Inland Wetlands Commission - Regular Meeting

Today is May 26th. It is the regular meeting of the Old Lyme Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Commission. We're at the Memorial Meeting Hall room at Town Hall. So the first order of new business is Longacre Pond, which is a DEP referral.

Thanks. Julie did send this out. There's nothing you can really do about it. I don't know if you have any comments you want me to transmit back to the DEP on it. But again, there's no, it's not requiring a wetlands permit. I can have this available or send it around if people were interested.

Eric, it's just aquatic treatment.

Yes, exactly.

I don't have any comments here. I have none.

That's another way of no comments.

So application 26-8 for Rose Lane, Michael Callanan. Do you want to come up and say your name for the recording and let us know what you got going on?

Michael from County Construction. This turned into a kind of a two-phase project where the first phase was the existing garage turned into a master suite for them. They had families that was back in from out of state. They had to get the garage back. So the front portion of the property that is just the driveway would pretty much go right in the existing driveway. So we're about 70 feet from the road to the front of the structure. The wetlands are completely in the backyard. No structure or construction equipment. Everything's going to be in the backyard. Everything's going to be in the front yard. Um, 2, 2 and a half car garage, so just in front of the existing garage. Right right by the road, so the topography is about as flat as that table. So, I mean, we'll still put up so fast, but we are at least 50 feet away from the weapons. As far as being in the backyard, so it's pretty straightforward. Site plan for us as far as building goes, but here we are so.

Okay, so we set a site walk for June 2nd. At 530. So if you can mark out the limits of proposed activity and so it's clear where.

Yeah, so just what the structure is. Yeah, sure. Is it 530? Yes.

Probably be there for about 15 minutes at most.

Is there anything else you need from me at this time? Questions about it?

I didn't see that you submitted a map, but just showing us where the garage is, even though it's...

The last page on the building plans have the structure with the side measurement from the road. I don't know if anyone has that. I looked at it for that one, Ben.

If you got a big plan, that's good.

I just wanted a little more than what I saw. Yeah, this is it right here.

So this is all the, I know you gentlemen might not be able to see. This is all the existing. Thank you. Let's go on. Yeah, so this is all the existing structure that we've turned into the master suite. And then here, you know, a little course to enter the existing door again. So here's all the structures. So the wet ones are waiting back here. Then the road is right here. Actually, they're putting these two doors in the front. The updated plan has that. So we're not going to go around the side. So it goes right from the road straight in. Okay. So yeah, that's that's going to change right there. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Application 26 dash 915. Short Hills Road and Flat Rock Hill Road. Want to say your name for the recording? That'd be great. Take care of logistics.

Good evening. My name is Harry Keller. I'm an attorney with an office at 736 Route 32 in Uncasville, and I'm representing the applicant Twin Ponds Development. Also with me this evening, is Mark Reynolds from Reynolds Engineering, who is the civil engineer on the project. This is an application for a permit to conduct regulated activities in upland review areas in conjunction with the development of a single family house on Flat Rock Hill Road. Sort of a little curve ball here. Instead of the wetlands being green, the wetlands are yellow and the greens are the upland. the lighter green depicts the proposed area that would be disturbed as a result of the construction. So the application encompasses the disturbance of 8,400 square feet of upland review area. There is driveway construction here within the upland review area adjacent to this finger of wetlands. We're proposing a culvert under the driveway that matches the culvert on the adjoining property here because there may be some concentration of flow and we want to carry it under the driveway and not have it blow the driveway out. Here you can see the upland review area comes down in this direction and the septic system is in orange. So there are small portions at either end of the septic system that are located in the upland review area. The closest proximity of the septic system to this finger of wetlands is about 90 feet. And then we have an area for grading around the back of the house. Again, you can see the upland review area line in yellow, and the well will be installed in this location behind the house. So in total, it's about 8,400 square feet of disturbance. I'm going to submit for the record Two prints of the plant. These were updated from what was provided with the application because the soil testing was conducted on Friday. So we have the actual soil data on the plants. Other than that, nothing has changed. The second thing I'm going to submit for the record is two copies of a report prepared by the applicant, soil scientist Ian Cole, who has done an inventory of the regulated resources on the property, a functions and values analysis, and an impact analysis. And in his report, he indicates that the more valuable wetlands are the wetlands down, let's see north on this. Okay, so in the southwest portion of the property, these are the more valuable wetlands. This finger, he, SAS provides limited function, but one of the function is conveyance of stormwater. So again, that will be consistent with this plan that any stormwater runoff that's concentrating on the adjoining property and running to the Southwest will be carried through that wetland system. In his report, he goes through a... analysis consistent with the definition of a significant activity in your regulations and evaluates each of the criteria for a determination as to whether or not the supplement review area activity would constitute a significant activity and it's his professional conclusion that they do not.

So that's the application.

Okay.

Does anybody have any questions?

We got a digital copy of

The soil scientists report. You didn't get it today.

We got it.

The site walk, which is on the next Tuesday, the second at six o'clock. My thought was to have them kind of flag the clearing limits. Does anybody have anything else that they would prefer to see instead of that or?

That would be good. In addition to that.

Maybe the center line of the drive.

100 foot intervals.

Yeah, that's fine. Just so you can kind of see the clearing limits.

See where you're going. Yeah, next Tuesday is fine.

That could be enough time to flag out the clearing limits.

Oh, yes. Okay. I'll be there as well. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. What time did we start? Six seconds. We'll see you next Tuesday. All right. Perfect. Thank you very much.

All right.

Moving on to old business application 26-554.

What have my thingy-wins made today? Other questions?

That's fine right there. Thank you. Thank you. For the record, Caroline, I'm here in place of my colleague, Raymond Malinowski, who was with you guys for the site.

Can you move it over that way just a little bit? It's got a laser beam on it. Thank you.

Ray Malinowski was with you guys for the sidewalk on May 7th. He presented this project before. So, Lane, all proposed improvements at the last meeting. Just to give you another brief overview, this is an existing dwelling. Obviously, a lot of wetlands on this property, all inland. The applicants are proposing to take down the shed in the back. proposing a new entry vestibule expansion of living space into where there is existing deck and then a new two bay garage all within the upland review area. The wetlands we've highlighted in green just to give you a better idea. And then as you can tell, the entire property is encompassed within the 100 foot upland review area. So we will be meeting you guys. I mean, you guys have heard this one before, but if you have any questions, I can be happy to answer them.

How's the grading between the back of the garage and the wetland?

So I didn't do it specifically, but anything more than three to one, we have notes on our plans. Okay. So we have a whole narrative, blankets, silt fence, stockpile details. The driveway will be completely crushed down, and they're expanding the driveway in this area for a turnaround.

Any other questions? Does anyone want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. I'll second.

All those in favor? I'm assuming we put the standard sedimentation erosion control conditions on. Yes, they're all on there.

We'll make sure that we put our standard erosion conditions on there. That's all I'm concerned about.

Any against? Any opposed?

Approved. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Application 26-6, 6-1, and 8-1, meeting house length.

Roger. I'm the engineer on this project. And it relates to two lots, 6-1, 8-1, meeting house lead. So this map that I show you here, this property relates to a subdivision that was approved in 1987. So three-lot subdivision. One of the lots, lot one, has been built on. And the lots that are shaded in yellow are the two that we're talking from. So the application is to build single family residence on each of those two lots. They would be serviced by a common driveway. And back in 87, the subdivision was approved with a wetland driveway crossing, which was formalized with an actual permit, I think in 2021. So the application is for a renewal of that 2021 permit for the Colford Crossing, because it hasn't expired yet. I think it expires in June sometime. And a new application for proposed work that has not been permitted, which would be the construction of the single family residences and the driveway, which is in the upland field. So I should tell you that the original subdivision lay out back in 87, was unrealistic in some respects. It had a driveway alignment for lot three that had to negotiate a very steep ledge face, and it wasn't practical. So one of the parts of this new application is to get approval for an alternative, more environmentally friendly driveway in terms of grades and ledge. But unfortunately that puts us in the upland review area. So it's part of it. Well, the other thing about the original subdivision layout was when they picked the proposed house locations, they used houses that were unrealistically small. I think they were 24 by 50, 1,200 square foot houses. So we squeezed it in. But when you look at the property and you try to put up a house that people are building, they're forced into activity within the upland reviews. So meeting house laid. is where I'm standing. Come in off the meeting house lane. This is the common driveway. And that goes up to lot two, splits off to lot two, and then continues up to lot three, which is in the northwestern top left corner of this property. So the driveway culvert crossing is right here. It's on lot two. And the activity that we're asking permission for relates to portions of the houses, the two houses that will be in the upland review area, a substantial portion of lot two house, lot three house, most of that is outside the upland review area with a small section of the garage. And then on lot two, we actually have the septic system within the upland review area. And that's a function of trying to keep the house outside of the building setback line. So we pushed it as far away from the wetlands as we can and still respect the building setback lines. And then the septic system was pulled as far back from the wetlands as possible. But that also had to respect the state health code in terms of separation distance from the house with footing drains. So in yellow here is the upland review area boundary. So anything from yellow in towards the shaded gray, which is the designated wetland area, is proposed activity in the upland review area. Wetlands were originally flagged by Richard Snarsky back in 87 when the subdivision was done. And then he redid it and refreshed it, I think April of this year. So these wetland boundaries that are on this map are the current 2026 boundaries. So I think, Basically, what we have here is an older subdivision that was approved almost 40 years ago, when, frankly, the standards were what they are now. I mean, I'm old enough to have practiced in 87. It's a whole different world in terms of what was required or requested. But, you know, it is what it is in terms of the lot layout, and we're trying to make the best we can with it. So the only thing I would emphasize is that when you look at this lot in particular, lot two, we had made an effort to move everything as far back as the lot lines would let us do. And lot three is less problematic in that respect. And I'll just point out the original driveway alignment for lot three, instead of curving to the south of the proposed house, it continued along this line and turned up here And this section right here is the problematic site. It's very steep and has sludge outcrops. And frankly, just wouldn't be practical to drive in there. There would be some blasting required. This is much more attuned to the grades that are shown in terms of existing grading. So, you know, the proposed grade changes would be substantially less than if we had to follow the original line. So that's the application in terms of

what we're asking for. Anybody have any questions?

I had a number of concerns when we were out there. The steepness of the slope as the driveway comes down. And as I recall, you said it was going to be a gravel driveway.

Anything over 8% has to be paved. And the note on the plane indicates all portions of the driveway over 8% are paved. So what section would be paved then? When you come in off the meeting house, it's pretty flat. When you get to this point, which is about 200 feet off the meeting house, this section right here would be paved, this would be paved, this would be paved, this would be paved, pretty much up to the house. The only section that wouldn't have to be paved would be the stretch where the driveway breaks off on lot two and the section closer to meeting house road. So I would say probably 75, 80% of the driveway would have to be paved, including the section you were talking about where it drops down and comes back up again at the culvert. The second question I have is how did you size the culvert? Well, frankly, we didn't size it. We used the same sizing that was used for the original subdivision approval and for the 2021 permit that was issued. We can look at it if you'd like to verify it. We accepted that as, it was done by another engineer, Angus Patato and Associates. We just accepted that. Would you know if it was a 25-year storm, a 10-year storm? Oh, back then I would say standard to design for a 10-year storm.

The other thing I had a concern about is, although by steepness your driveway is better, From our perspective, now you have it basically winding along, which I thought was a fairly high-quality intermittent watercourse when we crossed it. And that's going to be, obviously, while you're building the roadway and everything, gravel. Did you do any cross-sections between the driveway and the wetland?

Well, I mean, there is a typical detail of a culvert crossing. That's what you're talking about.

No, I was beyond the culvert crossing. I think it should be designed by an engineer probably to a 25-year storm, but I don't know if the town has a standard drainage manual or not. A lot of towns do, but I don't know if we have a standard drainage manual that would design it to that standard.

Well, I don't disagree with you that given climate change, they probably... be wise to go higher than the 10-year storm. I'm going to be looking into what the sizing was.

What I'm concerned about, and I recognize, but the other crossing that kind of went straight across the watercourse corridor and then up wasn't always so close to the stream. And I'm concerned about the impacts during construction before it gets paved, for the fill for the roadway and the stabilization of the road that it's not all going to go into the stream during construction. We've had a site that's given us a nightmare a little bit. We're hoping you'll have adequate sedimentation erosion controls and maybe a sediment pond to deal with during construction that you then eliminate. And I wonder if you've designed that yet.

Yeah, the plan does call for in this critical area a composite, erosion control, that's a combination of silt fence backed by state pay bales. That's on your plan? That's on the plan, and there's a detail for it on sheet two of the erosion order. It looks something like this. It's state pay bales, and it has a silt fence as well.

Is it indicated on the plan?

It is, yes. It's specifically called out on the plan as a composite silt fence.

Will both lots be built at the same time or they be phased? I'll defer to the applicant. We don't know if we're going to build on lot two just yet. Maybe you would do lot one first. Lot three. Lot three first.

The top one's three, the bottom one's two. One is already done.

Is there a reason why you're asking that in case we do want to try and do them at the same time?

Less disturbance is better so that you don't disturb more of it. I'm really concerned about the driveway coming down before it's coated with asphalt and not eroding anymore during construction, which will probably go on for months. How a really basic sedimentation erosion control feature is going to protect the stream. I don't know that hay bales and a silt fence will construct We'll do the job. I almost see a sedimentation basin.

Do you think that would cause more disturbance to construct that?

It depends on where you do it. And then you would, you know, at least the sediment would go into that rather than down the stream. For now, during construction, I think the sediment is basically going to go down the stream until everything is stable. And you might want to, where the roadway runs along the stream corridor, before it swings back around towards the house, you might want a retaining wall there that goes in first, really, as a sedimentation erosion control, rather than just a fill slope that can get out of control.

Now, one thing we can do, first of all, the slopes are two-on-one, so they're stable in that respect.

Yeah, unless you're disturbing it in October, November, and we can't get grass on it.

We would hay mulch it during that period and seed it in the spring. But what we could do is put, we've done this on some other projects, is intermittently, as this is being constructed, you could put the state hay bales halfway into the driveway and then come up 25, 50 feet, put hay bales halfway into the other driveway, other side. So what you've got is you've got protection on the gutter flow from the driveway with the hay bales, but you can still negotiate with equipment because you're not blocking off complete driveway. Picture what I'm saying. You could weave equipment around one end and the other, and that would control because this driveway essentially is crowned for the most crowning. Flow is going to want to channel to the gutters, and if you had to stake hay bales, let's say four or five feet into the driveway and in the gutter, that would stop, check any erosion that's coming down. And you can do it on either side, like I said, if you staggered the hay bales. I mean, we've done that in the past.

You might also be able to use crushed stone instead of just leaving it gravel.

Well, there's another thing. At least during construction. The paved driveway section is, if you looked at our section for the paved driveway section, it does have... It does have a gravel base material. Now, if that were crushed stone, we could leave the driveway crushed stone while we're building it. And then just as we're going to pave it, we could bring in a couple inches of process for a leveling course and then pave it. And they would pave this driveway probably in a couple of days once we got it set up. So maybe the answer is to make the base, just do the base and leave it in of trap rock and broken stone, and then not pave it until we're ready to pave the whole thing and do it all at once in a few days. So the stone should protect the driveway and everything.

And how about reducing the amount of fill that encroaches towards the stream corridor as you're angling? I forget what direction that is.

We're at a two-on-one slope.

Oh, this one isn't correct. I mean, see, that one would look better to me than the one you proposed. At least from the screen.

Another thing we've done, which I guess we could do here, is if you're using fill material, it's a two-on-one slope, right? That's what's stable. If we went to a one-on-one slope with a trapped rock surface coating, so you don't need the stability of a two-on-one because you've stabilized it with stone.

Yeah, but then we're going to lose the vegetative buffer ultimately adjacent to the screen.

Something's got to give.

Yeah, that's why I would go with a wall.

I should have pointed out to you a planting plan that was done between driveway and the wetland. I neglected to mention it. But anyway, yeah, so you either go with the two-on-one slope, which increases the footprint but maintains a vegetated area, or we could squeeze it back. It's a stone-protected slope of a one-on-one but would lose some of the vegetation.

And I wouldn't be in favor of the steeper slope with no vegetation.

I mean, the slope will be protected.

I just don't think the erosion control measure is adequate to protect the stream core, just a silt fence and hay bales, based on my experience with this commission alone on one site.

How thick would the crush zone for the driveway base be?

Three quarter inch.

No, how deep? How thick?

Six inch. Okay.

Would that be stable enough, Tom, to get equipment over and not just push it out when it rains? It shouldn't, Matt. If it's clean crushed stone, it wouldn't have any fines in it. So it shouldn't, especially if you use an inch and a quarter stone, it wouldn't wash any fines into the... No fines would leave the stone. And realistically, it's going to be There's also going to be a, how long is the driveway? I mean, a couple hundred feet. So you're going to effectively be creating a 200 foot long, the longer it is, I'm saying you'd be creating a 300 foot long tracking pad also, which is also favorable, I think. I think with, I think that they've, between the hay bales, the sill fence, the willingness to

And maybe a substantial bond during construction that could be released. I'm just nervous about it getting out of control.

I did just do or started the project in Stonington where the zoning commission had a checklist or it's a chart showing With a bond, it's basically a bond calculator that shows if you're going to use a certain number of silt fence or a certain number of feet of silt fence and erosion control measures, it calculates the amount if you'd be, if they're willing to post a bond and that would make you comfortable, then I can forward that.

I think that would, or, you know, having someone monitor the site during that critical time so that I just want the erosion controls maintained. And we don't really have the staff to be running out there continuously.

Continuously, but certainly if there are particularly critical days, I can go out there and make sure that it's monitored after rainstorms or whatever else. I can make sure that after rainstorms or whatever it is, if they give me photos of the site where I go back out there, just so that we're clear that it is being monitored during that period.

I think Eric is capable of seeing if things are getting out of control. I don't see this being

If it was a lower quality water course corridor, I wouldn't be as concerned.

I think with the planning schedule, the willingness to put in crushed stone as a base and putting in the baffles with the hay bales, I'd be comfortable with that.

Maybe on both sides of the driveway, right? And you're going to do the culvert design for a 25-year storm rather than... We'll size the culvert and make sure

If it's not 25, we'll increase it according. As long as we could do that, we didn't have to come back.

No, you would not.

With Eric.

So I would make a motion to approve with those conditions that increasing the culvert size to 25-year if it's not already. Replacing the asphalt base with the eight inches of inch and a quarter crushed stone prior to construction. What was the other? The hay bale buffers or baffles in the shoulders.

Six inches would be more appropriate.

Okay, that's fine. Six inches is fine with me.

And then an adequate bond based on the cost of implementing and maintaining the erosion controls.

I will forward the selling to Eric.

You can ask Vickerson to create a bond number if you want or you can send that along.

I'll send that along and see if that That would be great, Tom. I second that motion. All those in favor?

Aye. All those in favor?

I can go out there. Okay.

Thank you. So, yeah. So, we're approved. I will send that forward. It seems pretty straightforward.

I mean, that gives you a level of protection. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

And 26-2 withdrew.

So I do have some questions on that, though. Yes. So I understand he withdrew. But there was activity on that site.

Yes. He has to still do something about that activity?

I did speak with the building marshal to check on the site the next day. He said that there was no current activity going on from what he could see.

Understood, but I think that the retaining wall, which was done recently, and I think that there's two outbuildings that I hear also that were not permitted on that.

I'll go back and double check. Whatever the activities that have been conducted without benefit of the permit, he does need to come in for a permit for there needs to be enforcement action. Okay. He put on notice that he can't just withdraw and be done. He needs to come back. And his withdrawal email indicated that he was running into some difficulties with leg light and he needed to get those sorted out and he would come back. I will put a time limit on that so you'll see him back here hopefully relatively quickly.

Yeah. because I'm just not comfortable with that.

No, the fear is obviously once he withdraws, he's out of sight, out of mind, and then he's gone. We don't want to let that happen. So I will notify him in the morning that the commission wants to see new application on this within 60 days, 90 days, whatever the number is, just so that we can make sure we don't lose track of this.

Yeah, that's cool. There are two applicants that have gone through the entire process. They're within a stone's throw of his property. It just isn't right.

I totally agree, and I understand the need to get it permitted. I can't stop him from withdrawing, but I will make sure that he knows that that's not the end of the process.

Yeah, okay. And definitely, if he's given 60 days or whatever the appropriate time frame is.

That's fine. I'll give him 60 days, and you'll see where we are, okay?

Is the site stable the way it is right now?

It appears to be stable the way it is. The building official seems to be that says there's no current activity. sort of coming into a drier season at this point. So I think if it's going to be a 60-day period to let it rest, this is probably the right time to do that. But I will make sure that you guys have it again by mid-summer.

Yeah. This is the mafia blocks.

Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. 308-1, the pleading's been closed. traded emails that they could sell this afternoon. He indicates he's waiting for a pre-trial date and a trial date to be set on this matter. There's nothing further to be done with it at this point. Obviously, the applicant is not going to agree to anything that you guys want, and it's in court, so we're just going to have to wait for the trial date to be set on this thing. 16 Neck Road, Also, again, talk to Ed about this one. He is asking, in light of the fact that the financing has been pulled and there's now tax means on the property, if we still feel it's productive to commence litigation. So I figured I would come back and talk to you folks about that. If we are still interested in litigation, he will sit down with me in the next week or two and come up with what a draft complaint would look like and get it filed. Again, I'm not sure how recently any of you have been out to the site. The site is essentially dead. The grass is several feet high. Nothing is going on. Again, they have no financing. They are trying to sell off the house at the top of the hill there, but they can't really do that because it's A, covered by the cease and desist order. B, it doesn't have sprinklers and is required to own the subdivision map. C, the road is never got repaired, and the culvert underneath the road is still sitting in mud. So they can't possibly sell off one of the lots because anybody who buys that lot would need to presumably do $200,000 worth of work to be able to get it sold.

So how does the process, so there's tax liens, the town's going to try to get their money ultimately, they auction it ultimately.

What happens with our tax liens is it goes out for auction. Yep. and whoever buys it at auction steps in and has to pick up whatever the mess is that's there now.

So the stipulation is they have to do X, Y, and Z in order to do it?

Well, they buy it as is. I mean, they take it subject to everything that's on it now. And so, yeah, anybody who steps up and buys it at auction, I'm not sure who that would be, presumably would have to make good on whatever is out there. The fear, I guess, is that no one buys it at auction and we just end up stuck with land. And then I guess the town does its best to sell it off at that point in time. For what it's worth, the subdivision itself is now coming up for renewal next year. So absent some sort of further activity, the subdivision itself will vanish next year and we'll just be back to one land with some half-built houses on it. But again, the question from Ed back to you folks is, in light of the fact that the project seems to be dead, and in light of the fact that NOSIDOs don't seem to have any money at the moment, is it worth starting litigation, which obviously costs you money, and I'm not sure what the likelihood of getting that money back at the moment is.

I mean, what is the outstanding bill right now? Like, how much would they owe us for the engineering and all that?

Or that's part of the... We certainly could ask for the $8,000 to $10,000 in engineering costs. But it's also, again, on the violation side, they still owe us for the bond. They still owe us for the time period per day of the violation, which is over a year. So, I mean, we potentially are looking at, I don't know, $50,000, $60,000 in damages. Again, plus there could be more damage.

As it sits there. Absolutely, Mike.

Because none of the erosion controls are being... None of the erosion controls are being maintained.

Unless it stabilizes itself magically.

Well, no, it's not going to stabilize itself. The grass obviously has been growing on the portions that they put grass down on, but there's still a bunch of the hill that is exposed.

Is that the fill pile or just the topographic hill?

If you go over, if you're standing at where the theoretical foundation of Tusharan would be and you look up the hill, that whole slope there is just exposed. And you can see that there is still continual siltation coming down that hill. Fortunately, because there's a big hole in the way, none of it seems to be getting into the wetlands. But obviously, we'd want that stabilized. The area around where the culvert goes underneath the road into what had been disturbed there from where the detention basin was dug is not being maintained. And the hay bales there have long since gone to seed and turned into nothing. I guess the challenge is obviously the recedos aren't going to pay. They have no money. So are we looking to try and, again, move forward just so we put a marker down for who's ever buying?

Or... Can we do that and not spend a lot on the attorney?

Again, theoretically, we could just get the lawsuit filed and put all the spendings on the land records and see where that gets us.

Yeah, that's what I would do. I would do the minimum possible with a lawsuit with a note on the land so that a note gets on the land record so that any future person is well aware of what has to happen to resolve stuff.

But in doing that, I agree with you, Mike, but in doing that, do you also, does the town also pay to stabilize to a very basic level so that it doesn't get worse?

We don't have a budget for that. If he had previously put a bond in, it would be coming out. But right now, the town would just be out of pocket on this thing. Right.

Would it be possible to ask things of him to forego any immediate litigation? Like, just stabilize this, do that, do that, and then we'll...

I guess I have two thoughts on that.

One of which is... But we litigate if he doesn't, then, right? He doesn't litigate anyway.

My only two thoughts are this. One is, he is totally broke, so he has no money, and he hasn't paid any of his contractors, so I don't know who he would get out there to do it. Second is... Given the quality of work we have seen from him in the past, I am reluctant to have him do anything further on the site for fear that anything more he does is only going to put us worse off than we are now.

So you just answered all the questions. We're screwed, right?

We're not going to get anywhere if we litigate. He's not going to come through and do anything. I think Nosedo is a dead issue at this point in time. But I guess the point is, What do we want to do in preparation for someone else taking over the site? I mean, Nosedo has been a lost cause. He's been a lost cause since the first day he stepped on the site.

So what are the parameters for that? What are the steps for that?

We just talked about, again, getting some sort of what's called a Liz Pendens on the land records. Liz Pendens puts someone on notice that there is a pending litigation for the site. we obviously have the existing cease and desist order that is out there. Presumably, anybody doing their due diligence is going to come across that. Anyone doing their due diligence is going to look and see when the original subdivision was approved. That's, again, coming up on the five years. Unless they move to extend that, it's not going to happen. So, you know, there are a whole bunch of red flags that should be out there. We can keep adding red flags in, but I wouldn't I wouldn't put much hope that the nocitos are going to make things better. I think the trail on that one is pretty clear that the nocitos never make things better no matter what happens.

Is there a shelf life on pending litigation? Like it lasts for so long? Or is it in perpetuity?

It's not in perpetuity. There is something that's called the dormancy calendar for the court. But that takes a year or two years before the court will kick it out for being, quote unquote, dormant. So if we started now, that sort of gives us sort of a year or two before the court will say, move it or lose it.

So basically, when the foreclosure process happens, somebody else buys it, and then there's basically a marker that says that they have to take care of X, Y, and Z.

Well, I mean, they're going to have to do it anyway. I guess the point really is you want to clue them in as early as possible to that this is the case for fear that someone who buys it without understanding all of this is going to quickly be in the same position the Nosedos are in.

This is going to all be in the context of how much they're willing to pay for it because they're going to have obligations.

Yeah, at the end of the day, the taxes aren't that much. compared to the value of the property overall.

The road is probably the biggest. Yeah, exactly.

They need to tear up the road and restart the road. Yeah. Okay. Again, they need to take the pipe underneath the road and put the proper gravel in for that. At this point, they're going to need to fix the retention basin, which is in lousy shape. I mean, there's a whole bunch of just work that's going to need to happen. They also either need to go back in and retrofit the houses for sprinklers, because the original approval required sprinklers, or they're going to need to come up with a viable fire pond, not fire, fire tank, rather, for the site. So there's going to be a cost to putting that fire tank in. Or retrofitting the houses, one or the other.

Eric, go ahead. The bank might be foreclosing, right? Because he owes money to the bank.

Their loan technically doesn't come due until January 1st. So they've given him notice that they're not extending more money. Whether they choose to foreclose or not, I don't know.

That could be depending on how much it is. That could happen faster.

It may. I don't know, Michael. Obviously, there's a whole bunch of things that are just cascading one after the other here. I suspect the bank doesn't want to end up with it either. The bank isn't really a bank. The bank is loan sharks out of Ohio. So they don't really want this either. So at some point, somebody... closer to home here is going to have to step in with money to try and make it right but obviously that's going to factor into what they want to pay for the property because to get it out of the hole that it is in is going to take money and again I don't know when that's all going to happen but it's not going to be within the next three months it's going to be in the next six months it's going to take time for this to unwind itself And again, if you think I should sit down with Casella and just put something on the land record so we can get a Liz Pendens, I'm happy to sit down with him and make that happen. Okay?

That seems like the only option at this point.

I think it's important to get something on the land record so it knows this is a mess. In fairness to whoever looks at it in the future and hopefully... Well, anybody who drives by it's going to see it. Yeah, but you don't necessarily know.

Absolutely. Honestly, When they came back with the bank at this point a month ago, maybe a little bit more, about six weeks ago, the bank sent me an email saying, the Nosedos are looking for more money. We just want to get a sense from you as to is everything OK? And so I wrote. A very, very long email. It took me, I don't know, a couple hours to write. And I attached to it exhibits and photographs and everything else. And I said, here is where we are. And the response back was, oh, he hasn't told us any of this. Imagine that. Anyway, so shortly thereafter, Nosedo got an email saying, thanks, but we are not extending any more money at this time. To which Nosedo forwarded me the email saying, essentially, this is your fault. You did this to me. And I was like, no, this isn't really my fault. I didn't do this to you. But anyway, so there we are. The short answer is the bank or the financing company or whoever they are in Ohio wrote me and asked for the update. I gave them a really comprehensive update, and almost immediately thereafter, they pulled the funding. So now he has no money. I received notice from Suzanne Thompson, the tax collector, that she has now placed liens on each of the lots and liens on the subdivision as a whole. So that process is starting. And, again, I will work with Ed to just get something out there so we can slap all his pendants on the property so that, again, anybody stepping in will understand what they're stepping into.

And I would follow his recommendation, too, just explain. Well, he knows the situation we're in probably because he's seen all the paperwork.

Yeah. I've talked to Ed several times about it, and he is both Planning Commission and Wetlands Commission counsel. So he's seen it both on the subdivision side and he's seen it on the wetlands side. And we may – because we're going to court anyway, at two counts. One on the subdivision side, one on the wetland side, just so we cover both bases as to issues that are outstanding on the site. That's about it. I wish I had good news on the site. It's been pretty much continuous.

I don't think any of us were expecting it. Reading approval of minutes. The April 28th regular meeting. Does anybody have any comments or concerns? Motion to approve.

I'll second that.

All in favor? Aye. Aye.

My only comment, and I know Julie's working on this, is so that we don't have letterhead for every page. That would be nice. I fixed it.

Thanks.

And May 7th, the special site walk meeting.

Motion to approve.

Second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Anybody else have any questions?

I have a question, and it's near where one of the site visits were going to go. I have a lot of neighbors that put debris, clippings, brush, leaves, grass within our 100-foot review area. There's an exception for residential use that they get away with, and I know that. But I have one individual who I actually like. He's depositing it adjacent, almost immediately adjacent to a wetland and it's in the road right of way. Do we have any regulation that says you can't put brush and stump, or not stumps, but You know, major limbs and all of your lawn clippings right on the road. In the road right away.

There's nothing that is in our wetlands regs about it, but certainly Ed Adante on the public works side.

It might be interesting.

He'd be the person to talk to about it.

Because what's happening is everybody knows that I'm on the Wetland Commission, so I'm getting... You're going to drop a dime on your friend? I would prefer not to. But I'm getting pressure from everybody that walks by.

Look, again, Ed is pretty strict about anything he thinks.

We don't have a cleanup. I mean, because sometimes have a cleanup annually. You can put all your stuff out there.

Our entire public works department is six people. I know. So we don't have a cleanup. We don't have a cleanup. We don't have much of anything like that. So, no. It needs some encouragement to stop doing it. pass it along to Ed to say, have you gone out and looked at this? He will certainly go out and take a look. And if he doesn't like it, he has no problem telling people he doesn't like something. I know. Okay. So, so yeah, you know, you, if you want to do it quote unquote anonymously, then that's fine. But in any event, if you want to get out, get out there, and we'll be out there, you know, within 10 minutes.

It's not, you know, it's just, it's an eyesore. And, you know, he's got three dogs and we won't talk about not picking up after your dog.

That's out of my jurisdiction. I'll let lunch light now. I saw the color of his house too. Anything else, Kevin?

I will send that checklist. It wasn't bad, I don't think. All right. I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Thank you.