2026-10-05 - Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission

00:00Yeah.

00:00>> Stereo.

00:24Okay. I'd like to call to order the town

00:27of Kennley Inland Wetlands and Water

00:28Course Commission Monday, October 5th,

00:302026 meeting. And we will start with

00:34roll call.

00:36>> Rodney Gin

00:37>> here. Rainey L

00:39>> here.

00:39>> Karina Tori present. Sandy Edgars is

00:42absent with notification. Oh, Sandy is

00:44on.

00:45>> Look at that. All right. So,

00:46>> Sandy is remote.

00:48>> Live from the barn.

00:50>> Live from the barn. Yes,

00:52>> we lost where we went to.

00:54Okay.

00:59>> Uh Chris McDonald looks like he has

01:03officially resigned from the commission.

01:05>> Yep. Uh you so you'll see later in the

01:08uh meeting I do have his letter to the

01:10commission.

01:11>> Okay. Very good.

01:12>> And uh Paul Archer is absent with

01:14notification.

01:14>> Thank you.

01:20>> So we're going to start with citizens

01:22participation. Anything that is not open

01:25to uh

01:27>> the public hearing

01:28>> adoption of minutes or

01:30>> Oh, I'm sorry. Yep. Adoption of minutes

01:34from the September 14th, 2026 regular

01:37meeting.

01:42>> Make a motion to adopt the minutes as

01:44presented.

01:45>> We have a motion. Is there a second?

01:47>> Second.

01:49>> We have a motion and it's been seconded.

01:51Do we have discussion?

01:55>> No.

01:56>> Everyone in favor?

01:58>> I

01:58>> I

02:01motion carries.

02:03Uh citizens participation. Uh anything

02:07that is not open to public hearing. Um

02:10you're welcome to come

02:13and

02:16give us your thoughts,

02:18comments.

02:22No one. Okay.

02:26>> So, we will proceed to the public

02:29hearings. Um,

02:33application 26-1636

02:36Orion Companies USA, Inc.

03:03We were just hooking up the computer.

03:08>> Take your time. Thanks.

03:09>> And uh just for the record, Rainey Leg

03:11Gaul is a uh full um voting member this

03:16evening. So,

03:35[clears throat]

03:36[snorts]

03:44>> All right, there we go. [clears throat]

03:46Thank you, members of the commission. My

03:48name is Evan Seaman. I'm a lawyer at

03:50Robinson and Cole in Hartford and I'm

03:52here [clears throat] this evening on

03:53behalf of the applicant Ryan Companies

03:55uh which again seeks uh a permit to

03:58conduct regulated activities um on about

04:01556 acres of land, an assemblage of 25

04:05parcels uh near I395 and Westcot Road.

04:09Um and we have a a brief presentation

04:11this evening. Um uh and just for um uh

04:17context, the properties are primarily in

04:19the business park district uh proposed

04:21warehouse and distribution center use.

04:24Um and as part of this project, as I

04:27mentioned, 556 acres, uh in total, uh

04:30nearly 300 acres of those, about 291 292

04:34acres are proposed to be put in

04:36conservation, uh either uh uh deed over

04:40to the town of Killingly [clears throat]

04:42or uh uh done so by the applicant

04:44itself.

04:46I wanted to give a a little bit of a

04:48recap of of the last meeting. Uh the

04:51hearing opened in this matter last

04:52month, September 14th. Uh we gave a a

04:56presentation to the to this commission

04:59uh providing a summary of the first

05:01application. There was a similar

05:02application um uh that uh the commission

05:06considered for the uh the better part of

05:08the first half of this year. Um as part

05:11of that first application process, it

05:13was uh a similar use warehouse and

05:15distribution center. Um, uh, the

05:18commission engaged a third-party

05:19peerreview consultant, Taigen Bond, uh,

05:22to assist it in in that, uh, that that

05:24first application and has done so again

05:27with this new application. Uh, on July

05:296th, uh, uh, this past summer, the

05:32commission denied that application

05:34without prejudice uh, for failure to

05:37exhaust feasible and prudent

05:38alternatives. Um, as part of that denial

05:41without prejudice, the commission

05:42suggested uh some alternatives that the

05:45applicant should consider looking into,

05:47including a parking structure and a uh

05:51reduced building footprint uh similar to

05:54other warehouses in town approximately

05:56500,000 square feet or so.

06:00Um as part of last last month's

06:02presentation uh we discussed uh

06:05additional investigative work that we've

06:06done as part of that alternatives

06:08analysis as directed by the wetlands

06:10commission. Uh we also discussed

06:12modified uh uh design to the project

06:16including a uh reduction in building

06:18size of 58,000 square feet. Uh this was

06:21on top of the 87,000 foot reduction in

06:25building size as part of the first

06:26application process. uh also a reduction

06:30of 201 associate parking stalls and 29

06:33trailer stalls. Uh uh and all of that

06:36combines to about approximately 4 and a

06:38half acres of uh reduced impervious

06:40coverage. We also uh spent some time uh

06:44uh discussing the enhanced wetlands

06:47mitigation plan. As you know the uh

06:50killingly wetlands regulations require a

06:521:1 wetlands mitigation ratio. what the

06:55applicant is proposing as part of this

06:57application is more is more than three

06:59times that requirement of 3.59 to1

07:02mitigation ratio uh on top of the nearly

07:05300 acres of land uh that are proposed

07:07to be conserved. Um and as we expressed

07:10last time at on September 14th uh at the

07:14first hearing uh the applicant really

07:16wants to uh continue the discussion with

07:18the commission to continue to

07:19collaborate with the commission. Um the

07:22commission um I know uh engages in a

07:25back and forth process with applicants.

07:28The first project design that's

07:30presented might not be the final design

07:32that the commission ultimately votes on

07:33and potentially approves. Um so in that

07:36spirit, we've uh revised the project

07:38plans. Um and at the last meeting, one

07:41thing we were really the applicant was

07:42really hoping to um get was some

07:45feedback, questions, and comments from

07:46the commission. and we recognize that at

07:48that time revised plans had recently

07:51been submitted. The commission didn't

07:52have enough time to review those plans.

07:54So, I think the main thing that we have

07:57hope to accomplish this evening is is

07:59hearing from the commission after our

08:00brief presentation. We'd like to hear uh

08:03your thoughts, questions, comments,

08:05feedback on on the revised plans,

08:08particularly the alternatives analysis.

08:11Um at the end of the last meeting too,

08:13members of the public uh provided some

08:15comment on a variety of issues

08:18and uh many of those issues uh most of

08:21those issues were addressed during the

08:22first application process. They were

08:24discussed by the applicant. They were

08:26discussed by the commission. They were

08:27reviewed by Tigen Bond. The applicant

08:30responded to Tigen Bond's uh comments

08:32and questions. And we're happy to

08:33respond to them again, but we want to

08:35refocus the commission on why we're here

08:37again. And why we're here again is

08:38because of that motion for denial

08:40without prejudice. That denial without

08:42prejudice uh instructed the applicant to

08:45focus on uh alternatives, feasible and

08:48prudent alternatives. So that was the

08:50focus of our presentation last month and

08:52and um and we'd really like to hear from

08:55the commission uh later tonight after

08:57our presentation on on that work. Um uh

09:01so as part of our presentation this

09:03evening, I'm giving the introduction

09:04right now. Um, I'm going to move it uh

09:07on to the rest of our team to uh uh also

09:10give an update about site selection. Uh

09:12I think that will provide some helpful

09:14background for the commission, a recap

09:16of the September presentation from an

09:18alternatives perspective. Um and then uh

09:21briefly addressing the Tigen Bond

09:23comments that we received earlier today.

09:26Um, joining me this evening, Tim Unko

09:28from Langan, uh, Dean Gustoson from

09:31AllPoint Technologies Corporation,

09:33Dustin Curran from Ryan Companies, and

09:35Adam Winstanley from Winstanley

09:36Enterprises.

09:39Um, before turning it over to u the rest

09:43of our team uh to to get on with our

09:45presentation, I did want to address

09:48feasible and prudent alternatives. Um,

09:51so feasible and prudent are both defined

09:54by your wetlands regulations. As you're

09:55well aware, feasible means able to be

09:58constructed or implemented consistent

10:00with sound engineering principles.

10:03Prudent is defined to mean economically

10:06and otherwise reasonable in light of

10:08social benefits to be derived from the

10:10proposed regulated activity provided

10:12costs may be considered in deciding

10:13what's prudent and further provided a

10:15mere showing of expense will not

10:17necessarily mean an alternative is

10:18imprudent. So by definition prudent

10:21involves a consideration of economic

10:23reasonleness and the Connecticut Supreme

10:25Court has reiterated that to rule over

10:27his inlands and wetlands commission. Uh

10:30the Connecticut general statutes also uh

10:33uh uh describe that when considering

10:36prudent uh you have to look at the

10:38applicant's purpose. So here the

10:40applicant's purpose is a warehouse and

10:42distribution center with robotics. The

10:44applicant's purpose is not a single

10:46family residential home. It's not a

10:48subdivision. and it's not a strip mall.

10:50Those other land uses are not prudent.

10:53They do not fall under the feasible and

10:54prudent alternatives analysis. That's

10:56Connecticut law and that's the general

10:58statutes.

11:00If a project is not economically viable

11:03or would not meet operational needs of

11:05an applicant, it can't be considered a

11:07prudent alternative. Here the applicants

11:10reduced the building sizes already. Uh

11:12we've provided uh in uh Mr. Gusubson's

11:16wetlands assessment report additional

11:17information about what why further

11:19reductions in the vicinity of 500,000

11:22square feet are just not possible from

11:24an operational or economic viability

11:26perspective. Um and we received we

11:29acknowledge we received comments earlier

11:30today from from Tigen Bond and I think

11:33you'll probably hear from a

11:34representative later. uh and Tigen Bond

11:37requested additional information on that

11:38subject uh including other subjects and

11:41we are going to provide that well in

11:43advance of the next meeting so that

11:44Tigen Bond can review it, the commission

11:46can review it uh and we could have

11:48further discussion but um but basically

11:50the the size of the proposed warehouse

11:52and distribution center is is driven by

11:54the applicant's operational needs. It's

11:56based on regional c customer demand. The

12:00facility has to be large enough to meet

12:02this demand uh to receive, store,

12:05package and ship a defined volume of

12:08products each day. And to achieve the

12:11required throughput, the building has to

12:13have sufficient floor area. It has to

12:15have sufficient storage volume along

12:17with adequate spa space to safely

12:19accommodate equipment, conveyor system,

12:22associates, and other things. So, we'll

12:24provide more information on that uh more

12:26details on that uh prior to the next

12:27meeting. But, uh, with that

12:29introduction, I'm going to hand it over

12:30to Adam, uh, when Stanley to to talk a

12:33little bit about site selection.

12:41Uh, good evening, uh, members of the,

12:43uh, wetlands commission. For the record,

12:45my name is, um, Adam Winstanley. I'm a

12:48principal of Winstanley Enterprises.

12:51Um, I am the the contract holder of all

12:5525 land parcels and um, I'm the one that

12:58put the deal together. I brought my

13:00client to this site and I just thought

13:02at this point it would be appropriate

13:04for me to come forward and talk a little

13:06bit about um, why um, I came to this

13:10community. talk a little bit about my

13:13track record in the state of Connecticut

13:14and the many projects that I have

13:16completed over my 36 year um uh work in

13:21the real estate business. So my uh

13:25basically the backstory which a lot of

13:27people probably don't know in this room

13:29but I just feel like some people do but

13:32most people don't. Um, so this this

13:35property um has a number of different

13:38families that have come together and

13:41those families um worked very carefully

13:45uh behind the scenes with the planning

13:47and zoning commission to reszone the

13:50parcel.

13:53>> Sorry.

13:54>> Do you guys Does anyone need me to Am I

13:57speaking loudly enough?

13:58>> Okay,

13:59>> sure. Um, so the the situation is that

14:03there's a number of families that own

14:06all of the different parcels and these

14:08families came together and they

14:12essentially worked with the planning and

14:14zoning commission and the town staff and

14:16city council to reszone this parcel to

14:20business park district. Um my company

14:24right now I've actually um we would

14:27rarely take on a site that has we've

14:31done it before but it's not it's not

14:33typical for our company to take on a

14:35special permit site but because this

14:38parcel was reszoned to allow warehouse

14:40and distribution when that um occurred I

14:44received a call from um the landowner's

14:47broker um at Collier's and he told me

14:52that the parcel had been reszoned and

14:54that the town was looking for additional

14:57development. My company right now um we

15:00are one of the largest owners and

15:02operators of warehouse space in the

15:04state of Connecticut. We're involved in

15:07the life science business. We have

15:09medical office buildings, parking

15:11garages, shopping centers, manufacturing

15:13facilities uh throughout the state.

15:16Um, at that point I decided to and I've

15:19worked in this corridor before. Um, I

15:24purchased the American Standard um,

15:26factory in um, in Planefield,

15:30Connecticut several years ago, 85 Musa

15:32Pond Road. That was a vacant facility

15:34that I rehabbed and brought Morgan Truck

15:37Body and Staples. I also bought the uh

15:40the vacant um Greyhound dog track site

15:43down in Planefield as well and brought

15:45Amazon to that site. So, I've been up

15:48and down uh investing in the 395

15:50corridor. I've worked throughout the

15:52entire state. Uh we have two offices in

15:55Connecticut, one in Hartford and one in

15:57New Haven.

15:59So at that point um I came and visited

16:02um with the town staff and and I

16:05carefully walked the entire site and

16:08decided that this would be a suitable

16:10site for for development. My strategy

16:13behind this particular site is after I

16:16made the business deal with all of the

16:18different parcels, I had an opportunity

16:21to buy the Hunt Club property which we

16:24decided to include in this assemblage.

16:27And the reason we thought that was

16:29important is that it added another

16:32around 200 acres of additional buffer

16:35land. And this project um I felt that um

16:39if you look at the size of the parcel

16:41and the yield that is currently at is a

16:44million. It's a very low yield with the

16:47most land that we've ever put into

16:49conservation before.

16:51And on the tenant side, I wanted to um

16:56give a plug to to Amazon because they

16:58were not the only tenant I met with. I

17:01met with another large Fortune 500

17:04company that I came very close to making

17:06a deal with. And while we were on site,

17:10um we had a disagreement. I'm not going

17:13to mention the name of that tenant at

17:15this time, but that particular tenant, I

17:18did not feel like that they were going

17:20to be sensitive uh to the wetlands and

17:23bringing in roads and they had a more

17:27aggressive uh buildout program.

17:29>> Can we keep it down, please? Seriously,

17:31I'm trying to listen to the

17:33presentation.

17:34>> Thank you.

17:34>> So, that particular company wanted a

17:37much larger project. Um

17:40and ultimately uh we parted ways and I

17:44had one other company that we also could

17:46have brought to the table and I chose

17:48Amazon because

17:50um I have a long track record with

17:53Amazon. They are the most flexible and

17:56they are a very thoughtful and they're a

18:00company that's willing to compromise to

18:02get the best plan uh developed and to

18:05move forward. So ultimately I went with

18:07them because I felt like they would be

18:08the best partner for this site and um I

18:12know that this is a wetlands commission

18:14but I do feel like there's a number of

18:16other benefits which we presented uh two

18:19weeks ago at the planning and zoning

18:20commission. Um although I have not um

18:24spoken uh at at the wetlands uh hearings

18:27to date. Um that's primarily because my

18:30company does not have experience in

18:32building the robotics facilities. So, we

18:34weren't selected to actually build it,

18:37but um I am the person that worked

18:39behind the scenes to put the whole

18:41project together and I felt it was

18:43important for the commission to hear uh

18:46my story and how I came to this

18:48community and to to work on this

18:50project. Thank you.

18:53>> Thank you.

18:57[clears throat]

19:01So this this slide again, Evan Seaman

19:03[clears throat] for the record. Um I

19:05kind of touched on this in the

19:06introduction. Um this is what we

19:08presented last time, an expanded

19:09alternatives analysis, modified design

19:12plans. Um and Dean Gustiffson uh did a

19:15good job explaining the enhanced

19:17wetlands mitigation. Again, 3.59:1 ratio

19:20well in excess of your uh uh wetlands

19:23regulation requirements. um as well as

19:25the proposed enforceable condition of

19:27approval that we mentioned at the last

19:28meeting. Um so I'd like to now ask the

19:31rest of our team uh I think Tim you

19:32might have the next slide to to uh get

19:36on with that.

19:38>> Sure. Good evening to Manduro

19:39professional engineer with Langan. I'm

19:42getting some feedback here.

19:45Uh wanted to quickly touch on

19:49>> is that you are you mute? Are you off?

19:52>> I'm not I think

19:54recorded one. She'll adjust it.

19:57>> Okay. Okay. Great. Sorry. Uh Tim Murko,

19:59professional engineer with Langan. Uh

20:01wanted to quickly run through uh some of

20:04the highlights of my presentation last

20:06month where we talked about the

20:07difference between uh the plan that was

20:11uh presented on screen and the materials

20:13that were uh submitted just prior to the

20:15hearing. And um as part of that

20:18submission, we had a number of changes

20:20uh compared to our prior application and

20:22they included uh reducing the building

20:24footprint by 58,000 square ft. That

20:26revision came off of the south side of

20:29the building. North is to the left here,

20:31south is uh to the right, and that's the

20:33395 corridor across the bottom of the

20:36image. Um we eliminated 230 parking

20:39spaces um split between associates and

20:44trailers. Um, and when we made those

20:46revisions and and realigned driveways

20:48and and uh parking, uh we had a total uh

20:52reduction in our impervious coverage of

20:54by about 4 and 1/2 acres. Um we were

20:57also able to increase our separation

20:59distance by about 40 ft from wetland 14,

21:02which is uh the wetland just to the

21:05south of the south side of the building.

21:08Um and with those reductions in

21:10impervious uh we're able to uh make

21:13modifications to our storm water

21:14management system uh and reduce its

21:16overall size by about 10% or about 264

21:20total chambers uh that we had as part of

21:22the prior application.

21:28Good evening folks. Dean Gustin, senior

21:30wetland scientist points technology

21:32Waterford Connecticut. Um just to

21:35refresh the commission's memory from the

21:37last hearing, um we're proposing uh

21:4082,800

21:42square feet of wetland creation

21:44restoration enhancements um primarily to

21:46wetlands 21 22 and wetland one. Um those

21:52mitigation areas will also be bordered

21:54by enhancements to the upland review

21:56areas um providing highquality uh

22:00wetland and buffer habitat um to those

22:03important wetland systems which include

22:05vernal pool habitat. Uh and that's uh

22:08replaces um the 23,000

22:1258 square ft of lowquality isolated

22:15wetlands will be impacted by the

22:16proposed project. This wood wetland

22:19mitigation plan follows standard

22:21operation procedures uh and that are

22:24provided by the US Army Corps of

22:26Engineers New England District. Those uh

22:29SOPs are also mirrored by the

22:31Connecticut Department of Energy

22:32Environmental Protections wetland

22:33mitigation program uh for their

22:36standards as well. Um the wetland

22:40mitigation uh overall wetland mitigation

22:42plan will also include uh monitoring

22:45during construction uh both of the

22:47facility and the wetland mitigation

22:49areas by a wetland professional. Uh

22:52that'll also incorporate invasive

22:55species uh control maintenance uh

22:57monitoring plan as well as five years of

23:00post construction monitoring of the all

23:02the mitigation areas. Uh in addition,

23:05the mitigation plan will be fully bonded

23:08for commitment that will ensure success

23:10of the mitigation areas.

23:17This graphic shows the all of the the

23:20wetland enhancement restoration creation

23:22areas. The area that's circled up to uh

23:26the upper right hand corner is the newer

23:30additional wetland uh restoration

23:33creation area which is highlighted in

23:35red and the blue area is includes the

23:38upland review area enhancement areas

23:40along Westcot Road.

23:47So,

23:49is this

23:53not sure if this mic is working, but

23:54I'll speak anyway. Um, as I mentioned

23:57earlier, we received Tigen Bond's

23:58comments uh earlier this afternoon. We

24:01are going to provide a response to them.

24:03Tim, did you want to just I know you've

24:04had a chance to look at some of them.

24:06Did you want to briefly address Tigen

24:08Bond's comments? [music]

24:13Uh again, Tim Durko, professional

24:15engineer with Lang and yeah, received

24:17time bond comments today. Um didn't see

24:20anything that I don't think we'd be able

24:22to take care of. Some technical

24:24questions, some clarifications. Um as

24:27attorney Sean mentioned, there was some

24:29discussion about providing some more uh

24:31insight into uh our building footprint

24:34and size compared to um one of the

24:37existing facilities in town. So um we'll

24:40have time to digest those over the next

24:42week and work on um preparing technical

24:45response as we did previously. Um but

24:47but felt that um any of the the comments

24:50and items identified were um solvable

24:52from our side.

24:54>> I I just want to make a statement here

24:57because again we didn't receive these

25:00comments from time till today.

25:02Obviously, um I don't know if that was a

25:05delay on the applicant side or if that

25:09was a delay on our third party side, but

25:12if we could get these addressed so we

25:15could all review these in advance of the

25:19next meeting, that would be very

25:20helpful.

25:22>> Understood.

25:23We do have Tyion Bond here. So, I don't

25:25know if you want to hear from him around

25:27this time or

25:29>> if if Tyen Bond is here, I' I'd love to

25:31hear from our third party for sure. Yes.

25:45>> Uh, good evening. For the record, my

25:46name is Joseph Canis. I'm a licensed

25:48professional engineer in the state of

25:49Connecticut, a and a principal engineer

25:51with the firm of Ty and Bond. We were

25:53retained by the commission to review the

25:55application. And uh first, Mr. Chairman,

25:57I do apologize. The delay was on our

25:59end. I was away traveling. Uh so I was

26:02unable to get those comments out until

26:03today. Uh going forward, we'll be able

26:05to produce them more quickly. I don't

26:06have any vacation time scheduled. So, uh

26:09we'll move that forward.

26:10>> Yeah, just keep in mind we're all

26:12volunteers.

26:12>> Understood. I completely understand.

26:15>> Thank you. Uh so I I did issue a comment

26:18letter today and uh as uh Mr. Enderko

26:21said uh most of the comments are uh

26:23requesting additional information,

26:25additional clarifications.

26:27Uh there wasn't anything in there that

26:28we saw that was you know truly

26:30egregious. Um and I could uh run quickly

26:33run through the comments. I won't go

26:34through each one. There's about 30 of

26:35them, but uh just to characterize them.

26:38Uh we had some comments on the uh site

26:40and grading u for example quantification

26:43of the snow storage areas. That's

26:44comment number one. Uh we also had some

26:47comments on the uh extended dry

26:49detention basin. Uh we just needed some

26:51more details on how that burm is

26:53constructed. Uh specifically um the

26:56material inside that burm to make sure

26:58it doesn't leak in the future. So you

26:59want to imperman core on that. Uh the

27:03some other comments about um deicing,

27:06making sure that's incorporated in the

27:07stormwater operations and maintenance

27:09plan. Uh and just some minor comments

27:11between the consistency between the

27:13plans. You know, uh some of the line

27:14work might have been a little bit off or

27:16inconsistent with some of the details,

27:17but that's easily resolved.

27:20Uh there's also uh some comments about

27:23um some of the steeper slopes uh and

27:26guide rails if they're warranted. Not

27:28necessarily a wetlands issue, but we did

27:29put it in there. It was something that

27:31we picked up on. Uh there were some

27:33outdated references in the um in the

27:36plan details to Connecticut DOT form 818

27:40which is essentially our state's roadway

27:42specifications. Uh just a request to uh

27:45update those to the current version

27:46which is 8 819. That shouldn't change

27:49too much. Uh comment 1.7 was a uh

27:53comment regarding earthwork just to

27:54better understand um how deep the cuts

27:57and fills are in some areas. It's easier

27:59to look at like a heat map that shows u

28:01depths and cuts um as a

28:06difference from grade you know plus four

28:07feet plus 10 ft so on uh versus looking

28:10at a grading plan. And then I had some

28:13uh stormwater comments. Uh one was to uh

28:16because we have a very large site. Uh

28:19it's 340 acres I believe to uh compare

28:23some of those areas to make sure that

28:24because those areas are so large, make

28:26sure that there's no adverse downstream

28:28impact. Right. So that's in the

28:30Connecticut storm water quality manual.

28:32Uh we also um requested some additional

28:36information about why infiltration was

28:37infeasible. uh just an expansion on uh

28:40the explanation that's already given in

28:42the uh report. Uh another comment 2.3

28:46was to do a gutter flow analysis which

28:48is basically to look at uh how much

28:50runoff bypasses the catch basins as it's

28:53coming down the hill. We want to make

28:55sure that's captured before it gets to

28:56Westcot road because otherwise it could

28:58be a winter icing issue. Uh so and we

29:01only need that gutter flow just for that

29:03system because that impacts a public

29:04roadway.

29:06Uh then there were some comments about

29:08um the outlet control structures uh and

29:12making sure that they're consistent with

29:14the details. That's 2.4 2.5.

29:18Uh comment 2.6. I had some concerns

29:21about the uh depth of cover. Uh some of

29:23those pipes are, you know, 30 ft deep.

29:26Uh just to make sure that the selected

29:28pipe can handle that load. Uh you know,

29:31there there are ways to address that.

29:33They could always change out the pipe,

29:34but uh you know we obviously we want

29:36that to be stable. Uh and then uh some

29:39more technical comments about the

29:41hydraulic analysis, the capacity of the

29:43storm drains. Uh that's 2.9. Uh and then

29:48uh 2.10 to uh 2.13.

29:53Those are all uh issues between the

29:56plans and the report and the

29:58computations. Just making sure they're

29:59consistent. Uh and then 2.15

30:04um again those are um trying to

30:07understand right because you have

30:08retaining walls uh they typically have

30:11drains behind them just to understand

30:13where those wall drains will discharge

30:15and then the uh the RA remaining

30:17stormwater comments are uh consistency

30:20between plans and between uh the the

30:23computations and then we have some

30:25sentiment erosion control. Uh those

30:27comments are all basically uh requesting

30:29additional detail is some additional

30:31grading to show how uh runoff will get

30:34to the proposed sediment traps. Uh we

30:36also had a comment about a temporary

30:38crossing. Um it was just labeled as a

30:40temporary crossing with any additional

30:42details. It would be helpful to

30:44understand what's proposed for that

30:45temporary crossing so that uh as an

30:48inland wetland commission you know what

30:49those impacts are. Uh so that was um and

30:52then we had some additional uh detail

30:54requests under the sediment erosion

30:56control and then uh Rick Hanavan our

30:59wetland scientist who unfortunately is

31:00conflicted tonight uh couldn't attend.

31:03He had uh an additional comment about

31:05the al alternatives analysis to request

31:07some additional uh information uh to

31:10support the uh the conclusion that was

31:13made in the applicants uh report.

31:17>> So that's a quick spin through.

31:19>> Thank you. You're welcome.

31:20>> Does anyone

31:22on the commission have questions,

31:26comments for Ty Bond?

31:32>> Sandy,

31:34are you still there?

31:36>> No, I just um agreed with with you on

31:39our timeliness of of information. So,

31:42it'll be good if we can have it a little

31:43more in advance next. Yes.

31:47Could

31:54you hear me, Rodney?

31:56>> Yep, we could hear you.

31:57>> I did. Thank you, Sandy.

31:59>> Okay.

32:00Like I said, the internet is not

32:03necessarily holding up that well here.

32:16>> Okay. Okay. Thank you.

32:27>> Uh for the record, Evan Seaman again. Um

32:29we also received engineering comments

32:31from Steve Trinkus who is I believe

32:33hired by proposed interveners or other

32:36members of the public. That report I

32:38believe is received Thursday. Um you may

32:40not have also had the opportunity to

32:42review that. Um we have reviewed uh the

32:45report. We have not had time to prepare

32:47comments to it, but we will do so before

32:49the next meeting. Uh, but we did have

32:51some some uh uh points we'd like to

32:53address with respect to it. Uh, Tim,

32:55we'll we'll get to that in a bit, but um

32:57uh first uh we find the report not to be

33:00credible. I think the commission uh uh

33:03should know that within the past two

33:05years, Mr. Trinkus has been found to be

33:07not a credible witness by the

33:09Connecticut Superior Court's land use

33:11litigation docket. That's the

33:13specialized land use docket in

33:14Connecticut. Uh, in each of those cases,

33:16he did opposition work, raised many of

33:18the same comments that he's raising

33:20here. Um, I do have com a um handout for

33:23the commission that I'd like to present.

33:42So although you haven't reviewed the

33:44report, he is here this evening. You

33:46will hear from him. So um we'd like to

33:48uh address some of it.

33:56>> So this

33:57>> Jonathan, will this be in the record?

33:58Because that's not something I've seen.

34:00Will I be able to pull that up later?

34:01>> Yep. We'll have that uploaded tomorrow.

34:04Um, any documentation that's submitted

34:06today, we'll do our best to have that

34:07uploaded to the town website tomorrow

34:09morning.

34:10>> Thank you, Jonathan.

34:11>> So, this this I'm not going to read all

34:13of it. I'm going to read uh some quotes

34:15from here. These are four cases from the

34:16land use litigation docket. The first

34:18one, Fairfield Housing Corp versus

34:19Conservation Commission 2024. These are

34:23quotes from the court. Given his

34:25inaccuracies, factual incompleteness,

34:27and selective omissions, Trinkus'

34:29opinions do not constitute a substantial

34:31basis of fact sufficient to sustain the

34:33commission's denial. Therefore, Trinkus'

34:36conclusions can only be seen as

34:37speculative or conjectural without

34:39supporting analysis. Further Trinkus'

34:41views about increased storm water

34:42volume. No infiltration and poor water

34:44quality were based upon selective

34:46citation from the D manual that omitted

34:48parts of the guidelines that when read

34:50together demonstrated both that his

34:52criticism was not valid and that the

34:54work of plaintiff's engineer was

34:56competent. Trinkus' opinion regarding

34:58infiltration is simil similarly flawed

35:00as incomplete and selective in its

35:02articulation of D guidelines. Therefore,

35:05the reports and evidence from Trinkus

35:07are based on incomplete information that

35:09is not substantiated by the record

35:11developed during the public hearing and

35:12upon which the commission could rely.

35:15Next case, 751 Weed Street versus

35:17planning and zoning commission 2025.

35:20Third bullet. The court's review of his

35:22July 11th, 2022 letter reveals no

35:24calculations at all by Trinkus, either

35:26to support his positions or to

35:28demonstrate that plaintiff's detailed

35:29engineering calculations in the reports

35:32submitted were in error. Further, the

35:34court observes that Trinkus' testimony

35:36in this matter, except for the very

35:38last, i.e. road icing, is nearly

35:41identical to his testimony in other

35:43matters. Reading the transcript of the

35:45final hearing made one wonder if Trinkus

35:47was discussing a different application

35:49than Copeland and Deandria, so different

35:51was his criticism from their apparent,

35:53but reasoned recent consensus that

35:55plaintiff had met the legitimate

35:56concerns raised by Copela in her

35:58analysis and by Canis in his peer

36:00review.

36:02Trinkus also misrepresented to one

36:04commission member who asked for the

36:05calculations that form the basis for his

36:07conclusions that engineering structures

36:09would not work that his reports

36:11contained such calculations. Next case,

36:13Alimi versus inland wetlands board May

36:152026.

36:17Second bullet. In some Trinkus' views

36:20relying upon obsolete, partial or false

36:22factual bases were clearly unsound.

36:25Given his inaccuracies, factual

36:26incompleteness, and selective omissions,

36:28and his failure to provide any detailed

36:30analysis to refute that of the qualified

36:32engineers he was critiquing, Trinkus'

36:34opinions do not constitute a substantial

36:36basis of fact sufficient for the board

36:38to rely on them to deny plaintiff's

36:40application. Under no scenario could it

36:43be said that his Trinkus' views provided

36:45a qualitative or quantitative basis for

36:48the denial. As this court has previously

36:50observed, Trinkus' views are generally

36:52consistent with views he has given in

36:54opposition to several other

36:56developments. Next case, Gora versus

36:58Honeycomb Real Estate Partners 2026

37:01July.

37:02Third bullet in some an examination of

37:04the record exposes the stark qualitative

37:07difference between Jacobson's

37:09engineering's measured tone and detail

37:10and its role as consulting engineer to

37:12the commission and Trinkus' repetitive

37:15conclusions and inaccuracies made

37:17without supporting detail or analysis.

37:20Similar conduct of Trinkus as an

37:22opposition expert in other cases has

37:23been observed by this court. So, as I

37:26mentioned, we haven't had time to

37:28provide written responses. Uh, but in

37:30reviewing his report, there are no

37:31calculations. He criticizes the feasible

37:33and prudent alternative analysis and the

37:36documents he lists that he's reviewed.

37:38He has not reviewed the document that

37:39includes the applicant's feasible and

37:41prudent alternatives analysis. There are

37:43many uh other inconsistencies in his

37:45report and and problems with it that

37:47we'll point out in our written response,

37:49but that's what we wanted uh to get

37:51across to the commission. Now, this is

37:52who you're going to be hearing from. Um

37:54we have a couple other slides um that

37:57our engineer has put together uh based

37:59on his review.

38:01>> Thank you Evan. Uh Tim Murko,

38:03professional engineer with Lang and um

38:05and and similar to you uh we received

38:07the uh the Trink House comment letter on

38:10Thursday morning. So uh have been trying

38:12to to work our way through it and and

38:14prepare responses. Um but uh similar to

38:18what we've heard in some of the prior

38:20court cases where uh information is

38:23either taken out of context or is uh

38:26incomplete. Um there was a number of

38:29comments that were made uh regarding the

38:33Yeah, here's a here's a good one. Thank

38:34you. [clears throat]

38:36Uh the first storm water comment uh from

38:40the trink house letter applicant states

38:42that this is not a high pollutant load

38:44site because no fueling vehicles occurs

38:46on site. See their comment to time bond

38:49from May. Uh this is not correct. Table

38:5210.4 land uses or activities with higher

38:54pollutant loads found on page 192 of

38:56Connecticut deep. Uh and he goes on to

38:58say that uh the manual says that this is

39:00a fleet storage area and is a high

39:02pollutant load site and therefore falls

39:04under the industrial uh requirements of

39:06the Connecticut General Permit. However,

39:09if you actually go to the table and read

39:12the various uses that qualify for higher

39:15pollutant loads, you will see that the

39:17first item refers to um Connecticut

39:21Deep's uh industrial activities permit.

39:24And if you go to the next slide, if you

39:26go to the permit, you'll see that that

39:29uh actually breaks down specific uses in

39:32the state of Connecticut based on

39:34standard industrial classifications

39:37including classifications 40, 4142

39:42except 4221 through 4225

39:46and including 44 and 45. If you go and

39:50look at the exceptions, you will see

39:52that 4225 is warehousing and storage. So

39:56the first comment that deep makes and

39:59points to in their industrial permit is

40:01that warehousing and storage facilities

40:03do not qualify as the highintensity use.

40:08So uh kind of pulling information that's

40:11not necessarily backed up, but on first

40:13review you could be led to believe. If

40:16we go to the next slide, I've got two

40:18more examples. Storm water comment

40:20number two. Uh Mr. Trinkus states that

40:23storm water cannot be infiltrated from a

40:25site which is considered a high

40:26pollutant load land use per Connecticut

40:29D24.

40:30I think we've made the statement that we

40:33are not a high pollutant land use. But

40:35if you go to the table that he's

40:38referencing and read column number two,

40:40it says storm water infiltration systems

40:43allowed question mark. and then five

40:46yeses in that column. So his comment

40:49that storm water cannot be infiltrated

40:51from a site which is considered a high

40:53pollutant land use code does not apply

40:56and you can clearly go to the table he

40:58references to see that answer. Third one

41:01uh I believe this is storm water comment

41:04number five when hydrodnamic separators

41:06or other structural storm water

41:08management systems are provided going on

41:10and on he claims they are less effective

41:12than acknowledged by time bond your peer

41:15reviewer and he states that an online

41:17hydrodnamic separator will only remove

41:1929% of suspended solids well below the

41:2390% required by the manual. Now, he

41:26makes no reference to where the 29%

41:29comes from, but if you go online, you

41:31will find a self-published report by

41:34Mtor Trinkus with an effective date of

41:36January 2018, which is actually before

41:40the system that we're proposing was even

41:42invented and tested and verified. So

41:46unless he was able to see into the

41:47future in 2018 to identify the

41:50effectiveness of a system which had not

41:52been designed, built, tested, analyzed

41:57and then subsequently built would be

41:59very hard to do. Mr. Trinkus also talks

42:02about how uh the system is proposed as

42:05an online configuration versus an

42:06offline configuration. But new systems

42:09are designed such that they can pass the

42:13higher flows and not require the offline

42:16configuration. So our documentation that

42:19we've included in our uh submission

42:22identifies that the system we're

42:23proposing uses internal bypass and the

42:262024 storm water manual also reflects

42:29that internal bypass structures are

42:32accepted and permitted in terms of the

42:35design of components like this. So, um,

42:37these are only three of the probably 30

42:40comments. Uh, I'm sure some of them are

42:42technical and require analysis that we

42:44would certainly provide. Uh, but wanted

42:46to highlight three um that you may hear

42:50about tonight. Um, and what we find is

42:53when we actually go to the code or try

42:56and find a reference that isn't provided

42:58in the letter, uh, similar to core

43:00cases, there are no calculations. We

43:02prepare a 500page storm water report

43:05which has been peer-reviewed uh by your

43:07consultant and we receive back a

43:09five-page comment letter that uh takes a

43:12shot at a number of the claims and

43:13statements without supporting analysis

43:16which uh I think is consistent with what

43:18you've heard from uh prior court cases.

43:20So uh similar to the Ty bond comment

43:22letter, we will go item by item and

43:24prepare a response. we would expect that

43:26we would give a copy of that to your uh

43:28peer reviewer so they could um confirm

43:30our statements, a number of which um

43:32we've kind of gone through with them uh

43:34to get to this point. So uh thought it

43:37was important to preface preface uh Mr.

43:39Trinka's statements which I'm sure we'll

43:42hear from shortly. Um but this is what

43:44we found quickly in in basically uh two

43:47business days from uh receiving the

43:49document on Thursday. Thank you.

43:52So um I can tell you that I am a

43:55professional engineer myself. Um and I

43:58know that you know

44:01whether it's Connecticut, Massachusetts,

44:03Rhode Island, we have to do TSS

44:05calculations, right? Um and it's not

44:09just one particular item. It's the

44:11treatment train that it goes through,

44:13right? So I'm assuming you can provide

44:15all that information, correct?

44:17>> Yes. And those calculations are in our

44:19storm water report that's been

44:21submitted. And and similarly, this

44:24comment that you see in blue says that

44:27the hydrodnamic separator falls below

44:29the 90% requirement, but doesn't

44:32acknowledge the rest of the components

44:34that are downstream that we've gone

44:35through a number of times. Here we have

44:37a detention system. We have uh the

44:40jellyfish filters, which we spent

44:42probably an hour talking about how, you

44:44know, photos of what they look like, how

44:46they're maintained. So again, we will

44:48provide the kind of the factual support

44:50for these statements, but again, you

44:52know, that comment is a halftruth in

44:55that yes, if we had a parking lot with a

44:57hydrononeamic separator, I don't believe

45:00the 29% maybe in 2002 uh before uh you

45:05know, internal bypass uh structures were

45:07designed and engineered. that that may

45:09have been the case when we used to uh

45:11use probably by brand name Vorttechnic

45:14units if you remember those. We would

45:15regularly place those in an offline

45:17configuration because the concern was

45:20high flow comes through blows out all

45:22the material that had been settled or

45:24captured p previously. As 20 years of

45:27engineering and technology have

45:29advanced, we have new systems.

45:31Certainly, if there was a need to move

45:32to a a bypass configuration, we'd be

45:35more than happy to do that. Um, we will

45:37continue to communicate with the

45:39manufacturer of this unit. I'm sure

45:41we'll get even more data from them on

45:43their testing. Um, but this is, uh, you

45:46know, just some of the things that we'll

45:47be dealing with and responding to

45:49thoroughly.

45:50>> Has, um,

45:52again, just from my experience, there's

45:55some municipalities or state governments

45:58that have tested some of these um,

46:01hydrodnamic separators.

46:04Do you have a report for an individual

46:08test on these things?

46:09>> Yeah, and and the 2024 I off the top of

46:12my head, I couldn't give you the

46:13bullets, but the 2024 Connecticut storm

46:16water quality manual outlines a number

46:18of uh conditions of how they consider

46:21these acceptable. You can't just be a

46:22manufacturer and say, "I have X." NJCAT

46:25is a kind of a popular name.

46:27>> Yeah, that that's [clears throat] the

46:28one that springs to my mind as well. So

46:31um we can can uh we'll enumerate I know

46:34I know our storm water management report

46:35is significant and if you go to appendix

46:37C a 100 pages in you can find the

46:39various statements. We'll pull those to

46:41the front and uh and show this but again

46:44u our claims regarding and and I believe

46:46in one of the initial comments from time

46:48bond there was some question about some

46:50of the percentages and were we hitting

46:52all of the requirements as we're taking

46:54the alternative approach to

46:56infiltration. So we went back, we did

46:58some additional calculations uh and you

47:00know subsequently closed out that

47:02comment. So, we can certainly dust that

47:04off. But yes, that we we don't accept a

47:06manufacturer's claims without

47:09independent third-party testing. And

47:11Connecticut, as they've finally gotten

47:13to, you know, it took them 20 years to

47:15update this the storm water quality

47:17manual have caught up to kind of many

47:19other states in terms of this is what

47:21we'll accept along the way for uh

47:23confirmation of their um their

47:25effectiveness.

47:26>> Okay. So, uh I I would recommend your

47:29responses. Um it with your responses if

47:34you could pull out whatever section it

47:37is it would make it much easier for

47:40everyone on the commission rather than

47:42us trying to go through 200 pages and

47:45and trying to find it ourselves. Okay.

47:47AB: Absolutely. Instead of just

47:48referring you to some page in our

47:50report, we will understand. So, yeah.

47:53So, our our response may be a little

47:55thicker than, you know, the five-page

47:57letter, but we can with reference say

47:59this was from appendix C, page 4, right?

48:03>> C. You know,

48:04>> I I just think it'd make it easier for

48:05everyone on the commission if you could

48:07do that.

48:08>> Absolutely.

48:08>> Thank you.

48:15Does anyone else have any other

48:17comments, questions?

48:22>> Sandy, do you have any comments,

48:24questions?

48:31She's still there.

48:32>> She is still there. I'm gonna see if I

48:35can unmute her. I

48:36>> I was going to say, did you shut her

48:37off?

48:38>> No. [laughter]

48:46And again for the record, Evan Seaman, u

48:48this is this concludes our initial

48:49presentation. U Mr. Acting Chair and um

48:53as I mentioned earlier, we would really

48:55appreciate it if the commission has

48:57questions, comments, feedback now for us

48:59to consider because I understand that um

49:02uh there's I don't know if we're going

49:05to get back up here later this evening.

49:06So we if you do have questions,

49:08comments, feedback, uh we'd appreciate

49:10that. Thank you.

49:12>> Thank you.

49:14Is Sandy there?

49:16>> Sandy is there. I don't know. There you

49:18go.

49:18>> Unmuted.

49:19>> There you go.

49:20>> Want to unmute for some reason. No, I I

49:23think I'm okay for now. I just It's the

49:25timeliness of of uh some of these

49:28responses and um I think that's a

49:30problem all the way around and I think

49:32that Rodney, you're looking to try to

49:33get that solved for all of us. So, I

49:35think that's going to be the

49:37>> the answer right there. We have so much

49:38to review that we can't just get it at

49:41the last minute.

49:42>> We we we can't, you know, and and that's

49:44a big problem. So, yes, that's why I

49:46mentioned it, Sandy. Thank you.

49:48>> Yes. Thank you.

49:55>> Are you done with your presentation?

49:57>> Yes.

49:58>> Okay.

49:59>> Um,

50:01>> so I don't know if now would be a good

50:02time. We we uh kind of postponed the

50:05intervenor process last month. So I have

50:08attorney Rich Roberts here uh with the

50:11town. I do see an attorney I think for

50:14the intervenor uh joining us remotely

50:18and I think that there is also an

50:19intervenor and a um their expert here.

50:22Um if I don't know how you would like to

50:25uh proceed

50:28feedback,

50:30>> do you want to discuss intervenor now

50:32or?

50:33>> Yeah, I think we should.

50:34>> Okay.

50:34>> All right.

50:36>> Yep. Let's do it now. Okay.

50:40So if

50:43don't know if you want to go first Rich

50:44in terms of like the process for uh

50:47intervention and kind of give us the you

50:50know a summary of what the commission

50:52should be looking at here um and then uh

50:56I'd entertain e the attorney for the

50:59interventionist uh um and kind of go

51:02from there.

51:05>> Yeah. I mean that

51:07basically the the petitions from the

51:10interveners are presented to the

51:12commission

51:14and what they have to do is demonstrate

51:17um

51:20that they have identified specific

51:23environmental issues that are within the

51:26jurisdiction of this commission that

51:28fall within your authority and your

51:31regulations. Not traffic, not

51:35you know, light bulbs and things like

51:37that. Um, and that they have the burden

51:41of proving that the allegations they've

51:45con set forth in their petitions,

51:49um, demonstrate that the conduct,

51:52meaning what the applicant wants to do,

51:54is reasonably likely to have the effect

51:57of unreasonably polluting, impairing, or

52:00destroying a natural resource.

52:04the burden is on the interveners to

52:06prove that the applicant doesn't have to

52:08disprove that. Um quite often the

52:12information that is in the intervention

52:15petition is one that has to be proven by

52:19technical professional expertise. But it

52:22should be specified in their petitions

52:25with enough particularity that you can

52:28look at it and say, "Oh yes, that is an

52:31issue that is within,

52:34you know, our jurisdiction

52:36and that um it goes beyond mere

52:39speculation or general concerns to

52:42identify something in particular that

52:45you know that

52:47is

52:49reasonably likely to have the detr

52:51detrimental effects.

52:53Um

52:56the intervention petitions have been

52:57revised a few times and each time uh the

53:01applicant has

53:03objected to them and pointed out the

53:06shortcomings.

53:08Um

53:09without more probably the uh allegations

53:14contained in the pet petitions without

53:17additional supporting information or

53:19clarification

53:21are insufficient to carry the burden.

53:24Um,

53:26but you probably should grant them

53:30intervenor status at least for the

53:33purpose of permitting them to try to

53:37present the evidence to support

53:40um

53:42their assertions with respect to the

53:44things that are within your

53:46jurisdiction.

53:48Um, and at that point, you know, once

53:50they've done that, you have to make a

53:53finding as to whether or not they have

53:56presented substantial evidence

53:58demonstrating

53:59that it's reasonably likely that the

54:01storm water system or the other

54:04activities that are proposed would cause

54:07adverse impacts to the natural resources

54:09of the state. Um

54:13and whether you know these negative

54:16um harms

54:19are reasonably likely to occur and

54:22reasonably likely to adversely

54:26impact the natural resources of the

54:28state particularly the wetlands and the

54:30water courses.

54:32Um

54:34and if they sustain that burden of

54:36proof, then you further have to decide

54:38whether the applicant has shown um

54:43feasible and prudent alternatives that

54:45would eliminate or or reduce

54:48um those impacts.

54:56[clears throat]

54:57So as part of your packet um are I think

55:01the latest

55:02for um petitions along with the um

55:10engineers report um provided that the

55:13applicant was referencing earlier um

55:16that uh

55:19>> and then Robinson and Cole has submitted

55:22uh an objection as they done previously

55:24uh in regards to it and that's also part

55:26of your packet and printed out uh before

55:29you that was received today. Um, so,

55:33uh, as it sits right now, I'm not sure

55:36if, uh, kind of leave it to the

55:38interventionist, I think would make

55:39sense, but, um, I do see, I think it's

55:42attorney Burn, uh, um, on who's

55:45referenced, uh, in all of the petitions.

55:48I'm not sure if she would like to

55:50present on behalf of her clients or

55:53>> actually um, can I get a motion for a

55:55fivem minute recess? I need to discuss

55:58something um with town staff and town

56:01attorney.

56:03>> I'll make a motion for a five minute

56:04recess.

56:05>> Seconded.

56:06>> All in favor?

56:08>> I

56:08>> I Thank you.

1:03:59Okay. Uh

1:04:01if uh if we could continue um do I need

1:04:05to make a uh do I need a motion to

1:04:06continue? No. Okay. Very good. So I

1:04:09guess we will open it up to the

1:04:11intervenor's uh attorney.

1:04:19Good evening. Can everyone hear me?

1:04:22>> Yes. Thank you.

1:04:24>> Thank you. Um, good evening, Mr. Chair

1:04:26and members of the commission. My name

1:04:28is Nicole Burn from the law offices of

1:04:29Vern and Burn and my firm represents the

1:04:31propo proposed interveners and

1:04:33application 26-1636.

1:04:36Thank you very much for the opportunity

1:04:38to participate remotely. Um, as you

1:04:40already know, the commission's

1:04:42consideration uh in these petitions is

1:04:44limited limited to the four corners of

1:04:47the petition. I believe the petitions

1:04:49before you speak for themselves, so I

1:04:51intend to keep my address to the

1:04:52commission brief. I want to address the

1:04:55applicant's objections to my client's

1:04:58petitions for intervention. The

1:05:00applicant's objection is essentially

1:05:02that the petitions filed by my clients

1:05:04are insufficient and that they do not

1:05:07show causation and applicable harm. More

1:05:10specifically, the applicant claims that

1:05:13my clients did not state how and why

1:05:15unreasonable pollution impairment or

1:05:17destruction of a natural resource will

1:05:20probably result from the challenged

1:05:22activity. In support of this claim, the

1:05:24applicant cites to a 2003 uh Connecticut

1:05:28Supreme Court case Fort Trumbull Con uh

1:05:31Conservancy

1:05:33LLC versus ALS, a case concerning

1:05:36whether a developer had standing to

1:05:38intervene in a judicial proceeding under

1:05:40Connecticut General Statute sections

1:05:4222A-16.

1:05:45Under this statute, in order to

1:05:47successfully intervene, the proposed

1:05:49intervening party must show causation

1:05:51and applicable harm. Section 22A-16

1:05:55and the Bort Trumbull case do not apply

1:05:58to petitions for interventions and

1:05:59administrative hearings, such as the

1:06:01public hearing this commission is

1:06:03conducting tonight. Again, section

1:06:0522A-16 applies to motions to intervene

1:06:08in judicial proceedings.

1:06:11here. My clients proper properly have

1:06:14submitted petitions to intervene under

1:06:16Connecticut General Statute section

1:06:1822A-9,

1:06:20which concerns whether a party has

1:06:22standing to intervene in an

1:06:23administrative hearing.

1:06:26This statute merely requires that the

1:06:28petition includes a statement of issues

1:06:30and sufficient facts to show that the

1:06:33issues to be raised are within the

1:06:35commission's jurisdiction. The petitions

1:06:37filed by my clients satisfy this

1:06:39requirements.

1:06:41Tonight we have heard the applicant

1:06:43critique specific issues they see within

1:06:46the petitions. In doing so, the

1:06:48applicant is prematurely asking the

1:06:50interveners to prove their claims before

1:06:52the commission has even made a

1:06:53jurisdictional determination. This is a

1:06:55fundamental misunderstanding of the

1:06:57intervenor's burden at this point in the

1:06:59process. The interveners do not have to

1:07:01prove any of the claims they intend to

1:07:03bring before this commission prior to

1:07:05being granted intervenor status.

1:07:09The commission should reject the

1:07:10applicant's application and accept my

1:07:12client's petitions to intervene as they

1:07:14fully comply with the applicable law.

1:07:16Thank you for your time and I will take

1:07:18any questions that you have.

1:07:21>> Thank you. Uh, anyone on the commission

1:07:24have questions, comments?

1:07:28>> I do not.

1:07:30>> Sandy, do you have any questions or

1:07:32comments for the intervenors uh,

1:07:34attorney?

1:07:36>> Nope. I'm all set for now.

1:07:37>> Okay. Thank you.

1:07:39>> Thank you,

1:07:46>> Mr. Chair. May I address the objection

1:07:49at the appropriate time?

1:07:52>> Absolutely. Go ahead. Thank you.

1:07:53>> Thank you. Um members of the commission,

1:07:56again, Evan Seaman, for the record, we

1:07:58received four revised intervention

1:08:00petitions, I believe, on Thursday. Um we

1:08:02filed the [clears throat] town closed

1:08:04early on Friday. Uh we filed our

1:08:06objection to those revised petitions

1:08:08today. I don't know if attorney Bernie

1:08:10has had the opportunity to review those

1:08:11or not. I'll keep my comments brief. Um

1:08:14the the case that uh was referenced Fort

1:08:16Trumbull deals with both 22A16 and

1:08:19228-9.

1:08:21Both are part of the Connecticut

1:08:22Environmental Protection Act. Both use

1:08:24the same standard. Uh the court in that

1:08:26case says that in the petition itself,

1:08:28you have to assert the petition or a

1:08:30judicial proceeding. You have to assert

1:08:31a colorable claim. What you have to do

1:08:34is you have to have sufficient facts in

1:08:36the petition so that the commission can

1:08:38make a determination whether it has

1:08:40jurisdiction over the issues raised.

1:08:42There are many allegations raised in the

1:08:44revised petitions and the original

1:08:46petitions. I'm not going to go through u

1:08:49everything. We stand out in our

1:08:51objection. However,

1:08:53um the petitions identify the following

1:08:55issues which we believe are beyond the

1:08:57commission's jurisdiction. Uh

1:08:59allegations concerning listed species

1:09:01subject to deep review. Uh the town

1:09:03attorney in the context of the planning

1:09:04and zoning commission hearing

1:09:06uh provided an opinion uh stating that

1:09:08that's subject to deep review. Uh

1:09:10general impacts to wildlife and wildlife

1:09:12habitat general impacts. No, that's not

1:09:15uh under 2219. Migration patterns of

1:09:18large mammals, same impacts to ledge,

1:09:20impacts to home, air pollution, noise

1:09:22pollution, additional traffic, fire

1:09:24suppression issues. None of this is

1:09:25within the agency's jurisdiction. Uh the

1:09:28wetlands agency's purview. Um uh

1:09:31similarly the uh allegations don't

1:09:33provide enough information for the

1:09:35commission to make a determination of

1:09:37whether it has jurisdiction over issues.

1:09:39In many cases they don't identify the

1:09:41resources at issue. They don't specify

1:09:44the wetlands or water courses at issue

1:09:45where in the site offsite. They don't

1:09:47specify the type of wildlife alleged to

1:09:49be harmed or where it's located. Uh some

1:09:52don't specify a resource at all or a

1:09:54harm at all. Uh beyond that several of

1:09:56the allegations use the wrong legal

1:09:58standard which is apply the wrong legal

1:10:00standard which is in our objection. Um

1:10:03again they have to establish reasonable

1:10:05likelihood of uh environmental harm. Uh

1:10:08some of the allegations use words like

1:10:11may, can or possible. That's not

1:10:13reasonably likely. That's something

1:10:15different. Um and then finally they cite

1:10:18mere non-compliance with regulations or

1:10:20guidelines. and the uh the the

1:10:22Connecticut courts, Douglas versus

1:10:24Planning and Zoning Commission have said

1:10:25that that is not enough. So, we stand on

1:10:27our objections. We understand the town

1:10:29attorney has provided guidance on this,

1:10:31but um we'll leave it at that for now.

1:10:33Thank you.

1:10:34>> Thank you. Um at this point, um uh the

1:10:39intervenor has their expert here. Is

1:10:42that correct?

1:10:59Uh good evening. For the record, Steven

1:11:01Trinkus. I'm a licensed professional

1:11:03engineer from Southbury, Connecticut.

1:11:05I've been licensed since 1988. Uh most

1:11:08of my career, I have been on the

1:11:10prodevelopment side of land use only

1:11:13about the past five years. uh where my

1:11:16expertise in low impact development

1:11:17which is a focus on water quality and

1:11:19runoff volumes have I done more

1:11:21third-party reviews. I do not consider

1:11:24it opposition work because you'll never

1:11:26hear me say I oppose something. I will

1:11:29simply point out technical aspects which

1:11:32comply or don't comply with applicable

1:11:34regulations and standards to minimize or

1:11:37eliminate environmental impacts. As

1:11:40attorney seaman has brought up these

1:11:41court cases, I will uh focus on two uh

1:11:44Fairfield and New Kanan. Um having been

1:11:47on the development side for most of my

1:11:49life, the burden is on the applicant to

1:11:52prove their their designs will not

1:11:54adversely affect the environment. In the

1:11:57new Kanan case, uh the uh applicant's

1:12:00engineer did never never provided water

1:12:03quality pollutant loading calculations

1:12:05to prove that their systems would reduce

1:12:07non-point source pollutant loads. What

1:12:09we did provide was a table showing the

1:12:12applicant's own soil data, the depth of

1:12:14their underground gallery systems, which

1:12:17showed that the bottom of their systems

1:12:19were either at or slightly above the

1:12:21seasonal groundwater table and in some

1:12:23cases were actually below the

1:12:24groundwater table. The ' 04 storm water

1:12:28quality manual by D required a

1:12:30three-foot separation. So simply on

1:12:32these visual tables which we provided to

1:12:34the commission showed that they were not

1:12:37in compliance and therefore the systems

1:12:39would not function as intended. In the

1:12:41Fairfield housing case, uh the applicant

1:12:43was proposing a lot of low impact

1:12:45development um systems, some rain

1:12:47gardens, permeable pavement. Permeable

1:12:50pavement even by the '04 manual has to

1:12:53be in an A or B soil. That's a really

1:12:55well- drained soil. It's a sand and

1:12:57gravel. It's a sandy loom soil. What was

1:13:00on the Fairfield site was a class D soil

1:13:03uh with a perched groundwater table in

1:13:04it. The practices were inappropriate and

1:13:07would fail in those soil conditions.

1:13:09That has occurred in other locations. Um

1:13:12so in both cases we did demonstrate why

1:13:16the systems wouldn't function. um an

1:13:19earlier case uh called called Forcel

1:13:21versus the Reading Conservation

1:13:23Commission. Uh this was actually one of

1:13:25my clients. These are two old

1:13:27subdivision lots. Um Reading was a

1:13:29twoacre zone. These are 1acre lots

1:13:31created before zoning came into play. Um

1:13:34we had two lots. We had a soil scientist

1:13:37check out the properties, check out the

1:13:39adjacent properties with the owner's

1:13:40permission. There were no wetlands or

1:13:42water courses near either of them. Uh

1:13:45after we did septic plans for single

1:13:46family houses, they were submitted to

1:13:48health which approved them. And then uh

1:13:50I was told I had to go to wetlands.

1:13:52Well, I went to wetlands. Uh the

1:13:54neighbors put a petition together for a

1:13:56public hearing. And at the night of the

1:13:58public hearing, which we voluntarily,

1:14:00you know, went through, I explained the

1:14:02project and the chairman said, you know,

1:14:03you know, Steve, why are you here? And I

1:14:05said, Dave, that's a really good

1:14:07question. I don't know why I'm here. I

1:14:08have no regulate activities. But at the

1:14:11end of the day uh this forcel decision

1:14:14which was an appellet court decision in

1:14:16favor of the applicant said that when

1:14:19you have multiple expert opinions you as

1:14:21a land use commission can listen to the

1:14:24one you find most credible and in that

1:14:26case uh the town engineer and myself are

1:14:29on the same page. Our soil scientists

1:14:31who testified there were no wetlands

1:14:33anywhere near us. Uh and the town had

1:14:36nobody to counter the soil scientists.

1:14:38So the denial was completely reversed

1:14:40and the permits ordered. So that case

1:14:43definitely has merit here because

1:14:44obviously we have dueling engineers. So

1:14:48in this particular case um you know uh a

1:14:52warehouse in and of itself is not a

1:14:54pollutant you know a high pollutant load

1:14:57site. The storage of trucks absolutely

1:14:59is. There's no if ands or buts about it.

1:15:02It is cited uh in many other state

1:15:05manuals that these are potentially high

1:15:06pollutant load sites. So you have to

1:15:08have a high degree of treatment of the

1:15:11runoff uh before you discharge it. So um

1:15:15and kind of skipping through the

1:15:16executive summary, you know, let's talk

1:15:19about some of these various practices.

1:15:21Hydrodnamic separators have been around

1:15:23since the mid 1990s. They always had a

1:15:26bypass system to them. And as engineers,

1:15:29we were told back then by the

1:15:30manufacturers,

1:15:32this is the endall for water quality.

1:15:34Put one of these in, you'll address all

1:15:35the water quality concerns you have, but

1:15:38there was no evidence to support that

1:15:40back then. Um, but we all use them and

1:15:43they all had a bypass system. So, a

1:15:44bypass system is not something new that

1:15:46came about in the past 5 or 10 years.

1:15:49Um, they've always been there. Um, you

1:15:51want resources to know where the numbers

1:15:53come from. the University of New

1:15:55Hampshire Stormwater Center, uh, which

1:15:57started in 2004, and I was actually just

1:16:00up at New Hampshire, um, this past

1:16:02weekend, but uh, I graduated there in

1:16:051980 with a degree in forestry. Um, but

1:16:08the center uh, operated, they had a

1:16:109acre parking lot. They built it what

1:16:13they termed a giant distribution box

1:16:15where they could parcel out the water to

1:16:17nine different treatment systems in

1:16:19equal flow, equal concentration of

1:16:21pollutants. So basically you could

1:16:22compare all different treatment

1:16:24practices apples to apples, not apples

1:16:26to oranges. And what UNH found, and it's

1:16:29all in their published data um on their

1:16:31website, is that uh online separators

1:16:35where there's one pipe going in, one

1:16:37pipe going out, and all storm events go

1:16:39through it, the TSS removal rate was no

1:16:42more than 29%. In an offline

1:16:45configuration, that will go up to 75%.

1:16:48It's still short of 90. Um and uh

1:16:52separators also do not remove any nit uh

1:16:55any nutrients. Nitrogen and phosphorus

1:16:57pass right on through these systems. If

1:17:00there is sediment being trapped, you

1:17:02will likely trap metals and hydrocarbons

1:17:04because those um two pollutants have a

1:17:06high affinity for fine sediment, silt

1:17:08and clay particles. So if you trap them,

1:17:11you effectively get the metals and

1:17:12hydrocarbons. Um, however, one of the

1:17:16bigger problems that we're seeing today

1:17:17is nobody is really using sand during

1:17:19the winter. Everybody is using deicing

1:17:21agents. And if there is no sediment

1:17:23being applied, there is nothing for

1:17:25these pollutants to bind to. So, they

1:17:27stay in solution. Then, uh, both the

1:17:30separator and the jellyfish filters do

1:17:33not remove soluble pollutants. All of

1:17:35this stuff passes right through all of

1:17:37these systems. The underground gallery

1:17:39system, which is lined, provides no

1:17:41water quality uh, benefit. is basically

1:17:44an underground bathtub for lack of a

1:17:46better term. Um the information on the

1:17:49jellyfish uh filter um is readily

1:17:51available online. They also recommend it

1:17:54be placed in an offline configuration

1:17:56which is not what the applicant has. Uh

1:17:58it was discussed briefly the NJCAT data

1:18:01that's a program a testing protocol by

1:18:03New Jersey D. It is a labbased testing

1:18:07protocol. It is not real world testing.

1:18:09It is lab-based. It is manufactured

1:18:12storm water under controlled

1:18:13environments. That's not what we see

1:18:15outside this window when it rains or

1:18:17snows. This is the real world out here

1:18:19and things operate substantially

1:18:21different. Um the manufacturers will

1:18:25site NJCAT data. They'll site their own

1:18:27data but it's all labbased data. It is

1:18:30not real world. Um another resource is

1:18:33the American Society of Civil Engineers

1:18:35BMP database. This is uh online. It's

1:18:39administered by rightwater engineers out

1:18:41of Colorado. Uh it's a clearing house of

1:18:45field monitoring data that anybody can

1:18:47submit across the USA whether you have a

1:18:50wet pond, whether you have a bio

1:18:51retention cell, whether you have an

1:18:52online separator and they look at all

1:18:55different pollutants, not only TSS, uh

1:18:57nitrogen, phosphorus, they also look at

1:18:59the dissolve components of these

1:19:01pollutants and they give you the

1:19:03influent and effluent concentrations of

1:19:06them based on uh the treatment practice

1:19:08and you can easily do uh a little math

1:19:10and come up with a percent removal for

1:19:12them. For separators, they did not

1:19:15separate online or offline. They they

1:19:18did a combined report. Um they had 38%

1:19:22is a total suspended solid removal. So

1:19:25if the a if the average is 38% the low

1:19:28side is substantially lower but there

1:19:31are re these UNH and the ASC database

1:19:35are the pre the best resources out there

1:19:38for water quality monitoring data

1:19:40because it's done in the real world. You

1:19:43know the manufacturers want to sell the

1:19:45applicants, you know, online separators.

1:19:47They're $30,000 line items. if there's

1:19:50four or five of them on this site, you

1:19:52know, that's a substantial income to the

1:19:54company. They want to sell you a

1:19:56product. I want to see things that work.

1:19:59And in this case, the systems don't work

1:20:02um here because a they're online, b they

1:20:06will not address the soluble pollutants

1:20:07that you will pass right through and be

1:20:09discharged to the multiple upland areas

1:20:12right above wetlands. So, what is the

1:20:15impact of the adverse uh increased

1:20:16pollutant loads? Well, phosphorus is a

1:20:19limiting factor in freshwater wetlands

1:20:22systems. You know, it will provide uh

1:20:24instantaneous nutrients to generally

1:20:26invasive vegetation that are more uh

1:20:29able to uh take it in and grow. Um

1:20:33nitrogen is generally a title u concern

1:20:36because that'll kill the tidal grasses

1:20:39um along the coastal wetlands. But even

1:20:41though we're up here a long ways from

1:20:43Long Island Sound, you should still be

1:20:45cons uh concerned with nitrogen because

1:20:47ultimately it is getting down to Long

1:20:49Island Sound. Um metals and hydrocarbons

1:20:52in small concentrations can be hazardous

1:20:56um in the form of killing the benthic

1:20:58organisms that live at the bottom of the

1:21:00streams in the gravel substrate. So this

1:21:02is all well documented in professional

1:21:04literature. This has been presented at

1:21:06low impact development conferences uh

1:21:09since uh 2008 actually 2007 which was

1:21:13the first one I attended since 2008

1:21:15except for one during co I've presented

1:21:18uh things at le conferences and also at

1:21:21the environmental water resources

1:21:22congress uh I believe my clients

1:21:24submitted my resume I've also been an

1:21:28invited presenter and consultant in

1:21:30Southeast Asia on low impact development

1:21:32because water qualities

1:21:34doesn't respect property lines or

1:21:36country boundaries. It's a problem

1:21:38across the world. So my focus is really

1:21:41on protecting the environment from the

1:21:43adverse impacts of development. And as

1:21:46proposed right now, this project will

1:21:48adversely affect uh the water quality

1:21:51within these wetland water core systems.

1:21:53Um as water as water is a physical

1:21:56resource of the wetlands, that is an

1:21:58adverse physical impact. There's no dis

1:22:00uh debating that. Um, [clears throat]

1:22:04excuse me. So, some of the other issues

1:22:06I had with the plans is there are

1:22:08several massive retaining walls proposed

1:22:11here. And on the plan view, we don't

1:22:13really see the impact of it. I suggest

1:22:16that the applicant should draw four

1:22:17crosssections through the building to

1:22:20show the existing grade, the proposed

1:22:22grades, and these walls to give the

1:22:24commission a really good idea of the

1:22:27amount of earthwork that's being moved

1:22:29around out here. It's a tremendous

1:22:31amount. I believe some of the walls are

1:22:32in excess of 40 to 50 feet in height.

1:22:36So, these are not, you know, you're

1:22:37taking a slope site and you're trying to

1:22:39make it as flat as uh this table over

1:22:42here. And it's, you know, it doesn't

1:22:44happen without some massive earthwork.

1:22:47Uh the road has a huge fill coming in.

1:22:49There should be a profile of that road

1:22:52again to demonstrate the difference

1:22:54between existing grade and the proposed

1:22:56grade as well as showing all the uh

1:22:58utilities as if it was a subdivision

1:23:00road. Um so that's significant. I also

1:23:04agree with Tyin Bond the under the ENS

1:23:07uh plan. They're coming in via the

1:23:09existing house a temporary access to get

1:23:11up to the main building site. There is a

1:23:14stream crossing. There's no absolutely

1:23:16no information on that. That's a

1:23:17regulated activity. If they haven't

1:23:20requested it, then the application quite

1:23:22honestly is incomplete. The road also

1:23:24then goes up a fairly steep slope as

1:23:26pointed out by Ty and Bond. There's no

1:23:28grading, you know, so we don't even know

1:23:30how feasible that is to get in and out.

1:23:33Um, on the erosion side, you know, they

1:23:37don't really have a phasing plan. Both

1:23:38the 2024 erosion guidelines from the

1:23:41state, they also redid those at the same

1:23:43time the storm water quality manual was

1:23:45redone. They limit you to 5 acres. So

1:23:48does the construction general permit.

1:23:50You're supposed to disturb no more than

1:23:515 acres at one time. Have it stabilize

1:23:54before you move to the next one. As the

1:23:56building is roughly uh 20 something

1:23:59acres in size, you know, you can't

1:24:02disturb that all at once. If you wish to

1:24:04go beyond the 5 acre threshold, the

1:24:06general permit is nonoption. Then you're

1:24:08into an individual permit which ratchets

1:24:11ratchets up the caliber and the

1:24:14requirements for the erosion control

1:24:15plan because the more areas you open up

1:24:18at one time, the higher the potential is

1:24:20for sediment to wash off these

1:24:23construction sites. It's almost

1:24:24impossible to stabilize a 20 acre site

1:24:28uh during a New England winter as an

1:24:30example if the site is opened up and

1:24:32disturbed. Um, these are shallow soils

1:24:35based by based upon the applicants

1:24:37testing with shallow groundwater. As

1:24:39they start doing these cuts and fills,

1:24:41you're going to have a bloody mess out

1:24:43here. There is no other way to describe

1:24:44it. And a perimeter sil fence with a a

1:24:48waddle as a backup is not going to

1:24:51support uh the sediment coming off the

1:24:53site. That sediment will get through

1:24:55these barriers and will get into the

1:24:57downgradient wetlands because of the

1:24:59steep slopes uh going forward.

1:25:05So, um there's a basin, a dry extended

1:25:09detention basin, uh near the beginning

1:25:11of the project with the roadway. A dry

1:25:14detention basin, uh per the 24 manual,

1:25:18uh D does not give us numeric values for

1:25:21pollutant removals. They go high,

1:25:22moderate, or low. Uh it is moderate for

1:25:25TSS removal. It is low for nutrient

1:25:28removal. So it doesn't matter how much

1:25:30water you hold in a dry detention basin,

1:25:32that basin is incapable of providing the

1:25:35pollutant load reductions the D wants.

1:25:38They want 90% TSS. They want 60%

1:25:41phosphorus and 40% nitrogen. That

1:25:44practice could never provide that. No

1:25:46matter what you do with it, no matter

1:25:47how much water you hold, um it simply is

1:25:50incapable. It is a dry detention basin

1:25:52is what we designed in the late 70s and

1:25:55early 80s when peak rate control uh

1:25:57first began showing up in the land use

1:25:59scene. They were designed as temporary

1:26:02bathtubs. That's all they were and

1:26:04that's all they still are. They're not a

1:26:06water quality uh practice. Um

1:26:12um it's also cited in the drainage

1:26:14report and this is one of my perhaps

1:26:16bigger objections to the 24 manual. In

1:26:18the 24 manual, uh, right below these

1:26:21pollutant load reduction deep requires,

1:26:23they put a line in there that says if

1:26:25you provide the water quality volume in

1:26:27a treatment practice, it is assumed that

1:26:29the required pollutant loads will be

1:26:31reduced. Well, there's problems with

1:26:33that line, assumed is definitely not an

1:26:36engineering terminology, but as I just

1:26:39pointed out with a dry basin, a dry

1:26:40basin can never provide the water

1:26:42quality benefit. And that line is not

1:26:44supported by factual evidence. And I

1:26:46provide at the bottom of uh page three

1:26:48and page four the reasons that that line

1:26:52is not in there. I don't know why it got

1:26:54put in there, but it is unsupported by

1:26:57the science in the storm water world.

1:26:59When I go to these professional

1:27:00conferences, I interact with uh

1:27:03professors from different universities

1:27:04and other researchers that quite

1:27:06honestly are way smarter than I am. They

1:27:08all have PhDs. I do not. And I ask them

1:27:11these questions. You know, is this a

1:27:13valid statement? I have always gotten a

1:27:15universal no, there's too many moving

1:27:17parts. It it is not a valid statement.

1:27:20You have to prove that these things will

1:27:22work. So, um, uh, Tim's office did

1:27:26provide a pollutant loading analysis.

1:27:27But what they looked at was they take a

1:27:29value of one, apply the first practice,

1:27:31which I believe is their standard catch

1:27:33basins, and then perhaps the online

1:27:35separator andor the jellyfish filter,

1:27:38but they add the removal percentages

1:27:41uh, up. You can't do that. And the simp

1:27:44the reason is very simple. As you go

1:27:46through a treatment train approach, when

1:27:48the water goes through the first

1:27:49practice and gets some of the pollutant

1:27:51load reduced, the second practice does

1:27:53not work as efficiently as it would be

1:27:55if it was a standalone practice because

1:27:58the water is cleaner. So as the water

1:28:00gets cleaner, the sub subsequent

1:28:02practice, the second or third in series

1:28:05cannot work as well. All the pluton

1:28:07renovation uh values that are published

1:28:09are for standalone systems not for

1:28:12systems in series. Uh based on a

1:28:14literature review and again talking to

1:28:17people smarter than I am um you have to

1:28:19reduce those percentages

1:28:23uh you know by a certain amount for

1:28:25systems in second series second in line

1:28:29or third in line uh simply because as

1:28:32the water gets cleaner it gets much more

1:28:34difficult to clean. So you cannot, you

1:28:36know, simply add them up. Um, even

1:28:39Massachusetts, uh, their formula, I

1:28:42don't know where they came up with it,

1:28:43but mathematically it doesn't work yet.

1:28:45That's in our manual. But what's also

1:28:47not in our manual is any numeric value

1:28:50for any practice in there for the

1:28:52pollutant loads. So you have an equation

1:28:54with no information to be able to plug

1:28:56into it. Um, there's also an equation

1:28:59called the Schuler's equation. Uh this

1:29:01is uh Tom Scheler was with the center

1:29:03for watershed protection when he

1:29:05developed this. Um it's an equation to

1:29:08calculate the actual pollutant loads for

1:29:10TSS uh nutrients, metals, hydrocarbons.

1:29:14Um and you actually for your site, you

1:29:17look at your site area, you look at your

1:29:19land use. There are published data for

1:29:21uh the concentrations of these various

1:29:23pollutants and you actually come up with

1:29:26real numbers. And you can do it two

1:29:27ways. I typically do it for the water

1:29:29quality storm which is 1.3 in of rain.

1:29:32So that when you have a storm 1.3 in or

1:29:35less, these are what the pollutant loads

1:29:37would be generated from the site. And

1:29:39then you can run through your uh

1:29:41pollutant loading analysis evaluating

1:29:43your treatment systems and actually be

1:29:46able to tell you numerically how you

1:29:48know if I start with 100 pounds of TSS,

1:29:51what's going to be at the end of my

1:29:52three practices, what's going to be

1:29:54coming out? Is it 10 pounds or is it 70

1:29:56pounds? But we can give you numeric

1:29:58data. Another way to do it is put in

1:30:01your annual rainfall of 50 inches. Now

1:30:03you can do it on an annual basis um

1:30:05instead of an individual storm. But the

1:30:08calculations as provided are not an

1:30:10accurate reflection of the water quality

1:30:12uh treatment here. You will not get the

1:30:1580 to 90% values cited in that report uh

1:30:18for the many reasons. Um,

1:30:22you know, there's a statement that these

1:30:24underground detention systems are

1:30:25disconnected storage. This site is

1:30:29directly connected impervious cover. The

1:30:32building, the parking, all of that is

1:30:34directly connected and goes to

1:30:35structural systems. Uh, there is nothing

1:30:38really green about any of the uh the

1:30:41storm water systems on the site. Um, you

1:30:45know, they're filling in approximately

1:30:46half an acre, give or take, of wetlands.

1:30:49Uh when I cut my teeth in land use, it

1:30:50was the town of Reading. Reading was

1:30:52actually on the forefront of wetlands

1:30:54protection based on the Aaron court

1:30:55case. Um where they it was upheld that

1:30:59they could regulate activities outside

1:31:01the wetlands. But what many uh councils

1:31:04don't actually uh report is that uh the

1:31:07the permit was also ordered to be issued

1:31:10uh to this particular builder. But that

1:31:12established the ability of a commission

1:31:14to look in these upland review areas

1:31:16solely for the impact on the resource

1:31:18itself. But I will tell you having uh

1:31:21worked mostly on the western side of the

1:31:23state um the wetland commissions there

1:31:26and I think in other towns in the state

1:31:28of Connecticut, you know, wetlands are

1:31:31significant resources. There's no such

1:31:33thing as a marginal wetland. You know,

1:31:35you're filling in half an acre of

1:31:36wetland here. And that's where the

1:31:39alternative test comes in. You know, we

1:31:41know, you know, there have been

1:31:43warehouses built much smaller. They we

1:31:45know where warehouses have been built

1:31:46multiple stories with a smaller

1:31:48footprint. So why can't that be

1:31:50considered here to avoid the direct

1:31:52wetlands impacts proposed by this site?

1:31:55Uh I know on the original application it

1:31:57was suggested a parking garage which the

1:31:58applicant appeared to dismiss. That

1:32:00would be a valid alternative to avoid

1:32:03filling the wetland in the parking lot.

1:32:05You put a parking garage instead of all

1:32:06the surface parking um as far as that

1:32:09goes. But you do need you know these all

1:32:12these resources have value you know on

1:32:15the site. Some of them may provide

1:32:17groundwater uh recharge some of them may

1:32:19discharge but the bottom line is they

1:32:22all provide environmental benefits uh to

1:32:24the environment. Um I know creatures are

1:32:27not in your purview but they do provide

1:32:30you know habitat. Many creatures that

1:32:32frequent wetlands live in upland areas

1:32:35also. um the septic system, which I know

1:32:39is not under your jurisdiction, but it's

1:32:41a concern to me because we really have

1:32:43no information on that at all. Um we

1:32:46don't know what the design flow is. A

1:32:48change recently with the state health

1:32:50code now puts systems up to 10,000

1:32:52gallons a day under the state health

1:32:55department and the local health

1:32:56districts. Anything over 10 is under D.

1:33:00Um but right now we have no information

1:33:02on you know this system. if it is under

1:33:04the state health department

1:33:05jurisdiction. There's many criteria uh

1:33:08that are applicable that have not been

1:33:10provided on this plan. One of the

1:33:12largest ones is the applicant is showing

1:33:144x4 galleries which are acceptable if

1:33:17it's under the state health department

1:33:19uh jurisdiction. However, if this goes

1:33:21above 10,000 gallons a day is under D

1:33:24jurisdiction, you used to be able to

1:33:26credit the 4x4 galleries at 9.2 square

1:33:29feet, basically the up and down sides of

1:33:32the gallery. Uh now D only let you

1:33:34credit the bottom foot so the other

1:33:37three feet doesn't really get you

1:33:39anything. Um and this was from an

1:33:41engineer in Southbury Mark Lancor from

1:33:43Daimar. Mark uh his expertise is

1:33:46largecale on-site wastewater systems and

1:33:48the treatment plants that uh generally

1:33:50go along with them. Um we also had a

1:33:53system in Southbury that Markree did and

1:33:56in sand and gravel and yes they had to

1:33:58put in one foot galleries because that's

1:33:59the only thing D would credit. So, um,

1:34:02you know, there's a lot of criteria

1:34:04depending what side of the

1:34:05jurisdictional line we're on, but we

1:34:07have no information actually on either

1:34:09of them. So, how feasible the system

1:34:12here uh will actually be is quite

1:34:14honestly open to debate. If you can't

1:34:16put a septic here, the whole project

1:34:18kind of, I think, falls apart. Um, as

1:34:21far as that goes. Um, but you know, the

1:34:23the you know, the bottom line is, you

1:34:26know, it it doesn't work as proposed.

1:34:29there are going to be water quality

1:34:31impacts. Uh the erosion plant is

1:34:33envisioning largecale site disturbances

1:34:36at one time which is in violation of the

1:34:39erosion guidelines. You know the way you

1:34:41control erosion is minimize your sight

1:34:43disturbance. And on a site like this

1:34:45when you're having massive cuts and

1:34:47fills, it's going to be virtually

1:34:49impossible to control the dirty water

1:34:51coming off of that site. Um and you're

1:34:54going to have discharges uh from that.

1:34:56Um several of my erosion comments I

1:34:58think Ty and Bond hit on uh you know

1:35:00diversion swailes are shown an arrow uh

1:35:03line you know you need to show the

1:35:05grading for the diversion swailes

1:35:07there's requirements to them uh to be

1:35:09designed uh in chapter five of the

1:35:11erosion guidelines and again you have to

1:35:14have detailed phasing plans um the

1:35:16erosion sequences are not very detailed

1:35:19um as far as that goes uh this excuse me

1:35:23the swale also shows a V-shaped

1:35:24cross-section a V-shaped cross-section

1:35:27is highly erodable because you're

1:35:28concentrating flow in the bottom of it.

1:35:30Diversion swills should be a trapezoidal

1:35:32section uh 3 to four feet at a minimum

1:35:35in width with 3 to one side slopes so

1:35:38that the flow is in the center of the

1:35:40rip wrap of the trapezoidal section at a

1:35:43very low height. It's a more stable and

1:35:45it prevents erosion. and a V-shaped

1:35:47diversion will concentrate the flow and

1:35:49will cause erosion uh within that

1:35:52channel uh simply because the water is

1:35:54going to move uh very fast through

1:35:56there. Um I'm not going to go other

1:35:58through other points but I'm just going

1:36:00to make you know one more note. I have

1:36:02worked with attorney Seaman. Uh we

1:36:05actually worked together on opposition

1:36:07of a two lot subdivision in Greenwich

1:36:09and I find it a little humorous that on

1:36:12that application my comments were taken

1:36:14as very good and now all of a sudden my

1:36:16comments are, you know, I don't know

1:36:18what I'm talking about. Respectfully, I

1:36:21know what I'm talking about. I have 45

1:36:23plus years of doing this and I look at

1:36:26the environment. My goal is to make

1:36:28better projects out of my comments, not

1:36:30to stop it. That quite honestly is the

1:36:32commission's job to approve it or deny

1:36:35it. It's my job to point out the

1:36:37environmental impacts that will occur

1:36:39with the current plans and to hopefully

1:36:42ensure that you get a better plan that

1:36:44minimizes or eliminates the

1:36:46environmental impacts. That's what we're

1:36:48trying to do. We're trying to create

1:36:49sustainable development. And what we're

1:36:51seeing uh with this plan and I've seen

1:36:54other plans is we're back to the late

1:36:5880s where it zoning was maximum

1:37:00utilization of the site. Storm water

1:37:03became the orphan child and was often

1:37:05put the only place you could not build.

1:37:08And for some reason we got a little bit

1:37:10better through the 90s and early 2000s

1:37:12and now we're back to this maximum

1:37:14utilization of the site and quite

1:37:17honestly putting the environment as

1:37:19second fiddle to it. And if we want s

1:37:22good development and we want to minimize

1:37:24the environmental impacts, we have to

1:37:26change our approach. Thank you.

1:37:29[applause]

1:37:31[cheering]

1:37:37>> Thank you very much. [applause]

1:37:40Uh [clears throat] does anybody have any

1:37:42questions, comments? Sandy, do you have

1:37:44any questions, comments?

1:37:48>> Not right now. Thank you, though.

1:37:52Good.

1:38:02So, at this point, we will open it up to

1:38:08the public.

1:38:10Um,

1:38:13if there are any

1:38:16comments that are

1:38:20wetland related, um, we will gladly

1:38:23entertain those those comments.

1:38:26>> [clears throat]

1:38:33>> I just want to say that I think I forgot

1:38:35to submit the resume and I will send

1:38:37that in tomorrow.

1:38:38>> I was I was going to say I I did not see

1:38:40that but

1:38:41>> yeah I apologize. [laughter] I'll send

1:38:43in Steve Drinka's resume tomorrow.

1:38:45>> Thank you.

1:38:51I'd just like to thank this gentleman

1:38:53for his very positive

1:38:57>> factfilled

1:38:58>> factfilled

1:39:01point of view and I hope that the

1:39:03commission finds it very very helpful

1:39:06and that you accept this status that

1:39:10they're looking for. Thank you.

1:39:13>> Thank you.

1:39:14>> Name name and address please. Excuse me.

1:39:18Yeah, that's all right.

1:39:20>> Ida Baris 1123 North Road.

1:39:22>> Thank you.

1:39:28>> Getting better. We need more meetings to

1:39:31get me moving. I'm Charles Furland. I

1:39:34live at 86 Knox Avenue uh with my wife

1:39:38Pamela Elfie who's got he got a package

1:39:41from Amazon full of toys. So he's not

1:39:44sure about this application being

1:39:47against it and most importantly my well

1:39:50and and that's why I'm here because of

1:39:53the dangers to the groundwater that this

1:39:56project proposes. First you have to

1:39:58remember if you look at all the

1:40:00paperwork

1:40:02and you and you examine it you'll find

1:40:07that Amazon is not an applicant.

1:40:12The only relevant applicant is the Ryan

1:40:15Corporation. And we know that in

1:40:17Killingly,

1:40:19smaller warehouses have been feasible.

1:40:24Uh we have two proposals up on Route 12.

1:40:27We got Staples, we got uh United Food.

1:40:32So that that's a consideration. They're

1:40:34going to have to show

1:40:37uh that that's not feasible in their

1:40:40standards.

1:40:41Now the other thing is and I was shocked

1:40:44today and it's dangerous for me to fall

1:40:46out of chairs. I my doctor has advised

1:40:49me to that. The developer now has a

1:40:53totally different story than what we

1:40:55were told all winter and spring

1:41:00that he they already had someone for

1:41:03this proposal. And there's a concept

1:41:05called clean hands. And if you come

1:41:08before this board deceptively and u and

1:41:13it appears that that happened. John

1:41:15Harris the the uh retired attorney had

1:41:19an expression. He said they price truth

1:41:22so highly that they seldom use it.

1:41:27And and that's a problem here because

1:41:29they knew that Amazon was coming in.

1:41:32They were they were planning on this and

1:41:35they kept on saying there's nobody. So

1:41:37you have to judge the credibility of the

1:41:40applicant from past statements

1:41:43>> when when you're trying to make that

1:41:45decision. Now

1:41:48the other thing is and I mentioned it

1:41:50the last time I don't know if attorney

1:41:53Cody was just talking out of his hat

1:41:56when he said that there were drains all

1:41:58through the building that would go

1:42:00directly into the uh septic system out

1:42:04for the leeching fields. the the

1:42:07greatest danger that this project

1:42:09proposes in my opinion is fire. They've

1:42:13had to double their fire suppression

1:42:16tanks from 200,000 to I believe it's

1:42:19400,000.

1:42:21And and if attorney Cody is correct,

1:42:24that 400,000

1:42:27slurry of pollutants would go directly

1:42:30into the septic system. And being a

1:42:33country boy, I I don't know much about

1:42:35the chemistry here and so forth. In

1:42:38fact, I can name every teacher and

1:42:40professor I've had except my chemistry

1:42:43teacher in high school. But um there's

1:42:47no way I know h living with a uh

1:42:51leeching field and having to feed it

1:42:53every so often that there's no way that

1:42:55it would be able to filter out the

1:42:58pollutants if they're correct about if

1:43:02attorney Cody's correct about the drains

1:43:04all through this building. Now, if he's

1:43:07if he was talking through his hat,

1:43:09there's no drains, then you have the

1:43:12problem of the guppy filters. Um because

1:43:16people will flee the building. They'll

1:43:18open the doors. There's no way you could

1:43:20put a um an oyster style barrier cuz

1:43:23it'd all have to be high jumpers to be

1:43:25able to get out of the building. And we

1:43:27don't want to have a triangle shortwaist

1:43:30disaster tragedy here. So that they they

1:43:35haven't shown the capacity of these

1:43:38filters. And I know that the the uh

1:43:42interveners um engineer will be able to

1:43:45show that they haven't shown any

1:43:47capacity to be able to take care of the

1:43:50dangers lurking in the building. In

1:43:52fact, they haven't even told you up to

1:43:55now, which would make it an incomplete

1:43:57application. What is going to be in the

1:43:59building? And remember, Amazon is like

1:44:02Felix the cat's bag. He you could pull

1:44:06anything out of it. and we don't know

1:44:08what's lurking in this building. So, I I

1:44:12believe that you're going to have to

1:44:14unless they're going to disclose that

1:44:15and be able to do your study, you're

1:44:17going to have to reject it on being an

1:44:19incomplete application. Thank you.

1:44:22>> YES. [applause]

1:44:33Very good.

1:44:35Hi, it's Russ Daniels, Sales Avenue in

1:44:37Daveville. Um, before I say anything,

1:44:40let me give you a little bit about my

1:44:41background. I worked as 35 years a CNC

1:44:44machinist before I retired. I machined

1:44:47pots for uh uh Ali Burke class

1:44:50destroyers, the propellers. I machined

1:44:52instruments for surgical instruments and

1:44:54I machined pots for Proud Whitney jet

1:44:56engines. I worked with engineers all my

1:44:58life and most machinists have a very low

1:45:00opinion of engineers because they're the

1:45:03most intelligent, highly educated idiots

1:45:05you'll ever meet because they have no uh

1:45:11Anyways, um it was a pleasure listening

1:45:13to Mr. Trinkus tonight. Um it's to

1:45:16listen to an engineer who actually knows

1:45:17what he's talking about is a breath of

1:45:19fresh air, believe me. Um there's a

1:45:22bunch of things I want to bring up. I

1:45:23handed out maps of the Aquifier and

1:45:25Killingly earlier tonight. If you look

1:45:27at that map, everybody knows where this

1:45:29proposed abomination is going to go or

1:45:32won't go.

1:45:35>> Oh, and um if you look at the map to the

1:45:39south, to the northeast, and to the

1:45:41southwest, there's four acryers that are

1:45:43shown on this map. The two largest ones

1:45:46are within very short distance of the

1:45:48warehouse.

1:45:50So, in a heavy storm, we're going to get

1:45:52runoff. For example, if uh I use the

1:45:56number 1.3 million square ft. That was

1:45:58the original proposal. It's slightly

1:46:00less, but let's go with 1.3 million

1:46:02square ft. 1 in of rain would equal 13

1:46:06million gallons of runoff.

1:46:08About a month ago, we had a really bad

1:46:10storm here. We got 1 to 3 in, but

1:46:12Western Connecticut got 7 7 1/2 in. If

1:46:16we ever got seven inches here, that

1:46:18would equal 91 million cubic

1:46:21cubic gallons of runoff. That is

1:46:24unbelievable. Um, speaking of water, uh,

1:46:27the gentleman before mentioned the

1:46:28[clears throat] holding tanks in case of

1:46:30fire. Um, these, no doubt there will be

1:46:33a lot of lithium Eon batteries in this

1:46:35warehouse. Those are the batteries that

1:46:37when you hear about the mega warehouses

1:46:39burning, and there's been quite a few of

1:46:40them the last few years. That's because

1:46:43e eon lithium batteries you can't put

1:46:45them out with water just about. That's

1:46:48why they burn for four, five, six or

1:46:50seven days. And by the way, with the

1:46:53leaves falling, if you people have leaf

1:46:54blowers, please don't recharge them in

1:46:56your inside your house. Go out to your

1:46:58garage or someplace else because even

1:47:00these little leaf blowers with their

1:47:02lith lithium ion batteries are catching

1:47:04fire.

1:47:06Uh

1:47:08I want to mention something that was

1:47:10just brought to my attention.

1:47:12And that's drones. Now we're hearing

1:47:15about Amazon using drones to make

1:47:17deliveries. These things weigh 80

1:47:19pounds. They're they fly at 250 ft and

1:47:22they drop packages from 13 ft. Question

1:47:25becomes, are they licensed? Are they

1:47:26should who who does who does the

1:47:29programming for this?

1:47:30>> Please keep the comments relevant to

1:47:31wetland impacts. The drones have

1:47:33unfortunately nothing to do with the

1:47:35impacts this will have on wetlands.

1:47:37>> Thank you. Well, anyways, um this on

1:47:39this map, uh Oola, I think when one of

1:47:42the meetings mentioned that we just

1:47:43discovered that this is all going

1:47:45downhill towards the acrifies from the

1:47:47this proposed site of uh the warehouse

1:47:50and um that's you know these this this

1:47:54is from 2017. It's 9 years old, but the

1:47:57aquifers in town are shrinking. 75% of

1:48:01this town relies on wellwater. And what

1:48:04do you do when your when your well dries

1:48:06up or becomes polluted? Um, if you don't

1:48:09have water, you don't have a house. It's

1:48:11bottom line.

1:48:15>> Thank [applause] you.

1:48:21>> Evening. Um, my name is Barbara Ahern.

1:48:24You can call me Bobby. I had a whole

1:48:26technical babble I was going to do. I

1:48:30live uh right downwind of this facility.

1:48:34Um I want to thank everyone on the

1:48:36committee for you know volunteering and

1:48:40giving of your time first of all and I

1:48:42can imagine that you join this committee

1:48:44because you care about the environment

1:48:46or at least I would hope you would. Out

1:48:49of all the decisions in your lifetime

1:48:52that you're ever going to make, most

1:48:54likely this is the one that is going to

1:48:56be the most important in terms of

1:48:59the environment.

1:49:02And I believe that we need so much more

1:49:05independent review no matter how much it

1:49:08may cost the town. The uh Tybon, that

1:49:13wonderful gentleman who spoke has bad

1:49:15things to say about him. Well, then get

1:49:17more independent reviews. This is so

1:49:20important. There's so much There's no

1:49:23way if even if you this was your

1:49:25full-time job that you could possibly

1:49:28review the thousands and thousands of

1:49:30documents that are being given to you

1:49:35each day most likely. There's no way.

1:49:38That's why an independent

1:49:41um not on one side or the other to

1:49:44totally review this monstrosity

1:49:48should is what you should be working

1:49:50towards and believing anything that

1:49:55might be said by Amazon it is in their

1:49:58interest to build this. They're not

1:50:01going to live here. They don't live

1:50:03here. I once believed a state trooper

1:50:06who was selling me his father's house. I

1:50:09believed him because I believe people

1:50:12and I never got a home inspection and my

1:50:16house became has cost has been the money

1:50:19pit from hell

1:50:22and without independent review is like

1:50:25having another home inspection. not

1:50:27hiring your own home inspector, but

1:50:31trusting the seller's brother-in-law to

1:50:34do it, and then you believe him.

1:50:37If you're believing and nodding your

1:50:39head to everything that these people are

1:50:41saying

1:50:43without saying to yourself, "My god, we

1:50:46need more independent review." Because

1:50:48if just one of the things they're saying

1:50:50about the storm water runoff polluting

1:50:53our wells,

1:50:55the the diesel fuel and and the runoff

1:50:58from the trucks and everything that's

1:51:00also going to to pollute the environment

1:51:03and the salt that I guess never can get

1:51:05filtered.

1:51:08Please, please get more independent

1:51:10review before you make this decision

1:51:13because years from now you might totally

1:51:16regret that you didn't. And if you

1:51:20don't, the only thing I can wonder is

1:51:24are you guys getting paid off somehow?

1:51:26That

1:51:28>> I'm sorry. I I apologize for that.

1:51:30>> I I'm I'm not going to tolerate that.

1:51:32Please, that's that's uncalled for. That

1:51:34is very much uncalled for.

1:51:36>> All right. I apologize for that. But

1:51:38basically, I think there should be more

1:51:40independent review is what I'm saying

1:51:44in this in this whole determination.

1:51:47Thank you.

1:51:53[clears throat]

1:51:54>> Good evening. Uh thank you for uh all

1:51:57you do and thank you Sandy. Uh my name's

1:52:00Alfred R. Durain. Uh 148 Pond Road,

1:52:03Daveville. Um I want to talk about uh

1:52:08filtration and uh storm water

1:52:10filtration. Um maybe you know already

1:52:13but I'm just going to talk about it

1:52:14again. Uh about the treatment train you

1:52:17know we have um hydrodnamic separators

1:52:21um jellyfish se uh filtration and water

1:52:26detention is part of the train. Um

1:52:30it isn't what it filters out. It's what

1:52:32it doesn't filter out. That's the issue.

1:52:35We have large surface areas um

1:52:38impervious surface areas that have PIFAs

1:52:41on them and uh sodium chloride, calcium

1:52:44chloride for winter treatment. Um that's

1:52:48a water soluble pollutant and also um it

1:52:53can be you know with introduced into the

1:52:55ground. We have um pollutant plumes of

1:52:59salt, sodium chlorides, calcium chloride

1:53:02and it's above upgradient of headwaters.

1:53:07We have Davis Brook headwater. We have

1:53:10Fbrook headwater and most importantly we

1:53:13have the Wetstone Brook head um well

1:53:15it's the um Mashantukb Brook that goes

1:53:18into the Wetstone Brook. That's where

1:53:19that headwater begins and they go into

1:53:22different um aqua uh wheds. Uh Fall

1:53:25Brook goes into the Quinnabog River

1:53:28whed. Um the Mashant Tuckbrook goes into

1:53:31the FiveM River Whed and um uh the other

1:53:36wershed is the Wetstone watershed and

1:53:38then Davis Brook goes into the FiveM

1:53:41River wershed which those wersheds also

1:53:44contribute to other aquifers that are

1:53:46downstream and then eventually goes into

1:53:49the Themes River and the Long Island

1:53:51Sound Aqua waterhed. So I mean the most

1:53:56uh important wershed I consider is the

1:53:58um Mashantuck brook going into the

1:54:00wetstone brook wershed which goes to the

1:54:03aquifer for the town of Killingly. It's

1:54:04the aquafer recharge area Hawkins

1:54:06Wellfield and it's a stratified drift w

1:54:10uh watershed you know the glaciers left

1:54:12the um stone and sand and that's where

1:54:15that water eventually goes and um it's

1:54:18like I said it's not the um

1:54:21what it takes out the treatment of the

1:54:24systems it's what it doesn't take out

1:54:26that's what I'm concerned about is the

1:54:27calcium chloride sodium chloride POS

1:54:30heavy metals off the brakes oil and and

1:54:33that sort of things. So that's what I

1:54:36haven't heard anybody mention um from

1:54:38the applicant. What about the this um

1:54:41problems with the pollutants that they

1:54:43don't filter out? It's I mean large

1:54:46particulates are easy to filter out. You

1:54:48know, you got your Dunkin Donut cups,

1:54:51you got your sand. We don't, you know,

1:54:53the sand isn't the the treatment for the

1:54:55the winter um problems with the ice and

1:54:58stuff on the parking areas. It's the

1:55:00sodium chloride and calcium chloride

1:55:01that they're going to end up using. So,

1:55:03that's just what I wanted to say. And I

1:55:05do have a class one water I had a class

1:55:07one water systems distribution. I'm

1:55:09retired state of Connecticut license and

1:55:11I'm licensed septic installer for state

1:55:13of Connecticut and uh D in Rhode Island.

1:55:16So, I do have a background in in this

1:55:18stuff. So, all right. I appreciate you.

1:55:20Thank you.

1:55:22>> Thank you.

1:55:24[applause]

1:55:25>> Excuse me.

1:55:30>> Go ahead, Jasmine.

1:55:33Hello. Uh, my name is Jasmine Birdie,

1:55:36125 Lake Road in Davville. Um, I just

1:55:39wanted to um say something in regards to

1:55:44um lawsuits

1:55:46um and credibility um this is towards

1:55:50Amazon. So, one thing I wanted to um

1:55:54according to Google anyway, um there's

1:55:58some lawsuits for environmental issues.

1:56:00Um, one of them is the Oregon uh data

1:56:04center dispute. Um, and that had um

1:56:10supposedly um in the 20.5

1:56:14um million lower

1:56:17I I cannot pronounce this, but it's um M

1:56:20A T I L A basin settlement if anyone

1:56:24wants to look that up. Um, and that had

1:56:26to do with um the Danner Center pulling

1:56:30a regional groundwater that already

1:56:32contained baseline agricultural

1:56:33nitrates. Um, and as a result uh the the

1:56:38concentrated uh waste water was

1:56:40discharged into local agricultural

1:56:42fields, seeping back down and worsening

1:56:44the drinking water supply for 45,000

1:56:46residents who heavily relied on the

1:56:49wells. Um, another one is EPA federal

1:56:52pesticide enforcement settlement. Um,

1:56:54and that's a formal administrative

1:56:56agreement executed

1:56:58um between Amazon Services LLC and the

1:57:02US EPA. Um, the violation was nearly

1:57:054,000 violations of the federal

1:57:07insecticide, fungicide,

1:57:10um, and rodentide. Um and Amazon

1:57:15permitted foreign thirdparty sellers to

1:57:17import and distribute unregistered and

1:57:19misbranded illegal pesticides. Um

1:57:22because uh they were forced to to

1:57:25develop a rigorous online monitoring

1:57:27system because that was also infecting

1:57:28waters. um March of 2026

1:57:33um Amazon

1:57:36had in Washington State Department um

1:57:40they find Amazon $800,000

1:57:42um for illegally selling motor vehicle

1:57:46air conditioning recharge cans um for

1:57:48carbon dioxide leaks. Um

1:57:53let's see.

1:57:55And there was um in Oregon a groundwater

1:57:59nitrate settlement $20.5 million March

1:58:01of this year. Um Amazon data services

1:58:04agreed to pay $20.5 million to resolve

1:58:06claims tied to severe nitrate water

1:58:08contamination in Oregon's Mororrow and

1:58:12Euma uh counties. Um the local data

1:58:16center evaporative cooling towers use

1:58:19marginally safe water and discharged

1:58:21concentrated nitrate waste into the

1:58:23local aquar uh local aquafer and as you

1:58:26know there is um aquafer is very close

1:58:29by to this so that's a huge concern that

1:58:31I have um and according to Google

1:58:36supposedly

1:58:38um there is a temporary restraining

1:58:40order halting construction on project

1:58:43skyway of 48 82 acre technology and data

1:58:46center development in Pine Island,

1:58:48Minnesota involving developer Ryan

1:58:51Companies and the Minnesota Data Center

1:58:53for Environmental Advocacy is um I think

1:58:58that there's way too much liability for

1:58:59our town um with the safety issues with

1:59:03our environment and our drinking water

1:59:05and I think this should really be looked

1:59:07at a lot more closely. they want to, you

1:59:09know, they against the expert witness

1:59:12and try to downplay um his education,

1:59:16his background. Well, look at all the

1:59:17lawsuits that Amazon has going on and

1:59:19everything else I've said. And there is

1:59:21so much more if you Google it. So, you

1:59:24know, if they want to say that they

1:59:25can't be hypocrites, you have to look at

1:59:27them, too. Thank you.

1:59:30>> Thank you.

1:59:32[applause]

1:59:36>> Yeah. Ian McDonald, 548 Valley Road. Um,

1:59:39I think Mr. Furland made a good point

1:59:41that both the sort of process of where

1:59:46we came into this project and sort of

1:59:48the characterizations made uh, you know,

1:59:50you guys aren't going to be on site

1:59:53micromanaging this building project. So,

1:59:55it's it's uh, it's critical that these

1:59:58characterizations throughout you you

2:00:00have found credible. Um and I you know

2:00:03have some questions on that front. Um

2:00:07the level of um

2:00:10I would urge you guys to take you know

2:00:13in terms of credible Mr. Trinkus strikes

2:00:16me as as quite credible. You guys can

2:00:17make your own u you know assessment on

2:00:20that. I think the scale of this project

2:00:24in this location

2:00:26um you know requires you know a very um

2:00:32a very high level of scrutiny and and so

2:00:35I hope you take all the points that he

2:00:38raised uh very seriously and look look

2:00:40into them and and make your own

2:00:43assessment. I think it's um I know you

2:00:45have a lot on your plate and this is you

2:00:47know I don't envy you um but I think

2:00:51this the scale of this really does

2:00:53deserve that level of scrutiny. And um

2:00:56lastly you know I still feel that I

2:01:00understand that the applicant took issue

2:01:02with your previous ruling and that there

2:01:05was a lawsuit as regards that. Um

2:01:10but in coming back to this commission

2:01:13um I don't feel like they've

2:01:16uh they're examining the alternatives to

2:01:19the uh to the degree that was uh really

2:01:23put forward u by this commission at the

2:01:26time of of the denial. I don't think

2:01:28that's happened. I don't think that's

2:01:29happened in terms of scale of the

2:01:30project and some of the potential

2:01:32modifications. And as that hasn't

2:01:36changed, I I think we're we still should

2:01:38probably be out of denial just because

2:01:39of the failure to do so. Thank you.

2:01:42>> Thank you. [applause]

2:01:47>> Hi.

2:01:52>> Someone online.

2:01:54>> Uh Dr. Wagner.

2:01:55>> Okay. Go. Go ahead.

2:01:58>> Hi, I'm Dr. Angelina Wagner. I'm at uh

2:02:00Providence Street in Putnham. And

2:02:02usually I'm in the room staring at all

2:02:04of your beautiful faces. Um, so many

2:02:07things, but first I want to say thank

2:02:08you to the commission. I know that these

2:02:10meetings have dragged on for months and

2:02:13feel like they're getting longer and

2:02:15longer each time we come around. Uh, and

2:02:18I know that, sorry, there's a cat behind

2:02:21me doing crazy cat things. Um, I know

2:02:24that every time Ryan company comes up to

2:02:27the mic, they're constantly trying to

2:02:30tell you how to do your job and how to

2:02:32evaluate things, but at the end of the

2:02:34day, it is your interpretation of the

2:02:37regulations. That's what matters. Um,

2:02:39and I just wanted to come on and

2:02:41encourage you to accept the petitions

2:02:43from the interveners because Ryan compan

2:02:47has had the opportunity to um, present

2:02:51their case over the course of months and

2:02:54each time the interveners try to come

2:02:56in, they encourage you to deny them and

2:02:59not give them the chance to plead their

2:03:01case while also dumping hundreds of

2:03:04pages of updates within the docket and

2:03:08not giving giving anyone a real

2:03:10opportunity to comb through them or

2:03:11understand them. Um so I think that you

2:03:14should take the town attorney's

2:03:16suggestion and accept the application so

2:03:19that they can breathe forth the

2:03:21evidence. Um in addition to that, I have

2:03:24to agree with Mr. McDonald in the sense

2:03:26that I do not feel that Ryan company has

2:03:29done anything to address um

2:03:32alternatives. It feels like their

2:03:34presentation, a good half of it was just

2:03:37condemning you guys for denying their

2:03:39previous application versus truly

2:03:42showing that there is no other

2:03:44alternative. Um, and then trying to get

2:03:47praise for, you know, reducing the size

2:03:50of the footprint by 80,000 ft.

2:03:53Um,

2:03:55you guys are phenomenal. I know that

2:03:57this is a volunteer thing and that you

2:03:59guys are doing this really on your

2:04:01personal time and having to comb through

2:04:03all the things. The only other thing

2:04:05that I would recommend is that if you

2:04:07solely rely on them to tell you what

2:04:09they've changed, then you're not going

2:04:11to see the other things that might have

2:04:13gotten slipped in and when it comes to

2:04:14making a decision, if you were to go

2:04:16back and look at it and say, "Oh, I

2:04:18didn't even know about this." They're

2:04:19going to say, "It's on you for not

2:04:21looking through the documents one by

2:04:23one." Um, I do think that things need to

2:04:25be turned in sooner, but relying on them

2:04:27to tell you what they've changed solely,

2:04:30um, I think leaves us open for error.

2:04:33And that is all I have to say. I

2:04:34appreciate your time. Thank you.

2:04:37>> Thank you. [applause]

2:04:40>> Good evening. My name is David.

2:04:42>> My name is Jason Anderson.

2:04:46>> I defer.

2:04:47>> Can you hear me?

2:04:48>> Yep.

2:04:50Go ahead.

2:04:51Um, my address is 125 Lake Road,

2:04:54Daveville, Connecticut. I want to speak

2:04:56to the application for intervenor

2:04:58status. Having been through uh

2:05:01application myself for party status and

2:05:04uh Connecticut Environmental Protection

2:05:06Act intervenor status with the

2:05:08Connecticut Sighting Council back in

2:05:11September 14th, 2016, I submitted an

2:05:13application to the Sighting Council in

2:05:15regards to a project that was uh

2:05:17proposed here in Killingly and I was

2:05:21granted intervenor status uh roughly two

2:05:25weeks later on September 19, excuse me,

2:05:28September 29th of 2016. I reviewed my

2:05:32application for intervenor status with

2:05:33the uh sighting council and comparing

2:05:37that to the application for intervenor

2:05:40status that's before you today. I feel

2:05:43that the application you have before you

2:05:45today hits way more points is a lot more

2:05:50uh pointed

2:05:53than my application that went before the

2:05:55sighting council. and to consider that

2:05:57my application was accepted by the

2:06:00sighting council. Um, I see no reason

2:06:03why the application for intervenor

2:06:05status before you today should be

2:06:06denied.

2:06:08That's all I have to say. Thank you.

2:06:12>> Thank you. [applause]

2:06:14Please go ahead.

2:06:15>> Good evening.

2:06:17Uh, thank you for uh your service to the

2:06:20town and trying to protect the town. Uh,

2:06:22really appreciate that. My name is David

2:06:24Scott Heap. I live at 63 Soap Street in

2:06:26Davville. From 1986 until 1993,

2:06:34uh I was a professional truck driver for

2:06:36Hallman Cisco Company in Norton,

2:06:39Massachusetts. I believe we had close to

2:06:4310 acres under roof at that facility.

2:06:46We're running 148 trucks of our own in

2:06:51and out of that facility every day. Not

2:06:53to mention all the over the road trucks

2:06:56that were coming in bringing um food and

2:07:01cleaning materials and all this stuff.

2:07:04Um I don't know if you've taken this

2:07:05into consideration or not because this

2:07:07is my first go around with this one. We

2:07:09did this about 15 years ago when Walmart

2:07:12was trying to develop this piece of

2:07:14property and I came out against it then

2:07:17and I'm going to do that again tonight.

2:07:19[snorts] Um 500,000 square ft is a

2:07:22little over 11 acres under roof. Um have

2:07:26you considered what it's going to take

2:07:27to keep those floors clean

2:07:30when the pellet jacks uh forklifts

2:07:34uh truckers coming in and out of there

2:07:36with dirty trailers? Uh it's a hell of a

2:07:39lot of water. And what are they using

2:07:41for chemicals

2:07:43that's being mixed in that that's going

2:07:45to be drum dumped in their uh is this a

2:07:49septic system? Is this not being tied

2:07:51into our waste treatment facility?

2:07:56>> If it's a septic system, what are

2:07:58problems here?

2:08:00>> What are they using for chemicals to

2:08:02keep these floors clean? That's 500,000

2:08:04square feet. You know how much water and

2:08:07chemicals it takes to keep that amount

2:08:09of floor space clean?

2:08:11Not to mention trucks notoriously

2:08:15leak oil, transmission fluid, and

2:08:19antifreeze. Not only that, brake dust,

2:08:24which has a lot of asbestous in it.

2:08:27I don't know what they're Have they give

2:08:29you any numbers on trucks

2:08:31>> coming in and out of this facility?

2:08:36>> Oh, imagine that.

2:08:38>> You know what?

2:08:40That's that's a lot of grease, a lot of

2:08:42oil, a lot of antifreeze.

2:08:45It's This is going to wind up in our

2:08:47aquifers.

2:08:49There is no way you're going to mitigate

2:08:50this stuff.

2:08:52>> Oh yeah.

2:08:52>> This is a can of worms that could easily

2:08:55turn into a 55gallon drum.

2:09:00So please take that into consideration.

2:09:04[applause]

2:09:05Thank you.

2:09:13I'd like to say something if I may.

2:09:16>> Absolutely. Go right ahead.

2:09:19>> Thank you. Um this is Samantha Sanange

2:09:21Dear Road in Daniel.

2:09:24Um, [clears throat]

2:09:25so

2:09:27I'm sorry that I couldn't be there in

2:09:29person this evening, but um I I wanted

2:09:32to address a couple of things that the

2:09:34applicant was stating about the

2:09:37interveners um you know stating that

2:09:41they're using light terms such as may or

2:09:44it's possible um and that the burden is

2:09:47to show that it's likely that these

2:09:49things will happen. Um I think first

2:09:52it's really important to end that

2:09:53sentence. We're talking about may

2:09:56destroy our water supply um and our

2:09:59wells may eliminate and deeply harm the

2:10:03wildlife and ecosystem in this area. So

2:10:05the terms may if possible hold a lot of

2:10:08weight. Um, so I I just want to say, you

2:10:12know, downplaying that is um, you know,

2:10:15it's these are these are serious risks

2:10:19to our um, ecosystem around our area, to

2:10:22our neighborhood. Um, and it's valid

2:10:25that we're here, you know, arguing

2:10:28against it right now. These aren't these

2:10:29are not small things. Um, but I'd also

2:10:32like some clarity because the

2:10:34regulations for the town's

2:10:36IWWC state that considerations for

2:10:40decision can be based on um the

2:10:44character and degree of injury or

2:10:47interference with safety, health or the

2:10:50reasonable use of property which is

2:10:52caused or threatened by the proposed

2:10:55regulated activity. Um it goes on to

2:10:58state um

2:11:01impacts of the proposed regulated

2:11:02activity on wetlands or water courses

2:11:05outside the area um or reasonably

2:11:09related to I I'm just kind of skipping

2:11:12over here, but it states which may have

2:11:14an impact. So those are both within our

2:11:17IWWC regulations or considerations for

2:11:21decision. So, it doesn't state the

2:11:23degree of threat um that's acceptable

2:11:26for our towns. It seems to me that it's

2:11:31based on, you know, our review or IWWC's

2:11:35review to determine is that threat um

2:11:39reasonable, right? Um, I don't think

2:11:43that saying

2:11:46that it's likely

2:11:48that it may. I think that that's enough

2:11:50of of a risk for us. Um, but I I also

2:11:54think that there's a lot of a lot to

2:11:56show that that some of these risks are

2:11:58very likely. Um, I wanted to mention

2:12:01again about the lighting. Um, you know,

2:12:03how can we say that that will not have

2:12:05an impact? We're a dark sky area. Lentic

2:12:09road is over 2 miles long. it has one

2:12:11street light on the entire road. All of

2:12:14the neighboring roads are also dark sky.

2:12:17Um there's just no way that that can't

2:12:19have an impact on the wildlife in that

2:12:21area. Um

2:12:23and then I wanted to also

2:12:26just pull some some stats as well up

2:12:29here um just about the risks associated

2:12:33because you can have a lot of things in

2:12:35place um a lot of mitigation. The

2:12:38Connecticut Department of Energy um and

2:12:41Environmental Protection typically

2:12:43handles four to 5,000 reportable spills

2:12:48each year. That's just accidents. That's

2:12:50not violations. That's just straight

2:12:53spills. So, how is that going to be

2:12:56dealt with when you have, you know,

2:12:58hundreds of vehicles coming in and out

2:13:00each day? You have unknown chemicals

2:13:03because it's it's Amazon. Um

2:13:06and and you know, accidents happen. So,

2:13:09and those are real numbers, four to

2:13:115,000 reportable spills each year. Um

2:13:16so, I appreciate your time.

2:13:21>> Thank you.

2:13:23>> Thank you.

2:13:27>> Good evening. My name is Claudet Rogers,

2:13:29294 Putham Pike, and um I wanted to talk

2:13:35about my time with I've been in the town

2:13:38of Kinley since I was born. I've lived

2:13:40in Adawagen.

2:13:42I've my whole life. I've driven for the

2:13:46town of Kanley for the past 18 years.

2:13:50I've been on the Kanley Conservation

2:13:52Commission since 2022.

2:13:56Um

2:13:57and during that time I have

2:14:04during that time driving school bus and

2:14:07doing the Mason Hill part of this that

2:14:11this town um is comparable to the size.

2:14:17is 500 ft elevation above sea level. And

2:14:21driving a school bus up that in the

2:14:23middle of winter when you got springs

2:14:26that leak out water like out of ledge

2:14:30comes freshwater springs and they cover

2:14:33the road. Mason Hill has two

2:14:37like known to me freshwater spring areas

2:14:40that I have to call the town in to come

2:14:43in. At once upon a time it was sand.

2:14:46Could you come make it look like the

2:14:48beach up here for me? Because I'm

2:14:51sliding back downhill.

2:14:53How you gonna slide back downhill with a

2:14:56tractor trailer truck.

2:14:59There's no there's no emergency access

2:15:02road. There's nothing. And it's you put

2:15:06salt on ice. You tell me what happens.

2:15:10It gets slippery. Salt on ice gets

2:15:13slippery. And that's what we've changed

2:15:15over to. That's our state. That's our

2:15:17town. We've all And therefore, and and

2:15:22like how are you going to contain all

2:15:25that salt? Like so it doesn't in packact

2:15:29the wetlands all the way up the the

2:15:33road. It's 120 feet elevation from the

2:15:37bottom where they want to start to the

2:15:39top. and then they're going to level the

2:15:42whole bring in, take out and blast into

2:15:47there. Um, so I therefore I want to talk

2:15:51about my time on the Kinley

2:15:53conservation. I've been there

2:15:56volunteering my time once a month, three

2:15:58hours because I talk a lot. Um, and

2:16:05that we've had somebody come into this

2:16:08town.

2:16:09Adam has come into this town and talked

2:16:13with our planning and zoning

2:16:16and made decisions to make this pristine

2:16:20wetlands

2:16:22with ledge and aquafer

2:16:26close by. It has shrunk in the last 10,

2:16:2920 years. I don't know. But it used to

2:16:32be all the way up to the site bottom.

2:16:35And now if you look at the 2020

2:16:40aquifer, it's just down underneath the

2:16:42burrow, but underneath the burrow,

2:16:46you know, is is still uh I think it's

2:16:48another 100 ft. I think it's 300 feet

2:16:51down above sea level down at KMS. But

2:16:55all between that is the storm water you

2:16:58guys are responsible for.

2:17:00making sure is pristine for us that we

2:17:04have good sandings. And I just want to

2:17:08like with between

2:17:11this site and

2:17:14um the 90 Putnham Pike that are not

2:17:19industrial sites like all these other

2:17:22places that they're quoting. I would not

2:17:24have a problem if if they were on the

2:17:28contaminated side of town, the

2:17:30industrial side of town that that so be

2:17:33it. You know, you go look at the the on

2:17:36and off ramps in Adawagen. You see all

2:17:38the garbage that you can't keep up with

2:17:41all the garbage and you can't keep up

2:17:43with all the

2:17:46stuff, but that's where we designated

2:17:47it. Overear staples and free lay and

2:17:51it's flat. these are mountains that

2:17:53we're going to send tractor trailer

2:17:55trucks up. It's just not not feasible.

2:17:59And Adam saying that he, you know, he

2:18:02put,

2:18:03you know, Amazon in Planefield. Well, I

2:18:06would love for him to go into prim

2:18:10fix up prim for us. Fix up all these old

2:18:12mills that are contaminated already that

2:18:14we already got POBS to worry about. You

2:18:17know, maybe they could even make our

2:18:19water better. It has to be a win-win for

2:18:22both of us, for the town. This is

2:18:24irrevocable damage that you these guys

2:18:27are suggesting. And as other people have

2:18:32suggested that their facts aren't

2:18:34facting, this isn't like it's not

2:18:38even just the the plain simple

2:18:43everyday person that doesn't know much

2:18:45about the environment knows that this is

2:18:47a really bad idea.

2:18:50Thank you.

2:18:52>> Thank you. [applause]

2:18:59[clears throat]

2:19:01>> Hello.

2:19:04>> Someone online.

2:19:06>> Uh, yes.

2:19:07>> Go ahead. Can

2:19:08>> you hear me?

2:19:08>> Yes. Go ahead.

2:19:10>> Hi, thank you. This is Jennifer Bryant,

2:19:12520 Reynolds Street Danielson. I'm sorry

2:19:14I couldn't be there tonight. I had to

2:19:16tend to a family matter. Um, I just want

2:19:18to start by thanking the commission for

2:19:21your time and attention um to these very

2:19:24serious proposals that are on the table.

2:19:27Um, and uh, as one of the petitioners

2:19:32for intervenor status, um, just would

2:19:36like to ask for the opportunity for that

2:19:39uh, petition to be considered um, for

2:19:42the benefit of the entire community. Uh

2:19:46it was kind of a b a a bonus for me not

2:19:50to be on site today because I think I

2:19:51would have um broken decorum most

2:19:53definitely when the Amazon's attorney uh

2:19:57and team had the audacity to speak

2:20:00disparagingly against our um subject

2:20:03matter expert Mr. Trinkhouse which Mr.

2:20:05Mr. Trink House, if you're still there,

2:20:06thank you very much for your time and uh

2:20:09the [applause] meticulous and very

2:20:12thorough um review of the

2:20:18um the application and and the issues

2:20:21that you have uh that you found with it.

2:20:24I I think Mr. Trink House did something

2:20:26that none of the Ryan company subject

2:20:29matter experts have done uh in the

2:20:32entire process uh both for this

2:20:35application and for 90 Platinum Pike

2:20:36which we're not discussing um to the to

2:20:39the degree of of ridiculousness that we

2:20:41have had to sit through presentations

2:20:43that were given with straight face um uh

2:20:46uh with facts and and figures and quotes

2:20:50and data that we're missing

2:20:55critical uh criteria such as I don't

2:20:58know what is the proposed area going to

2:21:00be used for what is the occupant who is

2:21:04the occupant going to be um so to

2:21:06question to to to be so duplicitous as

2:21:10to give presentations like that um for

2:21:14projects that have severe detrimental

2:21:16environmental consequences to this

2:21:19northeast corner um particularly where

2:21:21the you know us residents are located.

2:21:24Um we're not opposed to development. We

2:21:27want responsible development. We want

2:21:29development of projects of this size to

2:21:31happen in the areas that they are

2:21:34designated to go into. Um that that to

2:21:39you know if once if if the project gets

2:21:41built the boundary as in a butter uh the

2:21:43boundary doesn't end at the driveway.

2:21:45the boundary doesn't end at the donated

2:21:48uh perimeter of of land that they're so,

2:21:50you know, um so kind and generous to

2:21:54donate back to the town. Uh we're

2:21:56talking our water resources. It's all

2:21:59interconnected. I mean, that's basic uh

2:22:02uh uh nature and science 101 going back

2:22:05to kindergarten. It's everything is

2:22:07connected. We have a responsibility and

2:22:09a duty to make sure that we don't take

2:22:14more than we need and especially not

2:22:17taking and destroying things that cannot

2:22:19ever be rebuilt in the way that they are

2:22:22in their natural habitat. Um, so I I

2:22:25just found it rather amusing and

2:22:28unprofessional for Amazon's team to

2:22:31speak that way about Mr. train house who

2:22:33took the time to actually do a study and

2:22:36um uh arrive at conclusions that he was

2:22:41able to defend with further study versus

2:22:44the uh you know smoke and mirror shows

2:22:47that we've been treated to time after

2:22:48time after time uh by the Amazon team um

2:22:52an applicant to the town who completely

2:22:55disregards the residents that live here

2:22:57that again um you know you want to call

2:23:01out uh terminology in in our petitions

2:23:04that say things like may may or uh

2:23:07possibly could when all we've talked

2:23:09about or heard from Amazon is proposed

2:23:13proposed proposed and I say this just

2:23:15about every single meeting that I have

2:23:17spoken at. proposed and actualized are

2:23:20two entirely different things. And um

2:23:24there's you know studies that they can

2:23:26give for example with with uh wetlands

2:23:29that they have relocated and

2:23:31rehabilitated and everything like that.

2:23:33There is the administrative side of that

2:23:35and there's the actual science side of

2:23:37that and we never get the actual truth.

2:23:40So, um I I asked the the commission to

2:23:44take all of that into consideration in

2:23:46terms of who uh the credibility of

2:23:48Amazon and anything that they have to

2:23:50say. Ryan company uh any of their

2:23:52subject matter experts um and allow the

2:23:56town residents uh some of the other uh

2:23:58community folks that have weighed in

2:24:00have also made this appeal. Uh that's a

2:24:03lot of information that you all as

2:24:04volunteers have to go through to come to

2:24:07a prudent and righteous decision about a

2:24:11project that has detrimental

2:24:14consequences

2:24:16um irreparable consequences uh to allow

2:24:19us the opportunity to weigh in and bring

2:24:22other independent parties to the table

2:24:24such as Mr. Trinkhouse um who I I found

2:24:27very credible and thank again for his

2:24:29time. Um, but at any rate, I I thank

2:24:31you. I just wanted to weigh in with

2:24:33that. Um, and and I I hope that we can

2:24:36all um

2:24:40see this conclusion uh this this

2:24:43application um be concluded in the only

2:24:45way that is that is best and and most

2:24:47prudent, which is to not have it be

2:24:50approved for this area. somewhere else

2:24:52where it where designated uh industrial

2:24:55zone fine but it doesn't belong where

2:24:57it's proposed to go. Thank you.

2:25:02>> Thank you.

2:25:04Please go ahead.

2:25:05>> Hi, good evening. Ralph Masterangelo to

2:25:07Starling Court Danielson. Uh just to

2:25:10follow up on those comments. Um

2:25:13I I I suspect we can all agree after

2:25:16hearing Mr. Trinkous's compelling

2:25:19comments why uh attorney Seaman's uh

2:25:23attempted strategy uh that uh to uh

2:25:28discredit Mr. Trinkhouse before he even

2:25:31had a chance to speak.

2:25:33>> Um I think he

2:25:36knew what uh formidable

2:25:40>> uh witness that Mr. Trinkhouse would be.

2:25:45Um, I have a procedural question if I

2:25:48may. With the resignation of Christopher

2:25:50McDonald, will the commission still have

2:25:52five voting members?

2:25:54>> We we only need three voting members.

2:25:58>> So, um, that's that's our quorum. So,

2:26:03>> Okay. So, there's nothing in the

2:26:05regulations that says it's required

2:26:07five.

2:26:08>> No, it is not. No, we need three

2:26:10members. That's it.

2:26:11>> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um and and I just

2:26:13wanted to follow up on Mr. Furlance

2:26:15comments regarding the um uh potential

2:26:20hazard fire from the uh the type of

2:26:24batteries. Um

2:26:26>> lithium ion

2:26:27>> h

2:26:28>> lithium

2:26:28>> lithium ion. Do we have fire personnel

2:26:32who are trained to fight those kind of

2:26:35fires

2:26:35>> or equipment

2:26:36>> or equipment even to do so? I mean, I a

2:26:39killingly probably has small fire

2:26:42departments.

2:26:43Um, you know, a fire that would break

2:26:45out in a warehouse of that magnitude.

2:26:48>> I think that'd be more of a planning and

2:26:49zoning issue if I'm not mistaken.

2:26:52>> All right, that's fine.

2:26:54>> Um, I do want to ask um a question about

2:26:58the um

2:27:00the timing of this hearing uh in

2:27:04relation to the current lawsuit, if I

2:27:07may. Um, so that litigation is going on

2:27:11now. The applicant basically alleged in

2:27:15in their lawsuit that the commission was

2:27:18biased against them. If I can if I can

2:27:20boil it down, they were biased against

2:27:22them. Uh, in any event that

2:27:25commissioners didn't possess

2:27:28really the qualifications to make the

2:27:31decision that they did.

2:27:34And so here they are back in front of

2:27:36the very same commission

2:27:39>> stating their case to you. Well, if they

2:27:43didn't think you were qualified, if they

2:27:44thought that you're biased against them,

2:27:48isn't their presence here now? Doesn't

2:27:50that render all those allegations moot?

2:27:53>> No.

2:27:54>> I mean, it should. If they think that

2:27:56you're biased, why would they attempt to

2:27:57do it again? And now another procedural

2:28:00question.

2:28:01In the event that they're denied from

2:28:04the uh second application,

2:28:07can they then file suit on that denial?

2:28:13Again, they can. So, we're having bake

2:28:16sales and car washes to support paying

2:28:19for our witnesses and our attorneys. I

2:28:21mean, I'm being a little facicious, but

2:28:23you get my point. So, they have,

2:28:27>> I think, bottomless pits of money to

2:28:30support

2:28:31this legal path. So they can do that.

2:28:35They can pursue this application should

2:28:38they be denied in the courts at the same

2:28:42time that they're pursuing the

2:28:44litigation on the prior application.

2:28:47>> Now what happens if and and they're

2:28:50requesting in the litigation that's

2:28:53current in the courts now that the judge

2:28:57render the decision. So in effect, the

2:29:00judge would supersede your decision. The

2:29:03judge would make the decision.

2:29:06So now if the court makes that decision,

2:29:09what happens with the current

2:29:11application? Suppose the judge denies it

2:29:14and says, "No, from everything I heard,

2:29:16no, I'm I'm upholding the commission's

2:29:19decision." So what happens with this? I

2:29:21mean, there's so much litigation. You

2:29:23have the secondary application, you have

2:29:25the current litigation in the courts.

2:29:28They're asking the judge to make the

2:29:30decision and now they're asking you to

2:29:32make a decision. What What's the

2:29:35interplay between the two procedurally?

2:29:37How would that play out?

2:29:40>> As as far as I'm concerned, there is no

2:29:42interplay.

2:29:43>> Right.

2:29:43>> Okay.

2:29:44>> The the lawsuit was on the previous

2:29:47application. Right. Right. It's a

2:29:48different application number

2:29:50>> and what's in front of us is this

2:29:52current application and that's what

2:29:54we're basing our decision on.

2:29:55>> Okay. So the interplay that I'm talking

2:29:57about and actually maybe not interplay

2:29:59but the connection is that um the

2:30:02current litigation they're asking the

2:30:04judge uh and and let's just say for sake

2:30:08of discussion the judge says um okay

2:30:11it's accepted but this application you

2:30:14deny them.

2:30:19>> I'm I'm not I'm not sure what the

2:30:21question was there.

2:30:23>> Doesn't that get murky? Yeah.

2:30:24>> I mean, you if you deny them on the

2:30:26current application, but on the prior

2:30:28application that's in the courts, the

2:30:30judge approves it.

2:30:34>> Terrible.

2:30:36>> I mean, I I don't know if town staff has

2:30:38any feedback or town council does, but

2:30:41um as far as I'm concerned, I'm I'm not

2:30:44looking at anything that's murky. I'm

2:30:45looking at this application that's in

2:30:47front of me.

2:30:48>> Right. Okay.

2:30:48>> I don't care about anything else.

2:30:50>> Okay. So, I'm asking the question. I

2:30:53don't know to whom I address the

2:30:54question, but what happens if the judge

2:30:57on the prior application says, "I'm

2:30:59approving it." On this current

2:31:02application, which is tonight, you deny

2:31:05it.

2:31:11>> So, so there's separate applications,

2:31:14right? So, an applicant has a legal

2:31:16right to uh file an appeal or an

2:31:18objection. And just like an agreved

2:31:20party uh has a right uh to file an

2:31:23appeal um uh through the court system,

2:31:26there's a set time frame under statute

2:31:28to file that appeal based off the

2:31:31posting of the legal notice um uh in the

2:31:34newspaper after an a commission renders

2:31:36a decision. Um that appeal has to get

2:31:39filed in that time frame to essentially

2:31:42hold the spot. Whether or not an

2:31:44applicant pursues the appeal fully or

2:31:46not, that's up to them.

2:31:49this application that's before the

2:31:51commission right now is separate. So if

2:31:53there's a decision rendered by this

2:31:54commission for against whatever uh uh

2:31:59regarding this application, it has no

2:32:01bearing on the other application other

2:32:03than on the other appeal other than

2:32:06quite simply depending on how they vote.

2:32:09I don't maybe uh there's an action taken

2:32:11you know uh by the court to either say

2:32:14it's a mute a moot point in terms of an

2:32:16appeal or or not. But even this new

2:32:20application, if there is an appeal, if

2:32:22somebody wants to file an appeal at the

2:32:24end of it, they could regardless of how

2:32:26the commission chooses to vote. Um, and

2:32:29be beyond that, I mean, quite simply, we

2:32:31are talking to a party to this um to the

2:32:35legal proceeding. So, I don't think it's

2:32:36appropriate to go too much into

2:32:38hypotheticals,

2:32:39>> right? That's and and that's what you

2:32:41have to keep in mind that that that

2:32:44lawsuit is on the previous application,

2:32:46>> right? has no bearing on this

2:32:48application that's in front of us.

2:32:51>> But if if if

2:32:53the court approves the prior

2:32:56application, which is, you know, on

2:32:58appeal,

2:33:00do these proceedings immediately stop

2:33:02because the court has approved the prior

2:33:04application?

2:33:08>> Yeah, I don't think we can really go

2:33:10through the whatifs. Um

2:33:14>> well they're not hypotheticals in the

2:33:16sense that well what if we get you know

2:33:18a tornado that comes through and no

2:33:20these are actual outcomes that can

2:33:22occur. You got two outcomes on the p on

2:33:25the on the appeal. The the court can say

2:33:28it's approved it's denied. Those are two

2:33:31that's not a whatif. That's fact. You

2:33:34have factual outcomes here and it's it's

2:33:37a binary thing. It's yes or no. the the

2:33:40commission here can say approved denied

2:33:43and if it's denied I suspect that they

2:33:46will follow that up with another appeal

2:33:48like they did on the prior application.

2:33:50So those are not hypotheticals those are

2:33:52real outcomes and I think it's incumbent

2:33:55upon the commission to consider those

2:33:58what would happen in the event and and

2:34:01lay those out. You've got

2:34:03>> well I think

2:34:03>> in what world are we considering whatifs

2:34:07of a previous application whose

2:34:08determination has been made legally

2:34:11which we have no party to being a part

2:34:14of anymore when we have another

2:34:16application in front of us that we do

2:34:17need to review that we are doing so

2:34:19monthtomonth with updates and updates

2:34:20and updates you don't previously

2:34:23but I'm asking what I'm asking

2:34:25>> the other question the other question is

2:34:27if say the court before we're even done

2:34:29rendering a decision on this one makes a

2:34:30decision on that one and what if that is

2:34:32they can do this. I imagine they

2:34:34rescended this application because they

2:34:36got the permit they wanted, but I can't

2:34:38speak to what they're going to do. And

2:34:40regardless, we have this in front of us

2:34:41to review. That is literally what we're

2:34:43here to do. So, the whatifs are out the

2:34:45window because I am looking at what's in

2:34:48front of me. That's what I think we're

2:34:50getting to.

2:34:54>> Right. And I I understand that you know

2:34:59under your analysis each outcome is a

2:35:01yes no onoff switch.

2:35:03>> Yes.

2:35:05>> It's it's not necessarily that simple

2:35:08because

2:35:10a party that loses at the current level

2:35:14can always appeal it which

2:35:18adds another layer to it. But um it's

2:35:24probably not appropriate to discuss

2:35:28strategies when the opposing party is

2:35:31sitting six feet away,

2:35:33>> right?

2:35:36>> Which is interesting that the party

2:35:38that's suing you is now here

2:35:40>> asking for your approval.

2:35:42>> What a world. Okay.

2:35:45Thank you.

2:35:50>> [applause]

2:35:56>> Hi, Russ Daniel sales out of Daveville.

2:35:58Um, I forgot to mention a number of

2:36:01years ago we um rebuilt the sewage

2:36:03treatment plant. We spent 20 million. We

2:36:05got 2 million seed money from Uncle Sam.

2:36:08But what we didn't do is expand the

2:36:09holding tanks for whatever reason. this,

2:36:12god forbid, if this monstrosity goes

2:36:14through um and they tie in to the

2:36:18Killingly sewer system, uh we're gonna

2:36:21have overflows into the into the

2:36:23Quinnbog River because right now um when

2:36:27there's heavy rain sometimes we call up

2:36:29Fredo and tell them don't send us your

2:36:32discharge. We can't handle it today,

2:36:33maybe tomorrow. So, we're just about at

2:36:36capacity with the treatment plant. And

2:36:40if they were to go the route of a septic

2:36:42system, 1 in of rain on a 1.3 million

2:36:46square foot roof would equal 13 million

2:36:49gallons of water, waste water. That's in

2:36:521 hour. If it was a 2-hour storm, it

2:36:54would be 26 million square ft of water.

2:36:58You mean to tell me these holding tanks

2:36:59can hold that kind of capacity? I don't

2:37:02think so. So either way, our acryier is

2:37:05going to get destroyed should this

2:37:06monstrosity go through. And I would

2:37:09beseech this town to counter sue Amazon

2:37:12in case of any kind of damages because

2:37:15they obviously don't give a damn about

2:37:17us.

2:37:20Thank you.

2:37:24Anyone else?

2:37:28So

2:37:31>> sorry. That's okay. I didn't see you. My

2:37:35apologies.

2:37:35>> Oh, it's okay.

2:37:37My fault. Uh Rebecca Rainville, 120 Lejo

2:37:42Road in Danielson. Um I had written the

2:37:45whole thing but um it's just m

2:37:48everything's pretty much been discussed

2:37:50but um we just have to remember um

2:37:54Amazon is a big corporation

2:37:57and um big corporations that want big

2:38:00buildings belong in industrial

2:38:04uh parks. They don't belong in downtown

2:38:08Danielson. Um, you know, I was looking

2:38:11at the pictures earlier, uh, where they

2:38:14want to build their warehouse, and if

2:38:15you look, it's mostly all water. And

2:38:18I've been at some of the meetings here

2:38:20for, um, people that want to add on to

2:38:23their house or put a small garage in and

2:38:25there's a tiny little bit of wet land

2:38:27and they get denied. But here you look

2:38:30at that picture and last time I knew it

2:38:33was over 44,000 square feet of wetlands,

2:38:38vernal pools, swamps that they were

2:38:40going to disturb. Um, we're supposed to

2:38:43be stewards of our land and in our

2:38:46environment. And you know, our

2:38:49environment

2:38:51out in the regular world is changing.

2:38:53Our trees are dying. Um, our beach trees

2:38:56are all dying from fungus. Our ash trees

2:39:00are all dying from the ashbors,

2:39:03the gypsy moss, and then you have the um

2:39:06winter moths now that are stripping all

2:39:08the trees twice a year. It's our

2:39:12environment here is stressed and um

2:39:15going in in our downtown

2:39:20and putting in um a 1.3 million or 1.288

2:39:25288 square uh million square foot

2:39:29concrete and it's a monstrosity

2:39:32is just does not belong here. The amount

2:39:35of trees that are going to be stripped,

2:39:37the amount of animals that'll lose their

2:39:39habitat, the amount of stress that the

2:39:43town's people will have to put up with

2:39:46with the construction

2:39:48and the demolition and the blasting. And

2:39:52um you know we have springs all under

2:39:55the under the woods there from the ver

2:39:58you know where the vernal pools and all

2:39:59that they have natural drainage and

2:40:01there's springs under the bedrock.

2:40:04It's just um it's a bad idea. You know I

2:40:08could see when um you sold the land in

2:40:10Planefield where the Greyhound track was

2:40:13that was an empty lot. There was a

2:40:15massive business there. The Greyhound

2:40:17park there before. So I can see and you

2:40:20put an appropriate size Amazon there.

2:40:23But the one that's going here,

2:40:27it doesn't fit. It doesn't fit here.

2:40:29It's going to um put stress on our

2:40:32roads. The amount of noise pollution.

2:40:35Like for instance, last night I go

2:40:36outside every night and I walk around in

2:40:39my yard and last night I could hear the

2:40:41owls and the birds, um the night birds,

2:40:44the crickets, the cicas,

2:40:46[snorts]

2:40:47the coyotes off in the distance. And you

2:40:49think I want to go out in my yard and

2:40:51hear 247 tractor trailers in our

2:40:55downtown, you know. Um

2:40:58we have the nursing home. I've brought

2:41:00this up many times. Our nursing home is

2:41:02right there. the nurse uh Davis Place

2:41:04rehab. We have our grammar school right

2:41:07down below in the valley. Um our small

2:41:11businesses, you know, I've talked to a

2:41:13lot of the small business, Joseph

2:41:14Jewelers, the coffee house. Um they

2:41:18don't want this up there. It's going to

2:41:20distract people from coming downtown

2:41:23because of the traffic from the tractor

2:41:25trailers. Um [snorts] it's just a bad

2:41:28idea.

2:41:30um the noise pollution will never end.

2:41:32And Amazon, if you think about it, it's

2:41:34just going to be a phase because people

2:41:36are going to realize that they don't

2:41:40want instant information and they don't

2:41:42want instant goods and they're going to

2:41:44miss going to the stores. And eventually

2:41:48in 20 years, they will be a smaller a

2:41:52smaller um

2:41:55business corporation like Sears is out

2:41:58of business and Ames and Kmart and it's

2:42:02the size of that building, we would

2:42:04never get rid of it. And um

2:42:08to walk around that building, if you

2:42:10walked around the perimeter perimeter

2:42:13>> perimeter, thank [laughter] you. [gasps]

2:42:15It takes 20 to 25 minutes to walk from

2:42:19one all the way around the whole outside

2:42:24of um an Amazon. So just think 15 to 20

2:42:29minutes to walk at three miles per hour

2:42:32all around the perimeter of the Amazon.

2:42:34So that's how much land trees

2:42:38is going to be disturbed. It's just

2:42:40going to be totally stripped. Um

2:42:44it's a bad idea.

2:42:46I appreciate you um listening to all of

2:42:49us and I know they are all frustrated

2:42:51with us, but this is our town and um you

2:42:56know, we're going to have all of these

2:42:58tractor trailer trucks here [snorts]

2:43:01going on our quiet highways right now

2:43:03and on our back roads in front of

2:43:05people's houses and then another one in

2:43:08Norwich in Planefield and then in

2:43:10Daveville. I mean, we're not the last

2:43:13Green Valley anymore. We are going to be

2:43:15not going to be the quiet corner. We're

2:43:17going to be Bridgeport, New Haven. Um,

2:43:22and we didn't, you know, we didn't Oh,

2:43:24and Johnston, Rhode Island, that's a

2:43:26double facility, the same double the

2:43:28size of the one they want to put here.

2:43:30But we have to think what's best for our

2:43:32environment because it's changing and

2:43:37business is going to change and people

2:43:39are going they're not this you know

2:43:42they'll they'll change the way they shop

2:43:43and the way they get information and

2:43:45what happens if 10 20 years

2:43:49they don't have enough business there

2:43:51and they up and leave you can never get

2:43:54rid of a building like that that'll be

2:43:56just there forever. Um

2:43:59okay thank you. Thank you for your time.

2:44:01>> Thank you.

2:44:04>> Excuse me.

2:44:07>> Yes. Online.

2:44:10>> Hi. Uh Jasmine Birdie, 125 Lake Road. I

2:44:13I just forgot to mention something. Um

2:44:16so in regards to the Killingly Aquafor

2:44:19Protection Area, um that's roughly

2:44:22distance-wise 3 miles away from

2:44:24Killingly Memorial School. Um and

2:44:27there's a few others, you know, in the

2:44:29area. Um,

2:44:32but I think that this is way too close

2:44:35um, regarding all the water issues and

2:44:38like people have spoken about um, you

2:44:40know, with the snow and um, and whatnot.

2:44:44I think that it's just way too dangerous

2:44:46and our schools are, you know, are right

2:44:48there, too. I mean, everything does

2:44:52connect and everything does eventually

2:44:54uh, drain down to somewhere and it's

2:44:56going to stay there for a long time. We

2:44:58already have a PAS issue going on right

2:45:00now. Um that just keeps expanding and

2:45:05you know so many people have been

2:45:06affected um that have medical problems

2:45:11because of it. um and it's affected

2:45:15their homes where you know where they

2:45:17live and how you know maybe they can't

2:45:20sell their homes in the future or they

2:45:22have to pay for um the maintenance of

2:45:25these water tanks to filter out PAS. Um

2:45:30so I'm worried about their sewers how

2:45:34that's going to seep down um and what if

2:45:37it does overflow um how's that going to

2:45:39affect us? how is it going to affect all

2:45:41of um everybody that lives by there?

2:45:45Because it's not just going to sit in

2:45:46that one spot. It leeches out over time.

2:45:49Um that's going to travel and destroy

2:45:51other nearby homes, businesses. Um and

2:45:55as somebody had said, there's not enough

2:45:58in the holding tank um if they hook up

2:46:01there. Um so how is that going to affect

2:46:04all of the residents um who are

2:46:08connected to that? are we going to

2:46:10prioritize um you know Amazon over our

2:46:15citizens? I think that's um something to

2:46:17really think about um as well as the PAS

2:46:20issue because that's something that has

2:46:22kind of gotten pushed back um over the

2:46:26last couple weeks. But I just want to

2:46:28keep bringing it up because it's really

2:46:29important. It's our kids are here or and

2:46:33future generations are going to be here.

2:46:34This is the last green valley and they

2:46:36say it the last green valley because it

2:46:39is the last green valley over here and

2:46:45we already have the Ottawagan

2:46:47eyesore that's being built with that

2:46:49massive truck stop and I can only

2:46:51imagine the amount of garbage and

2:46:53everything else that's going to um kill

2:46:56the environment there. But let's keep

2:46:58adding it in, right? because Amazon uh

2:47:01they're trying to go into playing field

2:47:02and now a killingly it's they're trying

2:47:06to take over and completely kill any

2:47:09green that we see around here. Um, so I

2:47:12think, you know, people should really

2:47:14think long and hard about the

2:47:15environmental impacts that are going to

2:47:16happen here because years down the road

2:47:20if this is approved, I can only imagine

2:47:24the horrors of what they're going to

2:47:26find in any kind of soil samples near

2:47:28there, even a mile, two miles away from

2:47:31this. Um, and it does affect all the

2:47:35animals. You wonder why you see bears

2:47:37and all sorts of, you know, other

2:47:39animals coming into cities and stuff

2:47:40because they're being driven out of

2:47:41their homes, you know, and then that's a

2:47:43danger for us. It's sad sight to see for

2:47:46the animals, too, because that's also

2:47:48their home and we share it. And we need

2:47:51to think about not only us, the animals,

2:47:54but we also have to, you know, have

2:47:57respect for

2:47:59where we live. So, thank you.

2:48:03>> Thank you.

2:48:18Michelle Murphy, break neck Hill Road.

2:48:20Uh, I've been sitting here listening to

2:48:22the meeting and I'm not one of those

2:48:24people who doesn't value engineers. I

2:48:26work with engineers in my job. Stantech

2:48:28Wright Pierce all the time. Uh, a lot of

2:48:31good stuff to say, but I've always I'm a

2:48:33simple person. My parents were chicken

2:48:36farmers. Um, grew up on a farm.

2:48:40This is a simple town. Uh, if you think

2:48:43about, you know, we value engineering

2:48:46and and different things, but we also

2:48:49value the old-timer. You ever go to a

2:48:51book, you know, and and it'll say this

2:48:53is how you raise your chickens and this

2:48:55is what you're supposed to do, and it

2:48:57just doesn't work. And you just go to

2:48:58the old guy who's, you know, 50 or 60

2:49:01years old and you say, "What am I doing

2:49:03wrong here?" You know, what do you see?

2:49:05And the guy immediately knows. And he

2:49:07didn't have, you know, a ton of

2:49:08schooling or uh, you know, look at the

2:49:11most modern, you know, engineering

2:49:14studies or whatever. And I feel like one

2:49:16of the reasons I appreciate, uh, Steve

2:49:18Trinkhouse is he's that old-timer. Like

2:49:21he's been around for 45 years. He

2:49:23doesn't pull out AI and compare and and

2:49:26use these uh computer programs. He's a

2:49:28simple old-timer. And I I would just

2:49:32hate to see that type of knowledge that

2:49:34we all use in this town on a daily basis

2:49:37just thrown away, which doesn't uh

2:49:40negate regular engineering knowledge

2:49:43either. And and Steve is a very

2:49:44established engineer, but to me, what is

2:49:47is is an old-timer. He's that old farmer

2:49:50that I would go to and say, "Hey, what's

2:49:52wrong with this picture? What What am I

2:49:54doing wrong here?" So, thank you.

2:49:57>> Thank you. [applause]

2:50:02Anyone else?

2:50:04Okay. uh

2:50:07one we have um I'm assuming we don't

2:50:10want to act on the petition um at this

2:50:14point until we are able to digest the

2:50:17comments and as well as the credentials

2:50:20of uh the expert. Is that correct?

2:50:25>> Yes.

2:50:29>> Is that Sandy? Huh?

2:50:31>> I was just going to say that I think we

2:50:33should probably uh continue the public

2:50:36hearing to the first Monday in November

2:50:39and also uh suspend our rules to

2:50:42continue the rest of the meeting past

2:50:4410:00.

2:50:47>> We we don't have to make the motion till

2:50:4811, Sandy, on that, but

2:50:50>> Oh, it's 11. Okay. Yep.

2:50:51>> All right. So, we're good.

2:50:52>> But I So, do we have a second?

2:50:55>> I think we have much better reception. I

2:50:56think several [laughter] thousand people

2:50:58left this area.

2:51:00things are better.

2:51:02>> Do do we have a second to Sy's motion?

2:51:07>> I'll second.

2:51:08>> We have a motion. It's been seconded. Uh

2:51:11all in favor?

2:51:12>> I.

2:51:14>> All oppose? Motion carries.

2:51:16>> And so just to be clear for the record,

2:51:18the the first Monday of the month would

2:51:20be November 2nd. Um that public hearing

2:51:23would be continued in this room.

2:51:28Thank you.

2:51:34>> So we are going to continue with

2:51:37unfinished business.

2:51:46And we have application number 26-1640

2:51:50of Lawrence Leechure

2:51:53for proposed two lot subdivision.

2:51:59which we do have the applicants engineer

2:52:02um on the line. Uh

2:52:05uh I appreciate him for diligently

2:52:09waiting uh to be heard tonight.

2:52:14>> Thank you, John. Uh

2:52:15>> I don't know if you want to wait one

2:52:16second, Norm. Just while there's a few

2:52:18people filtering out at this Okay. Yeah,

2:52:21give us give us just a couple minutes

2:52:23norm. Thank you. All right.

2:53:10Norm, are you going to need me to share

2:53:11those plans?

2:53:13>> Uh, yes, please.

2:53:14>> Okay, hold on.

2:53:27Yes, sir. Yep. You you will be here

2:53:29tonight. Yep.

2:53:33>> Yeah, John. I think I think sheet three

2:53:35would was is probably going to be

2:53:37sufficient.

2:53:39>> Okay.

2:54:00past your bedtime.

2:54:01>> It is.

2:54:03>> Your mic wasn't on. [laughter]

2:54:08>> My mic might have

2:54:21One second. I was just waiting for it to

2:54:23load.

2:54:29>> Oh, do I have a second?

2:55:27Go ahead, Norm.

2:55:29>> Uh, thank you. Thank you, John. Um, and

2:55:32members of the commission. Uh, for the

2:55:34record, Norm Tibo, Killingly Engineering

2:55:36Associates, and I am here representing

2:55:39Lawrence and Lynn Leechure, uh, for a

2:55:42proposed two lot subdivision.

2:55:45uh with access from Bailey Hill Road. Uh

2:55:49the the total area of the lots is 8.919

2:55:53acres. Uh lot one would be uh 3.673

2:55:58acres. Uh and there are no wetlands or

2:56:01regulated area on that lot. And lot

2:56:04number two uh which would be further uh

2:56:07to the west. Uh and uh at the end of a

2:56:10shared driveway is a 5.234

2:56:13acres. The wetlands were delineated by

2:56:16Joseph Theorough in May of this year.

2:56:19And uh they just consist of a a small uh

2:56:23wetland uh in the extreme southwest

2:56:27corner of lot number two. Uh we have the

2:56:32um limits of clearing are going to be

2:56:34within 135 ft uh of the wetlands and uh

2:56:39the uh primary septic system that will

2:56:42be constructed is approximately 151 ft

2:56:45uh from the wetlands. Uh the uh lots are

2:56:49very gently sloped. Uh they're currently

2:56:52wooded. Uh the slopes vary from about

2:56:54four to 5% across uh across both lots.

2:56:57So um very manageable as far as uh uh

2:57:01erosion and sedimentation uh mechanisms

2:57:04go. Uh we are um showing uh a line of

2:57:08silt fence at the limits of clearing and

2:57:11um uh we do not propose any direct

2:57:14wetland impacts as part of this uh um

2:57:18two lot subdivision. Uh the these two

2:57:21lots will be given uh to uh uh their

2:57:24sons. Uh it'll be uh uh the the so they

2:57:28will be left in the family. Um and um uh

2:57:32Larry and Lynn uh currently live uh in

2:57:36the house that has the frontage on

2:57:38Bailey Hill Road. That was a lot that

2:57:39was free split off uh um some time ago.

2:57:43Uh this is the remaining land from that

2:57:45free split. Um I think that's really

2:57:48kind of it in a nutshell. Uh we do have

2:57:50approval from the Northeast District

2:57:52Department of Health uh for the uh

2:57:55conceptual subdivision layout. And uh

2:57:58I'd be happy to answer any questions you

2:57:59may have.

2:58:05>> Anything?

2:58:06>> Nothing. There isn't much.

2:58:08>> Yeah. It's really no wetland impact on

2:58:10this.

2:58:11>> Yeah.

2:58:12>> No,

2:58:15no. We will be leaving that 135 ft of uh

2:58:19of completely wooded undisturbed uh area

2:58:22between the limits of clearing and the

2:58:23wetlands.

2:58:25>> I think it was only here because it was

2:58:27a a subdivision. Yes,

2:58:29>> pretty much.

2:58:30>> Yeah,

2:58:30>> correct. That's correct. Yeah.

2:58:32>> I mean, we do have we do have that small

2:58:34wetland

2:58:36>> just to the west

2:58:39uh of the second lot, but we're not

2:58:41impacting that at all. So,

2:58:45Well, this is kind of exciting because I

2:58:47never get to do this. Yeah.

2:58:48>> But would it be okay then if I made a

2:58:50motion that we went ahead [laughter] and

2:58:53approve this application as it's been

2:58:55presented? This is kind of kind of a

2:58:57cool thing.

2:58:58>> Do do we have a second?

2:59:00>> Second.

2:59:01>> All right. Motion has been made and

2:59:03seconded. All in favor?

2:59:06>> I I

2:59:07>> All oppose. Motion carries.

2:59:11>> Thank you for your time.

2:59:12>> Thank you, Norm. Thanks for sticking

2:59:13around.

2:59:14>> It's okay. No problem. [laughter]

2:59:21>> All right, on to new business.

2:59:25Application 26-

2:59:291643 of Greenwich Bay Development LLC.

2:59:34Proposed septic system repairs at Fbrook

2:59:36Park within 200 ft.

2:59:39uh the up the 200 foot upland review

2:59:41area, 12 North Frontage Road.

2:59:46>> So, I'm just going to pull up these

2:59:47plans to show you um the uh I

2:59:51[clears throat] don't believe we have

2:59:52anyone representing the applicant

2:59:53tonight. I told them most likely you

2:59:55guys would just look to receive the

2:59:57application. Um there's the possibility

2:59:59for referral I think on this application

3:00:02given that there's no direct impacts

3:00:03being proposed. Um but the uh Fbrook

3:00:08Park um

3:00:10see if we'll catch up here. Fall Brook

3:00:12Park um uh it is a number of uh um

3:00:16trailers identified existing trailers on

3:00:19site that are identified in orange that

3:00:21are having proposed uh uh new septic

3:00:25systems. Uh you can see the delineated

3:00:29um wetlands to the west of the um

3:00:33proposed areas. There is a lot of work

3:00:35within upland review area. I think

3:00:38there's a one tight spot particularly um

3:00:42here where there are skirting uh with

3:00:45those transmission lines or or um going

3:00:48out to the septic systems. Uh that's

3:00:51your tightest, you know, spot right

3:00:53there. um that is close uh to

3:00:57potentially being looked at as a

3:00:59crossing. Um but it as as they are

3:01:01depicting it and and have presented it

3:01:04um nothing is having a direct impact per

3:01:08their application

3:01:09>> and th those are force mains correct?

3:01:10>> Yep.

3:01:11>> And they're tie into existing

3:01:12infrastructure or are those new leech

3:01:14fields as well?

3:01:15>> So these these are new systems replacing

3:01:19old systems that are that are on there.

3:01:22It's an a very old um manufactured um

3:01:26home park

3:01:28>> and these are community like systems.

3:01:30Okay.

3:01:31>> Yep. Um there was uh looking at the

3:01:34record I think over the years they've

3:01:35had a lot of um different renovations

3:01:38and different work that has been

3:01:40proposed. There's actually some work

3:01:42that was um uh previously went I believe

3:01:46by a different um

3:01:49applicant or different uh firm that went

3:01:52just solely through the health

3:01:53department um and didn't come before you

3:01:56guys. So this one is uh um coming before

3:02:00you because it's within that foot upland

3:02:02review.

3:02:02>> Where are those existing systems? just

3:02:05out of curiosity are

3:02:08>> um I

3:02:09>> are they identified on there because I

3:02:10don't

3:02:11>> I don't know if they're all identified

3:02:12on here to be fair. I um most of I don't

3:02:16know all of the uh existing systems if

3:02:18they're we're talking about cess tanks

3:02:20or

3:02:20>> right

3:02:21>> y

3:02:23uh I would imagine they are older um but

3:02:26I'm not seeing it identified on the plan

3:02:29set. Um, so that might be something if

3:02:31you guys are looking to receive it

3:02:32tonight to ask the applicant for more

3:02:34information on that uh type of um item.

3:02:37Uh, albeit most of I think the

3:02:39jurisdiction here is through the health

3:02:41department,

3:02:42>> right? Yep. So the the only other thing

3:02:44is those force mains

3:02:49those are being proposed,

3:02:51>> right? So those aren't those aren't

3:02:53existing it,

3:02:55>> right? They're not replacing those. It's

3:02:57just

3:02:58>> Yep. new force means. Okay.

3:03:02Well, I think

3:03:04um I think we'd have to get more

3:03:06information as to where the existing

3:03:09septics are.

3:03:10>> Okay. So, for tonight, I would imagite,

3:03:15but if uh uh it's up to you, but uh if

3:03:18you're looking to receive the

3:03:20application, of course, you do have an

3:03:21option for a public hearing if you

3:03:23wanted to do a public hearing. Uh, but I

3:03:25would imagine you probably just are

3:03:26looking to receive the application

3:03:27tonight and schedule potential review

3:03:30and action next month. Uh, and I will

3:03:33reach out to the applicant asking for a

3:03:35little bit more information about this

3:03:36after or for them to be prepared to

3:03:38speak to it,

3:03:39>> please.

3:03:40>> So, do we have a motion to uh accept

3:03:44this with no sitewalk, no public

3:03:46hearing?

3:03:47>> I will make a motion to accept the

3:03:49application with no public hearing or

3:03:52sitewalk.

3:03:53>> Seconded.

3:03:54Uh motion's been made and seconded. Um

3:03:58all in favor?

3:04:00>> I

3:04:00>> I

3:04:02no one opposed. Motion carries.

3:04:14>> No, I'll just relay that to the

3:04:16applicant. Um uh assuming that they

3:04:19don't watch back this portion of the

3:04:21meeting, but I will have a conversation

3:04:22with them.

3:04:24Okay. Uh, next item of new business,

3:04:27application 26-1644,

3:04:30David Scott Heap, show cause hearing,

3:04:33cease and desist order, um, 286 Putham

3:04:37Pike for Normandy's Park.

3:04:45>> Good evening.

3:04:47Um, I am the victim in this matter. Um,

3:04:52Taylor Evans and Noah Johnston are my

3:04:54tenants. I want four. Uh, they stopped

3:04:57paying their rent a year ago, September.

3:05:01I've gotten $1,500 out of them since

3:05:03then. They're, uh,

3:05:0614 months at 470 a month.

3:05:09Um, minus $1,500. They gave me a payment

3:05:12back in I think January.

3:05:15Um

3:05:18when I decided to evict them for

3:05:20non-payment in April, I noticed um in

3:05:25probably 30 to 60 days after that an

3:05:28uptick. We had a pile, a burn pile that

3:05:30a couple of my tenants had, you know,

3:05:32just pallets and stuff like that that

3:05:34had collected. One of my tenants is a

3:05:37contractor,

3:05:38so they put together a burn pile, just

3:05:40they wanted to get rid of. Fine, no

3:05:42problem. Then I started noticing

3:05:44furniture showing up in this burn pile.

3:05:49So figured it was Noah Johnston. So I

3:05:53put up a sign. Um

3:05:57actually I did you guys get a copy of

3:06:00the the narrative that I wrote from uh

3:06:04Mike Nllley?

3:06:07>> Did he make a copy of that for you? We

3:06:09received uh the the packet

3:06:11>> the no the notice of violation and cease

3:06:13and desist order

3:06:14>> along with uh photos. I don't think

3:06:16there was any narrative submitting.

3:06:18>> Okay. All right.

3:06:18>> I did not see a narrative.

3:06:20>> Okay.

3:06:21>> All right. So, I had put uh let's see

3:06:24what date did I put that up?

3:06:28On June 11th of 26, I put up a sign that

3:06:33said, "No dumping. violators will be

3:06:35arrested and prosecuted in front of that

3:06:37pile.

3:06:38Uh pretty much

3:06:41within a few days that's stuff being

3:06:43stopped. Um then the stuff started

3:06:46piling up against their trailer home.

3:06:50So finally figured out um

3:06:54this was on September. I've been getting

3:06:59eyewitness reports that he'd been

3:07:01dumping stuff on the property from uh

3:07:04Butters, my my tenants that live right

3:07:06next to their trailer.

3:07:09Um

3:07:11so on let's see, it was

3:07:17September 2nd.

3:07:19Um

3:07:21this is just part of the timeline.

3:07:25I had texted um Taylor and told her that

3:07:30I was praying for her and Noah and I got

3:07:32a text back saying thank you. This is

3:07:34about 10:00 a.m. 2 hours later I got a

3:07:37text from one of my tenants

3:07:41saying that Noah was dumping stuff on

3:07:44the property and she supplied me with a

3:07:47picture and a video. He dumped 11 80

3:07:51pound hardened bags of concrete against

3:07:54the trailer home. I have a video of him

3:07:57taking it out of his SUV and piling it

3:08:01up against the side of the trailer. So,

3:08:03I immediately sent Taylor a text to

3:08:08cease and desist. Delo cease and desist.

3:08:11Uh immediately I gave them until uh

3:08:15Labor Day on the 7th to get the lot

3:08:18cleaned up and all the stuff gone.

3:08:22[snorts]

3:08:23The next evening, Thursday evening, I

3:08:25went up the park to pick up some rent

3:08:28from Taylor's grandparents.

3:08:30They're they are in that rent number one

3:08:33lot in Normy's Park. [snorts] And I

3:08:37noticed that my dumpster, I have a

3:08:39four-yard dumpster up there for

3:08:40household trash. I noticed that the

3:08:43dumpster was unlocked. I had to put a

3:08:45lock on this dumpster

3:08:48uh over a year ago because I was having

3:08:50people dumping illegally in my dumpster.

3:08:55And that's stealing space in a dumpster.

3:08:56It's a minor infraction, but it's still

3:08:59an infraction.

3:09:01So, and I also noticed a piece of

3:09:03cardboard sticking out of the dumpster.

3:09:06Now, I had put some of my own trash in

3:09:08that dumpster two days before and it was

3:09:11only about a quarter of the way full at

3:09:15that point of a fouryard dumpster. So,

3:09:17there was still three yards in that

3:09:18dumpster [snorts] available. I opened up

3:09:22the lid and it's full to the top with

3:09:25construction debris.

3:09:27So, I started poking around

3:09:31and I found on one of the big boxes in

3:09:34there, which was full of construction

3:09:36debris, a uh gentleman's name and

3:09:39address.

3:09:41So, I took a picture of it. His name is

3:09:43Robert Cooper. Uh he lives over in

3:09:46Brooklyn on Grand View Terrace.

3:09:50So, I went up to uh his house and I took

3:09:54one of the boxes with me

3:09:57that came out of that trash.

3:10:01And I knocked on the door and his wife

3:10:04came to the door. I said, "Is Robert

3:10:05home?" "Yep, he's home." "Uh, can I

3:10:08speak with him, please?" So, he comes to

3:10:10the door. I introduced myself and I

3:10:11said, "Can I ask you a few questions?"

3:10:13He said, "Sure." First question, I said,

3:10:15"Did you recently have an engineered

3:10:17floor installed in your home?" His

3:10:19response was yes. I said, 'Second

3:10:22question, can you give me the name of

3:10:23the contractor who did the job for you?

3:10:26His response was, I did it myself. I

3:10:29said, oh, okay. I said,

3:10:35can you explain to me how your

3:10:38construction debris wound up in my

3:10:42dumpster in my trailer park in Dville?

3:10:45and a look of horror came over his face

3:10:48and he said I hired someone to haul it

3:10:50away from me. I said, "Really?"

3:10:54I said, "Could you give me that person's

3:10:56name?" And he said, "Sure." Pulls out

3:11:00his phone. Two swipes later, he looks at

3:11:03me and says, "Noah Johnston, my tenant

3:11:06at number four." So, I finally got the

3:11:09proof that he's been running an illegal

3:11:12trash pickup business and paying

3:11:15charging a fee to people to pick stuff

3:11:17up and dumping it on my property. And he

3:11:21made the mistake of filling my dumpster

3:11:23with this debris from this particular

3:11:25job and leaving an address label on it.

3:11:30So, I got him. I have all the

3:11:33photographs, all the evidence. I went to

3:11:36the state police that evening.

3:11:39Uh, officer uh,

3:11:43Makavoy,

3:11:45okay. Killingly police department came

3:11:47out, took my statement,

3:11:50um, took him up there, showed him the

3:11:51dumpster, gave him the information on

3:11:54Mr. Cooper. He issued uh, Mr. Johnston

3:11:58two citations that night

3:12:01and I got a a message back from him two

3:12:05nights later. He says I explaining that

3:12:08he had issued the citations

3:12:11and um that as far as he was concerned

3:12:14the case was closed. Yeah. Right. Uh

3:12:17that didn't stop him from dumping on the

3:12:19property. He's continued to dump on the

3:12:22property up until a few days ago. I took

3:12:26them to court on September 23rd, which

3:12:30is when Mike Nolley and uh Allison went

3:12:34up to the property and inspected lot

3:12:37number four. [snorts] And uh they have

3:12:4160 days now. They're under eviction

3:12:43order. They have to be out in 60 days

3:12:45from that date. I think it comes out to

3:12:47the Monday before Thanksgiving.

3:12:49But they're continuing to destroy my

3:12:51property by dumping bulky waste on the

3:12:54property.

3:12:56So, basically what I need you people to

3:12:59help me do is uh go to the commissioner

3:13:03of deep because uh right now they're

3:13:06they're giving all of us the finger uh

3:13:09saying I don't care what you guys do,

3:13:11what the town's doing, who you call, I'm

3:13:15going to continue to dump property of

3:13:16revenge for you evicting me off the

3:13:18property

3:13:20and this is what I'm dealing with. So,

3:13:23under

3:13:27Section 22A-250

3:13:31of the Connecticut General Statutes,

3:13:34littering or dumping is prohibited.

3:13:37There is [snorts] a number of uh

3:13:40violations

3:13:42in this in the general statutes

3:13:45concerning this. Um there's a lot of

3:13:48fines. He can have his vehicle

3:13:52confiscated.

3:13:54Um but one of the the things that needs

3:13:57to be done is the commissioner of deep

3:14:00uh has to get involved with this.

3:14:03Now, I had the idea um yesterday, day

3:14:07before of going to um the district

3:14:10attorney and showing the evidence in the

3:14:12case and saying, "Listen, will you

3:14:14prosecute this?"

3:14:16Hopefully, you know, I'm thinking about

3:14:17doing that, but this is the other option

3:14:20we have is going to the commissioner of

3:14:22deep and getting him involved on a state

3:14:24level to take care of this. Apparently,

3:14:27there was, I believe, a mattress

3:14:30on part of the delineated um 200 feet of

3:14:34wetlands, you know, within 200 feet of

3:14:36the wetlands.

3:14:38I think that was in the picture section.

3:14:41Um so,

3:14:44this is this is what I need help with.

3:14:48>> So, the

3:14:49Jonathan, excuse me, the um the wetland

3:14:52soils we show on this

3:14:57um sketch here. That's just assumed

3:15:01wetland soils. Correct.

3:15:02>> As far as I know, you know, I don't I I

3:15:05didn't even know that I was that close

3:15:06to the wetlands, honestly, with the

3:15:08park.

3:15:08>> So, those are assumed wetland systems.

3:15:10Um I don't I'm not aware of a a recent

3:15:14delineation or or anything in there that

3:15:17information comes from Connecticut Deep.

3:15:19It's the a generic soils map. Um but I

3:15:24>> I do have some questions. So like um

3:15:26some of the things that you're

3:15:27referencing, you know, obviously in in

3:15:29regards to um confiscation for like an

3:15:33illegal hauler type thing. So yes, there

3:15:36there's there's some processes through

3:15:38the state. Um but we're we're talking

3:15:40first and foremost about the wetlands

3:15:42regulations, but I will say there are

3:15:44different ordinances under the town that

3:15:47do directly

3:15:48uh reference those types of things. So,

3:15:51if you have documentation um that speaks

3:15:54to um advertisement or hauling or

3:15:58anything like that, love to see it. Feel

3:16:00feel free to submit it. That's a

3:16:01different enforcement action than the

3:16:03what we're looking at right now. Okay.

3:16:05>> So, what I understand he does is he

3:16:07peruses

3:16:09uh like I asked Mr. Cooper how he got

3:16:11connected with Noah and um he says, "I

3:16:15put an ad in the Brooklyn site on

3:16:17Facebook."

3:16:19Noah responded to it and said, "I can

3:16:21take care of your stuff." Well, Mr.

3:16:24Cooper has all kinds of video cameras

3:16:26around his property. So, I have videos

3:16:29of Noah and Taylor showing up to pick up

3:16:33all this stuff. I have photographic

3:16:35evidence from Mr. Cooper showing all the

3:16:38stuff that was in my that was put into

3:16:40my dumpster and my collaborating

3:16:43photos of what I took in the dumpster

3:16:45that matches it.

3:16:47Um, you know, so I got him dead of

3:16:50rights, you know, for running that type

3:16:52of illegal business and dumping on the

3:16:55property.

3:16:56>> Well, I'm I'm not sure what we can do

3:16:59with this matter to be honest. Um,

3:17:02>> you you are correct. Deep does have a

3:17:05solid waste division.

3:17:07>> Um, and that's probably where I would go

3:17:10um with your evidence and let them

3:17:12review it. Um, but I I I'm not sure what

3:17:16we can do at this point.

3:17:18>> Okay.

3:17:19[snorts]

3:17:21I don't know. I'm only here because, you

3:17:22know, Mike only told me to come up and

3:17:24see you guys. You were going to have the

3:17:26hearing and present my side of things

3:17:28and

3:17:29>> yeah,

3:17:30>> see if there was anything you guys could

3:17:31do to help me out here.

3:17:32>> Yeah, the show show cause hearing it's

3:17:34it's automatic under the regulations um

3:17:37uh under um 13.3A.

3:17:40Um that's you know it's an automatic

3:17:42process because of the way um it was

3:17:44written up. Uh got so the

3:17:47>> the commission's role in this is um the

3:17:51agency um has the ability to essentially

3:17:55um affirm the action, revise the action

3:17:59or withdraw the order um as they sit see

3:18:04it. So the

3:18:07obviously and I've gone through and I

3:18:09looked and I can confirm there is a

3:18:11housing court case um there there is a

3:18:15um a uh stipulation regarding um the um

3:18:20uh in favor of the plaintiff um who's

3:18:23before you tonight um for

3:18:27uh a stay of execution through November

3:18:30of uh late November of 2026 uh which is

3:18:34beyond this 30-day correct window.

3:18:36>> Um,

3:18:38>> as far as I just want to go through a

3:18:41couple of the

3:18:42>> photos and some of the other

3:18:44information. Sure.

3:18:44>> It as it's shown right here in our GIS.

3:18:47Um, this highlighted trailer.

3:18:50>> Yep.

3:18:50>> That would be number four. Correct.

3:18:52>> Correct. Okay.

3:18:54>> What is this stuff?

3:18:56>> That is scrap model.

3:18:58>> Okay.

3:18:59>> Uh, George um

3:19:01Dumbrosski. Okay. is a retired

3:19:04gentleman. He supplements his income by

3:19:06uh processing scrap metal.

3:19:08>> Okay.

3:19:08>> Okay. There's no bulky waste. I've

3:19:10inspected it many times. He keeps it

3:19:12neat and clean. It's just metal.

3:19:14>> Okay.

3:19:15>> Is it in containers? So Okay. So it's

3:19:18not as what looks like. And obviously

3:19:20this is a grainy image.

3:19:22>> It's Yeah, exactly. It's not bulky

3:19:23waste. It's not anything like that. you

3:19:26know, he's very when he takes something

3:19:27apart, he throws all the the fluff away

3:19:30>> in his regular trash that goes into my

3:19:32dumpster in a bag.

3:19:33>> Um, and he just takes the metal to uh

3:19:36the metals recycling place over in

3:19:38Putnham.

3:19:38>> Okay. There. Um, obviously that's

3:19:41somewhat of a separate matter in terms

3:19:43of, you know, business. Whether or not

3:19:44it's a business or not, I'm not sure.

3:19:46>> Does it supplement his income?

3:19:48>> Understood. Um, so I I wanted to ask

3:19:50because just because we're talking about

3:19:51the the park as a whole, right? um

3:19:56regarding, you know, you were saying

3:19:58people dumping stuff on the property.

3:20:01So, if we go

3:20:02>> uh again to the photos, [clears throat]

3:20:07hold on.

3:20:13>> What's in the What's in the buckets?

3:20:16>> Oil.

3:20:16>> Oil.

3:20:18>> Now, I already had the uh Mike and

3:20:20Allison went down and looked at that

3:20:22stuff. They got um the fire chief to go

3:20:25down and look at it and he says I can't

3:20:28do anything about it because it's in

3:20:29sealed containers.

3:20:30>> Okay. So like this particular one that's

3:20:33that's open has no oil in it.

3:20:36>> I think it's just water in that one that

3:20:38particular one.

3:20:39>> But it it ne it never contained oil.

3:20:41>> I don't know that for a fact.

3:20:42>> Okay. So is there any secondary

3:20:45containment with any of with any of

3:20:47this?

3:20:47>> No.

3:20:48>> Okay.

3:20:48>> I told them over eight months ago to get

3:20:50rid of that ship.

3:20:51>> Okay. So this is again this is all items

3:20:55from number four.

3:20:57>> Yes.

3:20:57>> Okay.

3:20:59>> I

3:21:01[sighs]

3:21:02I'm sympathetic to what you're going

3:21:05through.

3:21:05>> I understand. Thank you.

3:21:06>> But however,

3:21:09you you're the property owner and you

3:21:12still need an action plan to clean the

3:21:14site up.

3:21:15>> Yeah. Well, I'm trying to get them the

3:21:17town to force them to do it or deep

3:21:20>> but it whatever. And if you're the

3:21:22property owner,

3:21:22>> I understand that. And if they leave and

3:21:24dump that on me, I'm going to have to

3:21:26clean it up.

3:21:28>> I don't have a choice.

3:21:32>> And that's going to cost me thousands of

3:21:33dollars because not only that, they're

3:21:36going to leave that piece of

3:21:37trailer there, too, cuz they can't even

3:21:39live in that. It's unlivable. They're

3:21:41living in a camper in the driveway on

3:21:44the other side of that trailer home.

3:21:51Do you have cameras or anything up now

3:21:52to be able to monitor the site or like

3:21:55>> I don't. No. Do

3:21:56>> you have

3:21:56>> I have my I have one of my tenants

3:21:58taking pictures and videos for me.

3:22:00>> You have no man like no site management.

3:22:02You don't have a manager or any or

3:22:04employ.

3:22:04>> You're it. Okay. Do you live on site?

3:22:07>> No. No.

3:22:07>> I live at 63 Street. I'm within a mile

3:22:09of the property.

3:22:10>> Okay.

3:22:11>> I'm I'm coming off of a 20-year bout

3:22:14with chronic clim disease. Uh, I just

3:22:16got I'm just starting to feel good this

3:22:19last year or so. So, it's been a real

3:22:23long haul and uh these people have just

3:22:29it it I've helped this woman out so many

3:22:31different times and I can't believe that

3:22:34she is doing this to me at this point.

3:22:36I I I mean

3:22:39I I still think we need

3:22:42uh some sort of action plan to get the

3:22:44site cleaned up. I I know

3:22:46>> you know I can't do anything until

3:22:48they're off the property.

3:22:50>> I I

3:22:50>> But I don't think there's

3:22:51[clears throat] anything that we can do.

3:22:53>> No, I don'tce the state or force any

3:22:55issue.

3:22:56>> Correct.

3:22:57>> I think it looks like he's trying to

3:23:00>> Yeah. Like I said, my next step is to go

3:23:02to the state police to get a plan in

3:23:04place.

3:23:05>> Exactly. Right. And I think

3:23:06unfortunately I mean I'm I'm I'm not

3:23:08sure exactly how it breaks down legally

3:23:10but uh I would imagine [snorts] that as

3:23:12property owner even as renters we can't

3:23:14ask them to do something as an

3:23:16application right it usually has to come

3:23:18from the property owner.

3:23:19>> I mean

3:23:20>> and I imagine deep would operate the

3:23:22same. They'd be coordinating with

3:23:24property owner unless some kind of

3:23:26>> usually you can

3:23:27>> enforcement forces otherwise

3:23:29>> you can put in as an applicant and not

3:23:32the property owner.

3:23:33>> Okay. Usually um whether it's municipal

3:23:37level or state level, you can an

3:23:40applicant can put in um an application

3:23:43to

3:23:45um to do corrective actions or whatever.

3:23:48Um it does not have to be the property

3:23:50owner. Property owner has to be

3:23:52identified.

3:23:52>> Okay. Mhm.

3:23:53>> But um but again, I'm not sure how we

3:23:56can

3:23:58>> make the tenant do anything.

3:24:02>> Because we cannot put an application in

3:24:04in their name. It would be them that

3:24:06would have to come and

3:24:07>> correct. Yes. Yep.

3:24:09>> Yeah. Well, they've been given, you

3:24:10know, by the building official. They've

3:24:12been given a uh a cease and desist and a

3:24:15cleanup order. And they're having

3:24:17another inspection on the 8th, which is

3:24:21what? Thursday. Yep.

3:24:23>> Yeah. So, our assistant building

3:24:24official, I believe, has cited more

3:24:26under under our solid waste ordinance,

3:24:29which then starts to also touch on to

3:24:31when we're talking about potential

3:24:33fines, um whether or not that they uh

3:24:36were doing it as part of a a commercial,

3:24:38>> right,

3:24:39>> use.

3:24:39>> Yeah. It's an illegal transfer station

3:24:42basically is what he's doing on my

3:24:43property.

3:24:45>> [snorts]

3:24:46>> So I guess so the question is I guess

3:24:48for the commission uh and whether uh you

3:24:51would want to see say an action plan

3:24:53from the applicant if you're looking at

3:24:55an action plan for the applicant I would

3:24:57say you're either revising or you know

3:25:00affirming the letter and in in regards

3:25:04to like finding I know that's always a

3:25:07concern the discretion ultimately is

3:25:10with the enforcement agent and and also

3:25:13um the commission as a

3:25:15whether or not we pursue any like

3:25:17enforcement action uh in regards to

3:25:19this. So, um I think from you as a

3:25:22standpoint, it's more of an act uh um an

3:25:25accounting or trying to audit um the

3:25:28overall is u to try to figure out what

3:25:31is if they were gone tomorrow and they

3:25:33leave you with the mess, which it looks

3:25:35it looks like would be

3:25:37>> I'm going to get two big 45 yard

3:25:39dumpsters [clears throat] and my front

3:25:41end loader and dump it all in it and

3:25:43bite the bullet.

3:25:44>> Yep. Uh

3:25:45>> I'm not going to have a choice right

3:25:46now. That site's costing me $470 a

3:25:49month.

3:25:49>> Y

3:25:49>> I can get someone else on it paying the

3:25:51rent.

3:25:52>> You know, right now I've got

3:25:55two tenants not paying rent in the

3:25:57trailer park and one tenant not paying

3:25:59rent in the house. That's almost two

3:26:01grand a month coming out of my pay.

3:26:03>> Mhm. So obviously, you know, most of

3:26:07this stuff is bulky waste type stuff. So

3:26:09a dumpster would work, but like other

3:26:11items like the other

3:26:12>> the oil and stuff that I'd have to

3:26:14recycle at the recycling center.

3:26:15>> Yep. Um, and I I think that's and you

3:26:19know, I'll leave it to the commission,

3:26:20but I think that's what the commission

3:26:22the the agent was looking for here is is

3:26:25generally from you as a property owner

3:26:27just a general action plan um that

3:26:29you're looking to do.

3:26:30>> Yeah, like I said, I got I got to one I

3:26:32get to get them to cease and desist.

3:26:34>> And if they don't start cleaning it up

3:26:36on their own under threat of going to

3:26:38jail, then I'm going to have to take

3:26:41care of it. But I'm not going to start

3:26:42until they're gone.

3:26:44>> Yep. And then more so we as staff, so

3:26:46like [snorts] in regards to like the

3:26:48solid waste ordinance and everything

3:26:50like that, I can confer with the

3:26:51assistant building official to see where

3:26:53we stand on that. Um those ordinances um

3:26:57just like these can be ultimately

3:26:59brought against a tenant, right? Um it's

3:27:01just uh the um the skin in the game is

3:27:04is part of it. And you know um obviously

3:27:08>> there's our process. You can always file

3:27:10a complaint or or concern with with

3:27:13Connecticut. I'm

3:27:14>> not done yet.

3:27:14>> Um and uh um you know I'm happy to try

3:27:18to get you some of that information, but

3:27:20it's available online in terms of points

3:27:22of contact. Uh as far as uh um

3:27:26>> do you have any contacts with the

3:27:27commissioner deep?

3:27:28>> Uh I've met the acting one.

3:27:32>> Yes. Uh but uh that being said, u uh the

3:27:36the weed division uh in regards to clean

3:27:39up there and stuff,

3:27:40>> my first call to them was not

3:27:42encouraging.

3:27:43>> Yeah, it it could be tricky to get

3:27:44somebody on the phone uh

3:27:46>> that wants to help.

3:27:47>> Yep. Uh we have we have some contacts.

3:27:49We can I can try to get some

3:27:51information.

3:27:51>> I appreciate that, John.

3:27:52>> Yep. Yep. Um, as far as the order, I'm

3:27:57going to leave that to the commission

3:27:58whether or not you want us to continue

3:27:59to pursue it um solely in the solid

3:28:02waste uh enforcement end. Um because

3:28:06yes, under under the wetlands end and

3:28:08admittedly I was not on site for the for

3:28:10these inspections. So, um I can't really

3:28:12speak to it. I'm not a soil scientist,

3:28:14but in terms of regulatory, our

3:28:16regulatory area, our our official soils

3:28:18map is based on the Connecticut Deep

3:28:22soil imagery, right? So like um that

3:28:24that um shape uh purple shape there is

3:28:29reasonably likely hydric soil wetland

3:28:31soils um that is what we use uh and then

3:28:35we base it on you know further factf

3:28:38finding right so like if you went

3:28:39through and you had somebody you know uh

3:28:42delineate it and they found out that

3:28:43it's not wetlands then that changes this

3:28:46right um but it doesn't change the solid

3:28:48waste part of it um so um

3:28:51>> I don't think any of are looking for him

3:28:53to start being fined or no

3:28:55>> anything like that.

3:28:57>> Absolutely not.

3:28:58>> We're all looking I think we're looking

3:28:59to have that order stand.

3:29:02>> Yes.

3:29:03>> In regard to the fact that it needs to

3:29:05start somewhere and it doesn't even

3:29:07leave him a leg to stand on

3:29:09>> arguing with the tenant unless it stands

3:29:12>> correct. I I think yes, this does need

3:29:14to be affirmed, Sandy, for sure.

3:29:16>> And I and I do apologize. I think the

3:29:18the copy that's in front of you uh in

3:29:20incorrectly uh references the tenant on

3:29:24four. I I believe there was an updated

3:29:26one that that

3:29:27>> Shane Yater was my previous tenant. It

3:29:29was u Taylor Evans uncle.

3:29:32>> Okay.

3:29:32>> When he passed in 2019,

3:29:36he gave her the trailer.

3:29:38>> Y

3:29:38>> Okay. Unfortunately,

3:29:41it was his estate was never probated and

3:29:44it was never transferred into her name,

3:29:46>> which would account for the

3:29:47>> in So now she doesn't own it and I know

3:29:50from what I've heard they destroyed the

3:29:52inside again to spite me

3:29:54[cough and clears throat] and they're

3:29:55going to leave that thing on my lot. So,

3:29:58I'm going to have to get rid of that

3:29:59freaking trailer, too.

3:30:02Okay. So, uh we need a motion to either

3:30:06affirm or revise or resend this order.

3:30:12>> I'll make a motion to affirm.

3:30:16>> Seconded.

3:30:18>> Motion has been made and second to

3:30:20affirm the cease and desist order.

3:30:22>> All in favor?

3:30:24>> I

3:30:24>> I. All oppose. Motion carries.

3:30:28>> And

3:30:28>> thank you very much. And just uh for the

3:30:30record, for anyone that was looking at

3:30:32what was in the packet, um it the

3:30:34correct names um for four Normandy's

3:30:38Park was um um Taylor Evans and Noah

3:30:42James.

3:30:42>> Johnston.

3:30:43>> Noah. Oh, okay.

3:30:45>> Johnston.

3:30:45>> Noah Johnson. Yep. Uh so that has uh

3:30:49that's the order that was affirmed was

3:30:52um to all of all of those parties. as

3:30:54far as I'm aware that there was

3:30:56certified notice um to u all parties.

3:30:59>> I believe I believe that's what Mike

3:31:00told me.

3:31:01>> Yep. Yep. [clears throat]

3:31:03>> Okay, great. Thank you very much. I

3:31:05appreciate it.

3:31:11>> All right, moving on to item number

3:31:14eight, old Killingly Pond.

3:31:20>> Anyone? Anyone?

3:31:21>> Which one's this one? The dam.

3:31:23>> Yep.

3:31:23>> Yep. the dam. Y

3:31:25>> just uh [laughter]

3:31:28>> I knew I knew someone wanted to talk

3:31:29about it.

3:31:31>> We'll just talk about it uh briefly. Um

3:31:34we had um the Gloucester Town Council

3:31:38uh have a letter of um sent to Deep for

3:31:42looking for did the dam getting

3:31:44repaired. And I think maybe you guys got

3:31:46it today. Did you get that Jonathan the

3:31:47email yet? It might have. I know you've

3:31:49been busy.

3:31:50>> I I have not seen an email. I did see um

3:31:53a segment that was shared of their vote

3:31:57on it.

3:31:59I talked about that I think with Al um

3:32:01earlier. Um so, but I haven't seen their

3:32:05the letter. I heard it read into the

3:32:07record.

3:32:07>> Yeah. Well, there they emailed it out

3:32:08because I took a ride up there today.

3:32:10I've been kind of you know how it is.

3:32:11You got to pursue it. But they CCed it

3:32:13over to several people. But the Emma

3:32:16Simino of Deep got it and that's who it

3:32:19was directed towards and uh it's to try

3:32:23to get WISH to repair the damn kind of

3:32:24like what's going out the town of

3:32:26Killingly. So that's it. I know it's a

3:32:28late night so that's all I'm going to

3:32:29have to say and I thank you guys for all

3:32:30you do. Appreciate it.

3:32:33>> And that and that's all I really had for

3:32:35an update was was was

3:32:37>> All right. Yeah.

3:32:38>> Two birds, one stone. All right. Uh,

3:32:42item number nine, correspondence to the

3:32:45commission,

3:32:47>> right?

3:32:48>> Killingly engineering letter, Cook 753

3:32:53Cookill Road,

3:32:55>> which I I believe we still have Norm on.

3:32:57He is a glutton for punishment. Uh,

3:33:01[laughter] I don't know if Norm if you

3:33:03want to just quickly walk us through

3:33:05that letter.

3:33:07>> Yeah, absolutely. Uh so um you know

3:33:10Pineacres property uh otherwise known as

3:33:14Markover Game Farm. Um what they're

3:33:17doing they uh I I think uh you know

3:33:20there's a there's a kennel on the

3:33:22property that we had permitted about I

3:33:24believe about four or five years ago. Uh

3:33:26we had them permitted for a kennel and

3:33:29um that kennel's built. It's

3:33:31operational. Uh and then they have the

3:33:33game farm where they have the uh the

3:33:36feeasant hunts and so forth. So, uh, all

3:33:38they're looking to do is to divide off

3:33:41the kennel, uh, from the rest of the

3:33:44property. Uh, and, uh, the reason for

3:33:47that is it's it's basically under, uh,

3:33:49two different operational ownerships.

3:33:52Uh, and just to make it a little

3:33:53cleaner, uh, for like insurance purposes

3:33:56and so forth, uh, they they want to

3:33:58divide that off. Um, we're really just

3:34:01drawing lines on the plan. Uh, there's

3:34:04no activity. Uh there's an existing

3:34:06house on the property, an exist an

3:34:08existing uh lodge that they that they

3:34:11use for uh the haunting and so forth. Uh

3:34:14and then uh the kennel is going to be

3:34:17divided in uh subdivided into about a

3:34:203.8 acre parcel uh to sit on its own. Uh

3:34:24and and that's uh what we're here for.

3:34:27We're requesting a non-jurisdictional

3:34:28ruling because there's no activity at

3:34:30all. It's l literally just uh drawing

3:34:33lines on the map.

3:34:42There's there's no wetlands within 200

3:34:45feet. Norm

3:34:47>> uh there are there are wetlands I

3:34:50believe within 200 feet of the kennel.

3:34:53Yeah.

3:34:53>> Um that was that was permitted before.

3:34:56>> Okay.

3:34:56>> That kennel was constructed. There's

3:34:58there's no activity done being proposed

3:35:00there.

3:35:01>> Okay. And the access is remaining as is.

3:35:05There's no improvements to the access or

3:35:07anything?

3:35:08>> No. Nope, there is not.

3:35:15>> There's a there's an existing gravel

3:35:18drive there. Uh we're showing that 50

3:35:20foot wide access right ofway and utility

3:35:23easement in favor of lot 40.1 because

3:35:25the utilities in the driveway currently

3:35:28come up through that. um they're going

3:35:30to continue to use it. Uh but they did

3:35:32not want to make that a part of the of

3:35:36the kennel lot only because there's an

3:35:38existing garage there and so forth. Uh

3:35:41and so it it just would have been um

3:35:44from a um [clears throat] uh a setback a

3:35:47zoning um setback uh standpoint. Uh it

3:35:51would have been kind of difficult uh to

3:35:54make it work. We we couldn't have

3:35:56achieved the setback requirements for

3:35:58that garage. Uh so uh all we're doing is

3:36:01uh is assigning uh a right of way uh for

3:36:04that driveway and uh in utilities.

3:36:07>> Jonathan, do you have any input on this?

3:36:09>> No. Um I mean uh generally I I had

3:36:13somebody come in and ask the question,

3:36:15you know, in regards to the Pineacre

3:36:17parcel, the the map and block number um

3:36:20that is referenced in another

3:36:21application. this particular this

3:36:24particular area um it was noted on those

3:36:28plans um that they are not part of the

3:36:32proposed project at all. It was always

3:36:34noted as remaining land to be um part of

3:36:38the Pineacre Properties LLC. It's not

3:36:41inclusive of that proposed open space or

3:36:44any of the project area. Uh it just

3:36:46happens to be part of one of the subject

3:36:48properties. Uh the the lot as it sits uh

3:36:52appears to be dimensionally sound. Uh it

3:36:54it meets your zoning in the rural

3:36:56development zone for a rear lot with a

3:36:5850- foot easement uh for access. Um I

3:37:02believe historically it's also accessed

3:37:04I think by the the house uh um on there

3:37:07too. There's kind of a loop. Um but

3:37:10looking looking at it um this is this

3:37:13kind of reminds me of um what we looked

3:37:15at with the St. Joseph's pro uh property

3:37:18uh where we found a um you know a

3:37:21non-jurisdictional ruling on for that

3:37:23one. Quite simply we are drawing a line

3:37:25on a piece of paper.

3:37:26>> Uh there's no proposed regulated

3:37:29activities.

3:37:30>> Yeah. My only concern was if you know

3:37:32they were improving the access or

3:37:34something like that. But if that's not

3:37:35happening then I don't think I don't

3:37:37think this is jurisdictional at all. So

3:37:43>> motion.

3:37:45I'll make a motion to

3:37:48>> for nonjurisdictional

3:37:51[laughter] seconded.

3:37:53>> Motion's been made and seconded. All

3:37:55those in favor?

3:37:56>> I I

3:37:58>> All opposed. Motion carries.

3:38:02>> Thank you guys. Have a good night.

3:38:04>> Thank you, Norm.

3:38:13>> Yep. So,

3:38:15>> oh, sorry. Christopher McDonald

3:38:18resignation letter. That's my first time

3:38:20tonight, I believe. [laughter]

3:38:23>> So, uh um uh Chris uh um decided to step

3:38:27away and not finish out his um term with

3:38:30the wetlands commission. I know he had

3:38:32other obligations uh with work uh that

3:38:35he was finding it difficult to to make

3:38:37it to the meetings um uh in volunteer

3:38:40his time. Uh and uh I encouraged him if

3:38:42he was ever looking in the future. Um I

3:38:45thought he was leaving generally on good

3:38:46terms. Um but uh that um uh

3:38:52full-time membership uh position I

3:38:54believe Rainey is going to be

3:38:55interviewing with the town council for

3:38:57tomorrow night uh to step up from the

3:39:00alternate to the full-time member

3:39:02position.

3:39:03>> The big leagues

3:39:05>> officially part of the team. Yeah.

3:39:07>> Well, [laughter]

3:39:08we'll see. So, they're actually having

3:39:10you go for another interview even though

3:39:12you're already sitting here?

3:39:13>> Yes. Actually, my alternate is I got a

3:39:16thing in the mail that I had to reup it

3:39:17anyway. Perfect timing.

3:39:18>> So, it's perfect timing. Yeah. Yeah.

3:39:20Anything over a year, I believe their

3:39:22their general rules are it triggers a an

3:39:26interview.

3:39:27>> Yeah.

3:39:27>> All right, that makes sense.

3:39:29>> So, I get to come back tomorrow.

3:39:31[laughter]

3:39:33All right. Uh item number 10, staff

3:39:37reports, uh authorized agent, uh Jane de

3:39:40Roer.

3:39:41>> Yep. So, uh this one was a pretty cut

3:39:44and dry one, 94 Island Road. It's a 20

3:39:47by8 addition that was um behind the

3:39:51house that's closer to the roadway than

3:39:54the pond Alexander Lakeside. Uh they

3:39:57were also um looking on that application

3:39:59potentially for a future garage there.

3:40:01Um uh again across the street uh from

3:40:05the uh from the lake that garage they

3:40:08were didn't have all the information on

3:40:10the garage. So um they did remove that

3:40:12part of it as part of the application

3:40:14and um I went and looked at it and other

3:40:17than the fact that you have to drive you

3:40:18know kind of down to get to the house it

3:40:21is a very flat lot. um that addition uh

3:40:24did not pose any direct impact and it

3:40:26seemed to meet what we were looking for

3:40:29um dimensionally and uh in terms of

3:40:31separation. I don't as proposed I don't

3:40:34even think silt fence would even be

3:40:35needed. Um

3:40:36>> so flat

3:40:37>> it's so flat.

3:40:38>> Yeah. Okay.

3:40:38>> Yep.

3:40:39>> All right. Uh McMack Construction

3:40:42>> McMack Construction uh on uh is uh

3:40:46working with a with their client at 380

3:40:48Mashant Tuck uh road. Uh they're looking

3:40:50to do a 30 by30 detached garage. Again,

3:40:54this one I went to site and took a look

3:40:56at it. They um didn't realize when they

3:40:59first submitted that they would need a

3:41:00wetlands commission and or a wetlands

3:41:03permit. So, they kind of had that area a

3:41:05little scraped off and you know,

3:41:07prepped. Uh that um storage garage is to

3:41:11uh replace uh some shipping containers

3:41:14that they've been using for temporary

3:41:15storage on site. um all of which the

3:41:18shipping containers and everything are

3:41:19within your 200 foot upland review area.

3:41:22However, the the uh um standard

3:41:25separation distances were all being met.

3:41:27So, there's uh not much of a concern

3:41:29there um in terms of any potential

3:41:32impacts as long as they're doing best

3:41:34management. Uh so that particular one u

3:41:36I did note you know um ideally uh

3:41:40establishing some silt fence especially

3:41:41for uh any stockpile areas um uh so that

3:41:46there's no impacts there. Um and uh we'd

3:41:49be looking to do some follow-up

3:41:51inspections, but it seemed to meet all

3:41:52the metrics for for an agent approval.

3:41:56>> Okay. Uh and do you have any anything

3:41:59else for us, John? Um, I had one and and

3:42:01and I apologize it's not uh for the

3:42:04packet. It wasn't in submitted as part

3:42:06of the packet. 24 River uh Street uh and

3:42:10I can probably pull it up if you guys

3:42:12want. Uh but I'll I'll read you the

3:42:14description. So, this is rebuilding on

3:42:16the lefthand side of the home. A 12T by

3:42:198 foot um uh deck in the same location

3:42:23in the same everything size. and also

3:42:26rebuilding a rear deck um 10 foot by

3:42:29eight foot uh with the only new item

3:42:33being a um what I would call a catway or

3:42:36a connection point given the grading um

3:42:38the

3:42:41let me see if I can pull up

3:42:44that detail but essentially you have a

3:42:47fairly unique uh property uh that is

3:42:51definitely within the 200 foot up review

3:42:53area there's also flood plane not that

3:42:56far off uh in this area, but all the

3:42:58proposed work is in an area where it's

3:43:02already been graded out. There's

3:43:04retaining walls surrounding it. Uh and

3:43:08they're looking to essentially just take

3:43:10down what's there and put right back. Uh

3:43:12the proposal I think even is trying to

3:43:14reutilize the existing footings uh as uh

3:43:17so the it's really cosmetic in nature.

3:43:21That catwalk is because of the way it

3:43:23kind of slopes down. The rear deck right

3:43:25now is only accessible through the home

3:43:28and the that little connection would

3:43:30bring you to the retaining wall which

3:43:31would provide another way in and out on

3:43:34on the side of the property. Um uh that

3:43:37particular one I even other than working

3:43:40with staff to make sure that there's no

3:43:42impacts um I was looking to move forward

3:43:44on the zoning permit as presented. Um,

3:43:47but I would just wanted feedback from

3:43:48you guys and I can pull up the details

3:43:50if you'd like.

3:43:52>> I mean, it might be helpful to see the

3:43:54details, but I don't think it's

3:43:56necessary. I mean, if essentially if

3:43:58they're just tearing down what's there

3:43:59and putting it back. I mean,

3:44:02>> we allow that all the time on

3:44:03Alexander's Lake. So, I mean, it's I

3:44:06don't think it's that big of a

3:44:07>> They don't always ask. So, [laughter]

3:44:10>> No, they don't. It's

3:44:10>> true.

3:44:11>> No, they don't.

3:44:13>> [cough]

3:44:15[clears throat]

3:44:15>> Let me just uh so you can see the plans

3:44:19here.

3:44:29>> All right, Jonathan, I can't see where

3:44:31it is. I'm just trying to place it.

3:44:32River Street down off Maple Street.

3:44:35>> It's off Pineville.

3:44:37>> Okay, so we're up in Blueville. Okay,

3:44:39>> we're up in Blueville. Yep.

3:44:40>> Okay. I wasn't sure.

3:44:42I know what you mean then. Okay,

3:44:45>> hold on.

3:44:49[laughter]

3:44:52>> Let me uh share my screen here.

3:45:04Okay.

3:45:06So, this is uh the existing left side,

3:45:11the side deck

3:45:12>> 8 by 12. Okay.

3:45:15This is an elevation showing that side

3:45:20or sorry the existing rear deck and uh

3:45:24side deck I believe

3:45:25>> and and they're

3:45:27going to try to utilize those existing

3:45:30>> Yep. Yeah. In term reading through the

3:45:33the uh the notes uh here um there's

3:45:36nothing that calls out for changing out

3:45:38the existing um

3:45:40>> things. This is that rear deck with that

3:45:42little catway.

3:45:43>> Oh yeah. uh connection.

3:45:45>> So,

3:45:46>> so adding that little catway

3:45:48>> and then coming to the retaining wall.

3:45:50Again, that's a detail that I think they

3:45:52need to work out with the building

3:45:54official in terms of how that works.

3:45:55But, um you know, you have uh this area

3:45:59here, and I'm going to

3:46:01draw.

3:46:02>> Yep. So,

3:46:03>> yeah, not bad.

3:46:04>> This is a this is a a side view of that

3:46:07rear deck from the retaining wall side,

3:46:10kind of looking out, right? And then uh

3:46:13this is this is that area. Um so let me

3:46:16rotate this real quick.

3:46:19>> So this

3:46:21>> this perimeter s uh right here is your

3:46:26>> is that is that retaining wall. Here's

3:46:29your side. Yeah. So here's an existing

3:46:32side deck. Here's the existing rear

3:46:34deck. Um and the you know the kind of

3:46:37that sketched catwalk right connection.

3:46:39And so that way you can kind of come

3:46:41around. Um,

3:46:42>> so does does the water

3:46:45>> the flood plane is uh it looks uh to be

3:46:49at an elevation below the that flat area

3:46:53that was graded out. Um I did not go to

3:46:56the level of looking at like Aloma or

3:46:59whatever is going on there. It's an

3:47:01existing structure. They're not

3:47:02proposing anything to push into that

3:47:04flood plane. Right.

3:47:05>> And um again, it seems a very

3:47:07straightforward um application. I was

3:47:10just looking from uh for direction from

3:47:13the commission whether Here's actually a

3:47:15little

3:47:16>> more detail on that sketch.

3:47:18>> Yeah. I mean, I I don't think we have to

3:47:19get involved with that. I think they're

3:47:21going to be

3:47:22>> I think Rodney hit the nail on the head

3:47:24when he said it's kind of Alexander's

3:47:26Lake.

3:47:27>> Yeah. Yeah. And I I I do think they're

3:47:29going to be dealing with the building

3:47:30official.

3:47:31>> Yep.

3:47:31>> Quite a bit. Yeah. More than most would.

3:47:34>> Yep. and and I uh happily on the zoning

3:47:36end can put a note regarding you know no

3:47:39stockpiling of um material without um

3:47:43adequate um erosion control and

3:47:45coordinate with our uh building

3:47:47officials on on inspection.

3:47:49>> Okay.

3:47:50>> So,

3:47:52>> right. Anything else from you, Jonathan?

3:47:54>> Uh I think that was it. I I know I did

3:47:57receive a uh agent application, another

3:48:00Alexander's Lake one uh on the

3:48:03Northshore. I don't have that in front

3:48:04of me right now, but I believe it's a

3:48:07proposed knockdown rebuild um one. So,

3:48:10we're going to look at that kind of

3:48:11similar how we we generally do at

3:48:13Alexander Lake. If it's uh um something

3:48:16of concern, you'll see it here. If not,

3:48:18you're probably going to see it as an

3:48:19agent authorized agent application for

3:48:22um next month.

3:48:22>> The only thing that I would remind you

3:48:25is that if uh Paul Archer is involved,

3:48:28we should probably get that in front of

3:48:29the

3:48:30>> Okay. I I'll double check um uh on that

3:48:33particular one uh to see who who

3:48:36authored it.

3:48:36>> Just you know I don't want I don't want

3:48:39there to be any questions.

3:48:40>> Okay.

3:48:41>> Yep.

3:48:42>> Okay. Item number 11, town council

3:48:46liaison.

3:48:48>> So patient.

3:48:49>> Yes. Do you have anything for us this

3:48:51month? I think uh our leaison uh for

3:48:56this meeting and and I'm not

3:49:01Ed is Ed is always welcome of course but

3:49:04uh was was Mr. wrong. Jared, um he did

3:49:07apologize. He wanted to be here in

3:49:09person. He was feeling a little under

3:49:11the weather. I did see him on for the

3:49:13majority of the meeting uh on there, but

3:49:16hang

3:49:17>> in there. I he do you have anything for

3:49:19us or if you're not the official

3:49:22>> If you do, just step up to a microphone.

3:49:24>> Just please

3:49:26I wasn't I don't have anything.

3:49:28[laughter]

3:49:29>> I didn't mean to put you on the spot

3:49:31there, Ed. I apologize for it.

3:49:34>> [laughter]

3:49:35>> I don't have to sit up there

3:49:37alternate. Jared took my alternate spot,

3:49:40but then we made him regularly on

3:49:43because John Sicilini the leazison, he

3:49:46just resigned from council.

3:49:48>> Okay. All right.

3:49:50>> You're just saving us having to make a

3:49:51motion for 11. [laughter]

3:49:53>> We got to put people on board now. So,

3:49:56>> all right.

3:49:56>> Tomorrow is going to be interesting.

3:49:58>> Thank you. So, the allimportant Do we

3:50:01have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to

3:50:03adjurnn.

3:50:03>> Second.

3:50:04>> Motion's been made and seconded. All in

3:50:06favor?

```*