Inland Wetlands Commission - Regular Meeting

This is the regular meeting for the Old Lyme Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission. It's 6 o'clock on June 23rd, 2026. First order of new business is 24-3 for 72 Grassy Hill Road. Review of neighbor complaints, evaluation of performed work, and consistency with granted permit.

If you have copies, you should have emailed this. Okay. Okay. This is one of the situations where you, in 2024, gave me the right to do an administrative permit for a couple that was repairing their seawall on the right side of Rogers Lake. At that time, if you recall, for those of you that were there, the husband was in the house, the wife came out and talked to us. And again, it was literally a sort of a like for like repair in place right there on the other side of the lake. When the work was done, an additional 15 feet of work was done up the side of the property there. That is land that the applicants owned. However, it is also land that their neighbors have a right of way to use to access the lake. The neighbors have been since then very upset about this. There's issues that we are not really looking at involving the removal of a dock. Whether things in the application were true or not true, whether people got noticed, all that is sort of beyond what I'm going to talk to you tonight about. The difficulty is, at this point, both the husband and wife who submitted that permit application have now died. We're now left with a trust that is basically the kids. And the challenge, I guess, is that, again, you have this work that was done without a permit. And I guess it's up to the commission to decide how they want to handle it. There are sort of three different paths that can be taken here. One of which is, if you're sufficiently concerned about it, I can bring some sort of enforcement notice against it and have sort of hearing at your next meeting. Again, it is a low wall, but it is, again, 15 feet beyond what you guys originally approved. The second path is to request that they submit a permit application for this work. The difficulty there is that while they only feed to this land, the right-of-way is in the name of the neighbors, and I don't think the neighbors will be amenable to filing an application to allow this wall to stay. And then the third path is basically to let the neighbors and the property owner sort of fight it out themselves and for us to stay on the sidelines. Wetlands enforcement, like any other enforcement, is a discretionary function. I don't know how concerned you folks are about the additional 15 feet. It is there. The work was done. But it is, again, it's a low wall. And the only real impediment that it's been causing is that the neighbors used to use that specific location to bring their kayaks into the lake. And they're no longer able to essentially just slide their kayaks into the water because there is a low wall there that you need to go over to get the kayaks into the water. I believe at least some of the neighbors are here this evening and perhaps if you are interested, they can speak. This is not a public hearing. So at this point, they don't have any sort of right to speak. But again, I'm sort of curious to hear back from you since, again, this is a permit that was originally sort of put in front of you to grant and you allowed me to grant administrative.

Does anyone have any questions about So it's not as though they're denied access? They still have access at that point?

They are claiming that because of the low wall there, it is not as easy to get the kayak into the water as it was. I mean, they still have access. I mean, there's nothing that blocks them from getting to the lake. But again, the previous access was basically to slide it in that sort of ground level there, and that can no longer be done.

I read through all the materials and I think one of their requests is either be brought back to its original state or I think it was eight feet or so be brought back to its natural state. I think that's what they were looking for. I guess the overarching concern that I have is a permit was granted based on specific understanding that it was simply repairing the wall as opposed to attaching the wall to a neighbor's wall. So it's one contiguous wall. And so that being the case, if we just decide to just stay on the sidelines and let folks fight it out, which was one of the options, what happens the next time that somebody puts together an application, receives a permit under certain specifications, and then they go way beyond. See what I'm saying?

Absolutely. It is a matter of degree, and it's a matter of discretion. I mean, ultimately, if you think the principle of this is sufficiently important that you want to try and bring this permit back into some sort of compliance, I certainly understand that. Again, the challenge is that, you know, again, Enforcement can be costly, it can be lengthy, it can be aggravating. And the question is, how much time, energy, efforts, money do you want to go into restoring this into the original state?

And I guess the second comment that I have is the notifications associated with it for letting folks know within 100 feet of the property that this is taking place. I mean, I think many of us have been through this process ourselves. It's a pretty straightforward process, and it doesn't appear to have been what I read followed in this situation.

I agree that that is the case, but the remedy for that is usually an appeal, which has not been taken. So, again, there are avenues that are available to the neighbors in the event that they believe the procedures were not followed. What they have chosen to do is come to me, come to you and say, there have been errors made, and please take care of the errors that have been made.

Yeah, and I appreciate, personally, I appreciated your letter because you tried to narrow down the scope of what this commission is concerned about versus what we can't be concerned about.

Yeah, again, I don't want the commission sort of wandering into areas it doesn't belong. It's very narrow. To the extent that work was absolutely done over this 15-foot area, again, it comes back to the commission to decide how they'd like to address that.

And what's 100% in our jurisdiction is the portion of the wall that violates the permit. Oh, of course, yes. 15 feet, exactly, right? So there's like elements of this that are kind of civil, and there's elements that are directly in Llewellyn.

I just have a couple of questions. I don't remember the site. Go ahead. I was probably out there, but we've done a lot of wall repairs and I get them all confused given my age. But when you issue an administrative approval, I'm assuming you post a legal notice so that someone theoretically, if you were watching legal notices, you could appeal. Given that if we issue a modification to a permit now, the neighbors could appeal. that have to make their arguments and stuff. But I'd like to see it again, just to get a feel for what it looks like. The challenge is this, Michael.

Not all people with a property interest will sign the application. So there's a question is, on the question of Has its proper application been filed? If the people who have the right of way refuse to sign the application, that may render the application essentially legally defective to start with. So, yes, ideally, I think the solution would be have them just file a new permit application and then decide what you want to do with it.

Or we could go out and before that happens and just look at it to see how much energy we want to put into this. And then we can talk about the philosophical things. I mean, generally, I'm in favor of. Modifying a permit if the impact isn't significant. OK, I mean, do you guys want to. But we are a public agency and. citizens have a right to comment on what we do. And so we have to take a closer look at it.

My question with that would be, would anything we would see likely change our decision? I don't know.

I mean, I don't know how I feel about it. Right.

I do remember the, the property in question is pretty typical of all the kind of one to two feet tall. We have small,

The other question I had was, do we have a good map that shows where it should have been in Asbill? They didn't give you a good map when they started all this.

Again, I don't think, as far as I'm aware, that the current owners really contest the fact that the work was done that exceeded the permit. Again, at the time, the husband was dying, the wife died not too long after that. So this was done by people who are no longer there to ask questions about it. And again, I don't think that the next generation down particularly contests that excessive work was done. I just think at this point, the question is what happens next?

That's just practical information.

As far as the ownership of that property, it's been in a family trust for quite a few years.

If you're going to speak, if you could come toward and give your name information so we understand who you are.

I'm Tammy Noyes. I'm one of the abutters. 73, or excuse me, 69 Grassy Hill Road and 73 Grassy Hill Road, both are abutters within 100 feet. And I'm one of three families who have rights of way over the water over to the water, which means we're within zero feet actually. And none of us were informed of this. We would have gone down there and said, make sure you don't set the wall here because we had had problems with the family before putting obstructions in the 15 foot strip, a shed, fire pit, and asking them to move them. So if we had known about the project, we would have been down there and made sure that stipulation got added to the approval for the permit. We had no problem with the existing wall being repaired, but putting the wall extension on it does impede on our property rights. And it's not, it's like three feet now to go down over to the water and they put fill behind the extension. So there's quite a bit of material that got added. If you're going to look at it again, we'd appreciate being able to show you and discuss it.

Okay. Thank you. This feels very much like just pure unpermitted work being done if we separate it out from everything else. Like as if an owner did work and built a wall where they were not legally allowed to, regardless of the continuation of the permitted portion or not. And given that there's other property interests that include that, it's unpermitted. Like regardless. And unless all the abutters... we're on the same page with putting an application and doing a retroactive or a permit modification, I don't see a lot of ways forward. It was definitely... I don't know if there's a lot of alternatives. And I'm not comfortable, at least me personally, not comfortable in a position to be like... deal with it elsewhere.

I don't think that's the right answer. Well, the application should have mentioned the easement to us. The application was incomplete, so we acted on an application that didn't give us all the information. No, this was part of the original. It was an incomplete application. They didn't tell us everything that they needed to tell us, even though it was a relatively routine application.

And even if they had, we probably still would have granted the permit just identifying the wall needs to stop here. And that obviously never made its way to the contractor who then did the work.

But then you couple into that with the notification of this. To me, I don't feel it's appropriate to let them just... And even the notification would have...

The notification would have gotten would have said the wall, this is what's being done. Correct. Not have included the portion. Correct. That violates the permit.

The solution in that case would be for me to give them notice of violation. They would then I would do it in time. They have to have a hearing within 10 days of my notice. So I would give them the notice basically at a point in time in July that they would then be at your July meeting for some sort of hearing to discuss the scope of the violation. And then at that point, you can decide based on whatever you hear at that meeting where you want to go with this.

And if that timing is such, then if people desire to actually check the site out, that could be done within that time frame.

Well, remember, there's no pending application. So you don't necessarily have the property rights to go onto other people's properties and just walk around. There's no pending application.

Well, but once we've issued the permit. We issued the permit in 24. The permit's still good.

Okay, except the area that the work was done was not on the permit.

So that 15-foot right-of-way is theoretically... We get access once we have a permit. We have an application and a permit. We could have access to... I mean, you have access to go and look and see if it was built right. There's also easement holders. Yes.

If you want to ask the easement holders for permission to go on, you certainly can do that now.

Correct.

Okay. But again, absent... authority to walk onto other people's property, I can't. So even with a permit, for areas that were beyond the scope of the permit, I can't just walk onto other people's property.

I just heard an easement holder basically invite us onto the property.

If the easement holder has consent, then you are free to go.

The other thing that was mentioned was that there might be satisfaction with eight feet of the wall being taken.

I read that in one of the documents. I didn't know if that was...

an agreed thing between all the people that interest or not whether sure.

77 grassy Hill Road. I just also wanted to add to this that I was not aware that the work was going to get done until like we came back and we had a doc that was there. That was removed. And I now I'm not there anymore. So that's also another kind of piece of puzzle. So I just wanted to I'll add that to it.

Thank you. Eric, for clarity, jurisdiction-wise, the dock issue would be outside.

That's a civil issue, unfortunately. I mean, basically, you didn't authorize the dock to get removed. They took the dock out. That was essentially a trespass or whatever you want to call it. But they took property that wasn't theirs and they disposed of it. So that's really not – I mean, wetlands can't order them to put the dock back. So at this point, that's gonna have to be resolved between the parties, I think.

So the, I didn't know, sorry.

I have a question too. Okay. About the AP. When we first saw the work that had been done, we waited a while because the husband had died. And we met with the family, one of the members that still is an owner that's part of the trust and the wife that passed soon after. And we let them know that we were upset that the work had been done. And then we said, Let's discuss possible solutions, which would be us making concessions because what we wanted most was just to have it put back the way it was. So my husband, Bruce, who's a contractor and one of the family members who is also a builder, talked about ideas and they were throwing ideas back and forth that would allow the dock to be replaced. So that's why we said, if you at least put eight feet back, then there'd be a place for the dock to be replaced. They had offered at that time to rebuild the dock that they had given away. But those discussions, we were trying to avoid going to court. We were trying to avoid even bothering you and hoping to work it out together when the family was instructed about, you know, that we existed. And those just kept going back and forth. And some of the family members didn't want to do anything with it. So that's when we eventually made it formal. violation complaint. Sadly, we had to do that.

In light of the fact that, again, it looks like we're heading towards some sort of notice of violation that's going to be issued in a hearing next month, this may provide further impetus to reach some sort of settlement rather than having the commission try and impose one on folks. So, again, I will sort of wait and hear the commission's take on this, and then we will give them notice of violation if that's what the commission wants, and we'll be back to talk about it again next month.

Okay.

I'm just going to need a motion.

No, you don't need a motion. That just becomes an enforcement action. You're technically my superior on this one. So if you order me to do this sort of thing or you recommend that I do this sort of thing, then that's what I'm going to do. I don't really want a motion because if you give me a motion that I need to put notice of it in the newspaper, that's an appealable event. We start that whole cycle all over again. So. If your take on this is you would like me to issue a notice and, again, have a hearing next month, then that's what I will do on this.

Okay? The other thing, it seems like there is a path here where there's some type of middle ground, right, where the entire wall isn't removed as a function, if all the abutting property owners... People at the easement and the property owner agree that they want, let's say they remove eight feet or something, that would require a new application.

Or, again, you can modify your violation notice to allow for that particular portion to remain. similar to what you did elsewhere with 308-1, at the end of the day, you're able to modify your notice to say, this is the remedy we would like to see to address the violation. And if the remedy we would like to see is eight feet stays, the rest goes, or restore, whatever it is, that's the motion that comes out of the hearing for next month. Okay?

Thank you. Do we need to modify... The sidewalk agenda, then, if we're adding one? Do we just, do you want to add it on the end, or do we want to do 615 there? I mean, Eric won't be there, but I don't think that's a big problem.

I don't think my presence there is going to matter. No, I don't think so either. It's a pretty clear sign.

So we need one of the easement holders to meet us there.

They're here. We could ask tonight. You can send to the Okay. So if they can send you going on the property, you should be good to go.

Okay. So 6-15 on July 1st. Thank you. All right. So I guess we'll close that issue unless anybody else has anything else.

Okay. So 26-10, 72 Columbus Ave. Jeff flower applicant. Demolition reconstruction of existing single family residents.

Thank you.

I don't know how many of you guys know Swanbrook and Columbus basically go along parallel for the backs of all the houses on Columbus.

And... North is this way.

That's South Swanbrook coming down here. And one that's over here.

My site's here. This is...

That's great. Basically, it's about 60 feet from the property to the back lot line, and then it's beyond that. When you look at the site, you'll see it's gently sloping. This area up here with an existing house, it's a masonry house, was built. It starts at a grade of 6, 7, 8, 6B in the street, sloping that way. The back end closest to Swanbrook here is at 4.8. The basement of the house is at 4.5. And so it's basically a flat area here and a triangle above the Flood area that is around, varies from 6 to maybe the high point over here is probably 9. And then it kind of flattens out in here. Beyond the property line, it drops off. All along here, it drops off. I don't know what the elevation is at Swanbrook, but I'm guessing one or two. And so all this is basically 4 or 5.

Auckland 5. pictures of the site because I think they stay at the best.

Our intent is to tear the existing house down and to rebuild it with meeting the FEMA requirements.

expect to go these days.

I've got three shots that I think show it pretty well. This is the town map. There's the house. Columbus coming down this way. And you can see the femur goes right through me. So we really don't have a choice to fix the house. He wants to enlarge the house. It's the same owner, the son of the same owner. And the original house was built in 1969.

This is it from the street.

The property goes a couple of feet into this driveway, but basically it's about 20 feet to the edge of the house. And you'll see there's a concrete foundation and then brick on top. We want to tear the house down. We want to leave portions of the existing foundation. And the reason we want to do that is because we don't want to mess around with grades. The difference, you know, four and a half, about four feet of grade front to back, but it's defined. And it's literally where the house is. Just a second. The square of the Daniel Street. I mean, it's just, just flat kind of terraces in front of the house, the sidewalk, from the sidewalk to the wall, it's here. And then this is the important one. This is looking at it from under the tree, which is here, looking this way. And you can see it's just, it's grass. And it's all fairly level. You can pass that around if you want. We're going to do a site walk. We get to see it again in July.

I'll be quick. This matter is also in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. They are waiting on your action because you need to ask for them next month. It was also being reviewed by Jacobson's office because it is a flood zone. It does involve things like fill along the Swanbrook So you will probably get some sort of report from Jacobson on this matter as well.

Right. I talked to him on the phone the other day. We're going to sit down and talk about it because it's not a normal thing with a theme zone to have a wall instead. But my feeling is if we destruct everything, tear the foundation out, I mean, it can be done. But now I've got a bank and a great big gravel pit, hopefully. Okay. where the house was. And I have issues of rebuilding the bank. I've got to dig deeper in some places and so forth. Whereas if I use parts of the existing wall, everything's on columns for the most part. And we would be working inside the basement. I actually have shifted the house further from the street by two foot and change and further to the south by three foot keeping us away from the septic system, which is between the house and the driveway, the neighbor's driveway. And so I don't want to go near any of that stuff. And by not going near it and leaving the foundation, I take the slab out of the basement, and I'll be working inside that to put in helicoil piles, concrete, and so forth. In a couple of cases, we're working outside it, but we're close. basically keeping everything as high as we could. The house extends further south by 25 feet. But you can see this is the old foundation. This is the old foundation. Then there's a wall across here that was built at some point to Stonewall. And I basically want to stay the other side of it and have columns and post holes rather than excavators, so to speak.

I'll just show you quickly the existing house. This is the existing house. And it's got a red line on it. And my dimension sounds.

Here's the red line here is the end of their old family home. And you can see we've moved it this way. And we've moved it from the street. which puts it back here a little bit. And apparently we don't have any windows. Somehow they got left off the drawing. But you can see we go further towards the wetland by about three feet, but it's up in the air. We're going to try and cantilever that inside the foundation. So we're trying to keep the work completely out of any new area. And then the only place that has columns that don't have a wall or anything near them is this part here.

Somewhere in here on the deck.

That's what you're asking for presentation.

All they're really doing tonight is setting up a site walk.

I think that should be good. We'll check it out of the site walk.

Yeah, you said the site walk was the 8th or 9th? First.

July 1st it was moved from the 8th to the next. It'll be due at...

530. Thank you. Welcome. Let me just check in. 5 first, 5.30.

I'll be there.

All right.

Thank you. I don't know whether we'll talk to Jacobson by then, but in our conversation, we both, we've been looking for the same thing, so it's not.

So, again, the same work. I'm not sure you'll need to get comments by, but again, the mission is again July 28th.

Hopefully you'll have time in Spanish.

Yeah, I just don't want to lead anyone down the road too far and then have Jacobson say, wait a minute, you can't do it that way. You're going to make a mess.

But I don't think he will. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

26-11, 10-1 Walcott Lane, Jared Pombasi, excavation and relocation of a septic tank.

I think about half of the commission has been here before.

This is part of a long-running pool project. I'm doing one step at a time. So same thing as last time. I think it was last year. Perfect was granted in terms of some trees in that area. It's on the map that was scanned with the package. So on the sidewalk, I'll bring you out here. You cannot see the wetlands from my property. So when we go out, I can point in the direction. But basically, the GIS map. note uh has the uh has the wetlands on the adjacent landowner's property um the photo in the application was taken from my property line looking towards where the wetlands is and it's actually um that stream that makes up the headwaters for lieutenant river which is on um adjacent properties some members of the commission we walked that for a um a driveway restoration about a year and a half ago um so that's the actual wetlands that are uh that are um touching this actual property. The project is to, we have to relocate. You can see the leaching field for the septic runs directly across the entire open part of the driveway. So I'm sorry, of the yard. So about 70 linear feet needs to be removed and it's going to be relocated outside of the wetlands. So it's pretty straightforward. The fill that goes to make the new trenches is going to be the fill that goes in to level that area off. And that's the entire scope of this actual project. Permit, there's nothing additional. When I move for the bigger part of the project, that'll be a new application for anything that's in the upland review. What I'm not going to do is ask my neighbor to flag the wetlands just because I don't feel comfortable asking them to do that. So everything that is done in this area will come in front of this commission per permit, treating it as the upland review area. even though the actual wetlands, the stream that makes up the wetlands is further back. So I'm going to treat this entire project as requiring permits via URA.

All right, that's it. All right, thank you. All right, 26-12, 41-1, Willow Road, Connecticut Real Estate Properties, excavation and grading for new construction of single-family residence.

Hey, John. to read okay can i put this here sure mike zeroni connecticut real estate properties do my home address or no um this is part of whippoorwill estates that was originally subdivided in 2003 and it had a wetland approval subdivision approval planning approval back then the property sat vacant for a number of years i bought them last year and would like to put a house on this lot. I guess I just want to set up a sidewalk and show you guys around there and any questions I could answer at the time. Just to give you a little idea, that's the wetland in the blue. This is the 100-foot review area. I did scoot the house forward. Originally, the house was back here on the original plant. But it's pretty straightforward for the most part. The one issue that I think is an issue is there's quite a few large number of pines that I think they're almost 100 feet. So I'd like to get rid of those as a safety issue. The whole lot is basically just white pine.

Are those trees outside the clearing limits?

No. No, I could keep these, I believe, but I'd like to just get as, you know, maybe follow the line maybe a little bit more, but we can discuss that at the site walk. Or the site walk would be helpful to know roughly where your limited clearing is. Okay. You can throw a flag or something. Yeah, I'll throw some flags up.

Specifically where you're going to take the trees down.

The larger ones are in here. These are smaller ones. I could deal with those. So you'll see when you get out there. A lot of them already fell, so.

Eric, I have a question. Do we know who the soil scientist was? I was looking for a note on the plan. Who did the soils? I thought I put it on the application.

Okay.

Is it on the application? I was just wondering if we had a soils report submitted in the first application.

I don't think we do. Let me go back to you.

And then the only other question is, do we have a... Permit.

Fortunato.

Fortunato. Donald Fortunato, 2001. Okay.

I mean, I could see what Fortunato wrote up back then.

Yeah, and if we put conditions on the house, I don't know what they were doing back then. Don't know. Again, I will. If there is anything, it'd be helpful, I think, to see it.

We obviously, we have records to back that for. So I will go and see what the records show and whatever they have, whatever we have, I will make sure the commissioner.

Yeah, just let us know. I'll come in and look at it.

So for the sidewalk, if you could mark the clearing limits and then just four corners of the house. I mean, we don't need all the little jogs, but if you could.

Yeah, sure.

I'll throw a couple of stakes in.

I've got some stakes in. So it's pretty clear. There's this sits very high. And you can see the wetland from all around.

Anybody else have any questions?

There seems to be some grading that as you come in on the drive.

Yeah, that'll be a little bit of filling there just to keep the driveway level. But it's similar to what was on the original plan.

So we will see you at 545 on the 1st.

Perfect.

Thank you. Thank you. Alright, moving on to old business 26 dash 915 short hills road. For the proposed driveway and grading.

To a single family or single residential law. You could be. It's pretty fun.

Yeah, again, Harry Teller representing development.

This is an application for upland review area activities in conjunction with the development of a single family house access off of Flood Rock Road. We have a number of upland review area activities. The driveway itself is in the upland review area adjacent to this node of wetlands. We're proposing a 12 inch HDPE pipe under the driveway. There's really no concentrated flow in this area. You were out there, you saw. But there is a pipe under the adjacent driveway, so we're matching that just so in case there is flow during a high intensity storm, we're not backing up water there. A portion of the leaching area is located within the upland review area. The yellow line is your upland review area. And this is your area of clearing, so portions of the clearing itself within the upland review area. So that's the application. You have a report from Ian Cole, who is the soil scientist. He did both a description of the wetlands, a functions and values analysis, and then an impact analysis on the activities and determined that as long as proper erosion and sedimentation is installed and maintained as depicted on the plan and called out by the engineer, there should be no impact.

So I'll be glad to address any questions the commission may have.

Anyone have any questions?

The application was pretty thorough. The sidewalk was helpful for orientation.

I'm glad I found some at night.

Yeah.

Right in the nick of time. We'd still be waiting.

That's what happens when you have a property on two roads.

Yeah. I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted under standard conditions.

I just had a question. Do we put bonds on houses as a standard? We don't always, but we think it's particularly warranted. I think it might be a safety factor with a project that's this large. I don't know if we have some standard size. You can get an estimate of what the S&E controls are.

Ask Jacobson for some sort of number on what that would look like.

Yeah. That would be my only concern, that the S&E controls be maintained during construction.

All those in favor with the ENS bond? Aye. Any opposed?

Thank you. Thank you. All right.

Regular business. We have updates for 308 Milo Creek and 16 Neck.

Okay. Two important updates for 308-1. From a weapons standpoint, at Casella informs me that there is a trial management conference on the 17th of July. at which point the trial date will be set for this case. So more updates as we know them, but again, at this point, there is a trial management conference, and we should know after that when we're going to trial on this thing. The other piece of this is, as some of you may recall, they had a surface water discharge permit from DEP. It expired. It was my understanding that DEP was not going to be giving them a new one, and they would need to come back to zoning for detention based on some other way of treating the water. Last Wednesday, Ron Sweeney showed up at my office with a new surface water discharge permit. First I had heard of it, first I'd seen it. Based on the fact that he now has a surface water discharge permit, I was obligated to grant the administrative zoning permit for him to restart work on the site. So at this point in time, he has a zoning permit and there's no outstanding wetlands violations. We do have the matter going to trial. I have been in touch with the people at DEP regarding this permit and how it was granted and why it was granted. I have not yet really received a satisfactory answer and I'm gonna continue to press on that. Again, that they specifically told me that these ponds were now sufficient water quality that they did not want further sediment being put in them. And somehow they went from that to surface water discharge permit being issued, and here we are. So more to come as I know it, but I know there's a bunch of the neighbors who are here who are very happy that the work's gonna be restarting there. But at this point in time, the only issue holding it up was that surface water discharge permit. And they had that, and I really have no ability you know, deny the administrative permit based on the fact that they're going to resume what had previously been going on in the site within the box that was laid out by Peter Alden. And the rock crusher got delivered today.

Yes. Are there any activities going on within our 100-foot review areas?

No. No activities beyond those previously permitted, again, when Alford came in front of this commission, this point three or four years ago. So no new activities beyond that.

Is it that they have a permit to do activities on the site?

Again, Peter Alford was here. They do have activities to do work within the box that was shown in the original plan by Peter Alford, again, three years ago now. So yes, they do have permission to work within that box.

Do we have any conditions for sedimentation erosion controls?

That's all of what we were in here discussing previously. And again, I was out there Thursday of last week to review the status of the site and make sure that things got put in place. And I will be out there regularly to make sure that things are maintained. There continues to be an issue with water backing up and the pipe going underneath the driveway there. And when that happens, water then runs over the portion of the road that goes up to Mile Creek. It also runs across basically much further up the Three Mile River over directly into the ponds across the driveway, just about where the work is going to be working. So it's going to be imperative that he has that pipe open at all times. Failure to keep that pipe open is going to result in major problems as far as sediment and other things getting into that wetlands. So I'm going to be on top of this to make sure that he meets all requirements of his wetlands permit.

And we can kind of, could you make a copy of that wetland permit so we can look at it with the conditions?

I will give you what I have regarding that. Again, the file is thick at this point in time. I will give you the pieces of it that relate to what happened, again, three or so years ago when we had Peter Alford here regarding it, okay? You will get that tomorrow, okay? 16, Nick Ruth. On that one, I worked last week with Ed Casella on drafting the complaint. The complaint is nearly complete. It should be filed within the next week or so. Just to let you know, unrelated to the Welland specifically, but just today, the company that is holding the paper on this has started dumping the paper onto basically scavengers. So we'll see what happens. Whoever buys up the paper on the site is what it's going to do with it. But the first transfer of mortgage happened today on lot eight. So I'm sure if they're transferring one, they're going to be getting rid of the rest of them. And I'm sure whoever buys it is probably going to have a fairly short leash from whoever's going forward on this thing. So we'll see how that all happens. But hopefully at some point we will get resolution. And until then, again, FGSLA should be filing a complaint on this within a week or so.

If the paper for that goes in different directions as far as the mortgage for the lot and then the commonly owned driveway stuff, does that require different complaints or different issues from you? Or for the town?

The only thing that's going to change is what will happen is Casella would need to then cite in whatever additional parties are on the paper. The underlying property owner, some of it has changed, but The underlying property owner presumably isn't changing further. It's not allowed to. If it does, it's a problem. But because this is a complaint against the property owner, we don't necessarily have to track every single mortgage holder. That said, we probably want to just put them on notice. This isn't a foreclosure. In a foreclosure, you need to cite all the lien holders. We may get to foreclosure after we get a judgment on this thing. I'm hoping we don't have to get to a judgment on this thing. But again, should it come to foreclosure at that point, yes, we're going to need to round up whoever's holding the paper at that point and cite them all in. But at this point, the paper holders are really more in there for purposes of just putting them on notice because it's a standard condition of any mortgage that you keep the property free of violations.

Going back to 308, do we have a copy of the DEP certification with conditions? I will happily get that. Yeah, is there circulated just so we can see what conditions they put on?

Not much. I'm pretty unhappy with the print.

And why didn't they ask us for comment?

Michael, I will forward to you my email to them and their response back to me. And again, as of right now, I'm not happy with their response back to me, and I'm asking for more information. Pretty much, they sort of, I mean, the first response was, we'll talk it over internally and get back to you. And then they got back to me, and they're like, oh, well, it didn't seem to be that big of a deal, and he said he was going to develop it later with something through zoning, so we figured it's just an interim firm. And It's not an interim permit. I mean, there's no such thing as an interim permit. He gets to have this for as long as he gets to have it.

Well, doesn't he have to go to zoning because he can't excavate within a 100-year flood zone unless he goes for deposits? He has a pre-existing non-conforming use. Yeah, but you didn't bring it to the zoning commission. I know that. And they asked you to do that.

They asked me to do that on the condition that it changed format, Michael. I understand this is going to be a very controversial matter, but they asked me to bring it to them because.

Because some, you know, the zoning enforcement officer was issuing approvals every two years without any analysis. That's how we got into this huge mess to begin with. It also created vested property rights. And if I were to take away a vested property right without due process of law. That's your opinion. And, you know, that doesn't really affect what we need to do to protect the water quality of that river. And so what do we do if there's sediment going into the ponds and out into the river? Issue a violation notice like we had before.

That's why we're seeking a judgment, right? That's why we're in court.

To get a bond, yeah, because there's nothing.

We want a judgment on the wetlands side that says if this reoccurs, we don't need to start from scratch. We start from you've already been put on notice, you already have a violation, and it's intentional if you do it next time and $1,000 a day fine. Okay, that's why we didn't settle the case. That's why we didn't withdraw the case so that we would be able to get the judgment and start in a better position on the weapon side than we were in before. That's entirely why you did not settle the case. So on the weapon side, you're already that much further ahead.

But there's still zoning issues that aren't being addressed.

And that's outside of this commission's jurisdiction.

That's why you were supposed to bring it to the zoning commission. Michael, I will take that up with the zoning commission. I'll be talking to the chair and the vice chair.

I understand you will. I've already talked to the chair about it, okay? And I'll be talking to the vice chair tomorrow. Okay?

How long is the surface water discharge permit good for? Five years?

Five years. It's an issue. No doubt it's an issue.

But it's... There are a lot of legal issues that are all connected here. I will take it up with the zoning commission and we will see what the zoning commission has to say.

All right.

So we'll move on to reading and approval of minutes. I don't have a chance to read the May 26th regular meeting minutes. Yes. Any comments or modifications?

No.

Can we get a motion to approve them?

I have no idea what they were aware of or unaware of. They never asked me. The short answer is I have no idea. And they won't tell me. So far, I won't tell them. You had two inches of rain last night, sir. That has nothing to do with what the DEP said.

I forwarded to you the information. If you would like to contact your state rep or state senator, you can contact the same woman I contacted and indicate your dissatisfaction. DEP is a political agency like any other.

Conditions have changed since they...

I don't know what they're aware of. They won't tell me, okay? They issued the permit. I have not gone through and seen the record that they used to issue the permit. Again, this has all happened since last Wednesday, and they have been not very forthcoming with that.

So who's responsible is it to do something? Is it ours? Adam?

I mean, this is a permit that was issued between DEP and a property owner. If The town can certainly register its disapproval of DEP. The only other choice we have is if we're unhappy with the granted permit, we can file an appeal to Superior Court. That's what anybody can do under these circumstances.

Do we find out if their certification is appealable and when that would be? I mean, because if they didn't get any public input, they didn't notice the application, how is anybody supposed to comment on their...

Don't know the answer to that, Michael. And again, that's why I've asked for more information and I will talk to our council about what our remedies are under the circumstances.

Because they should get information if the PON network isn't working the way it was when they first issued the certification.

I agree that the permit seems to have been issued under conditions that have changed and in country. I was told, as I've represented to you, that there would not be a permit issued. I don't know what has happened, but something has happened that I'm intending to get to the bottom.

Do we have to approve the minutes?

I think we passed the 26 minutes. Is that a site visit?

And if you just represent this, and I do appreciate your work, and your frustration, but he's got all his equipment in here. He's ready to start tomorrow.

I understand that. I'm not discounting your concerns. I am not trying to diminish the fact that he is going to start working there. I don't know everything that has happened. I will try and find out better information. And again, if you would like to also pursue this, I would encourage you to do so. This is not a question of overriding. This is a question of they didn't seek local input on a permit of significant magnitude. And I don't know why they didn't seek local input. They appeared to be unaware that we were suing him. What they knew or didn't know is an open question. And I'm trying to find out more information. It has not been forthcoming. More to come on this story. But at the moment, I really have nothing else to share with you beyond what you've already heard.

So you being a lawyer, what would you think?

I'm not getting into that. I'm not getting into that. The commission has heard. I mean, this is not a public hearing. The commission's heard what I have to say. You've heard what I've had to say. I am no longer a lawyer. I am no longer practicing. I'm the weapons enforcement officer here. They have my report regarding what is going on in the property.

We don't have any more power over that than you do.

I feel like somebody's pulling a little over. I feel.

Then reach out to state senator and state rep because we don't have anything that we can do about the deep.

I'm pushing.

I understand.

And I think we need eyes after every rainstorm to tell us that there's silt going into the brook, the river.

I don't think there's any question that that's going to happen.

If the neighbors could tell us that that's happening, we could issue a cease and correct for contamination of the river.

I don't think that there's any question that that's going to happen. I don't think that we're going to solve anything further tonight as far as that goes. So as long as everybody's all, unless there's any more comments, I think we'll move on.

Can I just, so what's our, as citizens of the town, what's our follow-up action here, or what could that be with the DEP?

Is there a point of contact there? Who's Swash made talking to? Where did it come from there? And can we use the same point of contact?

I have forwarded to Peter Caron the Contact me.

Okay. So, Audrey.

I don't want to give you legal advice, but she is certainly the person who signed the letter, and if you have questions, I would certainly take it up with her. I have never worked with her before. She is a new name from my standpoint. Very likely. I mean, there's been a large amount of reorganization in that office, large amount of retirements there and other offices. So I don't know that she has a history with this site. But again, you have the information that I have, and I'm trying to find out better information.

Okay, appreciate it. I mean, it's very simple. On the fails, they applied for the new application. It shouldn't have been enhanced based on the knowledge that they have and the knowledge that we have.

Yeah, I'm not in a position to contest that one way or the other. I'm telling you, you have the information I have.

Yep.

they granted the permit whether i don't know whatever terms and conditions i have no idea but you have everything that i have not access to as far as knowledge of that permit okay we have regular meeting we're all set so did everybody get a chance to guys could we

So did everybody get a chance to read the June 2nd special sidewalk meeting minutes?

Yes.

Any comments or concerns? No. Motion to approve.

Motion to approve.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Motion to adjourn.

There you go. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.