Inland Wetlands Commission - Regular Meeting

close. It was the most northern one in Whipper. Gave proposed list here. So hopefully she Hi there. I'm here. Okay. It's 6:02. I am John Misham uh board member on in wetlands. Looks like uh I am going to be overseeing the meeting tonight. We have some people on phoning in. So we have uh Rachel Gaudio our chairman and uh a couple applicants it looks like. So we do need to make an amendment uh to the minutes to add the minutes reading the minutes to the meeting because they were left off inadvertently. So, can I get a motion to amend uh agenda the agenda to include the approval of meeting minutes? So, move. I second. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Passes unanimously. Thank you, Rachel. You're welcome. Okay. So, under new business, we have uh applicant 25-16 Whipperwill Road, Timothy Seckla. Is there someone here for that? Okay. Hearing none. It's an application to replace existing out building a shed with a larger structure approximately 16 by 36. So, that is on our next sitewalk on the 7th. Uh number two is 2517 number 64 Grassy

Hill Fetus Engineering is the applicant for a proposed 12x 45 first floor edition with a 370 ft second story edition plus a loft and a new septic system. Is there anyone here for that? You want me to set up the easel or put it on the table? Um sure. I mean, whatever what you're presenting, so whatever you want to do. Why don't you come down here because you're really presenting to these guys over here. Okay. You apologizing to the lady. Is that all right? This is just introision till next month. My name is Greg Fettis with Fetis Engineering, an office at 70 Essex Street, Mr. Connecticut, professional engineer licensed in the state of Connecticut, representing uh the owner and the contractor for this project. Uh basically there's an existing house uh that you can see the outpine underneath. Um portion is portion we're not touching, but a portion we're adding a second floor to. And then there's an existing deck uh that uh we're adding on to and then closing for first floor edition. Uh so as part of this, we're also uh removing the the existing deck. Uh there's an exist existing septic system that's going to be affected slightly. Uh that's much closer to Rogers Lake than what we're proposing. We're proposing a new code compliant septic system. Uh that's a little bit over 50 ft away. Um uh well it's already or there's an

existing well now. It's been replaced. It used to be actually in the garage. Um uh so that well that's here and the radius and the adjacent property radius kind of forced the system this way. We were able to shorten it up a little bit with one of the new systems that's out there and pull it further away from the lake. Uh we have silk fence uh located basically down gradient protecting um uh protecting the waters uh Rogers Lake. Uh it's an existing all this is existing lawn now. So we're not uh we're not expanding into any un kind of developed portion of the property but that's it. Uh otherwise we meet uh all all zoning requirements. um anti-tracking pad and that that's it. Okay. So, we will see you on the 7th at 5. That sound good? What's the seventh? During the week. Oh, perfect. Okay. At five o'clock. Yes. Great. See you then. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next on the agenda is 49 Biscane Boulevard application to replace stairs and build a small deck. Is there anyone here for that? They're on. Okay. Yes, I'm here. Alelli. Um so would you like to tell us about your project? Oh yeah. We're going to build a um a small deck. I think it's about 13 by 12. Um it doesn't protrude past the uh house. It's in a little al cove that's in the house already existing. Um there's a staircase there that uh um is basically u falling apart. We can't use it. Uh we bought the house a

couple years ago knowing that we had to replace that um that staircase there. And um that's what we're doing. It's it's uh not a big deck. It's very very small. Okay. Hey, I did I did see the the footprint on the on the plan. So, I appreciate that. Um, we will see you on the 7th at 5:45 if that's possible. 5:45. Sure. The seventh. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Have a good day. You too. Okay. Bye. All right. Next on the agenda is 15 Whipperwill Road uh application to install a 10 by 20 foot shed west of the garage. Is there anyone here for that? Yes, sir. Come on up. Can have a seat. You have the paperwork. We have your application. Yes. Brought to you. Okay. Here we go. What we would like to do is this is the property at 15. Here is our house in the garage in the best vertal pond in the state of Connecticut, which once was a riverway, which used to go from Mill Pond down to the end of Jericho. Then when suburbanization took place, turned into a cranberry bog, and now there's vernal ponds here and there. And ours is still the best. And we would like to put that a shed right next to the garage structure. it. We have an overflow of tools, rakes, possible lawn tractor, and uh the the garage really is a home for cars, not not mowers. Right. So, uh we would like to put this put this structure here, which fits in will fit in quietly with the neighborhood's theme, and go from there. And is is this a a pre-built shed? Yes, it'll be it'll be trucked in and dropped there. And the the company that

is doing the shed is doing the the site work. Yeah. What are they called again? Well, they have those catchy ads they play in the morning. Come to CL. So, um just just curious about the best vernal pool in Connecticut. Is that has is that just you saying it's a vernal pool or has somebody else identified it as a Yes. Mrs. Roach, who used to be I don't think she's alive anymore from Connecticut College, used to bring biology classes there. There's more fairy shrimp there than you're going to find in any vernal pool in Connecticut. Oh, wow. Okay. And clam shrimp. If you had a dollar for every clam shrimp, you wouldn't be sitting here right now. All right. So, uh, when would you like to come visit us? 15. Well, how about buy 15 on the 7th? We'll be there. Awesome. Look forward toward it. Wonderful. Thank you. See you then. Thank you. Okay, next on the agenda is Eric. Yeah. Um, this should have been emailed out to you. I have copies if you need it. Basically, this is notification by state D. They received an application for pesticide application. It's along Lieutenant River um just south of U South View Hollow Road on Longacre Lane. Um we don't have a lot of jurisdiction here, but we can give comments if you'd like to give comments back. Um again, I do have copies of what they've given to us. I don't know if any of you through them. Um absent me giving comments back, there's nothing really on the agenda for you to do on the application. Um because again it was a it's from a state D permit that we were just given notice of. So um I did Yes. Go ahead, Michael. I I just Is there a comment period usually within 30 days? There is a comment period. Well, within the com are we within the time comment period time or

I believe we are. Um we just got this in not too long ago. So I think we are within the comment period. It was just last week. Yes. Um it's usually 30 days I would guess. Yeah, we can make comments at this point which is we again literally just got it within the last week or so. So if you'd like to make comments again, I can give you a card. Well, I I've got a copy so I'll just take a look at it. And generally we have I haven't seen one this since I've been on. Do you get them regularly? I don't get them often. I get them maybe twice a year and I try and get them out of the commission. Um, so when I get them, you'll see them. And again, this is the first one I I gotten in, I would say, in about six months. I think I got one in very beginning of the year. Um, but again, I get maybe two or three a year of these. So I I will try and make sure that you guys see them, you know, as soon as I get them. And we are within the comment period. So, does the commission as a whole want to make comments or do Michael you just want to make comment individually or I might just, you know, send you comments individually. That's fine. I just haven't had a chance. I haven't been viable enough. I understand. I again we have time. Um but I I didn't again commission doesn't want to act as a commission on this that's fine but at this point again um I will wait to hear from you within the next hopefully week or so. Um, and then if you give me comments, I'll make sure that they get into D. But what's the deadline? Um, I'm going to go with Let's see. Let me look at my calendar to see when I got this in. Um, okay. I got this in on the 17th, I believe. So, 30 days out from that since June is 30 days would be the 30 17th of July. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Rachel, do you want to hop in at all on this?

I was going to say if the commission wants to do something, I just wouldn't sign off on it. I would recuse myself just because of my occupation and my employment with deep. Okay. Do you want to do you want to circulate your commentary, Mike, or Well, let's see if I'm gonna submit a comment first. Okay. If I do what right one up, I'll and I'll give it to Eric. Yeah. Again, it could be that he's we we submit it individually on his behalf or we could send it out to the commission. The commission could let me know what they want to do with it, but I'll wait and see what we get. Generally, if they're using a relatively non-toxic situation and usually I don't have any comment, Deep usually kind of puts most of the conditions on the their approvals. It's a courtesy to send it to us because we I don't know that we have joint jurisdiction, but we have overlapping jurisdiction. Yeah, I'm not entirely sure that we have a a quotequote role here beyond giving advice. We sort of advice and consent stuff, but you know, again, if there was something you felt strongly about, we'll make sure they hear about it. Okay. Number six on the agenda is a fee schedule proposal for the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Commission. So this is an update to our fee schedule that hasn't uh changed in many years. We also have not have the fee schedule. We also have sort of updated application list that felons working on um because the application itself is kind of outdated. So we can take pass that around as well. Um, also there's these um drafted uh fe waver reduction forms just in the chance that you also want to start using those with applications. And again, we don't usually wave fees, but we've had people in the last six months or so who've asked for fee waver for one reason or another, whether it's town applications or otherwise. So, we

would try to create a standard form for a the for fee waver request. um just because you know people don't know how to make them and we're sort of getting things all over the all over the map. So absolutely. Yeah. Um and again the uh sort of self-explanatory from Fallon she did a lot of research on neighboring towns to see what neighboring towns are offering. Um we are not at the present covering our costs. Um the other thing it does now sort of explicitly call out is our ability to um collect fees if we are going to experts. It also calls out that if we do need to renotice um that it's on the applicants to pay for the cost of renoticing. Um so we're trying to make sure that we're doing more to to if not break even uh to at least to make sure we're collecting the appropriate amount of fees and the commission has its own authority to set fees. So if this is something that you want to do, it would require a motion of the commission to just adopt the new fee schedule. So, I I I did look at this and I appreciate the the bar graph because that answers a lot of questions as far as where Old Lime is in regards to other towns and their fees. So, um I I think obviously we're overdue for this and the current fee schedule really puts us in the median. So, we're not, you know, we're not charging too much, we're not charging too little. Um, so I would I would be in favor of uh adopting the fee schedule as I proposed. Yeah, I looked at it last night. I'm on the same page as that. I I tend to to agree with what John has said. The only thing I would like to know is how does our fee schedule relate to the amount of dollars we generate annually? And I I did do a little

research on that. Okay. Um, apparently in the last fiscal budget we raised about $4,000. That's independent of I'm I'm just happy they didn't combine all land use together because then it makes it more complex. But I would tend to think we ought to charge look at it a little closer at least for a month and think about things like how much time does it take for staff to do X? An example might be okay with an application. We know that staff members go out with us and they probably do at the end when they get a final everything's finished go out again. So there's two site visits. As can tell you a lot of these I go out every 30 days just to check on silk fences and everything else. But, you know, we might want to think about, okay, how much is it costing us just to do the basics and does the fee that we collect um cover that? Now, I would agree that some things are very simple. A shed, I think, should be, you know, nominal, but something that's more sophisticated like a house or a site that you have to go out to a lot. And I haven't really looked at it closely enough to know if when when the staff has to go out multiple times to do compliance, you know, each visit should maybe be 150 bucks or something, whatever. I'd figure out the hourly salary and then multiply it by the time that it takes to do the the work because we have the ability to, you know, recoup the costs that the town is paying out to to do the work that we do. Um, but generally the fees looked good. The only other comment I thought was, and it used to confuse me when I looked at our

application form, I'd like to see kind of the application form separate from the fees so that maybe the fees are in back and and I know when I was in that position to try and figure out what the fee was, usually staff has to determine it for the applicant because there's so many options. Um, that was just an overall comment, but but I'd like to have just a month to to look at it and make some additional uh suggestions if anybody agrees with me that some some activities especially associated with violations. I think we should be charging more for if it or if the staff is really going out because of issues on on a site and it would but it would be a bigger site. You know, it'd be a house probably. If you'll notice again, one of the first things mentioned is on the fee schedule fees are double if you apply post work. Yeah. Post start of the work. So, we are attempting to make some adjustment for that. Obviously, take the time you need. Um, we don't meet in August. So, Oh, okay. Well, we do meet in July, right? You meet in July, but we do have a month. Absolutely. There's no deadline on this. This isn't an application where the timeline is running. Do you have a Well, it depends on the types of applications you get as to how many dollars you would did. You are they kind of doubled or I didn't really look at them that closely. It went from 25 minimum by$25 to $50. Okay. So, uh, to your point, under commercial industrial, it went from 250 to 400. So, I mean, to me, that's pretty pretty significant, and that's one of the bigger projects that we would see. Yeah. Um, and then, you know, there's an additional wetland crossing fee. Uh, the

initial preliminary review fee has gone from 25 to 50, so that's doubled. Uh, pool shed out building 75 to 125. house structures um requiring excavation foundation septic and driveway 100 to 150. I mean, I could see maybe putting that up a little bit more. I just would like to, you know, have a little time to think about it, but I'd like to relate the size of the fee to the amount of work that we're doing. Like a shed, I think, should be phenomenal. I'll be honest, Michael, we're never going to cover all of the costs 100%. Well, I I know I appreciate that because there's no harm in putting home. I understand. I mean, if you want time, by all means, take the time, but I just there's a balance to be made of how much we're going to recoup versus, you know, what what people are expecting for fees. So I agree, but my finance board used to be very friendly when they saw an increase in our revenue each each year or they as a matter of fact they used to ask us when did you last raise your fees was a regular question in my budget. Both um Martha the selecting side and the board of finance this year were pressing me on so what about the revenue side? So that's part of why we're doing this. Um, and again, I agree. It would be nice to cover more of our fees, and as you are well aware, things like legal notices and such are just outrageous at the moment. So, anything we can do to cover any of that is certainly awfully good. Um, but, you know, obviously we're not going to cover half a felon salary, a quarter of my salary, plus you know, all of that by by by fees alone. So then I was also trying to get a feel for how much um is actually spent on the inland wetlands and water course commission

activities in land use. And so our budget is around 300,000. I think actual might be a little lower than that this year 270ish but I would think wetlands and zoning probably based on my membership on the planning commission take up the bulk of that money. I I would suspect they're correct. Um though ZBAA has a fairly hefty budget. Yeah, I forgot about they're they're mixed in too. So yeah, I mean we can try and sort out what percentage goes to what, but I mean again Fallon is planning wetlands. So theoretically half and half for her salary one way or the other. I cover four different boards plus I'm a flip manager and a bunch of other things. So hard to figure out exactly what percentage of my salary we're trying to cover here. Um, again, we're we're trying to make sure we cover more of our costs, but there's no way realistically we're going to cover all of our costs and fees. Um, and then the only other comment I have, and I was looking at, you know, obviously I have experience with the town that I work with, but I don't think we're really relevant to that town, but I did look at East um Lime, who had a very interesting checklist that should be attached to our application form. And you might, depending on what the applicant's proposing, have different requirements, a more detailed map or um for more complex activities. But I I don't know if you if I would imagine application requirements are listed at the bottom of the first page. Yeah. And I the this is generally like um I looked at East Limes. I had like 10 different towns that I looked at and I pretty much like used our wording for it, but this is what Eastime's application looks like. Yep. They don't have the fee structure built in though. I think it's

I think we sort of exhausted the discussion so far here. What is the commission's pleasure for what we would like to do with this? You guys want to table this or you know, I'd like to suggest we we just consider next month and act on it next month. Or you want you want to make a motion then, Mike? I so move that we delay action on this item until the July meeting. I will second. All in favor? I mentions passes. We'll table that for next week. I will turn over the uh the helm to our chairwoman. You've been doing such a good job. You don't want to keep going. It's all all you. All right. Item number seven under new business is changes to the inland wetlands and water courses statutes and the water course buffers. We do have copies of what Michael sent in this morning hand out to people. So, um, thank you, sir. I think the governor's signed a couple sign this one these two as opposed to the 50002 which you didn't sign. So, okay. My only comments I think just in summary is one is going to require some point that all of us be trained online. Right now, the DP training site is down. I'm not sure when it would be up again. Um, that's going to affect all of us. Uh, and then the second one is really establishing a task force that looks at recommending buffers for water courses. There was actually some buffer legislation proposed um this year that went farther than a lot of the folks that proposed it thought it would go, but they decided to study a bit for the next session and can

consider it again. But there's a lot of push to thinking that we ought to have more specific buffers for water courses. I mean, we are the inland wetlands and water courses agency, and we tend to forget about water courses, but we have some very significant water courses in this town that have some spectacular uh high quality water and and and lots of our natural resources. So, it'll be interesting to watch that next year. Rather than anformational mention, I thought that's all we needed. Thanks, Michael. Um, nothing really to add other than again as Michael said, at some point you will be required during your four-year terms to complete the training course that D has online more information as we have that. But as Michael said, the site is down at the moment. So even if you wanted to go and take the course, you're not able to do so at the moment. So when it is back up, I will try and let you know. And again, theoretically, once during your term, you're obligated to complete it and then let me know. I have a spreadsheet already on my computer upstairs and it's my job every year to transmit to the first select person um a list of who has done what training. So there's no penalty on my part for not transmitting but I do have already on the spreadsheet to keep track. There was there was also an attempt to allow other types of training to be counted for commissioners. I mean, I was able through um the town to attend a wetland training session at the extension u center in and had them I guess it is and it was very good an introduction kind of a legal introduction to the inland wetland act but then also a functional analysis by a

really sophisticated wetland scientist Josh Wil Josh Josh Wilson. Um I'm going to give those links. They're not online yet, but once they're online, um, I'll give them to to Eric to distribute. But seems to me if you spend three hours at a seminar or if you go to the annual Connecticut Association of Inland Wetland and Conservation Commission meeting, which is a day thing, you ought to get credit for that as well. It's not in the statute, but I I I would bet that DEP would be uh will ultimately allow those types of training as well because it could provide something more sophisticated than an online course. I mean, you might go out and be able to look at some wetland soils, wet, identify wetland plants actually in the field, which would even be more helpful than I think the the online course. We'll see. Anything else? Okay. Um, on the next item, old business, um, we did get an email from the applicants, which I made sure you guys saw that indicated that they have requested, um, that we leave this matter open until next month. They've waved the automatic approval. Um, they are still trying to get contractors to work with them on the excavation of the pond. So, I would just request that this matter be tabled until the next March. Do you need formal motion? Why don't you just make a motion? I'll make a motion to table this until next month given the um ask from the applicant themselves. Second. All those in favor? I Any objections, extensions? Seeing none, passes unanimously. That brings us to 308-1 Mile Creek. Um as you folks mostly recall, um we had a sidewalk there. Um I sort of leave it to the property owner. I'm sort of a little

up in the air as to where we are. We do have a motion that was approved by this an order that's approved by this commission, not appealed. Uh we do have what I interpreted as a request by the applicant to modify it per the request for the per the report of their expert. Um so at this point I'm going to turn it over to the the applicant decide where we are and what we should do going forward. For the record, attorney William McCoy representing the applicant. Um, I I think I'll blame both Joe Ren and Joe Thorough and I for being here tonight. Um, as Eric has indicated in prior correspondence I've gotten from him, this is a matter that was decided by this commission um and and approved with conditions. This should not be considered to be our correspondence in May um based upon a report in April by Joe Thorough is not intended to be a further application but rather I guess I would best describe it as a um concerns that we have as a group as to whether or not what Mr. The row has identified in his May 13, 2025 letter may be a better approach to the mitigation of property than what was developed by the town and it in its commitment decision. We don't do that as a matter of insult and obviously we are prepared to meet the terms and conditions of the approval and conditions. So, if the commission is not interested in looking at um other alternatives as identified in the in the report of April 13th, we're happy to

withdraw whatever it is you want to consider this to be uh and simply go along with the decision of the commission with the with the clear understanding on the record that we believe that what's proposed in the April 13th better potentially is a better remediation program than was than was put together at the last meeting of the of the commission when it when it decided this. But again, we don't wish to complicate this. We currently were under the obligation under the original decision to provide a mitigation plan together with bonding requirements. We provided those to um to Eric and I think in a timely fashion. And so if if you wish to simply kick it back to Eric to review the plan and and u and and to establish the bonding, we're fine with that. But we do want to go on record that some of what has been proposed with respect to the conditions for the mitigation are perhaps potentially in the long-term counterproductive, but it's this commission's decision and we'll live with it either way. Thank you. You have any questions? I'll be happy to answer again. I think at this point it was the commission. You've got two or two and a half alternatives here. One of which is keep your original order in place and he's telling me to enforce the original order. Two is adopt some or potentially all of Mr. Thorough's suggestions. Um and let me know where you want to go. Um at this point in time, you guys were out in the sidewalk. You saw the commissioners in the field. I don't know

if that has any effect on where you are are with this, but um again, as you've heard from the applicant at this point, they're willing to live with the original commissions. They weren't appealed, so that's where we are. Um I'll let you guys decide where where to go from here. Yeah, I don't I don't have any questions. I have some commentary uh on Mr. Thorough's report and especially after going on the sidewalk. Um in his own report, Mr. throw said that the millings and the roads which he is requesting to not remove part of uh he actually says the millings are swept into the wetlands on the western side uh meaning the road and during our site visit it was it was very plain that the the millings or whatever they are towards the top of the road that is steeper were weeping and eroding down uh the road after the heavy rain. So, uh, you know, what goes up comes down. You can you can leave try to leave whatever's there eventually that's going to get swept into the the river just like the other millings. And we keep calling them millings, but we we don't really know as a commission where they came from, what their origin is, or what their what their actual uh makeup is because I mean, just walking down the road, you can see there's objects in there that look like roofing material or tar or it doesn't really look like uh strictly strictly sweeping. I think we're in commission discussion. Um as far as the the the remediation or the removal of the boulders, uh Mr. Thorough is concerned about a steep slope. And the fact is we we don't know what slope was there before the unpermitted work was done. So is there is there a lack of a slope because there was material removed to place the boulders in or is that slope uh become that way or lack of a slope because of the boulders being

put there? again that that's we don't have a crystal ball to go back and see what was there before this unpermitted work was done and that's why we're here again. So if you look at the aerial photos it it appears that the road may even be wider than it used to be. So the idea that uh we're going to increase erosion there or do more harm than good with remediation uh I am I am not moved by by that report. Um there's, you know, he noted that the river will sweep across the roaded in numerous areas and in the silt ponds and also discussed not wanting to remove uh the burm on the road. This all goes back to the size of the pipe. So I if really if the applicant is not happy with uh the conditions that were put forth by this commission uh because of some of these conditions that are occurring to me I think uh it all goes back to the size of the pipe. So if you want to if you want to not do some of this remediation bring us an engineering report and a resizing of the pipe because that's what most of this goes goes back to. Um he even notes a properly sized and permitted culvert would alleviate flooding debris entanglement and the head water backing up. Uh I'm sorry that's that's not that's not Mr. throw, but that is uh Miss Rea Valsolski, who is also a certified soil scientist who was nice enough to uh go on the sitewalk and email us. And I agree with uh that assessment. Um and she also goes on to say that the argument of placing sedimentation control would be difficult and removal of the boulders would create more impact is not accurate.

So I I can appreciate uh you know Mr. Thorough's opinion, but we have at least one other opinion that is is valid. Um so again, I'm not moved by uh trying to amend the conditions that this commission put on. Thanks, Joe. Michael, I saw I I was the culprit that encouraged the application to try and initially resolve this violation. We ultimately got an application. It wasn't easy. Um we had to actually start court action to get an application. Um, if this had been kind of a typical application where an applicant comes before us, no activity on the site, we evaluate the activity and we put conditions on it. The applicant doesn't like the conditions. Um, they can come back and ask for modification which we could consider. They could appeal our approval. In this instance, the applicant didn't appeal our uh permit with conditions. Um I would kind of go along with the applicant letting them withdraw the proposal. Um and if they want to do other and and comply with the conditions of the permit. Um, based on the field investigation that we or the site visit that I did, it it was obvious to me that the culverts are failing. Water is piping around the pipes. Not necessarily. I don't know why it wasn't going through them at the time that we were there. Um, but it always seems to be wet and darker when we're there. Um,

and there was a lot of we only had 3/10en of an inch that of water that rained that week and it was flooding over the road. And I also saw like John and a lot of us saw the the millings andor I saw fragments of roof shingles in mixed in with the millings were were eroding. So I I tend to think a lot of our conditions apply. Um, the only one thing that I might have been changing my mind about is when I went on the upstream side of the culvert, there are two boulders that are really close to that culvert. And if this was just comparing two site visits, it looked like the road was starting to erode away around the culverts. And I would be willing to leave two of those boulders adjacent to the covert till the applicant comes back with other proposals to maybe enhance the size of the cover so we don't get flooding um with a with a with a new application. But to leave those boulders that were immediately adjacent to where we saw the erosion on the upstream side of that road. I tend to think if we have a real big hurricane this season, that road's going to be washed out. It's certainly gonna have a lot of water flowing over it and be gullied. Um, the applicant also proposed more activities in wetlands, uh, which we didn't even review or see the details were in the plans, but I don't think we can take those up. those should be proposed under a new application if that's what he wants to do. But then I think the applicant should be prepared to to understand that we may be hiring our own consultants to figure out why is the flooding happening on the site?

Are these BMS that are proposed or that that we've even allowed to be removed doing anything um to solve the you know the owner's problem? Um, I mean, we we should hire our own engineer to evaluate that, but other than leaving those tubeers that are in an area that I think the, you know, where the road is threatened to be washed out in the next major storm, I think our permit conditions are fine and should be implemented. And then the applicant always can come back. Well, we know they're going to come back because they have to do cementation ponds and stuff. So, it's, you know, they'll be coming back and we can do further analysis there, but I certainly want to see um more professional analysis on why flooding is happening on that site. Okay. Any other comments? If I can be heard briefly. Yes. Um, as I indicated to you, my client is prepared to meet the terms and conditions of your decision or conditions. Our purpose in providing the documentation we provided is essentially to make you aware as a commission that there are concerns about how the future is going to hold regardless of what we do here. But of concern to me, and I and I I need to put this on the record professionally, the purpose of that sitewalk was a sitewalk. It was not intended to get any further information on the record as to what's going on at that site. It is concerning to me that one of the commission members alludes to documentation that's provided by somebody that went on the sitewalk as to their evaluation of things after the public hearing is closed. That is very concerning to me and I want to put that

under record. Um, that sidewalk was not intended to provide further evidence after the public hearing closed. So, having said that, again, as I've indicated and and and one of your commissioners has alluded to, we're prepared to essentially withdraw our concerns, if you will, officially and meet the terms and conditions. Uh but I but I want to be clear on the record that as as an applicant my my client wants to be very clear that some of what's going on here uh in terms of the degragation of wetlands um may be further exacerbated by what what is going to happen pursuant to this permanent and so again that's your decision as commission you've made that decision and we'll live with it. So I'm not sure what your about your conclusion that you just made that there was some kind of analysis. There was commentary on Mr. Thorough's report that he submitted to this correct commission. That is correct. And that that report was submitted to this commission as a condition of your approval, not as a reopening of the public hearing. We didn't reopen the public hearing. You took you took testimony from a member of the public that you just alluded to. We're keeping the what we said at the last meeting. Our order that that testimony doesn't matter because we're not changing. Well, I agree with you. Yeah. But that that comment was made on the record and I therefore I'm responding to it. It's as simple as that. It would be part of the record anyway because it was sent to the commission. We don't have to public hearing but again this is an ongoing matter and the commission routines jurisdiction and someone submitted evidence on an ongoing matter which commission has received I understand your concern that the

commission is relying on this evidence at this point if the commission is not changing its pre-existing order then I don't think that there is any issue that somehow they've been biased by an additional piece of correspondence that came in when you're already conceding they have perfect right to live with an order you've already you know not appealed so I I I understand your concern I'm not sure that from a procedural standpoint that there's been any defect and I guess I guess my last comment then Eric is this to the extent that we are going to be back before this commission I want to be real clear that the that The evidence that's taken in by this commission has to be limited to the record on any public hearing. If there is a new application, then we won't open a new record and anything it has to be brought into the new record. Okay? So, if someone wants this report into the new record, they will need to move that this report be included in the record and you will have to sort of address that at the time that they make that motion. Thank you. But as of right now, there is no open public hearing and I agree with you on that count. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah. So, I just I just have a challenge. What do you think about my comment on the two boulders right near the culver? I don't know if you saw or concerned about the the eroding. I think it eroded about 6 to 8 in. I was just afraid if we pull those boulders we could lose the road. I don't I for one don't want to get into uh reconditioning conditions that we've already I tend to agree with you. So it seems like from the two the two of your comments seems like we're just going to keep the order as it stands. I do not want a new motion because a new motion creates a new appeal period. Right.

Your decision is tell the applicant to proceed as you know previously ordered. Then that's what we're going to do. And I do not want a motion to that effect because that creates a new appeal that we don't want to start. Okay. So I'll just take that sense and the applicants heard that sense and we will move forward on that basis. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you. The next one. The one issue one outstanding issue Eric is relates to the bonding. What I will now what I will now do is take your bond and I will forward it to Jacobson's office and I will say is this bonds sufficient and I'll get back to you with whatever they have to say about that. Um I will do that first thing tomorrow morning. But I had held off on doing that until I knew where the commission was going. I will do that first thing tomorrow. Okay. So the commission's aware one of the reasons for that is that you can't start work. Um, again, I had held off because my understanding was that that bond was based on your proposed activity. I will again forward the bond amount with the order to the Jacobson's office tomorrow morning and I will let you know what they say as soon as we hear back. Okay. So, so it's just so the understanding is you can approve the work that once it's completed. I will review the work. If I need additional expertise, I will hire someone to do go in there and do additional review. The commission will only see it if I believe that there is some violation that the commission needs to see. I will be providing reports back to the commission just on a a regular basis saying this is where we are. But no further commission approval will be required beyond this point. Okay. So make sure we good. Okay. Okay. So, I'm going to move to the next matter. Um 16 Neck Row to Sharon Drive. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Um per your last meeting, um they have until tomorrow to post the $50,000 bond. They are all supposed to be coming back um with proposal to do in fact have done already some sort of erosion control measures. Um they have not. The site looks largely as you remember it from your last site walk out there. Um, in fact, I m saw Mr. Sweeney out there yesterday morning. Um, and he has done work now around the detention basin. Um, Mr. Sweeney gentleman's name. Another gentleman. Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Sweeney was out there. Okay. Okay. Two sides. Um, so yeah, I'm not This is not a mistake. This is not I really saw Mr. Sweeney out here yesterday. Okay. Um so yeah using um so and again he has done work around the detention basin. I was out there this morning. There is exposed soil around that detention basin. Um but again no further erosion control measures have been done on the other side of that road. Um, the swale down the side of the road still looks, as you recall, the silk fencing that leads into the wetlands on the side of the road there has not been updated or replaced in any way, shape, or form. The hay bales that you saw up road from the detention basins are still there and are deteriorating. Um, so per your previous minutes, I think at this point you're going to need to increase the bond to the full $100,000. Does anybody have any questions or comments at this point? Yeah. So, my understanding was he had until this meeting to post half. Theoretically, the the um the minutes

say he had 30 days from the 25th for from the from the 27th rather which is your last one. So, that would be through tomorrow. I I I would be we're not going to see the bond. Um, and in any event, whether or not we're seeing the $50,000 bond per your last meeting minutes, absent his efforts to put in erosion controls, you were supposed to increase the bond to $100,000 at this meeting. 100,000, not 400,000. 100,00 I'm sorry, one I'm sorry. I I if I was I thought it was in 30 days. I'm not sure the the minutes are are accurate because I thought it was okay he had until this meeting because if he did not perform by this meeting we would No, I I fully you're going to be increasing it anyway. I think immaterial of whether he's given the 50,000 which he's not giving. Um I think you're going to be increasing it to $100,000 anyway because again he had until this meeting to take some sort of action on that site. Um I understand from talking to his engineer that he has not been in touch with his engineer Greg Fettis who was here this evening. Um so and again we there are no new engineered plans. There are no there is no new work on the site that is designed to control erosion. He is still working further uphill. He was out there was a excavator out there this morning. I think you were saying putting aseptic in or something. So let me help. Yeah, we did clean out the detection basins. There's there's four of them as you come down the hill. I mean, and we put overflow pipes in them. So, the water will go in the pipe, drop in the back. Those are being maintained. There is no further uh silt going into the wet and you can go there and you can see it now that

there's is no further since we've been putting those basins in and we've been bailing them out. They're doing their job. They're settling as they come down the hill. What we're doing on the right side of the driveway going up there now is we're stabilizing and finishing and seating. So the whole right side from the tension basin that's there going up to the to the the stone house. We're putting seeds in that and finishing it now, including around the pond. So the pond is going to meet its 3 to1 slope. Whoever was there before, I don't know what happened, but it's going to be 3 to one slope from the back of the wall to the asphalt. That whole area on the right hand side as of right now, if you buy there tonight, has been top soiled, top soiled and seated. We have some finetuning to do to get it so that the water will stay in and do what it's supposed to do. So, it approaches that basin and then it'll go across the street. Unfortunately, whoever designed that, you have water on the left side and then you you're directly discharged to the wet. That should have never happened. The basin that's on the right side should have been on the left side. So, when it come down the hill, it fills up, goes in the top, goes in the back of that basin, goes across the street, back into that secondary basin, and goes across it. Unfortunately, it didn't get designed that way. So, and as Eric told me that there's a lot of trees that were cut that weren't supposed to be cut that obviously would stabilize the land long term, but currently I think you know there is no additional sand and silt going into the wetlands from the past. It's actually growing. It's everything's growing up and growing through that sand. Not it's any better or any worse, but nothing's went over.

The hay bales that are there, they're doing their job and they're not going to do it to the end of the job. That that goes without saying, but the hay bales are the best. Silence will never make it there. Every time that the silent gets up, there's so much sil that comes down that hill that it just knocks the fence down. And that's what happened. So we created these basins with pipes in them that control the flow flow control pipes so they'll fill up. The hay bales are doing what they need to do. Can they be added? Yeah, we added another 40 bales to that since this last meeting we added 40 more bales there and we backed them with soil so that they're they're holding that back that material back that sand and and the silica that's coming back. But if you go there right now, nothing went nothing breached. It's going into that vein. You'll see that I dug it out. I take the silt out. You got to clean it out. Um, obviously gets less and less because there's less and less disturbance on the top of the hill. So, less disturbance, you know, but there's going to be more disturbance once they put another house in there. There'll be more disturbance. So I feel like if we can start top soiling and seeding and start protecting the area even if we create the BMS and maintain those sill basins until the project's over that place and they stay in there on the if you're going out on the right side because there there isn't any. What I would propose is if that structure that's, you know, as you come in, that structure that's on the right, when that pond goes up, it dumps into the top of the structure and there's actually a slot in the face of it. If we went into the back of the basin, that's on the right side of the road going up. Created that same structure with a pond there and left it

there until the project was over. It would go in that basin, go across the street, get into that next basin, go into that overflow, and then go into the weapons. It would create multiple dumps before it could get in there. I I had made the recommendation, they're not going to pay for an engineer to engineer it. I really think it's a solution to keeping 90% of that water out of it. the balance the the 10% would be from that basin where that basin is into the actual weapons that I think you could maintain with sil fence that sense that hill it won't hold silk fence wind rain uh the storms it just knocks that sil fence it's not strong enough the hay bails out you gota you got to tell me the hay bales that we stacked up there are still there in place I'm not saying that they're you know, they don't get old and they need to be replaced. They do get wet and they're and they get crunchy, but you know, they're going to need maintaining, but more importantly, I think if we can move back and start seeding and and prepping the area, we'll we'll have a better chance of protecting what's what's there, what's I guess I have several questions or comments. One of which is has the applicant authorized you to come here and speak on their behalf? He has not. Okay. So, I have no understanding of what your authority is to ask the commission to do any of this. All I was volunteering the information what what what we're doing on the site so that they're aware of what's happening on the site because I'm doing the work. Okay. So the next question is,

can you submit an application that contains the work that you are proposing to do so the commission can evaluate it properly? Eric, I have a recommendation. Sure. I mean, I was wondering what our next step was going to be. At least I've heard something that makes a little more much more sense than what I saw when we were last out there. Now, how you get Ron's stuff so that you can evaluate it might be our engineer consultant out there, have him do a sketch. Obviously, the owner's got to authorize you to do stuff. Look, and I got to be honest, if I had Jacobson go out there, it's going to be whoppingly expensive. And I can tell you right now that Doceto does not have the money to pay his own engineer, let alone our engineer to go out there and do the kind of work that would be required to be done. Um, you know, on the face of it, what what Mr. Sweeney is saying makes sense to me. You've really got to start to stabilize the uplands. Nowhere near our regulated areas unfortunately but it's all coming down and impacting your regulated area by statute is anywhere that is going to eventually come into that 100 foot is 100 foot but you can be 100 foot unless there's erosion I would agree but you know you stick with me getting it stabilized even if it's in sections makes sense the more grass that's growing on disturbed areas we're still going to get run off, but it'll be less than what's there now. I mean, what what other alternatives do we have? I I agree. But I I would love to see a written proposal that says any of this from somebody who's authorized to submit it.

I know. So that I can then take it and have it looked at by somebody who knows what they're looking at and say, "Yes, this will work," or, "No, this will not work." Right now, I don't have any of that. But I'm what I'm saying is we might given that we aren't going to get a detailed engineer drawing from no the owner any kind of write up at all. Okay. But I'm saying if our engineer met with Mr. Swain, Mr. Sweeney explains what he proposes to do. I don't know. It sounds like it could work depending on the size. If our engineer kind of feels that could work and gave us not a detailed drawing but a sketch. Yeah. Otherwise, we're not going to have anything. You know, we have to get an AO to write something. And if he's not communicating with Eric and have somebody unauthorized by the applicant coming here giving you something orally with nothing on paper and we're sort of in a position, I agree. We need some We need some authorization. I'm hoping you get paid, but I don't know. I mean, ultimately, I'm trying to protect my ultimately. Yeah, I understand that we're not going to get an engineered plan for all this. That would be lovely if we could. No, but we need at least something on paper given the history of this site. And how do how do we get that, Eric, is what I'm saying. Can we have something talk to Mr. Nino's responsibility to get it to us, right? It's his property. Yeah. At least for now. But if he does so, okay, so let's say he doesn't do anything and and unfortunately Mr. Swain's ideas and stuff don't get implemented, then what what what's our nextation? Okay. Yeah. And at that point, we start litigation because there's just the site is not going to get better. I know, but is litigation going to help? I don't know. He's doing nothing then.

Yes. We're not getting the $100,000 bond we asked for, right? We're never seeing that. No. So, we're not seeing, you know, you asked for an as or a location of the foundation for that site at Sharon. We're not getting that. All the things you asked for, we're not getting. So, if we're not getting all the things we asked for, I don't see that we've got much choice but to go to court. Yeah. I don't know if it's going to help, but we can't do anything. What's the judge going to do? A judge can't order him to do to spend money he doesn't have. No, but if he gives us a lean at that point in time, we can lean the property and then when inevitably it gets sold, that would really be our next step. I guess that might be the only next step. I mean, it Yeah, but the lean the lean would survive, you know. So, but the site still erodess. That's what I'm saying is it still erodess while this is if let's say the court case takes six to eight months if we're lucky a year two years two three years it's gonna have trial Thursday just got moved again so and it's been three and a half years so it's it's not going to be pretty and it's not going to take anything like what you think it's going to take there'll be golden rod growing there in two years don't if we don't seed and there's no top soil great um but I mean here's the thing Based on the guy I had out there from Jacobson's office, the silt already in the wetlands he estimated would take two guys with shovels and a wheelbarrow a year to get out of there because he doesn't want it out mechanically because that would just further disturb the weapon. So I I don't know what it would cost to get two guys in a wheelbarrow out there for a year. Um, but that's again at some point there's going to need to be some way to make this go. So why don't we, you know, thinking out

of the box, let Mr. Sweeney get some authorization from the owner to do what you're doing. Yeah. I I I I don't want to put the onus on Mr. Swany. The onus is on the owner, Mr. Nito, who who is who is absent, who has failed to perform. And uh I'm going to make a motion to increase the bond to $100,000. Um and balls in his court. I'll second it. All those in favor? Any opposed? Any abstensions? Great. You can tell Mr. No what happened here tonight. He wasn't here at all. I thought they were fine. Maybe you got the date wrong again. Um, but then, you know, at the at the next meeting, if we still haven't heard from him, then maybe we do call Ed and just say, "Let's get started." He already knows about this case. So, okay. I'll see what I can do about it and plan for it. Thanks, Rod. Thank you. Just getting an authorization from him. I think ultimately that's the that's the solution. It's going to be the best solution. Okay. All right. Thanks again. Have a good night. All right. So, next is the uh meeting minutes. I think I was missing from the last meeting. Pretty sure I got stuck in the last meeting. I don't think we got the minutes. Did I miss the minutes? Did we get the minutes? They're posted on Oh, okay. So, I didn't I was just out of it. All good. I think Tom looked at them. um because I wasn't there. So um any motions to these were these are two sets the site visit and the last regular meeting. I move that we we approve the minutes for those for the site visit and our last regular meeting whatever the date is. Second that.

Right. Thank you. Discussion seeing none discussion. No discussion and then um so uh all those in favor I I all any opposed and I'll see from both. All right. Motion to adjurnn. We'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. So, okay, it's done.