2026-09-14 - Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission Special Meeting

00:00Been a while.

00:00>> That has been a while just because of

00:02Labor Day.

00:03>> Have one extra week.

00:04>> Yeah.

00:06>> Throws everybody off.

00:07>> I heard the fair was good.

00:08>> Was good.

00:09>> Real good.

00:10>> I bet the numbers aren't good at I

00:12haven't heard good things.

00:13>> No. Wasn't even busy when I was there on

00:15Sunday afternoon.

00:21>> We We hit it.

00:22>> I'll tell you what, she got whoever it

00:25was.

00:54and welcome back.

00:59Okay, good evening everyone. Thanks for

01:02coming at the odd week because of Labor

01:04Day. So, now that the holidays out of

01:06the way, we'll get started again and

01:07we'll go ahead and call to order this

01:09regular meeting of the Killing the

01:11Inland Wetlands and Water Course

01:12Commission. And could we start with the

01:14roll call, Karina?

01:15>> Sure thing. Paul Archer

01:17>> here,

01:18>> Rodney Gton

01:19>> here,

01:19>> Rainy Legal

01:20>> present,

01:22>> Sandy Edgars

01:23>> here,

01:23>> and Karina Tori here.

01:24>> Okay. So, um,

01:26>> Chris is absent with

01:27>> notification. Yep. Meaning that you will

01:29be acting as a full voting member this

01:31evening and we'll have a full a full set

01:35of people. Sounds good. Okay. First item

01:37would be adoption of our two sets of

01:39minutes. We'll work on the first one,

01:41the August 3rd, 2026 regular meeting.

01:44That was our standard meeting. Would you

01:46all have a chance to review those?

01:50>> Uh, I make a motion to adopt the August

01:523rd, 2026 minutes as presented.

01:56>> Second.

01:57>> Motion's been made and seconded to adopt

01:58the minutes of the August 3rd, 2026

02:01regular meeting as they were presented.

02:03Any changes or additions? Hearing none.

02:05All in favor? And everyone is here, so

02:08we can just do a vote voice vote.

02:10>> I

02:11>> I

02:11>> I

02:12>> I

02:12>> opposed. Motion carries. Okay. The next

02:14item would be the August 10th, 2026

02:17special meeting.

02:20Do you have a chance to review those?

02:21>> Yes. I'll make a motion to approve the

02:24August 10th, 2026 minutes as presented.

02:27>> Second.

02:29>> I'll second.

02:30>> Motion's made and seconded to approve

02:31the minutes of August 10th, 2026 special

02:34meeting as they were presented to us.

02:36Any changes or additions? Hearing none.

02:39All in favor?

02:40>> I

02:41>> opposed. Motion carries. Okay. Um,

02:45before we even start on citizens

02:47participation, do I have a motion to add

02:49to our agenda this evening?

02:50>> Yes, you do. Um, I move to amend

02:53tonight's agenda to add executive

02:55session at the end of the meeting prior

02:57to adjournment for the purpose of

02:58discuss discussing pending litigation

03:01specifically to allow staff to update

03:04commission on the appeal of Ryan

03:05Company's USA Inc. versus the town of

03:08Killingly in the Wetlands and Water

03:09Courses Commission.

03:11Do we have a second to that motion?

03:13>> Second.

03:14>> Motion's been made and seconded uh to

03:16add an executive session at the

03:18conclusion of our meeting this evening.

03:20All in favor?

03:21>> I

03:21>> I

03:22>> opposed. Motion carries. So, we will be

03:25adding that. Now, we'll move on to

03:27citizens participation. Just a reminder,

03:29uh this would be any comment that does

03:32not have the potential to go to public

03:33hearing. So we are uh already planning

03:36to conduct a public hearing as the

03:38meeting continues uh for the Ryan Corp

03:42application. So it would not be the time

03:44to discuss anything regarding that. And

03:47also just to let anyone know, we do

03:49still have Old Killingly Pond on our

03:51agenda as a regular item. And as always,

03:55I'm assuming that you guys are open to

03:57suspending the rules and and letting

03:59people act at that point so that we can

04:01have a nice give and take and everyone

04:02knows what's going on.

04:04So, those would be the two items that we

04:06wouldn't be addressing at this point.

04:08Look at he's he's ready to jump.

04:12Okay. Anything else, though? We'd love

04:13to hear from you if there's anything

04:14other than those two topics,

04:21Michelle.

04:25So, I believe everyone's here for those

04:28two items. So, we'll go ahead and move

04:30right on to our public hearing. Uh,

04:35this is a public hearing for application

04:3726-1636

04:38of Ryan Company's US Incorporated for

04:41construction of new warehousing and

04:43distribution center totaling 1,288,220

04:48plus or minus square feet on a 556 more

04:52or less acre parcel consisting of 340

04:56plus or minus acres for development and

04:58includes a 76 plus or minus acre

05:00conservation easement and 200 116 plus

05:03or minus acres purposed to be deed to

05:06the town of Killingly for conservation.

05:09Project includes associated landscaping,

05:11storm water drainage improvements,

05:13parking, loading spaces, wetlands

05:15crossings, uh 25 23,58

05:20square ft of wetland disturbance of plan

05:22review area activity and proposed

05:24mitigation measures, including 44,369

05:28ft of wetlands mitigation located

05:30between I395 Westcot Road and Mashinuk

05:34Road. And uh the following parcels are

05:37available for anyone to review. So there

05:39are a number of parcels involved in

05:42this. Okay. And this for anyone to be

05:44aware of this um this is a new

05:47application. This is not the application

05:49that was with us before. This is the

05:51commencement of a brand new public

05:53hearing. So it's very important that

05:55everyone understands that if you

05:57submitted anything for the record before

06:00that record is closed and this will be

06:02an entirely new application. So make

06:05sure any statement you have regarding

06:07these you submit it you can submit it in

06:10writing on the website. I believe it's

06:12just what a simple point andclick to

06:14want to explain it to them Jonathan.

06:16>> Yeah on the on the town website there is

06:18a the ability to submit a comment.

06:20There's also a uh public comment um

06:23email address. You can do it either way.

06:26Uh but on the town website, you can

06:28choose exactly what board or commission

06:29you want your comment to go to. But if

06:32you do send a comment uh by email, it's

06:34public comment atkillinglyct.gov.

06:37Uh you're welcome to submit comments

06:39that way. Uh just please put in the

06:41subject line which application you're

06:43speaking to um and which uh commission

06:46you'd like it to go to.

06:48>> Okay. So that is a very easy convenient

06:50way because uh everything is coming in

06:53as a new application. So at this point

06:55we have not even received anything as an

06:57application. So we're going to be

06:59starting off with the presentation of

07:01what is now before us. So Jonathan, do

07:04you want to start with an introduction

07:06and then we'll turn it over to the

07:07applicant so we know what we have?

07:08>> Um I'm I'm gonna move right to the to

07:11the applicant. Let them uh go through.

07:12So, I'm just uh saying that, you know,

07:14the whole packet uh that's in front of

07:16the commission members here tonight is

07:18available on the town website. Uh I've

07:21had a couple people um bring to my

07:22attention there's a couple citizens

07:24comments that I know are in front of the

07:25commission, maybe didn't make it to the

07:27website. Those will be loaded up to the

07:29website hopefully uh shortly. When you

07:32get a bunch of them over the weekend or

07:33last minute, sometimes it takes a little

07:35time to get them on the website. Uh and

07:38uh beyond that, I'm going to turn it

07:39over uh to the applicant. I will point

07:41out as part of the submission uh before

07:45you a lot of uh the old uh thirdparty

07:48review comments and a lot of those items

07:50were submitted as the totality of that

07:52record. Uh so some things are kind of

07:54continuing forward but that you're

07:56correct Sandy this is a new application

07:58so if anyone wants to submit comment

07:59they should submit it. Um

08:02thank you.

08:03>> All right so if you guys could get

08:05started introduce yourselves and we'll

08:07see what we actually have before us at

08:08this point.

08:19Good evening, members of the commission.

08:22My name is Evan Seaman. I'm a lawyer at

08:24Robinson and Cole in Hartford. I'm here

08:26on behalf of the applicant, Ryan

08:27Company's US, Inc. Um, and as you

08:29mentioned, Madam Chair, this is a new

08:31application for a proposed warehouse and

08:34distribution use on an assemblage of 25

08:37parcels uh just over about 550 acres of

08:41land. Uh, the vast majority of which is

08:43located in the business park zoning

08:45district where warehouse and

08:47distribution centers are allowed as of

08:49right. [clears throat]

08:51Um, and this project has been carefully

08:54designed to preserve more than 97% of

08:57the project sites wetlands

09:00uh with uh wetlands mitigation proposed

09:03which you'll hear hear about later this

09:05evening. Uh enhanced wetlands mitigation

09:08measures and the nearly 300 acres of

09:11land that's proposed to be put in

09:12conservation permanently. Uh and that

09:15represents more than 50% of uh the total

09:19land involved in this application. We do

09:21have a PowerPoint uh some slides

09:23available uh to share with you this

09:25evening.

09:28>> One more time.

09:29>> Okay. Um while we're waiting on that, I

09:31do want to introduce our team members

09:33that we have with us this evening. Um on

09:35behalf of Ryan Companies, we have Dustin

09:37Curran. Seated right here uh at at uh

09:40next to him is Dean Gustoson from

09:42AllPoint Technologies Corporation. Uh

09:44Tim Andurko, our project engineer, um is

09:47seated next to uh Mr. Blake. Uh we do

09:51also have from Ryan Company's um Andy

09:54Moffett who was se seated right behind

09:56uh uh these gentlemen. [clears throat]

09:59If you go to the next slide please

10:14thanks and then from Win Stanley

10:16Enterprises we also have Adam and

10:17Stanley and Ted De Santis.

10:20So, we wanted to provide just a a quick

10:22road mapap of our presentation this

10:24evening. Um, first I'll get into this in

10:26just a minute. We're going to uh touch

10:29on the previous application that was

10:31before this commission and the reason

10:32for denial without prejudice. I think

10:34that'll set uh some good context for for

10:36the presentation this evening. Uh

10:38followed by that will be an alternatives

10:41analysis, an updated alternatives

10:42analysis. um uh building design

10:46modifications that have been proposed as

10:49part of this application. You'll hear

10:50about those as well. Uh and then

10:52enhanced wetlands mitigation measures

10:54and there have been some significant

10:56enhancements in wetlands mitigation

10:57which you'll hear from hear about from

10:59Dean Gustoson later on this evening. And

11:01then finally closing remarks. Um if you

11:05go next slide please. So let's let's

11:08talk a little bit about what got us here

11:09and this is the previous application.

11:11Um, as the commission is aware, there

11:13was a previous application similar to

11:15this one before you, uh, considered from

11:18approximately February through July of

11:20of this year. Um, on July 6th, the

11:23commission deliberated on that

11:25application and denied that earlier

11:27application by a vote of 3 to2 without

11:29prejudice. Um, and the applicant uh was

11:33surprised that that application was

11:35denied for a couple of reasons. and it

11:37was surprised that that application was

11:39denied uh because th that application

11:41like this one we believe meets all of

11:44your regulatory requirements contained

11:46within your inland wetlands and water

11:47course regulations. Um in addition, this

11:51commission um engaged Tyen Bonds to

11:54conduct a a third-party peer review um

11:57of the applicants uh project and Tigen

12:00Bond issued many questions and comments.

12:02I think there were over a hundred

12:04questions and comments including the

12:05subp parts and over the course of of

12:08many months um Ryan Company's design

12:11team uh took the time to respond to

12:13those comments. I think there were two

12:15or three rounds of of uh questions and

12:18comments issued and responses filed and

12:21this ultimately resulted in Taigen Bond

12:24uh essentially signing off on its review

12:25and by that I mean uh its comments it

12:28noted have been addressed to Taigen Bond

12:31satisfaction and Tigen Bond also

12:33proposed conditions of approval um as

12:35part of the earlier application were the

12:37commission to uh consider a motion for

12:39approval

12:42also as part of that review by Tigen

12:45Bond. Uh Tigen Bond issued questions and

12:48comments about alternatives and that's

12:50one of the main reasons we're here this

12:51evening because that was the basis for

12:53the commission's denial without

12:55prejudice. And in that alternatives um

12:58uh review by Tigen Bonds uh they

13:01specifically asked whether uh the

13:03building size could be reduced, the

13:04proposed building size could be reduced

13:06and whether a structured parking garage

13:08could present an alternative. Um, in

13:11response to those comments, our our

13:13professional design team uh considered

13:15those comments and questions looked into

13:17it, provided responses, and Tyen Bond uh

13:22uh in response to that additional

13:24information noted that its comments on

13:26those issues of on that issue of

13:27alternatives had been addressed to Tyen

13:29Bond satisfaction.

13:32The issue of alternatives uh really

13:34wasn't raised again until deliberations.

13:37Um, that's when it came up, you know,

13:38really for the for the first time. At

13:41that point, the hearing was closed, so

13:42the applicant wasn't able to respond to

13:44questions and comments of of the

13:46commissioners during deliberations. Um,

13:48and and I, you know, that was even noted

13:51by some members of the commission during

13:52deliberations. And that's, you know,

13:55that's why um, we were surprised at the

13:57outcome of that first application being

13:59based on the denial of of an exhaustion

14:01of the alternatives analysis. Um, so if

14:04you could go to the next slide, please.

14:06Here is the reason for denial without

14:09prejudice. As you recall, there was one

14:11reason failure to exhaust feasible and

14:14prudent alternatives. And the commission

14:17um as part of that said the applicant

14:19had focused on reconfiguring only on on

14:22reconfiguring the 1.38 million square

14:24footprint of the building and it failed

14:27to demonstrate that a feasible uh and

14:29prudent alternative does not exist that

14:31would cause less environmental impact.

14:34Um,

14:36as part of that denial, the commission

14:38also suggested uh a few things that the

14:42applicant should look into and and those

14:45uh recommendations were actually

14:47identical to the comments that were

14:49raised by Tagen Bond in its in its

14:51review comments. That is, could you

14:54could the applicant uh potentially

14:55reduce the building size um and

14:58referenced uh another warehouse in town,

15:00free delay? And then second, the issue

15:02of the the the uh parking structure,

15:05whether a parking structure would

15:06represent a feasible and prudent

15:08alternative. Um so again, that's that's

15:11why the applicant was surprised at at

15:13the at how the vote turned out. This

15:15issue had been addressed while the

15:16public hearing was still open. Um and

15:18and it was addressed to Tigen Bond

15:20satisfaction. But um uh since that

15:23denial, uh we've conducted further

15:26investigation and that's what bring us

15:27brings us here this evening. additional

15:28application materials on this topic of

15:30alternatives. If you go next slide

15:32please.

15:37And also and it so not only has the

15:39applicant investigated uh further the

15:42issue of alternatives um but it's also

15:46considered potential design

15:47modifications. And Madame Chair, I

15:50believe you and some other members of

15:51the commission during deliberations said

15:53that the commission tries to work with

15:55applicants. Oftentimes the original

15:58design that's submitted as part of an

15:59application isn't what's ultimately

16:01approved. There's a process, there's

16:03modifications, alternatives are

16:05considered. So in that spirit, uh the

16:07applicant has submitted uh revised plans

16:10this evening that uh include some

16:12additional design modifications. Uh the

16:15first is a uh reduction in the building

16:18size of about 58,000 square feet. This

16:21is on top of the reduction that was made

16:23in the earlier application of 87,000

16:26square ft. Uh in addition to that a

16:29reduction of about 200 parking spaces

16:31which reduces uh both together both of

16:34which reduce impervious area on the

16:36property. uh and also it's substantially

16:40increased the wetlands mitigation area

16:42that's part of this application and that

16:44will be uh a main focal point of our

16:48discussion a little bit later on. Um and

16:50then finally there there are proposed

16:52enforcable conditions of approval

16:54related to that wetlands mitigation

16:56issue. We want to be sure, Ryan

16:59Companies wants to be sure that the

17:00wetlands mitigation that it proposes is

17:03going to be successful and and the

17:05conditions of approval that we've

17:06proposed as part of that uh will will

17:09help to make sure that that's the case,

17:10including bonding requirements and

17:12additional oversight by a third party.

17:17Um so before handing it over to our team

17:20members to get into um uh the specifics

17:24of the alternatives analysis and the

17:26updated design modifications I did want

17:28to address one more point and um a

17:32comment during deliberations it appeared

17:34to s one comment appeared to suggest

17:36that um if there's any impact to

17:40wetlands an application can't be

17:42approved and that's that's just not the

17:45your wetlands regulations, the general

17:47statutes that they they actually provide

17:49otherwise. It's a balancing test. You

17:52have to balance a property owner's

17:54private interests to develop his or her

17:56property against environmental concern.

17:59And we believe that when this agency

18:01conducts that balancing test, hears

18:03about the design modifications, the

18:05wetlands enhancement, the wetlands

18:07mitigation enhance enhancement that's

18:09occurred, uh the scales will tip heavily

18:12in favor of approval. And that's on top,

18:15you know, that's on top of in addition

18:17to the wetlands mitigation, still

18:19proposing nearly 300 acres of

18:20conservation area, uh, still uh,

18:23proposing impacts to just 2% of the

18:26site's wetlands. And those are the

18:28lowest functioning and in wetlands that

18:30have the lowest values on the property.

18:32Nearly 98% of all wetlands on the

18:35property uh, are going to be protected.

18:38So with that introduction, I'd like

18:40[clears throat] to now turn it over to

18:42uh Tim to uh lead the presentation.

18:49Good evening everyone. Tim Murko,

18:50professional engineer with Lang. Um

18:54Evan, thanks for the uh introduction and

18:57and setting the scene here. um going to

19:00recap um some of the alternatives that

19:04were presented I believe back in January

19:06in our our first public hearing and are

19:09included in um the all points report uh

19:12and wetland assessment report and talk

19:15through kind of the iterations that have

19:17happened um kind of over the life cycle

19:19of this project to show you that um

19:22alternatives have been evaluated and

19:24looked at. Um this is uh what we

19:26presented previously and and include in

19:28current reports is alternative one. Um

19:31not going to spend a ton of time on

19:33them, but shows um you know an early

19:35initial concept for the site that uh had

19:38two buildings of a slightly smaller

19:40footprint. I believe about 500,000 and

19:42300,000 square ft uh and two driveways

19:46entering the site. This created a direct

19:49wetland impact of about 70,000 square

19:51feet and an upland review area impact of

19:54about 29,000 square feet. Uh for

19:57reference, our our current design that

20:00direct impact is around 23,000 square ft

20:03and the upland review is uh also around

20:0623 acres. So um alternative one both

20:10higher on direct impact as well as uh

20:13higher on um upland review area impact.

20:17Alternative two, uh this is a similar

20:20layout. Buildings start to shift. Design

20:23was advanced a bit. Grading and

20:25retaining walls were studied. A single

20:27driveway access point was evaluated.

20:29Parking lots were configured. Detention

20:32basins were sized. Um and this

20:34alternative uh created 98,000 square

20:38feet of direct wetland impact and about

20:4148 acres of upland review. So um and and

20:45again in terms of scale to com to the

20:48current application uh significantly

20:50higher on both directly and impact as

20:52well as uh upland review area.

20:55Concept number three, starting to look

20:58closer to the application um that we

21:02have presented and prepared uh still uh

21:05with some larger impacts for uh above

21:09ground basins uh as well as uh roadway

21:13entry from Wescott. This plan uh

21:16included 54,000 square feet of direct

21:19wetland impact. So more than double the

21:22current application uh and about 28

21:24acres of upland impact uh across uh

21:29wetlands both in the center of the site

21:31as well as uh those with which bring the

21:34site driveway out to Westcot Road.

21:39Uh we're calling alternative four our

21:42January submission to you. Uh if you

21:45remember, we we spent quite a bit of

21:46time presenting on this and uh you know,

21:49one of the things that we think that

21:51this plan really does is it shows, you

21:55know, when you look at wetlands in

21:58yellow, upland review in blue, there is

22:01really a square on this site that is

22:04most appropriate for the location and

22:07sighting of development. And we think

22:09that through those iterations that we

22:12spent quite a bit of time on and worked

22:15with a building and a program that has

22:18uh associate and truck requirements.

22:21This is the the most prudent location

22:25for that. Um this plan when we started

22:29had two driveways to Westcot Road. We

22:31had four bridge crossings of uh wetlands

22:36which are uh under federal jurisdiction

22:40would require Army Corps approval for

22:42disruption. We were proposing clear span

22:45bridges so that we didn't have direct

22:47wetland impact as we entered the site

22:50and rose up the hill. Um but those

22:53crossings do have upland review impact

22:56because of their location and that is

22:59the purple that you see uh in kind of

23:02two locations uh most adjacent to

23:04Wescott and to the 395 on-ramp.

23:08As we worked uh you know through the

23:10application, we had conversations with

23:14planning and zoning, we had

23:15conversations with Connecticut DOT. We

23:18spent quite a bit of time with the fire

23:20marshall and that brought us to the plan

23:24that we had submitted in May uh to the

23:27commission where we went to a single

23:29driveway that now had two bridge

23:32crossings of the wetlands heading to

23:33Wescott and eliminated the two western

23:37bridge crossings uh that were closer to

23:39395. So every step along the way, we

23:43felt like we were bringing in the both

23:45the upland uh impact um from the

23:50development and as part of that mason

23:52mission, the building footprint was

23:54reduced by 87,000 square feet. Actually

23:57took a program out of the building that

24:00was a you know a desire of the tenant.

24:03Uh and with that building reduction and

24:06some lane reconfiguration, the

24:08elimination of the second driveway

24:10reduce total in on-site impervious by

24:132.6 acres. So um moving uh in the

24:17direction to uh make improvements to

24:22this emission coming from uh a number of

24:25different agencies in including

24:27yourself.

24:28And um again with those changes we still

24:33felt that the building location was most

24:36appropriate in that box that was visible

24:38uh in the prior slide.

24:42Uh as um attorney Seaman mentioned uh

24:46there was discussion with Thai bond

24:49about is there building reduction that

24:52you can make and one of our responses

24:54was yes we were able to remove a program

24:56and took 87,000 square feet out of the

24:58building. Uh they also said is it

25:01possible for you to look at a parking

25:03deck um and uh you know is that possible

25:07and and does it provide uh significant

25:10benefit to upland or direct wetland

25:12impact and uh we did study those there's

25:15a whole paragraph in our response

25:17parking deck adds complexity. It um is

25:21not necessarily the most appropriate for

25:24uh vehicle or pedestrian safety. When

25:26you go to a parking deck, it's typically

25:28much harder to have interior

25:29landscaping. So, you end up with kind of

25:32a flat concrete plate as opposed to a

25:34surface parking lot that you could have

25:37landscaped islands and uh do a little

25:39bit better to manage pedestrian

25:40movement. But we had looked at it uh and

25:44provided some feedback on on both of

25:46those.

25:49Um and you know

25:53we felt that those alternatives which

25:55were really a result of multiple

25:58iterations. You know we we show a

26:00snapshot of a concept plan. We show you

26:03know especially the I think concept 2

26:06where basins are graded in parking is

26:09laid out interior circulation. um you

26:12know that that takes time and effort and

26:15thought and um wanted to to make the

26:19point that you know these alternatives

26:21are not taken lightly. They are not

26:23thrown together to you know just meet a

26:26requirement if there is a better

26:28alternative. Um we are we were certainly

26:31trying to works towards that and and

26:33felt that again um you know

26:36collaborating with uh the third party

26:38peer reviewer uh were able to make some

26:40changes and and really felt that you

26:42know the elimination of the second

26:44driveway and our ability to talk to DOT

26:46and the fire marshall about that were

26:48again moving us um in the right

26:50direction to uh minimize our impact um

26:54and impact only those wetlands on site

26:57um that were of the lowest quality.

27:01So, um you know, continuing to advance

27:04our discussion. Again, um you know, the

27:07alternatives that we were asked to

27:08evaluate as part of the prior decision

27:11were investigate structure parking and

27:15reduced uh building footprint. So, I'm

27:17going to continue on here. Um, so this

27:22plan is a alternative concept with a

27:26parking deck and not a surface parking

27:29lot in the front. And if, uh, my cursor

27:33doesn't let me show you my cursor. So,

27:36um,

27:38building footprint hasn't moved, but the

27:40gray rectangular box down the page is

27:44the, uh, proposed parking deck that

27:47basically takes the long linear parking

27:49field that you have seen in our plans,

27:51cuts it in half and stacks it. Now that

27:55that change does not impact upland

27:59review impact area at all and it does

28:02not change the impact to the four green

28:06wetlands. The benefit of that of the

28:09alternative is it would reduce

28:11impervious coverage. So from an upland

28:14review impact no change from a direct

28:17impact no change.

28:20potentially some uh logistics and site

28:23operations, emergency vehicle access,

28:26safety, pedestrian movement. Um but uh

28:29it does in the end reduce total

28:32impervious area which could be a benefit

28:34to the project. Uh it doesn't change the

28:37approach to storm water management.

28:39Doesn't change our systems. It makes

28:41them get a little bit smaller but still

28:43has the same function u that we've

28:45discussed uh previously. So, um, this is

28:49what we're we're calling alternate five

28:52and, um, see if I have anything else to

28:55to note on there. Um, uh, is feasible,

29:00but again, doesn't change

29:03any of the the kind of the doesn't

29:05change impact to regulated area and does

29:07not change impact to the on-site wellin.

29:12Uh the the next comment was about

29:15building foot revisions or reductions

29:18and that the town is uh more accustomed

29:22to warehouse buildings that operate in

29:25the 500,000 square foot range at UNFI

29:28and basically the same 467,000

29:32ft at the Fredo facility. and you know

29:35is there a way to significantly reduce

29:37footprint to be um you know more in line

29:39with those other facilities uh that

29:42would avoid the direct filling of 16 17

29:4418 and 25. Uh and we've we've spent some

29:48time looking at um kind of the history

29:52of those facilities as well as what is

29:56current industry standards and what is

29:59the the driver for building size and the

30:03main driver for building size is the use

30:07and the systems that are located inside

30:09the building and looking at kind of new

30:13and current distribution and logistics.

30:15six facilities. We have five or six here

30:20kind of in the immediate area and Lowe's

30:23at 1.3 million square feet. Lowe's at

30:251.3 million square ft. Walmart at 1.2

30:28million square ft. Uline and Planefield

30:30at 1.2 million square feet and Costco uh

30:33proposing two buildings totaling 1.1

30:36million square feet uh in Canterbury and

30:38Planefield. So uh from a a you know

30:42current building design and operations

30:46we feel that uh ours is in line with

30:50kind of current standards and uh in

30:53looking through the the history of the

30:56UNFI facility, it was built in 1989

31:00and in talking to brokers that uh manage

31:04and kind of evaluate sites for them, all

31:08of their new facilities are operating at

31:10the 1.1 to 1.2. So they are not building

31:13467,000

31:15foot facilities. Their current

31:17operations drive buildings bigger. So

31:19while a site that is, you know, 36 years

31:23old is possibly some precedent, we don't

31:26think it's in line with um kind of

31:28current standards for a user like United

31:31Natural Foods.

31:35Uh and then uh we also took a look at

31:38the Fredo facility and this is a direct

31:42overlay took a snapshot to scale of

31:46Fredo Lelay's facility and dropped it on

31:49our site and uh what we found is the

31:53Fredo Lelay uh facility occupies about

31:5670 acres kind of call it back of curb

31:59and in for trailer parking, employee

32:02parking, building circulation and

32:04movement.

32:05uh and our application in May and July

32:09was at 68 acres. Uh and currently

32:12proposed with the reduction to the

32:16parking lot and the building footprint,

32:18we are now at 63 acres. So, uh our July

32:22application and current materials, we

32:24actually occupy less than kind of the

32:27total footprint of Fredo despite their

32:30their building being uh smaller. And

32:34again, you could sure shape shift and

32:36move, but in the end to fit a facility

32:39like Fredo lay here, you would still

32:41have uh the impact to the four wetlands

32:45at the kind of the center of the site,

32:47possibly more to accommodate uh their

32:49various operations and requirements. So,

32:52um, we we hope that this is, you know,

32:55kind of a useful snapshot and showing

32:57kind of how they could compare and that,

33:00you know, we're somewhere on the order

33:02of 10% less impervious uh than they have

33:06um on their existing facility even while

33:10using a smaller building footprint.

33:14Um the other thing that we looked at um

33:18over the last few months is um we

33:21believe that the uh location of our

33:26building concentrates our activity to a

33:30single point um and it it is operating

33:33significantly less than the limits to

33:37development permitted by the zoning

33:40regulations. So uh we have about 340

33:43acres located in the BP zone which

33:46allows up to 50% imperous coverage and

33:50we have 214 acres uh which will be

33:53placed into conservation in the RD zone

33:56that per permits up to 15%

33:59uh impervious coverage that is they they

34:02use lot coverage in the zoning

34:04regulations uh but that is actually um

34:08the uh same definition as their

34:10impervious coverage. So, it's building

34:12plus uh hard surface. And you know,

34:15putting those together, the essentially

34:17total uh coverage that be permitted, you

34:19know, across the property is north of

34:22200 acres. And you know, we're proposing

34:25to be in the 60s. So uh this this single

34:30building single use uh with associated

34:34uh you know trailer and employee parking

34:37uh

34:39takes a very small percentage of the

34:42allowable uh that could come into a site

34:45like this using smaller buildings,

34:47smaller parking lots and dotting them uh

34:50across the property. So, um, again, in

34:53terms of, um, you know, an alternative

34:57could be to come in with multiple

34:59smaller buildings, which I I think we've

35:01heard a number of times in in testimony.

35:04Um, but, you know, doing so, uh, would

35:07allow for significantly more development

35:09on the property. uh you know if the RD

35:12zone was not placed in conservation you

35:16know could be developed as you know I

35:18believe single family homes is probably

35:20the the most intense use that could fit

35:22um uh around the property uh and that

35:25could generate up to 30 acres of new

35:28impervious that um would not happen due

35:31to the the conservation area of uh

35:33that's being placed on the property. So

35:35again, just in terms of uh you know,

35:37alternatives, seeing how our ratios

35:40compare to uh total developable, we

35:42thought was um worth providing

35:44information on.

35:47Um as part of the the latest materials

35:50that we provided and as mentioned in the

35:52introduction, uh our current application

35:56makes yet another uh reduction to

35:59building footprint. So, hard to see on

36:02here, um, but there there was a small

36:05bumpout on the south side of the

36:07building totaling about 58,000 square

36:09ft. Uh, that was a, um, a component of

36:14building operations. That was eliminated

36:17to make the footprint smaller. With

36:20that, it allows us to reduce on-site

36:23parking by 200 spaces. And when you take

36:26off uh a little over an acre almost an

36:29acre and a half of building coverage and

36:32the 200 parking spaces uh as well as 29

36:36trailer stalls, we we reduce the total

36:40on-site impervious by 4 and a half

36:42acres. Um again, this does not change

36:47any value associated with direct wetland

36:50impact or upland review and that all of

36:53this work is still in that box uh that

36:56the prior application is. So um again

36:59the the upland review impact direct

37:01impact don't change but total impervious

37:04does come down uh with this uh program

37:07change and the associated reduction in

37:10parking spaces.

37:13So I will stop there and [laughter]

37:18and turn it over to Dean to talk about

37:21enhanced wetland mitigation. Great.

37:24Thank you Tim. Uh Dean Gustin, senior

37:26wetland scientist, Law Points

37:27Technology. Um good evening folks.

37:31So, we're one of the um significant

37:34changes to the application before you is

37:37we um took an opportunity to eval

37:40reevaluate the site to see what other

37:42mitigation opportunities might exist and

37:45to provide further uh wetland

37:48restoration, creation, enhancement areas

37:50um to um compensate for the project's

37:55unavoidable resource impacts. As the

37:58commission's fully aware, you have a

38:01policy to require applicants to provide

38:03a minimum of 1:1 mitigation ratio. Um,

38:07we our initial submission uh we were

38:10just shy of that and um and then we

38:13doubled it uh later on through our uh

38:16June application uh submission um and we

38:21improved that to 1.4 and then ultimately

38:23to 1.9.

38:25Um we've taken a look at the proposed

38:28project area and particularly around

38:31wetland one where a lot of our

38:33mitigation is situated in addition to

38:36connecting wetlands 21 and 22 the

38:39southwest corner of the site. Um the

38:42southeastern corner of the site um

38:44there's a residence uh a rear yard. Um

38:48there looks like there's some historic

38:50wetland encroachment and the soils in

38:53that area are primarily uh Woodbridge uh

38:56fine sand which is uh moderately well

38:59drained glacial till with harpan. Um so

39:01it's an area that provides an

39:03opportunity um location for additional

39:06wetland creation adjacent to wetland one

39:10and provide additional buffer

39:11enhancements between that uh significant

39:14wetland system which has an interior

39:16vernal pool habitat and buffering it to

39:19Westcot Road. So we're able to add a

39:23significant area of wetland mitigation

39:25in that corner of the site and thereby

39:28increase our mitigation ratio to over

39:313.5 to one uh which is fairly

39:35significant um from any development

39:38standpoint. Um but there is a great

39:41opportunity to uh enhance that wetland

39:44one system. Uh obviously it's a high

39:46value wetland system with the internal

39:49fernal pool habitat. Um so it provides

39:52uh a a great increase in function and

39:55value for any mitigation can be done in

39:57and around that wetland system.

40:00There was some discussion uh the

40:03previous application about you know

40:05asurances for

40:08uh making sure the wetland mitigation is

40:11successful and we achieve our mitigation

40:14ratios at the end of the day. Um we

40:17follow standards that are provided by

40:20the Army Corps of Engineering New

40:22England District. There are standing

40:24operating procedures for uh wetland

40:26mitigation. Uh it's a published

40:28document. We follow all those standards

40:31with respect to our design setting up

40:33our performance standards and monitoring

40:35both con during construction and post

40:37construction.

40:39that uh SOP document is also endorsed by

40:42the Connecticut Department of Energy

40:44Environmental Protection within their

40:45wetland mitigation program. Um so we're

40:48following wellestablished protocols and

40:50standards throughout the industry with

40:52respect to [clears throat] mitigation

40:53wetland mitigation design.

40:56In addition, uh the applicant is willing

40:59to fully bond and assure that mitigation

41:02plan um as well as provide for a five

41:07years post construction monitoring um to

41:10asssure that the mitigation areas are

41:12achieving their success standards. Uh

41:15providing the appropriate level of

41:17wetland functions and values. They're

41:19functioning as wetland systems. They

41:20look like wetland systems. they're

41:22supporting the predominance of

41:23hydrophite or wetland vegetation and

41:25also supporting uh wetland hydraology.

41:29Um so all of those asurances are uh part

41:32and parcel of the uh enhanced and

41:35revised wetland mitigation plan.

41:38Next slide please.

41:42So this is just a quick overview of the

41:44the project site um with the various

41:47wetlands uh water courses vernal pools

41:50that were previously delineated on the

41:52project site as well as uh on on the

41:57adjacent conservation area uh with the

42:00within the hunt club. uh it shows the

42:03kind of um scattered nature of the

42:06various wetland features and in

42:08particular we have the four uh isolated

42:11wetland systems within the interior of

42:13the project site. Um those are wetlands

42:1616 17 18 and 25. uh those are all low

42:22value wetland systems as we'll discuss

42:24in a little bit further detail on some

42:26subsequent slides but those wetlands uh

42:30are just defined by soil type um they

42:34don't really support sustained wetland

42:36hydraology they don't support a

42:39predominance of wetland vegetation um

42:41they don't look that dissimilar to the

42:43surrounding forested uplands um by

42:47comparison

42:49several of the wetland systems that are

42:52occupy the rest of the project site as

42:55well as the conservation area. Um, and

42:59in particular the conservation uh

43:01easement area that we're proposing in

43:04kind of boxed in by the orange line in

43:06the eastern side of the site uh contain

43:09uh by comparison very high value uh

43:12wetland systems that provide a

43:14significant number of functions and

43:16values. Um they're supporting vernal

43:19pool habitat um and they are uh

43:23providing um significant aquatic habitat

43:26resources within several of those

43:29wetland systems.

43:31Next slide please.

43:35Here we're just highlighting um you know

43:38the same plan that we had before with

43:40respect to conservation space that's

43:42being provided as part of this project

43:44uh which is a substantial uh amount of

43:47acreage that contains um those reference

43:50high value wetland systems. We have a

43:53conservation easement of over 76 acres

43:55along the eastern side of the project

43:57site. Uh that encompasses um the

44:01headarters of Matchuck Brook uh as well

44:03as uh a significantly large pool system

44:07contained within uh wetland uh 13. And

44:12um the yellow area provides uh the

44:15existing hunt club uh over almost 215

44:18acres of conservation area that will

44:20bequeath

44:22to the town um as open space.

44:27So, we're, you know, when you look at

44:30the the [clears throat] project size and

44:32what's being encompassed by the project

44:35development, there's a significant

44:37amount of land that is going to be

44:39preserved in perpetuity uh that will

44:41also preserve important aquatic and

44:44wetland resource habitats uh in around

44:47this project site.

44:50Next slide, please.

44:52>> Yeah, Dean, before you go on, Dean says

44:53that so matterof factly. Um but I think

44:56what what's really at stake or being

44:59presented here is a very unprecedented

45:02um wetlands mitigation plan with the

45:04conservation area, a 3:1 ratio of

45:07mitigation. Um

45:10it's hardressed to find [music] probably

45:12another plan that has the net positive

45:14impact uh that we are presenting today.

45:20>> Yeah, Dustin, it's a great point. Um, in

45:22my 40-year experience, 40 years of as a

45:25wetland consultant in Connecticut,

45:27working on uh hundreds if not thousands

45:29of projects, um, and particularly large

45:32scale projects. Uh, I've never been

45:34involved in a project that has this much

45:37uh, conservation area that's been

45:39provided to the town. Um, it provides a

45:42significant amount of benefit um, from a

45:44wetland resource protection standpoint

45:47uh, in perpetuity. uh and is you know is

45:50not a small um

45:53you know it's not a small amount of

45:56conservation area that's being proposed

45:58and it also contains uh in addition to

46:00high value wetland resources it contains

46:03high value terrestrial forested habitat

46:06um that is supported by some of the

46:09vernal larger vernal pool systems on

46:11this property so I agree with Dustin you

46:14we can't stress the importance of that

46:16enough.

46:18Um these photos are just some

46:20representative photos kind of showing

46:22you some of the the high value wetland

46:24systems on the project site. Um these

46:27are located within the conservation

46:29easement area. Um and are associated

46:32with wetland 8 mashukbrook headwater

46:35systems.

46:38Next slide please.

46:42These are some additional photographs uh

46:45of wetland 13 in vernal pool 4 uh

46:49located within the conservation easement

46:51area showing you the high value kind of

46:53wetland and aquatic habitat that's being

46:55provided by these resources.

47:03Again, these are additional high value

47:05wetland systems. Uh this one these

47:07photographs are from Davis Brook

47:09headarters as well as frontal pool one

47:12on the right hand side of the the two

47:14photos.

47:21Um so as we've already kind of discussed

47:24this this project represents an

47:26unprecedented amount of wetland

47:27protection and preservation. Um,

47:31you know, essentially when you look at

47:34the amount of wetlands that are located

47:35with on the project site within the

47:37conservation area, within the

47:39conservation easement,

47:41uh, we're protecting and preserving, uh,

47:44over 42 acres of wetland and important

47:48aquatic habitats on this project. Um,

47:53you know, for the area within the

47:57conservation easement, we're protecting

47:59almost 12 acres of wetlands and and the

48:02the site's largest vernal pool system,

48:05which is an enormous vernal pool

48:07habitat.

48:09uh and within the Hunt Club uh

48:12conservation area preserving almost 30

48:14acres of additional wetland systems uh

48:18and headwaters to Mashtuk brook

48:22and we're providing nearly 2 acres of

48:25wetland mitigation between conserv the

48:29uh enhancement areas the wetland

48:32creation areas wetland restoration areas

48:35um and that's not even accounting uh

48:38sever several acres of enhancements

48:40within the upland review area that we're

48:42proposing in combination with those

48:45mitigation areas. And that's all for a

48:48replacement of a little over a half acre

48:50of four small isolated low functioning

48:54wetland systems.

48:57Next slide.

49:01So we'll just go through these are

49:03photographs. These next two slides are

49:05photographs of the four isolated

49:07wetlands that are being proposed to be

49:10filled as part of this project. Uh

49:13wetland 16 is on the left, wetland 17 is

49:16on the right. Um as you can kind of

49:20discern from these photographs, um they

49:24don't provide kind of the visual clues

49:26that you typically look for from a

49:27wetland system perspective. Um the uh

49:32there's no real surface indicators of

49:35sustained uh hydraology or inundation.

49:39Uh they don't persist for a significant

49:41part of the growing season except for

49:43the early part of the spring uh late

49:46winter period. Uh and they but they do

49:50are classified as wetlands uh solely by

49:53soil type. They contain you know poorly

49:55drained glacial till soils. So they do

49:58classify as a regulated wetland but um

50:00because of their small size, the lack of

50:04vegetative diversity from a wetland

50:06perspective, uh lack of hydraology, they

50:08don't provide uh your typical functions

50:11and values.

50:14Next slide.

50:17Here is uh wetland 18 on the left and

50:21wetland 25 on the right. Again,

50:24um from a visual standpoint, they don't

50:27um truly look like, you know, wetland

50:30areas per se. Um and it kind of bellays

50:34the the lack of function value that

50:36these areas uh provide um as associated

50:40with these isolated wetland systems.

50:44Next slide, please.

50:46So, we thought it'd be useful to provide

50:49a couple of comparative photographs of

50:51some of the forested uplands that are in

50:53or around uh these wetland areas. And to

50:56a certain degree, um they don't look

50:59that dissimilar to the four isolated

51:02wetland systems. Um so that was the main

51:05intent of this just to from a a habitat

51:08and a visual perspective um from a

51:11wetland function value perspective.

51:14um they they aren't providing that much

51:17different functions and valleys than the

51:18surrounding terrestal forested uplands.

51:27So we did go through an approved

51:30jurisdictional determination process

51:31with the US Army Corps of Engineers, New

51:34England District uh for wetland 16, 17,

51:3718, and 25. Um the four isolated

51:40wetlands that are being proposed to be

51:43impacted by this project. Um, and the

51:46core determined as noted in this letter

51:48and it's in our an attachment in our

51:51wetland assessment report that the the

51:54four isolated wetlands are not

51:55significant and therefore determined

51:57that the wetlands are not classified as

51:59federal wetlands and are not considered

52:01waters of the United States.

52:04So we have that formal determination

52:06from the army corps

52:12for the uh wetland mitigation uh plan.

52:15We have provided some additional

52:18enhancements that I noted earlier in my

52:19presentation that's circled in yellow.

52:22That's an area in the northeast uh the

52:26southeast corner of the project site. Um

52:29the area shaded in red is an area of

52:32proposed wetland uh restoration and

52:35creation. Uh and then that's bordered to

52:39the south and to the east in blue by

52:42buffer enhancement areas. So we're

52:45that's an area that's a current uh

52:47residential home uh maintained rear

52:50yard. Uh some outuilding structures

52:52those will all be raised uh and the

52:55aerial will be restored to native

52:57habitat. both wetlands large wetland

53:00area will be added to wetland one which

53:04is the central wetland system uh within

53:07this mitigation area.

53:09Uh and we will also to help kind of

53:12buffer that new mitigation area. We'll

53:15do some uh upland reviewer enhancements

53:18um to help buffer that area from Westcot

53:22Road. that also dovetales in with our

53:25already pre-existing wetland mitigation

53:28area um that surrounds kind of the

53:31western side of wetland one uh both to

53:34the east and to the west. Um so um this

53:39is uh a more comprehensive and complete

53:42uh opportunity to provide uh

53:44enhancements to wetland one, increase

53:47its aerial size, uh uh add to its

53:50existing high function and value uh and

53:53also remove existing structures that

53:56surround that wetland system and provide

53:58additional buffering uh from Westcart

54:01Road whereas today there is there is no

54:03buffer from that road system.

54:06So, we feel this is a significant

54:08improvement to the overall mitigation

54:10plan. Again, we're over 3.5 to one

54:14mitigation ratio with this addition. Uh,

54:17and it also dovtales in with all the

54:19other pre-existing mitigation areas uh

54:22and the pollinator habitat. So, it's one

54:25kind of cohesive uh ecosystem that we're

54:28improving in this part of the site.

54:31[clears throat]

54:33Next slide, please.

54:36So the next couple of slides just show

54:38some representative uh wetland

54:40mitigation projects that we've been

54:42involved in uh in Connecticut over the

54:44past couple of years. Um the project

54:48site on the left is from uh West

54:50Hartford. Uh we had some stream uh

54:54restoration uh armoring as well as flood

54:57plane mitigation uh components um at

55:01[snorts]

55:02um at one park. Uh the area on the right

55:06is a wetland creation area uh from

55:10Brookfield uh off of Route uh Route 7 uh

55:13corridor, commercial corridor. Next

55:16slide, please.

55:19And and what we're trying to express

55:21with these slides is to show you that,

55:23you know, wetland mitigation is fairly

55:25common throughout Connecticut. Uh we

55:27have a very high success rate. Uh all

55:29these projects went through very

55:30long-term monitoring. Uh West Harford,

55:33we just wrapped up year five. Um and we

55:37uh were successfully able to achieve all

55:40the design standards um and get sign off

55:43from the town that um the mitigation

55:45areas was a success. Here is again

55:49exemplifies some mitigation areas on

55:51this uh one park west hardford project.

55:53The area on the left uh is with is a

55:56combination of uh wetland uh enhancement

55:59restoration as well as some buffer

56:01enhancements. Uh, and this is kind of

56:04what the pollinator habitat they were

56:06proposing would look like. Um, with the

56:10high variety of of pollinator species in

56:12bloom in this photograph. And the area

56:15on the right is an area of wetland uh

56:17restoration creation uh as part of uh

56:21flood plane um mitigation associated

56:25with the stream that's uh in the woods.

56:27in your lefthand side of that

56:28photograph.

56:35So in in summary um you know the the

56:39plan the mitigation plan has been um you

56:43know has followed you know industry

56:45standards both from a federal and state

56:47standpoint from mitigation design

56:48standpoint. Um, as you recall, it went

56:52through a full peer review uh with your

56:54consultant time bond the last

56:56application. Uh, they found that um all

57:00of our plans, mitigation plans and

57:02standards and protection measures um

57:05satisfied their requirements. Um so we

57:08have a high degree of confidence that we

57:11can you know replace uh 23,000 square

57:15feet of low functioning wetland systems

57:17with over 82,000 square ft of high

57:20quality wetland systems

57:23>> with

57:30the end of my discussion. Thank you.

57:39Thanks Dean. Um as I mentioned earlier

57:42uh this is really a balancing test and

57:45um

57:47uh impact to wetlands or loss of

57:48wetlands does not does not mean that a

57:50project can't move forward. Here's um

57:53language from the statute the wetlands

57:55and water courses act u which

57:57specifically calls out this balancing

57:59test. Um and if you can go to the next

58:01slide please. There's precedent for this

58:03in town. Um and here are some projects

58:05where there were direct impacts to

58:07wetlands and um when conducting this

58:10balancing test, the commission approved

58:11these applications. So um context

58:14matters and um you have to ask yourself

58:17or as part of this balancing test um uh

58:21uh what's being proposed here and what's

58:23being proposed is lowquality wetlands

58:26lowquality wetlands 2% of the site's

58:28lowquality wetlands are going to be

58:30impacted. Um, on the flip side, as

58:33you've just heard heard from, uh, Dean

58:35Dustson,

58:37uh, significant wetlands mitigation is

58:39proposed, 3 to one wetlands mitigation

58:42ratio, uh, 42 acres of, uh, wetlands to

58:46be protected, uh, and preserved, nearly

58:50300 acres of land to be permanently

58:53protected through a conservation

58:54restriction.

58:5698% of the site's high quality wetlands,

59:00the highest quality quality wetlands on

59:02the site are going to be protected and

59:04preserved. So, um uh there is precedent

59:07for that in this in in town. Uh the

59:09statutes, your regulations,

59:12um uh uh specifically called this out.

59:14So, um any suggestion that um a project

59:18can't be approved because of loss of

59:20wetlands uh including lowquality

59:22wetlands um is is not accurate.

59:26Thank you.

59:29>> Thank you.

59:30>> Thank you.

59:31>> Okay. Actually, are you guys set for

59:33now?

59:35>> I' at this point, I'd like to ask if any

59:37of our commission members, first of all,

59:39it's hard to have a lot of questions

59:40when we haven't had a chance to look at

59:42the several hundred pages yet.

59:48>> Did you have some more? We we just had

59:50some closing remarks here that we can

59:51summarize, but if you want to ask some

59:53questions, I can finalize my commission

59:55first of all to have an opportunity to

59:57>> yeah do that, but right now it's a lot.

1:00:00>> So just looking um through the uh

1:00:04mitigation uh for each of the wetlands.

1:00:07It it does call out the monitoring. Um

1:00:10but does that also include inspection of

1:00:12invasive species?

1:00:16>> Yes, it Dean got us in from all points.

1:00:18Yes, it does. U and we actually have a

1:00:20section within the notes and granted

1:00:22there are a lot of notes on the

1:00:24mitigation plans. Um but we do have um

1:00:27two sections that deal with invasive

1:00:29species. With the respect to the

1:00:32mitigation plan, we have standards set.

1:00:35Um there were from what I recall there

1:00:38was some discussion back and forth with

1:00:39Tyan Bond on this particular matter. Um,

1:00:42we modified those notes [clears throat]

1:00:45to address their concern, but we do have

1:00:48set standards for the amount of invasive

1:00:51species percent aerial coverage. Um,

1:00:54where there's a tripping point where it

1:00:57requires action so that invasives don't

1:00:59overrun our native plantings that we're

1:01:01putting in. The second part of the

1:01:04invasive species is an invasive species

1:01:06control plan which has to deal more with

1:01:08the site development operation.

1:01:11um ensuring the contractor is bringing

1:01:14clean equipment materials, they're not

1:01:17dragging in invasive seed stock. Um and

1:01:20as part of the overall site development,

1:01:23aside from the mitigation areas, we're

1:01:26also monitoring to ensure that invasives

1:01:28don't get a foothold in the upland areas

1:01:30or surrounding the development.

1:01:33>> Okay. So my concern and and I do

1:01:36understand you know the clean equipment

1:01:38coming onto the site and trying to

1:01:40control it that way but once this

1:01:42facility opens up now you are I don't

1:01:45know how many trucks a day are coming in

1:01:47from all over and you're bringing it

1:01:49could potentially bring in invasive

1:01:51species. So is there anything after that

1:01:55five years where the site will get

1:01:58monitored for invasives or is or is it

1:02:01just stop at the five years? I think

1:02:03that's something we can work out as a

1:02:04typical owner operator maintenance

1:02:07program to um have some sort of cadence

1:02:10regarding inspections in perpetuity for

1:02:13for that. I think that could be maybe

1:02:16something we consider as a condition of

1:02:17approval and appropriate operations and

1:02:19maintenance.

1:02:20>> Okay.

1:02:21>> Thank you.

1:02:21>> Yep. And just to further that

1:02:23discussion, um, we can certainly

1:02:26incorporate into the operation

1:02:28maintenance plan for the facility, some

1:02:30notations about tracking invasive

1:02:32species. I will tell you once the soil

1:02:35stabilized, we're monitoring for 5 years

1:02:37and it's not showing predominance of

1:02:40invasives within the site. There isn't a

1:02:43great opportunity for invasives to get a

1:02:45foothold because there's no disturbed

1:02:46soil. It's all been permanently

1:02:48stabilized at that point. But to your

1:02:50point, uh, it still still should be part

1:02:52of the overall facilities on&m that

1:02:54they're tracking that as well.

1:02:56>> Okay.

1:02:56>> So, it's a Nope. Thank you for the

1:02:57comment. Appreciate.

1:02:58>> Anything else from the commission?

1:02:59Because as I said, we have an awful lot

1:03:00to review before we can ask do much.

1:03:05Anything else? Okay. You guys had some

1:03:08closing remarks then?

1:03:09>> Sure. Well, I hope you can tell by the

1:03:12size and scale of what's been presented

1:03:14to you. That's the attention um and care

1:03:17that we've put into to this overall

1:03:18plan. And uh if you want to go ahead and

1:03:21go to the next slide.

1:03:24>> Yeah, this slide just in summary um

1:03:26provides just a snapshot of the multiple

1:03:30different phases and steps we've had

1:03:31from the original submission through our

1:03:33final submission on our previous

1:03:35application to where we are currently.

1:03:36So, we've been through these numbers,

1:03:38but this is just to kind of highlight uh

1:03:40where we've been and where we're at

1:03:41today with an overall um 61 acre uh

1:03:46impervious area on the site and uh 3.59

1:03:49to1 uh total wetland mitigation ratio.

1:03:54Yep. Next slide. And I was saying great

1:03:58care and concern has been uh put forth

1:04:01in in this project and in this plan. Um,

1:04:04we know the scale of the building uh is

1:04:07large, but also is the thought and and

1:04:10care and concern that's been put into

1:04:12coming up with the appropriate

1:04:13engineering

1:04:15>> and uh and and planning for this

1:04:17project. So, this package alone I I

1:04:20think sets a new precedent for

1:04:23>> preservation and conservation uh here in

1:04:27Killingly. I don't think there's been

1:04:29anything comparable that's been

1:04:30presented to this commission uh to date

1:04:33and uh we've taken great care to be able

1:04:35to provide a complete package um that

1:04:39gets a net improvement uh in the

1:04:41wetlands condition on this particular

1:04:43site. So, we're creating 291 acres of

1:04:46permanent conservation space and

1:04:47protective space that otherwise could be

1:04:49developable. Um there's no temporary or

1:04:52permanent impacts to high-quality

1:04:53wetlands and waterways. We spared no

1:04:56expense. We're bridging over those in

1:04:57order to be able to stay out completely

1:05:00from any temporary or permanent impacts

1:05:02to those highquality areas. Um 3.59 to1

1:05:06mitigation ratio which far exceeds uh

1:05:09the regulation and requirements here. Um

1:05:13you know, we've talked through our

1:05:14commitment to um ensure that any new

1:05:18wetlands that we're mitigating on site

1:05:20are well established and that they're

1:05:22quality um uh have a quality

1:05:24establishment. um with the bond or and

1:05:27we can always talk about um you know if

1:05:30there are other uh um requirements from

1:05:33the commission that would want to be

1:05:34considered as part of considerations for

1:05:36approval in that regard just to give you

1:05:39the confidence that we're going to stick

1:05:41to the plan that we have and ensure that

1:05:43it gets um installed and uh takes root

1:05:46appropriately. Um and and finally,

1:05:51>> wow,

1:05:53>> finally, I would just say that, you

1:05:55know, we're we're committed to working

1:05:56with this commission um to identify

1:06:00conditions of approval that um everyone

1:06:03feels comfortable moving forward with to

1:06:05ensure that this project is successful

1:06:07for everyone involved. So,

1:06:11>> all right. Anything else from you guys?

1:06:13>> I'm good right now. Jonathan, anything

1:06:15input from you before we open up?

1:06:17>> Uh, just to mention, uh, we talked about

1:06:20the third party reviewer. So, Tyon was

1:06:22selected again to do the third party

1:06:24review. Uh, they're

1:06:25>> Have they had an opportunity yet?

1:06:26>> Uh, they, uh, we knew that there was

1:06:28some updates coming. Um, so we wanted to

1:06:31kick off after this public hearing. Uh,

1:06:33they're going to be reviewing, I

1:06:35believe, uh, the, uh, presentation here

1:06:39tonight and the any of the updated new

1:06:42materials. Uh hoping that that starts

1:06:44kicking off so we can have a

1:06:46presentation and comments hopefully by

1:06:48that next meeting um our next regular

1:06:50meeting.

1:06:51>> That'll be good.

1:06:52>> Um uh beyond that uh I know there was um

1:06:56we'll open the floor I would think for

1:06:58comments. There are intervenor

1:07:00petitions.

1:07:01>> Yes, I was going to ask you about those.

1:07:02There's several.

1:07:03>> Um so there's I believe about a dozen I

1:07:06think for this particular

1:07:07>> 11 or 12 I saw.

1:07:09>> Yeah. this particular application. I do

1:07:11have the town attorney Rich Roberts on.

1:07:13I don't know if you want to do citizens

1:07:15comments now and then we can talk about

1:07:18intervenor after.

1:07:20>> Maybe we should talk about intervenor

1:07:22first so that everyone knows where they

1:07:23stand.

1:07:24>> Yeah.

1:07:25>> And also the fact that you know when we

1:07:27open it up it is for wetlands comments.

1:07:29We do need them brief and it needs to

1:07:31apply to this application.

1:07:33>> Okay.

1:07:37Going to

1:07:39See if we can [clears throat]

1:07:46switch.

1:07:56>> Rich, are you there? You able to uh fill

1:07:58us in on the intervenor process and um

1:08:01how we should be looking at that?

1:08:04>> Yeah. Uh we just received these tonight

1:08:08and haven't had a chance to go through

1:08:10them. Uh we also received the applicants

1:08:14objection to the intervention petitions.

1:08:17Um,

1:08:20so I' I'd say, you know, for purposes of

1:08:22tonight, you can just accept them and

1:08:26we'll be able to advise you between now

1:08:28and the next meeting as to whether

1:08:30they're

1:08:32um sufficient or valid or not. And

1:08:38in terms of how to proceed tonight, I

1:08:41don't think the fact that they're

1:08:43pending should prejudice anybody's

1:08:47ability to testify or present materials,

1:08:51you know, one way or the other. Should

1:08:53we ask these uh those who have asked for

1:08:56intervenor status to present first and

1:08:59to actually

1:09:01present as as their entity first or how

1:09:05should we approach that?

1:09:06>> Yeah, I mean I think that would be

1:09:08helpful to have them go first and

1:09:10present the evidence that they believe

1:09:13supports the

1:09:15assertions made in their petition so

1:09:17that we can more effectively evaluate

1:09:20them.

1:09:23All right. Thank you.

1:09:26>> Yep.

1:09:26>> Anything else you think we need to do

1:09:27then, Jonathan? Because I believe we'll

1:09:29we'll start with the interveners first

1:09:31then and then go on to general citizens

1:09:34participation.

1:09:35>> Yes, sir.

1:09:37>> Yep.

1:09:38>> I was um I would just like to be heard

1:09:41on this issue before

1:09:42>> because I understand that you guys are

1:09:44questioning.

1:09:45>> Yes. Thank you. Um on behalf Evan Seaman

1:09:47on behalf of the applicant. Um we did

1:09:49file an objection to the intervention

1:09:51petitions and we filed a single

1:09:53objection um because um all of the

1:09:56petitions use the same form document and

1:09:58raise identical allegations. Um and uh

1:10:03when the when the intervention petition

1:10:05when when this commission is deciding

1:10:06whether to allow interveners based on

1:10:10the face of the allegations in their

1:10:11petition, it's limited to just what's in

1:10:14the petition itself, just what is on

1:10:16that one document. So to allow them this

1:10:19evening to provide evidence in support

1:10:21of their petitions, in support of the

1:10:23claims that they make, uh to determine

1:10:25whether this agency should grant them

1:10:27intervenor status or not, um actually

1:10:30isn't isn't the way that it should be

1:10:32done. You look only at what is alleged

1:10:35in their petition. And if their petition

1:10:38if their petition

1:10:38>> we're going to we're [clears throat]

1:10:39going to get legal counsel to

1:10:41>> if their petition is is legally

1:10:43insufficient uh then they shouldn't be

1:10:45granted intervenor status and they

1:10:47shouldn't be entitled to present any

1:10:48evidence if the claims uh on top of that

1:10:52um this commission can only consider

1:10:54claims within its jurisdiction. Part of

1:10:58part of our objection is that many of

1:10:59these issues and I anticipate some of

1:11:02the evidence that they try to offer

1:11:03tonight are on issues that aren't within

1:11:06this commission's jurisdiction. So, we

1:11:08don't believe that uh this commission

1:11:10should look at anything other than that

1:11:12single petition when evaluating whether

1:11:15or not to grant them intervenor status.

1:11:17So if they come up here and and if if

1:11:19the proposed intervenors come up here

1:11:20and and and try to provide more than

1:11:24than than what is in their petition,

1:11:26that's that's not the role of this

1:11:29commission when deciding that threshold

1:11:31issue of whether to grant intervenor

1:11:33status or not.

1:11:34>> I believe that is our council. Okay. Our

1:11:37council is is there at this point. I'm

1:11:39assuming we're going to get input from

1:11:41you on whether or not they they are even

1:11:43going to be granted intervenor status.

1:11:45My assumption is that this evening

1:11:47they're going to be presenting as their

1:11:50own comments. And before it kind of got

1:11:53out of hand, it's got to be a wetlands

1:11:55issue. It cannot just be what you like

1:11:58or don't like. That's not what this is.

1:12:00It's got to be one of the issues that

1:12:02actually pertains to our jurisdiction

1:12:05and the issues here.

1:12:08But [clears throat] I thought that if we

1:12:09had the those doing it uh first, it gave

1:12:12our council a better opportunity. What's

1:12:14your take on this? We're going to pretty

1:12:16much, I would assume, run with what our

1:12:18council suggests.

1:12:23>> Yeah, I think you you do have to keep it

1:12:25limited to what is within the scope of

1:12:28your jurisdiction

1:12:30and limited to what they've put into

1:12:33their petitions.

1:12:35um

1:12:37you know for purposes of determining

1:12:40whether or not it's a valid intervention

1:12:42petition.

1:12:45>> Well, at this point we have not

1:12:46personally even seen the petitions.

1:12:48>> We have not seen them. You have seen

1:12:50them. We have not. We just I just

1:12:53>> They're They were part of the digital

1:12:54record that

1:12:55>> they are in here.

1:12:56>> They're online, but they're not in the

1:12:57packet.

1:12:58>> They're not in the packet.

1:12:59>> Okay. They they're part of the digital

1:13:00record. I do have hard copies here if

1:13:02you'd like to see them. I don't

1:13:04>> Yeah,

1:13:04>> I think we probably need to then.

1:13:06>> Yeah,

1:13:17just as

1:13:22>> Yep,

1:13:22>> they are

1:13:26there. I believe unless we hear

1:13:28otherwise all the same.

1:13:36Yes.

1:13:40>> Okay. Do we have all the same?

1:13:43>> So, so the only differences would be the

1:13:45names of the petitioners. I believe I

1:13:47believe all the forms are identical in

1:13:50terms of

1:13:50>> it's just a temp. Okay.

1:13:52>> Um they were submitted at different

1:13:54dates.

1:13:55>> So um yep. Uh, and I know they we have I

1:14:01think a couple of the petitioners here.

1:14:04>> And what what actually what changes in

1:14:07their status since we're just taking

1:14:08this in as public comment anyhow?

1:14:15>> I mean, uh, Rich, I I mean, I'm

1:14:20>> if you find that they are valid

1:14:22intervention petitions, they become the

1:14:25equivalent of a party to the proceeding.

1:14:28Um otherwise if you find that it it is

1:14:32not sufficient as an intervention

1:14:35petition,

1:14:37you know, it it would be the equivalent

1:14:38of public comment.

1:14:43Rich, would it be better for tonight in

1:14:46terms of um time and uh you know process

1:14:50to just open up for regular comment and

1:14:53allow for intervention at the next

1:14:56meeting? Um to to

1:14:59allow time for our legal counsel to

1:15:02review everything, provide comment um

1:15:05and I mean it doesn't stop any of the

1:15:08interveners from making comment tonight.

1:15:10Um but to settle the issue of whether or

1:15:12not they have status that would come at

1:15:15the October meeting.

1:15:17>> Yeah, that's fine.

1:15:18>> What additional authority or power is it

1:15:20going to grant them?

1:15:21>> You can use it in court.

1:15:26>> Well, it the the cliche is that it gives

1:15:29them a seat at the table when uh you are

1:15:34meeting with the applicant when you're

1:15:36deliberating. Yeah.

1:15:37>> Um you know during during the uh

1:15:42>> you know the up to the close of the

1:15:45public hearing

1:15:47um and it establishes

1:15:51if the petitions are are valid,

1:15:56it establishes that they have um

1:16:03identified certain environmental

1:16:06situations. ations that need to be

1:16:10overcome before you can approve the

1:16:12application.

1:16:17>> Is that a motion?

1:16:18>> I'll make a motion to hold off on the

1:16:20interveners so I can find out more.

1:16:22Sorry.

1:16:24>> Okay. I make a motion to hold off on the

1:16:26intervenance comments just so that I I

1:16:29personally I don't know about the rest

1:16:30of the board have a little more into

1:16:32understanding of what an intervenor is

1:16:34and where what the power they have and

1:16:37where this is all going.

1:16:39>> Okay. I mean there's a motion but

1:16:42>> I'll second that. Motion's been made and

1:16:44seconded uh to

1:16:48uh hold off on review of the intervenor

1:16:52status until we have a more of an

1:16:54opportunity to get information from the

1:16:56staff and the council

1:16:57>> and our council regarding these

1:17:00petitions.

1:17:02And I I would just add to that that to

1:17:05recommend that that be probably done for

1:17:07the October regular meeting so that way

1:17:09um the interventionists as well as the

1:17:12applicant have time to respond.

1:17:16>> Okay.

1:17:17>> Great. What date is that? Just for

1:17:21reference.

1:17:25>> October 5th.

1:17:27>> Okay. Thanks.

1:17:30Okay,

1:17:31motion's on the floor to that effect.

1:17:33All in favor?

1:17:35>> I

1:17:36>> I

1:17:37>> I

1:17:38>> I opposed.

1:17:40>> Okay, motion carries. And at this point,

1:17:43just for the record, how many do we

1:17:45have?

1:17:46>> 12.

1:17:47>> 12, but it's all the same template.

1:17:52>> Okay.

1:17:55my originals.

1:17:58>> Okay.

1:18:00>> Thank you.

1:18:01>> All right.

1:18:03Hearing that, we'll go ahead and open it

1:18:05up to citizens comments, but as I said,

1:18:09it's got to be actually pertaining to

1:18:10this application and our jurisdiction.

1:18:14>> Are you limiting time?

1:18:17>> That's up to you guys.

1:18:19>> I think we should limit time. We did it

1:18:21uh previously. So

1:18:24>> I think um

1:18:25>> I think uh I I think we use three

1:18:27minutes

1:18:29>> also be very also you can also submit

1:18:32anything you want online for the record

1:18:35anything at all it can be several pages

1:18:38>> yes you've done several p

1:18:40>> Jonathan can you keep track of the time

1:18:42>> okay is there a motion to limit it to

1:18:45three minutes

1:18:46>> motion no second no

1:18:48>> all in favor

1:18:51>> I opposed

1:18:54Okay.

1:18:55>> Opposed.

1:18:56>> Okay. And I I vote yes. So it is three

1:19:00minutes.

1:19:03>> No. Two.

1:19:07>> Okay. Sorry. Michelle.

1:19:08>> Uh Michelle Murphy. Break neck Hill

1:19:10Road. Sandy. Am I allowed to address uh

1:19:13the intervenor status like without

1:19:17giving evidence?

1:19:18>> Yes.

1:19:18>> Okay. So our lawyer is on the line. Uh

1:19:21what they're saying is Fort Trumbull

1:19:24versus Alvarez address the issue of a

1:19:26petition to intervene in a judicial pro

1:19:28proceeding not an administrative

1:19:31proceeding. The applicable law in that

1:19:33situation is Connecticut General

1:19:35Statutes 22A16s.

1:19:37So in other words, they they quoted the

1:19:39wrong thing. You it's a different

1:19:41standard for uh a commission. Uh she'll

1:19:44speak to it if you wanted her to. Some

1:19:46of the comments I have I have two

1:19:49options. The way I was looking at it,

1:19:51uh, you could grant them the way they

1:19:53are. I do have a resubmitt which answers

1:19:56all of their questions. This is this

1:19:58speaks to that. Uh, allegation stage

1:20:01versus the proof stage. Um, this is the

1:20:04allegation stage for that statute. We

1:20:06will be bringing in an expert witness to

1:20:08prove the allegations. Many of the

1:20:10points raised mention bring pollution or

1:20:12impaired water quality to answer the

1:20:14minimum requirement of how things will

1:20:16be affected. In other words, their

1:20:18complaint said, "You don't say how."

1:20:20I've gone through point by point and

1:20:21I've inserted the words from storm water

1:20:23runoff, soil erosion, high pollutant

1:20:26runoff loads, aquatic food web collapse,

1:20:28habitat fragmentation, carbon storage,

1:20:31particulate trapping, pollutant

1:20:33processing. So, in other words, if you

1:20:35reject them as they are, I've answered

1:20:38their questions and I'm ready to

1:20:39resubmit now or I can just resubmit

1:20:42Monday. Um, our expert witness is

1:20:45available to attend the October 5th

1:20:47meeting and he will prove that the

1:20:49proposed storm water management system

1:20:51is not in compliance with the pollutant

1:20:53load reductions required by the

1:20:55Connecticut Deep in the 2024 storm water

1:20:58quality manual. Increased pollutant

1:21:00loads discharged to wetland and water

1:21:02course systems will adversely affect the

1:21:04water quality in these systems over

1:21:05time. The proposed storm water

1:21:07management system does not reduce the

1:21:09significant increases in runoff volume

1:21:12for all storm events. Increased runoff

1:21:14volumes discharge to wetland and water

1:21:16car systems are documented to increase

1:21:18erosion of these systems and result in

1:21:21downstream sedimentation of the eroded

1:21:23materials. Also, our expert witness will

1:21:25also prove shortfalls in the erosion

1:21:27control plan, the sewer plan and discuss

1:21:30the lack of feasible and prudent

1:21:31alternatives provided. Uh the difference

1:21:34with being an intervenor status is to me

1:21:37you would want it. It's not that you

1:21:39wouldn't want it because if you really

1:21:41the goal is to make the application

1:21:42better. Uh Steve Trinkhouse, I'm sure

1:21:45you guys all know him, is our expert

1:21:47witness. He's one of the best in the

1:21:49business. He's going to come and say

1:21:50this and this and this is wrong. And

1:21:52intervenous status allows them to go

1:21:54back and forth and correct things as

1:21:57opposed he comes once and he does it and

1:21:59then well we go to court. uh you know

1:22:02when they give an answer and he can't

1:22:03answer. So you get a chance to respond.

1:22:05The expert witness will get a chance to

1:22:07respond uh just to answer some of those

1:22:10questions in purview. I went through I'm

1:22:12not really seeing too many things that

1:22:14aren't their purview. Maybe some are in

1:22:16planning and zoning, but drinking water

1:22:18um Connecticut inland wetlands and water

1:22:20courses act inland wetland commissioners

1:22:22are explicitly tasked with protecting

1:22:24underground groundwater supplies,

1:22:26groundwater recharge and water

1:22:28purification. unidentified off-site

1:22:30sources such as aquifers. These have

1:22:32been repeatedly identified by uh

1:22:35alderafrain and that specifically is

1:22:37your job. Uh traffic speaks to runoff.

1:22:41>> 30 seconds.

1:22:41>> Does anybody want to donate their time?

1:22:44>> I just got another page uh to talk about

1:22:45the expert witness. Um traffic speaks to

1:22:49runoff of chlorides. Noise uh impacts

1:22:52reptilian animals. Nearby homes speak to

1:22:55the erosion of trust. hydraological

1:22:57connectiveness impacts to ledge affected

1:22:59by soil erosion storm off runoff. So

1:23:02basically uh you guys will get to

1:23:04decide. This is our purview or it's not.

1:23:07When I looked it up I could find a

1:23:09connection with every single thing. I

1:23:11would ask that the commissioner rules

1:23:13point by point on the issue of purview

1:23:16disregarding any that they believe is

1:23:17not their purview and accepting those

1:23:19that they believe. That's what we did in

1:23:21planning and zoning. They didn't throw

1:23:22out the whole intervenor status. They

1:23:24said, "You're limited to storm water and

1:23:26uh erosion control." False data

1:23:29information. I've gone back through the

1:23:30petition and updated it. Uh I've crossed

1:23:33out anything that I wasn't sure it was

1:23:35false or not. But there are uh where

1:23:37there are obvious false statements and

1:23:39not disagreements concerning site plan

1:23:41performance issues. I would request that

1:23:43any completely false references to data

1:23:45be just taken out, but that you don't

1:23:47throw the whole petition out. The data

1:23:49we are receiving is being constantly

1:23:50updated. There are thousands and

1:23:52thousands of pages. It is no wonder that

1:23:54there would be a few mistakes in it. We

1:23:56have only just received the updated

1:23:58storm water plan on September 10th. Our

1:24:00expert witness wants to go back through

1:24:02it. Objective falsehoods. Our expert

1:24:05witness will be giving testimony to

1:24:06counter the examples of objective

1:24:08falsehoods to show that there is

1:24:10factbased evidence to counter the

1:24:12developer subjective viewpoints. The

1:24:14witness will testify and answer the

1:24:16questions raised in this objective such

1:24:18as types of pollutants, industrial

1:24:20amounts of pollutants, pollutant removal

1:24:22rates. So, in other words, we're not at

1:24:24that stage yet. Intervenor uh is the

1:24:26allegation and then you bring in the

1:24:28proof and they know this um time for for

1:24:32the record, the advice I'm getting is

1:24:33that as a commission, when you get these

1:24:35things uh so quickly, like you only have

1:24:39a day to review them, you can say,

1:24:41"We're not going to do the hearing this

1:24:43night." And then you get to the end and

1:24:44you say, "No, like there there there's a

1:24:47word for it, but I don't want to insult

1:24:48anybody, but you you shouldn't be given

1:24:50the information at the last minute." Um,

1:24:52I don't know if you want to hear from

1:24:53the attorney. She's basically going to

1:24:54say what I said about she you quoted the

1:24:57wrong statute.

1:24:57>> But at this point, I I think I speak to

1:25:00the commission at this point. We're

1:25:02welcoming anything like that. Any

1:25:04information that comes in, that's fine.

1:25:06But it's going to be our staff and our

1:25:08attorney that will review all of that.

1:25:10and it's going to be next month when

1:25:12you're ready for it anyhow when you have

1:25:14the

1:25:15>> Yeah. So, I'm just saying advocating for

1:25:16intervenor status because then they can

1:25:18actually have a go a back and forth. I

1:25:20mean, he is the expert and he has

1:25:22reviewed tag and bond and said there's

1:25:24plenty of inaccuracies there. My

1:25:26assumption is you you'd want to know

1:25:28what they are.

1:25:30>> So, do you want to hear from the lawyer

1:25:31or No,

1:25:32>> I don't think we because we're going to

1:25:34wait for

1:25:34>> next time. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you

1:25:36guys.

1:25:36>> Yep. [applause]

1:25:46We need more meetings. I'm getting more

1:25:48limble to get around. So, first I'm

1:25:53Charles Furland. I live at 86 Knox

1:25:55Avenue with my wife Pamela Alfie the

1:25:58poodle and most important my well. And

1:26:03I'm and I want to thank the commission

1:26:06for your careful consideration at the on

1:26:09the last application. Uh you have you

1:26:12have a hard job ahead of you to uh to

1:26:16look at the information and it sounds

1:26:18like there's going to be both sides, but

1:26:20I I just have I'm hoping that you will

1:26:24ask your expert on two areas.

1:26:28They the expert didn't have time the

1:26:30last time because according to attorney

1:26:33Cody this was a generic warehouse. there

1:26:37was no

1:26:39specific uh tenant. And so that now you

1:26:42have the ability to get the what um in

1:26:46the warehouse and to and in the trucks

1:26:49to evaluate the the danger to the

1:26:53groundwater and and so that first you

1:26:56your expert should look again at the gel

1:27:00I got it right this time the jellyfish

1:27:02u filters to see if they're adequate u

1:27:06from a truck fire and as we know just

1:27:08last week there was an Amazon truck fire

1:27:10in ' 91. one so that it's not something

1:27:13that's just speculative

1:27:15um to look at that and then secondly

1:27:18inside an attorney Cody was nice enough

1:27:21to disclose I not sure if he realized

1:27:24that that this uh the slab is honeycomb

1:27:28with drains

1:27:30and they don't go to some sort of

1:27:32retention tank or something they go

1:27:35directly to the uh to the leeching field

1:27:40and is a leeching field. Your expert

1:27:42should look at it knowing what's going

1:27:44to be in the warehouse. And Amazon

1:27:46warehouses are a lot like Felix the

1:27:49cat's bag. Anything can come out of it.

1:27:52And in this case, could it handle

1:27:55hundreds of gallons? Could Leechenfield

1:27:58actually protect the groundwater from

1:27:59hundreds of gallons of antifreeze,

1:28:03uh, Roundup, and a whole slew of things

1:28:06that would be in this warehouse. and

1:28:08they can disclose that information. And

1:28:10I I personally believe that if they

1:28:13don't disclose it, then you have an

1:28:16incomplete application and you have the

1:28:19right to reject the application merely

1:28:21on their failure to disclose information

1:28:24necessary for you to be able to do uh

1:28:27your function.

1:28:29And luckily you have Taibon they have

1:28:31the ability and the plus we have experts

1:28:34from uh the intervenors that have the

1:28:37ability to look at it to see if the

1:28:39groundwater is protected because you

1:28:41only get one chance to get it right

1:28:45and I would hate to see that uh through

1:28:48the leeching field and the pollution of

1:28:51the groundwater Dr. Carlson's ponds are

1:28:54his two ponds are polluted. My well is

1:28:57polluted. People down in Peckham Lane,

1:29:00uh, Sunset Drive, their wells are

1:29:02polluted. And you got a chance to to to

1:29:05to see and to and to get it right. And

1:29:09now that we have a tenant, you have they

1:29:12have the ability now to disclose the

1:29:14information to be able to evaluate. Uh,

1:29:18>> 3 minutes and 30 seconds.

1:29:20>> Okay. I

1:29:20>> I'll donate my time. We can continue.

1:29:22>> Well, I I was I was just going to say I

1:29:25I'm hoping that that the that the

1:29:27commission will ask Taiwan on those two

1:29:30specific questions to get the

1:29:33information so you can evaluate because

1:29:35I'm very concerned about the drains

1:29:38going directly into the leeching field

1:29:41and not any uh retention tank or

1:29:44anything else. And remember, the tanks

1:29:46for fighting fire now is not 200,000

1:29:49gallons, it's 400,000 gallons.

1:29:53>> Thank you.

1:29:54>> Thanks, Jolly.

1:29:56[applause]

1:30:06>> Good evening. My name is Sarah Rearen

1:30:09and I live at 1047 North Road in

1:30:11Davville and I'm here as a resident and

1:30:14part of the killing uh Keep Killingly

1:30:16Rural. I already submitted a written uh

1:30:19written comments opposing the

1:30:20resubmitted project Husky application by

1:30:23Ryan Companies application 26 uh 1636.

1:30:28I'm speaking tonight in support of

1:30:30Michelle's request for statute 22A/19

1:30:34intervenor status and in support of the

1:30:37other residents who filed verified

1:30:39petition petitions on this application.

1:30:42This is a new application. Status from

1:30:44the last filing does not carry over

1:30:46until this commission acts again. The

1:30:49statute is there for a reason. So the

1:30:51public trust in wetlands, water courses,

1:30:54and related natural resources is

1:30:56actually tested, not just described in

1:30:58an applicant packet. Ryan Companies has

1:31:02objected to these petitions.

1:31:04That objection asked the commission to

1:31:06use a courtroom standard that does not

1:31:08apply at this hearing. Section 2219

1:31:1222A19 is the statute that governs

1:31:15intervention here. The petitions raised

1:31:18wetlands, storm water, erosion, and

1:31:21related issues within the commission's

1:31:22juris is within the commission's

1:31:25jurisdiction. Granting intervenor status

1:31:27is not a decision to approve or deny the

1:31:30warehouse. It only lets those issues to

1:31:32be put on the record in an orderly way.

1:31:35Intervenor status is appropriate on this

1:31:37application. The verified petitions meet

1:31:40uh meet statute 22A19 and I ask you to

1:31:44reject that opposition objection. Accept

1:31:47the verified petitions and grant

1:31:49intervenor status. Keep Killingly Rural

1:31:52has an expert witness available next

1:31:54month. Other specialists are being

1:31:56contacted as well, including on wetland

1:32:00dependent wildlife. That testimony only

1:32:02helps this commission if the hearing

1:32:04stays open long enough to hear it.

1:32:07Ryan companies filed a very large packet

1:32:09only days ago on the order of a thous

1:32:12almost a thousand pages. Please do not

1:32:14be overwhelmed or pressured by the sheer

1:32:17volume. That last minute document dump

1:32:19is a standard tactic. The size of the

1:32:22filing is not proof that wetland impacts

1:32:24will not be unreasonable or that

1:32:26feasible and prudent alternatives have

1:32:28been exhausted. I ask you to keep this

1:32:30public hearing open so expert testimony

1:32:33can be presented next month. Please deny

1:32:36the application if the applicant still

1:32:37has not met met its burden. At minimum,

1:32:40do not close the hearing tonight. Thank

1:32:42you.

1:32:44[applause]

1:32:57>> My name is Avery Maine and I live at 219

1:33:00Kumar Hill Road, Daveville. and I am

1:33:02here to speak against the proposed

1:33:03Amazon building off Westcot Road. Due to

1:33:06the chosen location, wildlife will be

1:33:08put in danger. There are many species

1:33:10living in those areas that will be

1:33:11affected. Their habitats will be

1:33:13destroyed, leaving them displaced. The

1:33:15same can be said for the families that

1:33:17live in that area who will lose their

1:33:18homes. Killingly is already a busy town.

1:33:21Adding this building will only make

1:33:22traffic worse. Due the due to the

1:33:25increased amounts of Amazon trucks,

1:33:26accidents will most likely happen more

1:33:28frequently. Noise pollution will disrupt

1:33:31will disrupt the peace and quiet that

1:33:32our residents have come here searching

1:33:34for. Wetlands help control flooding,

1:33:37protecting water quality, provide

1:33:39critical habitat for wildlife and

1:33:41preserve the natural character of our

1:33:43community. Allowing a large-scale

1:33:45industrial development to impact these

1:33:47sensitive areas could create

1:33:48consequences that cannot be easily

1:33:50reversed. Economic development should

1:33:52not come at the expense of our wetlands,

1:33:54our environment, and the long-term

1:33:56health of our community. This is the

1:33:58last green valley. It cannot be a green

1:34:00valley without the green. Building this

1:34:02Amazon facility will cause irreparable

1:34:05damage. As one of the future generations

1:34:07of this town, I hope you'll take my

1:34:09opinion into consideration. Thank you.

1:34:12[applause]

1:34:13[cheering]

1:34:19>> I'm online and I had a comment if I

1:34:21can't see if anybody's at the stand.

1:34:27I'm calm. I'm calm.

1:34:30>> I think we should elect that girl

1:34:32president.

1:34:34[applause]

1:34:36>> Uh Russ Daniels, uh Sales Avenue,

1:34:38Daveville. Um I want to mention trucks.

1:34:42They do affect

1:34:44uh the wetlands. Nobody has mentioned

1:34:46400 to 800 trucks, tractor trailers

1:34:49every single day going up Gautia Street

1:34:51and Knox Avenue. Um,

1:34:55if you've ever been to Los Angeles, you

1:34:57see the smog, orange, brown, hangs in

1:35:00the the air like a haze. That's what

1:35:03we're going to have in Danielson.

1:35:05Danielson smog

1:35:07for the 800 tractor trailers is going to

1:35:10the all the all the side streets that

1:35:13are in that vicinity, the home values

1:35:15are going to plummet.

1:35:17And I mentioned before, an escro account

1:35:20needs to be established by Amazon to

1:35:22reimburse those people's houses have no

1:35:25value anymore because of this

1:35:28monstrosity.

1:35:30Strong runoff

1:35:32when it rains

1:35:34uh that's it.

1:35:37One cubic foot is about 610 of a gallon.

1:35:40That's what you get with one inch of

1:35:41rain.

1:35:42We had 7 in of rain in some parts of

1:35:45western Connecticut yesterday.

1:35:48That would storm run off on a roof of

1:35:511.22 million square ft would equal 7 in

1:35:55of rain. 51.24 million gallons of water

1:35:59run off. Now, several years ago, we

1:36:02rebuilt the sewage treatment plant right

1:36:04around the corner. But what we didn't do

1:36:07is it has it was up to capacity at that

1:36:10time. We used to have to call um the

1:36:13fleet away to ask them to not send their

1:36:16confluence down to us at times. We

1:36:18couldn't handle it. But we didn't

1:36:20address that problem. It still has a low

1:36:23capacity. I don't know if this

1:36:25monstrosity is going to hook up to the

1:36:26Coney sewer system or not. But if it

1:36:29does, we're going to have overflow back

1:36:31into the Punbog River. Raw sewage. If it

1:36:35doesn't, if they have their own septic

1:36:37system, are you going to tell me their

1:36:39system septic system can handle 51.24

1:36:43million gallons if we get a 7in rain

1:36:45storm? We get a lot of real storms. If

1:36:47you haven't noticed, people, we had a

1:36:4927in blizzard last winter, you know. So

1:36:54we and the other thing about is that 75%

1:36:58of our town's houses have wells

1:37:01and a lot of them as you heard somebody

1:37:03just attest a minute ago are getting

1:37:05polluted. There's 70 or 80 houses that

1:37:07have polluted wells and right now. If we

1:37:11don't have good water in this town, we

1:37:13don't have anything. And this project um

1:37:16is going to do nothing but because of

1:37:18runoff which they can't contain is going

1:37:21to get into the aquifier. I don't care

1:37:24how pretty they make it look. Another

1:37:26thing I would ask is to certify all

1:37:28these slides they're showing us. I want

1:37:30proof that those are actually slides on

1:37:32that land cuz I don't believe these

1:37:34people at all because Amazon has lied to

1:37:36us again. They're essentially a DCh

1:37:39corporation to deal with. They're not

1:37:41going to bring jobs here. They're going

1:37:42to lay people off when they bring the

1:37:44robots in. And after 10 years, they're

1:37:46going to walk away. That's their reckon.

1:37:49That's why they laid off 16,000 people,

1:37:51but they're going to hire 500 people in

1:37:53Kilway at a cost of $200 million. Think

1:37:56about that. How do you justify that?

1:37:58Because they'll take those new people

1:38:01after they get the the place up and

1:38:02running, replace them with robots.

1:38:04That's what they do everywhere. That's

1:38:06their track record. You don't trust

1:38:08these people as far as you can throw

1:38:10them. Thank you. And then they sue you.

1:38:14[applause]

1:38:18>> May I provide a comment?

1:38:23>> Sandy, you have someone online.

1:38:25>> Oh, I do not see

1:38:26>> wants to do a comment.

1:38:28>> Uh, yeah, let's get that first. Yep.

1:38:32>> Thank you. Thank you very much. I

1:38:33couldn't see if someone was at the

1:38:34stand. Um, my name is Samantha San.

1:38:37>> He's not leaving.

1:38:40>> Okay. Yep. Go ahead.

1:38:44>> Me. Um my name is Samantha St. An. I

1:38:48live at Gear Road in Danielson. Um

1:38:52so

1:38:53obviously there's a lot to take in um

1:38:56with the new presentation tonight, but I

1:38:58do have some comments um in regards to

1:39:02the presentation. Um, so first in

1:39:07regards to the comment that Fredo Lelay

1:39:09and some of the other facilities that we

1:39:10have in the area were built several

1:39:12decades ago and that this is what we

1:39:15should expect going forward. Um, you

1:39:18know, yes, times have changed over the

1:39:20past 37 years, but also during the past

1:39:23seven 37 years, many regulations have

1:39:26been introduced to help protect our

1:39:27wetlands and forests because their high

1:39:29value, excuse me, high value has been

1:39:32identified. [music] Um, more and more of

1:39:34these precious lands have been lost and

1:39:36many downstream impacts have adversely

1:39:38affected towns including but not limited

1:39:41to contaminated wells and fires. Um,

1:39:45there was also a suggestion by one of

1:39:47the presenters that this is much more

1:39:49mitigation than they've seen over their

1:39:52many years of experience in these types

1:39:54of reviews. And I would ask why do you

1:39:56think that is? You know, is it because

1:39:58the plan is so audacious that they need

1:40:01to offer all these mitigations to try to

1:40:03make it work? Is it because the past

1:40:05several decades have given towns reasons

1:40:08to pause and act more questions before

1:40:11signing on to a plan? The presentation

1:40:14is putting a focus as if they're going

1:40:17above and beyond and that they're saving

1:40:19us from some alternative worse fate. Um,

1:40:22I disagree with that sentiment. Um, also

1:40:26suggesting that the applicant was

1:40:29surprised by the IWWC response feels

1:40:33very out of touch with the community

1:40:35here. Um, when the ones really who were

1:40:38surprised were the residents of this

1:40:39town. You can continue to reference the

1:40:42zoning in plates. Um, this is speaking

1:40:45to the the presenters, but um, as a

1:40:47separate issue, the town was equally

1:40:50surprised that zoning text changes had

1:40:52been changed over the course of a year,

1:40:54which drastically altered the intention

1:40:56and protections for that business park.

1:40:59Um, you know, that doesn't eliminate the

1:41:02IWWC review, though, and IWWC

1:41:06still has an obligation to its purpose.

1:41:09Um, one of the presenters also indicated

1:41:12they felt that the potential root

1:41:14reduced impact um, they were suggesting

1:41:17that that's acceptable. Now, um, who

1:41:20determines what balance of impact is

1:41:22actually acceptable for this town? Are

1:41:24they suggestion suggesting that they can

1:41:26determine what's acceptable for our

1:41:28town? Um, the IWWC regulations seem to

1:41:32suggest that this decision is within the

1:41:35commission's purview, not theirs. Um, if

1:41:38Ryan Companies has reduced the

1:41:40impervious area for this particular

1:41:42build, I would also like to know what's

1:41:44happening with the other hundreds of

1:41:45acres that are not being conserved. Um,

1:41:49is Ryan Company suggesting or committing

1:41:51that they will not later build on this

1:41:53land for other facilities? This land is

1:41:56currently and actively marketed online

1:41:58as having potential for more development

1:42:01on that on that land. Um the surrounding

1:42:04forest is absolutely critical to the

1:42:07long-term success, health, and fun

1:42:10functionality of the wetlands. Um and

1:42:13and obviously those facts um have been

1:42:17raised by other residents and experts.

1:42:20Um I did submit public comment in that

1:42:22regard. Um, but I just wanted to address

1:42:25some of the comments that were made

1:42:26during the presentation because I think

1:42:29um there's a lot of kind of darting

1:42:32around and and telling us things that

1:42:34maybe we want to hear, but we have an

1:42:36obligation to dig deeper and ask more

1:42:39questions.

1:42:43>> Thank you.

1:42:44>> Thank you. [applause]

1:42:50Uh, good evening, Madame Chair and

1:42:52members of the commission. My name is

1:42:54Alfred R. Dufra, a resident of

1:42:56Killingly. I am submitting these

1:42:58comments regarding PO Project Husky

1:43:00application uh 261636

1:43:03and in support of the environmental

1:43:05concerns identified in my intervention

1:43:08petition pursuant to CGS22A-9.

1:43:13My primary concern is whether the

1:43:15proposed regulated activities satisfy

1:43:17the statutory

1:43:19uh requirements concerning feasible and

1:43:21prudent alternatives and whether the

1:43:23record contains sufficient information

1:43:25for this commission to evaluate the

1:43:28potential impacts to wetlands and water

1:43:30courses. Under CGS22A-41,

1:43:34the commission must consider the

1:43:35environmental impact of the proposed

1:43:37regulated activity and the alternatives

1:43:39to that activity. where a public hearing

1:43:42is held, a permit shall not be issued if

1:43:44a feasible and prudent alternative

1:43:46exists that would cause less or no

1:43:48environmental impact to the wetlands or

1:43:50water courses. I believe that standard

1:43:53is particularly important here. The

1:43:56applicant has reduced the proposed

1:43:58building footprint by approximately

1:43:5987,000 square feet. That reduction is

1:44:03significant because the act uh because

1:44:05the applicant itself has demonstrated

1:44:07that a substantial modification to the

1:44:09development footprint was feasible.

1:44:11Nevertheless, the current proposal still

1:44:14includes approximately 23,056

1:44:17square ft of direct wetland impacts in

1:44:20addition to substantial regulated

1:44:22activity within the upland review area.

1:44:25I therefore respectfully request that

1:44:27the commission determine whether the

1:44:29approximately 87,000 foot reduction

1:44:32represents the maximum reasonably

1:44:34achievable avoidance of wetland impacts

1:44:36or whether additional feasible and

1:44:38impudent modifications remain available.

1:44:41Those alternatives could include further

1:44:43modifications to the building footprint,

1:44:45parking, grading, roadways, loading

1:44:48areas, or other portions of the

1:44:49development. The question is not whether

1:44:51this resubmitted application is an

1:44:53improvement over the previous proposal.

1:44:55The statutory question is whether a

1:44:57feasible and prudent alternative exists

1:44:59that would cause less or no

1:45:01environmental impact to the wetlands or

1:45:03water courses. I also respectfully

1:45:06request careful consideration of the

1:45:07hydrogeeological conditions of this

1:45:09property. Hydrarology and hydrogeeology

1:45:12are related but they are not the same.

1:45:14Hydrogeeology concerns groundwater

1:45:16elevations and flows, shallow and

1:45:18fractured bedrock, the relationship

1:45:20between groundwater, wetlands and water

1:45:22courses. That distinction is

1:45:24particularly important on site involving

1:45:26substantial grading, rock excavation and

1:45:29blasting. I respectfully ask whether the

1:45:32record contains sufficient sight

1:45:34specific hydrogeeological information

1:45:36for the commission to determine whether

1:45:38the groundwater contributes to wetlands

1:45:40or water courses and whether excavation,

1:45:43blasting, drainage or changes in grading

1:45:45could alter those connections. That

1:45:47concern also extends beyond the

1:45:49intermediate uh intermediate body uh uh

1:45:53project boundary. Water from this area

1:45:56contributes to the broader fivemile

1:45:57river watershed and downstream water

1:46:00resources associated with the Hopkins

1:46:01Wellfield aquafer system and the aquafer

1:46:04protection area. I recognize that the

1:46:07project husty site itself is not within

1:46:09the mapped aquafer protection area. My

1:46:11concern is whether the record adequately

1:46:14establishes hydrogeeological connections

1:46:17between the site, its wetlands and water

1:46:19courses, downstream surface waters and

1:46:21groundwater resources. 3 minutes and 30

1:46:23seconds.

1:46:25>> I'm going to take two minutes.

1:46:26>> A mapped aqua for a protection area

1:46:28boundary by itself.

1:46:30Um, it's in this thing here.

1:46:36Where am I?

1:46:40A mapped aquifer protection area

1:46:41boundary by itself does not answer that

1:46:43hydrogeeological question. I also asked

1:46:46the commission to consider the effects

1:46:47of con converting a substantial area of

1:46:49undevelopment land to imperous surfaces.

1:46:53Precipitation that currently falls on

1:46:55soils and vegetation will instead fall

1:46:57on roofs, pavement, roadways, parking

1:46:59areas, and loading areas. The storm

1:47:01water will be collected, conveyed,

1:47:03treated, detained, and ultimately

1:47:04discharged. Engineering calculations are

1:47:06important. However, the commission must

1:47:08also consider the effects upon actual

1:47:10receiving wetlands and water courses,

1:47:13including potential changes in the

1:47:15quality

1:47:16um velocity, timing and quality of water

1:47:18reaching those resources. I als I also

1:47:21remain concerned about chlorides from

1:47:23winter deicing. Storm water treatment

1:47:25systems can remove sediment and certain

1:47:27pollutants. However, once chloride

1:47:28dissolves in storm water, conventional

1:47:30storm water treatment is not simply

1:47:32filtered out. for a development consent

1:47:34containing extensive pavement, roadways,

1:47:36loading areas, and truck circulation

1:47:38areas. I respectfully ask the commission

1:47:40to consider where where the dissolved

1:47:42chloride ultimately travels and which

1:47:44wetlands the water courses could receive

1:47:46it. These concerns are interconnected.

1:47:48The grading, excavation, blasting,

1:47:50groundwater imperfect surfaces, storm

1:47:52water discharges, and chloride loading

1:47:54are components of the same development

1:47:56interacted with the surrounding wetlands

1:47:58and water courses. Finally, I returned

1:48:00to approximately 87,000 foot reduction.

1:48:02The applicant has already demonstrated

1:48:04that substantial modification of this

1:48:06development was possible. Therefore,

1:48:09before approximately 23,56

1:48:11[clears throat] square feet of uh direct

1:48:13wetlands impacts are permanently

1:48:15approved. I respectfully ask that the

1:48:16commission make the findings required

1:48:18under CGS 22A-41

1:48:21and determine based upon a complete

1:48:23record whether these additional feasible

1:48:25and prudent alternative exists that

1:48:27would cause less or no environmental

1:48:29impact to the wetlands and water

1:48:30courses. If additional reasonable uh

1:48:32avoidance or reduction is achievable, it

1:48:34should be fully evaluated before

1:48:36permanent wetlands impacts are

1:48:38authorized. Thank you for your time and

1:48:40consideration. Uh Alfred RDFrank,

1:48:43killingly resident intervenor pursuit to

1:48:45CGS22A-19.

1:48:49[applause]

1:48:55>> I will be quick. My name is Samantha

1:48:57Darrenthal. Uh you usually ask me to

1:48:58spell it. So, D E R E N T H A L and I'm

1:49:02from Mooseup, Connecticut. Um, I just

1:49:04wanted to point out as we were talking,

1:49:05you have a you're really great at sales

1:49:07pitching, your your your victim to hero

1:49:10arc is really big with your mitigation

1:49:12like no one's ever seen before, but yet

1:49:13your last application uh you actually

1:49:16only had 22,000 acres of direct impact

1:49:19according to your presentation in April.

1:49:22Um, and now you have 23,000 of direct

1:49:24impact. So, your mitigation may be

1:49:26larger because you're giving back our

1:49:28open land to us and then making it

1:49:30better. But, um, if I was going to have

1:49:31my house burned down, I'd rather have 22

1:49:35feet versus 23 feet burned down and then

1:49:38rebuilt. So, I think there is a

1:49:40difference. And I think we as a inland

1:49:42wet inland wetlands commission, you uh

1:49:46have the authority to say that this is

1:49:48actually more harmful because we're now

1:49:50ruining habitats and water structures on

1:49:53a thousand more uh acres than we were

1:49:55before. And uh as many as many islands

1:49:59on parking lots that you want to put in

1:50:00for salamanders, I I don't know how

1:50:02that's going to help. Thank you.

1:50:05[applause]

1:50:10Ian McDonald, 548 Valley Road. Um, you

1:50:14know, I'm kind of surprised that this is

1:50:16happening, you know, due to that fact

1:50:19that there's an ongoing lawsuit. I know

1:50:20everybody knows that, but it's whether

1:50:23that's legal or not, it's still somewhat

1:50:25shocking and that that these two things

1:50:27are happening at the same time. uh along

1:50:30with many people being foyed uh on the

1:50:34various boards and commissions I think

1:50:36going back six months uh along with you

1:50:38know this most recent document dump

1:50:40right before this meeting and I know the

1:50:42applicants are saying you know you're

1:50:44supposed to work with us but you got to

1:50:46you got to wonder you know you know not

1:50:49necessarily putting your best foot

1:50:50forward here um

1:50:53you know I'll also say you know you know

1:50:57we're talking a lot about the percentage

1:50:58of impact and and how this compares to

1:51:02to other projects. I'll just say I've

1:51:05seen this commission examined very

1:51:07carefully uh impacts on a much much

1:51:12postage stamp compared to what this

1:51:14project is. So the fact that the

1:51:17percentage overall of of impact for this

1:51:20type of project is, you know, that's

1:51:23we're talking about the the aggregate

1:51:24impact. That's that's the key thing to

1:51:27me at least. Uh the other thing is you

1:51:31know this commission came and said how

1:51:33about can you do a about a 60% reduction

1:51:37of this building so you bring it in line

1:51:40with other warehouses in this town and

1:51:43we do have several we do have a lot of

1:51:44warehouses in this town we also have one

1:51:46of the biggest power plants in the state

1:51:49and so the idea that because this is the

1:51:52industry norm we have to take this on

1:51:55I I don't that that makes no sense. to

1:51:58me. I mean, it's it's

1:52:01you know, there's a reason that, you

1:52:03know, if if you don't like the 550,000

1:52:07square feet, there's other towns you can

1:52:09go to.

1:52:11>> You know, the other thing is, you know,

1:52:13Tai and Bond, and I heard Tai and Bond a

1:52:16lot, and I I understand

1:52:18this commission, you know, retain them

1:52:20and and I'm not dumping on them. I'm

1:52:22just saying that you guys still have you

1:52:26guys are smart people. You know, we're

1:52:29retaining uh Tybon for an advisory

1:52:32capacity. That doesn't mean you give up

1:52:35your own judgment, your own uh ability

1:52:38to decide on things. Okay? So, that's

1:52:41they're a they're a help. They are not

1:52:45taking your job from you. You still have

1:52:47the ability to decide on things.

1:52:50Um

1:52:52yeah and and just again

1:52:55the the commission asked for for about

1:53:0060% reduction. It was about 4.5%

1:53:04reduction in building size.

1:53:06>> Is is that where is that is that coming

1:53:09back in good faith here?

1:53:11>> And I you know I guess I'll and I'll

1:53:14just second Mr. Drain's comments. You

1:53:16know we need to have serious studies on

1:53:18the impacts. I know previously the

1:53:20distance by way of of of the the river

1:53:23was was was put forward as the I don't

1:53:26know if it's in this application as the

1:53:29um the the distance of impact rather

1:53:33than the actual sort of uh real re

1:53:38actual distance which was something like

1:53:391,800 square feet and I'm sorry if I get

1:53:41that wrong and it was you know noted as

1:53:44like 2 miles or something. I don't know

1:53:46if that's in this application as well,

1:53:47but that's kind of seems kind of

1:53:50ridiculous to me and particularly that I

1:53:52think there was some changes uh in the

1:53:54soil uh

1:53:57the soil mix and how it was

1:53:58characterized. I think that needs to be

1:54:00looked at more closely as well. So, I'll

1:54:02leave it at that. Thank you.

1:54:05[applause]

1:54:12Good evening, Clet Rogers of Putnham

1:54:14Pike. Um, I'm here to talk tonight about

1:54:18Mash and Tuck Mountain.

1:54:21Not Westcot Road, not Husky, Mashant

1:54:24Tuck Mountain. It's 520 feet above

1:54:29ground elevation

1:54:31and 400 ft is the

1:54:34level of that protected aquifer that

1:54:37they're keeping protected. And then it

1:54:40goes down to 300 feet where our homes

1:54:42lie. Our homes lie and then you go 300

1:54:46feet past

1:54:49you go past the houses and it goes down

1:54:51to 220 ft in the burrow. So Mash and

1:54:56Tuck Mountain is a mountain and whatever

1:54:59you put on top of the mountain

1:55:02goes to the bottom of the mountain and

1:55:04what's at the bottom of the mountain?

1:55:07>> Us and our kids and our ecosystems and

1:55:11all that stuff that goes along with it.

1:55:14Um on the Killingly website, there is a

1:55:1820202

1:55:21I mean 2030

1:55:23plan of development and conservation.

1:55:27And in that it talks about our storm

1:55:29water um

1:55:32how we want to address our storm water

1:55:35and um drainage basins. Those are the

1:55:39basins. So Mashantuk Mountain is the top

1:55:42of the mountain. If you go on Cranberry

1:55:46Bog, you'll see the the face of the

1:55:48mountain. You'll see 520 feet straight

1:55:52up from Berling Game Road to the

1:55:55backside. If you go Berling Game Road,

1:55:58you'll see the back side of Mashant Tuck

1:56:00Mountain. And all along there are very,

1:56:04very fertile wetlands. And water is

1:56:09life. I've driven a school bus in town

1:56:12for 18 years. I've driven on these

1:56:15roads. I know what hills do.

1:56:20I know what Ledge does. They have

1:56:23springs, natural springs. My brother

1:56:26works for the state. I say, "I need some

1:56:30ice. I need some ice taken care of down

1:56:32here on Route 12." And they send salt

1:56:36out. So that's what we're going to do.

1:56:38We're going to send more salt out on

1:56:41these mountains because it's going to be

1:56:43a mountain. It's going to be at least

1:56:47120 ft of elevation to get to the top of

1:56:50this. I don't know like

1:56:54I don't know. So, yeah, 120 ft through

1:56:57wetlands and ledge. And um I don't know

1:57:01if you've ever put salt on a slug, but

1:57:04I've seen people do it and it's not

1:57:06good. So, um,

1:57:10yes. So, I just wanted to say that about

1:57:15our natural springs and that Mashant

1:57:19Tuck Mountain should be saved. There's

1:57:21many things besides wildlife and

1:57:25um our clean drinking water, our aquafer

1:57:29that's right underneath the 395. I know

1:57:33you guys don't do traffic, but if you

1:57:37know

1:57:38where Fred delay is and you know where

1:57:41all these places that they were quoting

1:57:44are, they're off 395 where there's three

1:57:47lanes. Two traveling, one getting off.

1:57:51>> No.

1:57:52>> You know what there is in you go to

1:57:54Danielson?

1:57:55>> You go to Danielson and there's like I

1:57:57think maybe 400 feet between the on-ramp

1:58:00and off-ramp. That's where all these

1:58:02trucks are going to be. They're going to

1:58:04force us. My father does not know how to

1:58:06merge. He's a He is a agriculture. He

1:58:11did the FFA at Killingly. He can drive a

1:58:14tractor uphill backwards with a trailer

1:58:17on it. He cannot merge into traffic. I

1:58:20take them on vacations. I almost got

1:58:22rearended in Hartford because I refused

1:58:26I refused to let a guy make me step on

1:58:28my brakes because there's such a short I

1:58:31got a bus full of kids. I am not putting

1:58:33my brakes on. I'm going to keep on

1:58:36going. So this older gentleman, sorry I

1:58:39enforced my yowness on him and kept

1:58:41getting off. But if you don't know how

1:58:44to speed up or slow down for a big

1:58:46vehicle,

1:58:48that's what we're going to have. big

1:58:49vehicles, tractor trailer trucks going

1:58:51up steep hills. You think of this, the

1:58:54high school hill, Mason Hill, um

1:58:58>> Westcot Road, Upper Lome is really 520

1:59:02ft.

1:59:03>> This is 520 ft. That is more drastic.

1:59:06You can see it because it's open, but

1:59:09Upper Lome is where this Amazon facility

1:59:12on a foot level is going to be.

1:59:17>> [applause]

1:59:23>> Ida Baris 1123 North Road. I'd just like

1:59:26to make a comment um about well actually

1:59:30I want to just thank all these folks

1:59:32that came forward with all this really

1:59:37studied expert testimony. And I know in

1:59:42the last meeting that we had um there

1:59:45was some comment about how it's

1:59:48difficult for you lay people to

1:59:50understand these things.

1:59:52And I think these lay people have shown

1:59:55that they've really put in the work. I

1:59:57know you all do as well. And I just

1:59:59wanted to hope that all of you that have

2:00:02presented today um

2:00:06thank you for all of you that presented

2:00:07for us. But for those of that presented

2:00:10such a kind of nice slick um

2:00:14presentation that you understand that we

2:00:17also

2:00:18are intelligent

2:00:20towns people.

2:00:23>> Thank you.

2:00:25[applause]

2:00:32>> Good evening. Jennifer Bryant, 520

2:00:35Reynolds Street in Danielson,

2:00:36Connecticut. Um, just want to first

2:00:38thank the commission for allowing us the

2:00:40opportunity to speak tonight. Um, I've

2:00:43already submitted public comment, but

2:00:44there are a couple things during the

2:00:46presentation that came to mind that I'd

2:00:47like to address. Um, specifically the uh

2:00:51presentation that was made um and the

2:00:54quotations from from a previous meeting

2:00:56around square footage of a building and

2:00:58that what we typically see is in the

2:01:00500,000 5,500 um square foot range. Um

2:01:06that point was made in the last

2:01:09presentation or one of the last

2:01:10meetings. Um however to contrast that

2:01:14with industrial or rather uh industry

2:01:17best practices or standards today uh is

2:01:20a little misleading because what the

2:01:23square footage that was mentioned

2:01:24previously in the 500,000 range pertain

2:01:27to was business park zoning which is

2:01:31where this proposed project is slated to

2:01:34go. um that is business zone park

2:01:37regulation uh zoning rather versus

2:01:39industrial park which are the industry

2:01:41standards that you are all quoting. So I

2:01:43just want that to be clear on the

2:01:45record. Um and also thank you. Uh and

2:01:50also um another comment that was made in

2:01:53terms of the the presentation that we

2:01:55were uh given tonight uh uh the

2:01:57adjustments that were made particularly

2:01:59around mitigation and and preservation

2:02:01of of wetlands. I still maintain that

2:02:04the best way to preserve them is to

2:02:06leave them in in untouched. Um but here

2:02:09we are. Um but one of the quotes that

2:02:12was made direct quote uh from one of the

2:02:14presenters tonight uh from the

2:02:16applicant's team was that um there will

2:02:19be no temporary or permanent impacts to

2:02:22the high-quality wetlands. Um that is

2:02:25one example of categorically false

2:02:28statements that have made from the inip

2:02:30inception of this application. Um based

2:02:34[applause]

2:02:35u there are you know several presenters

2:02:38from the town that went before me that

2:02:40could listed off um a plethora of of

2:02:42arguments that refute that um with

2:02:45factual evidence. Um, but you know, when

2:02:48we talk about storm storm water runoff

2:02:50and sedimentation and and whatever sort

2:02:52of debris or particles from pollution of

2:02:54the massive amounts of diesel fueled

2:02:56trucks and their brake dust and whatnot

2:02:58coming through there, um, that all

2:03:00stands to impact it whether temporarily

2:03:02or permanently. So, I'd also like that

2:03:04to be noted for consideration. Um I also

2:03:08as an applicant uh for intervenor status

2:03:11as an abuter to the proper to the um

2:03:14facility. My house is approximately 600

2:03:17square feet uh or 600 ft from the

2:03:20proposed uh site. Um I would like to

2:03:24empower the committee. It's very

2:03:26intimidating, I'm sure, to, you know,

2:03:29listen to presentations by folks dressed

2:03:32up in their fancy suits that come here

2:03:34backed by uh a well-known, well-funded

2:03:38uh entity such as Amazon. Um it it was

2:03:42uh I I'm offended as a towns person to

2:03:44have one of their um the applicant

2:03:46spokespeople uh speak to you in terms of

2:03:49what your roles and responsibilities and

2:03:51your duties are. Um, I think that you

2:03:54should be empowered to to know what your

2:03:56roles and duties and responsibilities

2:03:58are. Um, and to understand also that

2:04:01those have a direct relation to the

2:04:05residents and taxpayers of this town

2:04:07because what the ordinances and the the

2:04:09regulations for the Killingly Town Plan

2:04:11of Conservation and Development state is

2:04:13there has to be balance between uh

2:04:15development and environmental uh impacts

2:04:19and as well as uh effects of development

2:04:21to the residents of this community. So I

2:04:24implore you all to please um be

2:04:26empowered in in your role. Um allow us

2:04:30to present our uh information and and

2:04:33the research and studies and our own

2:04:35expertise. So that way you have a full

2:04:37picture, not just fancy

2:04:40uh PowerPoint presentations that have

2:04:43all of the best possible light shed on

2:04:45this project. Um we are not opposed to

2:04:48development as residents of the town.

2:04:50Nobody else is going to be a more direct

2:04:52beneficiary of development than we

2:04:55taxpayers are going to be. Um so we

2:04:58would like to have an opportunity to be

2:05:02a part of the proceedings and give an

2:05:04opportunity for there to be a fair just

2:05:07evaluation of this project before any

2:05:10decisions are made uh in terms of

2:05:12approving it. Thank you for your time.

2:05:15[applause]

2:05:20>> [applause]

2:05:24>> Diana Weber, 238 Mash and Tuck Road. Um,

2:05:27I am just outside of that orange box

2:05:30that they draw. Um,

2:05:33and my home and my water and everything.

2:05:36And some of the town's people have been

2:05:38to my house and seen what happens when

2:05:41there's an unsafe release or um you know

2:05:45cuz we do have beavers in the area and

2:05:47everything. And um I mean that was

2:05:51$22,000 to repair that you know and it's

2:05:54like it's it's because of an unsafe

2:05:57release two ponds up. this project could

2:06:01potentially send so much water to my

2:06:05property that it would just completely

2:06:07blow out both sides and that would be

2:06:09that, you know. So, it's like it's

2:06:11really really important that we keep the

2:06:13mash and tuck side in mind. Um,

2:06:17it it doesn't come up enough, but it's

2:06:19connected to this. They just don't

2:06:22happen to own from that orange spot to

2:06:25the to the mash and tuck brook and those

2:06:28ponds. Um, but they will be impacting

2:06:31them without a doubt, you know, and with

2:06:34the blasting and everything else. I

2:06:36mean, what's going to go into the water

2:06:38there is just terrifying. Um, I would

2:06:43like to say that Mr. August um in their

2:06:47first presentation had said that this

2:06:49was in the top 10 in Connecticut for

2:06:52most flagged wetlands

2:06:55and um the vernal pools. It it was right

2:06:59up there in their top 10 that they've

2:07:01ever seen. So, it's it's major. It's

2:07:05it's like there's a lot of wetland

2:07:06involved with this thing. And I'd also

2:07:09like to say that planning and zoning did

2:07:11request a different third party and

2:07:14asked at the very least that the staff

2:07:16of that third party if they couldn't

2:07:19change it be different. So, you know, us

2:07:22just running with Tai and Bond again and

2:07:25everything is is contrary to what has

2:07:28actually been asked for, you know. So,

2:07:31and I just hope that unlike I mean I

2:07:35don't want to lose another year of my

2:07:36life and I'm sure you all don't either.

2:07:38And I just hope that they're not going

2:07:40to be allowed to come in here with their

2:07:43document draw dumps and if they do that

2:07:46they just we just adjourn to the next

2:07:48month because it's not fair. It's not

2:07:51right. Um it's wrong. and also um that

2:07:56they don't run the show, you know, that

2:07:59they don't um be able to jump up and sit

2:08:02down when we're trying to talk and hear

2:08:04from our town attorney and their

2:08:07attorney thinks they're entitled to just

2:08:09like jump in and and start, you know,

2:08:12running the show. And I just I just hope

2:08:15it's going to go differently this time

2:08:17because we saw a lot of that already.

2:08:20And um that's it. Just

2:08:25just just please, you know, like we

2:08:28trust you. We we trust you and um and

2:08:32I'm sorry that you're going through what

2:08:33you're going through and with the

2:08:34lawsuit and everything else. It's just

2:08:36disgusting. And you know, the four

2:08:39examples that they put up for the

2:08:40killingly um they're apples and oranges,

2:08:45>> you know, as far as wetland goes, you

2:08:48know. I mean, you have the one on

2:08:49Providence Pike. I know you guys you you

2:08:52hated to have to pass it, but you passed

2:08:54it because, you know, it was just that

2:08:58little bit. So, that was one example,

2:09:00you know, and then they had the other

2:09:01one up there. I think it was the the

2:09:03truck stop. So, again, it's like apples

2:09:06and oranges. This project is not in line

2:09:10with those four that they used as

2:09:12examples. And again, that's just going

2:09:14back to using,

2:09:16you know, non-factual things and stuff.

2:09:19So that's it. Thank you very much.

2:09:21[applause]

2:09:33>> Rebecca Rainville, 120 Leo Road,

2:09:36Danielson, Connecticut.

2:09:41I tried to prepare stuff, but this um

2:09:43whole situation has like really messed

2:09:46up. um my way of thinking and um putting

2:09:51things on words um you know the number

2:09:54one foundation and scientific rule in

2:09:56ecology or environment is everything is

2:09:59connected to everything else.

2:10:02So uh this principle dictates that no

2:10:06organism or environmental factor exists

2:10:08in isolation meaning a change to one

2:10:11part of our ecosystem will inevitably

2:10:15impact the others.

2:10:18um just the amount of wetlands um that

2:10:23is going to be affected and also the

2:10:26amount of forest land that is going to

2:10:29be affected for a such a massive

2:10:34mega warehouse in the middle of our

2:10:38town. And it is actually in the middle

2:10:40of our town because our chamber of

2:10:42commerce is there and it would be

2:10:45surrounded it's surrounded by homes and

2:10:49um in our downtown

2:10:52uh we have um our nursing home Davis

2:10:56Place nursing home right there where

2:10:58people go to try to um heal and rehab

2:11:03and

2:11:05not only the years of construction of

2:11:07tearing up the

2:11:10um the woods there, the uh blasting um

2:11:14and the roads. But just imagine trying

2:11:18to live on Gothier in Knox A and all the

2:11:22other house uh roads around where this

2:11:25develop um mega warehouse is going to go

2:11:29to listening to blasting

2:11:32um and truck tires and brakes um

2:11:37going you know just to build this and

2:11:39then after once it's built for the rest

2:11:42of our lives

2:11:44because the people that own that land

2:11:46are going to move because they've got

2:11:48money now and they're going to leave.

2:11:51But us taxpayers here that have lived in

2:11:54this community our entire lives will

2:11:57have to listen to 4 to 800 tractor

2:12:01trailer trucks coming out of that

2:12:03facility 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,

2:12:08breaking at the light to turn left onto

2:12:11Gothier,

2:12:1325 ft from all of those people's homes,

2:12:17the the fumes from the trucks, the

2:12:19blinking lights, the horns. Um there's,

2:12:23you know, them merging onto the highways

2:12:25as, uh other vehicles are trying to

2:12:27merge off the highway. And as they're

2:12:29still trying to merge on the highway,

2:12:31other people are still trying to get off

2:12:33to go like Route 6 east and Route 6

2:12:36West. That's just a dangerous situation

2:12:39alto together. Um NASA did a study back

2:12:43in 2025 that the air quality was at

2:12:48George Washington University um and NASA

2:12:50that the environment um around mega

2:12:54warehouses has increased um NO2

2:12:59pollution by 20%.

2:13:01So us being the last green valley, so we

2:13:05are a valley because they would be up on

2:13:07the hill and you go down Westcot. You

2:13:11have the nursing homes and all of those

2:13:13businesses down there and you have our

2:13:15grammar school and all the other homes

2:13:17in downtown. So everything would be

2:13:21heading downtown.

2:13:23It's if you there's no

2:13:26I was kind of thinking about the pros

2:13:28and the cons and I didn't really come up

2:13:30with a pro, but I came up with hundreds

2:13:33of cons. Um, you know, decreased

2:13:37property values for all our citizens

2:13:39that have been here our whole lives that

2:13:41are a lot of us are baby boomers and

2:13:43getting ready to retire. Um,

2:13:46>> we're at like four minutes now. So maybe

2:13:48>> it's just saying I would just this is

2:13:50just not right for our community. I

2:13:53mean, now they're building another one

2:13:54in Norwich, another 2.3 million square

2:13:57feet. The same thing, destroying more

2:13:59wetlands

2:14:01and um more forests. They're just

2:14:04monopolizing our area. And um pretty

2:14:07soon we will look like Bridgeport, New

2:14:09Haven, and Worcester. There won't be any

2:14:11peace and quiet left in our area.

2:14:14Thank you.

2:14:16[applause]

2:14:18Hello.

2:14:22>> Wait, we have someone online, too.

2:14:25Let me just take the one online first.

2:14:27Go ahead.

2:14:30>> Hi. Uh, my name is Jasmine Birdie, 125

2:14:33Lake Road in Daveville, Connecticut.

2:14:37Um, I just want to speak on some of the

2:14:39environmental issues. Um, but first I

2:14:41would like to say don't let them

2:14:43intimidate you. the tactic that their

2:14:45high paid fancy lawyers use. Ryan

2:14:47companies according to Google anyway has

2:14:51uh lawsuits whether it's past or present

2:14:55with supposedly uh environmental

2:14:58concerns within their construction.

2:15:01Um, and with the current PAS issue that

2:15:04we have going on in town, which is

2:15:05seemingly never ending and just

2:15:07continuing to spread, um, we really

2:15:10shouldn't be adding to um, adding fuel

2:15:13to the fire, per se. Um, some of my

2:15:16concerns are over if they're going to

2:15:19have their own sewer treatment plant.

2:15:21Are they going to test any discharge

2:15:24into the treatment system for PAS? Um,

2:15:27what systems will they use to prevent

2:15:30teas from getting into the sewer

2:15:32treatment? Um,

2:15:35also, how is this going to affect people

2:15:38that live nearby there? And as others

2:15:40have stated, there's a nursing home um

2:15:43right there. There's schools there. How

2:15:45is this going to affect their water? How

2:15:47is this going to affect the

2:15:50um all the animals that are nearby? Um,

2:15:54and I mean there's so many things that

2:15:57have been unanswered by this company or

2:15:59they try to just walk around it.

2:16:01>> Um, I'm sorry, but everybody in this

2:16:04town is coming together on this issue,

2:16:05Democrats, Republicans, and I absolutely

2:16:07love that. So, thank you to everybody

2:16:09that has um because this is our home and

2:16:12we need to protect it for our children's

2:16:14future, you know, environmental or not.

2:16:17It's it's all going to add up and

2:16:20there's going to be a point in time

2:16:22where we're not going to have anything

2:16:24left to build. I mean, even even the

2:16:27developers, um, you know, they have

2:16:30stated that, oh, well, we have X, Y, and

2:16:32Z over here. Yeah, we have a lot of

2:16:34facilities. Why do we need another one

2:16:36that was just put in in Planefield and

2:16:38there's supposedly a Costco? I mean, we

2:16:41got to keep up the fight here. Um, so

2:16:43let's continue to fight this and fight

2:16:45for our home. Thank you.

2:16:48[applause]

2:16:51>> Thanks for waiting a minute.

2:16:53>> Yeah. Hi, I'm Dr. Angelina Wagner. I'm

2:16:55in prop or Putinham. Um, so many things.

2:17:00One of the benefits of coming to every

2:17:01single one of the meetings both for

2:17:03inlands and wetlands and planning and

2:17:05zoning is that you are privy to a lot of

2:17:07conversations. And one of the

2:17:08conversations I want to take us back to

2:17:10is when the town lawyer sat right there

2:17:12and during a workshop told I believe it

2:17:15was planning and zoning, but I'm sure

2:17:16that you guys had the same conversation

2:17:18about tyin bond is not your choice

2:17:21maker. They are experts that you can

2:17:24rely on for information, but that the

2:17:25choice relies with you and your

2:17:27expertise and that the gentlemen over

2:17:29here don't get to define what the

2:17:31regulations are for you. And as much as

2:17:34they painted that picture tonight in a

2:17:36quite [clears throat] wonderfully scary

2:17:39way, um I think they underestimate the

2:17:43power of you guys and the way that you

2:17:44guys show up for your community. I also

2:17:47find it interesting that

2:17:50when they spoke tonight, they spoke as

2:17:53if they're doing this wonderful thing

2:17:55for the community while talking to the

2:17:57community. But when they talked about

2:17:59working together and being able to

2:18:02achieve something, they only addressed

2:18:04the commission. But the thing is all of

2:18:07the impacts is going to affect everyone

2:18:09in this room. It's going to affect me in

2:18:10Putinham. Not as much as this community,

2:18:12but it will affect me. So one, the

2:18:16decision lies with you. You do not have

2:18:18to listen to their definitions or their

2:18:20perspective of what they think is right.

2:18:22two, they would not be fighting so hard

2:18:24to get you to throw out those petitions

2:18:26for intervenous if they didn't think

2:18:28they had standing. I read through them.

2:18:30I read through the case law. Research is

2:18:33what I do. I'm really glad that you

2:18:35pushed that off to next month to give

2:18:36people time to formulate their fight

2:18:40against this and to make it a back and

2:18:42forth. Um, another thing I want to talk

2:18:45about and far beyond me to like define

2:18:47things for you guys, but I remember when

2:18:49you guys talked about the size of the

2:18:51building and saying that you wanted to

2:18:53see it scaled down to represent

2:18:55something closer to Fray.

2:18:57Their interpretation tonight makes it

2:18:59seem like you wanted it to reflect

2:19:01Eastern Connecticut versus the character

2:19:03of this community, which is what this

2:19:05commission serves as this community. So

2:19:08to bring all of those large comparisons

2:19:11and say, "Well, this is in line with

2:19:12that is just asinine.

2:19:16You completely disregarded what the

2:19:17commission was asking you to do." Um,

2:19:20I'm sure I have one more thing and I'm

2:19:22sure that I'm under time. Jonathan will

2:19:24tell me. Um,

2:19:26>> you got 30 more seconds.

2:19:27>> Oh, winning. Well, the last thing I'll

2:19:30say is please keep showing up. You guys

2:19:32are finding things in this application

2:19:34with the 500page drops the day before

2:19:37better than anyone else could. So,

2:19:39please keep showing up. Thank you.

2:19:42[applause]

2:19:46[applause]

2:19:49[laughter]

2:19:53>> Barklay, 26 Dark Lantern Hill Road,

2:19:56Danielson. I'm here as the third um

2:19:59third district um counselor and also as

2:20:02a resident of Killingly

2:20:04and um I'm going to echo a lot of the

2:20:07statements that have already been made.

2:20:12Um

2:20:13we're told that this is as of right

2:20:16development. When the property um was

2:20:20reszoned from rural to business park

2:20:22district, no consideration was made for

2:20:25its impact to wetlands and um more over

2:20:28to the clean water supply of killingly.

2:20:32Additionally, Robinson and Cole and the

2:20:35two um largest parcel owners of where

2:20:37the building is proposed

2:20:41worked along with planning and

2:20:42development and economic development to

2:20:45manipulate the regulations to fit their

2:20:49building.

2:20:52[applause]

2:20:52>> You can go through all the videos and

2:20:54all of the um

2:20:57minutes and you'll see how this worked.

2:21:00>> Wow. And again, Tyin Bond is a

2:21:03third-party reviewer. However, the

2:21:06governing body is the Inland Wetland

2:21:08Water Course Commission. So, that's the

2:21:11commission. They're in charge.

2:21:14Um,

2:21:16the building footprint is still

2:21:18constructed on crucial headarters and

2:21:21recharge areas. The property encompasses

2:21:24vulnerable areas that supply headwater

2:21:27headwater areas and streams. The

2:21:30headwaters and the source of the upper

2:21:32tributaries and streams is where the

2:21:35river first begins.

2:21:38They are um located at the highest point

2:21:41in the watershed.

2:21:43That highest point is the property where

2:21:46Amazon distribution center is proposed.

2:21:50So there's no protection of the um

2:21:55>> headwaters, aquafer,

2:21:58um inland wetlands, all the water

2:22:00courses because you're going to be

2:22:02polluting and disturbing them because

2:22:04you're at the top of where where the

2:22:07water starts.

2:22:09And um one of the experts had said that

2:22:12the distance to the protected aquifer

2:22:15was about 4 to 5 miles and then later

2:22:18came back and explained that the

2:22:20distance was measured by the flow of the

2:22:23water. However, the state of Connecticut

2:22:26measures the distance with

2:22:28[clears throat] a horizontal line from

2:22:30the edge of the property to the

2:22:32beginning of the aquafer. So your expert

2:22:34is not quite an expert.

2:22:38I had asked um if Ryan Corporation or

2:22:43Amazon could um bond and ensure the

2:22:47residents of Killingly if their water

2:22:49supply was tainted, polluted, they lost

2:22:53their wells and there was no answer.

2:23:00And again, there's been no hydraological

2:23:03study to the disturbances of the ledge

2:23:06that will be extensive during blasting,

2:23:09which will negatively impact the

2:23:11headwaters leading to the protective

2:23:13aquifers.

2:23:15And um Michelle Murphy did um talk about

2:23:19this, but there's hardly been any

2:23:21mention of the negative impacts of the

2:23:23package plants. The fractures in the

2:23:26ledge will cause seepage of sewage into

2:23:30the water system. Package plants on

2:23:33ledge have a high failure rate. So, it's

2:23:37not a matter of if it'll happen, it's

2:23:40when it's going to happen. Again,

2:23:42leading to a degradation of our water,

2:23:45our most precious resource. So, please

2:23:48look at all of this information. Um, the

2:23:52information that hasn't been covered

2:23:54before. I know this is a hard decision,

2:23:56but our water is one of our most

2:23:58precious resources. Thank you.

2:24:01[applause]

2:24:08>> Okay. Anyone else this evening?

2:24:13>> Is there anyone else online

2:24:19this point? Would we be looking for a

2:24:20motion to continue this public hearing

2:24:22for the October meeting? So moved.

2:24:25>> Second.

2:24:25>> Second.

2:24:26>> Motion's been made and seconded uh to

2:24:28continue the public hearing for

2:24:30application 26-1636

2:24:34uh to

2:24:36October 5th. Correct.

2:24:38>> October 5th at 7 p.m. All in favor?

2:24:42>> I

2:24:42>> oppose. Motion carries.

2:24:46>> All righty. Do you guys need a break

2:24:47before we go on with real business?

2:24:49>> Please.

2:24:51>> Is that a motion? Motion for five minute

2:24:53recess.

2:24:54>> Okay.

2:24:55>> Second.

2:24:56>> All in favor? Go for it.

2:24:58>> Enjoy your five minutes.

2:31:06You all set?

2:31:08>> Okay. Okay. We're going to move right

2:31:10back on with um our first item of

2:31:12unfinished business being application

2:31:1426-1635

2:31:16at Ed of Edward J. Espazito for

2:31:19construction of 100 by 50 warehouse for

2:31:22storage materials at 79 Commerce Avenue.

2:31:27Jonathan, you want to fill us in?

2:31:29>> Um, we actually uh so we have some

2:31:31updated plans and we have uh Norm here

2:31:33who's been patiently waiting from uh

2:31:35Killingly Engineering uh to uh be able

2:31:38to uh present uh to us. And Norm, uh do

2:31:42you want me to

2:31:43>> be 11 o'clock tonight? That's why he's

2:31:44basically [laughter] waiting here. Am I

2:31:46right?

2:31:47>> Norm, would you like me to pull that map

2:31:49up for you?

2:31:50>> That would be great, John. Thank you.

2:32:12Super.

2:32:14>> All right. Uh, thanks, John. Uh, for the

2:32:16record, uh, Norm Tibo, Killingly

2:32:18Engineering Associates. Uh I am here

2:32:20representing Edward EP Espazito this

2:32:23evening who's looking to put up a uh 50

2:32:27by 100

2:32:29uh manufactured metal building uh on his

2:32:32property at uh on 79 Commerce A. Uh it

2:32:37is currently the home of Killingly

2:32:39Glass. Uh the building uh on the

2:32:42southern side of the property is where

2:32:43where Killingly Glass is currently um

2:32:46housed. uh they um uh basically uh

2:32:51manufacture and assemble um windows,

2:32:53doors, any kind of uh you know glass

2:32:56items that are associated with um mostly

2:32:59commercial projects. Uh right now we're

2:33:03uh where we're showing the uh proposed

2:33:05uh garage slash

2:33:08storage building. Uh he he currently

2:33:11stores um his equipment outdoors there.

2:33:15Uh he's got company trucks. Uh he's got

2:33:18some lifts, uh things of that nature.

2:33:21So, uh we're looking to um you know, put

2:33:24this building up uh in that area on the

2:33:26the on the northern side of the

2:33:28property. Um uh it is a 5,000 uh square

2:33:33foot building. Uh and uh as you can see,

2:33:36we've got the the the fivem river uh

2:33:39right behind it. Uh and there are some

2:33:41associated perimeter wetlands with it as

2:33:43well. Uh we are proposing a rain garden

2:33:47in back of the building. That's the sort

2:33:49of the gray shaded area uh behind that

2:33:52building and all the roof water uh will

2:33:54be going uh to that rain garden. Uh

2:33:57we've got uh it we're required to have

2:34:00uh by the regulations and the way that

2:34:02the state of Connecticut calculates the

2:34:04rain garden volume. Uh we are we are

2:34:07required to have 542 square feet of rain

2:34:10garden and we have a 646

2:34:14uh square feet of rain garden. Uh there

2:34:17is a uh a currently a a pipe discharge

2:34:22uh in the uh I guess that would be sort

2:34:24of the south uh western corner of the

2:34:28building. You can see where the wetlands

2:34:30sort of um uh come up a little bit.

2:34:33There's a little bit of an appendage on

2:34:35the wetlands near the river there and

2:34:36that's associated with the the drainage

2:34:38pipe uh discharge that that goes to that

2:34:41point. Uh the building itself uh is

2:34:45approximately 40 ft uh from the river.

2:34:48Uh the area that it's located in is very

2:34:51flat. Uh there's there's uh essentially

2:34:54no pitch at all uh in the area where the

2:34:56building is. uh from the front of the

2:34:58building to the road. Uh there's a very

2:35:00slight grade about 1% from the uh from

2:35:04the proposed garage doors uh to Commerce

2:35:08Avenue. Uh and in back of the building

2:35:10uh the same thing, very very flat back

2:35:12there. Uh and and about at the property

2:35:15line, the slope drops off uh

2:35:18significantly to the river back there.

2:35:20We're uh we're not proposing any

2:35:22disturbance on the slope at all. Um, and

2:35:26we're keeping uh all of the construction

2:35:28and all of the disturbance uh on the

2:35:31flatter area of the site. Uh, that's

2:35:34kind of it in a nutshell. Uh, we are we

2:35:36we are proposing uh uh a line of silt

2:35:40fence uh prior to the top of the slope.

2:35:43Um uh and uh you can see that we have a

2:35:46soil stockpile uh to the south of the of

2:35:49the building again on a very uh flat

2:35:51area of the site. the sort of uh

2:35:54tannanish area is is gravel. Uh we're

2:35:57going to keep the gravel parking there.

2:35:59Uh and then to uh enter the building, uh

2:36:02that's that's also gravel there right

2:36:04now, but uh we're proposing uh either

2:36:07pavement or pavement millings that'll

2:36:08drain back toward uh Commerce Avenue. It

2:36:11won't dra it won't drain directly uh

2:36:14toward the river at all.

2:36:18>> I'd be happy to answer uh any questions

2:36:20you may have. Actually, Jonathan, did we

2:36:23get a little input from you because I

2:36:25did not happen to see the staff report

2:36:26on this. Is that in your

2:36:28>> Yeah, so there there's a memo uh in our

2:36:30packet from uh Dave, the the comment was

2:36:32um was real simple one. It just referred

2:36:35to the table um of zoning requirements.

2:36:38There was a scrier's error that existed

2:36:40there. That's already been corrected on

2:36:43the updated plans. Um

2:36:45>> yeah, I did see that.

2:36:47Uh some of you might recall I mean that

2:36:49area part of the reason it is quite flat

2:36:51it was previously developed. So that

2:36:53area had u the grain store was um had

2:36:56the grain store on it. Uh

2:36:57>> yeah that that that was the building

2:36:59that burned down a number of years ago.

2:37:01>> Yep.

2:37:01>> Yep.

2:37:02>> Uh and the footprint of this proposed uh

2:37:05structure is much smaller.

2:37:08>> Norm what type of foundation for this

2:37:10steel building? Is this going to be slab

2:37:11on grade? What?

2:37:13>> Yeah, it'll be a slab on grade uh frost

2:37:15wall. uh probably probably 2 feet above

2:37:19grade. Uh we know how these things work.

2:37:21If you have a flush foundation, then

2:37:23people are driving through the uh to the

2:37:26sides of the building or sticking

2:37:28forklifts through them or something. So,

2:37:30uh we'll have about a about a uh a twoft

2:37:34um uh wall sticking up above grade and

2:37:37the building will be constructed on top

2:37:39of that.

2:37:40>> Okay. Um, do you think there is any

2:37:42chance you could

2:37:45intercept that 18inch cast iron pipe

2:37:48that runs along the south there or are

2:37:50you going to be well above that?

2:37:52>> No, we're we're on side of it to where

2:37:55we're not going to we we've got it, you

2:37:57know, very well located. We located the

2:37:59catch basin, we located the outlet, and

2:38:01we're staying away from it.

2:38:03>> Okay.

2:38:08Doesn't seem like there's very much to

2:38:09this.

2:38:10>> Norm, is it correct? Am I assuming that

2:38:12you're not proposing anything in the

2:38:15flood zone down there?

2:38:17>> No. No. That that heavy dotted line uh

2:38:20in the back, you can you can see that's

2:38:22that's the actual flood elevation back

2:38:24there.

2:38:25>> Okay.

2:38:26>> So, we we have no activity there.

2:38:31The the only thing, Norm, that I would

2:38:34recommend is maybe put a silt sack in

2:38:36that last catch basin.

2:38:39>> Sure. Yeah, we could do that.

2:38:40Absolutely.

2:38:41>> Because you're you're you're going to be

2:38:42grading that to discharge back to

2:38:45Commerce A, right?

2:38:47>> That's correct.

2:38:47>> Yeah. So, let's let's put a silt sack in

2:38:50that last catch basin.

2:38:52>> Sure.

2:38:54>> Because I I'm assuming that discharges

2:38:56right to the five mile, right? It does.

2:39:00It does. It discharges there. And um can

2:39:03also see that there is a utility pole in

2:39:06front of the site. I know it's not a

2:39:07wetlands related issue, but we are

2:39:09proposing four ballards uh around that

2:39:11utility pole where we're taking the

2:39:13overhead wires from uh just so that

2:39:16nobody backs into it.

2:39:18I mean, these are these are uh pretty

2:39:21goodiz doors. Uh so we don't really

2:39:24anticipate any, you know, big issues

2:39:26with uh with vehicles having difficulty

2:39:28maneuvering around uh to get into the

2:39:30doors. These are these are 16 ft doors.

2:39:33So

2:39:38doesn't look like there's a lot to this.

2:39:41It's actually a lot smaller and less

2:39:44there than what used to be there in the

2:39:46day.

2:39:47>> It's probably about half the size.

2:39:49>> Yeah, that's correct.

2:39:51So, do we have a motion?

2:39:53>> Yeah. And the in the per and there's no

2:39:55um you know, there's no no uh plumbing

2:39:57in here. Uh no floor drains, anything of

2:40:00that nature. Uh they'll it's it's simply

2:40:03to store his equipment in that is, you

2:40:06know, exposed to the elements right now.

2:40:09>> Are are there any plans to wash vehicles

2:40:12here?

2:40:14>> No.

2:40:14>> Okay.

2:40:15>> There are not.

2:40:20In that case,

2:40:22>> I will make a motion to approve

2:40:24application 26-1635

2:40:28with the addition of a silt sack on the

2:40:30last catch basin of the south side or

2:40:32excuse me the west side of commerce.

2:40:35>> The last drainage basin. Yeah.

2:40:38>> Second.

2:40:39>> Okay. A motion's been made and seconded

2:40:40to approve application 26-

2:40:43um 20 26-1635

2:40:46with the addition of a silt sack at that

2:40:48last drainage basin coming towards

2:40:50Commerce A. Any discussion?

2:40:54All in favor?

2:40:56>> I

2:40:57>> opposed. Motion carries.

2:41:01>> Thank you.

2:41:01>> Okay.

2:41:04Okay. Okay. The next item would be

2:41:06application 26-1636

2:41:08of Ryan Companies and we have already

2:41:11tabled that for action in October.

2:41:15Okay. Next item C application 26-1637

2:41:20of Mark and Karen Green for demolition

2:41:22of an existing home and construction of

2:41:24a new two-story single family home at

2:41:27Six Lton Lane. I believe that's yours.

2:41:31>> I got to leave.

2:41:32>> Go.

2:41:38All right. Want to fill us in?

2:41:47So, just pulling that one up. Hold on.

2:41:51There we go. So, uh part of your packet,

2:41:54you'll also see a U

2:41:57memo from the town engineer. There's a

2:41:59few more items that were on this

2:42:00particular one. It looks like all items

2:42:03were addressed. Um adding uh the

2:42:06topography um showing the um silt fence

2:42:09uh and uh calling out notations related

2:42:13to uh um

2:42:16the

2:42:17removal [clears throat] of um all

2:42:20materials from the site uh during the

2:42:21excavation process. We also asked to see

2:42:24the existing uh footprint of the

2:42:27structure uh which is um visible under

2:42:31there uh and the proposed uh structure

2:42:34uh elevation 251 is called out at

2:42:36Alexander's Lake which is what we always

2:42:38look for. That's what helps identify

2:42:40that rear setback line of 15t. Uh and uh

2:42:44yeah, it's pretty straightforward one uh

2:42:46now that it's all been updated.

2:42:56[clears throat]

2:42:58>> That looks so

2:43:00>> Huh.

2:43:00>> Yep.

2:43:01>> I I I don't know.

2:43:02>> Typical lake only place.

2:43:03>> Well, I was going to say I don't know

2:43:05where I didn't know where Lton Lane was

2:43:06and I'm like glad he said it was the

2:43:08lake. They're looking at the same

2:43:09>> Those are the those are the non-Sheritan

2:43:12properties. There's what? Three three

2:43:14roads that come in from 101.

2:43:17Lton Lane's the most that's most

2:43:20westerly. Is it?

2:43:22>> So I think so.

2:43:23>> Says rural development and I was

2:43:25thinking

2:43:26>> the tight. Yeah.

2:43:28>> Yeah. Underlying zone is a rural

2:43:30development. But yeah, the overlay being

2:43:32>> outside the

2:43:35lane is the farthest west.

2:43:37>> Weeks Lane is farthest east. And isn't

2:43:40there another one? Uh, you have Lton

2:43:43Lane, Weeks Lane, and

2:43:46>> one more.

2:43:46>> Saw.

2:43:48>> Nope, that's doesn't come in from

2:43:51>> Yeah.

2:43:51>> Arnold.

2:43:52>> Arnold.

2:43:53>> Arnold Lane.

2:43:53>> Arnold. Yep.

2:43:54>> Yep.

2:43:55>> Those are the three that come in off 101

2:43:57that are non-shareridan properties.

2:43:58>> Yeah. Being that,

2:43:59>> but they're still part of the Alzad

2:44:00district.

2:44:01>> Yeah. Being it's in that Alzad overlay,

2:44:04um, you know, allows for 50% lot

2:44:05coverage. the existing um structure and

2:44:09all the impervious is around 31% uh lot

2:44:12coverage. The proposal brings it up to

2:44:1435%.

2:44:24>> You know, I think we're getting to the

2:44:25point where a good percentage of the

2:44:28lake houses have been upgraded.

2:44:30>> Many have. Um a few are still the older

2:44:33cottages for sure. Um, but you you've

2:44:35been seeing more and more of them become

2:44:37year round cottages.

2:44:43>> You guys see anything? This looks like

2:44:44typical lake.

2:44:46>> Yeah, I agree.

2:44:51>> Anything jump at you?

2:44:54>> It's the lake.

2:44:56>> It's the lake.

2:44:58>> Yes. Exactly. What happens there?

2:45:03Silly question. The existing shed

2:45:07that's over the property line that is

2:45:09the other property. That's not something

2:45:11that's being

2:45:12>> Nope. That's uh that is over the that

2:45:15dash line is the setback.

2:45:18>> So the the solid black line, I don't

2:45:20know if you can see my cursor here.

2:45:22>> So there's an existing shed here.

2:45:23>> Yeah,

2:45:24>> that's that's on the a neighbor's

2:45:25property. Y

2:45:26>> there's a shed here that's being

2:45:28removed.

2:45:29>> Okay. Well, what?

2:45:30>> So that's that's the reduction on that

2:45:32line item of uh impervious. So there's

2:45:35an existing shed. It's Yeah, that is the

2:45:37neighbor's existing shed.

2:45:38>> Looks like they share the existing boat

2:45:40rack.

2:45:41>> I'm just going to ask [laughter] that

2:45:42question.

2:45:43>> Is that a shared boat rack?

2:45:44>> Yeah. Splits the property.

2:45:46>> Yeah. I don't know who's claiming

2:45:46[clears throat] ownership over the boat

2:45:48boat rack.

2:45:52>> Huh.

2:45:57>> Only at the lake. Yeah.

2:46:00>> And the stone wall that's being removed,

2:46:02it doesn't serve a purpose, right? It's

2:46:04just a stone wall.

2:46:08>> Yeah. It's It's not a uh

2:46:10>> It's not like a retaining wall.

2:46:11>> It's off the back of the existing

2:46:13cottage. There's these two kind of stone

2:46:16walls,

2:46:18>> and it does start to slope down, but

2:46:19it's not a uh retaining wall in the

2:46:22sense of like uh what you see closer to

2:46:24the shore.

2:46:25>> Yeah.

2:46:26>> So, it's really just like the static.

2:46:27It's not functional.

2:46:28>> It's nonfunctional. Yeah, there's some

2:46:30regrading that's called out as part of

2:46:32that

2:46:38>> and I think the house is all gone

2:46:39because I was over at the end of the

2:46:41Northshore

2:46:43for a couple days there and all of a

2:46:44sudden I thought, God, there's a big

2:46:46tree tree crashing down or something. I

2:46:48look, huh, that cottage is gone. Because

2:46:50it was just over around the corner.

2:46:53>> Yeah, it's it's not uncommon. A few of

2:46:55them will get, you know, overzealous and

2:46:58and uh pull demolition permits. I

2:47:00usually will, if catch them and and try

2:47:03to advise against it, uh because it's

2:47:05not guaranteed, uh that you can

2:47:07reconstruct, but um

2:47:09>> Well, it's gone.

2:47:10>> I guarantee you.

2:47:12>> There's there's another one that was an

2:47:13agent approval that was similar.

2:47:17>> All right. You guys see anything?

2:47:19>> No. Um

2:47:22>> Why did that not come as an agent

2:47:23approval? Just out of curiosity. Oh,

2:47:25wait. I think it's because of Paul.

2:47:26>> Paul. Yeah, Paul was involved.

2:47:28>> The uh it was submitted by the applicant

2:47:30to the commission.

2:47:31>> Yeah, that makes sense. Okay.

2:47:33>> Motion to approve application 26-1637

2:47:38of Mark Karen Green as presented.

2:47:42>> Second.

2:47:43>> Motion's made and seconded to approve

2:47:45application 26-1637

2:47:48as presented. Any discussion?

2:47:51All in favor? I

2:47:53>> opposed. Motion carries.

2:47:57>> I guess we have to let him in.

2:48:05>> Question is, does he want to come back?

2:48:07>> Is he going to come back? [laughter]

2:48:11>> Oh, he did want to come back.

2:48:17>> Okay. Okay, next item is application

2:48:1926-1638

2:48:21of Linda Oer for construction of a

2:48:23single family home with septic system in

2:48:26the well within 200 ft of the upland

2:48:28view area and that's at 309 Kumer Hill.

2:48:32>> Yeah. And again, we have Norm with uh

2:48:34Killingly Engineering on to present uh

2:48:37the project. There is no memo uh in your

2:48:40uh uh file here from the town engineer

2:48:42because it was reviewed and there was no

2:48:44comments

2:48:46>> because there was no activity other than

2:48:48it being within the 200 foot review area

2:48:50if I recall

2:48:51>> and Norm did his homework. There was no

2:48:53no none of the usual like you know add a

2:48:56tracking pad or any of those types of

2:48:58things. So um nothing that uh Dave

2:49:00called out.

2:49:01>> Yeah. Um just I'll give you the quick um

2:49:06uh rundown though. This is a proposed

2:49:08once again Norm Tibo, Killingly

2:49:10Engineering Associates. Uh this is a

2:49:12construction of a single family home uh

2:49:14with activity uh in Lee Upland Review

2:49:17area. Uh the wetlands are actually

2:49:19upgradient of the house because uh

2:49:22everything everything kind of flows to

2:49:24the uh to the west uh toward the septic

2:49:27system. Uh the uh the corner of the

2:49:29garage uh itself is um let me see, I

2:49:34wrote it down. I think it's about it's

2:49:37about 55 feet from the wetlands. Uh and

2:49:40the septic system is about 180 feet from

2:49:42the wetlands. Um

2:49:46just uh single family home on-site

2:49:49on-site well on-site septic. We do have

2:49:51approval from the department of health.

2:49:53Uh there is an existing small

2:49:56dilapidated structure uh right kind of

2:50:00where the anti-tracking pad is shown. Uh

2:50:02that'll be demolished. Uh there's also a

2:50:05dug well uh to the left of the driveway

2:50:08uh adjacent to where we're showing the

2:50:10stockpile area. Uh that will be uh

2:50:14filled and abandoned in accordance with

2:50:16state health code. Uh and a new uh code

2:50:19compliant well uh will be drilled on the

2:50:22property. Uh the wetlands were

2:50:24delineated by Joe Thorough. Um he

2:50:27describes them as a pedestrian forested

2:50:29wetland uh basically caused by storm

2:50:33water runoff from Kumer Hill Road and

2:50:35breakout from seasonally high water

2:50:38table. We are showing a uh a curtain

2:50:41drain uh above the garage just as more

2:50:44of a precautionary measure just because

2:50:46the wetlands you know are up gradient.

2:50:49Um uh the uh soil testing was pretty

2:50:53decent. uh we had modeling anywhere from

2:50:5626 27 in uh and uh in the area where the

2:51:01wetlands are uh the the redux uh

2:51:04indicators of wetlands were within 20 in

2:51:07of the surface there. Uh so um it's it's

2:51:11not a wetlands that uh typically has any

2:51:14kind of pulled or standing water in it.

2:51:16Uh it's it's just uh you've got a low

2:51:18point in in the flat terrain there uh

2:51:20where water kind of gathers and uh over

2:51:23time it has just you know uh developed

2:51:26uh wetland uh soils there

2:51:37basically have nice simple ones after

2:51:39>> norm there's a note on here that this is

2:51:41in this is in the flood zone

2:51:45>> I don't Believe so.

2:51:47>> Where are you seeing that?

2:51:49>> Read number five.

2:51:51>> Might be flood flood zone X

2:51:53>> X.

2:51:55>> Flood zone. Yeah. Which means basically

2:51:57there's it's

2:51:58>> there isn't really a flood.

2:51:59>> Still a flood zone. [laughter]

2:52:01>> Flood zone.

2:52:02>> Yeah. Here is a minimal flooding.

2:52:05>> Yeah, that's minimal chance.

2:52:08>> When that floods, we're in trouble.

2:52:11>> Yeah. Yeah, I know.

2:52:12>> We're all going We're all going down.

2:52:14>> Yeah. If if you got a flood up on Kumer

2:52:16up on Kumer Hill, then uh you know the

2:52:18rest of us are going to be running from

2:52:19the hills.

2:52:21>> This is a lot of record, right? Norm.

2:52:23>> Yes. Yes, it is. Yep.

2:52:29>> Was that part of that subdivision

2:52:33>> back 20 years ago or whatever?

2:52:37>> You remember?

2:52:39>> I I don't I don't believe so. just

2:52:41because there is, you know, that

2:52:42existing structure that's on there. I

2:52:45mean, at some point somebody lived

2:52:47there. It's a I don't think anyone's

2:52:50lived there for quite some time.

2:52:52>> Uh

2:52:53>> but um you know, there was and I'm I'm

2:52:57I'm sure there's probably some sort of a

2:53:00septic somewhere on the site since, you

2:53:02know, there was a house there and a well

2:53:04there.

2:53:05>> We don't know where it is. There's no

2:53:07record of it uh at the Department of

2:53:09Health.

2:53:11And you know, and if there is, it's

2:53:13probably just an old cesspool of some

2:53:15sort.

2:53:20>> And you're saying the wetlands are

2:53:21uphill of this development?

2:53:23>> Yep.

2:53:30I I think it'd be prudent to add a level

2:53:32spreader to the end of the drain line uh

2:53:37for the curtain drain as well as the

2:53:38footing drain where they combine there.

2:53:43>> Sure, we could do that.

2:53:52I I know that area and sometimes it can

2:53:54get awfully wet. So, um

2:53:58>> I think it'd be

2:54:00>> Yeah, I think it'd [laughter] be

2:54:01prudent.

2:54:05>> Yeah, I mean they will have a walk out.

2:54:07Uh you'll see the way that it's graded.

2:54:09Uh she wanted a walk out on the end of

2:54:11the house on the on the septic side of

2:54:13of the uh um of the home. So, uh, we're

2:54:17able to grade it accordingly. And, uh,

2:54:20we're swailing it as well, as you can

2:54:22see the way that we've done the, uh, the

2:54:23grading there to try to, uh, encourage

2:54:26any kind of overland runoff to to flow

2:54:29around the house and around the septic

2:54:31system.

2:54:34>> That makes sense.

2:54:40>> I don't see anything jumping. Just if

2:54:43you add the spreaders, it makes sense.

2:54:45>> Yeah.

2:54:48All you see I don't

2:54:54>> in that case. Go for it. It's your turn.

2:55:01>> Motion to approve application 26-1638

2:55:07>> with the addition of the level spread.

2:55:08>> With the addition of the level spreader

2:55:10at the end of the current dream.

2:55:13>> Did I say that right?

2:55:14>> Yes. Wonderful job.

2:55:16>> Good job.

2:55:17>> Not an engineer.

2:55:19>> Second.

2:55:20>> Okay. Motion's been made and seconded to

2:55:22approve application 26-1638

2:55:24of Linda Oer with the addition of the

2:55:27level spreader at the end of the curtain

2:55:29drain. Any discussion?

2:55:32>> All in favor?

2:55:33>> I opposed. Motion carries.

2:55:39>> I think we need a motion.

2:55:41>> You don't always get to be a full voting

2:55:42member. You got to You got to fall into

2:55:44this.

2:55:45>> You got to fall into this.

2:55:46>> I think we need a motion to keep the

2:55:47meeting open because we're at 9:55.

2:55:49>> Yes.

2:55:50>> Do we have a motion to continue this

2:55:52evening's meeting?

2:55:53>> I make that motion.

2:55:54>> Second.

2:55:55>> Second.

2:55:56>> All in favor?

2:55:57>> I

2:55:59>> opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Okay.

2:56:02Next item is new business. It would be

2:56:04application 26-1640

2:56:07of uh Lawrence Lipshere for a proposed

2:56:10two lot subdivision

2:56:12with all of the amenities 129 Bailey

2:56:14Hill Road. Um all we can do this evening

2:56:17is receive it and decide whether or not

2:56:20a sitewalk and all of that want to fill

2:56:22us in on it.

2:56:24>> I'll pull it up for you guys. One

2:56:26second.

2:56:26>> Yeah.

2:56:27>> Yeah. I think if you go to I believe

2:56:28it's sheet three, John. Oh, maybe maybe

2:56:32sheet four. Sheet four is probably um

2:56:36>> Had we looked at this one before and

2:56:38then it got redone.

2:56:41>> I don't believe so.

2:56:43>> What was the What was the leap share one

2:56:45that we did? No.

2:56:46>> Oh, no. That was over on cranberry bog.

2:56:48>> That was cranberry bog.

2:56:50>> There's another one.

2:56:53>> This is right around the corner.

2:56:55>> Yeah, that's that's what we were

2:56:56thinking of. Okay.

2:56:58>> This is right around the corner.

2:56:59>> Yeah.

2:57:01>> Yeah.

2:57:02Same neighborhood.

2:57:03>> Yeah.

2:57:07>> Okay.

2:57:09>> I know John's trying to pull it up here.

2:57:11>> Is this Is this before just because it's

2:57:14a subdivision?

2:57:16>> Yes,

2:57:17>> it's before you because it's subdivision

2:57:18and there's a little tail of wetlands

2:57:21>> right there. I do see that.

2:57:24>> Southwest. Yeah. Southwest corner.

2:57:26There's a little There's a little

2:57:29>> little strip of wetlands there. Um, this

2:57:32was a possib we we actually frees split

2:57:35a lot. The the the lot that actually has

2:57:38uh has a frontage on the roadway was was

2:57:41free split off. And these are two rear

2:57:43lots uh that'll be off of a shared

2:57:45driveway. Uh the intention is for um uh

2:57:50uh Larry and his and Lynn to um give the

2:57:54lots to their kids. So, there's going to

2:57:57be a kind of like a little bit of a

2:57:59family compound there.

2:58:00>> I thought it was gonna be a family

2:58:01compound.

2:58:03>> No regulated area on uh on lot number

2:58:07one. Lot number two, which is further to

2:58:10the west. We do have that little strip

2:58:12of wetlands.

2:58:13>> Yep. So, we've got 135 ft uh from the

2:58:17limits of clearing to those wetlands and

2:58:21uh about60 ft uh to the septic system uh

2:58:25from those wetlands. Um typical uh you

2:58:30know, we do not currently have um

2:58:32approval from the Department of Health.

2:58:34Uh the the uh uh plans were submitted

2:58:37for their review. Uh and they're they

2:58:39are being reviewed by the Department of

2:58:41Health now. Uh but um no re there will

2:58:44be no issues with it. Uh you know we do

2:58:46have a you know compliant test holes.

2:58:48We're able to meet the MLSS uh show uh

2:58:52compliance systems there. So we're not

2:58:54really anticipating any issues with

2:58:56that.

2:58:56>> This doesn't look like a sitewalk public

2:58:58hearing kind of thing.

2:58:59>> No, I I I don't think so either. But I

2:59:02would like to know uh I see that Joe

2:59:05Theo delineated the wetlands in May.

2:59:09>> Did he uh Yeah. Did he happen to look

2:59:12across the property line? I know he

2:59:14can't del delineate on someone else's

2:59:15property, but did he happen to walk the

2:59:18property line and look for wetlands

2:59:19along the property line?

2:59:21>> Um, he does go over the property line a

2:59:24little bit there as you can see, but I

2:59:25I'm not sure how much fur I think that's

2:59:28that's pretty much the limit of it. We

2:59:29we located what he flagged.

2:59:31>> Okay.

2:59:37Oh, and and at the I guess what the um

2:59:40north uh western end of the wetlands, uh

2:59:45they're sort of veering away from the

2:59:46property at that point.

2:59:49>> Yeah. My concern just looking at some of

2:59:51this topo is that maybe, you know, if it

2:59:53flattened out at all, it could curl

2:59:55right back around. But

2:59:58>> no, it's uh I mean, it's it's it's a a

3:00:01decent slope. It's not it's not super

3:00:03flat, but it's not super steep either.

3:00:06Okay.

3:00:06>> It's a nice It's a nice gentle slope.

3:00:12>> Do we have to keep this for another

3:00:14month?

3:00:15>> I think we do because it's actually

3:00:17wetlands in

3:00:18>> and he doesn't have health.

3:00:20>> He doesn't have he doesn't have the

3:00:22health department anyhow.

3:00:24>> Yeah. And it's and the the application

3:00:25is just being accepted uh next week at

3:00:28PMZ as well. So there's no um

3:00:31>> it wouldn't give you any jump on

3:00:32anything. There's no urgency to this

3:00:34this evening.

3:00:35>> So,

3:00:35>> which means

3:00:36>> motion to continue

3:00:38>> without a sitewalk or public.

3:00:40>> Without a sitewalk or public

3:00:43>> motion's made and seconded uh to

3:00:46continue application where are we? Uh

3:00:5026-164

3:00:531640 for action next month. All in

3:00:56favor?

3:00:56>> I opposed. Motion carries.

3:01:00Now we're at our monthly extravaganza.

3:01:03Al,

3:01:04>> look at him. He's all ready. It's time.

3:01:07We may as well start with you. It's old

3:01:09Killingly Pond time.

3:01:12>> I know you've been waiting.

3:01:14>> Yeah. Um I mean, we're waiting for

3:01:18>> We're waiting for the uh

3:01:19>> wish update to come back with their

3:01:22Jonathan knows a lot about this stuff.

3:01:24Could you fill them in on that? The

3:01:26Well, we're waiting the dates there.

3:01:27What is it the 17th or is it the 15th?

3:01:30>> I I believe it got pushed into October

3:01:33now.

3:01:33>> Yeah. Um but the uh there has been an an

3:01:37enforcement action or an enforcement

3:01:39process by the state of Connecticut in

3:01:41regards to Old King Pond's uh dam uh

3:01:45with the Wish Corporation. They call it

3:01:47a like a letter of consent or an

3:01:49agreement. Um it's hasn't been certified

3:01:52or endorsed yet, but they have reached

3:01:55out to the owner. the owner has

3:01:56responded back that um that they plan to

3:01:59respond. They asked for a little extra

3:02:01time to do so. Beyond that, it is

3:02:04essentially um uh confidential in in the

3:02:08sense that it's an enforcement action

3:02:09and that's the way the state of

3:02:11Connecticut has relayed it back to the

3:02:13town that it was confidential and the

3:02:15context of of that was confidential. Um,

3:02:19we were originally told even the fact

3:02:21that it was being done was confidential,

3:02:24but we've I think most of us all have it

3:02:25read about it in the newspaper,

3:02:27>> right? I'm not privy to the conf

3:02:29confidential stuff. So, I wish I was.

3:02:31So, that's about it. I guess it's going

3:02:34in a better direction though lately. So,

3:02:36>> so you guys are pretty comfortable in

3:02:39comparison to where you were six or

3:02:40eight weeks ago.

3:02:41>> Everybody is. Yeah. Except Wish maybe.

3:02:44That's

3:02:44>> and and do you have any input from

3:02:46what's been going on with the state as

3:02:47well?

3:02:48>> I can add a little

3:02:49>> Okay. Sure. Yeah.

3:02:50>> Yeah. Sure.

3:02:53>> So I think

3:02:54>> Oh, and for the record, you had Alrain.

3:02:57>> Oh, yeah.

3:02:57>> Of Killingly, and now we have

3:02:59>> And of Killingly,

3:03:01>> and I'm sure we'll have some more.

3:03:02>> Yeah. And also, um, And state

3:03:06representative of the 44th district,

3:03:08which is Killingly, Sterling, and

3:03:10Planefield. And I did have a follow-up

3:03:12conversation. Um, both Representative

3:03:15Chris Stewart and I both met with Deep

3:03:18again just to follow up because both of

3:03:20us for circumstances we couldn't control

3:03:22couldn't go to the first meeting, but

3:03:24you kind of said I think at all saying

3:03:26that it was supposed to be confidential

3:03:28and it wasn't supposed to be announced

3:03:29that it was confidential. And I think

3:03:31there was a press release that came out

3:03:33that um they weren't prepared for and

3:03:37they wanted that to be held back a

3:03:38little and that kind of happened and

3:03:40went rolling out. But I think they're uh

3:03:42feeling positive about the response from

3:03:45WISH and that's what I can tell you and

3:03:48um there's a little bit more detail I

3:03:49I'll try to I'll try to bring out

3:03:51shortly. I was going to do an update

3:03:53press release just for everybody to

3:03:55know, but they are in the process of

3:03:56working on it and I think it does opt to

3:04:00look optimistic, but we don't want to

3:04:01jump ahead and get ahead of ourselves.

3:04:04But things are moving along in the right

3:04:06direction. We hope, you know, at least

3:04:08they're paying attention and they're

3:04:09responsive.

3:04:10>> Thank you.

3:04:11>> The cold water.

3:04:13>> Well, there were the the two big issues

3:04:15that they pointed out were the concern

3:04:17about the cold water. this apparently

3:04:20that's um unique to that dam area, the

3:04:24cold water and then the endangered

3:04:26species. So those were two concerning

3:04:28issues. There's a little bit more that I

3:04:31think I don't want to get into because I

3:04:33don't want to to do to to share

3:04:35confidential things, but

3:04:38I can just say that things are looking

3:04:40as positive as they could hope for right

3:04:42now. So let's hope they continue to do

3:04:45that.

3:04:45>> That's good.

3:04:46>> Thank you.

3:04:46>> Any of the rest of you want to add

3:04:48anything? Like I said, at least we're

3:04:49going in the right direction.

3:04:58>> Way to go. You guys save Killingly Pond.

3:05:02[laughter]

3:05:04>> Keep it under three minutes.

3:05:06>> Yeah, you guys can keep it under three

3:05:07minutes. That's fine.

3:05:10[laughter]

3:05:13>> That's good.

3:05:14>> Press Daniel Sales. I just want to say

3:05:17when old Killingly Pond is all up and

3:05:19running, the water comes back, it's all

3:05:21springfed. Let's have a big clam bake on

3:05:23the shores of Old Killingly Pond.

3:05:25Killingly residents only.

3:05:39>> Hi, Ian McDonald 540 at Valley Road. Uh

3:05:42yeah, I don't know exactly what

3:05:45is and is not confidential, but I I just

3:05:48say that uh it's definitely, you know,

3:05:51feeling much more positive and and

3:05:53things were, you know, sort of nothing

3:05:57was sort of um

3:06:00shot down by Deep. So, it's I mean, I

3:06:02think

3:06:04everyone's on the same page in terms of

3:06:06the you know, draft consent order there.

3:06:08But um I do think you know we should be

3:06:12attentive to

3:06:15and maybe that I don't know what's

3:06:16happening in negotiations but just we

3:06:18should we we should keep paying

3:06:20attention to it over the next month

3:06:21because um some

3:06:25things might be attempted or or tried to

3:06:27you know

3:06:29that that might take us in a direction

3:06:32we might not want to go in. So, I I

3:06:33think we should all just We're all

3:06:36feeling good, but let's let's pay

3:06:38attention cuz

3:06:40>> it looks like it's on the agenda for the

3:06:41foreseeable future.

3:06:44>> Or maybe maybe it'll be resolved before

3:06:46you know it, so then it can be go off

3:06:47the agenda.

3:06:49All right. But thank you guys for

3:06:51everything you've done to care.

3:06:54>> Madame Chair.

3:06:56>> Oh, we had another one.

3:06:58>> Oh, May is

3:07:00>> Yes.

3:07:01Hi.

3:07:02>> Hi. How are you?

3:07:03>> I see you there.

3:07:05>> I was uh physically at the meeting

3:07:07earlier this evening. Um I needed to go

3:07:09home, but I just wanted to My name is

3:07:11May Flexer. I'm the state senator for

3:07:13Kelling and I just wanted to clarify um

3:07:16that there was a meeting with the state

3:07:18department of energy and environmental

3:07:20protection. And as folks know, uh a

3:07:23draft consent order was sent to WISH. I

3:07:26spoke with the acting commissioner over

3:07:28the weekend. Um, I know that progress is

3:07:31being made, but at the risk of uh

3:07:34setting up a debate in your meeting,

3:07:36which would be very inappropriate, there

3:07:38was nothing confidential that was

3:07:39released by my office. Um, the release

3:07:42that I put out about the draft consent

3:07:44order is not something a regulatory

3:07:46agency would put out. Um, but it was

3:07:50public information. It was shared with

3:07:51officials at the town. Uh, the town

3:07:53manager, members of the town council,

3:07:55including the town council chairman were

3:07:57there. And so, um, I just want to set

3:08:00the record straight and I don't want to

3:08:02turn your meeting into a debate, but

3:08:05we're working diligently to make

3:08:06progress on this. And I'm grateful to

3:08:08the commission for your leadership on

3:08:10this issue and all of the folks in

3:08:12Killing Lane and in northeastern

3:08:14Connecticut who've been so focused on

3:08:15this and I think it's still going to

3:08:17take time, but we're going to have

3:08:19progress on this issue. And I'm grateful

3:08:20to all of you for your work.

3:08:22>> We're just glad it's going in the right

3:08:23direction. That's what this is about.

3:08:25>> Yes. All

3:08:28right. But thank you.

3:08:30>> Anything else?

3:08:32>> Okay. At this point then, um, should we

3:08:34do correspondence or should we go into

3:08:35executive session?

3:08:36>> So, the only thing I had for cons

3:08:38correspondence for the commission was,

3:08:40uh, it's at the very back of your

3:08:41packet. There's a training opportunity,

3:08:44um, in October as well in January, and

3:08:46there's a QR code if anyone wants to

3:08:48sign up. That's an in-person training.

3:08:50It's kind of a reminder. Um all of us

3:08:52are uh required to renew our um wetlands

3:08:57uh certification through the state um

3:09:00before the beginning of the year. So you

3:09:02can do that online. You don't have to

3:09:03attend an inerson uh um thing to do

3:09:06that.

3:09:06>> I'm almost thinking January looks a

3:09:08little less busy than October for most

3:09:11of us.

3:09:12>> It's a little closer too.

3:09:14>> Yes, it's closer.

3:09:16We could have coffee on the way.

3:09:19[laughter]

3:09:22Okay. Anything else?

3:09:23>> No. Um, I mean, as listed on on here,

3:09:26the staff report uh does it just shows

3:09:29there's two agent uh applications that

3:09:31were approved, both of which went to you

3:09:32guys previously.

3:09:34>> Uh, and then I had nothing uh else to

3:09:36add.

3:09:38>> And Ula, you've joined us as are you our

3:09:40new officially new liaison

3:09:42>> or you just came? I I'm taking Jared's

3:09:45place since they're sick and he didn't

3:09:48want to bring the sickness here. So

3:09:50>> that's a very wise move. We appreciate

3:09:52that. You probably wanted to come

3:09:53anyhow.

3:09:54>> I said I was coming anyhow. So I said

3:09:56I'll

3:09:59[laughter]

3:09:59>> anything else to tell tell us what's

3:10:00going on.

3:10:01>> Okay.

3:10:02>> Other than what we've talked about.

3:10:04>> All right. Um there was a public hearing

3:10:06for the winter operations ordinance um

3:10:08revision to the sidewalk um snow

3:10:10clearing. um the objects um were to get

3:10:16obstructions in public rightways such as

3:10:18garbage cans and basketball hoops um

3:10:22because people would say is that in the

3:10:24ordinance that I have to remove this

3:10:25stuff? Well, it is now. So, and also the

3:10:29scope of the town associated sidewalk

3:10:31clearing from a townwide approach to a

3:10:34um prioritized um areas for snow removal

3:10:38and it was also increased from 10 in to

3:10:4012 in and it was approved by the town

3:10:43council.

3:10:45There was a presentation of a plaque um

3:10:47to the families um in honor of officer

3:10:51Alex um Coriardi for his service to the

3:10:54town of Killingly from April of 2024 to

3:10:57July of 2026.

3:10:59Um congratulations to Jonathan Blake as

3:11:02the new director of planning and

3:11:04development. [applause]

3:11:06>> Thank you.

3:11:09>> [laughter]

3:11:10>> We had a presentation by Mahome Mahoney

3:11:13and Sable um the certified public

3:11:16accountants for the town. They did audit

3:11:18for the fiscal year ending June 30th,

3:11:202025.

3:11:22Um they did not report any um instances

3:11:25of material non-compliance with laws or

3:11:28regulations. They did not report any um

3:11:32material weaknesses in internal controls

3:11:35over financial reporting. However, there

3:11:38were two significant deficiencies in

3:11:40internal controls over financial

3:11:42reporting. Um certain year end f u

3:11:46financial reporting and disclosing

3:11:48procedures were not completed on a

3:11:50timely basis. delays in accounting

3:11:53reconciliations and financial reporting

3:11:55resulting in delays in completing

3:11:58financial statements and audits. Um so

3:12:01the town will have to um provide

3:12:04correction action plans to Connecticut

3:12:06office of policy and management and this

3:12:09stems from the ongoing problem of the

3:12:12board of education not submitting their

3:12:14financial statements and data in a

3:12:15timely manner and despite hiring extra

3:12:18staff. this is an ongoing problem and

3:12:21this is the keeps going later and later.

3:12:23So we were in September and um didn't

3:12:27have uh it was a preliminary information

3:12:30so it wasn't um finalized information.

3:12:34Um so um approval

3:12:38the audits will be approved by the town

3:12:40council when um the results are

3:12:43finalized and the town council did vote

3:12:46um to accept Mahoney and Sable to

3:12:49complete audits for the fiscal year

3:12:51ending June 30th 2026. Um the Killingly

3:12:56Business Association will will be added

3:12:58to the regular meeting agenda so they

3:13:00can report on um what's gone on for the

3:13:03month. Um,

3:13:05>> did they have anything this month to

3:13:06report of interest? Because it seems

3:13:08like they've been doing a lot

3:13:12>> I

3:13:15must not if it didn't stick with you.

3:13:16[laughter]

3:13:17>> It didn't it didn't stick with me.

3:13:21Um there's a public hearing set for the

3:13:25regular town council meeting on October

3:13:2713th for a proposed ordinance to

3:13:29authorize the acceptance from um Michael

3:13:32and Sharon Dodie for the parcel

3:13:34conveyance for the highway um purposes

3:13:36on the two lot subdivision.

3:13:39um from the town manager report, the

3:13:41wastewater plant capacity planning.

3:13:44They're looking for feedback and

3:13:45direction of future um

3:13:49plant um rei um

3:13:57future um plants and they're supposed to

3:14:00get some um information at the September

3:14:0316th meeting which would be tomorrow.

3:14:06um the Rogers area uh wells and PAS

3:14:10there were 47 homes um that were offered

3:14:13testing 115 um agreed and of that 105

3:14:18tested positive. There will be a meeting

3:14:21um tomorrow's September 15th at Killian

3:14:24Lee High School at 6:00 with um

3:14:27Department of Public Health and the UK

3:14:29program. It'll be anotherformational

3:14:31meeting. test kits will a be available,

3:14:33but this time the extra extra test kits

3:14:36will be available at Brooklyn Town Hall.

3:14:40Um, all right. We already talked about

3:14:42Oakillingly Pond. The Brickyard project

3:14:45should be completed the first week of

3:14:47December. The skate park rehab is on

3:14:50hold for now um for uh winter bids and

3:14:55possible spring construction. the

3:14:57emergency access road um for the high

3:15:00school to the lower fields. Um tree

3:15:02clearing was done and the work is

3:15:04underway and it's looking good. Um the

3:15:07right road bridge, the town um was

3:15:10awarded a grant by the state DOT. The

3:15:12publicformational meeting on proposals

3:15:15for the um residents will be on October

3:15:1815th at 6:00 at the town meeting room.

3:15:21Um the constabularary program was

3:15:24recognized for completing police

3:15:25department tier three um

3:15:29accreditation. This will clear the way

3:15:31for upgrading to independent police

3:15:33department separate from residential

3:15:35state troop trooper program. And the

3:15:39former burough wastewater plant they had

3:15:42received a $250,000 grant from the

3:15:44state. they were notified um to proceed

3:15:49with qualification process for vendors

3:15:52for the environmental um assessment. Um

3:15:56the salt shed roof has completed and um

3:16:00Westfield Community Center construction

3:16:02the permit building um had commission

3:16:04had an executive session and they will

3:16:07repeat on that later. And that is all.

3:16:10[laughter]

3:16:11>> Aren't you glad you were coming? Anyhow,

3:16:14>> I can use this tomorrow.

3:16:15>> Oh, perfect. See, we're all ready. But

3:16:17thank you very much. We really

3:16:19appreciate when we have somebody come.

3:16:21>> Thank you. It was 6:38. I was like, "Oh,

3:16:23no. I better

3:16:26>> Well, thank you very much.

3:16:27>> I told Jared I'd be happy to I was going

3:16:29to be here and I would have

3:16:32>> Well, we appreciate it.

3:16:33>> Thank you.

3:16:34>> All right. Great. And now that you did

3:16:34such a nice job, we'll kick you out

3:16:36because we'll look for a motion to go

3:16:37into executive session,

3:16:40>> which um uh so with the motion, you

3:16:43typically will identify who you're

3:16:44inviting in. I do see that attorney Rich

3:16:46Roberts is still on.

3:16:48>> So,

3:16:48>> yes, we would like our attorney.

3:16:50>> Yes.

3:16:51>> And our town staff, our planner.

3:16:55>> Okay. And uh I'm what I'm going to do is

3:16:58uh just lock our meeting and

3:17:02>> we'll uh

3:17:04that

3:17:07>> have everyone leave.

3:17:10>> Yes. And it's for the purpose of uh

3:17:13update on pending litigation.

3:17:15>> Yep. But so just to be clear for anyone

3:17:17who's online, I'm I'm going to be

3:17:19kicking you out of the meeting uh so

3:17:21that way we can have our executive

3:17:22session.

```*