Inland Wetlands Commission - Regular Meeting

So we'll get started. This is the regular July meeting of the Olai-Millen Wetlands and Watercourses Commission for 2026. We're in the town hall. It's 601. 602. So to start new business, 129-1 Whippoorwill Road. Bill Rule.

Bill Rule. I'm sorry, I'm not afraid. The deal is basically to rebuild a A lot of way in the pedestrian height of the bridge that had been washed with a beaver den. I've been there quite a while. I don't know when it was built, but it's just 20 feet of floor block, fall of the bridge, another 20 feet floor block. Very similar to what we did about a year ago. And it's in a little bit farther than the last one.

I was going to ask, how long a walk in is that?

I guess about a

Okay. He is the last one.

Bug spray would be important. Sure.

Okay. Does anybody have any questions so far? Is pressure treated wood the preferred material for the bridge?

Big cedar, dead cedar trees, they will use that for the base. So anything touching the ground is actually cedar. Planting is pressure treated cedar. can't get cedar planking. And the bridge is pressure treated, but anything touched on the ground actually will be cedar. And it can be pinned so it won't float away if people decide to flood it again.

Okay. So we will see you at six o'clock on August 10th.

Yeah. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Uh, So moving on to 26-14-23 Osceola Trail, McDonnell Sharper & Associates.

My name is Bernard Firmland, Special Engineer with Angus McDonnell and Gary Sharper & Associates. I'm here tonight representing Phil Votto, who owns the property at 23 I see a little. And I'm also joined by Retail Master, Dylan Nozio, who is the architect for Brown Builders. And we're here just to hand you over a brief presentation of changes that are going to be made at the property. There's an existing structure on the property.

You can look here on this. Just going to hold this up because it's me.

All right, so.

The existing structure here is a residential home and with a detached garage and an existing driveway comes off the northeast corner of the property, shown here in green. And what we're hoping to do is tear down the existing structures and replace it with a new three-bedroom home with an attached garage. The property is bound to the south by Rogers Lake, shown here in blue, to the north by and the almost the entire property is covered by the upland review area, which is shown here in the orange. As part of this development, we're going to be adding a new well to existing walls here. We'll be moving back here, give us room to put a new system in, and we're going to be moving the driveway to the northeast corner of the property from the northwest corner. The septic is here shown in pink. We have submitted it and received approval from the Legislative Health District. The yellow identifies the sediment and erosion control structures that we're going to be putting in place during construction. There'll be a silt fence around the disturbed area. There'll be a construction entrance that'll be constructed under the proposed driveway so that during construction, vehicles entering and leaving the property can go through the construction entrance to minimize mud and other debris from getting on the road, and then there'll be a stockpile area here up in the northeast corner of the property for any excavation. It'll be ringed with a silk fence to hold any materials on the site. You can see that the house will be slightly closer to the Rogers Lake here. The closest point of the existing structure is about 50 feet and will be down to about 38 feet with the new structure. This is due in part to moving the structure back to conform with the building setback line, which is here along the front of the property. You can see that the existing structure is about 10 feet closer to the road than the proposed structure. The existing rear of the property is just a lawn. It's going to be a lawn after the construction is completed during the construction. WHENEVER THERE'S SOMETHING COMPLETED, WE'RE PLANNING ON SEEDING IT AND ESTABLISHING VEGETATION TO TRY TO MINIMIZE EROSION. AND IF AT ANY TIME WE GET INTO THE NIGRUM SEASON IN THE FALL, WE'LL COVER ANY EXTRA AREAS FOR THE WINTER WHICH YOU MESH. AT THIS TIME, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

What's along, is there a wall along the lake edge or is it natural? There's a sea wall here. That was approved by this commission back in 2015.

Any other questions? All right, we will see you 545 on August 10th. Thank you.

All right, so 26-15, 64 Grassy Hill Road, Mystic River Building Company.

Hi, good evening. My name is Norton Wheeler, represented Mystic River Building Company. We're the applicant on the project. The owner was Mercedes and Richard McCarthy, 64 Grassy Hill Road. This is a home that's under construction. When we issued the... put in the application for the wetland permit previously. We had a rear patio shown on the plan as a future patio, and we haven't shown that way because it had to be designed. So we've now designed that patio, and the patio is 17-2 by 31-foot-9, and it is basically not going to be all masonry. It's not attached to the home. but it's obviously right up to the home. And the idea is to have a patio with a bluestone surface with an 18-inch high sitting wall around on one side and along the lakefront side. On the opposite side, we'll have a three-foot-high countertop and some outdoor kitchen appliances and so forth, you know, gas grill and that sort of thing. And there'd be a pergola constructed on the patio itself to provide some sunshade in that area. So I have the site plan. It's fairly small, so you probably can't really see that from here, but I have submitted copies of that. It is basically squared off to the back of the house, and we're going to be 30 feet existing wall in the back that runs along the lake shore.

Does anyone have any questions?

No.

I'm going to make a motion to allow this to be just the amendment to the existing permit so you can take care of that administratively with Eric and Julie.

Just one comment. Eric, do you visit the site to make sure they're in compliance with the permit?

What I ask them to do is, before they actually begin work, I come out and I look at the erosion controls, make sure everything's in place, and then we go from there. So I will go out to this site when the erosion controls are in place, and we'll get it and make sure everything's buttoned up well. Okay?

I got a second. All those in favor? All right.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Right. So Seven Shore Drive?

Yes.

Russell Albright? Did I say your last name? I'm sorry.

Albright.

Albright. Okay.

Albright. Yes. I got this today from a contractor, Tribinity Fencing. Specs? What would you like? You can... Okay. We scaled back the first phase of the... the work for the backyard to remediate the work that was done by the prior contractor who had said he was going to get a building permit, but never did. And you can see the report from the structural engineer that I sent in. We also had a site survey done, I believe in April of this year, that it was also attached. And There's also the specs from United Concrete that I sent over. And the contractor is going to remove the retaining walls to remediate based on the report from structural engineer and ensure that they are built to spec based on United Concrete, who is one of the manufacturers of the blocks. That information should all be included. And the contractor is going to use the turbidity fencing in the water in addition to the silt fencing on land to help keep anything going into the water. And then during a site survey or whatever, we can definitely address the sheds that were previously placed on the property.

Does anyone have any questions?

So really what you're doing is trying to fix what was done before because it was out of spec from what the manufacturer suggested?

In short, yes. and to correct anything because the contractor didn't go through, like you guys. Building department.

So yeah, it's all up to you. They put stuff in without coming here and they botched the job. So now we're trying to repair the job and do it with permits. Okay.

And if you want, I can... I didn't print it out, but I have a picture that popped up on Facebook from 12 years ago that shows how the property used to be from the view of the water. And it all slopes down towards the water. And this would correct a lot of that erosion risk because there's going to be the retaining walls. that's going to stop a lot of the erosion as well.

Out of curiosity, when he did do it before, were there any kind of erosion control measures in place when he put that up before?

Sorry, can you say that again?

When it was done previously, did he employ any erosion control measures at that point in time?

No, the contractor did not. The only erosion control that he would have done was placing the retaining wall as it is now. But I am not aware of him previously using any turbidity fencing or silt fencing to prevent washout. Like if you were to go by and do a site survey with the blocks above each other in the water, you can see that the sand that he placed behind that is now in the lake. And that was the prior contractor, how he did it. And he said he was going to get the permits. And then he did not. So that's being dealt with independently.

Okay. And the buildings that you mentioned, those are permanent structures? Like with electricity going to them?

Yes. Or there will be. There's not electricity. There's an extension cord going to one of them.

Okay.

But they can be moved back as needed.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? So we will see you 5.30 on August 10th.

Is there any chance you could move that a week later? Because I'm going to be in Cancun.

Everybody already left. Do we need...

You don't necessarily have to be there as long as there's somebody else there who wants to get you excluded. Is your contractor available that day?

I'd have to see if the contractor is available.

Why don't you talk to Julie about the contractor being available potentially for that day, okay?

Okay. And that's August 10th at 530? Yes, correct. Okay. I will be in touch with Julie if you get in touch with the contractor first thing tomorrow.

Okay. Sounds good. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so item five is the Inland Wetland Pesticide General Permit Notification in Rogers Lake near 96 Grassy Hill.

And again, that's more just informational. We got the notice and sent it out to you. We have another one in today that I haven't sent out yet, but there's not really much we can do about it, but we are on notice that that's going to be occurring.

Yeah, okay.

right uh moving on to old business 26-12 uh 41-1 wheel road could we get some maps to look at well for here well for us to look at i'm gonna have any comments i'll lean it up yeah i'll pass out a couple copies on the one i'll get out of the way if you want

Mike Zerotny, Connecticut real estate properties owner and developer. Survived a dangerous sidewalk with three bee stings. Did anyone have any questions from the sidewalk?

I do. Did you evaluate any alternatives to this house? Because it seems to be all within our 100-foot buffer area. Right. So there's a strip of land, I guess, way over here. And did you prepare—I didn't see it in the file, but this is only a portion of the lot, right? Right. So it doesn't show the Blackwall River— and it's a larger lot, as I can tell. It's 13 acres, I believe. Because you're grading really right down to the wetland, which then flows, the river is, I think, in this direction, right?

Right. So I think originally when this was approved as a subdivision, they did assess coming in off of Whippoorwill at a different location, and it wasn't really feasible initially. Um, so this was approved as a five lot subdivision in 2002 or five or something like that. And then it was also approved and given another wetland permit in 2022, I believe. Um, so it's the subdivision or just this lot, uh, this, there were two lots. So it was re-approved in 2022 for some reason. Um, So the most feasible place to put the house is right here off the existing drive. Instead of going through, there's some wetlands on the far side near Whippoorwill, your driveway would be restricted with slopes and grades there. So it was just, I think when they originally laid it out, when Tony Hendricks laid it out, they thought this was the best spot for it, and it was part of the original subdivision approvals.

Eric, do we have that subdivision and any conditions on it or what they evaluated or looked at? I can go over freeway. I don't have it handy this evening. Okay. Well, we'll see what happens. For the rest of the commissioners, I've been on the commission for about two and a half years, maybe a little longer. And this was the first site that I've looked at and kind of come to the conclusion that we really needed a lot more information to evaluate the impact on, and of course we were only there a short time, the quality of the wetlands and the Black Coal River.

So maybe we were out there 10 or 15 minutes.

It's also one of the few applications where the whole 100-foot an upland review area is going to be impacted with very little buffer natural area preserved to protect either the adjacent wetlands or even the Blackwell River. I spent some time today just trying to get a feel for what the impacts might be. And my initial reaction was that during construction, there could be significant impacts from erosion onto the wetland because you're building...

So that material there is very sandy. It's well-draining material.

Did you have anybody evaluate that or look at the quality of the wetland or generate an environmental assessment that shows the impact on the wetland?

We did our PERC test for the septic. The soils were very sandy. They were great, very good drainage.

Right, but it still gets down to there's no buffer. to protect the wetland and our experience with erosion controls in the last year on at least one site hasn't been very good, especially where there are significant slopes. And I would expect the erosion controls that are proposed not to be adequate. Also, in looking at what's available online, there's something called that the Connecticut has a natural diversity database And it turns out that it looks like this lot along the Blackwell River has a blob, which identifies some sort of critical natural resource that I think extends onto this lot. It's not clear because the property boundaries aren't available online, but I'd like to know what that represents. I did a little investigation on what fish are in Blackwell River. And they're significant fish populations. Interestingly enough, DEEP has done at least two different electrofishing inspections of the river and has a list of the fish that are there. The other thing that really concerned me was that you were going to clear cut all of the trees.

Granted, I guess there were white pines. I'm not clear cutting the lot. I'm clearing around the house.

Right, but I don't get a feel for how close is that clearing coming to what I think is a critical Black Hole River.

Right, so the limit of clearing was marked on the sidewalk.

Right, but we were there for 10 minutes, and I'm saying we need more time to evaluate it and some sort of professional input that's going to tell us what the impacts on this wetland and watercourse are. The other interesting thing is that I didn't realize at the time is the town of O'Line is an adjacent property owner. The Ames property comes right up to the southern boundary and a little bit of the, very little bit of the western boundary. So, and I didn't see on your map who the wetlands, the soil scientist was that delineated the wetland and when it was delineated. Do you have a copy of that report? I do not have that with me. I mean, because we didn't walk the boundary. And I don't know who, when it was generated or who did it. I want to say it was Rich Snarsky.

It was probably done. Original subdivision was done in the early 2000s. So to be clear, I'm not in any of the wetlands. I'm in the review area. I'm not doing any work in the wetlands.

You're within inches of the wetland to the north of the driveway.

Right. I'm not in it. I'm in the review area.

Yeah. Well, I think you shouldn't even be close to the wetlands because wetlands and watercourses need significant natural buffers to protect those resources, especially if they're high quality. And I'm a professional wetland scientist retired. My initial reaction in 10 minutes is that you've got significant wetland habitats around this house, and so I'm very concerned.

It's a beautiful piece of property, and I intend to keep it that way, and I do not want to touch any of that.

Well, you will just by constructing. You're going to change. I'm sure there will be problems with sedimentation erosion control that will go into the wetland. I mean, I've seen thousands of sites in my 30-year career of single-family residences and roads. There's no plan for the discharge of the stormwater off the road or the house. Are you going to build dry wells to direct the water in so that it doesn't go into the Blackfall River, which, by the way, is a quality A river? It's not. It's almost as pristine as you can get, and it's certainly pristine when it flows onto the town property. So my gut feeling is...

I have no problem putting in a stormwater management system there if you want to. That's fine.

I would like to see some buffer areas adjacent to the wetlands and some evaluation of, okay, you've got wetlands on either side of the house. The driveway is right almost into the wetland. Is there any option to move that or change the location of the way you're getting into the house to minimize the impact on that? You're further away from the regulated area on the other side of the house, and the grading isn't as significant. But those types of things, I think, need to be filled out. I'd also like to see a plan of the whole lot with the wetland boundaries on it, so rather than just a small section of it. I even forgot when I looked at the plans yesterday in the office that the The river was right there. I had to go online and look at the GIS map. I tried to print it for tonight, but for some reason it wasn't working. The printing aspect of it wasn't working. So my recommendation, and I don't know if other members who visited the site would agree with me, is that at the minimum we need some sort of evaluation of the wetland and the river. I'd like to know how many trees and how close the trees are that are going to be cut are adjacent to the Black Hole River. I'd like to see some way to minimize the impact. If this wetland turns out to be less significant than the wetland on the south side of the house, what proposals might be made to minimize the impact on that wetland and then see plans for how they're dealing with stormwater runoff.

How far was the river from the proposal on GIS?

I mean, I walked right to it, and then it drops pretty...

So the river is out here.

But the clearing is happening well within the buffer, because I'd like to see some sort of natural buffer protected from the river. as well as some sort of buffer or special structure that might protect the better quality wetland.

There is a natural buffer we'll keep for the majority of the project around. But that's what I feel. Pine trees are, you know, I almost lose one every windy storm there, so... There's trees down all over the place, so I would just hate to leave a 90-foot pine tree over a house and have someone move in.

Yeah, but when you remove trees, if they're close enough to the brook, you open it up to light, which could increase the water temperature, especially during the summer. It destabilizes the soil if you pull out the roots. And it gets replaced with lawn, which tends to get treated with chemicals, both herbicides and insecticides, which isn't good for the river if we don't have a natural buffer filtering it. So I'm almost tempted to recommend that, and I believe, based on my professional opinion, that this house could have a significant impact on the adjacent wetlands and significant watercourses. perhaps we should schedule it for a public hearing. And if the applicant really doesn't want to do the assessment of the wetland, we should hire someone to do it, the wetland and the water course. But I just, I haven't in the two and a half years seen the whole 100-foot buffer is consumed like this. I don't know if anybody else feels like that, but I do.

And just to be clear, with the results of additional diligence being additional modifications to the site plan or to potentially not approve?

I think my approach would be modifications to the site plan that minimize the impact on the resources and approve it ultimately. But I mean... Is this the only, I mean, I can't really evaluate whether or not this is the only alternative because when we're seeing a few acres of the 13 acres site, I can see what's online, but that's iffy, sketchy. And I, not that I, you know, I don't know about the alternate access or why that wasn't considered or what the impacts, that could be worse. I don't know because we can't really evaluate it. So I think initially, I would like to see the applicant propose ways to minimize the impact on the wetlands that are there, or at least make an argument to us that one of the wetlands isn't as significant as the other, and then what they would propose to protect the river, which I think is really the key source. I was really amazed that there are 12 different species of fish that DEP has has identified in it through electrofishing. And I'm aware of the Conservation Commission in the deep. I think three or four years ago, they put alewives into Black Hole Pond to get a run going. And I don't know if that's been successful or not. I haven't. I walk down there every day. I haven't seen one.

Every day? Were you there in March? No, I was actually curious because I live in Old Saybrook and we got to run up the Oyster River. So I was checking that too as well, but I didn't see any.

Well, I'd like to have a professional opinion on that. And that's not hard to get because they're right in old line. The folks that are doing the, you know, that did the stocking of alewives, I actually have photos of it when they were dumping them in the Black Hole River. But I don't know if it's been successful yet. but it is a tidal river that's relatively, when it doesn't have a beaver dam on it, relatively free-flowing. And I think, like I said, I haven't had these concerns, and I think the other members that have been on this commission with me know that I haven't really, well, there's been one other site that I was really concerned about. And we've dealt with that one, but this one I just think needs more study.

what would be, I guess, what is the baseline for what you would be looking for for controls? I mean, I don't think the goal should be to reject the project.

No, I agree. I would like to see some sort of natural buffer between the higher quality wetland and the proposed house and how they're dealing with You know, I'd let them figure out how they'd want to do that. But I don't think we should be allowing grading and filling right up to the wetland edge, especially if it's a high quality. I mean, I just didn't spend enough time there. If I could get a half hour, I could tell you which is the better quality well on either side of the house. We just don't have the time to do that on our quick investigations. Or if they want to hire someone to do that evaluation, I think that's important to do here. and then I'd like to see, you know, what trees are being cut and how close they come to the Black Hole River and how they deal with this runoff from the roofs and the driveway, especially. Because any flow that goes into the wetland, if it's impacted by sedimentation erosion, will impact the river.

So, as far as recommendations of the applicant, just to recap those, right, it would be more in-depth assessment of the buffer or recommendation for the buffer.

Right. What trees, how close the tree cutting is coming to the river, because we don't really see the river on this plan. I'd like to see a whole scale plan. And I think the way to do it so that we don't slow it down and we keep the process going is to schedule it for a hearing for the potential significant impact. And then there's some requirements in our rigs. that specify the types of questions that need to be answered right in the regs for significant impact. But I wouldn't want to delay it and then schedule a hearing if we, I think we should keep the process moving and it gets it into a timeframe so that the hearing has to be scheduled. They get some time, obviously, to get an environmental assessment, tell us which is the better quality wetland, identify the trees that they're going to cut, Help us evaluate feasible and prudent alternatives.

He did do the clearing limits.

The clearing limits were marked with the house. Yeah, but how many... He was able to see the river from... I was there for five to ten minutes.

Okay. But that wasn't enough time.

Would... I mean, I'm not disagreeing. I'm just... Would... I don't want to have him spend two months chasing around wetland scientists and stuff like that if another site walk would satisfy your concerns or i mean obviously that's up to you well i've been limited as to what i can do for this commission i'd be willing to go out there with the staff and and do an assessment i'm just asking what would satisfy or make you more comfortable with with the project i'm not trying to i guess i'm looking for

Just like what exactly you're looking for or what would make you... You know, buffers between activities and the wetlands, minimizing the cutting of trees adjacent to the brook, not really discharging any stormwater towards the Black Hole River. Evaluate, you know, seeing the site on the whole lot on one plan would be helpful. You know, what were the other alternatives?

Not that I... Do you know what the distance is roughly between the limited clearing And the coast winds up.

I don't think you can redirect stormwater because it's on basically the peak of the hub, so there's no way to send water in a different direction, I don't think.

Yeah, but you can put it into stormwater controls. I don't think you can send it in a different direction. Yeah.

Obviously, the spot where it would be most difficult to control erosion would be on the side of the driveway where it's steep.

But, you know, is that the best quality wetland there? I just didn't have any time to really look at the wetland, and I don't really remember the wetland that was further away on the southern side. I mean, I did try to walk the boundaries, but time is extremely limited because we're running between sites, so... My initial impression was the wetlands were in pretty decent shape. And we've seen some rather low quality ones that I wouldn't squawk about at all.

I'm not really doing the stormwater management system for the roof leaders and any drainage I pick up or stuff like that. Not a problem.

So did you, if you came back with a revised plan with some more measures, would that be?

Well, I'd like to see it and maybe visit the site again with the changes, but I'm still recommending that we schedule it for hearing so that it doesn't get delayed for them.

I just want to make sure that we have all our expectations laid out for him so that he doesn't come in in a month and that we ask for three more things. I don't think that's fair.

Well, I think I've really indicated what I'm concerned about. activities that really take up the whole 100 foot upland review area almost except on the southern side um trying to get natural buffers certainly a significant natural buffer be a report from the original subdivision approval and the original wetland approval that may exist and if the soils you know the soils report is there fine getting a plan of the whole site i mean you've that wouldn't be that difficult to put it on the subdivision map, I guess. You said 2022? I don't know. I did try to check on whether or not there were subdivisions with Julie, but I think it was the re-subdivision or something in 2022. I didn't look at the plan, but there's also another large lot, I guess, across the accessway that we drove in on.

Could we answer a lot of these questions with with the plan being extended so the entire property is on that? I think that would answer feasible and prudent alternatives. Well, what other pieces can, if the applicant, you know, went to a soil scientist or someone who kind of makes his recommendations for, hey, what modification, or something like that. In other words, the applicant delivered us a report based on a professional's opinion, not from the commission, but for, you know, an independent third party who says, you can cite slightly differently. Yeah, they gave us a rubric. And generally meet the concerns that I've expressed. Yeah, because I feel like that could be maybe an easy way to sequence that.

And they would certainly evaluate the wetland and they would talk about, I would guess, the impact of coming right up to the edge and maybe suggest some alternatives. I mean, I don't really want to suggest with the applicant We might want to do, but they're smart enough to figure that out, how to get a tenor of, you know... And we're making assumptions on quality well and stuff.

Maybe a professional's opinion... Would help. Would assist with... Yeah, it'd be more than my two-minute look at it. And then would that be delivered at... You think that should be just because it's potentially a significant activity, the applicant delivers that information at a public hearing?

Well, I think that gives us... It gives us the ability for him to have a very specific timeframe. I mean, obviously, he can only get it to us when he can get it to us. And I'd be willing to sit down with them. And there's the provision, interestingly enough, in the regs because I reread them this weekend. that we could sit down with an applicant and comment on for things that they propose. If the commission authorize it, we could authorize Eric to do it or a group of us, two or three of us to just, but they're not necessarily held to it because we don't know how the rest of you are gonna vote. So if I'm the thorn, if I'm happy with it, I don't know if anybody else has other concerns. I've monopolized the discussion.

Can we use that same mechanism for you to take a deeper look potentially with the applicant?

If, you know, a past chairman wouldn't allow me to submit testimony. I don't know. I think I didn't agree with it, but it's not, you know, it's more factual. And you have a feel for me looking and approving applications. I'm one that looks to solve the issue if we can. Yeah. Unfortunately, we weren't involved in the sub, well, I don't know if any of us were involved in the subdivision, maybe. No, so it predates us. And there may be conditions on the subdivision. I don't know. I wasn't able to find it the other day. But I'd be willing to do either, sit down with the applicant and Eric to go over things that he comes in. But it would be helpful for me if we had another professional, not a soil scientist, because I think they already have that. I think that was already prepared maybe by Rich, and the subdivision happened in 2005. And I wouldn't challenge his boundary. I'm more interested in the quality of the wetland. And wetlands, you know, the wetlands vary.

Has that been an issue during the original subdivision, or how does that?

The subdivision plan usually doesn't

Because it went through Whitelands originally, the original subdivision.

Usually, when you come back for the specific house, you have to come back for the lots.

Usually, the subdivision plan will show the lots and then a generic, like, this is kind of where the house is going to go.

Right. I do have that. I don't have it with me. I might be able to pull it up on my phone.

That would be the only thing that this subdivision itself, like the subdivision approval is really...

looking at is that it is possible that it is a like acceptable right and well I think I pulled the house a little bit forward from the original and that was just a placement that suggested yeah there was also a 50 foot buffer I believe at the time it wasn't a 100 foot buffer yeah so it was an upland review area but we can allow activities 50 foot review area not a 100 foot review area so Yeah, and then you'd be almost all the way out of it. Right. So had someone built on this, it would have been half of that.

The house would have been out of it, but the driveway, I think, is the thing.

And the only other thing that you should look up, and you as an applicant can request this, what the blob map from the Natural Diversity Database is about from deep, you should be able to get that. I don't know if we can...

I don't think we really get tied up in the NDTV stuff.

Well, it's on the river, so it's a resource that's associated with the river. I've often thought that we should be doing an inventory of all of our rivers to see if we have native brook trout in any of them, because we may want to have bigger buffers adjacent to you know, small streams that are supporting native brook trout, but we don't have that information. That's why I was looking for the fisheries information from deep.

So probably most appropriate to add that as an item to a third-party professional's assessment that work. So you're saying that, you know, like you said, not a soil scientist, but a wetlands professional?

Yeah, we have the soils, so a wetland professional that would do what I would do. And they would tell, you know, this can do a vegetation survey, look at what's being proposed, and might make recommendations as to how to minimize the impact on the wetland. Stormwater, they can really take care of getting stormwater into dry wells and stuff. I have confidence in them to do that.

So that's probably the easiest and potentially fastest way for the applicant to probably satiate the majority of those concerns, right?

And I would like to see the whole lot. When I came into the office, I was surprised I didn't see the river.

Timing-wise, Eric, for this one, the application was opened. If the applicant can get that done before the next meeting, I don't know if it's possible or not.

One month, but not. You have 65 days to add a new application. Absolute publication.

If we scheduled a hearing, that would give them more time if they needed it.

That would also up the ante in that they would need to demonstrate feasible burden alternatives, things of that sort. Declaring a significant activity comes with additional findings the Commission needs to make and additional information the applicant needs to give. So if you believe that it is a significant activity, that is a finding you're allowed to make. Again, that would require you to send a public hearing. You can send a public hearing after your next meeting, which is, again, a 65-day period. Again, that just drags things out a little further, but again, you do have 65 days. You do have another monthly minimum 65 days to proceed to act on the application if you choose to do so. Again, if you choose, if you believe that this is a significant activity, you will set a public hearing for next month, and that will trigger a new starting date. You'll have 35 days from that to close the public hearing, and then another 65 days to act upon that. And again, per 870, any of these periods can be extended for up to an additional 65 days. So we do have time to extend the application if we choose to do so.

I don't think we have to necessarily, you know, I was thinking the, if we did set up the hearing process, then there's a timeline. But if the applicant's willing to You know, say, I don't know how fast he can get the information. That's the only thing.

Do we need a motion for that, or is that just a recommendation made to the applicant? If we're saying, can you bring more information via a third party?

You can just say, we're not acting. We'd like to get more information. We believe the application as presented does not give us sufficient information to act. That doesn't require a motion. You say, we're tabling the application. We'll pick it up next month. We've made suggestions to the applicant to what additional information you need. That you can do easily. The alternative, as Michael suggested, is to declare this a significant activity, which has, again, a set of things in your regs. I've got my regs over there. I can read out what that does. But it requires the applicant then to reach a sort of higher threshold of things he needs to demonstrate and requires the commission to make more findings in their decision. And it also, again, sets a public hearing for next month. That would require a motion finding this to be a significant activity. So yes, that would take a specific motion, second vote. We would set a public hearing for next month. But simply tabling the application to the next month to allow the applicant to come back with more information does not really require much action on your part.

And hearing that, I think maybe just informally getting that information would be a lot faster and not declaring that. I mean, I've expressed my concerns. I don't know if anybody else had concerns I just thought I was struck by the quality of the river when I looked at it.

Don't we need that information to kind of figure out if it would be a significant... Yeah, exactly.

There's a clear definition of significant activity in the regs as far as what...

Which in theory a professional's report will inform.

Yeah, exactly. I mean, it may not, you know... I generally remember maybe the northern wetland was a better quality than the southern, but I don't...

It was just quick. I just walked the boundary a little bit. So I think it would be tabling this for this meeting and asking the applicant to fill in some of the blanks. Yeah, and I'd be willing to list the items for Eric.

Did we send him a letter, Eric? I've been writing them on your phone. Okay, so if you got them. What I will probably do is I will take this up, send it to you to make sure I've accurately captured your thoughts. If you have any further thoughts, please let me know. And then I will let the applicant know where we stand. Okay?

Fair enough.

I appreciate the legwork you did.

Anybody else have any questions?

Or additional questions from yourself on... kind of next steps and expectations.

Well, I guess I'll just get a list of things to touch on from Eric.

And our goal is to minimize the impact on the higher. Right. I don't plan to disturb it and touch it. I see this being approved ultimately.

Right. Just, I don't want to go in there. It's a beautiful piece of property. I intend to keep it that way. And I would think whoever buys this house is going to see the same thing and want to keep it that way too. So.

Ultimately, just because of, you know, but that's what we wrote to the program, Michael's comments, just proximity, although no direct impact to the wetlands, helps us know when we ultimately make a motion that we're, there's no information that we're not tracking. So we appreciate it.

Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you.

Now we have the public meeting 24-23. for 72 grass field road for notice violation.

As you guys are aware, you guys asked me last month to issue a violation notice, which I did. Pursuant to that, the applicant has submitted a proposal to remedy the situation. I'll refer it over to the applicant and their counsel to discuss the matter. But again, at this point, this is not, a cease and desist order yet. This was just a notice saying, please come in and either address what you plan to do about it or submit an application. And the remedy seems to be submitting an application. So again, without further comment on my part, I'll let the applicant discuss the matter themselves. And we need to unmute the folks on here. They can unmute themselves.

Hi, members of the commission. My name is Fran Cipollone. I live in town and I practice a lot in town. So I have the ground rules. I want to make sure, Eric, when we last spoke, which was a week before my vacation, I just got off vacation. I was under the impression that you were about to issue the notice of violation, which you did do. I thought that there was a period of time that the applicant would have had to file what they were going to do with it. Meantime, I think they were asked to file it by Monday at 3 o'clock yesterday, by 3 o'clock, which they did. Yes. So I had no input on that, and that's probably just as well. I don't think I could have done half the job that Craig did doing that. So by way of introduction, this Craig Agro, his wife, is seated, who's one of the owners, and on the... on the TV there monitors Kim, and she's the other owner. It's the family . Are we going to, is tonight, are we going to try to act on this? Are you going to set another sidewalk?

Yeah, I guess we don't have to necessarily set another sidewalk, but by statute, as you know, we cannot act on it on the night that we received. Right. Okay, we have to allow a period for potential neighbors to submit a notice that they want a hearing on it. Sure. So I guess what I would do is ask the applicants, like the other applicants who were here earlier, to lay out exactly what your proposal is to address this issue, and then we will take it up again at the next month's meeting.

So, by way of background, when I was a neighbor, one property to the south of the subject property, that's number one. Rob, you're several more, maybe four more down. Okay. The neighbor between us, between the Bruning property, they've been there for a long time, and myself at the time, we were 68 Grassy Hill, was Santola, and from the day we purchased in 2003, there was always a seawall, a cement seawall there. Our property is 68, had rocks of various sizes and shapes down into the water, and as did the property to our left, looking at the water, which is further to the south. We made an application back then, and I'll get to the point here in a minute, hopefully, to build a sea wall, a concrete sea wall, just because of the conditions of the rocks, and it just didn't make any sense. And it conformed with what the neighbors had done. And in fact, we built the sea wall got the permanent wetlands, did the necessary erosion control, built the cement sea wall, and actually built it from my neighbor to the left, my neighbor to the south, and built it from the existing concrete wall to the zone property, if I remember correctly, all the way to the Centola property. We merged it, we pinned it, so it's a continuous wall. No higher, no lower, just continuous, seamless. And so the Brunig property, they've owned it for a long time, Sandy and Roger. They were there for many, many years. In more recent times, both of them had failing health, particularly Roger. Sandy Brunig filled out the original application for this board. Greg, who was at the site walk that you folks did, he was there. Sandy did not do the best job with that application. She's an 80-year-old lady. I wasn't living two doors down. Had I been, she might have asked me to help her with it. As a neighbor, I certainly would have helped her. Her husband, Roger, had failed in health considerably and really almost needed round-the-clock care that she provided. The application, the Bruning property, when it was originally purchased by Roger and Sandy, extended maybe 55 or 60 feet along the water to the north, immediately to the north, which is currently the site of this easement that you maybe heard about before. And I suspect you'll hear about it again. That property was owned by Mr. or Mrs. Noyes, Bruce's, here it is. His folks owned that strip of property. It bordered the ruining property from the street to the water. In 1996, a rate was purchased. The purchase was 96. So in 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Noyes Mr. or Mrs. Noyes, conveyed the property for not a small sum of money for that strip of land and deeded the ownership of it to the Brunes. They owned the property. In doing so, he reserved an easement for himself and future owners of his property. He reserved an easement for Frank Gianfrido who was across the street on Grassy Hill, to use that easement. And a third house, it was, I think, maybe Bruce's son, but I'm not sure about that. Yeah, John Stern's first son. So three houses were to enjoy that easement. And the easement is permanent. It's to pass and repass for access from the road to the water. That's what the easement's for. The ownership was conveyed to the Bruininks. They owned it in fee. Roger built his own block wall. What year? 92? 96 he built that. 96. Retaining wall. He built a retaining wall, block retaining wall. They covered the front of his property or the back of his property. I always called it the backyard. People at Lake sometimes call it the but it had to stop where his property ended. That was the Black Wall. But when they bought the balance of the next 15 plus or minus feet that goes to the neighbor to the north, at that point, they owned then the entire piece, but the Black Wall was there. They didn't have the right to put a wall beyond that point at that point. They didn't own that property. that is effectively borders the lake on the easement, where the easement abuts the lake. When Sandy filled out that application, it's part of the record, it wasn't the best job. First, she said she wants to construct a cement seawall in front of the existing block wall. And then it differed a little bit when she did the description. But in all cases, clearly said, unfortunately, just to go as far as the block wall. Now, at the sidewalk, it was described and makes common sense, now that the Brunigs own that 15 plus or minus feet, to put the cement wall, join the cement wall to the south to the cement wall in the north. And that's what they did. They have the pictures. They provided them. They did it all right. The construction is beautiful. They did the silt fencing. But the neighbors that have the use or access on the easement are unhappy with the fact that they now have a seawall or lake wall as opposed to the rocks. There's pictures here and so forth. So the present application is to ask the commission to allow the existing wall to stay. Look at it as a case of first impression. The decision is going to be whether or not it's any different, whether they built 65 feet or 75 or 80 feet, whatever it is, but they They built the seawall on their entire property from one edge to the other. They joined the other cement walls. It's not, I don't think, and we've had these discussions before, and I think that your council will tell you that we're not here to discuss whether or not the The enjoyment of the easement allows a dock to be put on it or not a dock, a dock taken away. All that is secondary to what the issue is before this board. It's whether or not the impact of wetlands is any different in that 65 feet as it is in the 80 feet. And I'm sure when the sidewalk was done, and I wasn't there, but Craig was, it was going to go to wall to wall. He just, unfortunately, didn't. take a good look at the application that Sandy had written out. So it was not certainly of intent to deceive. It wouldn't go through that big project and big expense and try to hide the fact that you're going to put a 15, you know, you're going to go from seawall to seawall. So the question is, is that had this commission, had the initial application been approved, more precisely filled out. I have no doubt that the commission would have... Go ahead.

Teresa, one question. On the application, one of the items is notice to folks within 100 feet of, correct, the property. I think that was a challenge also that we saw because only the people on the left and the right were noticed. Correct. And folks across the street did not receive notice.

Absolutely right. And now everybody's got notice. I mean, maybe more people than... Should have notice, have notice based on what you did. So you're looking at it from that perspective. But it's not like it's a zoning issue where the keeping with the neighborhood and so forth. We're talking about, from a wetlands perspective, the impact on the wetlands. The conversation would have been easier prospectively. No question. A lot of things would have been better if Sandy said, hey, Franny, can you help me with this? Come across the lawn and say, I would have done it. I wasn't there. the application was flawed in that respect.

And it also says repair, I believe, in the application.

Well, the original application, I think if you look at the second page of it, I think it also says construct because it was clear it was going to be a cement wall.

Yeah. I think there was a detail. I'm just getting a stroke of it. When you say repair, it doesn't use the word extend or anything of that nature.

The problem with the extension is that their original block wall traversed the extent of their property at that time. They had no right to go beyond that. They didn't own it. They subsequently bought that extra 20 feet and paid money for it. And they own that land. And it's subject to the right of the three houses that I'm aware of that have a right to pass and repass to go from the street to access the water. So that's really the, you know, the sum and substance of it.

At one point, there was discussion about possibly cutting stairs down in the wall here.

It's in the new application.

So if we want to make it clear, Tony is a little blown and saying that all we want to do is just extend it, but there's also now proposals to now cut some stairs into the... Yeah, it might have had the application, but...

In any event, so have you seen the application? I have, yeah. That's why I'm raising the issue. Yeah, thank you. So in any event, if you have the application, what Craig was suggesting to do is one of the objections. And by the way, it's conciliatory on their part, and it's trying to be as neighborly as possible, but it's still their property. Those that can enjoy that easement back and forth, still can enjoy the easement back and forth. And if the argument's made, well, we like the rocks better, well, that's not necessarily what that easement's about. It's about to get from here to here, and they certainly could do it. And if the argument is, well, we could access the water better before by climbing over these rocks, I don't think that that really is true. But it also, I don't think, doesn't affect what this a mission I think should be looking at. So as a conciliatory effort, Craig had suggested, and I wouldn't have done this, but he suggested cutting down that cement by a foot and then sloping the grass to it. I mean, right now, the existing cement wall was put no higher nor no lower than the other walls that it replaced. This would require actually sloping the grass down to that just to put the top of the wall in that area a foot closer to the top of the water, something that he was suggesting it might be. But from my understanding, and there's another drawing It shows some sort of a step. Again, this is underwater most of the time. It depends on, you know, how much... The normal water line is at the... About an inch below that first cut there.

So it'd be two nine-inch steps to get you to the lake bottom.

So it just would facilitate it. I mean, which is a gesture I think was very nice to appease the... people with the easement, but they don't have ownership. And if you look at the law, the law on easement is very clear. You have no possessory rights. You have the right to access. The owner is paying the taxes on it. The owner can improve the property. They can make changes to the property. They just can't impede the ability to get access from the street to the water. that I would argue that regardless that seawall does, if anything enhances the ability to get to the water, but that's almost neither here nor there. And the application is that you filed yesterday, yesterday. Indicates, you know, the construction that was used and so forth. So the commission maybe doesn't have it, but it passes. We have it. So that's the background for the original blocking wall that Roger put because he traversed his property. That's all he was able to do at that time. After that rock wall, several years later, when he was able to buy that piece from the Roy's family, he then owned the entire frontage all the way to the tour property, which is the property to the environment. So that's where we're at.

And we didn't go any higher than the original wall. we actually, it's actually lower with the cutoff.

And even more accessible. And when you join the Centella wall, you're lower than that because you follow the same height that you're blocking. Everything's the exact same grade. I have pictures to show every grade. You were involved in that construction process. I coordinated it. The assumption that it was good to go. I'll answer any questions. Or Craig is probably better able to answer any questions.

No questions. So, Eric, for the new application or the original application, did the I'm assuming the people that have the easement did not have to be like co-applicants, correct?

I'm not going to get too much legalities except to say you have an application given to you by the property owner. If the easement holders would like to contest whether it's a complete application or not, they can, but it is generally not in the role of this Wetlands Commission to decide ownership issues. And therefore, if they would like to take that up to Superior Court or someplace else, that's great. But at this point, you have an application signed by somebody who reports to be a property owner. I think you pretty much have to leave it at that.

I guess my question is, is the application valid?

Is it a valid application? Is it signed by a property owner? Whether it's sufficient application, that's sort of a legal issue that I think this commission is not well suited to rule on. You're not a court of law. You're not attorneys. You're not people who have the ability to weigh the issues of whether an easement interest is sufficient to be required in the application or not. So I would suggest that you sort of defer that question and let it be taken up at court should someone want to appeal the decision. But again, you have an application given to you by a property owner, and I think you just have to take that up and move from here.

Now, this would be considered next month, though, so the

then holders would have a chance to comment on it they absolutely will we're not going to act on it tonight you're not going to act on it tonight and again they may bring counsel or whatever else but i guess i what i would suggest to the commission is i don't think it's the commission's role to make a legal determination as to who is required on the application i just think that's that's Not well suited to what this commission can do. You have an application. It's been signed by the applicant. They report to have a property interest. I don't think anyone's really contesting if they do have a property interest. Whether that's the only person who needs to bill the application or not is probably an issue that's going to need to be taken up in court later on if it comes to that.

We're prepared to defend that if that were raised. The property owner is the applicant.

I don't think we need to do a site walk. We've all been there twice now.

Just to be clear, did the application come in before or after the letter from the...

The original one or this one?

No, this one. This one came yesterday, right? So I guess my question, I want to be careful here because I don't want to get into the property zoning part of it, but ultimately we have an interesting issue in front of us wherein... My argument is that the work that was done, I think we just looked at it, was clearly, it was everything in that application, to include the notes from the administrative approval, was that the existing wall was going to be repaired. So I think it's pretty clear there is a violation of the actual application.

I don't think there's any dispute. Correct. That's the case. So the remedy is either we bring this for the enforcement act, like we're doing 308-1, or that they give you an application to... basically get you to approve whatever they've done. If you don't approve what they've done, then they're going to have to figure out what to do next. But, I mean, the fact that they've exceeded the scope of their permit is certainly not ideal, but it is not unheard of for there to be a new permit to address issues that exceed the scope of the original permit. So, yeah, they are taking a path that your own regulations spell out for them that they can take. Your own regulations say that the proper remedy to notice I gave is to submit an application, which is what they've done. Now, again, whether you like the application or don't like the application, we'll get to that next month. And you don't have to approve this application. You can say this is a terrible application. I want it restored to what the original application said. Or even more, they didn't even do what the original application said. You have the power to make all of those findings. So, again, if you want something else besides what they've given you, you have the power to say, I want something else. But again, tonight's piece of the puzzle is we gave them notice, they've given you an application, and that's where we are tonight. So we'll take it up next month, and you can decide on the merits of the application where you think they should go next. Okay? Okay.

Does that answer your question? It does. I guess my ultimate, what I'm really getting at is we can't ask for this, but if the applicant and the interest owners are aligned in what they think the application should look like, I don't know that we can take that into consideration. into consideration in our approval of the application by jurisdiction. Does that make sense? Or if they do, it will be easier to... I guess what I would say is that... If that makes sense. I'm going to stop there, but I guess... No, no, I mean, it's always nice when everyone agrees, but... They don't understand, but in the interceding month, if there is agreement on the application.

You're the Wetlands Commission. You're not the property owner's commission. So at the end of the day, your role is deciding is what they are proposing fulfilling your job as the regulator of the wetlands or the water, of course, in this case, because it's the lake. So your job at the end of the day is to decide is what they are proposing fulfilling sufficiently good for the lake that you're willing to approve it whether or not the neighbors agree whether or not you and again if if you think that something less than this is what you need if you really that's that's your role as a weapons commission so the neighbors agreeing or not agreeing is great it's certainly helpful but that doesn't change your jurisdiction over what we're doing okay i would agree with that that's well said

Does anybody have any other questions for you?

I don't know. Do you guys have any questions on a design that we submitted?

We'll get into that next month. I think we're going to at this point sort of leave things where they are for tonight and pick it up again next month. Okay? Thank you.

If you wanted to come up and just state your name for the record, that'd be great. If you had a comment.

I just had a couple of comments to clarify the The land is sold in December.

Did you just state your name for the recording?

One of the three property owners who had rights over that script. The land was sold in December 98, 1996 was the number used. I don't know why, but that's, so it's less than 20 years. I don't know if 20 years is the magic number or not, but yeah, My husband and I and the people that own 77 have an easement, which is just a right of way. 73 has a different description in its deed. Somebody from your group during the walkout asked for the language that is in the deeds, and that property's deed says that the owner has the same rights to that land that the people at 72 do, to the beds in the shores, whatever that is. phrasing is it's like repairing rights or literal rights that's what it's got so it's almost like that that property has elevated rights compared to ours and 77s and also um one other thing about the the purchase of the the property it was a reasonable very low price actually back then because there are so many um you know interests that use the same way and so I just want to clarify.

Okay. Thank you. All right. So we will continue that next meeting unless anybody has any other questions. Okay. So moving on to regular business, Wetlands Enforcement Officer updates for 308 and 16 Neck Road. Final questions. So there are no pending applications for 308-1. So we don't have any action to take. If there's any actions. Sure.

Obviously, the neighbors have been submitting materials that I have been distributing to you for the report. They have also submitted an appeal of my zoning order to the Zoning Board of Appeals. That will be taken up by the ZBA, and I forwarded that on to counsel for the applicant, for the property owner, rather, and that will be for Bill McCoy to defend on behalf of the property owner. The issue as raised by the chair is, you folks granted a zoning permit for work within a specific box, and they now have a surface water discharge permit issued by the DEP to allow them to discharge into the settling ponds. We can certainly, and I've already arranged with the property owner to do monthly site inspections to verify that they're only working within that box. I can verify that there's no additional damage that is being done to the wetlands. Where is this box? Okay, the box is going back to, I guess it was 2022. Peter Alter, when you guys had your last enforcement of this site, drew a box about what he described as two acres on a map of the property and basically put it down. It wasn't a map, was it? It was not a photo.

Was it an aerial photo?

It had topo on it, so I don't think it was an aerial topo.

It wasn't like the map that we have now.

No, it was not a survey. It was none of the above.

Can we put what he's doing on our more accurate map that shows where the wetlands are? We certainly can, yeah. Because I would maintain that he needs to come in and tell us what he's doing if he's in upland review areas because he only has a permit. At least since I've been on this commission to repair what he did.

He has an earlier permit that was granted again in 2022 to work within this box. And that, again, I'm happy to superimpose what was given to us by Peter Alter with the later maps to the best of my ability to do so. Do we know what he's going to do in that box?

Basically, what the zoning permit says he's going to do. We're not the zoning commission. We're the wetlands agency. They had, in the zoning permit, which really pissed me off, Eric, and it was issued multiple times, a condition in that zoning permit was they were supposed to come in and get approvals from the wetland commission. Which they have. There's an application and maps. 2022. And conditions. And conditions 2022. And what are the activities that are proposed?

They will be crushing and grinding within that two-acre area.

Is it within our 100-foot buffer?

Yes.

That's why you gave them... Okay, here's some new information. Is it within 400 feet of the river? Yes. Okay. Subsequent to the permit, but this spring... I was invited to look for vernal pool activity in, what is it, Three Mile River on one of the adjacent properties. Because if you recall, in the hearing process we had, the applicants, soil scientists, found a vernal pool kind of up in the northwest corner that I never really got a chance to look at. But the neighbors maintain that there were vernal pool critters being hatched in the really thick wetlands associated with the edge of the river. I mean, they made that statement. They aren't really professionals. I don't know. At the time, I didn't know whether or not there were vernal pool critters there, whether or not there were eggs. Well, this spring, I went out. and looked at Olaf's property. It's adjacent to the river. And indeed, the river and the associated wetland habitat with the river has vernal pool critters laying eggs. I wasn't able to get out there again to see if the eggs hatched, but in my humble opinion, there's a vernal pool habitat associated with the wetlands, especially the thicker wetlands associated with that river, which would implement our bigger setback of 400 feet. And I would maintain that our upland review area, at least associated with the river, is 400 feet, not 100. And I think we really should know what he's doing. Were we able to get maps from DEP that show what he's doing for stormwater renovation? They didn't just sign off without doing anything?

He signed off without doing anything.

Okay, so then we have the ability to implement the stormwater controls on this site if he's discharging stormwater, if the DEP is not doing it. I mean, we should know what is he going to do to control the stormwater? I remember we didn't approve the dam repair because he wouldn't get it designed, right? And I would think that the dam on that little – I don't know if that's – it's not where – it must be a side stream that flows adjacent from the ponds back into – three mile river i don't believe it has a name it just yeah unnamed at the minimum we should get some sort of structure that will renovate the storm water before it goes into surface water discharge permit supersedes any of our requirements to be able to do i would maintain that it doesn't i would maintain that if there's no conditions associated with their permit if there's no map associated with what in the world's going to happen that it's our jurisdiction as the Wetland Commission, Wetlands and Watercourses Commission. And we've seen those ponds. I've seen them many times that have been full of silt and stuff. And there's no, if the beaver dam breaks, what? They're siltation ponds. That's what they were created to do. They were siltation ponds. Did an engineer design them?

Yes, this has all been done by, this has been there since the 1930s. It's been there 100 years.

And the DEP has approved it going back... You're full of shit, because I studied the aerial maps, and there were no activities before 1987. And there were no permits for any of the activities on that site before the subdivision. So we never issued any permits during our regulatory process. Maybe the 22, I didn't see that. I wasn't here. But... You can look at aerial photos. There's no activity on that side at 30.

If what you are saying is true, then the entire section of our regulations that we've been giving them permits every two years going back 30 years is invalid. And maybe it is. That's zoning. I'm not talking about zoning. You absolutely are. No, I'm not. Of course you are.

I'm talking about the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act.

But we have a permit. The permit expires next year. We'll take it up again next year. If you try and void a granted permit. I'm not listening. I'm listening perfectly well. We have nothing to do with zoning. They have a granted wetlands permit.

For the activities that occurred between 1987 and 2022? You find it for me. And I will demonstrate. I have a permit right now, though.

2022.

We don't have any information on, you know. He still has a permit right now.

He has a validly issued weapons permit. I'm saying. If you try and void the validly issued weapons permit, we're going to get sued and we're going to lose. We have municipal establishments.

I think we should review what the permit says and what the conditions are and what the activities are. You can't take back a permit. If there are more activities than are covered by that permit, we certainly can't. Absolutely. And I'm saying that the activities that he's proposing, we don't have any idea what they are other than this rectangle.

If he works outside the rectangle, then fine.

I'm saying we have a vernal pool habitat associated with the river. Our upland review area. He still has a permit to work inside the pool.

That is new information that will be taken up when they come to renew the permit. But you can't void a validly issued permit for new information. You can't. The whole premise of administrative law is it was granted. It wasn't appealed. It's valid for the length of the permit.

Not if they do activities that aren't approved.

We're going in circles here. I will submit to you.

Yeah, let us see the permit. I think the commission should be looking into it seriously. I want to see, you know, you can't just blankly say whatever he does in two acres when we don't even have a map that accurately showed where the wetland boundaries were when you did that. The application was incomplete and not accurate.

It may have been a terrible application. It was granted. Whether it was a bad application or a good application, whether they should or shouldn't have granted it, it was granted. It was not appealed. By law, it is valid. It cannot be voided post facto. No matter what, it cannot be voided post facto. Then that's a violation, Michael. If they exceed the original application, that's a violation.

It is not a voiding of the original permit. That's why I want to investigate. That's not your job. That's his job.

I will get you information regarding the proposed activities, and you can clear them to the permit, and we will go from there. But we're not undoing the permit.

We can talk about... Did it expire in 2007?

It was granted in 22. It's a five-year permit like any other wetlands permit. It will come up for renewal theoretically next year. Okay? What month? I'll have to talk to my head, Michael.

The difference is the maker of the second.

I won't. If you would like, go upstairs when we finish here, and I will have an email in your mailbox.

I'm just amazed I didn't see that permit when I looked through that whole file during the violation.

I can't tell you why you didn't find it.

Well, it wasn't in the file.

Michael, the entire file is indexed by date. I will find it for you tomorrow if you'd like to come in tomorrow. It exists. Okay? We had a hearing yesterday. Peter Alter came, he spoke, there was a vote by the commission, it all took place. I was here for it, okay? The map Peter Alter submitted is the map that I used when you found violations that we are presently suing him for. So the map is a part of the public record here and has been for four years. I don't know what else to tell you. If he exceeds the scope of the permit, we will cite him for violating the permit and for a new weapons violation and add it to the existing case that's already in court. But I'm not undoing a previously issued permit, no matter what additional facts you've found since then.

What if we start seeing sediment going into the Three Mile River at the first rainstorm like this weekend? If the sedimentation erosion controls aren't? working?

If the sedimentation erosion controls aren't working, then that's a violation of his permit, and I can take action. Does he have sedimentation erosion controls up along the edge? Yes, he does. Last I did check, again, I will be out there every month doing an inspection to verify that the erosion controls remain in place. I will say that last time I was out there, the pipe underneath the road was clogged, and at that point in time, there was water that was going over the road, I said, you have to unclog it. He unclogged it while I was there. The water flowed through. The water no longer went over the road. I will go back out there every single month and verify what is happening with that outflow underneath the road. Because that outflow underneath the road is vital to making sure that there is no water passing over the road in either direction, either into the cementation ponds or down to the Three Mile River. that again as we all know that pipe is undersized but that pipe is has been what it is um i think we all expect at some point he is going to need to do something about that pipe um we will get like i said i've done as you know an extensive review of our records to try and find before 2022 any action by this commission

or its predecessor, the Conservation Commission, that they issued any permits for activities on that site. I've been unable to find any, including a permit for that undersized culvert. And you can- It will change the fact that East has a permit right now.

I understand what you're saying.

It wasn't one of the permitted activities.

Michael- I bet.

I don't know how to deal with that.

I don't know how to deal with it either. But the culvert has been there

since I'm guessing... Not for 30 years. I mean, I can tell you, you don't see any activity on the site until the 87. Okay.

I can bring you witnesses who can tell you that there was activity on that site going back to the 60s and 70s. I have witnesses in town who will tell you that, including Don Bugbee, who's the Parks and Recreation Director here. He lives next door. His father owns the site next door. they can testify regarding what has been going on there for a very long time. I have other people who can testify regarding what has happened on that site going back quite a ways. It has been used as a excavation site for a very, before the zoning regulations. So the claim that this is only started in 1987 is simply inconsistent with how it has been treated since then, which is as a site that predates the zoning regulations. Whether the existing wetlands permit is adequate, we can have a debate about whether it is adequate, but it is there. And it will come up for renewal next month, next year rather, I will give you the month, and we can at that point revisit the issue of what needs to occur regarding that. I will also say On the parallel side, the zoning side that you are obviously not in jurisdiction of, that the zoning regulations, as you know, are being rewritten. This provision of the zoning regulations does not need to reappear in the next version of the zoning regulations. So there are paths forward that will prevent this site from continuing to be used. But the paths forward do not involve voiding an existing permit.

Well, I'm not saying we should void an existing permit. I'm more interested in what DEP did. We have nothing to...

I'm very interested in what DEP did as well, because...

But if they did nothing, I think that, and there's pollution of sediment getting into the Three Mile River, we can add. I mean, we have parallel jurisdiction.

I will transmit to you everything I have from DEP, but it's nothing... They told me face-to-face they were not going to be issuing a permit, and then they issued a permit without consulting me. So I have my own questions about what the hell they did. That said, there is a surface water discharge permit. I withheld granting the zoning permit until that surface water discharge permit was issued. I was working from the inception. It never would be. But here we are. I will go back and give you additional information that will hopefully allow you to see where things are today. And then we can plot how we want to move forward. But that is that is the best I can do for you this evening.

One question. Does it repair or replacement to come before this commission, or can he be allowed to do an emergency repair?

He will be allowed to do an emergency repair. However, that does not deprive the commission of jurisdiction. He will then have to post facto come to this commission and seek approval for what he's done. Okay? As a general rule, you can do an emergency activity, but that doesn't deprive this commission of the right to then review the activity. So... I don't know when or if it'll get washed out, but the commission retains jurisdiction over the river and all of the area within 100 feet of the river, irrespective of the nature of the emergency.

Do I have your name for the record?

Peter Kim. Thank you. How's 16 Neck Road? Okay, that's interesting you should ask. When did Frank Nosedo show up? What day was that, Julie?

So sometime last week.

I think it was Friday of last week.

I was near Friday, so probably Thursday.

Thursday of last week. Okay, so Thursday of last week, Julie comes to my office and says, Frank Nosedo is here to see you. Okay. Well, send Frank Nosedo in. He came in and indicated that... His brother is now assigned to a project in Waterbury and we won't be seeing him anymore. And what can he do, very short list, what can he do to just get everything restarted at 16 Neck Road? I took the very lengthy list that I had prepared for the lender back in March, March 31st, and transmitted it to Mr. Nocito to let him know all of the various activities, including the bonding, and the repair, and the buffering, the pipe underneath the road, all of the whole list of everything you guys have been aware of up until now that would be required to get him in good stead. He was unhappy at the length of the list and the fact that we wouldn't waive the bond, but he indicated the way he has before you guys, oh, no problem, we'll make it all happen. At this point, he has gone off to parts unknown. I do know he went and complained to Tammy Tinarella, the real estate agent, to say what a terrible person I am. But at this point, I am working from the assumption that the project is dead and we're going to need to wait for some bank to pull the plug on it and foreclose. I know that the current loan expires at the end of this year. I know that there was some frantic activity to try and sell the existing house that's on top of a hill there. I largely put a stop to that by saying three things, one of which is the original subdivision required that house be sprinklered. It's not sprinklered. Two, the road has to be repaired because if the road washes out, you can't get there. And three, that the weapons violation encompasses the entire subdivision and still has not been reviewed. and that pretty much put the damper on the sail of that lot. I know Goscito is frankly kind of casting around for ways to revive it. He can do whatever financial things I guess he wants to. I'm not optimistic that he's going to be able to address your concerns, and we'll have to wait and see if we hear anything further. But again, he sort of appeared out of nowhere, said, oh, my brother was terrible, it's all his fault, and asked how we can make everything all better. We'll see if anything comes.

Okay. There's no, not shopping for additional violations or things to add to your list, but there's nothing, no updates from the site that require action or additional motions or anything by this commission at the moment, right?

I mean, obviously, the erosion control, they came back with a new erosion control plan.

Yeah, yeah.

They haven't talked to the new erosion control plan that they've given to you. But I'm not sure that's necessarily a new violation. I mean, the original violation says that they weren't properly maintaining the site in a manner to prevent erosion. I don't think that that's changed meaningfully. I don't know that we need to layer on new violations. Again, the existing cease and desist order remains in place. I do know that Ed Cassell is drafting, though it's taking longer than I want, a complaint to go on this thing. But I don't know that there are necessarily new violations. The only place where I'm noticing sort of new or continued erosion is further away from your wetlands than 100 feet. It's on the upland side of where Tushar Drive's pit is there that they put the forms in. going up the hill from that to 4 and 6 and 8, that whole site is cleared, and there's a bunch of erosion coming down from that, but it doesn't seem to be reaching the wetlands because, again, there's a large hole there, and all the erosion is sort of running into the hole, which doesn't do the hole any good, but it sort of saves your wetlands from getting further damaged. So, yeah, on the zoning side, I can bring an action on the fact that they're in violation of the zoning requirement not to expose more than a quarter acre without giving me an erosion control plan, but there don't seem to be any additional wetlands violations at the present time.

Back at 308, did we get our money, or is that, where is that?

We got some of the money. We still owe more of the money.

Were we going to court on that, or what was happening?

Again, NCSL is drafting, well, we're already in court on that, yeah. But he was going to pay our fees for the... He did pay some of our fees. But again, the per diem violation is still out there. And Etta Cassell has asked for attorney's fees and costs as well as all of that. So he has not paid... He gave us some money to pay for our engineer, but that's really... Again, he didn't pay for all of our engineers, and he... That's still out there. It is all still out there.

That's all out there.

we are awaiting a trial date from London Superior Court on that.

You don't think the judges will tell us to settle it? To tell them to pay it?

I mean, honestly, I suspect that the judges, if this goes to pretrial, are going to turn to him and say, it's got to be cheaper to cough up some money than to go to court on this thing. We'll see, Michael. But at this point, last I knew from Ed Casella at There was supposed to be a trial management date last month. I have not heard the results of that, but there should be a trial coming up later this year on that prior violation. I don't think it's really at this point a question that he violated the regs. I think we're just fighting about damages. I think by coming in with a proposed remediation, he concedes that he violated the regs. So all I think we're really fighting about is what penalties should be imposed for his violation of the regs. So, I mean, I'm sort of playing with the house cards here because I don't think there's a chance he's going to win the case. At worst, the court is going to say, well, he did his best to remediate, so he doesn't really owe that much money. We'll see where the court goes. But again, I don't think on the merits of the case that we're going to lose on the merits. It's just, again, we're fighting about remedy at this point in time.

Sorry for getting excited. It's the half Italian in me, I think.

That's what I blamed.

That's all I've got. Moving on to reading and approval of minutes. Julie had an amendment, so if you'd like to read that.

For the regular scheduled meeting on June 23rd after publication, it was just brought to my attention, just a sentence from case-24-23. For 72 Grassy Hill Road, I stated it was noted that the former property owners are deceased and the property is now under the Brewing Family Trust. It was just brought to my attention that they were also on the original application as owners. So they did not take over. They were always the owners.

I'll make a motion to approve that change.

So moved.

All those in favor? Aye. The rest of the minutes, anybody have any questions or concerns? Make a motion to approve those minutes. All those in favor?

Aye.

And the July 1st special sitewalk meeting. Does anybody have any changes or comments? Somebody want to make a motion?

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All right. I make a motion to adjourn.

Second.