versus not prior. Because it doesn't become, it doesn't become regulated.

Is it within the regulated area, Mr. Bertoni?

It's in the upland review area, which is actually not regulated.

The upland review area is regulated territory. And to do activities in the upland review area, they're regulated activities.

But that's what I'm asking, is the determination of whether this is or is not a regulated activity. And I think if you look at the case I've presented, I've laid out reasons as to why it would be considered not a regulated activity. And I'm happy to discuss those. But if we're willing to look at it, is this regulated or not as an activity? So I can go through some points here if you'd like. One was that from

And I think we just made a vote on that.

Yeah.

We have a public hearing coming up where we can go through the merits.

But this is not a public hearing item of determinations.

No, we'll have a public hearing in... I mean...

Didn't we already have a public hearing on this?

Isn't that when the neighbor got up or the neighbor... Yes, we did. And it was extended because in order to... make a judgment on this we're missing key information okay and so what is a survey legal survey of where it is what's around it etc what other questions as to whether there was Phil put in there to make them to make the play scape level or whatever it is, like this, there was a lot of material that was put, the rubberized pellets that were put in, there was a water barrier that was put there.

No, I think that's exactly, I think we're confusing two things. There's the public hearing, which is on the permit, right, which needs to be a public hearing, but that's not what we're here for, right, and I guess you guys removed my agenda item, but... the purpose of today was a non-public hearing unrelated actually to the permit because it's going to determine going forward is to determine is this a regulated activity or not and I had a case and I'm prepared to speak to why I think it is not a regulated activity if we're willing to discuss that right and I've been speaking with Rick about this

I'm willing to hear the gentleman out, but go ahead, Rick.

I mean, it was for the declaratory ruling, but you voted to take it off the agenda because you felt that it could not be requested. Tell me about Garland. It could not be requested because it was requested after it's been enacted. Is that correct? After the activities. After the activities. Then there should be no more discussion.

What's the proper venue then? What's that? What's the proper venue for his argument? An application. Well, he's arguing that the application is not even necessary because... if not being a regulated activity. I'm just asking for the applicant, what is the proper venue for that decision to be rendered then?

Well, a declaratory, requesting a declaratory ruling, section 4.4, but your decision today was to read that to say you can't even request it because it was conducted in advance of the written request. Can we add it back to the agenda?

Well, it is a structure. It is a structure. It's in within the upland review area. I don't think, you know, I would find that difficult to debate.

Let's talk about it. First, from our conversations, right?

It doesn't have to be a structure either. It can be the activity of filling and grading.

So in the last hearing.

The whole argument of a declarative ruling is there to be a declarative ruling prior to work commencing. Work has already commenced. And now we need to either, now the applicant needs to come back to the commission with a proper application. There's no circumventing an application.

So we're saying because this wasn't done in advance, there's no way to make a declarative ruling. on a structure being regulated or not.

It seems like we're just not willing to... No, what you're asking is for us to change the Connecticut statute to... You're asking us... to amend or change the Connecticut statute to make it, for lack of a better description, convenient to you?

Well, just because it says prior doesn't make it regulated and then require a permit.

What you did is, it's my opinion, I'll speak for myself, what you did were regulated activities within a regulated area. You've already done that.

Well we haven't, the question is not. So we're debating your activities? So we're debating whether this is a regulated activity or not. That's exactly the ask.

I don't know how many times we've answered to you, and I apologize, I'm not being short. I'm just tired of being repetitive. You completed a regulated activity. What you're asking to do is regulated. You submit an application to receive approval for what you're, for the activities that you're requesting to conduct. How more clear do we need to be on that?

Because I'm asking to make a determination on whether or not it actually is regulated. And my point is, from the points I'm willing to talk about, is that they all point to it not being regulated. So I'm asking to make that determination. Now, the fact that it was done prior or not does not make it regulated and does not mean that we cannot make that determination.

Did you put rubber pellets under your playscape in your backyard?

As of today, none of those are there.

No, no, no. Did you?

In the past, yes, and I removed them as soon as we determined that.

Did you place a structure in your backyard prior to coming here?

Define structure.

The place gate.

Place gate is not, I mean, the structure. Did you put the place gate? I put an item which is defined by our own town's building code as exempt from all regulation, which is a non-habitable place structure. Right. And the term structure in the EPC guidelines is nowhere to find.

Did your abutting neighbor come to the commission and say that she viewed she was being damaged because you altered the grade and she had flooding on her property that she didn't previously have? I mean, firstly, that's highly... Did she make that claim?

She made that claim and she's here today and she can confirm that all of that has been removed.

so is the neighbor can i just ask a question out loud because i think that this is getting a little bit overkill for the situation is the issue and we've had a lot of rain recently has the issue been amended there no

Has not. OK. Well, I've removed all the grading. There's a photo of the yard showing the area.

Listen, we're going down a . Just look at this picture.

The area is literally underwater. This is way prior to a swing set. So what are we talking about?

I think that this is the matter for the public hearing. Because obviously, we have difference of opinion between the neighbors. And that's an appropriate public hearing matter.

But I'm not talking about a public hearing from a neighbor dispute. I'm asking to determine. whether this is a regulated or not regulated activity. So it's nothing to do with that. We can determine any, I'm happy to impact, I'm happy to remediate any issue with claimed drainage issues. But the question here is, is this a regulated activity or not? And if you're willing to discuss it, we can go through the points and each of these points stand on their own. if they are determined as a positive, that this is not a regulated activity. But if we're unwilling to discuss that, and then just take it off the agenda, then what are we doing here?

Have you asked a land use attorney or a, have you hired a land use attorney or an engineer to consult you to tell you whether they believe that it was regulated activity? I've got your answer. That's why you're coming to this commission to ask us if it's regulated activity.

Because you are the determining board that determines whether it's regulated or not. You guys determine that.

Well, I think the state statute says that it's regulatory.

Well, I'm happy to discuss that.

I think it's regulatory.

So the state statute states Under 4.2, outdoor recreation, including play and sporting areas, are exempt activities and not regulated. A play area, when they say play area, it doesn't say you can use your grass. It doesn't say anything else. It specifically says the word play area. A play area is defined by equipment and the determination The provision in that exact section states the condition is no removal, deposition of material, no alteration or obstruction of water or pollution affecting the water course. And with the removal of all the mulching, all the curving, you have a freestanding wooden playscape on unaltered land, and that meets all of those criteria. So that's one example of... It's yes and it's been removed.

Okay, but it doesn't count. You put material in the upland review area.

So if I get rid of my swing set, do I have to apply for a permit?

Who got rid of the material? I had hired people to remove it. Who did you hire to remove the rubber from the backyard?

I had to do something myself. I hired some landscapers to do it.

So you didn't hire a professional environmental remediator to remove the rubber, the pelletized rubber from your backyard?

I don't know what pelletized rubber is. It's organic. It's not little pellet rubber. It's organic, non-zinc. It's not made from tires. It was rubber made to protect children from falling, and that's been all removed.

I think the statute or the case law you're referring to refers to recreational use, running around in an area, even hunting.

It says play areas, boating, golfing.

Assuming other laws don't constrain hunting, which in your parcel would. It doesn't refer to changing the contours, adding any fill, whether rubber or organic. or erecting a structure. And I know the first time you appeared, I did say that the complete station was a structure. It's a built structure. It's a man-made built structure.

Right. And according to, there is no definition of structure in the regulation. The only definition is in Connecticut State Building Code, Section R1052, which states work exempt from permit. And one of the items it states is swings, non-inhabitable tree houses, and other playground equipment. This is the same town, and this is the only definition. So we can't assume a definition if there is none in the exact... You assume...

definition, if there's none defined, is what a common person would define it to be.

Or if it's defined somewhere else in the same code.

The zoning law structure is used in a different concept as to whether or not it's regulated from the zoning point of view. But we're not the zoning board.

So we have a clearly defined saying, these structures are exempt from our building code. That's your opinion. No, that's not an opinion. It says it right here.

I think that there's a pile of case law that would prove you otherwise. And you're also cherry-picking your argument. Let me be very clear. You're cherry picking your argument. You went in and you altered the grade and you deposited material in the upland review area. It's germane whether it was there when you put it there or whether you removed it. I am not going to explain to you, you have spent countless hours with Rick and Jeremy and this planning and zoning department. You are not coming off the street with limited knowledge of what you are required to do. And I am not going to have a debate with you about the application process. Let me just be clear. From my standpoint, it is a regulated activity. It is well documented within the state of Connecticut statute that it's a regulated activity, that this wetlands commission has the authority of the state of Connecticut to oversee regulated activities in the upland review area full stop. If you disagree with that, I would encourage you to hire a land use attorney and a professional engineer and come before this commission and argue that.

So you want me to hire a lawyer to make the same arguments I'm making now? Your argument

You know, Mr. McDonough, we're trying to help you through this process. It may seem not clear to you, but we've opened the path, which is go to the public hearing. This is a, it's very clearly a structure, okay? What they do, and if you're twisting the argument here, is you can go kayaking. You can go swimming. all because you're attention to the wetland. It doesn't mean you can build a pool house next to it because I need to change before I go into the water. I can kayak on it. It doesn't mean I can put a dock for a kayak. It doesn't mean I can put stacking kayaks out there.

Your own regulation states explicitly sporting areas, children's play areas. Now, no one says, hey, I'm going to go take my kids to the children's play area because there's a bunch of grass next to a stream. It's always a structure.

No, it is a structure. It is a structure. And good luck in trying to convince somebody of that.

Why are we writing a children's play area as a permitted activity?

A children's play area is maybe a sandbox.

A sandbox is not a structure? Yeah, I agree with that. Oh, so now you're claiming it's a structure. No, I'm asking you, what is your definition of structure? Because there is no definition of the structure.

Well, you said it was a structure just now. I just said it is a sandbox structure. I said that's a question.

And one last point, since we're talking about sandboxes, is from my conversation with Rick, he can confirm that this would be the first standalone play structure in the recorded history of Darien requiring an EPC permit. There's not a single stand-alone play structure in your records. That's incorrect. We pointed out one to you before. That has not a stand-alone play structure. That has grading, clearing of land, deposition of materials, or adding of pools and other structures.

Did you deposit material when you put the play set down? As of right now, there was no deposit. No, no, no. Did you? Did you?

But why does that matter? We're asking on a going forward basis.

Because you did a regulated activity in an upland review area.

Right.

And so, therefore...

So what do you want me to do? I have a, so okay, if I take my swing set away, and then you say, okay, now what? Are we good? Now I can just put it back without the fill? Like, what are we talking about? Because what am I allowed to do or not in my own backyard?

Is that actually true that this is like the first play set that would not require grading and any of that to be coming in front of the commission? No, that's not accurate. if he's saying that you told him that, is that true? Like, I don't know.

That required a permit? From our conversation, I thought we had said there were none. With no, without any other deposition of material, removal, fill, it was just a playscape on grass.

That's not the case though here, but anyway.

Well, it is now. We're talking about right now, we're talking about going forward. How do we move forward?

Mr. Chairman, we should have a rule of order here because I would encourage the applicant to hire an attorney.

He does what he does. I'm not going to encourage you to or not to. That's not my prerogative. It's your choice. It's your choice. We issue the cease and desist. That's a matter of fact. And this process has now been going on a year. And so... We believe the process is to have a public hearing. We'll go through this. If you think that's incorrect and do not intend to comply with the public hearing, that's your prerogative. That is your prerogative and we will choose and we will go and deal with the eventualities if you don't comply with the public hearing.

Okay.

Can I just make a suggestion? You've removed it from the agenda for the reasons that were stated. I really don't think we should be talking about it any further if that's the case. And then, so I guess suppose that But it addressed the concerns. We're willing to do that. But further conversation this evening, it's not on the agenda anymore. You vote, remove it.

All right. What's your sense?

No, I agree. And I want to hear from the neighbors, too. And that's where the public hearing comes in. I mean, I don't think we should be even considering it. But I will tell you, if it means anything at all to the applicant, I believe this is a regulated activity. And I think there's a misread of the statute, or the case law, as it relates to play use of areas. Because Eric said it very well, you can have the use of a pond to swim in, but it doesn't mean you can build a pool house or a pond house.

I've got a question. What happened with Cronacia versus the Darien EPC?

The Carnaccia was 2005? I wasn't on the commission.

Yeah. Well, the appellate court determined that there required substantial evidence of likely impact on a watercourse itself to have enforceability in an upland review area of a watercourse. So the obligation is on the EPC to prove that a swing set will have significant impact on the actual physical water course to determine whether it's allowed or not. So there's a clear precedent here.

The Coronachia case... You're misreading Coronachia. You're misreading Coronachia.

I would highly... urge you to seek counsel if you're going to start misquoting cases.

Well, I'm not misquoting. This is the determination of that case.

We're not going to argue with you. Yeah, it doesn't.

Well, you're not willing to actually even look at this.

No, this is getting there. We've spent a half an hour on this, Mr. Bertoni. And you see, I think the opportunity, you have an opportunity to speak at the public hearing. Whether you choose to or not is your determination. Very clearly, the point of Karnaca was not that. It's not for us to prove. It's us to determine. The Karnaca case ruled in favor or against? Mr. Karnaca, I've given you half an hour of our time to... We're going to have a public hearing on it next month.

All I came here for was a determination, not a public hearing. And we're unwilling to even have that discourse because you removed it.

No, may I read the agenda item which was removed?

Yes, you removed it before we even had a conversation.

Because it wasn't applicable. I'm not sure what you understand. There's proposed structure.

Can I ask you a question on a path forward? Because the process here is, since this will be the first ever stand-alone swing set on freestanding grass to require this permit, Probably because it's so egregiously expensive to actually execute the permit in relation to the cost of a structure like this, or it's maybe because it's clearly exempt as a building structure from any type of regulation like this, or it's because your own regulation doesn't actually define structure, or it's because your regulation defines play activities or children's play areas as exempt. All of those reasons point to this is an exception to your rule. This is an exception to your process. We said before we can't make exceptions. By pursuing my standalone swing set sitting on level grade as it was before is the exception. It's not the other way around. And using the Section 4.4, the one statement of it being determined before, not after, does not make it regulated. So if I take the swing set away, and then we come back and I bring up the 4.4 determination and you say it's, let's assume you say all those points make sense.

I'm not, don't assume, listen, this conversation's going on. If I do that. You just made all your points, thank you very much.

Do I bring it back? Can I take it away and bring it back after determination or can we just make a determination today on a going forward basis on whether it's regulated or not? I don't want to drag this out for another month.

I'm sorry, is your question whether this is a regulated activity?

Yeah, I'd like to look at the points I've made.

I don't know how many times I've said this, it's a regulated activity. What's your next question?

This is something that has to be firstly voted on by this commission.

Are you demanding something of this commission to vote on yours, whether it's a regulated activity?

The determination is to be made by the EPC. according to how your rules determine this. I'm not making this up.

This is a matter of order. This is not productive. This is unconventional. The applicant does not have an understanding of the Connecticut statute or the process. I think the applicant can decide whether they want to present an application at the general public hearing. I think that there's nothing to talk about until the public hearing. This meeting this evening was exclusively on the concept of whether a declarative ruling was applicable, and it is clearly not, full stop. And for the record, we presented to the applicant the statute highlighted as to why it is not applicable. I don't think we can talk ourselves in circles this evening. We have other applicants that have followed the equitable process of receiving approvals for regulated activities in regulated areas.

Never for a standalone swing set. This is the first ever. This is the first ever. You're making an exception.

No, sir, this is not the first ever. Just because you say it's the first ever doesn't make it the first ever. Can you please send me one example?

I worked with Rick extensively. We could not find a single example.

I do not accept your statement because I am looking right now at No. 5 Old Parish that submitted an application for a playscape and an upland review area to conduct regulated activities. You are cherry picking.

No, Old Parish. You're cherry picking because Old Parish was not just for a standalone place, right? What else is on the Old Parish application?

It was close to the wetlands. It was a regulated activity close to the wetlands.

But what was the other Old Parish items? Was it just a standalone swing set or was there a lot?

There's an old adage. It's called, you can't, what is it? You can't, you can show, you can show the horse the water, but you can't make it naked.

I think it's don't fight town hall, but I don't know why. I don't know what we're here for. No, I think. It's for the, the only strength.

I think you're very aware of your operations at your residence and you should follow the rules. It's pretty simple.

And your rules and. exempt this activity and this is the first ever swing set in Darien's recorded permittable history of filed permits requiring a full permit without also having clearing of land, deposition of material, or operations inside of an existing pre-marketed wetland.

We don't have a survey, the before survey, nor an after survey, as done so. We have to take... Does it show trees, where the trees are? You have a full survey of my property. Okay, well... Your survey does not show that, sir.

The survey shows my property, and it's indisputable of where the swing set is, is within the 50-foot upland review area. So there's no reason, there's no, that's a moot point. I agree to that. The question is whether it's regulated or not.

Do they typically put a swing set on it?

Yes, the answer is any structure, accessory structures that are on a person's property.

Yes. Well, I just had one done and Seymour did not put it on my property. So that could be an oversight by Seymour. I don't know. For other reasons sympathetic to this, I think it's making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, did you do some defined regulated activity within the upland review area by filling it? Sure, I think we can have a discussion and an argument, go around and around and around about what is a children's play area. I'm sympathetic to that, but it does not sound, it sounds like we're gonna have a public hearing on this.

Okay. So you want me to hire, you're saying my only path forward is thousands of dollars to get a lawyer.

No, we're not telling you anything, sir. You're putting words in our mouth and I don't appreciate that.

You told me to get a lawyer.

No, I didn't. I said, you have the alternative. You have to present information at a public hearing. Okay. People have suggested.

Not for a section four, not for a determination.

Okay. The section 4.4. termination does not apply to you because Mr. McGinnis said why. Okay. Whether you appreciate what he said, why, I don't know. The playscape and the activity was very clearly done, and now you're applying for 4.4. Okay? Now you're applying for 4.4.

It doesn't make it exempt from 4.4 just because of that one clause. We're saying just because it doesn't happen.

Okay, you're being argumentative at this point in time. We've taken it off the agenda. It was, at that point, you weren't here, Trevor.

I was not here.

Okay, it was it was unanimous by the board that said that said this is this is very clearly proposed activity etc Okay, whether you appreciate the wording there or not We as EPC determined that very clearly it was installed prior and you're coming after the fact Okay, and you're you're coming after the fact now.

I

I'm not sure why that's, you know, we don't believe that a declaratory ruling of Section 404 is applicable because it's after the fact. Okay? Okay. The way forward is to follow the process, okay, is to follow the process. Whether you choose to or not and how you choose to, that's up to you, okay?

I'll be the only person in the history of Darien to have to do this.

Okay, you want to repeat that again, please?

Yeah, I will be the only person in the history of Darien to have to file a full EPC permit for a standalone swing set standing on grass that was not in that permit accompanied by additional deposition of materials, clearing of land, or other more comprehensive work around a wetland.

Okay, well one is, there's a couple of false statements there, but that's okay. I worked with Rick to determine this. You did deposit it, you did deposit material, you put a lot of area in there. Okay, I'm going to end this now, okay?

We're not willing to have a discourse for this town to operate in a consistent way. then that's how you want to operate.

No, that's your words. That's your words. I'll see you in October, whatever.

Could you please send me somebody at this, somewhere in Darien, one example of a stand-alone swing set with no deposition of material, not a fence, an entire pool, or other landscaping, just a standalone wooden swing set sitting on grass.

One, it's not a swing set. We've determined that. Okay. We don't even define swing sets. We took a picture of it.

I showed it to the public. We don't even know what a structure is defined, so we don't need to worry about whether it's called a swing set or a playscape.

All right. OK. I'm ending this now. I'm not going to go tit for tat with you. OK. I'm ending this now. Thank you very much. I'll see you in October 7. Thank you.

Thank you. This is an utter failure to not have this discourse. And this is a clear exception.

Thank you. Thank you. This is an exception to anything that's ever been done at the permit. Mr. Bertoni, you're out of order. You're out of order, please. Are you going to leave the podium now so I can go on to the next piece of business?

Appreciate it. Thank you guys for serving today.

Next order of business is EPC 31-2026, PL 26-133, 297 Brookside Road, C. Taurus. To construct a residential addition proximate to wetlands, watercourses, and special flood hazard areas. The property lies along the west side of Brookside Road, approximately 325 feet south of Salisbury Road, and is identified as map number 5. Lot number 23, the zone is R2 and is approximately 2.01 acres.

Mr. Chairman, the application has made its way to the agenda this evening to acknowledge its receipt, to determine if a public hearing is necessary, and to solicit any preliminary comments for those that have gone to the site or carefully reviewed what had been submitted to date.

Any questions or comments by the commissioners? No.

Okay. Just one. There was a reference on the planting plan about the, it talked about the existing shade native ground covers. I did visit the site and I did not, it's just grass. So, you know, I just, you know, if they're planning to put them in, they should put them in. But right now, they're not existing. That's the only thing.

The ones that were planted about three years ago? Is that what you're saying?

There's just grass there. For ground covers, unless I'm looking in the wrong area. But I was with the homeowner, and she sort of directed me where the plantings were going.

Okay, any other questions or comments? No. Okay, moving on. APC 32-2026, PL 26-136, 10 Seagate Road, Pete Leary, to construct an in-ground pool, patio equipment, and other related features in a special flood hazard area approximate to Holly Pond. The property lies along the south side of Seagate Road, western cul-de-sac, and is identified as map number 53 of the Map 53, lot 53, the zone is on one half and is approximately 0.52 acres.

Mr. Chairman, the application has made its way to the agenda to start the statutory time clock and to receive determinants to the necessity of a public hearing to solicit any preliminary comments. For those of you who have been on the commission for more than five years, the development of this lot had been the subject of a prior EPC application for the dwelling. That permit was completed enclosed out with the pool not constructed. So they're currently seeking now under a new application is to pool the transmission lines, pool equipment, and other features proximate to Holly Pond and within the coastal flood hazard area. So staff over the next week or two will be generating a list of information necessary to assess the potential impacts on things ranging from drainage to water quality to flood impacts to structural flood proofing, et cetera.

Is this the same owner that presented originally for the property?

Yes. Well, it wasn't present. He was the same owner, yes.

I thought then the question was asked whether they were planning on putting a pool in.

They showed one in concept on the plan, but that was closed out. And there's a, since that time, since that time, really the more detailed look at what the impacts need to be or the assessment that you need to be has to be implemented. So he's filing a new application basically based on the prior plan, but updated to, one, what he wants to do differently, and two, the criteria for flood impacts and water quality have now come into being. Okay. Nothing. Okay.

I'm voting on the whole business. DPC 16-2026, BL 26-54, 71 Mansfield Avenue, Missionary Society of Connecticut, Inc., a.k.a. the Episcopal Church in Connecticut. Comments? Yes. Your comments?

Just for this matter, Michael Irvin's recused himself and is not participating.

to subdivide the 14.45-acre property into four single-family residential building lots under the conservation subdivision requirements outlined in Section 840 of the Dairy and Zoning Regulations. The property supports both wetlands and watercourses, including a reach of Stony Brook. The property lies along the west side of Mansfield Avenue, approximately 1,500 feet north of Half Mile Road, and is identified as map number two, lot number 35. The zone is R2 and is approximately 14.45 acres.

Mr. Chairman, the application, as you said, was for the conservation subdivision application that had been presented by the Missionary Society of Connecticut. The applicant submitted this application in April 8th. The commission acknowledged the receipt and made a determination the public hearing was necessary. based on findings of significant impact and public interest. Sessions of the public hearing were held on July 3rd, July 15th, and August 5th. And at each of those sessions, the applicant made a presentation to address the questions and issues raised by commission members, staff, and other interested parties. If you do recall also that the town had engaged a peer reviewer to further assess and provide comments on wetlands and environmental matters. Upon the completion of the testimony back in August, the commission directed staff to draft a resolution for consideration at the next available meeting, and that is presented for you tonight. I'm available to answer questions, if any, and certainly if you move forward, state your reasons for acting in one direction or the other.

I find very compelling Craig Flaherty's review of Criteria for Decision. He authored it on July 15th. Also, I contrasted that with Amy Zepitakis's correspondence as well. I think that Craig Flaherty's made a convincing case that under the criteria for decision under the Inland Wetland Regulations 10.2 that the applicant in this case has demonstrated that our approval is warranted. I it does weigh on me somewhat the peer reviewers comments particularly comment number five asking that the conservation easement be moved to the top of this slope slope seems to me to be a natural point from the slope towards the wetlands that should be the demarcation but I also heard Craig Flaherty's commentary that the applicant in this case has done as much as they are willing to do so putting all that together I would be in favor of the application as presented however I would request that in our transmittal to the Planning and Zoning Commission that we point out the peer reviewer, particularly as it relates to their comment number five, or her comment number five, asking that the uh slope be the natural demarcation and uh although it is not a item that compels the planning zoning commission to act i think it's important for them to be aware of this particular point that the peer reviewer made and maybe further even that if it were not for the fact that the applicant is insistent, which is their right to present their application, it would be something that we would, as a commission, prefer to see, to see the conservation easement happen at the top of the slope.

Is that something that we would recommend to Planning and Zoning or is that something that we would make an amendment to the draft resolution to include?

I don't think, I think we have to take the application as it is. So we would make it as a recommendation to Planning and Zoning because ultimately they have member of the authority to divide up the property into four parcels.

Okay. And then we also would make the recommendation that we want to be, that EPC should be the grantee. Yes. As opposed to planning themselves.

Absolutely. Yes.

Okay. I agree with what you, your recommendation. I, you know, I think that it's, going to be very confusing to the homeowner in terms of where the conservation easement ends, then there's the wetlands, and then there's the planting buffer. And I just think that for the homeowner to know where they can do what is going to be very confusing. I think it does make sense at a minimum to have the conservation easement go to the border of the wetlands and more more logically to the top of the slope. It's just because then they know where it is. So I agree with those recommendations. The only other comment that I had about the draft resolution is that an item number there were there there was uh in the condition number eight had some um with regard to the um the declaration of conservation easement restrictions, you know, some changes to the, you know, the trees and the use of pesticides and so forth. I thought that we, I understood at our last meeting that we had also agreed to kind of rework the wording related to the type of recreation that was allowed, whether it's active or passive or just because There's a lot of passive items that are technically considered passive recreation that we wouldn't want to see in there So that would be my only comment No, I agree with everybody I think it would be a nice to have to get the conservation easement as high as it can go but

Also, I think at the end of the day, we're getting a lot out of them. And I think that protecting and dividing off as much land as they are within this development is a positive.

Yeah, I'll go with her. I think the application is a good application. I think Michelle Ford, who was the reviewer for the town, basically said this was a good proposal. They've addressed the alternatives as far as I'm concerned. They have a program for invasives. maybe not as strong as I would like, but okay, because they're pushing it off on the homeowners and the future homeowners. Getting rid of the septic systems, which I think is a great, which is, I think, and if I remember correctly, they're digging them up. They're just not getting them idle. And I think that's really good. Because it just avoids a whole lot there. And I think where we can in the future, we should ask that they dig up the septic fields. And I think Craig's suggestion was a good one.

Is there an issue with disturbing a septic field and that causing environmental impact?

It hasn't been used in years. So I would imagine the answer is pretty well known.

It's a thing in Westport. I know Westport. For oil or whatnot at a commercial property, you have to really be cognizant of how you're going to dig them up and deal with them because you can cause more damage than just capping them.

So no, oil tank, 100%. Westport, for example... If I remember correctly, Westport requires you, if you're going to shut down a septic fill, to dig it up.

I mean, it just makes logical sense. I don't know why you'd want that sitting under your property for various reasons, but yeah.

So the other thing that convinced me was the diminished impervious surface. That there'll be... I know the calculations, Craig did the calculations, so I believe it, but there's diminished impervious service. And we approved it on a prior application, which was the removal of a house from the upland review area there. I think that's, for me, that's pretty compelling. I think that, you know, I too would clearly prefer that the, to move line up to the top of slope, as Peter suggested. I guess what we'll do then is put that into, you know, a letter to Planning and Zoning to get it for their determination, because we take the application as is. So I guess that would answer your discussion point then. Correct?

Yep. Defining about prudence. Pardon? Is there alternatives?

Well, I think we've gone through the alternatives.

Have you stated? Somebody should state on the record.

We've gone through alternatives with the three house and four house alternative. And obviously, it's four houses.

The prudent and feasible alternatives exist?

No, they don't exist. There are no prudent and feasible alternatives to this one.

And there's really no adverse impact. The intensity is less, even with four, I think, than the church and what was two units. So I think we have less intensity.

It's an upgrade to what's existing there today, and I don't think that there's a material difference between three and four, to be quite honest with you, as far as our board is concerned.

Well, I think there is because I think with four, they do the extension, the sewer extension. With three, they don't. With three, they don't. So you've set up the whole septic fields, alternatives, et cetera. So I would... So no, there is no...

feasible alternative then as far as we're concerned. It has to be four.

There's also more land that goes into open space with the four lot configuration versus the three lots. Where it would only be like one.

It's not for us to determine. It's not for us to determine three or four lots. That's planning and zoning. But in our case we find that the four lot is a workable solution for UPSA here. And most importantly, from my perspective, is we get seven-plus acres under conservation easement in a critical... I mean, that's... That watershed right there is pretty amazing. So, anyway, given that...

Does it... Is it as amended, or... Do we approve it as amended or just straight? Do we have to include?

What? The letter to PNC? That's just a direction to write a letter to PNC.

Put it in your vote.

It's a recommendation, right?

So we approve it straight with our recommendation.

With our recommendation. Okay. Are you okay with that, Rick?

As long as it's included before you vote, with the cover letter stating your intention to recommend that they relocate.

Okay, where do you want that? We would like that cover letter there. Okay, we can make that as part of the motion.

And the inclusion, the clarification on the type of recreation allowed in the Declaration of Conservation Easement. Is that the amendment?

Yeah.

Okay. I make a motion to approve EPC 16-2026, 471 Mansfield Avenue, Missionary Society of Connecticut, incorporated AKA the Episcopal Church in Connecticut, the Commons, with the... recommendation to planning and zoning that the conservation easement be extended to the top of slope and that the EPC be made the holder of the conservation easements I second that motion all in favor moving on

EPC 26-2026, PL 26-101, 9 Stonewall Lane, Y Piazzetta to construct an in-ground pool, pool house patio drainage, and other related features, proximal wetlands and watercourses. The property lies along the north side of Stonewall Lane, approximately 580 feet west of Brookside Road, and is identified as map number 5, lot number 13A. The zone is R2. and it's approximately 2.00 acres. So Chairman, the application is for the

For those of you who have been on the commission for five or more years, this lot was part of a subdivision that was at the corner of Brookside Drive and Stonewall Lane, dividing the parcel into two parcels. the um really had gone very detailed with your scrutiny there had been a couple permit applications that the commission had also fielded uh one lot the closest lot was divided off and has been developed under a permit the rear lot was able to demonstrate that all the activities were outside of the regulated areas and were permitted to move forward with an individual site development plan over the last couple of years. As noted in the agenda summary report, the applicant is proposing to install an in-ground pool, pool house, patios, drainage, and other related features On the property, there are no wetlands on the property, but both the eastern and western limits of the property, wetlands are just off site. An extension of the upland review area therefore makes a portion of the site regulated. Just so happens that in the eastern portion of the site where they intend to place the pool and some of the other features, the regular area in their development cross paths. So the site is currently under development with a six bedroom residence and activities barn and septic system. The vegetation that's in the affected portion of the regulated areas. Again, wetlands are on both properties outside of this particular lot. Ranges from meadow grasses to scrub growth. The property itself is not in the flood hazard area. The dog leg on the property is where the pool and the pool house and the other features are going to be constructed. The tasking associated with the project is the applicant is required to demonstrate as minimize the impacts or the encroachments into the regulated areas. and other areas of resource. They've utilized measures to preserve and enhance water quality. They looked at drainage impacts and have provided measures to mitigate for unavoidable impacts or to enhance the overall conservation values of the regulated areas and property. Site development plan has been provided. The full extent of the encroachment comes within 13 feet of the wetlands that are on the property. Actually, think about it. The wetland just encroaches on the very limits of the property to the east. Overall grade change is low. The field is not expected to warm two feet. About four large trees that are located in portions of the perimeter of the site shall be lost as a result of the construction. There are no direct wetland or water cross impacts. About 6,000 square feet of the upland review area, about 0.139 acres, is going to be temporarily and permanently affected. It's only about 1,400 square feet that's more permanently affected. The rest, the 4,600 and change, is affected by the landscaping that is currently being proposed. A drainage mitigation plan has been developed for the pool and the pool house. That plan, designed by the engineer, attenuates the impacts with this construction by providing subsurface detention structures, collection structures as a result of the install. that the engineer was able to demonstrate that there was no adverse impacts on drainage in the adjoining properties. We just received a positive endorsement from the town's peer reviewer for engineering matters. Water quality, they also are, just to get back, they have done septic testing to demonstrate feasibility and they do have an operations and maintenance plan. The water quality, the basic sediment erosion control plan has been provided. All the structures have been equipped with deep sumps and bell traps and infiltrations being used to and naturally cool the soils and treat runoff. There's a pretty extensive landscape mitigation plan that's been proposed for the extreme eastern portions of the site. It's really quite Impressive. The plan provides for the management of non-native invasives by hand, a clear depiction of limits of lawn and landscape, the addition of a bolder demarcation feature, and an introduction of numerous true native trees. So there's trees, shrubs, and ground covers, and the numbers are pretty significant to enhance. And then also there's meadow mixes also being installed. We also added the policy notes, the standard policy notes relating to deer repellents and recommendations for organic land use and land and lawn use and maintenance. We did talk about the demarcation feature. Fence tree protection has been added for trees that they have been able to avoid. And quite honestly, much of this project was driven, the location of the pool, by the applicant's efforts to preserve a really huge Japanese maple that's in the front of the property, I mean, further west of the pool. They engaged a Connecticut arborist to evaluate the tree and develop recommendations to protect the tree during the construction process and promote its good health post-development. The arborist's brief report was provided in the application. Some of the recommended practices include the use of hay bales to define priority root zones, select pruning of utes, roots during the nearby excavations, prohibitions on vehicle trafficking. material stockpiling, even got down to the level of engine idling, great change, the use of manicured surfaces, etc. And then they've also committed to engage the arborists during the construction process because most of the time during excavations they really need to be a thoughtful pruning of roots, cutting of roots, as opposed to taking them back home and ripping them out. Also in terms of alternatives, we asked them to look at some alternatives. They have trimmed the patio space back from what was originally proposed and also to get away from many of the trees of size and value that are tucked up up in the northern portions of the property. Applicant is here this evening and I'm available to answer any questions.

It's all yours.

Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Commission. Harry Rocheville, professional engineer with McCord Engineering. Representing the applicant, Ishar Rezaia. Subject property is 9 Stonewall Lane. As Rick had mentioned, this portion of the property is already under construction, well into construction, probably been under construction for a year, year and a half. So we're focusing on the area highlighted over here. There's a high point conveniently on the property here. So all drainage that was constructed for the house is not affected by this property or this project we'll be installing a new separate detention system for our project i'll just go to a blow up here so you can see it a little bit more clearly pink line here is the limit of wetlands dash pink line here is the 50 foot up under view area The project is for a pool surrounding hardscape and a small pool house. No plumbing in that pool house will just be power pulled from the house. Temporary erosion controls in the form of silk fence will surround the construction area to protect the wetlands during construction. In areas of higher activity, we have a double row of silk fence there. As far as stormwater management detention systems shown here, we did infiltration testing, deep testing to confirm that the system will design as intended, infiltrate that water quality volume, and mitigate any increases in peak runoff as a result of this project to the wetlands. As Rick had mentioned, we just this morning received positive endorsement from Ty and Bond after we responded to their comments a couple weeks ago. Stormwater will be collected from the pool area with linear drain here and here, and we'll also collect the roof runoff from the pool house. It'll all be conveyed to a yard drain here and then brought into the system. The overflow for the system will be via this yard drain where it will filter through all the plantings to the wetlands during extreme storm events. Stockpile during construction located here outside of the 50-foot upland review area. Hay bales are shown here to protect the trees during construction for recommendation of the arborist. Same thing here. There will be a deer fence installed as part of this project. It'll be brought right to the wetlands line there to prevent any future encroachment. As Rick had mentioned, there's about 6,000 square feet of temporary and permanent disturbance as a result of this project. 75% of that is to just install the native plantings to create that buffer. Jeff Greenhouses with Artemis Landscape Architects is here to go over his plan as well. And I think at this point I'll hand it over to him and then I'll be here for any questions that the commission has for me.

As stated, I'm Jeff Greenhouse with Artemis Landscape Architects, the landscape architects designing the wetland mitigation plan for the client and applicant. As previously stated, all plants on our plan are all native species. And just to clarify, only three trees of significance being removed are in the 50 foot wetland buffer line. There's one more tree of significance outside of the wetland buffer. And we are proposing, I believe, nine native trees in our wetland mitigation plan, as well as the shrubs, perennials, grasses, and conservation seed mix as well. And also I stated the deer fence in front of the wetland line to stop any further encroachment and all tree, or sorry, fence posts within the wetland buffer are called out on other plans to have only hand dug and no concrete bases in the wetland buffer area. We've also included per town comments, the Boulder demarcation line on the 50 foot wetland buffer to accommodate that as well.

Do you comment on the deer fence type of construction, how it would be installed?

There's a typical chain link, eight feet tall, deer fence, black metal post and mesh. We have plans and details we could provide if requested that show... the fence detail, and we also call for no concrete footings to be used on any fencing within the 50-foot wetland buffer line. The applicant has requested from us to include deer fencing for the entire property.

And then when you say wetlands line, are you talking about the line that's the upland review line, or are you talking about someplace else?

so the deer fence is in front of the limit of wetlands line on his property on the far east side so it is in within the 50 foot wetland buffer line as well as some pool code fencing within the wetland buffer line as well how adamant is the applicant on the deer fence uh very he would is highly requesting us to include deer fencing throughout this entire property. Perimeter fencing. Perimeter fencing, yes. And he has additional pool code fencing right around the pool area. But since to the east of his portion of property is the neighbor's property and road, he would like to have the deer fencing on that side as well as the rest of the perimeter of the property.

i should mention one thing to touch on that is the alternative that wasn't mentioned um when the client first came to us for the deer fence he actually wanted it all the way to the property line within the wetlands and we we talked him back from there to to not go you know anywhere past the limit of wetlands yeah because this is a pretty active wetlands if i remember correctly from the prior application to subdivide the property It doesn't seem that way. It's low meadow grasses. This is the famous farmer drain.

So it's meadow grasses going to the farmer drain.

OK. I remember more clearly now with the farmer drain. Thank you. There was another one where we saw a video of a significant flooding, but maybe it's another one around Brookside.

Yeah, and I myself have been to the property multiple times, and seeing the limits of wetland, it seems minimal.

Well, I think you're referring to 175 Brookside? Yes. Which is the companion. Yes. Which is the companion house which has the farmer's drain going through it. Half of it, right. Half of it because the other one is – Was buried. Yeah, the south side is buried. So I just want to clear up the confusion there because this is basically runoff from the country club at Darien.

Yeah. You're probably talking about this property. And then our wetlands probably go right through the center. I'm definitely talking about the other property.

But to Harry's point, we did bring the fencing away from the property line in front of the limit of wetlands on his property.

Can you just point out where the property line is?

Sure. This is the property line.

Okay.

And then this is the limit of wetlands.

So you're bringing it in so it's not in the wetlands?

Correct. We can probably see it better.

Here's the property line. Here's the limits of wetlands. Before, the client wanted the difference all the way to the permanent property, but we pulled it in to not encroach on the wetlands at all.

What's the plan to access that triangle? the area on the other side.

He has no plans to access that portion of his property since it will be fenced off. So he's willing to give up that portion of the property being the wetlands to not have access to it. Is he going to cut the grass? Is he going to? Currently, it's all just native grass and plant material that is untouched as is, so it would be left as is.

like two, three foot gates out of the chain link fence so you could pass the skid steers.

We don't have plans to get access.

I would think, I don't know if we would care. But I'm just thinking ahead, Harry. They're going to be like, hey, we want to get, for some reason, we want to get over there. And now you've erected a fence that you can't get to the other side of the property.

I mean, we could plan to put gates in the deer fence to have access.

I'm just thinking, I mean, if you get our approval, I pass a football.

Right. And it goes around. It goes over on the other side and you go, now what?

How high is the deer fence? The deer fence is eight feet, but looking... Can you show the overall property plan? We've had extensive conversations with the client about lawn space for his kids to play, which all of that really is in this portion of his property in the rear yard. We do have below the pool area a strip of lawn space that is usable but the client in discussions with other landscaping unrelated to the pool area has been very adamant about having proper significant lawn space in his rear yard for activities so all the majority of that space is directly behind the house can you just just start from one corner and go around just to see where all the chain link fence is going to be so we're clear

For the pool area or the entire property? No, for the chain link fence to keep the deer out.

It's not a chain link fence. It's just a deer fence. It's a fabric fence, right? He misspoke.

It's a mesh deer fence. Okay, it's a chicken wire. Is it plastic or metal? It is, I believe, metal. It's this black line here, essentially, set one foot off.

From the driveway corner, we have decorative fencing for the driveway, then the portion across the property line, then the deer fence starts. and continues to the limit of wetlands up and back around his entire property.

How many thousands of feet is that?

I have a clue. It's a thousand. Probably close to a thousand. Yeah. I don't have the quantity on these plans, but we do have the quantity.

So it also extends, there's wetlands to the

that the west yeah um not on our property not on our property but the wetland buffer 50 foot well and buffer encroaches onto our property on the other side okay so then the fence is going through the upland review area yes correct so this is the property line it follows the property line in the wetland buffer to here to connect back to the west side of the house okay so it doesn't go all the way it doesn't go on no it does not go all the way down to the road it stops

um you know sixty percent within this property so the idea of the deer fence is to keep the deer out of the backyard out of the backyard correct and it goes to the ground or there's a two inch

I believe deer fence goes to the ground. I can double check if it's an inch or two inches above ground level, but they do, the deer fence detail does have call outs for sections of

And I think your opposite prepared a full set that we just didn't include because we were just focused on the native plantings here. And so those details could be on the building permits.

Is the top where Harry's hand is? That's CCD, correct? CCD abuts the property there? Country Club of Darien? Or were you right-handed?

I'm not positive. Right here? I believe it is. I didn't see any fairways when I was doing my soil testing. Oh, that's right. That's probably another one.

That's the next guy up.

And then there's Malar property. You'd have to go all the way down here.

Yeah. From all I could tell, these are all residences. Yeah. Yeah.

That's property. What's this one? It's this one. Yeah. The Google Maps didn't find it.

The pool is horizontal as opposed to vertical to kind of move

It fits within those.

Yeah, because we still have to abide by the 50-foot setback. So if you follow my fingers here, the pool just squeezed in between them, so we couldn't rotate it or anything like that. And as Rick mentioned, the reason for the pool here is to provide proper setbacks from that value trait that the arborist does.

And since the septic area is on the other side of the tree as well.

So if the tree, if your objective wasn't to preserve the Japanese maple tree, would the location of the pool have changed?

It could have but that was sort of the starting point here so we focused on making this placement the best we could with protecting the wetlands by shaving off this corner patio which was the closest encroachment that allowed us to save these two trees here that are you know within five feet of the wetlands and pull back our sort of our encroachment there as well as be able to you know maximize the drainage in that area.

And what's the size of the pool?

It is 19 feet by 40 feet.

19 by 40. And the patio size on the north side?

I don't have it on the north side. Oh, as far as like a width? Yeah, just check it. Approximately 15 feet, I believe.

15 feet? Okay. I like the border. I like all the planting plan is nice But the Holly's they will I mean you're taking out Mature old growth trees. I only three you said though, right only three and I

By reviewing them on site, they're not in great shape. Yeah. They're not valuable.

Yeah, I saw them. And the hollies will, they...

The hollies will give nice seasonal interest as they're overgreen.

Okay, and thank you for strengthening the language and the operations and maintenance plan.

No problem. One of these days I'll get this correct saved one from before and it would already all be done for me.

Can I just ask you, just because I saw this both in your stormwater management report that was revised on August 17th, that it was also in our peer reviewers' comments, but it says the crushed stone beneath the cul-tec chambers is not included in the storage volume since it is within one feet of the restrictive layer. Could you just explain that? Sure.

Well, so the town's new drainage policy says that infiltration systems need to be set one foot above the restrictive layer, which in this case was the modeling that we encountered in soil testing. So that comment was essentially we set the bottom of the gallery, and there's six inches of stone beneath the gallery. So that six inches is only six inches above the restrictive layer where the gallery is a foot. So we're not taking credit for that area that is below within the vertical setback that the town requires. Essentially, we're installing a larger detention system and taking less credit for it, and still proving that it meets water quality, volume, and peak runoff rates. And to compensate for that, we added more stone around the detention system.

I saw that, to 18 inches. Correct. Okay. That's all I have.

I think it's a lovely plan.

Anybody else? You all set? Yeah. Okay. Rick, do you want to write that up for approval for next meeting?

Thanks, Larry. Very good job. Good job. Nice playing. Appreciate it.

Okay. Moving on to the approval of minutes, special meeting and public hearings of July 15th, 2026. Everybody should have received the minutes. Any questions or comments on the minutes? No. No.

Nothing substantive, and I did read all 29 pages.

Is that July 15th? Yeah, July 15th. So eligible to vote were Eric, Michael, Peter, and Carolyn.

Okay. I have a motion.

I make a motion to approve the minutes from the special meeting and public hearing of July 15, 2026. Second that motion.

All in favor? Moving on, regular meeting and public hearings of August 5th, 2026. Any questions or comments by the commissioner? No. Thank you.

Make a motion to approve the regular meeting and public, the minutes from the regular meeting and public hearing of August 5th, 2026. Second that motion.

All in favor? Agent approvals, APC 28-2026, PL 26-11832 Wakeman Road, Jay Henley, Jr., to install a generator and two above-ground propane tanks. Approximately, the water course of the property lies along the west side of Wakeman Road, approximately 475 feet north of Old Kings Highway North, and is identified as map number 32, log number 29. The zone is all on half, and it is approximately 0.78 acres.

Mr. Chairman, this review was accomplished as an age of approval. Again, it's to install a standby generator and two 120 gallon above ground propane tanks, proximate to wetlands and border courses. The site is currently developed with a single family dwelling, drive, drainage, and other related features, both public water and sanitary sewer. For those that have been on the commission for a long, long time, it was a subject of a prior application where they replaced the pipe under the driveway itself. properties characterized by the presence of jelly and moderate slope and developed lands. There's wetlands and watercourses and several large trees. Most of the large trees are at the rear of the property and to the left-hand side of the dwelling as well. There has been a proportion of a survey that was repurposed for this, for the The tank proposal, the property's not in the flood zone, it's in the limits of the 500 year storm, so there's no regulatory component to this application. Very de minimis encroachments, no more than 16 square feet in the area that is already, so it's completely lawn. No large trees being removed, no substantial changes in grade, in fact no changes in grade. Setbacks of no less than 30 feet to the more wooded area of wetland that's, again, along that side of the property. Because the impacts are so de minimis and the increase in price are so de minimis that there'll be no impact to drainage or the adjoining properties. With that, I prepared the agent approval and on this is to have them surveil the small water course that's in the front to make sure that it positively flows into the pipe that goes through the driveway and onto the adjoining properties.

Any questions or comments? Nope. Moving on, APC 28-2026, PL 26-120, 97 Mansfield Avenue, AKA 97.5 Mansfield Avenue, S Scarrette, to maintain a generator and above ground propane tanks installed within close proximity to wetlands and watercourses. The access to the property lies along the west side of Mansfield Avenue, approximately 450 feet. South of McLaren, I think. McLaren Road is identified as map number 17, Lattice 29-1. The zone is R-1-3rd and is approximately 0.4146 acres.

Circumstances are nearly exact to the last application. It's for a standby generator and two above-ground propane tanks. These features have been installed and not activated, but the applicant did come in, the owner did come in seeking a permit to make them compliant with the regulations. Property has a single family dwelling. Actually, you would never even know the property was there. It's in a long access driveway. And if you notice, it has the most unusual address I've ever seen of 97 and 1 half of Mansfield Road. It sits in a low-lying area between. the road zone to the east and to the west and it was substantially filled historically to create the lot and the water course on this property had been piped substantially so Again, just developed with a single-family dwelling, walkway, shed, drainage, and other related features. Again, between Mansfield Avenue and Rock Spring Lane, the low-lying area. Wetlands were recently flagged, more positively flagged, and they're both uplands in the center of the property, mostly extensive disturbed lands, and around the pipe, the wetlands are generally along the perimeter to the north and south. The property does not want a known flood hazard area. And again, it's the permission to maintain the standby generator and two 99 gallon propane tanks. One little caveat in the whole application, the zoning setbacks are somewhat convoluted on the property. they will have to move to a minor degree the location of one of the tanks to make it zoning compliant as well, and that was spelled out on the plan.

Rick, real quick question. With propane tanks, is the propane tank Does a propane tank have to abide by a setback, or can you put it right on the property line?

No, setbacks apply.

Does the setback change based on the size of a lot, or is the propane tank... Whatever is relevant, whatever applies to the lot, the setback. So that, okay, it's not all properties in Darien 8 feet from the property line. Correct.

Every property has its unique zone.

Right. And is that considered an accessory structure? Or is a propane tank its own thing?

I don't know if it's really an accessory structure.

No, no, no. I don't know what you call it. Do you differentiate? He knows the answer. What's the answer? Come on.

Craig Flaherty assisting the applicant on this one. So this is an interesting one. Below ground propane tank? Yes. No setback. Right. Above ground propane tank, accessory structure. Right. So every zone has a different accessory structure setback. And then there's a weird rule in the zoning regs which says an accessory structure closer than five feet to a principal structure needs to meet the principal structure setback. But if the accessory structure is more than five feet from the principal structure, it can meet the accessory structure setback. So we could move this particular propane tank five feet away from the building, and it could be five feet from the property. But since it's immediately adjacent to the building, it needs to be 10 feet from the property.

Right. That's what it was.

Yeah. That was the trick. I fell for it. And the buried piece, because, yeah. Charge the applicant. There's a reason to come.

no large trees no grade change it's about 14 feet for the edge of the flag wetland it's about 16 square feet um the minimus increase in imperviousness not expected to have a impact on drainage or adjoining properties and laid out some conditions and again kind of because of the Again, just to surveil the inlet and outlet of the pipes and to make sure that there's some positive flows. They will have to do an upgrade, update the improvement location survey to verify the zoning components. So it's made that part of the approval as well.

Any questions or comments? No. Thank you. Moving on to other business. EPC meeting schedule for 2027 was circulated. Any questions or comments on that? No. No. No. Okay, good. You want to make some comments on the 2026 plan of conservation and development?

Planning and zoning is moving forward with presentations to somewhere for the bodies within the town with their advanced plan of conservation and development for 2026. um the if you recall in may of 2025 we sat downstairs in 119 and developed a list of things that commission members were interested in and incorporating into the the plan of development. They're at the point now that I think this is version two leading to the final version where they, over the next month or so, they want to bring it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a final vote and endorsement of what is inside of this document. I look through the environmental section. They've incorporated a lot of what we recommended. It's in the last few pages of the environmental section. Some of the things didn't make it. They got called out during their initial public hearing processes. But some of the things got in there mostly having to do with The Conservation Commission requests to separate EPC and the Conservation Commission as the means to increase the level of activity. They did a lot with flooding, flood hazard. protection and studies they did a lot with open space study and protection and using it as a tool for long-term planning and to link existing parcels they have So you can go through this. I sent it a couple times to you. But you can go through it and see how the things have changed. I also sent to you the minutes from our May meeting, what we had come up with. Also sent to you our meeting notes that we had presented to the consultant. And again, they did make some headway. And it was actually nicely summarized in here in the later Sections also have an implementation strategy on these things. So they listed the changes that I went through and I checked off, you know, preparing an open space plant, tree ordinance. A lot of that came through the EPC, invasive species management, flood risk and preparedness having to do with climate change and resilience. identifying frequently flooded properties in order to do preparedness planning, which was always a great idea, and again, changing some of the standards in the flood regulations, and they did a lot more with sustainability. So if you go through and you have comments, Jeremy has requested that by September 23rd we gather those comments from individual members and provide it to him because they want to collect them all in advance of an October hearing and see how and if those things will be changed. So take a look at what you have and if you have any specific comments, get them to me and we'll get them to the... But I was surprised to see, quite honestly, that they did take into consideration a lot of the ideas that we had. So I was pleased to see that.

I did notice that. That felt gratifying, actually. Yes?

It was important to see him go, hey, that was mine. Yeah. Oh.

Yeah.

Peter. I'm surprised, too. Yeah. I was surprised, too, because I didn't think we were registering with that. Yeah. That's good. Good call. Anyway. All right. So you guys need to get your questions and comments back direct on this. Great. Good train reading for you. Summarize one page. A couple pages. Okay. Motion to adjourn, please.

I make a motion to adjourn the regular meeting and public hearing of EPC Wednesday, September 2nd, 2026. Second motion to adjourn.

All in favor? Thank you. Good night, Channel 79.