Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission - Regular Meeting

You're on mute, Rebecca. Working on the second right now. Okay. Let you know. All right. All set.

Okay. All right. So, I'll call the meeting to order of the Bloomfield Wetlands and Water Course Commission. Today is Monday, October 20th, 2025. The time is 7:02. And in attendance, can we have Commissioners Stephen, Lorenzo, uh, Byron, Adam, Paul, and myself. So, we have six. Um, old business is wetlands permit for 61 East Dudley Town Road.

Yes. Uh, Rebecca, can you uh promote uh Mr. Logan, Mr. Fairclaw, and Mr. Quirk, please? Is Mr. Logan involved before? Uh, no. Um but he submitted the requested uh um wetland in uh evaluation just today. Oh, okay. All set.

All right. So, here's who's here for the applicant? Is Brian here? Yeah. Brian, thank Brian, thank you for completing the uh Um, what is it? Conflict of interest. Yeah, conflict of interest form. Appreciate it. All right. All right. So, who how are we going to start this, Peter? Um, well, we can start either with Mr. Logan or with Mr. Fairclaw. Whoever wants to speak first, I guess.

So, Mr. Logan is here. Um, but my my new camera doesn't like Zoom, so Oh, well. Um, Mr. Cork can start if he wants to. I mean, I'm going to just present my findings, uh, based on the report. All right, Andrew, you want to start? Oh,

good evening, chair, commission members. Uh, yes, Andrew Cork, professional engineer and principal with Kratzer Jones and Associates. Um, I certainly could start and go over the project. There's also uh um staff Peter did a lengthy review. I didn't know if we were going to start there um or or we certainly could start with George Logan's findings. I think you guys are all familiar with this project from the notice of violation. Um I I think it would be best to if George if it's okay to start with your findings because that'll give us the background on the the wetlands the functions and the values the findings there

and then go into maybe the review letter um and then I can address um the actions um and where we are uh with the approp again George Logan for the record remological services I really apologize I uh got a new camera which was all exciting but it somehow doesn't like Zoom so you can hear me all I suppose. Uh Peter, do you want me to share my screen or Yes.

Okay. Let's see if I can figure this out. Um hold on a second. I got two screens. So I got to bring one Got to bring this into this. Yeah, you you have to have it open on your desktop to be correct. I have another screen. So, that wasn't working. So, um where here um I'm not sure where it is. Maybe at the bottom of the screen where you can share it.

I know. I'm just trying to find the actual uh screen that I'm supposed to share. This is not it. Um h that is kind of interesting. This has never happened before. So let's try again. Have all kinds of things here that have nothing to do with what I'm trying to present. Um, I apologize for that.

Is there any way for you to share it, Peter? Yes. Uh, I've got to get I'm working on that, too. Hang on. Uh, sorry, folks. Here we go. Um, is again, you got to have it open on your desktop. I do. Somehow it's not registering it. Okay. So, get me back to the Zoom meeting. When you find it, I think what I'll do is maybe start with the figures. I think those are most instructive. Look at the pictures and then we'll go to the uh

Okay. I Let's see. I'm not sure I have the have your pictures yet. I send you the whole report together with the pictures and the figures. That was the second time. First time I just send you the um the narrative and then I send the whole thing over again. You know, maybe if I opened it again. Let's try this.

Oh, wait. [Music] [Music] any luck, Peter.

Yes, I think so. Um, come on now. How do I get back to the Zoom meeting? Okay, share screen up as well. Um, wow.

Can you guys see the see my screen? Yeah. Yeah. Rema, if you push that little arrow to the right, it will expand it, I think. There you go.

Yeah. Okay. Um, so if you go down to figure A, we have ABC and E to E. And then we'll we'll look at those and then I'll explain. So any rate, while you're doing that, um, I was out there a few days ago and it's it's a big it's a big wetland. It's it's very large. So here's the site. You can all see it. Um, it's a zoom out so you can kind of see the site and some of the surrounding areas which you will notice and I don't know if you can see that you have a a wetland to the north of the facility and then a wetland obviously to the south and then of course to the to the west also. But there's actually a watershed divide right about right about there and you'll see it next. And so you have a wetland that has an intermittent water course that on the north side we call that wetland A1 and that goes to Pipe East Studleytown Road. And then the rest of the wetland that's mostly offsite and you'll see if you go to the next picture you'll see the um the Diva. Whoops. So that's B is the divide.

That's the divide. So I was able to to find it. Um so A1 has an intermittent water course. Wetland A2 has a perennial water course. And what you see here is just just mind-boggling in a sense that all the blue is what the federal government tells us are wetlands. Of course, you folks have something a little different and more accurate. and the green that's embedded in it is what the federal uh the feds say from the national wetlands inventory that's also wetland. So what you see in general, even though that's not particularly accurate when it comes to the actual facility, uh is that there's a very large wetlander. You know, we're talking, you know, 50 60 acres for sure when it comes down to it. And this is all a part of the headarters to the Millbrook, which is you can kind of barely see off to the top right. Uh so uh if you go to the next one, this shows you what I did. So I this is my tracker. So I kind of did a little loop around. Now mind you that I had seen the northern wetland which is now on the left. uh when I delineated the wetlands along westly down road at that time I think the I don't know if the same owner or not wanted to see if there was any opportunity to do anything there for development but it's it's so limited that uh that did not happen so went all around as you can see I touched the perennial water course there on the right and then let's look I have only six pictures I took took 52 pictures you'll see the next uh little app and that shows you

wow there you go

all the 52 pictures of where they were taken and which way they were looking at. Uh this is uh wetland A1. So this is the intermittent water course. It shows you that I'm looking in a southwest direction towards West Dudley Town Road. Actually I'm looking the other way. I'm sorry. Westlytown Road is on my on the back. Um so this is the intermittent water course and yeah it was kind of flowing. So if you go to the next picture got two more of the actual wetland. So from a characterization point of view these wetlands are poorly and very poorly drained. There's the typical Shaker sket um complex. They got all kinds of different hydraologic regimes. So they got saturated areas which these are the very poorly drained areas. Then the fringes are seasonally saturated and and the rest is seasonally flooded. Uh and then of course the brook is temporarily flooded when it flows. Uh go down a bit you can see the next picture. It has humminess quite a nice for a forested swamp. very nice diversity of of um all the the overstory is basically red maple two pillow yellow birch and there's a whole bunch of swamp white oak which is kind of interesting and then you have the typical candidates in the understory your winterberries and your your high bush blueberries and and and the list goes on from there have some swamp swamp aelia which basically tells you and And the next picture is another one of of of A1. Nope. No, that's A2. Sorry. Okay. So, that's coming around almost to the end.

You can almost see the West Dudley Town Road on the back there at tip over, lot of ferns, a lot of herbaceious. Now, the interesting part is that the northern wetland of the A1 doesn't have many invasives to speak of. maybe closer to the road, but not in the wetland proper, except for a couple of little fragmitees patches, which are not doing very well because it's too shaded, which is good. Um, little bit of barberry, but not much at all. Now, you flip over to A2 where the perennial stream is, there's a little more invasives there. Again, little bit of hermites here and there. uh some patches of multifllora rose but really not much. I mean so if if the northern one has 1% or less of invasives, this one has 5% or less of invasives. So it's third pretty pretty nice. So if you go to the little table uh which is sort of my bottom line of what we saw.

Is that all the way up?

Yeah. One more. Whoops. Um, next page over. You went too far. It's in page four. So, it's down there. There we go. Uh, that's the table. So, I I basically split the two even though they're really one ecological unit. One thing that these um function and value assessments don't do it's is give you the ecological integrity. So the ecological integrity of this wetland is is pretty darn high. And the reason for that is because it's is very very large. Uh so when you have a large wetland that's undisturbed, it's doing doing well, it's less sensitive to what's happening around it. So it's more resilient and it has more ecological integrity because there are portions of this wetland that are interior that nothing really reaches them so to speak. So these are groundwater slope and groundwater um discharge wetlands. So obviously they're headwater wetlands. So principal function for both sides that means it's conferred to a a higher degree. This is the way this particular descriptive approach that we we always use the US Army Corps of Engineers flood flow alteration obviously there's plenty of flow alteration happening there's so large uh sediment shoreline stabilization um principle for because of we have a perennial water course on A2 not in A1 of course new removal transformation is also the case in B because we have more development uh in the uplands outside and you have a

perennial water core so there's more opportunity for the the wetland to do something whereas the other side not so much. uh you have aquatic habitat even though it's not a principle um perennial water course you don't really have it on the intermittent water course of course wild habitat is um is a principal function fairly high there I'm sure if I was there in the springtime I'd be coming back with a laundry list an arm an armed long of what's out there there's no endangered species habitat so there are some estimated habitats for endangered threat and spe special concern species, but those are further to the south and the west. I looked at the latest NDB U maps. Uh visual aesthetics, of course, I wouldn't call them principal because you have to have people recreating in there. We do have um at least two deer stands that I saw. So maybe those folks are recreating. So you do have some recreation happening passive active and um uniqueness heritage even though it's not a a principal function I called it a yes that there is some unique uniqueness to these wetlands because they are large contiguous have excellent ecological integrity and they're the headarters of a of a major broken town. So that's kind of where uh to summarize that's what I have and the previous pages just you give you a lot more information on the characterization of of the wetland itself.

Okay. Um I have some uh photos to share as well. Um, but I got to stop and go back. Now, one thing that I didn't tell you is that I Oh, yeah. I had photos from February of this past of this year, but I they weren't they weren't as interesting, so I didn't show them.

Okay. So, uh, these are photographs from September, I think September 9th. Uh, and this is uh approaching the northerly wetlands. You can see a little bit of uh of uh um you can see the piles of wood chips, I should say, in the background here. There's one. There's another one over here. Um, and as I'm walking through, uh, I'm walking, uh, I, my my loop was a little different than George's, but, I don't have that technology to show you exactly where I was at. Uh, but I'm I was walking along, uh, the uh the north side of the um, uh, of the area that's used for stockpiling. So, the stock piles are here. I'm just a little to the north of them, but this is definitely in in that northerly wetlands. And I probably took too many pictures. So, um, as I was proceeding through here, I was looking for the edge of the wetlands. And what the official map shows is a couple of areas of uh of um standing water. Uh, and I'll show you. Uh, this is a uh uh something that I caught my eye was a um a cone sitting out there. I wondered what the cone was. There's actually a well uh not a well head but a um a uh on-site hydrant or or some kind of a water um pipe system that that um runs through

the uh this black pipe out out to the street apparently or out close to the street. and they have an on-site fire hydrant uh or water supply. I'm not sure if it's a fire hydrant, but it's certainly a water supply hydrant. And this is the this is the pipe. So, as I was walking uh further east, further west, this is some some of the stock piles and some of the apparent encroachments over here that that I observed. I I looked for the I looked for the Let's see. I'm getting my I looked for the easterly um area of uh open water that's shown on the on the uh uh official map. I'm not sure if it was here, but there's definitely activity happening here, which is um this appears to be mulch or or um compost, but there's a lot of old trees and and stumps in this area that they're apparently uh working on. I mean, I think one of these pictures had a had a backhoe on it. Maybe not. So,

yes. Yes, Peter, you are, just so you know, you are looking at an area in the back that we are working on pulling material away and and cleaning up more areas of the site. And that is it's all uh we call that forestry mulch. It's just natural, you know, brush, ground up, and aged. That's what I think that pile is right there.

Okay. So, I continued further north. I saw here's some fragmitees uh that uh maybe the same ones George George observed. And here's here's the other end of that pile. See the this is the one I was thinking of. So there there's um this looks like real old woody debris that isn't chewed up but is starting to to rot, I think. Yeah, that's that's all stuff the old owner had on the site that we're trying to process and get out of there.

Okay. And this is some of the equipment that's used for that. I went a little bit further east and I saw No, I went by it. Oh, I don't know if you I just caught there's a little bit of blue right here. So, there was a little bit of standing water and my pictures are usually cons, you know, consecutive. So, it's kind of it's kind of in here, but there wasn't much. Wasn't like there was a pond there. It was a very small area. And then I walked up and out of the site. And this is actually uh a picture from uh um this might be an earlier picture. This is the area where there was a uh uh where there was a there was a pile here. The sand pile was over to the left and the uh wetland violation happened back in this corner. And I think I took this picture to show, you know, kind of a a broad view about this is partway into the site. Here's the uh here's the restored wetland area that was that was impacted. And um this is that same pile. And what I wanted to the reason I took this picture is because this pile used to go down to the woods and they've pulled it back. In this case, uh that's 15 feet or so in this area. Um, and that's kind of what I'm recommending for the for the whole site where they have nonwood chip piles. Wood chips don't usually, you know, erode. They can be carried by water, but they don't usually wash out. Um, this is

the area uh kind of to the to the uh rear of the sand pile that was removed or partially removed. And this was a piece of equipment that they were working on removing this pile of uh of material. Um they broke the pump and there's the pump in the box. I don't I don't know what the status is of that now. Uh so oh I'm zoomed out. So those are the pictures from those are the pictures from last month. Um, this is the north north part of the uh uh outside storage area uh north of the entrance when you come in. So, there's quite a bit of stuff happening here on this site. Um, unless there's questions about those pictures or George's um thing, I'd like to do the uh let's see if I can do this. Stop sharing and go through some of the points in my um in my staff report.

Um, excuse me. Sorry if if it's okay. I do have a presentation and it has mapping. Okay. And I I'll be I'll be brief because we really covered quite a bit of this between um George Logan's report and then the pictures that you had

but I think the mapping might correlate where on the site uh these activities are taking place and I then I think the memo um it it might uh relate better there. So let's see if I can share screen here. Okay. All right. Is everyone seeing uh this was the cover sheet of the plan submission? Uh Peter, I think you're on on mute, but is everyone seeing this? Okay. Y there we go. Oh, okay. Um so we I'll skip through some of the Make it bigger if you can.

Oh, okay. Let's um so this is the cover sheet of the plans that we prepared um for the for the the wetland application. Um the first portion of the package is existing conditions. Then we have the um the erosion control plans and the remediations. And then I do also have some site photos that are probably a bit outdated at this point but show some of those areas. Um so on the site uh this aerial view shows the large wetland area to the north and then the second wetland area to the south that George Logan um described. Um this is the overall site with the existing activities shown in red. In particular, we had a 30 scale plan that identified three areas at least that we focused on. The first being uh my cursor is showing but in this sort of towards the bottom left of the sheet was that large sand pile with the erosion and the double row of silt fence and the area that's been pulled back and remediated in that location. Uh the second is the area of the um processed stone or or gravel turnaround area that was expanded across uh where there was a previous BM that is to the east or out towards East Dudleytown Road. And then the third area that we um discovered was related to this this darker blue um wetland line. This is the 2023 town wetland line that we were asked to use. The lighter blue, which I know we'll get into in the comments, will be removed from the plan. That was the wetland limit per the 2019 plans that was was originally shown. And so there's an area here. I have pictures of it. I think um Peter I think you already showed some of the pictures of some of

the stockpiling and old material that was there um near the entrance that is um shown as within the 2023 wetland limit. Um it it doesn't appear to be active and functioning wetlands but it's within that 2023 limit. So on the application that's the area of wetland impact that we show um within the application. This is uh an overlay that was requested of those activities with the town map um showing uh the green limit of the 2023 wetlands. Those are the uh pockets um towards the northwest of the site, the blue pockets um where uh the pictures were taken and trying to find those open water areas. And then the perennial water course is of course in the blue towards the uh this is a zoomed in area. Um again that to the north part there's that intrusion to the wetlands with the um concrete blocks. I have pictures of that. Um, so the plan that we submitted on the sheet S1 on the overall and then again blown up on the 30 scale is to have that area within the 2023 wetland uh limit. Um, all that material and all of that removed that can be relocated outside of the limit. Um, it calls for the restoration of the burm along the southerntherly portion and the placement of permanent wetland markers uh 50 ft on center so that it's clear and denoted on the property where this limit is. Um, and know there's some revisions to those limits that we want to discuss. At least at the time of the mapping, this is what was um this is the area um against the concrete blocks. Again, this material will be

pulled back outside of the 2023 limits. Uh this is the process stone area um where the burm would be restored. Um, again, this this is alternating back to that area within the 2023 wetland limit with the material that'll be removed. This is that same area. This is some older stockpiled material. I think may may predate the the current owner um that will be removed. This is the um in in the Burm area there was this weir that's labeled on the plan. Um so we had a picture of that in this area. It looks like it was intended to be sort of a V notch to let it slowly drain but also allow for an over top. Um um so in this area we're calling for the restoration of the burm and just leaving this this uh and then this is the area that was again about that 15 ft that was u well this is along the ditch leading to that area that was pulled back from the wetlands. Um and then this is a better shot. This is outdated. I think now the picture shows that this has been uh all pulled back inside the double row of the silt fence and this is at the entrance. Um so with that I I Peter I can turn it back to you. I just thought maybe that mapping might help with correlating to to the memo that was prepared. Are you there? You're muted. Yes. Uh, sorry about that. I am here.

Um, I may have some clearer maps that I'm going to try to bring up. Um, so I sent the commission um and I believe I sent uh sent the uh same map to uh to um the applicant. Uh okay. So, um this is uh the sheet S1 that was submitted um with the application or with the set of plans. hands. Um, my my S1 does not have the aerial photo in the background. And what I've done here is I've I've highlighted the wetlands line from the from the 2023 map in red. Uh the water courses are in blue and the uh upland review area limit line 50 ft from the wetlands is is this green line. Um the uh um the previous owner built some BMS in the woods to act as storm water um detention

and and water quality measures. Um there's there's some some of it left here. Um there's uh a piece of it left over here too. And but these used to used to connect or they perhaps they were a little bit longer. Um but in the original or the previous set of plans there were no stock piles here. The BMS were in the woods and they were outside of the 50-foot vegetated buffer. So the proposal is to um extend the the BMS in this area. Um build new BMS here and extend the burm or re rework the burm uh in this area here. So there's three three separate three separate things going on here. Um or you know three different things uh of BMS being proposed. My my recommendation is that this burm be moved up to outside of this outside of the vegetated buffer zone so that there's some room between the stockpile area and the and the burm for um uh for storm water quality and detention and that the BMS aren't right up against the wetlands um the wetlands line. So, the uh the other thing um that I really didn't notice until until uh a little while ago, they're proposing to place these little squares are wetland markers. Um and you know, that's that's what they're

proposing for uh a limit. I I guess or um you know demarcation of the wetlands and and I think I think the uh the limit of operations on the site should not be at the wetlands line but it should be either at the vegetated buffer line um or uh you know some other distance away from the from the wetlands. Um the uh you know the the work right here uh this was this uh this was the sand pile. This was the pile next door I believe that showed that there was some material moved uh so that they could get around the back of this of this area here which which works fine. Seems to work fine. Um again these these BMS were were originally proposed for um uh storm water quality measures mostly and to protect the wetlands from from sediments. So, um my uh my staff report um uh discusses um the benefits of of moving particularly this one, this burm up above, you know, into the area of the um I should say outside of the area of the vegetated buffer zone. Um in some cases it looks like uh you know where where the uh this is where the official map shows ex existing water and this is the area where they were actively removing or relocating some of the piles and

there was the the uh large logs were in this area and the backhoe. Um, but it looks like, you know, based on this topography that there may be some some encroachments along this area into the wetlands as well. Um, I don't know how what you know if these are all wood chip piles or if some of these are soil, but my other one of my other recommendations is that they provide erosion control for um the piles, the stock piles that are not wood chips. Um so that if there is an erosion problem there's there's you know some kind of uh erosion control measures. There are no erosion control measures on this side of the site. The only ones are this were this burm or series of berms on the south side.

That whole Peter that whole area in the back is all wood chip. All the berms in back are all wood chip.

Okay. So, um the site has um stockpiles uh soils and wooden pallets. There's tree stumps and logs, landscaping debris, wood chips, sand and construction, uh demolition. Uh they process these uh raw materials to landscaping, mulch, blended top soil, process aggregate, compost, etc. Um there's also an office trailer. uh with a way scale for trucks and some pavement. Um this plan shows the pavement going um only to here but I think it goes I think it goes out further and maybe includes these catch basins. So there are some storm drainage facilities. There's one. There's catch basin here and here. And there's a Well, this is this is a runoff where the where the uh uh violation was, but it's I thought there was maybe it's up here. Thought there were more. Anyway,

there's there's only there's only two catch basins over there.

Okay. But All right. So, there is one storm water discharge here. There's another one here. This one doesn't have a pipe. It's just a channel. Um let's see. Uh the uh stock piling is stock piling is generally done in the rear of the property and the uh me get to the zoom page which is back here. the material storage and and and uh um processing not processing uh stockpiling is happening in this part or and that's where the trailer is. I believe there are also um some additional bins. Um I want to say they're here. There's certainly block walls here that don't show on the on the plant. Um anyway, uh there was um we talked about the inspection on the ETH. So, in my condition of approval, I'm recommending that the stockpiling and processing operations on the site be pulled back from the wetlands to the 50-foot vegetated buffer line to allow for some separation between the stock piles and the wetlands. This will allow for soil erosion sediment control measures to be installed and monitored on the back side of the stock piles. Um is also recommended um that uh permanent erosion uh sediment control measures in the form of new BMS andor sediment traps be constructed at all stockpile area

minimum of 25 ft from the wetlands. Um the uh uh another uh recommended condition of approval is that permanent markers be set to define the limits of the stockpiling uh and processing operations at the 50-foot buffer line or at the present limits of clearing whichever is further from the wetlands um to deter uh future encroachments into the wetlands. Um the wetland markers called out on the plans are not necessary. Concrete barriers or similar are recommended for the markers. Um we can talk about uh what you know what might be better that you know I'm not I'm not crazy about putting up uh uh concrete blocks or or um jersey barriers, but something more permanent than a a sign on a tree needs to be put up. Um the uh let's see, there were two items that were requested last uh last time. Um and the uh let's see where is that in here. Anyway, um the the commission asked for um additional information on the conflict of interest form uh which was submitted and included in your packet. Uh commission also asked for a wetland evaluation uh which we were presented with tonight. Um and so I believe they've complied with all of the the uh additional um information requested. Um

the plans show uh you know a uh the plans show um a little bit of work happening in this part of the the project and a little bit right here. Um, so I'm okay with with this with this work in this area, but I'm I am recommending that that they um res uh do some restoration here as well in those areas that they show um you know encroaching into the wetlands. Uh

is that part of your conditions? Yes.

Okay. Um, so I have 27 I think recommended conditions. These are slightly different than those um that were included in the previous application. I mean previous um staff memo. Um but I think most of them are pretty self-explanatory and I won't go through the whole 27 of them. Um but the applicant did ask uh when we we had a meeting uh a phone meeting um after the last meeting uh after the last wetlands meeting and they asked about um whether the uh the bond which I'm recommending for the whole site um would be uh you know whether it would just be an open uh open bond or continued bond or a uh um something that would have a deadline. Um typically we we have the bonds stay in place uh until the regulated activities are are completed. Um there's regulated activities happening on this site on an ongoing basis. So they're really not um going to be completed. the proposed work at the BMS and in this corner would s would certainly be something that could be done probably um you know if not this year than in the spring uh of next year. Um, let's see. Uh,

Peter, is that a cash bond? Certified check or letter of credit? Okay. So, uh, unless there's questions, specific questions about them, I think I think the applicant is okay with most of these conditions of approval, but I'm going to stop my sharing and then we can hear from them again. Okay.

Um, actually, Peter, can you put back up that last um the last screenshot that you had um for sharing? Um, yes, we had a we had a very good meeting and and Peter, I appreciate all the time you took with us to go through each of those items one by one um with Brian and myself. Um, and I I don't obviously we don't need to to go through that again, but just a couple comments. Um, one, if you zoom back into that same area, um, where we were talking about where you called for the additional restoration um, we were just looking at. So, I I just um I think we just we need some clarification on the limit of the application. So this is a good example where the green line is the vegetated is the 50 foot uh limit from the wetlands and I believe in the memo in one area it describes pulling all activities outside of 50 ft within the wetlands. Um, I also have the 2019 plan and it shows the activity limit um the same essentially the same as what's what's shown in this area here. Um, and there's other areas on the site like this where the permit is is intended to be for um those activities that are within the the 50 foot um area. There are some areas that um per the permit um and per the drawings that we've submitted, there are activities within 50 ft of the wetlands. Um, so I guess for the for the applicant and and for everyone to have a clear understanding of where you know most

areas on the site it is out is is further than 50 ft. But there are a couple areas like this where the the plan calls for removing the items out of the 2023 wetland limit to restore the area but to restore it up to the to the wetland line. I want to make sure there's not a misunderstanding of to what extent that restoration goes. And then and I do agree whatever that line is that then there is a permanent marker at that limit. I agree the the plans show a markers at the wetland line but it would be more appropriate to have those markers at the um the limit as approved whatever that limit is per the application so that it's clear um you know that anything beyond that would have to require a new a new permit.

Yeah, I I agree. Um this the condition of approval it's number 13 uh states stockpile material shall be relocated to outside of the 50ft vegetated buffer line and it says in all parts of the property. Uh in this case um I believe um there is material stored in this area but it's outside storage of there's trucks and other kind of stuff down. I don't think you're actually stockpiling any material here, are you?

No, but I I'm um I I'm I guess that language I'm just concerned is going to um it has some if there's any activity within 50 ft of the wetlands, it it appears it would contradict with that language of the permit. So, yeah. Okay. Well, that and it also like you're showing the bit like material bins have material in it for resale and so there's technically there's material in those bins. It comes and goes, but you know, I I I want to make sure we're clear and and concise and and we're making sure there's not really gray area and everybody's on the same page.

Okay. I would recommend if possible that we add the language per the approved permit plans and then we work together as we did to to make that line clear on the plans and then that then that that line is marked in the field um with uh well markers on trees on 4x4 posts as we've shown or you know in certain areas maybe there do need to be some concrete barriers. And we keep talking about the markers. I mean, one thing I'm thinking about, Andrew, is, you know, galvanized steel, you know, signposts that we put in on normal construction sites that,

you know, go 4T in the ground and have a reflector on it, you know, you know, that that aren't going to get pushed over easily and they're not going to just rot away, fall over, blend in with wood. They're going to they're going to stand out and, you know, stand the test of time out there. Well, I would be okay with with um uh identifying this specific area as as you know, I think I called it the northwest westerly part of the site, even though it's not really the northwest corner. Maybe I'm maybe I said northeast. I don't know. But, uh, I understand what you're saying about if you moved everything out of the 50-foot buffer here, you would have to move the existing, uh, blocks and stuff like that. So, I'd be okay with either of your suggestions um as you know showing a limit of operations on the plan or even saying you know this uh all areas of the property except in the area uh we could call it east of the east of the uh way scale or east of the building. I'm sorry, west of the building.

Yeah. or or or you know that it references you know we have to make these plan modifications um these comments that it's that the line is per the approved permit plans and then we we you know we go through and have an exhibit that clearly shows the limit of the activities and then that gets demarcated in in the field. Yep. I'm okay with that too.

Okay. Um and then some of the other comments um relate to the the uniqueness of this operation that you know most of these wetland permits are for uh construction activities that have a clear start date and a clear completion. This has as as Peter as you mentioned ongoing operations. Um so the concern with that is just um what would be the start and end date for items such as um 15 where it talks about um review. Um also I didn't I still have the the previous memo that I marked. I don't know if the language was changed, but uh we had concerns about an independent third party consultant and that's typically for when you have a D permit for activities more than 10 acres where you hire another firm. So in this particular case, the qu the questions I had it's that are still unanswered are what what is this independent third party consultant specific to this application and what would be the start and end date for these um reviews and inspections given that it's it's a business where it continues as long as a business is in in operation. Um so that relates to comment 15 uh 18 uh 19. I spoke with the applicant in terms of annual reports that um you know I think that would be something that would be wise that and that could continue on and that's part of the other um D permits that are required for this operation. They do have to have annual reports. So having copies of those sent on an annual basis to the town certainly seems prudent, but um having inspections after every rainfall event within a 24-hour period without an end date, I I

just don't know that that's appropriate to applicate. I could see I could see u um inspections more at the beginning, you know, for six months, maybe more. Do them on a uh Well, my recommend Yeah. Go ahead.

Sorry. My my recommendation for the bond and for these activities is that they're tied again to the plan and that when the restoration takes place and is complete that the bond would then be released to the satisfaction of the town that the the the restoration has taken place and that the inspections would end at that period in time because that point it's been the the permit has been put in place with the activities um um as proposed by tying it again to the plan and the activities of the plan. So it's not a time period. It's still until the plan is implemented and completed to the status. Yeah.

Yeah. I I really have a problem with that because of the on you know the kind of the kind of activities that are happening here. Um and uh you know e one uh you know one inspection a year isn't going to pick up any encroachments in the future. Um so you know my my thought is that we're not this permit isn't just for the proposed uh work at the BMS and restoration of these small areas of wetland but it's for the whole site. So we can't, you know, we can't just say, okay, we'll hold it for, you know, 6 months or a year until the until the work at the BMS is done and then we don't have any followup. So, you know, maybe uh every uh every week or or after every storm is is too frequent, but I don't think it should go from that uh you know, to no inspections. are are sorry to butt in, but I'm just thinking even with the phone conversation we had, Peter. Um, it's it's not so much the inspections, it's the third-party inspection, you know, it's the ongoing expense of a third party inspection all the time. If there's something that we as the owners and staff that we can do inspections after every rain or and send something to you or something of that nature and then do a third party every 6 months or something like that, kind of do a blend of it. I think, you know, we'd be okay with something like that. Um, something along those lines. It's it's a third part it's a third party inspection that just gets very very costly. um you know

in doing that I I would be in favor of something after the initial work is done and the inspections are done but on a weekly basis you're proposing Peter after that doing them every 3 months and after the second year cut them back to every five months or after heavy rains something like that. Is that reasonable? Yeah, I think so.

I mean, if you guys are okay, I mean, split kind of split the difference a little bit like first three months, the f, you know, 3 months and then six months, you know, and then, you know, two years of of that is one thing, but after the first year, like, so let's say this gets approved, you know, November 1st. um November 1st. Okay. Every 3 months, you know, for the first year and 3 months and then 6 months. It's just waiting two years and doing every 3 months. That's still gets expensive. I mean, you're looking at, you know, $300 to $500 every inspection, you know. I mean, the site is you're in the middle of the wetlands, which makes it, you know, complicated.

Yeah. But, um, I would have I would rather see more inspections at the beginning by a third party. Um, just because you can't nail staff down to doing that, you know. Well, that it would end up being probably me doing it or the other owner. We we wouldn't just have staff. We would be the ones doing the report. No, no. Town staff. Town staff. Oh, no. I wouldn't have the town staff doing the inspection. We would send in Yeah. we would send in, you know, a report to the town staff.

No, we we prefer a third party and, you know, and if it gets too expensive after a year, you can always submit, you know, an application to modify it. So, so do you think it should be uh weekly while the work is happening at weekly is weekly is still too much. No, no, but for for the time frame of of the work for the BMS and the restoration. Yeah, I think and then go to either quarterly or every six months after that.

Yeah. I mean, I think we should do weekly while while the construction's going on. That's what we typically do. Yep. And then after the construction is completed, let's go every three months. That good, Peter? Yeah, that would be four times a year. Yeah, that's by a third party. I can live with that. Okay. Now, how does the town define a third party? Because on the D permit for example we couldn't but so like on the D permit when they say third party it can't be myself as a design engineer that could I do the as a design engineer? No. Is that No, that's a disinterested party.

Right. So it is the same language as the D permit. Yeah. I have a question about your D permit. Are you providing DP with monthly reports or annual reports? Yeah, we have we have certain reports we we have to do monthly for them. Okay. But that those reports and then inspection reports are uh I think yearly. Okay. I believe um what was I going to say? I can't remember. All right.

So, does the does the applicant um accept all the um staff recommendation?

No, the the the other one that came up um was in the plan review. Um, and I think the basis of some of the concerns on the I don't have the I don't have it in front of me right now, but the the plan comments, um, I recognize that this is not a modification of the previous wetland permit, but um, the conditions of the previous wetland permit, I think, um, it's the same site, it's the same type of activities, it seems like they should be similar and some of the plan comments um were were much more stringent than what was on the previous one. Um for and we spoke about um the comments about adding information for the property lines in terms of bearings and distances, setting pins, things of that nature that all revolve around a class A2 survey for the entire property. It's a large property. It's an expensive undertaking and I don't think that it really adds any value to the preservation of the wetlands. Um and so the applicant is seeking to and the previous 2019 plan also did mapping that was um dependent reserveys that were compilation plans which is a class D. We did the same thing. We did a class D survey. So the request from the applicant is that the mapping similar to what was done in 2019 as as far as for boundary purposes remain a class D.

Yeah. Yeah. The other quite an undertaking. The other permit was over six years ago and what happens is we learn from our errors and from our mistakes. So that's why we've asked for more detail on these. I understand. Um, but we we would like to formally request a waiver of the A2 standard for the for for this. I guess we can bring it up to the commission. Um, any other uh Okay, any

I think I hit on those. Brian, were there other items? I mean, it was just the the $50,000 bond, you know, um, you know, was the other one. The, you know, cash or, you know, line of credit or whatever the the terminology was in there. Um, you know, seemed steep. I mean, if you know, like in construction province I projects, we have like performance and payment bonds, you know, stuff like that. Um, or encroachment bonds. If I can do a bond through a bonding company, then $50,000 is only going to cost us, you know, $500 a year um to bond out. If that's okay and I can get a bond for that, I'm fine doing that. But to come up with 50 grand, you know, on a bond for this, I think is a little steep, you know, for just writing a check for $50,000. Um, so that was I think that was my really only other one. And then um I just wanted clarification on um the BMS and touching on that while we're we're going through everything. And you know, Peter, you you and I have stepped out, you know, on site, talked about it is at first doing the BMS back at the wetlands line and then you and I we discussed being out there that we would put the BMS outside the vegetation zone that's there now. Um just making sure we're clear that you know we're we're talking about you know putting those BMS in where you know outside the vegetation zone you know as limits of of activ of of activity and everything as well. Um that that's what the goal of that area is is to just we're going to install the burns on the on the border of of vegetation.

Yeah. Uh my my recommendation is that they be at the 50-ft line, not at the existing limit of vegetation because in some cases right here where I'm where I'm showing on the screen, the the BMS were placed uh I'm sorry, the additional stockpile and clearing was done here almost to the wetlands line. So putting the putting the burm at the wetlands line is is not effective in my in my opinion. I think the berm should be at the 50 foot buffer line and that some of these areas be replanted. Okay.

Um Peter Peter, how do you feel about um what the applicant said about the bond? Um I don't know. Uh I think the uh if the condition if the commission wants to um consider a time frame or or a reduction in the in the bond um you know does it need to be tied to you know the the construction work that's shown here rather than the ongoing site. I'm not talking about the time. I'm talking the I think the amount is good, but how the bond is presented. Is that what you were talking about, Brian? Yeah, we've had

Yeah. I mean, if I can do like a typical bond like I do for construction projects where I pay a bonding company for it, right? You're talking about assure a shity bond.

Yeah. If I can do something like that, that's at least affordable for us at that point. And I have no problem, you know, putting my name on the line through a shity bond, right? like it's I know I'm not going to fail on it and we're going to go for it. It's just tying up $50,000 when both the owner and I we've yet to take a paycheck out of this site yet. I mean, we're still in the the thick of things trying to make this site profitable. You know, to tie up 50,000 cash right now is I think is is tough and steep for us. I mean, we can do it if we absolutely have to, but it's going to it's going to hinder us on becoming a successful business, you know, with cash flow right now. So, Ellen, I I think it has to be uh um you know uh how the commission feels about it, not how I feel about it. um assure we we've tried to get away from shity bonds because they're hard to cash if we need to. Um but we we have taken them in the past. So uh I guess I would be okay with a shity bond. My preference would not be a shity bond, but I understand the the applicant's concerns.

Throw it open to the commission. All right. Any other thing? Anything else? Uh, Brian, on the uh No, I think we covered everything else. I think everything else is good. All right. All right. Questions from the commission? Anybody got questions? Got to be a question somewhere.

I I have one question. Um, back to the survey. um what's the benefit or risk um between there was I think an A and a D standard and then I'm getting that the codes right but what what was the difference between uh the one that I guess it's part of the conditions and um the lesser standard that was requested.

Sure, I can try. Yeah. So what was previously done in what is considered a class D survey is a compilation map and what that is is it takes all available mapping and represents the property based upon the mapping that was previously done. So in 2019 they referenced previous mapping and um we continued that train if you will of of showing that mapping. So the the limits of the property are clear. It's based upon previous mapping and compiling that together to to represent that. An A2 survey, class A2 survey, um goes further um beyond the mapping and has to uh have field survey along each of those property lines. Uh any missing monumentation pins or monuments has to be set. Um the title search has to be uh completed by an attorney um to have a title commitment addition to the mapping that was previously done. So it's a much higher standard. Um um you can um you know properties are transferred from compilation maps that can be done. Um the property limits not going to change uh in this case between a class and an A2 survey. Um and again just in terms of the the the it's a significant cost difference typically um I think I did a rough estimate. Um so typically an A2 survey is about $2.50 to $3 a linear foot and this property is 4700 linear feets nearly a mile. So it would run about 12 to 14,000 for an A2 and doesn't necessarily do any more for the protection of the wetlands. It's just additional title information and

things of that nature. But wouldn't the A2 survey um pinpoint all the BMS on a map versus

No, we did field we did field survey where we went out and we surveyed and located the BMS as they are today. We did topography, we did all of that. The A2 component is specific to the research of the boundary. And so that's why in this particular case for a wetland application um it it in my opinion um it doesn't necessarily add any more value to the protection of the wetlands. We still locate the BMS. We still if you know the line that's agreed upon for the limit where we would mark and demarcate in the field that would be done by field survey equipment. um that doesn't change the the the difference is the um the level of research and certification for the property boundary line not the wetlands not the features on the property. So, are there missing pins today or that would be at, you know, it looks pretty pretty uh the property looks like it's pretty straight lines with, you know, a couple corners. Um, one of the boundaries being the the road. So, are there are there gaps? Um,

well, that that's what we don't know because we haven't done the A2 survey. So that when you perform the A2 survey, that's when you would go out, look for that monumentation, see what's missing, see what what needs to be um in the field. Um but then like the the corners or the the typical where the property lines ends um where it it'd be difficult without, you know, a string line or something and

Yeah. So So no, it's a great it's a great question. In this particular um property, the center portion of the property is the only non-wetland area and the property lines run through the inner portion. The the property lines are within the wetlands. Um so the limit of activity and all of that is um within the limit of the wetlands. If there was a situation that the property line was closer to the activity than the wetland line, I would say sure. Then having an A2 survey adds additional value because you need to know where that limit is. But the the along the perimeter and the outer areas, the the property line is further in than that activity. Yeah. So this this shows that outer perimeter, the property line is is way out in that area. Obviously along the road it's it it's not within wetlands but other than that um you know it's it's an extensive survey. It's again nearly almost a mile of perimeter survey an additional cost of 12 to$14,000.

All right. Thank you. Any other

Yeah. I I just a followup on that I guess uh if I can, Mr. Chair. Um, so what I'm understanding is you're you're you're saying um that when we're talking about for instance concerns about the BMS um that you are you're saying that we're we're setting the burm distance from the the mapped wetlands and the existing property line which whichever is applicable in these cases. We're we're not looking to determine a new location for the BMS.

So the the BMS are specifically related to the wetlands. Um uh they're not related to the property line. So that's why I I I would argue that an A2 survey doesn't add any more value to the protection of the wetlands. We're going to set the BMS on the 50 foot limit or agreed upon limit um from the wetlands. Um, not not from a property line. Okay. Yep. Thank you. That's that's what I I thought it was and got a little bit led astray, but yeah, and and an A2 survey would not adjust wetlands lines. That's correct. It does not adjust the Right. Okay.

In this in this application, it was agreed upon to use the 2023 uh wetland line, and that's what's shown on the plans. Mhm. Any other questions from the commission? I have one question actually for Peter. If you could share some of the challenges with um cashing the secure the shity bond stuff if we got to make a decision about that. Um I just wanted some more context for that.

Sure. Um, shity bonds are are typically um um granted for or or uh um established by by a bonding company. So the the shity bond um would be in the favor of the town of Bloomfield. would be great uh you know paid for by by the applicant and it would be uh for whatever the final amount whatever the amount is and those get filed um they go to finance and they have um you know uh the the purpose of the burn of the bond is to make sure that the work gets done

and so uh for most projects a um you know where there's one or two acres or or something like that of of disturbance, the the bond is relatively small. Um this one is big because of the large area that they're that they're doing regulated activities. So in um the difference between a shity bond and uh a letter of credit or uh a certified check is that the shity bond has to go to to cash or to uh call the shity bond. You have to go through the shity company and so or the bonding company. the uh letter of credit or or uh certified check uh is deposited and the funds are available immediately if necessary.

Does that help? Yeah. So with a letter of credit, the bank is holding the money. Is that correct? Yes. And in the case of a certified check, the town is holding the money. Okay. All right. All right. Any other questions? Any other com comments or questions from the applicant? Anything else? No, I I think we we voiced um our concerns and, you know, worked through them. I hope.

Okay. Anything from more from the commission? All right. So, what I'm thinking of doing is we'll make a motion to approve it. Has to be in a positive anyways with um all the recommended conditions and then we'll get a second and then we'll make um amendments if there's a if people want to make amendments to the conditions. I think that's the best way to go through work through this and then when we're done we'll have a motion with amendments in it. That sound good to everybody?

Mhm. Okay. All right. So, who wants to make the motion? [Music]

I don't hear anybody. Uh Well, you know, so the applicant knows that nobody wants to make the the motion is not a reflection of the application. It's just it's it's not such an easy thing to do. I don't know what the motion is yet. Right. I was going to say I was lost on what you were explaining, so I couldn't even come up with a motion. All right. Yeah, you'll see how it unfolds. So, uh, Mr. Chair, I can attempt this with um some poaching from from the rest of the group. Um

that we we make a motion to approve the wetlands permit application from Greenear Recycling LLC 61 East Dudleytown Road. U and it's wetlands file. Paul, let me before you finish that sentence, uh, the applicant, the permit's going to be in Green Earth Recycling LLC. That's what the way you want it. Uh, yeah, because that's the company that that runs. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I'm sorry.

I think I think uh later on in the conditions, it shows they're the permit, too. So, we did cover it in the conditions. So, um, motion to approve the wetlands permit application of Green Earth Recycling LLC, 61 East Dudley Town Road, wetlands file 75-2025-9.

Second, that's based on the most current map is August 7th. Is that correct? August 7th, 2025. That's the initial application. Yeah. All right. And you're encompassing all the comments uh staff recommendations. Correct. Uh yes. Uh uh to approve with the uh the Got to go back and remember the count here. Additions and 26. Yeah. 26 recommendations set forth by staff. Yes.

All right. As stated October 14th. Okay. It takes a village. All right. Uh is there a second? Second. Second by Lorenzo. All right. Are there any amendments to the uh motion? This is where you can make amendments to the conditions of approval if you so desire. You don't have to, but you can or you can just let it ride the way it was written.

I would like to go back and and clarify whether or not we have changed um one item um as part of that process. Um going back to uh condition 13, there was some new wording discussed there and um I have something that speaks to per the approved plans um uh in terms of looking at the relocation, but I don't have a not as to what we we discussed as potentially agreed upon taxed. I

think it was uh instead of all parts of the property, it would be uh as per the plan and delineated in the field. Okay. Okay. I I think that would be uh that would be an amendment that I would be comfortable with. Well, that was that was made by staff and it was accepted by the applicant at the time. So that is incorporated into the motion. So it is already. All right. Great. Um

and I had a clarification on that as well like that was specific to the stock piles and not just uh the area of operations. I just wanted to confirm that. Um my understanding is it would be it would include the stockpile areas but not the area um where the material bins are um west of the west of the office. And that would that was something that would should be delineated on the plan as a limit of operations. And that that's where you talked about the the northwest um

yeah really the northwest corner of the site but okay yes I have a question um on number five okay was there any modifications on the bond uh there hasn't been um somebody can make a motion to amend it Um, but as of now it stands as $50,000 bond form of certified check or letter of credit. So Byron, you you can make that motion if you want to. Yeah.

Um I I mean I was looking for some consensus um on it before I make it. You mean you don't you don't want to do it and then find it shut down, huh? Well, yeah. I mean, the applicant was seeking some relief. I mean, I I didn't have a problem with it. Um, but I I wasn't quite sure where the commission wanted to go on it. So, I I guess I'll I'll still kind of leave that to the commission, but I I don't have a problem with seeking some relief for the applicant.

I I will Thank you for bringing that up. I would wanted to say that as well that like just like as a business owner like to he said it pretty clearly, you know, um and I don't know if they're going to pick up and move tomorrow. So, I would be I would be with consensus to work with them um and not put them in that in the the bond, you know, in the in the bind, you know, the financial bind that he's describing. you know, just just keep in mind that as far as wetlands go, this is a pretty big site and there are some sensitive areas and the 5,000 per acre is pretty standard. Um, what's unusual about this one, it's an ongoing project,

right? Okay. Um, and you can see by the the last last owner of the property, you know, it had a lot of issues by the time this company took it over. Um, so taking into account both the request for the bond, but we also need to maybe get to the inspection schedule and what happens during the construction and reme remediation and then what is ongoing. So there was what we said quarterly on the inspections three months post construction. Let's stay let's stay on the bond.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I was going to say so you can change the amount in dollars that you want to make for a bond and then you want you can change how it's presented to the town for security. Um Right. Keep in mind that our obligation is to protect the wetlands, not to protect the business.

Right. Right. Well, that's why I brought it up for discussion and not necessarily to make a motion myself, but just to throw it back out there to see if there was any any um uh interest in the modification, but I I certainly wasn't going to go out there without a consensus from the uh from the commission. I mean, I I'm not crazy about it, but I would do a what's it called? A SEC a shity bond. bond. I Yeah, I'm not crazy about it, but I think it somewhat protects the the wetlands.

If it gives if it gives anybody, you know, a little bit of like warm and fuzzy. Both my business partner and I, we've been in business and other companies for 22 to 24 years now. We've been in construction. I've been in construction. I haven't failed on a charity bond yet. Um, and I don't plan on to anytime soon. So, I think it's more of a formality and I think a shity bond I think would be as good as a check in the bank because you're never going to need to go for it. Um, um, chairman, yeah,

it said there's options on how to present it. Could we do some combination? Could we allow for a combination of a shity bond and something and again cash? We could we could do anything that would that would probably get us into that discussion of determining when which first well which is first and when construction ends and what exactly it encompasses versus ongoing operations. Well, the bond covers the whole ongoing operation and the construction

because this is an unusual site. It's not just the construction, it's the ongoing operation because, you know, keep in mind after the construction, there's still going to be material brought in and moved around on the site and who knows where it's going to end up. Well, that I shouldn't say that. Yeah. I mean, it's it's literally a moving target. I understand. Yeah. you know, um I mean, you know, we could always find somebody, you know, down the road, but as we all know, that's a hassle.

Yeah. If I may, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the commission is not crazy about maybe the amount or the the certified check letter of credit. And if they want to change it, that should be a motion, you know, maybe to accept this uh uh shity bond and or adjust the adjust the amount. And just to let you know, I'm I'm okay with a $50,000 shity bond. It's not like I'm going give me a shity bond and reduce the dollar amount. Yeah. Brian, I I at the risk of being rude, we're I'm sorry. I'm going over making a motion.

I apologize. I was just trying to clarify for some people would I apologize. Yeah. I mean, okay. To the commission, I I would keep the $50,000. That's what we typically do. I don't want to start shifting that 5,000 per acre. Um so, does somebody want to make a motion or we just leave it as is? I think based on what I have heard, I would like to make a motion that we maintain the amount of $50,000 but we convert it to a shity bond. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second it.

Seconded by Byron. Is there any discussion? Okay. All in favor say I. I. I. Wait, raise your hands, please. Oh, Steve, Lenzo, Byron, it's a unanimous like being unanimous. Okay. Wasn't that Yeah, unanimous. Okay. Because there's people in the screen that aren't on the commission, right? You got to go around the screen and look at everybody. Yeah. Okay. So that change was enacted to the SH. Okay.

Um any other changes to the recommend recommended conditions? I believe we have already reached an understanding on the inspection intervals as well. Is that correct? I believe so. Brian um Peter, didn't we? I thought it was quarterly or four times a year. Yes. After the initial construction is completed. The initial construction is once a week and then quarterly. Yep. Okay. We need a motion for that, Mr. Chairman.

Uh yeah, let's do that. Let's see. It was made by somebody volunteer. I've got the original motion on the floor, so I'm not doing it. All right. So, it was made to do it, I guess. I don't know how to do it, but I'll do it. Okay. Lorenzo, he made the motion. I made the motion. He made it. You're done. Seconded by Steve. That That's what the uh inspection dates will inspections will be. Okay.

That's every week until construction is done and then it's quarterly. any other uh changes to the uh Did did we um make any changes yet to the survey? No. Oh, that's right. I on the fence about that one. I don't know, Peter. Why do we need an A2 survey?

Well, uh Mr. clerk explained it um pretty pretty succinctly. I thought the condition number nine uh ask them to mark the property corners and to put a marker if there isn't a marker. In order to do that uh they would need to perform have a surveyor perform a an A2 boundary survey. Um, we typically ask for um property corners to be marked. Uh, I don't know if if uh the commission wants to um you know, either they want to keep keep nine or or not keep nine. I don't think there's any there's any halfway on this one. Uh even asking whether the whether the property line could be could be surveyed and staked rather than monumented may require an A2 survey. Um my concern is that when you're out in the field there isn't any physical marker where you can see the property corners.

Yeah. So there's no bend in the river. There's no big rock. There's no structure. is just swamp and trees. Uh yeah, for the most part. Yeah.

Um so, you know, it's it is a big it is a big survey project. That's for sure. Um but I'm not sure that there's that there is even an A2 survey on file for this property. So, you know, that that one's up to the commission. I'm I'm of the opinion that there should be corners, you know, set by a surveyor out in the field so that the uh there's no question about where the property line might be. Yeah. Or is, I should say, where the property line is.

Yeah. if there were missing monuments. I think that's I think I've seen in a lot of applications they're typically required to put them in. Um that that was what I was trying to kind of get at before were were the corners already marked or was it something you know within the line itself for additional marks? No,

but that does seem like I see in most of our general conditions the prop properties have or the the corners have to be marked. Yeah, I think the property was owned by Apex Corporation, couple brothers previous to the other company that owned this site. I don't know if they had a survey years ago. I looked at their property. That's why I know that. And my scrapyard was across the street. So don't Yeah, I'm not aware of any existing A2 survey.

Yeah, I don't know. I I keep going back to the question of the primary purpose here is to locate the BMS and those are to be located based on the wetlands boundaries which would not be affected by an A2 survey. Well, only to find them. The wetlands boundaries. the wetlands boundaries. You got to start from some point when you survey it, don't you? You have to come down the street.

Well, I mean, I I think my understanding from looking at the map is that, you know, we're pretty much looking at any wetlands we are concerned about are within what are what are marked as property lines. I don't know how many markers and monuments we're talking about here. Yeah. Are there corners on this parcel?

I think it's it's more more a question of the length of these property lines and having to do the the survey that's necessary for um as you know establishing them. Um correct me if I'm if I'm wrong, Mr. cir. But I think you know one of the things that the surveyors first do is they go and they they you know do some reconnaissance. Are there rightaway monuments? Are there property cornered monuments? You know is there an old uh you know an old chain link fence or or barbwire fence that used to be a property line. Um but it involves a lot more than just field work. It has to be title research and everything else. So, it's not an it's not a inexpensive uh item. Um I forget what the figure was that Mr. Quirk uh gave, but um you know, again, I I I would recommend that the commission keep that uh keep that one in,

but not but in again. I'm sorry, Alan, but it's $14,000 to do a to do a survey like that. It's an expensive site to operate on. That's the problem. I mean, you're Look, look where you are. It's going to be that way. Trying to see on the GIS map if there's anything. There isn't. Yeah. All right. So, what's the commission's p pleasure? want to keep it as is.

Tough one, huh? Say, yeah, we keep it I think we have I think we we say keep it as is. That's the that we do that we do ask for A2 survey. Yeah. Yeah. Um, you know, it is cuz that I think that goes directly to the what then that'll stay. Yeah, I think we have to know. Yeah. All right. Any other changes? Any other

there? There was some discussion about the type of permanent markers and um my recommendation was concrete barriers or similar but I would be okay with uh dedicated posts with signs. Yeah. And I believe in the in the conversation with the applicant uh he talked about galvanized steel posts. Galvanized markers. galvanized markers which Okay. Yeah, we can do that. So, I'll put that in as G galvanized posts with with a sign. Yeah. Is that is that good?

Yeah. Okay. So, instead of permanent markers shall be concrete barriers or similar, I'm going to say permanent markers shall be uh galvanized posts with signs. Okay. All right. So, that's just a clarification. We don't have to vote on that. Yep. Okay.

Um, any other changes? Any other discussion? Okay. So, let's see. We have a motion on the floor. We have a couple of amendments. We have discussion. Okay. So, we can vote on it. Rebecca, you're okay. Okay. All right. So, all in favor of the motion with all the amendments, signify by saying I or raise your hand. I I

right. Opposed abstain. It's unanimous. All righty. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Have a good night. Good night. You too. Okay, that was good. I'm glad we got through that one. I wasn't sure we were gonna I wasn't sure either. That was so um fun. Yeah, it's a complicated parcel. Yeah, it is a complicated parcel. Yeah. Uh and you know

there's a lot of land there and they can't use a lot of it. Yeah. Right. Right. And it is it is in a lot of ways it is a very complicated use because the material is mobile by nature if you'll pardon the pun. It's coming in and going out. Yeah. And very susceptible to you know windwater kind of movement on some of it and employee error. Yeah. Um, yeah. Push this over here. Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. Right. Um, okay. You want to go on to

Yeah. Let's go on to uh what do we got? New applications.

No new ones. Um, and I was thinking about um whether or not we're going to need to have a November wetlands meeting. Uh, typically we don't have one unless there's an application pending. Um but in this case um we may have to have a short meeting just to approve the 2026 calendar. So we may have a very short meeting next month. Uh the calendars have to be approved by the various commissions in November so that they can go to the town clerk and uh to the I believe to the state of Connecticut. um at least 30 days before the first meeting in the new year. So we have this commission planning I think too has to has to approve the calendar uh of meeting dates in November.

So we have to have a meeting on the what 17th. Yeah, that's the regular day. Yeah. Third Monday. Yeah. Yep. All right. So, if I if I do get any new applications in, I will certainly put them on the agenda. But right now, the only thing on our agenda for the for that November meeting would be the calendar. Okay.

So, no new applications were received. Uh I did approve um two wetland agent permits. Both were for residential additions. one at 65 Rescue Lane and one at 26 Brier Lane. Um both were approved with conditions. Um 65 Rescue Lane is a relatively small uh addition. 26 Brier Lane is a much bigger addition. Um but both of them were in the upland review area. So they were um you know approved as wetland agent permits. Uh the third one here is number 92 Hoskins Road, which is a new single family house and septic system. That one's presently under review. Um the commission may recall the um Howland subdivision, which uh created some pretty funny looking lots up on Hoskins Road. And uh the all the houses haven't been built on that subdivision, but 92 is the first one. Uh I'm sorry, is not the first one. is the is the present one um where an application was filed. I'm reviewing it um per uh the requirements of uh the wetlands regulations. No work is happening in the in the wetlands. There is some work happening in the upon reviewer area and the uh vegetated buffer.

Okay. Okay. Um I have none for enforcement actions here, but I have to talk about um the uh um the work that was done at uh u Moore's sawmill. Um Commissioner or Secretary Wilcox mentioned it last week. We got a couple of concerned citizens expressing their their concern. Um the uh the sawmill has uh uh you know has well it's been there for three generations now I think.

Yeah. And the uh the present owner or the present operator um uh did did some work uh close to the street uh where they used to have some pretty big piles of old trees or old logs that didn't look like they were going to get to the sawmill because they were rotting in place. He took all of those logs out of there, made a wood chip burm, and cut some trees down next to the water course that flows kind of through his property. So, I've done an investigation. I haven't done uh you know, I'm not sure how we're going to uh you know, approach uh what needs to be done there, but I wanted to let the commission know that we're we're we're working on it. Um, there may be some issues there with work in the flood plane, too. Uh, and I'm meeting with the town engineer later this week to to look at that in the field.

What's the address of that property, Peter?

Oh, I don't know. It's going to beund and something Mountain Avenue, maybe 200 Mountain Avenue. Hang on, I'll get it for you. the area in question is is, you know, less than a thousand square ft. Maybe it's not a it's not like he cleared cleared the um cleared the forest over there. It is 171 Mountain Avenue. Have you had any discussions with them about it?

Yes, I dis uh I met with Mr. Moore on the site uh when Alex and I went out and looked at it the other day and uh his uh his um um you know, his u purpose for what he was doing there was to try to get rid of those old ugly piles of of logs in front. Um, and he did some some additional um I think spreading uh of wood chips maybe in that area. Um, if you're on the uh Allan, if you're on the GIS, yeah,

you can turn on the 2023 aerial photo. I don't know if I can share this or not. Maybe I can. That would be helpful. Share your screen.

Oh, yeah. You got it. Yeah. There we go. Everybody can see it now, right? Yep. Yeah. So, um there's a there's a culvert under the road right here, and there's a water course. It's it's kind of along this property line. It goes in and out. And here's a little bit more of it. Um, all of these logs were the ones that were removed and some of the some of the vegetation over here or some of the trees over here were also removed. So, you know, if you go out there right now, you won't see any of these any of these piles.

Um, let me change back to the town base map. So, here's the water course in question. So, you know, it kind of the, you know, between 74 West and 177 Mountain Avenue, the the property line is kind of the brook. Yeah.

So, um, I just wanted to say, you know, to let the commission know, um, that we're not dropping the ball on this one, but we haven't really come to a conclusion yet as to what the best thing to do. um you know restoring some of the vegetation along the brook is is I think the minimum. Um there's also uh in the um in the future planning uh a um replacement in kind of this culvert which is in real bad shape. Um I think sometimes the road might flood over right here but not not on a regular basis. Who's going to replace that? The town.

Yeah, it would be a town project and it may extend downstream some, you know, some distance as well. M uh so I wanted to discuss you know what the project is with the town engineer and see if you know if if the uh area in question uh is going to be impacted by the by the uh covert project then you know we may look at it a little bit differently. Okay. All right. Yeah. Keep us posted please. Okay. What else?

We'll do status of ongoing projects. Oh, I usually have something prepared for that. I don't today. Um, so let's see. Um, everybody should know that the Proser Library project is done and they're going to actually open to the public soon if they haven't already. Uh, Peter, did you look at the bridge on the underneath the way the water hand is handled? Yeah, I did. It doesn't look like there's anything there to handle the water underneath.

And I talked I I talked to um Bart uh Bart Ritson, our uh public works u uh supervisor, and he was he said he didn't he didn't even know whether they were going to keep the keep the bridge clear in the winter or not. Yeah, I went I went to the bridge uh was it last Monday under a big uh tropical storm supposedly and what happens is there's steel sheeting under the brick. So the water seeps through the brick and then it drips down wherever it can to the ground

now. Okay. I didn't see it in the rain. So it's dripping uh through into the into the brook too, right? But as long as they, you know, watch the chemicals they use on the snow, it's not an issue. Yeah. You know, okay. No, I I understand. Yeah. Um, so there is no drainage under there. Yeah. I'll I'll have to uh I'll have to go and look at it in the rain myself. I didn't I mean, you're right. If they're if they're not going to use chemicals, it's not an issue. Yeah,

but that bridge, like all bridges, is going to freeze before the ground, you know. Did Did we ever get confirmation there's some electric heating melting system on that thing? There is not. There's not. No. Okay. And in the event that they are not going to clear that bridge, I assume that any library patrons are going to have to walk to uh to the sidewalk and just follow along Mount Nav. Yeah. Right. There's an existing sidewalk in front of the parking lot and across the brook and to the library along Mount Avenue. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. They won't be they won't be cut out. I just want to tell you that I used to have a Ford Expedition and with running boards and it was a big rainstorm one day and I saw these two women walking along the street and I'm I go I'm driving along at 40 miles an hour. I happen to look in my rear view mirror and I see this sheet of water shooting across and it nails both of them, you know, and and I my fear is that's what's going to happen when people walk on the sidewalk, you know.

I I don't have the expedition anymore, so you're okay. But I but I think Allan, you made a point our last meeting that I don't know if we should just work off the honor system that they're not going to use cheap or chemical um lace salt and things in the winter time. That's the way we originally set it up. Yeah. You know, yeah, we I'll try to get some better information now that public works has taken over what their what their plan is and let them know what your collective concerns are. Yeah. All right. Okay. Um the uh senior project heating and cooling fixed. Sorry, they got the heating system fixed at the library.

Yeah. I I don't I I don't care about what's happening inside the I know, but that's what the whole It's outside the building. Is that what I worry about? No, I didn't know that they had a heating problem, but yeah, the our building officials, I'm sure, will work it out. Yeah, they'll get it. they'll get it going because you don't want pipes freezing in the new building.

I was going to say that the the projects at um uh senior housing at 871 Blue Hills Avenue uh has started. Apparently, they got their tax agreement tax abatement agreement from the from the town council. So, they're they're going they're they've applied for building permits and we're going to see some significant activity over there over the next I don't know two and a half years maybe at the drive-in movie theater. Yeah. Drive-in movie theater site. Good. Yep. Uh they're going to have an access on Maplewood as well as one on Blue Hills Avenue. Right.

So, it's going to be a busy part of town for for quite a while. Yeah. Um and I also just today um approved the the final plans and and uh generated the wetlands permit for the condos at 17 Watkins Road. Um commission may recall the you know they they got approved for 32 detached condominium units over there, right?

And so they're going to be starting fairly soon as well. Um, most of the other projects in town are relatively small. Um, I can't think of one that, you know, that still has open ground today. Um, well, the uh 1120 Blue Hills Avenue is um condos under construction now. They'll have some open ground. Uh, but they they seem to be doing okay over there as far as uh keeping their their sediments under control. That's that's all I have for that one, Mr. Chairman.

Any approvements? Uh, approval of minutes. Okay. Do we have any corrections or corrections, edits, or modifications? I did not see any. All right, I can feel looking at me.

Well, Kevin Wilcox's not here today, so yeah, he had technical difficulties. Yeah. Um, I found one um where um for page four, approval of minutes. Um, nope, that's not it either. Maybe I corrected it already. Oh, it's adjournment. It shouldn't be Commissioner Shipman. It should be vice chair. Uh

uh there's one on page four. I think it's Philly Street. Just um the spelling. Okay. We're on We're on page four. Uh going Oh, yeah. H that's right. Third paragraph. It's Philly like a a Yeah. a horse. Not not Philly like Philly steak. Philly cheese steak. That was probably autocorrect. I'm sorry. Yeah. No, I looked at it and I didn't see that one. So, that's good.

Well, they've already sold bricks, so next fund raisement can do Philly cheese steaks. Yes. There you go. So, is there a motion to approve with the corrections? I'll make the motion. I'll second. Second by Steve. Yeah. Um, all in favor? I I opposed. Abstain. It's unanimous. Paul made the motion. Who was Steve? Steve Miller. Thank you.

Um, any public comments? No public hear. I was sure the Philly cheese steak would bring them out, but I guess not. I'm hungry. No public no public health. Is there a motion to adjourn?

Um, hold on a minute, Mr. Chairman. Uh, last meeting, uh, the commission voted to adjurnn and there was a lot of discussion after adjournment and I just want to remind us not to talk. you know, if there's something uh if there's something wetlands related, now's, you know, now's the time to talk about it because after the meeting is is adjourned, I think we we shouldn't be talking about wetland stuff. No. All I got is cheese steaks. I got nothing. Okay. Motion to adjurnn.

Charge. I got nothing. My guilty is char. Is there a motion to adjurnn? Lorenzo, seconded by. All in favor? I I I unanimous. We're adjourned. Good night. One thing I wanted to mention. cheese