Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission - Regular Meeting

So, what do we have? We have YouTube. And then do we have the recording? Right. Yep. We're all set. YouTube is on. Yes. Okay. All right. I will call the meeting of the Bloomfield Inland and Wetlands Water Course Commission to order. Today is Monday, July 21st, 2025. It is 7:03 p.m. And in attendance, commission members, we have Kevin Wilcox, uh Paul, Glenn, David, uh our new member, Lorenzo, myself, Alkovski, and recording secretary would be Rebecca Joan. Um first a first item on the agenda is wetlands permit for 57 and 9 north northwood drive. Um this is a public hearing. So is there a I move that we open the public hearing. Thank you. Is there a second? I second. Seconded by Glenn. Yep. All in favor? I I opposed abstain. It's unanimous. Um and I Well, before we get into that too, Lorenzo is our new member on the uh commission and I just want to tell you, Lorenzo, um don't be afraid to ask questions. There's no stupid questions. So, don't be afraid. That's how we all learn. Leave the stupid questions to me, Lorenzo. No, I got a few for myself. So,

you have company. You have company going forward. Yeah. So, this is a public hearing which was opened before and tabled and now we're um we're resuming it. Uh the public hearings are for your benefit are where the public can ask questions and make comments. That's one of the only re way the public can ask about ongoing applications unless they put it in writing to Peter, but the public can participate. Uh the questions from the public um can only be on wetlands issues. We don't we're not concerned with um zoning, traffic, zoning issues, uh appearance, any of anything like that. Strictly wetlands. And in Connecticut, wetlands is determined by soil types, not water. Okay. All right. So, let's proceed. Um item number one. Peter, where are we? Yeah. Uh, we need to, uh, promote Mr. Hulie to be the applicant's representative on this one. All set. Um, so the the uh the commission would have uh or the commission did receive a uh um message from me, not a message, a memorandum from me dated July 11th. The applicant got it too. Um and uh the uh

the property had been visited by the commission and by me on several occasions and uh they presented a plan which we were um uh okay with but there were some uh you know some additional information that we were looking for. We did receive a re a revised plan. you guys got the same plan in your um in your commission uh package, in your agenda package. Um my uh my staff report um recommends uh several more than several conditions of approval. Um but before we get into that, some of the uh um some of the um uh recommended uh uh recommended modifications to the plan uh were made. um in in most in most every case they were done in accordance with our recommendations and have thus reduced the uh impact to the upland review areas. Um this this application has only 200 square feet of direct wetland impact um but about an acre and a half of impact to the upland review area. Um so my uh recommendations are um for uh if the commission moves forward to approve the application um some of them are pretty standard. Uh we want final plans um final revisions. Um in some cases the commission uh commission's actions or or other um you know other uh things come into play uh after the meeting uh which have to be addressed. One of them is

adding all the conditions of approval to the plans. So uh we want three paper copies and some myars uh and a digital form compatible with our GIS. Um we do as a matter of course and a per the regulations uh require that a copy of the permit be uh be filed on the land records. Um, we're asking for uh $5,000 per acre of development or portion thereof for a uh performance bond. Uh, which in this case they have 3.92 acres of disturbance and a $20,000 bond is recommended. Um, we ask that they have a pre-construction meeting uh and that they give me notice and we walk the limits of clearing before the trees are cut. uh and um the uh um uh regular uh requirements for soil erosion and sediment control um have to be maintained. Um we uh uh uh those last three or four were conditions to be complied with before the start of construction. conditions to be complied with prior to the approval of the final co um is an asbuilt site plan uh prepared by a licensed land surveyor. Um the asbuilt plan shall contain the certification uh by a professional engineer that they've inspected the improvements and they have been installed in accordance with the plans. Uh the permit shall also schedule an inspection of the completed project with me uh two weeks before the anticipated date. Um the uh 11th one here is permanent markers shall be installed to delineate the limits of the approved

outside storage area. This is something that I think we should have a bit of a discussion on with Mr. Hulie, but I'm going to run through the rest of them. uh what the permanent markers might be um is something that we should discuss or should be. Uh the permit authorizes 200 square ft of wetland impact. Most of these are for or all of this is for removal of some concrete blocks that make up their storage bins for materials that were in or clo excuse me close to the wetlands. Um and also about a half an acre of um impact to the vegetated buffer zone. Um that that one might need some further discussion as well. Um all areas of encroachment onto abiding properties into wetlands shall be removed and restored uh with the removal of encroaching material to the level of existing organic material and seeding to establish permanent ground cover. Um areas without existing organic layers shall be supplemented with a minimum 6 inch layer of organic soil. The uh um the the property has has encroached uh and I'm going to say inadvertently because I don't believe it was done on purpose onto the neighbor to the to the norththeast uh northwest. I believe they own the property to the northeast northwest and some to the west. These are minor in incursions. The plan calls out for these to be removed, these encroachments to be removed. Um there's uh um uh number 16 of my recommended conditions is mitigation and buffer plantings shall be shown on the final

plans. Um, the permit will expire on the same date as the expiration of the town planning and zoning commission approval or 10 years after wetlands commission approval, whichever is sooner. Uh, as always, I recommend that the storm water management basins and their outfalls be constructed and fully stabilized um during the first construction season. Uh and then um in accordance with section 1113 uh the uh the applicant I'm sorry the permit shall engage and pay for independent third-party consultant to do um weekly uh erosion control inspections. Um any areas disturbed of the project uh shall be restored to their previous existing condition as much as possible if the project is canceled or delayed. Um and I'm asking that a contingency replanting plan be be included in the plan set. I'm not sure if it was in there. I I have to go back and look at that. um annual storm water ports reports uh detailed plan to and schedule for post construction storm water management. Pretty much these are are somewhat boilerplate kind of stuff. Um the applicant uh I'm sorry the the permit is not transferable without the approval of the commission and this permit is to be signed to the applicant which is Burns Construction LLC. Um if another entity should be the uh the permit, we should discuss that as well. Uh all trash and debris to be removed from the wetlands uh for any construction. Um perme shall notify the commission in writing the change of ownership of the property. uh any modifications to the regulated

activities due to the approval or review of the project by town plan and zoning, the health district, the DEP, uh etc. shall be submitted back to the commission for review. Um those are those are I've got listed 26 here. Couple three of them maybe need some more discussion. Um, I'm not going to read through my description of the proposed regulated activities. Um, but we might want to discuss the criteria for dis decision. Um, which starts on page seven of my uh of my report. The uh first criteria for decision is environmental impact of the proposed regulated activities on the wetlands or water course. Uh the direct impact uh is to a relatively small area of wetlands 200 square feet. Disturbances within uh disturbances to the upland review areas with within it should say a few feet of the wetlands will also have an indirect impact to the wetlands. So there are some regulated activities that are going to occur not in the wetlands but within 10 ft or less. Um, the second criteria for decision is the applicant's purpose for any prudent and feasible alternatives. Let me know if you're falling asleep. I'll pick up the pace. The uh applicant's person purpose is to construct an expanded contractor's yard. There are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed regulated activities including more separation between the wetlands and the proposed improvements that would cause less or no environmental impact. Uh the third is the relationship between short-term and long-term impacts on wetlands and water courses and the maintenance slashenhancement of long-term

productivity of the wetlands. Um the short-term impacts will be from the initial clearing and construction work. The long-term impacts on wetlands will be from the increase in imperous coverage, loss of vegetated buffer and additional storm water discharges. The maintenance/in enhancement of long-term productivity of the wetlands and water courses will depend on the ongoing maintenance of the site and the storm water management systems. Um the fourth uh criteria is irreversible or uh irretrievable loss of wetlands and water course resources and uh mitig and mitigation areas. Uh um let's see. So uh there will be a small loss of wetland resource caused by the proposed regulated activities. Um that would be the 200 square feet. Um the future ability to protect, enhance or restore the wetland water courses, I'm sorry, no future ability to protect and enhance or restore wetland or water course resources is foreclosed. Uh mitigation for the direct wetland and/or water course impact shall be provided with the planting of trees and shrubs at the limits of clearing and otherwise indicated on the final plans as a as a condition of issuing the permit to maintain or enhance existing environmental quality. Uh there should be um I'm going to have to go back and look. I think some I think uh one of my uh conditions uh of approval that dealt with impacts to the upland review area recommended planting of more trees and shrubs on the property. Um so the uh um

no uh let's see mitigation for direct wetland and water course impact shall be planting of trees. I think I read that already. uh it indicated on the final plans. Um the fifth uh criteria is the character and degree of injury to interference with safety, health or reasonable use of property which is caused or threatened by the proposed regulated activity. Um there shouldn't be any injury to or interference with safety, health of reasonable use uh of property which is caused by this proposed regulated activity. Number six is impacts of the proposed regulated activity on wetlands or water courses outside the area for which the activity is proposed and future activities associated with or reasonably related to the proposed regulated activity which are made inevitable. Uh there are some impacts of proposed regulated activities on wetlands and water courses outside the area for which the activity is proposed. storm water discharges are proposed to the southwest wetland water course that extends onto the abuing property. So there may be, you know, there's a direct connection there. So I can't really say that uh there's no offsite wetland impacts here. Um no future regulated activities are made inevitable. Um so that's the that's the meat of my um of my staff report. Uh there's a couple more pages of comments and and I'll be happy to answer any questions if you like. Um I believe Mr. Hulie has a revised plan to uh to review with you guys. So I'm going to pass it on to him and I think Mr. Hulie you can as a as a member of the panel share your screen.

Very good. Thank you. Um, so actually, uh, to start, if it's possible, there are a couple more members from our project team. If we could get them promoted, um, just a couple people to help present or answer questions. Um, I know we have Jordan Busitz here from BL Companies. She's actually going to be running the screen sharing for me. And then I know we have, uh, John Casey as well, um, helping to represent the application. Um, and then we have our wetland scientist, Sean Simco from BL Companies. Would it be possible to get them promoted? You're all set. Very good. Um, can we get uh here we go two? Okay. Okay. Yes. Go ahead, John. Thank you. Thanks. Uh, good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Uh, my name is John Casey. I'm a partner at Robinson and Cole. We represent the applicant. I don't think um the Burns Construction Company. I don't um I don't know if Ken or Ken Jr. Joe might be out there watching um but they are uh the ones uh with an interest in this property. They will be the applicant and the permit uh to u Mr. Castaldi's comment earlier about who this permit is going to and we have Tim Jordan and Sean uh as well. um just to set the scene a little bit um since we did just open this and um it was a couple months ago. So this property is uh zoned I2 um which is areas suitable for warehousing, secondary processing, packaging, fabricating finished goods and equipment related to outdoor storage and incidental sales. That's the the zoning lot we're uh zoning district we're in. as in the call of the meeting this there's four lots there's five Northwood Drive which is the only developed building has exist uh

developed lot has an existing building pavement uh gravel outside storage area it was originally built in 1966 7 Northwood Drive is to the south that's wooded and undeveloped nine Northwood Drive is further further south wooded and undeveloped and then nine um West Dudleytown Road is to the northeast East again wooded and undeveloped and this is in the industrial parks. So surrounding land uses a commercial industrial businesses there's a town public works facility couple more undeveloped parcels um fire station. Uh the total area um is 6.62 acres. Uh back in May we had the uh wetlands map amendment approved. Um, so there's 878 acres, which is 38,234 square ft of wetlands that were approved um in two different pieces. There's a northeast wetland. We're up on nine Wesley uh West Dudleytown Road. Um that's 214 acres, about 10,500 square ft. Um and then there's a southwest wetland which is closer to the activities here. That's 65 acres, about 27,646 square ft, and that extends off to the south and west. Uh, as I said, the wetlands map amendment was approved. Um, there was no ponds, swamps, water courses. It was just wetlands. If you have any questions about that, Sean is here. He can he can speak to that if there's any questions about the the type of wetlands. So, that's sort of where we are. And then I'll turn it over to Tim. Um, who has Oh, there he is. Yep. Thank you. Thanks, John. Jordan, if you could quickly uh start

with the the survey plan, we can just quickly share that as a a base map here for setting the stage. I know John just briefly mentioned uh kind of the the property here. So, we'll just quickly look at the survey here. So, uh north is oriented to the right on this plan view. Um, so as mentioned, there's one existing building pretty much in the center of this plan view here. Uh, that is the five Northwood Drive parcel. Um, there are the paved areas surrounding that primarily to the the top. And yes, can you make it a little uh larger, please? Zoom in a little more. Good. Thank you. Yep. Uh, so that uh area, it's kind of like a a dotted area. That's the the building outline. Um there are paved areas to the the top right and bottom of the building here. And then looking out away from that, uh the majority of the remaining parcels is wooded. The areas with the the cross-hatching it through it, the diagonal lines, those are the uh the approved wetlands from the the wetlands map amendment that we uh we discussed a couple months ago. Um so just wanted to quickly set that stage. Um I guess now if we can jump to the site plan in total um the there are no building improvements proposed as a part of this. The the main goal of the project is to improve the site to function as a contractor yard. Uh the the building right now does have it does function as a contractor yard with limited uh outdoor storage in the rear. However, uh for Burns construction to to function properly, they do need an expansion to the yard space. Uh so what we are

proposing to do is make some improvements to the yard in the back but the main uh focus area is expansion of the yard space to the plan left of the building which is the south side of the building. So as you can see here we kind of a highlight a few of the work areas. um the the light gray shade, those are uh areas that we're doing pavement improvements or new paving. Uh so starting on the right side of the building, we are expanding the parking lot a little bit to the plan right. Um that will allow us to uh to achieve the required parking here, get the required separation from a zoning standpoint from the building. Um, and also there will be a storm water improvement under this portion of the parking lot that I'll get to in a minute. Um, but this side is more or less parking areas for employees. Continuing to the rear of the building. Um there are, as Peter mentioned, there's a few material storage bins along the the very top uh of the plan and existing conditions that do encroach just over the property line. We are proposing to remedy that, pull those material storage bins onto the property. Um so that that's shown in that very top edge with kind of the the gray dotted area. There's three of them located in that area. Continuing down just that left corner there, we're proposing two dumpster pad areas. Uh that's directly adjacent to those material storage bins. Continuing down that left side, uh from the back of the building towards the side, there's the again the lighter gray solid fill. That is new paving areas. Uh we are proposing to add a driveway

connection around the back of the building from that material storage area to the new yard space over to uh to the left hand side of the plan here. That s the the lighter gray is paving. It's it's batuminous asphalt. Um and then as we head farther to the plan left, the darker gray is the main uh contractor yard space. uh you know a typical contractor yard activities as parking of equipment and you know like dump trucks, trailers, things of that nature. Uh there may be some uh outdoor storage of um you know various products like piping uh manhole structures, things of that nature. Um the the darker gray area here represents uh the the pavement or uh surface treatment here which is proposed to be uh asphalt millings. uh being a contractor yard with especially with the the equipment that the Burns construction team operates uh you know a lot of equipment with uh with with metal tracks going with standard batuminous asphalt would be chewed up and destroyed very quickly. Um and certainly if you look at most other contractor yards asphalt millings is more or less the gold standard. Um, you know, a lot of them are still gravel or dirt. Um, so, you know, we're proposing a a more stable surface here. Um, continuing down to the bottom left, uh, we have our proposed storm water management basin. That area is designed to manage uh the the peak uh mitigate the the peak rate for this new yard space to the the plan left of the building. Um it's it's an above ground storm water basin. We have treatment through largely LI

infrastructure that we can get to in a moment. Um we are improving both driveways out to the street. And then last thing I wanted to touch upon from the site plan here is if you can see and maybe Jordan if you can zoom in on the the left side here there's kind of a a dashed a black dashed line that goes around all of the new paved areas um and yard space that is a proposed barrier between the developed area and um and the limit of disturbance. We are proposing to install uh a jersey barriers as a a permanent barrier so that there's a clear line there of where the contractor yard stops and where uh you know the green space begins. Um, we did explore a few different options with curbing or guardrails or similar, but we feel jersey barriers provide both a um a tall physical barrier that's observable for various sizes of construction equipment, but also something very durable. Um, you know, certainly more durable than a curb uh or or some other low barrier or fence. Um, so we are proposing that concrete jersey barrier essentially wrapping from the dumpster pad up behind the building all the way down past the storm water basin. So provides a a full enclosed barrier on that south side of the site. Um, so if we can jump over to the storm water plan. Uh, so we do have a comprehensive storm water management system. As mentioned, there are a few catch basins on the site today. um primarily in uh there's a catch basin in the the rear of the building and then there's a couple out towards the street. Um the rear of the building has the storm drain system back there has two primary functions. There's one

that focuses as an inlet for the paved areas in the back. Um there is also a culvert that runs under this section more or less hydraulically linking the the northern wetland or plan right wetland to the southern wetland or plan left wetland. Uh that system is remaining as is. The cover's going to remain the catch basin's remaining. Um no net improvements uh no net change back there. Looking on the the right hand side uh just to the right of the building to accommodate the increased paved area for expanded parking. We are doing storm water improvements here capturing more of the the storm water runoff and um due to higher groundwater on this side of the site. We are unable to infiltrate on site. Um the groundwater was just too high to make the grades work. Uh what we are proposing is a subsurface retention system where we essentially hold that water back and very slowly release it out to the municipal system out in Northwood Drive. Uh I would like to note as a part of this, one of Peter's comments previously was uh analyzing the drainage system in Northwood Drive to verify that it has capacity for this water. We did provide that analysis um and uh we showed no net uh no net negative impacts to the municipal system in Northwood Drive as a result of of this system. Continuing to the plan left, which is the southern side of the building. Uh the new yard space is graded such that it will work from plan orientation from top left as high elevation down towards more or less the bottom right. Um in the

bottom right hand corner, we have a surface drainage into a vegetated swale that will provide pre-treatment. uh right where the hand is on the screen. Um so it's going to provide the the pre-treatment and conveyance for runoff into our surface storm water management basin in that left hand bottom lefthand corner on the screen. The basin is sized to mitigate uh peak runoff for all design storms up to and including the 100year storm. In excessively large storm events, there may be very minimal overflow. We did design in a controlled outlet. In this case, this area of the site drains in existing conditions all drains towards the larger wetland which is the top left of the plan sheet uh through all sheet flow. So uh to match the existing conditions as best as possible, we designed the overflow as a a weir in the burm of the basin and then flow through a surface channel out towards that wetland. Again, trying to maximize low impact development with green features, surface uh management items as well as trying to match the existing flow conditions, keep everything sheet flow to to best match those existing conditions and and the way the wetland receives water as a part of the system. It is a net improvement uh in storm water quality from the the developed conditions in the eastern half of the site. Uh this uh I'm sorry, the northern half of the site, the plan right, the new developed areas to the south or plan left uh is all designed in compliance with the the

latest Connecticut storm water management guidelines. Um and so there will be adequate storm water treatment prior to discharge. Um and then quickly I'll touch upon a couple other items. Uh just big picture. Um no major changes in utilities as a part of this project. Um there are uh is no site lighting proposed as a part of this. Um, we do have a a landscaping plan and uh Jordan, if you can actually jump to that next. Um, the landscaping is focused fairly heavily on uh providing screening and buffering um in compliance with the the zoning regulation. So, this plan is a little busy. Um, so the the proposed plantings are represented through kind of the circles and and hexagon shapes along the street and up the uh the left plan left hand side of the property as well as some behind the material storage bins to the the top of the plan that's just offcreen. The X's represent uh trees, existing trees over I believe it's 12 in in diameter that will be removed uh as a part of this project. Um the remaining disturbed areas will be hydroed with um a couple different varieties of of seed mix. The more dotted is a typical lawn seed mix. Uh we have a a basin seed mix within the basin itself. uh the the floor of the basin specifically chosen for a a typical wet foot condition and then a conservation seed mix in pretty much all of the the

lawn or the the seated areas away from the building itself, especially as you head towards uh the western wet or the southern wetland here um and the left hand side of the site. Um, and I believe that is that is the majority of the the proposed improvements. Um, I guess John or Sean, did you want to finish up with any last thoughts? I was going before we do that, Mr. Hulie, can I ask you to just review where the regulated activities are? Ah, yes. Um, actually I think it might be best Jordan if you can highlight on the plan if you can highlight what the um where the upland review area is. I think that might be the easiest way. Um, so it may be a little hard to get going here, but um, so this area in yellow does represent the upland review area around those uh, those two wetlands on site. This outer line represents kind of the outer boundary and that's 100 ft from the wetland from the flagged wetlands. Correct. Okay. And what's the ins the line inside that is the vegetated buffer zone. Yes. Which is 50 ft. Correct. Yes. The inner line is is the 50 foot vegetated buffer. Yes. Yes, as you could see with this um now now that things are highlighted a little bit, we did try to um do as much as possible to keep construction activity outside of the

vegetative buffer wherever possible. Obviously, there are some areas where there's a little bit of work in there, but the the limit of disturbance or I'm sorry, the the proposed improvements are kept to kept to a minimum uh in those areas to provide the uh the needed functionality for the site. Um the the vast majority of the yard space, of the storage areas, uh things of that nature are all kept outside. the the back of the building is largely matching existing conditions. Um and then certainly, you know, the the upland review in yellow there. Uh there is, you know, a little bit of the storage yard that falls within there, but um you know, it's again kept to a minimum. The majority of the storage yard is located outside of the upland review area. Tim, could I just also have you or Sean just um uh Peter talked about the direct impacts to wetlands 200 square feet and maybe I don't know if Jordan can sort of just highlight where that is on the the Yeah. Um because although it's it's direct impacts to wetlands, it's really removal of material out of the wetlands. So we've Yeah, this is Sean Simco from BL Companies. Um that area that uh was just highlighted. Yeah, that area is mostly fragmitees at the moment. So it's you know invasive species um growing in that area anyway. So it's not a really high quality wetland. Um, so I don't think the adjoining wetland further to the north or to the right of your screen, the the remaining wetland won't be negatively impacted by removing that material. If anything, it'll be benefited by having the invasive species removed.

John, any any last items you'd like to finish up with? Um, no. I think Peter mentioned uh he went through his conditions of approval and I know there's a few uh that he said he wanted to have some more uh discussion on. I know we have a few thoughts on some of those. I don't know if this is an appropriate time. Yeah, that would be good if you could bring those um up. Okay. Um, so I'll I'll serve them up to to Tim. Uh, um, let me get my list. Uh, well, there's just a mention. It's numbers 13 and 14 on page four. Uh, a recommendation about adding plants between the limits of disturbance and the wetlands. And, um, Jordan and Sean and Tim looked into that. Um, I think there's some, uh, if that's something the commission is interested in, that's something that can be done. Um, and then with that, I'll I don't know how much detail or, you know, if that's something you as the commission want to hear more about, we we're happy to talk about that. I'd like to say that my this is one of my standard recommendations. Uh, and particularly on a wooded site. Understood. Yep. What what happens with a wooded site that's cleared is you end up with a very sharp break in the forest and the planting along that edge of clearing allows there to be a transition and also prevents or try tries to prevent um the invasive species from taking over that new open area. So, if we could back out a little bit on this on this picture, on this view, you show some trees and shrubs along the left the south side of

the property line. I'm recommending in that condition that those same kind of plantings be continued all the way around to limited clear. Okay. So I'll ask Sean uh looked into this and has some some thoughts uh given the nature of the the site and as Peter as you said you know the transition from a cleared area to a forest. So yeah I had a few recommendations for plantings uh exactly like the area you were talking about Peter in the uh along the edge of the the clearing there. I was thinking as far as far as a tree species, I was thinking uh some younger white pine trees and you know possibly followed u with an understory of like arrowwood, high bush, blueberry, uh northern spice bush, the sweet pepper bush, winter berry. Uh those are all uh shrub species that I saw growing in and around the edge of the wetland. So, it's it's my experience that if you add more species that are already growing there, of course, as long as they're native, um that's usually the best way to go. So, um that that would I agree. Yeah. Okay. I agree. Um can I ask um to zoom into the uh uh middle middle top of the page? So there's Okay. Yeah. And then slide it a little bit to the to the right. Um the I'm sorry, the the other way. The other right. So you see the south. Okay. Yeah. So if you look in the background here, and we might have to zoom in a little bit more. There's there's a an area here that's presently used for storage on the site. Um which is right adjacent to the wetlands. And that's another area where I think additional

plantings could be done. It would be right in there where you are now. Yeah. Uh on the west side, north or up on the drawing. Right in there where the hand is now. You can see a little area that's kind of outlined with a dashed line that's not a contour. So, there's some outside storage happening up there that they're not going to need with the new um with the new outside storage area. So, that was another spot where I thought some, you know, some other trees and shrubs could be planted uh to, uh, you know, they're definitely in the upland review area and the vegetative buffer there. How would you see would you just do this as a condition of approval and we would provide a a planting plan, you know, showing areas and species? Is that okay? would be a revised plan. Rei revision of this plan. Okay. That would be submitted to Peter doesn't come back to the commission. Right Peter? What you're thinking? Uh yeah, that's we how we usually do it. The commission can ask see it too if you want to. Okay. But I I mean I agree. Mr. Simco said it correctly. The best the best thing to to plant there are the trees or shrubs that are already there. I'm not crazy about the white pines, I have to say, but that's a a native species, so it fits. I mean, we could uh switch them out for pin oak or something like that, you know, easily enough. So, yeah, actually, hardwoods uh conifers would I'm sorry, deciduous would be my would be my preference. Certainly, we'll take note of that. Um, just going on my list where I had some questions uh to continue. I think we uh was number 15. There's concerns

about encroachment um along the western boundary with uh the Mather property. So, as part of this plan, we're removing there was some uh minor encroachment of the the bins, the storage bins. And so, we're we're doing that. And you could see where the hand we're pulling everything back. we're getting them away from the wetlands. Um, I think there is some documented encroachment by from the Mathered property onto our property. Um, and I uh I know in Tim's letter, you know, we could maybe make this as a condition of approval. We haven't really gone very far with them about trying to resolve that um that issue. I mean, it's not it's in the upland review area. It's not in wetlands, as far as I understand. So, yeah, I'm I have to say I'm more concerned about reestablishing some vegetation where it's gone close to the wetlands in that area. The the concrete barriers on the Mather would probably side would probably have to be removed from their side. Yeah. Right. I would think so. Yes. Yeah. So, Oh, I see what you're saying. We can't make it. You're you're questioning whether we can make that a condition of We can't make them do. Yeah. For somebody else, right? So, we can Yeah. The the planting plan obviously. Yep. And obviously removing the encroachment that this property owner and this applicant have control over. All everything's being pulled back on the property. Um, so you may have to may have to revise the language of 15 to include that. Okay. Yeah, you had mentioned it also on page 10 of your in your comments where page

10 seemed to focus on the encroachments from this property out and and not the ones coming across. So, we're just a little um we just want to make make it clear, you know, understand exactly what the condition would be. Yeah, I would I would recommend to the commission that we or that they consider modifying 15 to somehow include um uh you know include language to saying uh the one the encroachments that you have control over. Yeah. X right now it just says all areas of encroachment onto a budding property. So that could be either direction. Y okay. Um the next one we had a question about was number 20 and it was a request for a contingency replanting restoration plan. Um, so we're going to ask the commission to to reconsider or I know they haven't added it yet. I know it's just a re recommendation right now, but we would we don't believe that this plan um that a plan of this type is needed. Um, at this point, uh, you know, our clients are fully committed to to this project and seeing it uh through to completion. Uh perhaps it could be amended so that if you know if there's a con some sort of trigger of abandonment, if there's 6 months a year of inactivity after the start of construction, then a replanting restoration plan um would be required.

right now it would just be done with well I know it's in its name and I know it's a contingency but we don't we think it's a very low likelihood of of probability. So what you're saying is that you do not want to come up with a restoration plan in case the growth the planting does not take hold. No, it's not a restoration plan if the planting doesn't take hold. It's a it's a fully replanting plan of the entire any areas of the site that are disturbed if they start the activities but don't complete them and I don't know they start the activities of doing the planting no so if I may and Peter feel free to correct me if if we misunderstood your comment here but the way we understand it is if uh the the applicant starts construction, starts clearing, uh removes all the trees, and then cancels the project. Uh the contingency plan would uh as currently suggested would propose replanting the cleared areas to essentially restore it back to pre-development conditions. Um so, as Mr. Casey had mentioned, we are requesting the commission consider uh modifying that condition because the the Burns uh family here is very committed to this project. They there's a very very low likelihood that the project may be cancelled. Um so we request that the comment or condition be revised as Mr. Casey had mentioned maybe if there's six or six months or you know a year of inactivity that then a contingency plan be triggered at that point. Peter, wouldn't the bond take care of

that? Um yes, I think so. uh the bond the the the language of the bond is that it's for uh to make sure that all the conditions of approval are done and that all the site work is done. So I guess you could you could extend it to that as well. Um right now uh recommended condition 20 reads uh any areas disturbed for this project to be restored to their previous existing condition as much as possible with the planting of trees, shrubs and/or ground cover within two years of the date of approval or within one year of the initial site disturbances if the project is canceled or delayed by the applicant. And I think they're okay with that. But what they're not okay with is having a plan in the plan set at this point. It's just extra extra work to be honest with you. Could we increase the bond? Uh you may. I'm not sure. I'd have to go back and look. I think we're set at 5,000. I think you're set per acre. Yeah. Yeah. And you know, for this site and what they're proposing to do here, they're they're proposing to do a lot more than $20,000 worth of work. Right. I'll just note that in terms some of the other conditions that we haven't touched on like completing the storm water basin first, like that that's something that the clients are are perfectly comfortable with. So they're they're not trying to just clear the site and you know maybe get around to doing the the the stuff that helps it protect the wetlands. The first thing that's required by the

conditions is the storm water uh management basin and that would be the first thing that goes in. So uh we feel sort of doing things in the right order it's it's it it makes the need for this contingency plan really um extra and and and if it was changed to read you know that if say that last sentence was changed to read um you know after a period of um 6 months of inactivity after the start of construction or clearing or disturbances I guess using the same after 6 months of non-activity after initial site disturbances um the uh the applicant shall provide a contingency replanting restoration plan that identifies the areas to be replanted or restored. Yeah. The only problem with IIO that that could take another six months. And and let me ask you something. I would assume that the construction company is going to be doing the all this work themselves. Correct. I believe so. Yes. So when they get really busy, what job's going to fall by the wayside? Yeah. But also they want this site. I think Tim may have had more conversations with them about the act the use of the site, but they want that this up and running. Um, yes, this is this is going to be kind of a main operations hub for them kind of on the northern half of the state. Uh, right now, you know, they have a facility they operate out of uh down on the southern half, but their operations

are really uh really growing in this area. Uh, they are currently leasing uh this building. um and they are very kind of hamstrung currently with the the limited space on site. So it is a very high priority for them to uh come in and and get this yard expansion done as quickly as possible so that they have the space to function properly to serve uh their their various projects on the northern half of the state. Uh so it's certainly uh for operations they they're very motivated to come in and get this project done fairly quickly. That's why this one sort of jumped out at on like delayed or cancelled like we're not delaying it or canceling it. So um but I we we understand it from your point of view. U so but you know as Peter was going through it and as we had read the conditions you know I thought it was appropriate to bring up the concerns we have about them. Uh so that's our you know that's where we stand and our clients sort of came out on that one. So we just ask that you give it your consideration. Peter, what are your thoughts? Um I think uh you know that there's some there uh I think it some kind of a condition should be included for for this um you know restoration. I mean, if the project starts um you know, if the project starts in in uh you know, before for the end of the summer, uh there's a chance that that you know, the that we'll be clearing um you know, into the fall and then you know it'll be um close to uh the end of the planting season. So then we're looking into the next really in the next spring.

Mhm. spring of 26 for you know for uh you know for any final landscaping to go in. So you know it's it's possible that they'll finish quicker than that, but I'm guessing that's a pretty good timeline. Um I would be happy uh with the condition as it is. I really don't think that it makes, you know, that it's a lot more work to show, you know, a a replanting plan. Um and the uh the requirements are or or uh recommended requirements are um that if the any disturbed areas uh are you know remain uh just disturbed not not improved or replanted um uh within two years of the date of approval uh or within one year of initial site disturb. disturbances. So that could be you know site disturbances start in September say um you'll have you know that's a and and and for whatever reason they stop this wouldn't kick in until a year from September. All right. Um any other conditions to discuss before we go to the public? There was sorry um number 22 and this is really just a practical one. uh it's adding the uh the entire detail plan and schedule for post construction storm water management and erosion control to the

plan itself. It just it'll add sheets and sheets. Go ahead Tim. Yeah. So on this one um we do have our full post construction operation and we call it an operation and maintenance plan. Um it it's in the storm water report. Uh it's usually the last appendex in our storm water report and typically those are you know order of magnitude like 30 pages or sometimes more. Um it includes a write up on how the storm water system functions recommended maintenance maintenance checklist and schedules. And then uh specific to this site, we do have some uh proprietary or manufactured structures like in this case the underground uh retention system. We include the manufacturer specifications on maintenance as well. So by adding the full report to our plans could add, you know, quite a few plan sheets to the set. Um, so on this one we were looking just to to either reduce it down to very minimal amounts and maybe it's just a bullet list of what the schedule is or um, you know, some other arrangement to um to formalize the operation and maintenance. So um, this is another one of my standard recommendations. Um, I think uh something certainly a reference to the longer report and a uh you know a schedule of uh when when to do what and what to do on the plan is what I'm looking for. I don't want to have I don't want to add 30 pages to the plan set. Um does this does the present plan set refer to that report?

It should be I think we can I think we would make a few uh minor modifications to the plans to refer to that. Um and we can work with you. You certainly don't want to hang up the commission if they're all comfortable with us working with you. We can work with you after um to kind of refine where that happens. But um I certainly understand your your comment and your preference here to get a schedule of maintenance and explicit reference to the operation and maintenance report. Um we're happy to do that. Okay. All right. Let's go to the public. Um if I may, there was one other item I think we all had flagged. just wanted to circle back on um the um the markers. Um I did want to circle back on that because I know it was mentioned uh Peter had that as as an item to circle back on. We do have the jersey barriers as our our kind of barrier between the two. Um, I'm wondering if the commission would be willing to accept that or uh are you looking for something specifically as a wetland buffer or marker of some kind? [Music] Peter, what did you have in mind for markers? Well, I think uh you know something you have to remember that there's heavy equipment on this site, so it has to be something that can stand up to some abuse. Um, I'm really not a fan of the Jersey barriers, but it may be the best solution here. Um, the concern Well, the only Say it again. You're not thinking of mirror stones, are you? No, because that's not that's not permanent enough. Okay. I mean, they're they're easier to move

than a than a jersey barrier. I think um having them uh in that location that they're shown on the plan um is okay, but the uh I think there's a chance that there's going to be um you know there will be gaps between them, small gaps to let the runoff through. So I would be concerned a little bit about concentrating the flow in those locations. Um, and you know, I think there's there's, you know, the only other al alternative would be more would be more concrete blocks, and I don't think that's the way to go here. So, I'm okay with the jersey barriers. Okay. Anything else on the conditions? No. um in in the listed uh recommended conditions. I think those are our only comments on the listed ones. If Okay. If you want to talk about anything else, we're we're happy to do that as well. All right. But we're good with at as as drafted by Peter with the comments we just made. Right, Tim? I I think we hit them all. Yes. Any questions from the public? You need to raise your hand. I don't see any questions from the public. Okay. Questions from the commission. I got I have a few. Okay. Go ahead, David. All right. Uh can we talk about the um the pond which is I guess just slightly Well, it's offsite. Um, can you can we can you point to that on the plans to show me where the pond is? I think that's a good one for Sean to

discuss. Yeah, there's definitely an area of ponded water to the south of the site. So, it' be on the left side of the screen. Um, I'm not sure that the plan technically shows it because it does start a good way to the south. When I say good way, it's probably 20 feet or so where the actual ponded area of the the wetland exists. But the wetland that's on our property uh that we're looking at here, it does extend and flow to the south into that area. Okay. So, so there is there is ponding on this on your property. It's not No, there's not. No, our wetlands do not uh pond. I mean, after after a heavy rainstorm, I'm sure it'll hold water briefly, but it's it's not none of the wetlands on our site will be ponded for any significant amount of time. So, so you wouldn't consider any of the wetlands on your site to be a water course or water body? No. No. Okay. And do we know and this you probably wouldn't have investigated this but Peter do we know if there's a vernal pool over there because we know I know closer to Blue Hills A which is to the east there's a couple of vernal pools so I wasn't sure if that ponded if you have any knowledge of that pond or ponded area to the south. No I don't. Okay. Um, and these and these are the wetlands that were presented on the map amendment that were approved in in May. Right. Right. But I I what I what I was getting to is if we know there's a and and it's it's off property, but if we know there's a perennial water course or water body, then we have a different buffer. Um, that might not that that might not go beyond where your buffer is anyway. So that wouldn't if it it sounds like it's

a little further out than I thought it was. Um, but I just wanted to make sure that we had the correct upland review area. Um, because even if it's off property, if it's documented and not contested, then it should have the correct upland review area. Um, I I think really that's it. I don't I don't have a lot of a lot more questions on that on this application. Could could I just jump on that? Uh, Alan, go ahead, Paul. Uh, David, I was I was glad you asked it because I keep looking at the aerial photograph that was included in the packet and there is a a blue outlined area that's labeled pond/w swamp and it it it is showing up on 7 and9 Northwood. So, I'm I'm I guess confused. Um, it's it's I I think and Sean can can fill in all the gaps, but on the prior mapping, I think areas were identified as the pond and swamp. Yeah, that's the image I'm looking at, what Jordan has on the screen right now. Yep. So, Sean, can you explain how what that is as compared to what was approved, you know, what was found in the field and and approved as a map amendment? Yeah, that area again, it's simply not ponded. Um, again, maybe after a heavy, you know, downpour from a a thunderstorm or something, it might hold water briefly. Um, but I've been to the site uh several times and at no time wasn't ever ponded and it I actually spent time there during different times of the

year, not just in the spring, but also in the fall and the summer. So, I've been there through pretty much all the seasons and it has never once uh had water standing in it. And if it had Sean like our application obviously for the map amendment would look different than what was presented. Yeah. Uh gentlemen I have to I have to disagree. Um can I uh let's see can I be allowed to share my screen here? Um because both times that I was out there and they were both in March there was water in those wetlands. Well, yeah. I mean, you can certainly have some standing water um on the surface. Um but as far as ponding, you know, a significant uh depth of water that would support, you know, fish and or amphibians even. Um I personally have never seen it that wet. It's always been you can walk across it and your boots would stay dry more or less. And I'm Wouldn't that be Wouldn't have this been an issue when we did the map amendment? No. Uh cuz this it could have been. I mean I I mentioned it. I'm pretty sure. So this is a picture that I Oh. Can you guys see what I'm showing? Yes. Yes. Okay. So um this is uh let's see. This is the north uh the south rather southwesterly wetlands and you look in the background you can see the piles of soil that are on the neighboring property to the west. So I mean this is what it looked like when we were when we were out there uh both times.

So that's why that GIS plan shows you know area pond slash swamp. So, I would agree that this probably isn't wet all year. It's probably wet today and it certainly was wet in March. So, part of part of the I believe part of the requirements for the wetlands map amendment was to show where the new flagged wetlands are. And that's a fixed point where the limit of the water standing water is here is fluctuating, right? So, it's kind of hard to nail down. But this this area does hold water at least during the spring and after heavy rains. Uh I didn't go out in any other seasons. I wasn't there this summer. Um I was there in the spring. So you know I whether uh you know what do we what do we need to have to call it a a pond? Probably for holding water for an extended period of time. So, you know, is it a water course? Is it certainly a wells? Yeah, that's my understanding is for something to be technically defined as a pond, it has to hold water, you know, uh perennially basically for the majority of the year. And I don't know if there's a a depth uh minimum, but I mean, you can see in in this photo, I mean, you can see the the soil surface in it. So, um, an area holding a half an inch of water, um, that usually does not meet the definition of of a pond, especially when you have so many, uh, herbaceous species growing out of it. Um, so if this had a lot of uh, you know, if it had standing water for a longer period

of time, you you would see fewer herbaceous species growing growing within it. Um, so yeah, I I agree. It definitely will hold some water after a storm event and certainly in the in the non-growing season in in the spring, but not a significant amount to have it technically meet a a pond. And I guess my my question in all of that is, you know, I see it on on here and I know we looked at the amended wetlands map and I do not have that in front of me, but are we all in agreement, Peter, that the the wetlands as flagged are are they take into account whatever they need to for the moisture that you saw. uh recognizing that it may not be uh it may not even meet the requirements of of uh of a a vernal pool or a swamp. I mean is it are we sufficiently far from that in the areas of disturbance? It's I'm just trying to understand if if we've got this thing flagged. Yes, I I believe the wetlands were accurately flagged. Right. this okay this area of temporary standing water is not near uh at least in this location it is not near the proposed improvements um and wetlands as Mr. Simco will will uh confirm are determined by soil type only. Right? Moisture does have an effect on identifying them, but it's not a requirement. So you don't have to have standing water in Connecticut to be a wetland. Right. I'm just I'm just looking at it

and saying to myself, you know, if if I were out there taking core samples and verifying the flags, you know, we got this we got this to everybody's satisfaction is I guess what I am asking. Yes. Okay. Can I can I just jump in real quick here? Um, so I I just want to so everybody's sort of on the same page. We can have an intermittent water course, but it it seems that this is probably not a water course because it doesn't have direction of flow or defined channel. We can have an intermittent water body that would typically be a vernal pool, but if this is not a vernal pool, then it's probably not an intermittent water body because it's not holding for long enough to sustain the amphibian life um or the breeding cycle. So then the other thing would be if there's a perennial water body, which this doesn't appear to be. So um and I'll sort of defer that to Mr. Simco as it to sort of confirm those those factors. Um so yeah, I agree with everything you just said. Um basically I I don't feel this would qualify as a vernal pool. Uh almost certainly not. It's it's just it again it will hold water briefly but it's not going to do it long enough for you know the obligate species of salamanders and and frogs etc to be able to utilize it um as you know for breeding and reproduction. Again, from what I've seen throughout the the several times a year I've been there and uh including in the spring, it just doesn't quite fit. So, thanks. Any other questions from the commission?

Any comments from the public? No com any comments from the commission? Yes. Sorry. Give me a moment to put my glasses back on. So uh comment I suppose it also goes with question I'm not sure. Sorry Mr. Chair. So on the landscape design I just want to point something out. You have listed Piscia pungent and you listed as a Connecticut native. Uh by no means is that a Connecticut native. It's native to the Rocky Mountains. I just would like to have that word wording taken off. Now, uh, as a horiculturalist, I have a couple concerns, but you can take them as however you want. So with uh both Piscia pungeons and pinestrobus, the Colorado spruce and the eastern white pine, uh they're both under attack by 7, eight, nine different species of needlecast fungus here in the state. And when they're planted close to roads where they're also being attacked by pollution, uh it makes the situation worse. And uh my suggestion is if you can think about some other species if you need evergreens uh maybe uh AB's conol the con color screw fur uh maybe balsom fur and I know Peter had some concerns about the eastern white pine and you're thinking about using the northern red oak or you said I had mentioned the pin for yeah for a deciduous

the the thought process behind the white pine I was going for um for the the evergreen species just because based on the uh the nature of of the development it's going to be a construction yard there will likely be some dust being kicked up uh you know throughout the year so I just thought an evergreen species would just have that much more of a buffer to to physically block any dust dust from getting into the wetland But again, you know, a deciduous species, you know, as long as you have that bulk mass of of plantings, including with any uh understory shrubs, that shouldn't, you know, shouldn't be an issue. But that was the thought process. And I also I also agree with Peter that uh more buffer around the areas of disturbance would be great. And I like the list of plants that you went over. They seem to be appropriate. So, uh if you can do that, that would be really good. All right, that's that's it for me. Thanks. Any other comments? [Music] Do we want to close the public hearing or do we need it still open for additional information on the planting speeder? Can't hear you. I think the commission has enough information to make a decision. Okay. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Made by Kevin. Seconded by Paul. Any discussion? All in favor? Say I. I. I. Opposed. It's unanimous. Public hearing is closed. So, do we want to act on this now or do we

want do we need additional does anybody feel we need additional information? Oh, you closed the hearing. Yeah, we closed the public hearing. Yeah, we did. But we did ask him for additional plans or the conditions. That make sense? No. Okay. All right. So, what's the commission's uh pleasure? You want to act on it tonight? Well, I think this is Mr. Shipman's time to shine and make a uh motion. Well, I I was about to say I think in in terms of um further conversation um I don't have my Robert's rules in front of me, but if we propose a motion um and and we have to change some of the conditions, that is a that's an opportunity for further discussion. Well, that that's how it works. You make a motion, you get a second, then you discuss it, you change the motion, and then you vote on, right? So, so yes, uh I think I think we answer the chairman's question affirmatively and I also propose the motion. So, um let's tackle this. Um all right. So, I'm going to make a motion to approve the wetlands permit application for numbers 57 and 9 Northwood Drive and number nine West Dudley Town Road. Um, property IDs 5085, 5084, 5086, and 5087.

Uh, applicant Burns Construction Company, Inc. Um and wetlands file 75-2025-14 uh with the 20 six conditions um proposed in the wetlands agents memo of July 11th and that's based on the plans dated when uh the plans are dated July uh plans are revised uh July 3rd, 2025. Am I correct on that? I'm seeing heads nodding. Okay. Um am I missing any other paragraphs, sentences, punctuation marks? Peter, do we have to find no prudent feasible alternatives? No. Not for this one. All right. No. So, that looks good, Paul. Sounds good. Okay. Is there a second? You need a second. I'll second. Second by, sir. Um, okay. discussion. So I'll bring up the the point that so the conditions are as Peter presented them. They were not altered. Is that correct? Not yet. Correct. Well, and I believe there were uh to my recollection there were um

uh three items that that I note. Um firstly, uh there was a a discussion of rephrasing condition 15 uh to read uh first sentence. Okay. But but the point is that the motion's on the floor. If you want if you want to make a a change, now is the time before we vote on it. Correct. That's what we're That's what we're doing. All right. Yeah. So, make it. So, I am proposing that in item 15, we change the first sentence to read all areas of encroachment over which the applicant has control be inserted there. Over which the applicant has control. Uh and then continuing on also number 22. Uh I think there was the last sentence of that. Um I'm looking that's uh a detailed plan and schedule for post construction storm water management. Yes. Yeah. Um, we had a conversation and uh uh we're going to have to come up with some some wording on this, but um I believe that we are talking about a plan summary that would be presented to Peter. Yes, Mr. Chair. I think I think if we put in there a summary uh uh detailed plan uh and and schedule um well I guess we could put summary plan and schedule uh in front would be would be

uh would be okay. What do you think? Yeah, because the detailed plan will exist somewhere else is my understanding. Right. Yeah. Would it would it be a summary of the detailed plan with reference to that plan? Yes. Yeah, that that was my understanding from from the conversation was that that plan does have to exist. Uh it just doesn't have to exist in our plan set, right? Uh but I then there should definitely be a reference if there's already a reference on the plan. It doesn't need to be included in this condition of approval. But instead of a detailed plan and schedule, we could put we could change uh detailed or a detailed plan to a summary plan and schedule. I I agree with and propose that change to condition 22. Okay. I I accept it. Okay. Um any other amendments? I believe we had discussion around condition 20. Um and um the the desire there was to modify the condition uh to um uh rephrase the the uh uh wording around what constitutes a cancellation or delay. Um so as to um uh uh provide some uh some uh discretion in uh uh when and if a planting and restoration plan has to be provided. Um, I'm going to ask my

colleagues on the board uh if they want to help me with some wording on that and if we need to discuss that one further. Um, what was that? Number 20. Yeah. Yeah. What was suggested by the applicant? The the the applicant made a a request uh stating essentially in light of their their uh commitment to the property as uh central to their work that uh they didn't anticipate uh delays or cancellation uh by the applicant. And um I think the same argument is in place here regarding adding material time uh uh and and cost to the plan set. Um so that that was my understanding of it. I I also uh I picked up in the discussion of that that um the wetlands agent uh felt like um we needed something there. Um and I would say that I I tend to agree on that. Um I am open to um friendly amendment from other commissioners on this. Yeah. Peter, do you have any recommendations? Yeah, I think it should stay in. I I have a thought on this one, too. Um, you know, the the goal of this

commission is to protect the resources. Um, and the that language of that condition is there to protect the resources in the event that something falls through. Now, every every applicant that comes before us intends to do their project. Um, you know, things happen. Um, so I I think we do need protections in place, whether it's what Peter wrote or something similar to it. Um, you know, I I I don't think there I don't think it would be wise to eliminate that that condition. Um, and I I'm I'm perfectly fine with the way that it's written. Um, but you know, if anybody has some other way that they want to soften it, you know, I'm open to listening. Well, here here's a question for Peter. The the wording says that the plan set shall include a contingency replanting and restoration plan. Now, the question I have is, does that have to be a full-blown landscape architect's plan, or can it just be wording about how they would go about the actual restoration in case there is in fact a delay and or cancellation of the project? I don't know. Not sure that it necessarily needs to be a landscape architect's plan, but it should have trees and shrubs and areas to be replanted and what they are. You know, what what to plant where would be would be important. Um, you know, the the plan that that they submitted uh I mean the plan set that they submitted did not include a restoration plan and it would be one additional plan sheet. Uh, but I think it would only be one. Okay. I think that's the part that last

sentence is the part that they were that sticks in their croc, right? And I I I mean I I have to say I I agree that it it should remain as a condition. Okay. Well, here here's a question for Mr. Hulie. Can actually can I ask him a question, Peter? Not really. We're in the middle of a motion. Yeah. So, okay. So, let's let's clarify this. We have two we have basically have two amendments to the main motion. I suggest that we vote on that and then if anybody wants to bring up a third, we'll we'll work through that. Uh I don't think we can vote. Yeah, you can't do you can't do Well, we can vote on the amendment. So, we can vote on the amendments and then if somebody wants to make another amendment that will be added to the main body. Ellen, I I think we're in the middle of No, he he he's correct, Peter. He he wants to he wants me and Paul to agree to the changes. It's not all of us voting. Since I made the second and Paul made the initial uh motion, we have to agree with the changes to the motions, right? Not we're not voting. We're not voting on the main motion. We're just voting on the amendments. No, you're not voting at all. It's just me and Paul. We have to agree to the amendments to our motions. And we are expressly talking right now, Kevin, about uh conditions 15 and 22. Correct. I'm okay with the I am okay with the changes to the motion. I am as well. Okay. So, Alan, if we want to continue talking about number 20, then by all means.

Okay. We can I'm sorry. I didn't mean to step on you. No, no, no, no. We could do it that way. I mean, it just you just run the danger something like that always runs the danger of the main motion being defeated when there's too many uh amendments to it, but I don't think that's a danger here. So, we have two amendments to the main motion. Um, you get all that, Rebecca? Okay. So now are there any other uh amendments that somebody wants to make? I wanted to say one thing and maybe I I heard this incorrectly. There was the other option of a trigger. I think they offered a trigger and maybe I'm this might be on a different subject but the trigger for instead of the report that it would trigger it. I think that led to a conversation in the example of starting in September and something happened and it getting stretched out. So, I didn't know. Um, I just wanted to kind of like circle back to that because they did I don't know if they just I don't know if they said that they wanted it flat out. I think they offered something in the middle or say, "Well, is there a trigger here?" But I think Paul, I think you were making a really good point um around or somebody make a good point around like, well, that could be a problem because if we if we allow that trigger that we could be sitting here a year later. So, I went I don't know if that came back. I want to name that. It was around at number 20. Yeah. All right. So, there's no other amendments. Correct. So, we're going to move the question. Okay. So, yeah, condition 20 is unchanged at this point. Correct. Okay. All right. So, we're moving the question forward. Um, all in favor of the motion and all in favor of the motion as amended regarding 15 and 22. Well, now the amendments become part of

the main motion. Yep. Say I I I opposed abstain. It's unanimous. Thank you. to all right seven seven votes and se 0 seven in favor zero opposed and zero aband was unanimous okay uh six okay how many do we have parliamentarian six Peter was sick five we have six didn't talk he just put his name the new math I an hour. All right, next item. All right, next item, gentlemen. Thank you. We'll go. Ce I'm sorry, Peter. I'm only counting six commissioners. Yeah, we went through this. Oh, so sorry. Yeah, wake up. Hey, I was paying attention to counting. I was trying to use both hands. All right. You got confused, huh? Yeah, that's where I got messed up with higher mathematics. Anything above five, put your shoes back on. So, um, number two, CE's assist on 61 East Dudleytown Road. Rebecca, can you Andrew Quirk and Brian Fairclaw, please? All set. Okay. Um I was on the site last week um before my vacation and I was out there

this afternoon as well. Um I met with uh one of the one of the guys working there. Um we looked at the um uh area in question which is southeast part of the property. Um and in my July 11th um report uh uh memorandum to the commission uh there were eight items that were uh on the list of things to do. Um and of those eight items uh five, six, and seven were done. Um let's see. Uh and and two and three were taken care of. Should have said done. Um, so it was really only the uh um the only things that were left after my previous uh um uh inspection u which was on the 10th I guess uh were um number one which was remove sediments from areas south of the straw waddles and and retain the waddles um this uh material from uh what's now actually between two sets of silt fence. uh one was at the waddles and one was further upland from there. That material has been removed. So number one is good is done. Uh number four, which was the removal of of sand uh removal of the material between the silt fence and the straw waddles and replanting um uh has uh the material has

been removed um but the planting uh has not been done. Uh so um the uh uh number eight is the removal of sand I'm sorry stone and rubble stockpile from the wetlands is required from the original notice of violation. This is this is still an something that's underway. Uh it's been partially removed. There's um there's still I mean there's a lot of material out there and uh I'm I'm okay with the progress they're making. Um it's not clear in the field exactly where the wetlands start and where they end. So it says remove the stockpile from the wetland. So they're working on the back side of it to get it to get that stuff out of there. Um, and I think uh, you know, I was I was out there uh this morning. I'm sorry. I was out there this afternoon and uh, there was evidence of um, you know, the heavy rain that we all experienced yesterday. Uh, sediments, you know, on this site are going to move. Um, what I observed was that the erosion control measures that they have in place seem to be keeping the sediments for the most part out of the wetlands. There were some erosion control measures uh that needed to be uh up updated or up uh uh reset uh upgraded. Um but all in all, I thought they did a fairly decent job. I'm recommending uh that the majority of the cease and assist order items were taken care of or satisfactory to me and that the commission lift the cease and assist order. Peter, am I mistaken that they still do not have a a current permit?

That's correct. Uh the permit application was required uh as part of uh an earlier um enforcement action and at the previous meeting uh or maybe two back the commission said they were going to revisit that cease uh notice of violation and part of that was having a new application for a permit submitted. Well, how can we lift the notice of violation if they don't have a permit? uh because the notice of violation was for a small you know was for an isolated incident not the overall site. So we have to keep they still haven't submitted a permit. No but the commission gave them till the August meeting to do that. Okay. All right. Let's see. Did I include that in my No, no, I didn't because it's it it really has to be kept separately um or have to be kept separate. The notice of violation is is separate from the cease and assist order. They still have one item left to do, right? The removal of the stockpile. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's it's being removed. I'm I'm happy with the progress they're they're making. Okay. But the whole pile is not gone. The whole pile is not in the wetlands either. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, let's hope there's an application by uh August. Yep. [Music] How's the rest of the commission feel?

I sounds like they're making progress. Yeah, it seems like they're making u you know uh an effort here to uh to complete these uh these items. We really have only one that isn't uh isn't done at all. Um, well, it's partially done, right? Yeah. I I think the way I the way I understand Peter's uh summary of this is item one has not been done at all, but it's not getting worse. Is that a correct assessment, Peter? No. No. I thought you said it was done. Yeah, that number one wasn't done when I visited last time this today. I saw that that that material has been. So number one is has Yeah, number one has Okay. So the only open items are four and eight and they're in progress. Yes. And in four the material has been removed between the silk fence and the waddles but it hasn't been seated. Okay. Okay. That's what I'm waiting for on four. And again, it's uh um you know, if if seed had been planted uh you know, sometime last week, it probably would have washed out today. Yeah. Or over this weekend. So, I think again I'm satisfied with the progress they're making and my recommendation is to lift the cease and desist order. I'll be honest, I'm not happy about lifting it at this point,

but I understand that they're two different uh issues, the permit and these violations. Um, have they posted an additional bond for these at all? No, we haven't asked for one. It'd be kind of late to ask for that now. Yeah. David, do you have any words of wisdom? It It's a little tricky. I I I'm always hesitant to to say that any orders should be lifted until they're completed. Um, it sounds from Peter like they're almost completed and they're on their way. Um, it's that that's where it gets tricky. Um, one I guess one question is Peter for uh you have a lot of you know removing sediment, removing material. Is there anything uh other than silk fences and waddles about stabilization of areas that were previously disturbed? Just the just the recommendation for seating for ground cover for seating. Right. Right. Um Okay. Yeah. And I know you said, you know, if it if if it was seated, it would have been washed away. Um, so that's where that's where I I I see the the potential for continued impacts until a site is stabilized. Um, you know, the the silt fences and waddles are temporary stabilization methods. Um, so if if this was lifted, um, do we have I guess the question I have is, you

know, how do how do we ensure that the site doesn't continue to contribute if it's not stabilized? Because theoretically, lifting lifting the order means we're satisfied. Um and all eros all temporary erosion sedimentation control measures can be removed. Um if those are removed right now and there's no permanent stabilization in in in place then there's no assurance that there's not going to be additional impacts. Um not that I'm suggesting that someone would you know intentionally do that. Um, but there's no assurance if we lift the order um, prior to the stabilization, the permanent stabilization. Um, so that's that's sort of what's bouncing around in my head right now. Um, because I I I appreciate and I I I I'm glad that they're making progress and that they're well on their way to getting there, but are we close enough is the question that I'm I'm wondering about. Sure. Well, commission has, you know, has the option of uh of um upholding the the not uh the cease and assist order um and continuing it again to the next meeting or you know um um or lifting it. You know, those are really the two or modifying it I guess is a third option, right? If you don't if you don't mind, I'm just going to throw throw in there real quick. Brian Fairclaw. Um, wait, Brian, do you have a camera? I do, actually. Hang on. It's actually working. There you go. Okay, thank you. Now you can see my smiling face. Um, realistically, even if the cease and

assist is lifted or not, we still by notice of violation and everything else, we still need to have uh sil fence up anyway. So even if you lifted the the cease and assist right now, it still doesn't mean that we can take all of our silk fence and everything else out. Um even with the notice of violation cuz that's still if I if I understand it correctly, we still need to have that stuff in place for that as well too. Am I right, Peter? Yes. Um right. Due to the nature of the operations on this site, there's exposed, you know, there's a lot of exposed soils. So, what what happened for the original notice of violation that that became a cease and desist was that that material is getting washed into the wetlands. Yeah. So, permanent erosion controls are going to be needed out there. um as well as some kind of buffer between the the you know I'm talking about a distance not a physical buffer but a distance between where the silt fence is or where the the uh um permanent erosion control measure is whatever that ends up being and the actual operations. So yes, we need some permanent stabilization with I agree with David 100%. Um but the uh uh due to the nature of the site, temporary erosion control measures are going to need to be established and maintained. Yeah. So, if I'm hearing this correctly, Peter, the there are conditions of the notice of violation that overlap or or at least run parallel to requirements for the cease and desist

order. Um, and with the notice of violation staying in place, that gives us the assurance that I was asking about. Um, if I'm understanding that correctly. Yes. Sorry, I I went to look for the file. I would agree uh in the uh let's see sorry I'm going back February 10th I didn't think it was that Um, generally I think here we go. Uh, original notice of violation included The original did not include um permanent restoration um but the commission changed it to uh to be um more specific as I recall

and I think uh let's see so uh uh I think the notice of violation uh changes that the commission made um was uh April 21st meeting. Uh the motion to uphold the NOSA violation included the additional provisions um sand and stone shall be removed, temporary soil erosion controls and the permit to be submitted for the August meeting. So no, I'm sorry. I thought there was overlap. There doesn't seem to be. Well, I I can tell you either way that we're going to we're going to make sure fence is in place and that we've still got it no matter what. Um no matter what it's saying, we're still going to make sure that's in place even if the cease and assist gets lifted. Um that will be staying in place and monitored and maintained. You anticipate having the application in for the August meeting? That's the anticipation. We are set uh I spoke with Andrew the other day. We're set for surveying crews to be out there on Monday um to start the process and get everything surveyed out and and have it ready for for a permit application. And when you do that survey, you're going to be doing uh the piles where they are, right? I believe so. Yes. I think that's already been started. So they just got to continue on with it. I would feel more comfortable leaving the cease and assist in place.

I don't I don't like lifting it when it's not complete. All right. Do we need a motion to Yeah. Somebody make a motion. Uphold or or lift? Yeah. Paul. [Laughter] Well, I think I think we make you made a good argument to keep it in place for now until it's done. Yeah. We're not assessing any penalties, right? So, keeping it in place for the next 30 days or whatever it may be until the next meeting, the next meeting does what I mean, does that really make a legal difference? Uh, probably not. But, but I guess, you know, h how can we as a commission lift lift the cease and assist when it's not complete? It sends the wrong message. All right. So, I move that we uphold the notice of violation. Cease assets, not violation. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Cease and desist. Again, I took my glasses off. Cease and desist order. Yes. Cease and desist order. Yeah. Seconded by I or Glenn. Take your pick. Mr. Favor say I. I. I. I. Opposed. Abstain. It's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. See you next month. Sounds good. Okay.

All right. Okay. Let's go on to 63 Lincoln Terrace. Notice of violation. All the hits. Rebecca, can you uh promote Dwayne Marg to be a panelist? Oh, he's already there. About that. Um, how's that? Sorry, he's an attendee. He needs to be attend. Yeah, Dwayne Marog. Mr. Mirage. I sent him. Yes. A promotion. You got it. says he's declining to be a panelist. Okay. He's declining. I can allow him to speak on my end if you'd prefer that. Yeah. I I promoted him to There he is. Panelist. Yeah. must be having he must be having a problem because he went off and came back on. No, he's he's there. I mean, I see his name. I don't see a a picture camera. He's in both places right now. So, Dwayne declined to be promoted to a panelist. How can he be in two places at one time? Well, he went off and we came back on and it didn't delete the other one. Okay. So, he doesn't want to talk to us. H okay. You may have something to say after we after we have a more a little more of a discussion. Yeah. Um so uh the uh um the notice of

violation was um upheld uh until this meeting. Uh at the April 21st meeting, commission uphold the notice of violation to the July 21st meeting. The motion to uphold the notice included replacement of the original corrective measures issued by the wetlands agent with the following two-year plan. Uh the commission um to correct the violation to remove the fill material. So, there was a uh in your agenda package, there's a letter dated April 22 that lists the the you know the was a two-year plan and the um uh the you know the deadlines or the uh milestones were were laid out fairly specifically. So, um the items that were supposed to be done by July 21st included, um removal of retaining walls and the shed from the property at 67 Lincoln Terrace, which was uh I was there I'm sorry, I should preface this by saying that I was there this afternoon uh to observe what was um what was done. Um the uh so uh the retaining wall and shed was removed from the property at 67 Lincoln Terrace. Um all the material that I could observe that had been on the other neighbor at 51 Lincoln Terrace was removed. There are uh markers. I'm not sure if they were set by a surveyor, but there were markers for the property lines on the north and south. um and that the um uh and there was uh erosion control in place uh as as required. I didn't see

any open exposed ground that would need to be seated. Um so for the most part I believe Mr. Mar uh Mar I'm sorry Marage Maj had um completed what he was asked to complete by today by this date. The next one would be some stuff to be completed by October 20th uh of this year which is the October regular meeting date. So I don't I think the commission has to in this case you know continue to uphold the notice of violation until all of these items are done. Right. I would I would agree with that. Now, what does he have to do by October? Uh remove concrete sidewalk, the wooden retaining wall that's at the that's close to the brook, and again stabilize exposed ground with lawn seedor conservation mix. Okay. So, he has to stabilize it all before winter, too. That's correct. So the concrete sidewalk is at the top of the fill. The root wood retaining wall and pallet wall are are on the the sides of the property and they're all in they're all within the area that wasn't supposed to be filled. So this is a step process to to get the material uh out of there. Just out of curiosity, Peter, when he removes the wood retaining wall and the

pallet wall, will that cause any soil to collapse? It or material. Yeah, some of the soil is going to have to be pulled back. Okay. Yeah, but the the stabilization is part of the condition anyway. Yes. Well, yes, except that it's hard to stabilize something that's perpendicular. Well, you stabilize it by pulling it back, right? And seating. And seating. Yeah. Yeah. So, I guess my recommendation to the commission for this one would be to uh uphold the notice of violation uh and to the October 20th regular meeting. Okay. Do we need a motion for that or just leave it in place? No, I think we should have a motion. Need a motion. Okay. I'll make a a motion to uh uphold the notice of violation for 63 Lincoln Terrace, Wetlands File 74-20224-17. 75. Well, in file the April Oh, I'm sorry. There there's two different ones here. Yeah. Peter, Peter, can you tell us which one's the correct number? I'm looking at two different in our packet. We had two different pieces of paper. One says 74, one says 75. July 11 says 75. at the same one. July 11 letter says 75 and April 22 letter says 74. Yeah. Right. Because they're they're different.

No, no. SE 17 should be 17. Where they start off by saying where's 75 wetlands file 75-2024-17. I'm I'm sorry. Yes, I was mistaking 17 and 75. The wetland file number should be 75-20424-17. Okay. So, the April 22 letter has incorrectly. Okay. So, Uh, I I make the the motion to uphold the notice of violation for 63 Lincoln Terrace, unique ID number 5472, uh, wetlands file number 75-2024-17. Is there a second it? I'll second. Do we need to put a date on to when we're extending it to? No, it's indefinite till we change it. It's okay. And it's in it's in the letter. Yeah, I am. I I think you should include the date Rebecca. Thank you. What was that, Peter? Think you should include the next date per this two-year schedule, which would be October 20th. Yeah, but what if we don't have a meeting? Does it still has to do it? We don't have a meeting, it'll be on the next agenda. Yeah. But does the does the violation go away because we didn't have a meeting? No. No. It's the the order is being extended. It's not the it we don't have an action necessarily at the end of the Well, the order itself or the the violation includes dates and milestones,

right? The violation is upheld. We're not changing the calendar of milestones, right? So, so the violations will extend until the next meeting, right? To the October meeting. October. We'll we'll review it at the at the meeting closest to that milestone date. Yeah. Right. Yeah. And if we don't if we don't I guess to your I don't want to talk too much during the motion, but if we don't have a meeting, then it's still it's still standing. Yeah. Correct. Yeah, because we haven't taken action on it either way, right? Okay. Y time to vote. Yep. Vote. Yeah. All in favor? I opposed. Abstain. It's unanimous. All right. Okay. Next item. New business. Yeah, you got new business. Got new business. Wow. Okay. Uh, for this one, we need to promote Mr. Ularan. And I'm not sure if he wants us to uh promote anybody else. Um, let's see. Here he comes. Here we are. Mr. Ulamore, do you have a a camera, Mr. Clark, as well? You turn on your cameras. Here we go. Okay.

Can you see? Yes. Sorry, can you hear me? You're a little broken up, but we can hear you. Um, so uh this application was submitted uh when submitted on on the 12th of June and was officially received by the wetlands commission at the regular meeting of June 16th. This proposal does not include direct impacts to wetlands and water courses and a wet and a public hearing was not scheduled. The commission may decide uh that a public hearing is appropriate in in the public interest. I'm sorry. Can you say it again, Peter? So if uh I did not schedule an automatic public hearing because there were no direct impacts to wetlands or water courses that would have been a public hearing for a significant impact. The commission can hold a public hearing if they choose for significant impacts for um uh or if the in the public interest or if a petition is been submitted for a public hearing. So I did not automatically schedule a public hearing. The commission can decide if they want to have a public hearing. Um but it would be in the public interest. Okay. Does that answer your question? Yes. Where where is this property on Bur Road? There's no there's no key map on this. Uh there is not. It's on the north side of Burr Road, west of Grant Hill Road intersection. So, it's 125 ft uh westerly of Grant Hill Road. Yeah. Okay. Hang on. Hang on.

One lap between us and Grand Hill. Uh Mr. Clark, you need to identify yourself for the record. Sorry, Todd. Clark uh Clark land survey in Bristol, Connecticut. Yeah. How come Peter is this map is are these site plans missing something? Why why is this seem so thin? Uh there are some typical information that we we we ask for that is not on those plans. But I think we need to get a little further into the discussion. uh the plans that you guys have have been revised and hopefully Mr. Clark or Mr. Omar will be able to share their screen and show that if not I will be able to. Okay. So 7 uh 72 acres located on the north side of Burr Road west of Grant Hill Road intersection. Um uh there is an intermittent water course running through this property that does not appear on the official map of wetlands and water courses. This water course extends onto the property the immediate butters to the east and west. The proposed house and driveway are south of the water course. The northeast corner of the house as per your plan um are in close proximity and grading I should say are in close proximity to the water course. The intermittent water course was observed in the field on June 2. A defined bank and channel evidence of scour and deposits of recent alovvium. and the presence of standing water after a storm incident were all observed. The water course has a steep well- definfined channel through the subject property and there does not appear to be any wetlands associated with it. Yeah. Uh before we get too far ahead, uh how does the commission feel about a public hearing or no public hearing?

Uh, I'm I'm going to ask that we zoom in on this picture. Is this the revised one or the original one? This is the revised draw. Okay. The driveway to the east. Can I ask, do you still have the original to show? I I do. Allan, to answer your question, I'm okay without it being a public hearing. Okay. Sam here. Yeah, I I think I would agree. Uh if we're if the consideration is uh in public interest, um I would I would look at how impacts from the project um or how the project may have impacts to the intermittent water course and the abuing properties. Um, I don't it it doesn't seem that it would be significant enough to um to be a a public hearing and I I don't I don't believe so. Okay. Mr. Mr. Clark, can we get that earlier revision? Okay. What's on the screen now is the uh the original drawing I had sent to you before we met out there. Uh, I'm seeing the the driveway on the picture that we can see on the right hand side of the You may have to unshare the first one to share the second. Did I drop it down? Did it go? Nope. No. No. There you go. Try to share again.

Well, let while you're working on that, let me just um the plan that we have that was sent to the commission shows a driveway on the left side of the house. The revised plan is reversed and it's shown on the right side. So if you can't get the old one to come up, let's look at the new one. Again, the the proposed regulated activities come close to the water course, but they're not in the water course. So again, they're going to be within the upland review area. Um sometimes the uh um sometimes the um uh you know the the plan the the plan view shows no direct wetland impacts and that's true but there might be grading or other impacts associated with that. Yeah, this is the same the same one with the drive driveway on the right. Uh we're looking for the driveway on the right. Yeah. Peter, Peter, before we get too deep into this, um, you you mentioned that the intermittent water course was observed on the field, but not it's not in our mapping. Is that correct? Yes. So, why was there not a map amendment? Because an intermittent water course is a regulated resource. Yes, it is. And I I thought about that and I don't I'm not sure that that you know in this case I I didn't feel that a wetlands map amendment was was appropriate. It's been identified and you know it's it's in the it's in the uh it's it's observable in the field. Um I don't know. I didn't I didn't think in this case that a map amendment um was absolutely necessary. Um perhaps the commission disagrees with me, but

that was you know and again it it from what I observed and it's got a pretty steep grade. There were no areas where it flattens out and where you might find some wetland soils. So it it's really just a you know it's a surface layer of water. Yeah. that that conveys that conveys runoff and we have and has been surveyed. It's shown on this plan and on the what what is the other map that's in our packet then the uh 11 by7 because that shows an intermittent water course on it. Yes. And if you look closer you'll see that it's it's been it was surveyed. Is that the survey plan or my sketch? Uh I guess it's a sketch map. The U it's 11 by7. It's Yeah, it's It shows Burr Road, Grant Hill Road. Yeah. Yeah. So, that's Where did that line come from? I'm guessing you're looking at the GIS plan that I prepared. Yeah, the GIS plan. Yeah. And I I showed it uh on that plan as observed in the field. Okay. Should have put a note. Okay. Okay. So that Yeah, because you said that that's where I was confused because you said it wasn't wasn't mapped, but then it shows up on the plan, but you you just sort of hand drew that in then, right? Okay, got it. So, are you seeing the driveway on the left now? Nope, you're still seeing the black background. You got I think you got to close that one, Mr. Clark, and reop reshare the other one. So really the you know the the um the main thing here is that the the house is being somewhat wedged into the area between the street in this water course.

Uh the plan shows a driveway coming in on the left hand side of the house which makes it um you know kind of pushed over to the left if you will looking on it. My suggestion after meeting uh the applicant and um uh Mr. Clark in the field was uh to consider shifting the house to the um to the left or to the west and possibly uh creating a front load rather than a than a side load garage. And that's kind of the plan that they submitted as a revised plan. um which is what we're looking at. What I'm looking at on the screen with that black background is a revised plan. Um and I guess we're going to have to look at that unless you guys want me to bring up I have the black and white one. Do you want me to bring it up? Yeah. Could you please? Okay. Yeah. Because I'm still seeing the driveway on the right on the screen share. Okay. Uh let's see. Um, okay. I've got to open it first. Hold on.

Okay. So, I am I am now seeing the lefthand side driveway that you're talking about, Peter. Thank you. Okay. I guess uh somebody I didn't share. As long as we're all looking at the same picture. So, this was the original plan. And can I ask you to zoom in on this one? Sure. So that's fine. The original plan had had um the driveway like I said on the left coming in and it was the the garage was I mean the house is pushed to the right towards the water course to allow for that driveway. And my recommendations were to consider a front load driveway or garage and uh shifting the house all the way to the 25- ft sideyard which would pull it away from the wetlands. My comments and and um uh recommended conditions of approval for this one were based on this plan. So, um, now there's been a revised plan submitted. Uh, and if we could see that one with the white background, that'd be great. Mr. Clark, do you want to can you bring up the Yeah, I'm trying to just not able to get to my file here. Let me see. While he's doing that, can you tell us, Peter, why there's no upland review area shown? Because intermittent water intermittent water course is still a water course.

Uh, yes, there there wasn't on the original plan. There is now. Oh, is there? Okay. Yeah, the the Yeah, I think the 200 foot would be off each side of the property. the entire property. I'm sorry. Yeah, this is a uh is the green line the vegetative buffer? I thought that was the upland review area. Yeah, that's 75 ft from the center line of water course. I just noticed in your email it said 200 feet is regulated. So, um it's off my whole lot. The whole lot is regulated. Yeah, there should be a note on there somewhere then that says that. So I haven't had a chance to really look through this plan as compared to the other plan, but it does have some improvements as far as the location of the structure is further away from the wetlands or the from the water course. the uh driveway is now in a much better location for sighteline which doesn't really apply to the wetlands commission but I think it works better in that location regardless of where the garage is and I guess the only big change that I can see is uh the construction of a retaining wall for that driveway um you know that little driveway turnaround uh hammerhead there which you Yeah, it's it's good to have a turnaround there, but is I'm not sure that that's absolutely necessary for the project. Um, you know, I'd be okay uh with this plan. I think my my conditions of approval will apply. Um uh but you know there's you know there's some uh I think some consideration should be made to uh you

know either eliminating that hammerhead um or I assume it's for a twocar garage. So it's possible to pave it three cars wide um instead of two. Uh but without a garage door, you could still have a turnaround, you know, more more place to turn around. So that driveway is right on the property line. We've got 13 ft from the edge of the driveway to the property line. It's 43 to the to the house with 13 foot set back there. Well, that's really a zoning question, so we won't go there. Yeah. But how close are you to the brook? And the back of the house is 22. This this is very close. This would be like 5t where the uh retaining wall is to the channel. So when you when they plow the snow, they're going to push the snow to the end of the driveway. Yeah. That's not good. Yeah. Not much choice on this lot if it's going to be a viable lot. Well, can you cut the driveway back so that they don't plow that close? We we can we we can trim it. I think um you know I could probably take half of that that turnout away come back a bit. Yeah. My my concern is that all the sediment from the snow and the salt and whatever you got is going to get pushed into the water course. Right. This you're you're you're talking about a small area. If you look at the 178 contour, um that's the high point. So, we're talking about Well, I guess if you were plowing uphill, you'd be plowing. Yeah, you'd be plowing.

I'm thinking you're going to plow off off the side of the driveway. You're not going to you're not a plow driver is not going to go that way. They're going to go straight back. Right. But I'm saying when you're when you're plowing here, you're not pushing all the snow to the back. It's it's coming off the side onto your neighbor's property and and they'll back plow the portion directly in front of the garages. Uh most likely. Not really. I mean, if it's a if it's a two-in storm, they're going to go run straight down the driveway. You got to reconfigure that somehow. Yeah. Yeah, I would I would even recommend not draining the driveway that way to the towards the brook at all. I think that's one of my recommended conditions that the driveway can be can be graded to pitch to the street, the whole driveway. Mhm. But if that hammerhead was eliminated, that would be probably close to the to the, you know, uh eliminating that grading that drains it towards the brook. Yeah. Anyway, so I would like to point out how how very little grading there there needs to be on this layout. Um on the back this 186 does dive up in here. That would have to be directed to to grade away from the house. But then we're matching the grade at the 184 184 182 180. Um again, we may tweak this a little bit, but we're very little grading. There's one foot of fill there. Um, then across the front, we're we're

just flattening it out across the the very front of the house. And then these other contours are very close to existing grates with very little uh disturbance associated with this house except for the driveway cut. What we we've got about a a six foot cut from the edge of road to the street line. Um, so that that's going to be about 10% here even to a basement low garage. That's the reason we can't come in straight on. We actually need this extra length to get get to elevation to get into the basement. It it's quite a bit of a it's a big bank here. And what if you put the driveway in the front of the house and put the put the garage in the front of the house like a raised room? The length we we need this this extra 20 ft here to climb another two feet just to get um into the basement. You see the garage floor at 1793 which is just about 7/10 below grade about 8 in right now. Um, if we came into the front, that 179 would be about a three-foot cut in in this 182 existing contour. So, we we'd cause all sorts of problems getting up to the the front door. What's the uh soil conditions? Is it in front of the house? What type of soil is here? Yeah. I mean, is it granite? Is it is it ledge or is it you know sandy soil or uh we had not excavated anything to to find out. Um Peter did have a a nice picture of the water course. I don't know if you could Peter can you show that? Yeah. Um

that might give us the best indication of soil. Um, the NRCS soil survey indicates the soils are well drained Haven and Enfield soils. 32C is their is their uh designation. Um, okay. There you go. That was pretty good. I didn't have to do anything and I hang of it now. Thank you, Mr. Clark. So, this is a picture and if you could make it bigger, hit the hit the enlarge button at the top or full screen, whatever you got. Yeah. So, this is a picture of the water course looking upstream towards the neighbor to the west. And if you look kind of in the background, you see some standing fence posts, standing posts. Uh they they've got some kind of a fence there. Might it might be encroaching. There's a stone wall in the background, but you can see that this water course, you know, kind of winds through and it's I think I described it as as, you know, two to feet 2 to 5t wide and and 1 ft deep. Um, but it did include those requirements or those uh designators for an intermittent water course. So, that's why I I think it is an intermittent water course as opposed to just a drainage channel. And go ahead. I I it looks intimidating here. Um this this water of course goes down to the intersection of Grant Hill and Burr um Burr Road and it goes into a 12-in pipe.

Um this photo was taken June 2nd and I don't know if you recall um May was the third wetest May on record. So, this is probably the worst we're going to see it. Um, just it it looks bigger to me here than I I feel it actually is, but this this is probably our worst case scenario. Um, and you notice on on the when we go back to the plot plan, I I have clearing up to about the to bank, you'll see a little bit of slough off here. Um, so what I'm proposing is from our work uh disturbance area probably about here down to the property line um to line that with native native rocks just to just to prevent any further scouring. Um, and then I I I would like to work with with Commissioner Peter. Um, if you want to select a few your favorite plants to go along the along the uh top of Bank, we'd love to love to work with you on that. Yes, I'm willing to do that. Thank you, Peter. Okay. So, Allan, do you want me to go through my staff report? Uh, uh, well, you still got to re you still need more information from him, right? Or do you have sufficient information for the staff report? Yes, I have sufficient information. Okay. Yeah. So, why don't you go ahead? Okay. So, my recommended conditions are um final plans revised uh per the

conditions of approval shall be submitted within 60 days. Um three paper copies myars to be filed on the land records. Um two erosion control signature blocks needed to be added to the plan. Um the permit needs to be filed on the land records. We have uh less than one acre of disturbance. So I'm recommending uh a $5,000 um bond uh preconstruction meeting, preclearing meeting um and erosion controls installed uh according to the 2024 guidelines and maintained for the duration of the project. Uh prior to the SE certificate of occupancy, we want an ASB built grading plan um prepared by a surveyor um and uh schedule a meeting with me two weeks before the CO to go over the the work. Um uh this permit authorizes regulated activities when the upland review area 200 feet from a water course. The impacts shall be no greater than 15,000 square ft or about three uh 3 uh zero sorry 0.34 acres. No regulated activities within the water course are authorized with this permit. Um if the commission is okay with um putting in some uh rock or stone lining in this water course then that would have to be included in the um you know as part of the regulated activities and that last sentence of item number 11 would not apply. uh certain uh uh impacts to the vegetated buffer zone is about 10,000

square ft. Um mitigation for planting uh for this impact shall be provided with the planting trees and shrubs at the limits of clearing and elsewhere. And again, it's for the same um reasoning of not wanting a sharp break between the cleared and uh the the construction area and the forest. So, it's a it's usually a strip right along the the the limits of clearing and and we want to use the same kind of trees and shrubs that are out there. So, I'm okay um working with the applicant to make sure that that's the case. Um the uh um the same item came up in the last application where I wrote uh or recommend that areas disturbed for this project shall be restored to their previous existing condition as much as possible. the planting of trees, shrubs, and or ground cover within two years of the date of approval or within one year of the initial site disturbance if the project is canceled or delayed by the applicant. So my my intent my reading of this is that that um areas disturbed for the project. So that would be you know the initial disturbance is going to be clearing then you do ground then you do uh earth work. So if it gets to that point and and the project is stopped or delayed within two years of the property or within one year of the initial site disturbance then it needs to there needs to be some kind of restoration done. I didn't include in this particular case a request for that to be shown on the plan as a separate plan. This is, you know, this isn't uh an

industrial development. It's a single family residence. So that's a condition but without the requirement that a plan be added. Uh and then the plan the last condition is uh permit cannot be transferred to another party and that this permit will be assigned to the applicant property owner which is Diamond Homes LLC. Um the uh you know the the plan the original plan I thought was too close to the wetlands and my recommendation was to was to uh shift it away from the wetlands and I think they've done that with the house and the only issue I really have with the with the new plan is with the um with that hammerhead head in a in a in a retaining wall that gets real close uh to the water course. So, you know, there will be um there will be some uh um you know, disturbance in either plan close to the close to the water course. But I think with the proper erosion control measures in place, the water course should be um should be protected. Uh I think um the commission should discuss uh whether they are okay with putting a rock lining in in the channel. Um I've seen it work pretty well. Um I've seen it installed um that kind of thing um installed uh without a permit that the commission um issued a notice of or I issued a notice of violation about. And you know there there is

although there isn't a lot of um uh there isn't a lot of uh wildlife habitat in this in this steep channel. Um you know there is some uh I think there is some uh um importance to um you know trying to keep it as as natural as possible. Uh, I don't think it's a man-made channel, but it could have been. The woods that are there have some huge trees in it. So, I don't think this property has been cleared for, you know, maybe close to a hundred years. So, that channel has been there for a while is my is my guess. Yeah, Peter, you know, there's a bobcat that further down Burn Road that um I've seen, you know, by that brook. You you wouldn't see this brook unless you went into the site. No. Where where it feeds all the way down Bur Road and it gets near I mean it gets near Burnwood. Yeah. Yeah. There is a brook that run Yeah. And and uh that's where I see the bobcat. Yeah. I'm not surprised. Yeah. I'm not surprised. So, uh, there's no, you know, there's no fish in this in this right brook or in this water course there. There was no, you know, I didn't hear any any frogs when I was out there. Didn't see any turtles. So, you know, the the lining of the channel is is is something that I didn't comment on in my staff report because I didn't really have it to comment on. Um, you know, uh, is it, you know, is the lining going to be on on the banks or on the bottom too or just on the on the slopes with a

natural bottom? Those are the questions that I would ask. I'm gonna have to defer to my engineer. We'll have to work that out. Um, my thought was just not I didn't want any further scouring, right? And that's that's the reason for for putting in um, you know, protective stone on a channel like this. And it's I I think I mentioned it before. It looks pretty steep here in the foreground. uh probably a little bit distorted, but it does have a pretty good slope. I mean, it drops 15 or 18 feet across the property and the property is only 150 ft wide. So, it's dropping pretty good and I'm not surprised at all that there is some scour in there and and we observed that. And can can somebody refresh my memory? We are looking to the what did you say Peter? Is that to the westill? To the west. Yeah. Uphill to the west. We're near the westerly property line. Okay. So the the on the map that would be uh number 48. Would be number 48. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. Just trying to get my geography here. Um, so yes, so we're looking at the down slope. You're looking up slope towards Yeah. But we're watching it flow downward and below this picture, it runs down towards Grant Hill Road. Correct. Okay. Okay. at the uh it it doesn't really matter for this application, but uh the neighbor on Grant Hill, I think it's five Grant Hill.

Um the channel through uh through their woods looks very much like this. The channel that runs through their lawn is stone line. I don't know if I sent you all of the pictures, Mr. Clark, but that one No, I don't have anymore. Okay. And that is I mean that is um that's not like landscaping rock. I mean I'm you know I'm not that far from there. I know that that stretch of road. Um that's like you know that's like rip wrap I would say. Right. Yeah. Well there's Yeah. And there's different ways to line the channel too. I mean yeah rip wrap is is one way. It's not the prettiest way, um, but it's the least expensive. Um, the other one that I referenced, um, uh, earlier today, uh, earlier tonight that was a ended up being a notice of violation was they used, um, large, uh, river, what they call river rock. So, these were six to eight inch stone um uh you know pieces that are mostly round because they've been worn down, you know. Uh that's more expensive by by far. Uh and and it's more attractive, too. So, right now he's you're tracing the the line of the Yeah. This the water course pretty much cuts the lot in half. Yep. Yep. And we walked right and and we walked up to the northerly part of the property. We didn't see any other water courses or wetlands up there. No. In fact, there's a high point. So, that water is going that way. And there's, you know, there's I don't

knowif I don't want to say 50 feet. It's probably 30 feet of elevation across the property, you know. So, that's pretty good drop. Yeah. house with the garage in the basement fits that better than the previous plan than the you know uh just and there was a lot less I mean a lot more grading proposed on the original plan. So I think I think uh you know I it's already uh 10 minutes to 10. Um so unless the commission has other questions uh for me I won't I won't go through all the the rest of the detail of the uh you know of the um staff report. Uh, I am recommending that they do some some borings to see if they have bedrock. Um, you know, a couple borings in the foundation would be plenty, I'm sure. Um, there's a uh there's a on this plan. Um, uh, do Oh, I guess that would be a question. Is there a um is the footing drain shown on this plan? I had to grade the back. Yep. Mike, I I don't have a problem with with a footing drain draining that way uh directly to the water course. Um assuming that uh groundwater in quantity is not is not encountered in the in the uh uh in the excavation.

So that would that would be borne out or or you know better identified by the borings. So for instance if if groundwater is anticip is intercepted um and it we'll see that's more of an issue with the previous plan because there's a lot more excavation. What would be the excavation at that closest point? Uh you got existing at 18 a little higher than 186 and the basement floor at 180. Yeah. closest to the brook. Oh, there this is where I grade. Okay. So, the deepest foundation, the deepest hole there is going to be for the four feet for for the frost wall, right? I think before you were seven or eight feet for the walk out basement. And we had Phil. Yeah. Phil coming around. So, this is this one's got a lot um this matches the existing grade almost perfectly. Yeah. much less direct impact to the overall site. But again, if there's a lot of water coming out of that foundation hole that's going to run, you know, uh more than a normal footing drain, um then we may have to look at discharging it down to the street. We do have a basin out here. Yeah. Yep. And I see I do see uh that there's an under drain if necessary for the cut right in there because that's that's the biggest cut. So to I'm assuming that's to prevent runoff from getting you know drive across the driveway there. Right. Right. Yep. Six foot cut there. Yep. And and most of that is in the bank up from the road. Yeah. Right. Right there. All right. Okay. Um I I did mention that um

um even though uh it may not run all the time, that intermittent water course um in a in a torrential downpour could be uh something that could, you know, uh uh get close to the house. That was another recommendation for moving it further away. And this I don't think is going to have that same that same potential for a problem uh with flooding. Um and uh the only other thing that I I mentioned that or I think I should mention is that um the uh the house doesn't have much of a backyard here of a back, you know, behind the house. Um, but it's a nice wooded lot and if the applicant wants to, and it's up to them, um, you know, show a a foot bridge that spans the water course to access that back land. I wouldn't recommend doing any more clearing, but it's a nice wooded lot back there. And if they want if they're they think that's a good idea, then I think it should be shown as a as an option on the plan. But I would ask that it be a span uh not a pipe put in the put in the channel. Okay. You know, there's there's several ways to do that with uh either with a half a pipe or just with a a wooden, you know, walkway bridge. Not for vehicles, just for people. So that's I think that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Okay. So I guess we're going to hear this next month. I don't know that we need to. Well, he's got to do some test borings,

right? Well, yeah, I'm recommending them, but I don't think the test borings are going to have an impact on on regulated activities. Well, did we determine where where the driveway is going to be? I'm not crazy about the driveway in that position. I would rather see a test borings in front of the house and see if they could cut a a driveway into the front of the house with a with a garage, you know, underneath it than to go that close to the brook. Yes, I would I would prefer that too. But the restraints here are the height of the driveway or the height of the house above the road. If you put a driveway in front, it will be much shorter and would exceed our maximum grade I think is 12% for for a residential drive. But if they could cut into the hill and you know drop the house um I don't know the house would be what what's the house at? 187. Yeah, we would have to drop it about three feet, which would would cause an awful lot of disturbance up here. A big cut on the upper side to get the water um out. And then I'm pretty sure we'd be intercepting the water table certainly in the spring. So, it would just be a constant battle with the uh um water coming out of the hillside in that cut. Yeah, I I think that driveway's got to be pulled away from the brook somehow. Well, we I can certainly cut that that hammerhead. Um I'll cut that hammerhead off and if we need to make a a radius to to get out the driveway, we can you back out of the garage that the whole point is to be able to to head toward the street. So, you're not going to be able to turn until you get about here. You're not going to get the car turned very far. But

if we have to add a little pavement over here to and lose this, we can we can definitely lose this. Um, worst case scenario, we add a little pavement here. Yeah, I would I would like to see those planned. I I would agree, uh, Mr. chair. And I think just going back to the to the idea of of rock in this water course, I kind of suggest the other idea that you spoke about, which was simply to plant uh kind of geographically appropriate erosion control there rather than placing rip wrap or some other rock in that in that waterway. and and maybe there's some some preventive uh measures you can take during construction to avoid, you know, any significant runoff. But it seems like that installing rock to avoid scrubbing might be, you know, an elephant gun on a fly and might alter that more than just some sensitive landscaping would. My two cents. Yeah. Yeah. So I I really think they need they got more work to do. So the other thing was u Mr. Clark s suggested that they work with Peter in coming up with plants appropriate for planting between the waterway and the house as as you know as a step down if you will from the trees to the lawn. Uh, I think that's a great idea, but I also

would like to see that design. Uh, and that also serves the other purpose of being a line that the homeowner doesn't necessarily cross unless they do it with what Peter suggested, a foot bridge going over the stream so they can access the back property. So, I I I would like to see that as part of the plan as well. I'm sorry to complicate it more. No, it's fine. No, and I Yeah, you know, I mean, I I think doing what you've done to avoid significant cutting into the grade, you know, um I it seems the way to go. I mean, I'm I I having having experienced driveways with large retaining walls on the sides to get into a front garage. Um, you know, I I see the sense in this, but yeah, I I I'm I'm with the other folks here. I think we need to see this once more. I want to just support what Paul and Kevin were saying. Um the um I I always prefer soft armoring for streams rather than hard armoring. And you the use of um you know a multi- stem shrub or something with you know some some plant that has the the ability to to spread out a little bit and hold the banks a deeper root. Yeah. Has a long term a better long-term viability. Um the the other consideration is you know this is an intermittent water course and insertion of stones where there aren't any has the potential to to to alter the microhabitat um because you're going to inevitably have invertebrates living there. Um and stones in a water course

with grade introduces nick points. Um so that clo that causes erosion within the channel itself. So, you're gonna have drop drops that sort of scour out the the soils within the channel. Um, because the water is going to be flowing over a rock and then falling off the rock. Um, so, you know, I I appreciate that you want to hold the bank, which is important, but I think you the use of vegetation is probably more appropriate here. Yeah. And and my last two cents about the plants is even though you're close to a water course and this is obviously a wetlands issue, uh I I also see the need for being a residence plants that aren't necessarily native. So I I would be happy with a 2:1 3:1 ratio of more natives to introduced plants providing of course that the introduced plants aren't say on anybody's invasives list like uh the dwarf burning bush yuanas. But there are a lot of plants out there that can easily be plugged into this that are native and even a few that are introduced that would be perfect without being invasive and would do like David said that would be either multi-m or uh more aggressive growers so that they would hold the soil and keep any type of erosion to a minimum. Yeah. Yeah. And I think I don't know uh to each their own, but uh my guess is is as as you said that you know it being a

residence that is going to be a nicer look year round than possibly looking at a bunch of rip wrap. Well, I think the rip wrap was really being talked about put being put on the side as opposed to within the channel. However, yes, I I would agree with what David said about how introducing the stone can change the nature of that water course, even if it's on a micro level. Okay. But also, Peter, there is something that somewhat concerned me with the photograph that you took looking upward toward uh the property uh to the west. That was they had a fence going across the water course. Doesn't that fence uh catch debris and block the water course? It it doesn't actually go into the channel. It kind of spans the channel, but enough. I don't think there's much left to it. Yeah. Yeah. The fence is is it's a uh it's not chicken wire, but it's the one with the rectangular holes. Okay. So, I not holding any debris. We didn't chain chain link fence. No, not chain link fence. No, this is a square wire fence. Okay. I don't know if you can zoom in in in anymore. Stockade fencing. You see, you can't see it almost. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's rectangular. Yeah. Instead of being octagonal. Oh, yeah. Right. And you can see that, you know. Oh, they even have a down Yeah. There's even a down branch or tree there spanning it. Yep. All right. Goes across the top of that. I thought that was debris being held back by the fence. No. All right. That's all that stuff you see is downstream of the fence. Yeah.

Okay. And I think there's some green uh to the right. There's some greenish blue construction fence, too. Yep. So I think we need a motion sounds like to me to table to the next meeting which is August 18th. Is there a motion to table this to the next meeting? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Second by Paul. Paul. Yep. All in favor I opposed. Abstain. See you next month. Thank you. Okay, thank you. What else we got, Peter? Uh, a new wetland agent permit was received and is under review. Sigma security improvements. They're going to put in uh some uh card readers for the Sigma parking garage for access. Right now, anybody can just drive in. you don't have to even work there. So, they're going to have key access. They need to build some some additional lanes for people that pull in but don't have a card and they need to bail out. So, they're like bypass lane at McDonald's. Uh, and some of the work like less than a thousand square feet is in the upland review area. So, I'm reviewing that one as a wetlands agent permit. Um, there's also one that I haven't got an application form for yet, but it is a uh a similar um project up at uh the uh um TJX um warehouse on Blue Hills Avenue. Uh they have an auxiliary parking for their vehicles, their their trailers that is

at on the Woodland Avenue, Blue Hills Avenue corner. Um and they they want to build some retaining walls to create a walkway behind these trailers for security reasons so that their security people can actually walk between the trailers and the the fence and the big burm that's there. So it's um again all in the upland review area. Um, but I don't have a plan to to share with you on that one. Uh, I'm uh uh I was of the opinion uh that the one for the TJX warehouse might be suitable for a jurisdictional ruling. Uh but I think they're going to submit an application anyway. Either way, I'll let you know at the next meeting. All right. I don't think we should do uh status of projects unless somebody has a question because we still have to do minutes and we're we're past our 10:00 time, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Uh can we do minutes? Yep. So, I was I was reading through the minutes thinking to myself, will you look at that? We have somebody new doing the minutes for us. And I can't find anything wrong. Whoa. And then and then I found something. Glasses on. And then I found something. But it was so it's such a simple thing. I mean, it's nothing to get angry about or anything. Angry. Yeah. So you get angry about minutes, you got real a problem. So on page two under the heading six for wetlands agent

permits. Yep. The very first line says this was application was uh you need to remove the first was. Okay. Eagle-eye Wilcox. Yeah. Well, that just shows you how how little I have to do. Anybody else? Any other questions? Any other changes? No. Motion to accept the minutes as uh corrected? Made by Paul, seconded by I think Glenn. Glenn. Uh all in favor? I I It's saying it's unanimous. Although although technically and I'm not I'm just being a stickler. Mr. Jones probably should have abstained. But that's just being a stickler. You know, I've got nothing better to do. Well, you know, I I've seen that go different ways at other committees I'm on and um new people can vote on minutes. Okay. I don't know what the correct answer is. Mr. Jones, did did I send you the minutes, Mr. Jones? Did it? No, I don't think I got the minutes, but I'm following my chair. So, the chair always a good policy. Um, look at that, Talon. You got somebody else in your the minutes to know excellence when he heard it. Okay, public comments. Are there any public comments? We still have one attendee. Who's our attendee? I think there that's the one who got stuck in here because he Okay. Okay. On in two places. Right. Right. Okay.

Anything else? I I move that we uh close the meeting. Okay. Ajourn made by Kevin, second by Paul. All in favor? I opposed abstain. It's unanimous. Thank you all. 10. Okay, you turn off the recording. Thank you. This was awesome. Oh my god, this was awesome. I'm going to nerd out on this. So, so Mr. Jones, uh, don't forget the live streaming there. for uh