2026-10-19 - Planning and Zoning Commission

00:02Ready?

00:20I got my new hammer here.

00:23Call the meeting to order.

00:28Uh

00:29roll call, please.

00:30>> Brian Card.

00:31>> Here.

00:32>> Norman Fearing.

00:33>> Present.

00:34>> Michael Hughco.

00:35>> Yeah.

00:35>> John Sarantopoulos.

00:37>> Here.

00:37>> Keith Thurlow.

00:38>> Here.

00:40Okay, any agenda addendums?

00:42There was supposed to be one, but no.

00:45Okay.

00:47I'm sorry.

00:49Oh, no, we're not going to do that.

00:51I um

00:54If you have comments for an application

00:55that's subject

00:57to public hearing, please wait and

00:59provide comments during the hearing on

01:01that matter. If your comments or

01:03questions on application subject to site

01:05plan or administrative review, please

01:08submit your questions to staff in

01:09writing.

01:10These applications are not subject to

01:12public hearing and public comment is not

01:14being received on these matters.

01:16If you have comments or questions about

01:18zoning enforcement or compliance

01:19matters, please refer those to staff to

01:21be investigated. If you have the general

01:24comments or questions on matters not

01:26otherwise on the agenda, you may direct

01:28those to the commission at this time.

01:31Paul, did you want to read that

01:32statement

01:34about the employee?

01:36>> I don't have it. I didn't know.

01:39>> Well, you said this morning you would

01:40read it for me.

01:44>> [laughter]

01:44>> I thought everybody had it.

01:52>> It's a memorandum.

01:54>> It's a memorandum from uh Brian Palaia,

01:57town manager, October 15th, 2026.

02:00RE: Planning and

02:02Planning Department Changes. Jonathan

02:04Blake has resigned as the planning

02:06director effective October 8th, 2026.

02:09The town thanks him for his service and

02:11does not

02:12comment on personal matters. While the

02:15position is vacant, Robin Newton, AICP

02:18of Tyke Planning Policy Group, will

02:20provide planning support to staff for

02:22applications before the Planning and

02:24Zoning Commission and the Inland

02:25Wetlands and Watercourses Commission.

02:28In that role, Tyke will also offer

02:29recommendations as opportunities present

02:31themselves over the coming months to

02:33straight strengthen the compliance and

02:36best practices. Paul Paul Gazola will

02:39serve as acting department head of the

02:40planning

02:42building office during this time. I ask

02:44the Planning and Zoning Commission to

02:45consider appointing Paul Gazola as

02:47zoning enforcement officer at this

02:49meeting on October 19th to provide

02:51further assistance.

02:56>> Thank you.

02:57Citizens comments on items not on the

02:59agenda.

03:00Applications subject to the public

03:02hearing will be heard under the agenda

03:04item only. Comments on applications that

03:06are not subject to a public hearing will

03:08not be taken.

03:09Individual presentations not to exceed 3

03:11minutes, limited to an aggregate of 21

03:13minutes unless otherwise indicated by

03:15majority vote of the commission. Public

03:17comments can be emailed to

03:18[email protected]

03:21or mailed to the town of Killingly, 172

03:22Main Street, Killingly, Connecticut

03:2406239. All public comments must be

03:26received prior to 2:00 p.m. the day of

03:28the meeting. Public comment received

03:30will be posted on the town's website,

03:32www.killinglyct.gov.

03:35As this is a hybrid meeting,

03:38>> [cough and clears throat]

03:40>> uh citizens can participate in the

03:41citizens participation by WebEx or in

03:44person.

03:45Um there's an address here, but I'm not

03:47going to read it. Uh

03:50meeting number 28701659707.

03:55Password PZC101926.

04:00Or join by phone 14156550001.

04:06Public hearing comments can be emailed

04:09to public comment at killinglyct.gov or

04:12mail to the town of Killingly 172 Main

04:14Street, Killingly, Connecticut 06239.

04:17All public comments must be received

04:18prior to 2:00 p.m. This is the same

04:20thing.

04:21Never mind. Okay.

04:23>> I'm still on citizen's comments right

04:24now.

04:25>> Yeah, we're still on citizen's comments.

04:29Name and address, please.

04:30>> Joe Zernado, 32 Foster Street,

04:32Danielson.

04:35Good evening, chair and members of the

04:37commission. My name is Joe Zernado. I'm

04:39working with Ian McDonald and we want to

04:41present six proposed text amendments to

04:45the Killingly zoning regulation planning

04:47and zoning regulations.

04:48We're calling them the stewardship

04:50amendments.

04:51>> So, if you're going to present them,

04:53then that's something you should

04:55actually present to the staff, I believe

04:56at during normal working hours. Is that

04:58right?

04:59>> Yeah, we did receive an email. I think

05:01we forwarded it.

05:02>> yeah. Mike, please.

05:03>> I'm sorry.

05:04>> Could everybody speak up, please?

05:06>> Yeah, so we did receive your email from

05:08Brian with the proposed text amendments.

05:10We are going to put them in the

05:11moratorium

05:13folder so that when that is brought up,

05:15when they start having their workshops,

05:16that's something that we can workshop

05:18with you and discuss.

05:19>> That was a big part of the reason we're

05:21doing it is to get that ball rolling.

05:23>> Mhm.

05:23>> Will the public see it?

05:27>> It will be Yeah, it'll be a public

05:28document. It'll cuz it'll be part of the

05:29moratorium and part of the public

05:31workshops, absolutely. Yep.

05:34>> Okay. Anything else?

05:36>> Well, I was going to explain a little

05:37bit about what they are and why we're

05:40proposing them.

05:41>> Yes, please.

05:43>> Okay, 2 minutes and we'll

05:45>> How about 3?

05:46>> You already had a

05:47>> Okay.

05:48You drive a hard bargain.

05:50Our purpose is to enhance the existing

05:53regulations and strengthen their

05:54alignment with Killingly's plan of

05:55conservation and development.

05:58Which is a Connecticut General Statute

06:00requirement.

06:02Together these changes, the six

06:03amendments, uh build on the town's

06:05established commitments to natural

06:06resource protection, adequate

06:08infrastructure, economic resilience, and

06:10community well-being. They also support

06:12coordination between planning and zoning

06:14and inland wetlands review by bringing

06:16greater attention to impacts that extend

06:18beyond individual project boundaries.

06:22The first five amendments simply make

06:23explicit that where appropriate the

06:25existing review process should also

06:28consider reasonably foreseeable

06:30long-term and cumulative impacts on the

06:32town's environmental resources,

06:34infrastructure, economy, and community.

06:37The sixth amendment removes the express

06:38inclusion of internet service firms,

06:40data centers, and computing

06:41infrastructure providers from

06:43[clears throat] the public service

06:44corporation definition.

06:48Amendment one addresses the statement of

06:50intent in our regulations. It makes

06:51explicit the discretionary land use

06:54decisions should consider reasonably

06:55foreseeable long-term and cumulative

06:57effects on natural resources,

06:59infrastructure, economic resilience, and

07:02community well-being. Those

07:03considerations would remain grounded in

07:05evidence, including reasonable

07:07projections supported by that evidence.

07:10Amendment two supplies the definitions

07:12needed to apply that language

07:13consistently. It defines cumulative

07:15impact, environmental resources,

07:17long-term impact, and municipal

07:19infrastructure. A shared vocabulary

07:21helps applicants, staff, and

07:23commissioners understand what

07:24information is relevant and how it

07:26should be considered.

07:27Amendment three addresses site plan

07:29review for projects whose scale or

07:31intensity may affect municipal resources

07:34beyond the property itself. It allows

07:36the commission to require a long-term

07:38impact assessment. The The must relate

07:40to the particular project, giving the

07:42commission relevant information without

07:43imposing the same requirements on every

07:45application.

07:47Amendment four addresses special

07:48permits.

07:49It identifies the long-term and

07:51cumulative effects the commission should

07:52consider including infrastructure

07:54capacity, environmental impacts, public

07:56service demands, fiscal effects, and

07:58compatibility with the surrounding

07:59community.

08:01The assessment supplies information.

08:02This amendment establishes how that

08:04information enters the review.

08:07Amendment five addresses written

08:08findings. When a long-term impact

08:10assessment is required or submitted, the

08:11commission's decision would explain its

08:14consideration of the relevant impacts

08:15and identify the supporting evidence.

08:17Applicants and residents would be able

08:19to see how the commission reached its

08:20conclusion.

08:22Amendment six addresses section 310's

08:24definition of public service

08:26corporation. It removes the express

08:28inclusion of data centers, internet

08:29service firms, and computing

08:30infrastructure providers from that

08:32category. The purpose is to have those

08:34facilities addressed through explicit

08:36land use provisions appropriate to their

08:37operations and impacts.

08:39Together the amendments connect the

08:41town's stated goals to the information

08:42it gathers, the standards it applies,

08:45and the the decisions it records. So, we

08:47request the commission revisit the

08:48current regulations in the spirit of

08:50these amendments as a way of addressing

08:52future development proposals. We believe

08:54the text amendments as proposed

08:56emphasize and expand on what is already

08:58part of the current regulations.

09:01Thank you.

09:02>> Give me as extra three.

09:04>> [applause]

09:08>> Anybody else want to

09:10comment?

09:11>> It was the man That man was already in

09:13line if you'd wait.

09:14>> Oh, sorry. We'll We'll all get a turn,

09:15so

09:15>> He's a bully. He He pushed me out of the

09:17way.

09:17>> He's big enough, he can.

09:21>> I I'll do Frame, um,

09:22148 Pond Road, Dayville.

09:25Good evening. Um, I got some pictures up

09:27here we took. This has nothing to do

09:29with the distribution centers out here.

09:31It's just

09:32happens to be Amazon distribution center

09:34up by Johnston, Rhode Island. I wanted

09:36to just

09:37show what distribution centers are like.

09:40You know, this here is Can you go back

09:42to that one, please?

09:44This is where the trucks the independent

09:45truckers are parking, not on the paved

09:47area. They're parking over on a gravel

09:49area over here

09:50with potholes and all kinds of garbage

09:54around. And that's that's up in

09:55Johnston. You could drive up there and

09:57take a look if you want. Okay, go to the

09:59next one.

10:01Um

10:02Okay, I can't see it too good, but yeah,

10:03there's some debris in there and

10:06garbage and stuff where they park. Go

10:08ahead to the next one.

10:11Next.

10:12Oh, that's okay. See the potholes? And

10:14then there's what's I don't know what

10:15that dark spot is on the road over there

10:17cuz I didn't have an oil test kit to

10:19check it out, but

10:21that happens to be over there. And they

10:22just kind of blast over the curb with

10:24their trucks, go over the potholes, and

10:26that's where they park the trucks down

10:28there. Probably where they weren't

10:30supposed to park them from the

10:31beginning. You know what I mean? Usually

10:32it's on the paved areas, you know,

10:34that's I'm guessing.

10:36But they've been parking down there and

10:39it's just kind of a big mess. Go go to

10:41the next one, please. There's some of

10:42the straps and tie-downs they just throw

10:45on the ground and that's just where it

10:47stays, right where they throw it.

10:48There's nobody [clears throat] up there

10:49to clean it up, you know, and

10:51I believe that, you know, the rain will

10:53wash over that stuff whatever's on the

10:55ground in the gravel areas where they

10:57park and

10:59wash it down into the uh

11:01water down below. There's ponds down

11:03below.

11:04And an interesting thing I did too was

11:06check Google Maps and they show the site

11:08under construction cuz the Google Maps

11:10aren't updated. Take a look at the silt

11:12fencing around that project. Zoom in on

11:15the silt fencing and some of the

11:17um

11:17washed debris, everything that's washing

11:19out from the washout and the retention

11:21ponds that are supposed to be there to

11:22catch the silt washing down the hills.

11:25You can take a look at how nice a job

11:26that's working out for for that project

11:29up there in Johnston.

11:31Okay, go to the next one. Uh yeah,

11:33there's that

11:34I don't know. It looks like oil to me,

11:35but I mean it could be something else.

11:38Okay, that's it.

11:40Thank you.

11:42>> [applause]

11:45>> Uh Steve Crista, I'm here on behalf of

11:48Matthew Crista, 89 Catherine Avenue in

11:50Danielson, Connecticut.

11:52Um Gerald Ford, when he was talking

11:54about the Russians, said, "Trust, but

11:57verify." Uh I say of Ryan Corp and

12:00Amazon, "Don't trust, verify." Uh I

12:04would also remind you of The Wizard of

12:05Oz, when Professor Marvel said, "Pay no

12:09attention to that man behind the

12:11curtain, okay?" And there's a lot to pay

12:14attention to here, okay? Um

12:18I uh saw the video of the uh Wetlands

12:21Commission with our engineer, Steve

12:24Trinkaus. I hope I pronounced that

12:26correctly. He poked many holes in Ryan

12:30Corp's assertions about their water

12:33protection plans. And um I know that

12:36you're not You're not empowered

12:38>> That's out of out of order. You're out

12:40of order.

12:40>> Yeah, I know you're not empowered. Huh?

12:43>> You can't be talking about Amazon at

12:45this point, so

12:46>> Oh, okay. I'm sorry, you didn't tell me

12:47that.

12:48>> Well, well we did, but you

12:49>> Well, because he was talking about

12:50Amazon.

12:51>> He was talking about

12:53>> He was talking about the Amazon facility

12:55in Johnston.

12:55>> in error. I apologize.

12:57>> Okay, you are in error. So, what When

12:58can I talk about Amazon? Tell me when.

13:02>> You can't.

13:03>> I mean, you already You already broke

13:05the You already set the precedent.

13:09So, let me talk.

13:10>> No.

13:11>> Okay, well, then you shouldn't let him

13:13talk.

13:15You screwed up.

13:18>> Correct your mistake.

13:23>> Correct.

13:27Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike.

13:29>> Sorry.

13:30>> [snorts]

13:30>> The second person was speaking

13:32specifically about an application. So,

13:34site plan applications are not subject

13:36to public hearing for a lot of reasons.

13:38We have our attorney here, he can

13:40verify. I know that there's been a

13:42long-standing process here where for

13:45whatever reason you take comment on any

13:47and all applications, even though you're

13:49not supposed to. By statute, public

13:51hearings are for special permits,

13:53re-subdivisions, text amendments, zone

13:56changes. Um the public hearing process

13:58is the only process in which the

14:00commission may take in public comments.

14:03Um the public is always welcome to send

14:06uh comments or concerns to staff about

14:09applications. We can look into those

14:11concerns to see if they are related to

14:14what falls under the purview of the

14:16planning and zoning commission. As it

14:18relates to the site plan application

14:20requirements, if it is is something that

14:22we can flag in our staff reports and

14:25indicate to you, but the public may not

14:27put into the record information on site

14:30plan applications. And any further, you

14:32can ask the attorney who's here tonight

14:35uh who can verify what I'm saying is

14:36true and factual and accurate.

14:39>> But also not on anything on the agenda,

14:41which is new which is new. Well, go

14:44ahead.

14:44>> So, you have public hearing processes,

14:46you have them on your agenda. When you

14:48get to that agenda item, that is when

14:50you should be taking public comment

14:52under each agenda item that is subject

14:55to the special permit public hearing

14:57requirements.

14:59>> Excuse me, Keith. Um

15:01>> You got to wait. You got to You got to

15:02the

15:02>> wanted to know who she was.

15:04>> I'm sorry.

15:06>> I'm Robin Nguyen, and I'm the interim

15:08planner from Taik Policy and Planning

15:10Group.

15:11>> beside you?

15:13>> I am Paul Gazzola.

15:16I'm I'm just facilitating this.

15:19>> All right. That I mean, cuz you're new

15:20and nobody knows here

15:22>> I'm sorry. I shouldn't I should that.

15:24>> So, can I ask for a point of

15:25clarification? When if if you're not

15:28>> Wait a minute.

15:29Wait a minute. If you

15:32You can Somebody else has got the mic,

15:33so after he's done.

15:36Hm?

15:36>> Um

15:38Oh, we ready to go?

15:40>> No, we Hold on. So, as as a commission,

15:42can we talk about this? So, I understand

15:43what she just said. But again, nothing

15:45that's said up here at the podium is put

15:47on public record against that

15:50application.

15:51Again, it's it's just public comment.

15:52They can say whatever they want to say.

15:54It's not on a public hearing.

15:56>> No, you're putting it into your public

15:57records.

15:58>> They're putting it into citizens'

15:59comments. We're not None of us take that

16:02into account when we review that site

16:03plan application.

16:04>> It's actually in the application

16:06documents. So, you know, I think that's

16:08part of the issue. You're You're taking

16:10these public comments and in defense of

16:12the public who are making the comments,

16:14I'm going to make an assumption that

16:16they think when they're standing up and

16:18they're giving and expressing their

16:19concerns, that you guys can legitimately

16:22consider those concerns as part of your

16:24overall process once you get to the

16:26decision-making piece of this. And I

16:29think that's unfortunate because the

16:30reality is you cannot consider a

16:32majority of their comments because it

16:34doesn't fall under your site plan

16:36requirements.

16:36>> And that is clear, and we've made that

16:37clear. Whether they heard that We've

16:38made that clear that what they say

16:40during the citizens' comment period is

16:42not germane. It's not taken into account

16:44into that site plan review.

16:46>> I understand.

16:47>> to deprive them of the right to stand up

16:48there and say whatever they want for the

16:5021 minutes

16:51Excuse me, please. Please. Um I disagree

16:55with that. Again, it's First I'm hearing

16:58of this that we won't take that. I

16:59understand the written comments that

17:00were provided before have been given to

17:02us

17:03for that site plan. I've tossed them.

17:06>> You tossed them?

17:06>> Yeah, again, cuz and the commission has

17:08and we've talked about them. They don't

17:09apply to that site plan application cuz

17:12it's not a public hearing. There are no

17:14public comments. So again, but to

17:16deprive the citizens the right to talk

17:17for these 21 minutes on whatever they

17:19choose to talk about that's not on the

17:20public hearing, I guess, respectfully

17:22for this commission, I disagree with. I

17:23don't know if our lawyers advising us

17:25not to take these comments.

17:27And put them here on Again, I know

17:29they're in the the record on the meeting

17:31minutes, but that is a change that I

17:33think this commission needs to discuss

17:34and decide how we want to move forward.

17:36>> You know, you

17:37>> [clears throat]

17:38>> Ken Slater for the record, you know I've

17:39I've sat here through

17:41you know, probably hours of the public

17:43comment on the site plan. So, and that

17:46was a practice that the commission has

17:48had. I have not given you new advice

17:50that you can't do this.

17:53And your acting planner has a lot of

17:55experience in this area. I will tell you

17:57in representing the many, many towns

17:58that I represent, this is the only

18:00commission that's allowed public

18:02comments on a pending site plan

18:04application.

18:05So, I would have been recommending if

18:07you followed your practice, you had a

18:08long-standing planner that was here,

18:10experienced chair, experienced member of

18:12this commission. And if that's the way

18:13you wanted to conduct business, you

18:15know, the risk is making sure that it's

18:18clear when you go and do your

18:19deliberations that you're only

18:21considering the information that you're

18:24not considering the public comment. The

18:25problem I mean, but but Robin is

18:27pointing out that the public has spent a

18:29lot of time standing here in front of

18:31you making these these comments and

18:33maybe you're giving the impression that

18:34what they're telling you can be relied

18:36upon when in fact under site plan

18:38review, you review the application

18:40versus all of your standards in the

18:41regulations and not, you know, public

18:44comment public sentiment before and

18:46against. So, my my bottom line is it's

18:49very unusual to do what you were doing.

18:51That there are some risks in in if

18:53there's going to be an argument by an

18:55applicant that says that you

18:56inappropriately relied on all the

18:57information that came in. If you do a

18:59good job to make sure that it's clear

19:02that you're not, um then

19:05then it I think it is your prerogative.

19:07It's unusual,

19:09um and it takes a a of time as as you

19:11know. And if they're really not going to

19:13consider it, is it wasted time or not?

19:15But that I think that's your

19:16commission's prerogative, which is why

19:17I've never interfered with the way that

19:19that it's doing it. But you should take

19:21into account for a planner who does a

19:23lot of this with a lot of towns, that

19:25this is not ordinary, and you shouldn't

19:28you need to be careful to not

19:29intermingle

19:31information with a site plan review

19:34where it's only administrative. So I can

19:37tell you most commissions that do an

19:38administrative review will not allow any

19:40comment. They'll take public comment on

19:42things that are not on the agenda,

19:43things that are on the agenda are either

19:45entitled to public comment because it's

19:46a public hearing, in which case they'll

19:47get their word,

19:49or it's administrative and they don't

19:51get public comment, and they don't say

19:52anything. That's

19:54far more common in front of commissions

19:55than I think in in that is where you're

19:56getting the advice from from the town

19:59the town's acting planner. And you I

20:01think the commission can can take that

20:02under advisement and and not and and not

20:05accept the public comment on it and just

20:08stick with the the agenda items of the

20:09business the way that they're on there,

20:11or continue to do as been doing it, you

20:13know, it's it's prior practice. It's

20:14just there is some risk associated with

20:16doing it. One that I think you can

20:18manage by saying that you're not doing

20:20that, but it's got to be it's got to be

20:22clear on the record that you're not

20:23you're not weighing the decision on an

20:25application based on things that come in

20:27during the public comment. So you have I

20:29think you have the prerogative to do to

20:31do it either way. It's unusual to do it

20:33the way that your commission has been

20:34doing it, but if you want to continue to

20:35do it, you can.

20:39>> All right. Thank you. I just want to be

20:41clear cuz we're making a change, and

20:42none of that was explained to any of us

20:44to start this. So I'll leave it to the

20:46chair and how you want to decide to move

20:47forward, so.

20:50>> Well, is there consensus among the

20:51commission members? Go ahead.

20:54>> Can I say something?

20:55>> Yes.

20:56>> By all means.

20:56>> Mike, please.

20:57>> Mike, Mike.

20:58>> Mike.

21:01>> Not all information

21:03that

21:04is brought forth by citizens is uh

21:08is groundless. Some of it uh

21:12you know,

21:14they could be pointing out things that

21:16are relevant to this site plan, for

21:19example.

21:20Uh

21:23our own regulations,

21:25you know, tell us

21:26what we should consider and what we

21:29shouldn't. Uh

21:31Some of those things have been pointed

21:33out by the citizens who attend here.

21:35Now, maybe this whole issue of uh of how

21:39citizens participate should be a part of

21:42the moratorium that

21:44uh we'll be dealing with uh going

21:46forward.

21:48And a decision could be made then.

21:52>> Uh Judge Mike Kaufman,

21:54>> Sure.

21:55>> Yes, thank you.

22:01>> My opinion is that, you know, I'd like

22:04to hear from them on items not on the

22:07agenda, but if it's on the agenda, is

22:09wait for that item to come up.

22:12And then we discuss it then, not

22:14>> But that's only if it's on the agenda,

22:15right?

22:15>> Right.

22:18>> I mean, it's definitely different.

22:20I've been doing this a long time, and

22:22>> Right.

22:24>> Keith, sorry.

22:26I've been doing this a long time, and um

22:29as well as Brian,

22:31and we've always done it the same way.

22:33Obviously, it sounds like it's wrong to

22:35do it that way.

22:37Why nobody ever tried to correct us

22:38before this, I don't know.

22:40Um

22:42so,

22:44I personally tend to follow whatever the

22:47town attorney says.

22:49So, cuz he's the one who's going to

22:50defend us in court.

22:52>> Yeah.

22:53>> Mr. Chairman,

22:55>> I I realize that we've been doing this

22:57for a long time. However, I think

22:59there's some merit in saying that the

23:02way we've been doing it

23:05we've just been spinning our wheels.

23:06People have been coming up to this mic

23:09and

23:10I'll just put a figure out there, maybe

23:1275, 80, maybe 85% of it is self-serving

23:17comments that do not apply in the

23:20decision-making process which is based

23:23on the regulations.

23:25And I know that's been said to the

23:28public, but uh

23:30it doesn't mean that simply because

23:33there's a misunderstanding

23:35or

23:36past practice has allowed it that we

23:38should continue in in this direction.

23:41Maybe, just maybe, we should put this on

23:44the agenda uh as I suggested uh when we

23:47take a look at this moratorium thing and

23:50set

23:52some standards.

23:55>> But, what do you do now?

23:56>> Well, now I I think we continue until we

23:59make a change. I mean, you can't make a

24:01change uh midstream.

24:03>> Okay, hold on. Please, go ahead.

24:06Norm, you got any comment on this?

24:08>> Um I'm I'm torn on this one cuz I I I

24:11see both positions. Um

24:14I think it would make sense. It's my

24:16opinion.

24:17Um continue with the old way tonight and

24:20from now on

24:22not allow it.

24:23But, that's just my opinion.

24:27>> Yep, go ahead.

24:27>> Sorry. Um what I what I would say is my

24:30recommendation to the commission would

24:31be that um

24:33one, everybody has to be on the same

24:35page that any of the public comments

24:36were written to again, project Husky, I

24:39believe the Westcott property, if I got

24:40the name right, again, they're not

24:41germane to that site plan application

24:43and everybody should have tossed those

24:44or if you should toss them anyway cuz

24:45again, they're not applicable. We don't

24:47take public comment to that.

24:49Um and none of us should be considering

24:50any of the public comments were made on

24:51any of those applica- that application

24:53in any of our potential decision-making

24:55as well. However, given that we did

24:57receive a letter if I believe correctly

24:59Mr. Attorney

25:00from the lawyer for that project saying

25:03that there was potential future pending

25:04litigation.

25:06Right? Um given that's the case, my

25:08recommendation would be that

25:10right now we do not take any comments

25:12from the podium related to that

25:13particular project.

25:15Um because we do want to make sure we

25:16follow the rule

25:18and again that none of us can be um

25:21accused of taking any comments from that

25:23podium into account given the letter

25:25that was issued to us already.

25:27>> Resign.

25:29>> There's plenty of alternate members up

25:31here. Please come and join. If we had

25:32alternate members, trust me.

25:34Okay?

25:35Um but anyway, that would be my position

25:38right now again because of that letter.

25:40So we won't be accused of anything.

25:42>> but you're only addressing Amazon.

25:44>> I'm Well, again, I'm addressing again,

25:45that's our issue today.

25:47>> Well, actually

25:48it's actually all of them.

25:50>> It is, but going forward we can So that

25:52would be a position then for all of them

25:54if it's anything on the agenda that we

25:56don't hear anything on the podium, but

25:57um we do need to revisit that going

25:59forward and how we approach it.

26:01But specifically for Project Husky.

26:05No, cuz that's where you were stopping

26:06the speaker was on anything related to

26:08that.

26:08>> Well, I was stopping him because it was

26:10on the agenda period. That's all I

26:13>> Go ahead, John.

26:14>> Now, I could be wrong, but I think

26:15you're saying the same thing I said.

26:17I mean, you have to continue

26:20uh because this process has has begun.

26:24But going forward, we should have some

26:26sort of a discussion

26:28and maybe with public input at that

26:31point on how we should proceed going

26:34forward if that indeed is the standard

26:37that the

26:39should be adhered to.

26:46>> Is that a motion, Brian?

26:48>> Right. No, it's not a motion.

26:50>> Okay. My

26:51recommendation to that I stop, please.

26:54>> Well,

26:54>> [clears throat]

26:55>> I'm looking at you guys cuz that's what

26:56I'm counting on.

26:57>> Sure. I'm counting on you.

26:59And you know what I said, I've been

27:01sitting here when the the public has had

27:03their I mean, one thing to the public's

27:05credit, I mean, credit, they know

27:07they've had an opportunity to tell you

27:08over and over and over how much they're

27:10opposed to this application. So, it's

27:12not it's not like they haven't had an

27:14opportunity to to speak on this

27:15application. It's happened many, many

27:17times already.

27:18Um

27:19but, you know, you you you

27:21was raised. Um you've got litigation

27:24against the town already on the other

27:25other appeal. Um you're you're supposed

27:28to be reviewing that application based

27:30on the information in the regulations

27:33and the material it submitted. We're

27:35also going to be talking about

27:36intervention issues and you've gotten my

27:38memo before about receiving information

27:40from uh interveners. So, if you you

27:42grant intervention status uh based on

27:45our recommendation, it will be certainly

27:47a a narrow ground, but it would be a

27:49ground that they would be able to to

27:51submit it to. Um

27:53the safest ground is to follow the the

27:54protocol that most all commissions do,

27:57which is when something is not an

27:59administrative review as opposed to

28:00public hearing, the general statutes

28:02have recognized when the public should

28:04be heard and when they when they they

28:06don't need to. And it's certainly not

28:08that to to to John's point, it's not

28:10that people are making comments that are

28:12relevant necessarily or uh you know,

28:16that are are totally not germane. That's

28:18really not the point. The point is the

28:20normal administrative process that

28:21that's not received. Since it was the

28:23practice of the commission, I certainly

28:25didn't step in and say you can't do I

28:27don't think there's any law that says

28:28you absolutely can't do it. It's an

28:30unusual practice that you were doing it,

28:32but it was well established and I didn't

28:34say anything about it. But now that

28:35we're talking about it, if you were to

28:37ask me in day one, you know, is this a

28:39good idea to do or not, I would agree

28:40with Robin that it's an administrative

28:42an administrative application. Leave it

28:44at that. The the legislature set up the

28:46rules for site plan review. They do not

28:48call for a public hearing

28:50and there's no right of the public for

28:51public comment in your meetings in the

28:53first place. It's it's a prerogative you

28:54give them by putting it on your agenda.

28:56There's no statutory requirement for

28:58that at all. There's many commissions

28:59that just it's strictly you can watch

29:01your business just like you can watch

29:02Congress

29:03but you don't there's no in there's no

29:05iterative process where they get an

29:06opportunity to be heard unless the

29:08legislature's given them the right

29:09through a public hearing. So, the safest

29:11course would be to to to limit

29:15the public discussion from the public on

29:17agenda items to those where the public

29:20has a right to be heard. That is a that

29:21is a special permit where there's a

29:23public hearing or a zone change where

29:26there there's a required public hearing

29:27but on administrative applications

29:30like a site plan application or a

29:32subdivision application that that you

29:34don't. That would be the recommended

29:36course I would have taken had you asked

29:38me on day day one but you had a well

29:40established practice that I didn't

29:41interfere with. You know you have a

29:42planner who has a lot of experience with

29:44a lot of different towns who's raised

29:45the issue and you have

29:47you know criticism of the process

29:50from an applicant. So, all things

29:51considered I I would say the safest

29:53course would be to to not allow public

29:55comment on it.

29:56>> Okay. I'm doing what I'm doing what you

29:58say. So,

29:59there's no comment on anything on the

30:01agenda.

30:03I think I'm I think I'm I think I'm

30:04okay.

30:05>> Okay.

30:06>> All right. Well,

30:07let me know if I'm in the doghouse. Ian

30:09McDonald, 548 Valley Road.

30:11Um

30:12I'll just say you know

30:15I don't think what you're talking about

30:16is specifically on the agenda. You know,

30:18the more

30:19a lot of folks you know may have not

30:21come to a meeting before and you guys

30:22live and breathe some of this stuff. So,

30:25you know, anytime we can really clarify

30:27these things whether it's you know

30:31current discussion

30:33at you know regular you know at meetings

30:36regularly

30:37some of the you know differentiate maybe

30:40differences between the site plan review

30:41and special permit. I think that's

30:43helpful to the public. Um also just kind

30:45of in terms of clarifying

30:47uh I know you guys have had mountains of

30:49paperwork uh

30:52I won't say why. Uh

30:54>> [laughter]

30:54>> but it's uh

30:56you know, I

30:57you know, I've I've heard questions

30:58about, you know, regarding moratorium

31:00and I know

31:01uh there's probably a time that that's

31:02going to make uh or or the workshops

31:05more generally uh when it makes sense to

31:07take that up. Uh but I know there's some

31:10curiosity around that. And also I think

31:14um

31:16I I have some questions. I think there's

31:18been some uncertainty around uh previous

31:21workshops, what the uh it's kind of

31:24structure, participation

31:26uh public participation input is. And so

31:30I don't know if that's something that

31:31happens during the workshop or if that's

31:33something that needs to be an agenda

31:35item ahead of time to kind of

31:37sort out what this

31:39what this looks like so the public have

31:41some sense of uh engagement there. Thank

31:44you.

31:56>> Olathe Barclay, 26 Dark Lantern Hill

31:58Road.

31:59Um I'm just going to um read something

32:02AI generated and it's to look for in the

32:05future. Yes, the site plan review can

32:08have a public hearing, but under

32:10Connecticut law it is generally

32:11discretionary

32:13rather than mandatory. While state

32:15statutes do not automatically require a

32:18public hearing for a standard site plan

32:20review, a local planning and zoning

32:22commission has the option to hold one if

32:25local municipal regulations allow it.

32:29Thank you.

32:36>> Michelle Murphy, 325 Breakneck Hill

32:39Road. Uh

32:40I specifically remember when this was

32:43discussed and Anne Marie was saying site

32:45plan I swear to God I remember

32:48Card saying uh but we're allowed to have

32:50a public hearing if we want, right?

32:53And so we're allowed to have a public

32:55hearing. I would ask that you grant a

32:57public hearing. I know legally uh

33:00looking at case law you're going to be

33:01locked into that same time frame. So to

33:04me this was kind of compromise what you

33:06were doing allowing minutes uh like in

33:08other words you're not going to be able

33:09to extend the time because it's not in

33:11our regulations.

33:13But I would ask for a public hearing.

33:23Ida Barrows, 1123 North Road.

33:26Um

33:27I think there's a lot of confusion and I

33:29thought that um

33:32hearing from the public

33:34really

33:36is a benefit.

33:39That

33:40the public, you know, we live here.

33:44These decisions affect us.

33:47And um

33:49I hope moving forward that

33:52I mean there's been a lot of people

33:54showing up because they care.

33:57And I don't know how that will be if you

33:59say don't come to these meetings.

34:02I mean or

34:04you know, don't uh come to the meetings

34:05and stifle yourself, Edith.

34:07I I think that

34:11I think it's really important to know

34:13how the community feels.

34:15Um and I hope that we have an

34:17opportunity to do so when

34:20these workshops start because there's

34:22right now um

34:24a lot of confusion.

34:26So I hope we can clarify that. I hope

34:29that

34:30um we get a chance to participate.

34:33>> Thank you.

34:38>> I just have a question.

34:41If if we can't address Amazon and Ryan

34:43Corp tonight, when can we? When's the

34:46next opportunity to do that?

34:50>> You can't directly address them.

34:53>> Well, I'm not directly addressing them.

34:55You mean the issue?

34:57>> The issue.

34:58>> Oh, it's it's capped. Is it now capped?

35:00That's what I'm just trying to

35:01understand what

35:03>> Can you put your name on the record

35:04again, please?

35:05>> Sure. Steve Chrisda. I'm here for

35:07Matthew Chrisda, 89 Catherine Avenue.

35:10So, I'm just trying to understand if the

35:13issue of the Amazon development site,

35:15the project Koski, and the uh Ryan

35:19Corp's participation, because they're

35:22Amazon's factotums, is this finished as

35:25far as public comment goes?

35:28>> Yes.

35:28>> Okay.

35:29>> You can However,

35:32if anyone is in the audience and wants

35:34to and has a concern that they think is

35:38addressable in the site plan

35:39requirements and the regulations, I want

35:42you to email me, because I'm going to be

35:44doing a staff report.

35:45>> Okay.

35:45>> And I'm going to be looking at those

35:47requirements. And if there's something

35:48that you have local knowledge of that

35:50you think might be helpful to me, I'm

35:52I'm more than happy to to take in your

35:55public comment to me,

35:56>> Okay.

35:56>> um, and try to address that through my

35:58staff report. So, I am your conduit, so

36:00to speak, as a way of doing that.

36:02>> So, just for clarification, if you're

36:04going to get the comments and you're

36:06going to review them, are they allowed

36:08to consider them at all?

36:09>> No, so that's the point.

36:11>> So, that's this is a

36:12>> The point I was trying The point I was

36:14trying to make is all of you are

36:15spending an

36:17a decent amount of time. You're coming

36:19out to these meetings. You're standing

36:20up at the podium. They've provided more

36:23than 20 minutes at their meetings for

36:24months and months now. And I saw a lot

36:27of people shaking their heads in this

36:28audience saying, "We assume the Planning

36:30and Zoning Commission could take under

36:32advisement the things that you were

36:33getting up and saying during public

36:35comment." And the reality is they can't.

36:38>> Okay.

36:39All right.

36:40They can't fight City Hall.

36:42>> But just if I could jump in on that, if

36:43she submitted something to staff that

36:45was germane to the site plan

36:47regulations, she can incorporate that in

36:49her recommendation. So, it's not as

36:51though it would fall on deaf ears if you

36:53raise something related to site plan

36:55plan regs, and the staff can include

36:57that in recommendation. So, when Robin

36:59said, "No, she's not going to take it

37:00into consideration." No, she's not going

37:02to present your comments exactly the way

37:04that you presented to staff, but

37:06anything you point out to staff that

37:07gets could get worked into her report in

37:10her own recommendations as staff to the

37:11commission.

37:12>> Okay, so Ryan Corp, no no offense

37:13intended, but they're here tonight for

37:16that specific reason.

37:18Right? They're here for a very specific

37:20reason. They're just sitting as they're

37:22spectating. What are they doing here?

37:24>> They're on the agenda.

37:25>> Okay.

37:26>> For their application, which is site

37:28plan. They are the applicants, so they

37:31of course can speak.

37:32>> I got it. Thank you.

37:33>> Yep.

37:37>> Alfred R. Dufresne, 148 Pond Road.

37:41Could you clarify which state statute

37:43prohibits a public hearing?

37:45Uh

37:45section 8-7D

37:48A refers to

37:50hearings that are required or otherwise

37:51held. I understand a hearing may not be

37:54required, but what makes it prohibited

37:56here?

37:58>> So, um what I didn't say it was

38:00prohibited, I said the legislature

38:03sets when you have to have a public

38:05hearing.

38:06And that's a special permit application

38:08and not a site plan. Um it was pointed

38:10out, I don't know if it was Ulla pointed

38:11out or Michelle pointed out, but it

38:13regulations It's unusual, but local

38:15regulations can provide for a public

38:18hearing in a site plan. It's unusual

38:20because it's not required by by the

38:23state statute. Um

38:25I just looked at I wasn't aware of

38:26Killingly having a public hearing

38:28procedure related to

38:30site plans. I I don't see one in its

38:32site plan standards. It's intended to be

38:34an administrative review

38:36and that's why very very few commit

38:38towns have site plans associate public

38:41hearings with their site plans. So it

38:43but there's nothing in the general

38:44statutes that say a commission can't

38:47adopt a regulation requiring a public

38:50hearing. It doesn't extend the time

38:52frames for decisions. Site plans are

38:54intended to be decided more quickly

38:55because they're administrative review.

38:57So if a

38:58if a commission decides to adopt a

39:00regulation to have a public hearing, it

39:02has to get that public hearing done and

39:05a decision rendered as if it never had a

39:07public hearing. So it's got to be a very

39:09speedy process, but there's not a

39:10statute that prohibits it. But in in

39:13this case, there's no regulation that

39:14allows for

39:16Okay, thank you.

39:23>> I just want to clarify in McDowell 548

39:25Valley Road because

39:27we've been talking about two different

39:28things. One is the question of people

39:30coming to the mic for general public

39:32comment and how that is kind of

39:35looked at in terms of

39:37a given

39:39say site plan application. And the

39:41second question is as attorney was

39:43saying whether or not we have

39:45a site plan application hearing

39:48at which point if that was granted then

39:51public comment would be would be germane

39:54to the application. Is

39:56I mean you don't have to answer that but

39:57that's we've just been having two

39:58different conversations I feel like. One

40:00about general public comment at the

40:02beginning of the meeting and one about

40:04specifically about public comment during

40:06a public hearing

40:08for a site plan review. Is that is that

40:10correct?

40:10>> I think that that's fair to say and with

40:12respect to the site plan because there

40:14isn't a regulation that allows for it.

40:16It's kind of a moot point right now

40:18on a site plan because you can't have a

40:20public hearing under the Killingly

40:22regulations for for a site plan, but

40:23you're right. The two discussions have

40:25been part of what we've been talking

40:26about.

40:27>> Okay, thank you. Maybe that's something

40:28we could talk about as well in the

40:29workshops. Thanks.

40:36>> Russ Daniels, 27 Sales Avenue, Dayville.

40:40Um I'm just really shocked tonight. Uh

40:42we have a town attorney who

40:44has been in all the meetings since what?

40:46Last March, I guess he started. We've

40:48been here for 7 months.

40:50Uh planning and zoning and IWW C as

40:53well.

40:53And all of a sudden, we learn that what

40:55we say doesn't mean anything.

40:58I would call upon the town attorney to

40:59resign.

41:01You're not doing your job. You haven't.

41:03Also, Mr. Sarantopoulos, you mentioned

41:0675% of what the public says isn't

41:08germane. I guess what you're saying is

41:1075% of us are a bunch of idiots.

41:13Very insulting, very disrespectful. I've

41:15been here with all these people

41:16fighting, and they brought up some great

41:18points, and now you're telling us it

41:20doesn't matter.

41:21This is all locked up. This is like

41:23communist Russia.

41:24Just come here, smile,

41:27and

41:28bob your head like a puppet,

41:30and go home.

41:31Why don't we just shut the lights off,

41:33close the door, and all go home? Because

41:35none of this matters.

41:37Now I understand why our town planner,

41:40Jonathan Blake, resigned recently.

41:43To listen to this garbage. I I couldn't

41:46take it either. I'm just really

41:47disgusted with you people.

41:56>> I just have one clarification question.

41:58So, you're we're going to submit to you

42:00if you find something relevant, you will

42:01submit to them. Will we ever get to read

42:04that report? Like does it come out

42:06public record at some point?

42:08>> Absolutely, of course. Yep.

42:11>> Okay.

42:12All right.

42:13We're calling the

42:15meeting back to

42:17order here.

42:20Uh special permit application number

42:2326-13-68

42:24Kelly One LLC

42:2790 Putnam Pike GIS map 89 lot 22 54

42:31acres.

42:33And

42:35Robin Dew said they contacted you.

42:38>> Yes, I I believe attorney Nuff is

42:43online. I think I see his name up there.

42:48There he is.

42:50>> I am here, Mr. Chairman. How are you?

42:52>> Yep.

42:55>> So so

42:56I had emailed for the record John Nuff

42:5942 Cherry Street, Milford, Connecticut.

43:01I had emailed Robin because we had

43:04submitted responses to literally every

43:07comment that is outstanding raised by

43:10both Ty and Bond and the fire marshal

43:12and the commission itself

43:14with the exception of the refill rates

43:17for the the water tower.

43:20We completed the

43:22the assemblage of all those responses

43:25late last week. They're submitted today.

43:27We knew that obviously

43:29you and Ty and Bond and the fire marshal

43:32and others were not going to have the

43:34opportunity to

43:35fully review in any meaningful way all

43:38of our responses. And so in conversation

43:41with Robin last week, we decided that

43:44it's in everyone's best interest

43:46particularly for the efficiency of our

43:48process rather than go through our

43:51you know our most recent set of changes.

43:55And then Andrew White would not be able

43:57to respond in a meaningful way cuz he

43:59didn't have a chance to review them.

44:00That'd be just cleaner simpler for

44:02everybody for that for for Ty and Bond

44:05and and and for Andrew and for the fire

44:07marshal to review all of our responses

44:11with plenty of time to do so

44:13offer a reply to us and so we can come

44:15back at the meeting in November

44:18and

44:19very simply run through all the changes

44:22with the intent that everyone will agree

44:25everyone meaning Tyndall and and the

44:27fire marshal will agree with the changes

44:30that we've made and we can explain those

44:33Andrew can give his reports and we can

44:35then close the hearing

44:37with minimal with a minimum of

44:39disruption.

44:41>> [cough]

44:42>> I [clears throat] I'd like to make a

44:42comment that the commissioners had just

44:44started making questions at the last

44:46meeting and if

44:48um you're extending so you're asking for

44:50an extension to November

44:52>> Correct.

44:53>> So

44:54I I don't know if that's going to

44:55provide enough time for all of our

44:57answers especially if you're submitting

45:00new responses back.

45:02>> No

45:03>> for the next meeting

45:05>> If listen if I'm not trying to to rush

45:07this.

45:08If when you have an opportunity to

45:11review all of our responses and the

45:14Tyndall bond response we can do a couple

45:16of different things. One could be

45:18um you can email Robin and just say have

45:22them answer the following questions when

45:24they come back in November or when we're

45:26there in November you have more

45:27questions we'll keep the hearing open

45:29again. Um but it just seemed to us that

45:33rather than doing this iteratively it

45:35made the most sense to try to wrap up as

45:38much of these comments in one

45:41presentation rather than several.

45:45>> Okay.

45:46>> Mr. Chairman you've been

45:48um

45:50you've been very helpful and cooperative

45:52in terms of keeping the hearing open and

45:55obviously we want to hear your comments

45:57we want to hear your concerns so we can

45:59address those

46:00so if at the end of the hearing in

46:03November,

46:05you all determine that there's still

46:06things we haven't adequately addressed,

46:08then we'll address them in December.

46:11>> Okay. That's

46:13Thank you for that.

46:15Appreciate it.

46:17Anything else at this point then?

46:19>> Uh not for me, Mr. Chairman. Again, we

46:22appreciate the accommodation and we

46:24simply request and consent to an

46:26extension of the hearing until your

46:28November meeting.

46:30>> All right. Do we Do we need a motion for

46:32that, Robin?

46:33Okay, can I have a motion to continue

46:35this until November?

46:37>> I'll make the motion.

46:38>> Can I have a second, please?

46:39>> Second.

46:41>> Um

46:42First off, oh, sh- Should we allow some

46:44more comment public comment on this part

46:47of the

46:48>> Uh you probably want to just let them

46:50>> White board today. Microphone.

46:54>> Sorry.

46:56Um you just got a a bunch of revised

46:57documents today that are we posted

46:59online or were posted online by staff um

47:02for the public to review. So, it's up to

47:04you. You could take public comment or

47:05you could allow time for them to also

47:07review those to see if maybe their

47:09questions or concerns are addressed by

47:11the new round of submissions that came

47:13in today. It's completely up to you.

47:15>> Well, in this certain situation, I think

47:17I'd like to have more comment if they

47:19want to have take the time for comment

47:22before we close the uh we continue it.

47:25So, if anybody wants to comment on 90

47:34>> Alfred DuFrain, 148 Pond Road, Dayville,

47:37Connecticut.

47:38Uh you know, it's always funny how they

47:40do a document dump like the day of the

47:42meetings. It makes it a little difficult

47:44to

47:44look at this stuff, you know? So, I

47:46don't know what was dumped today cuz I

47:48was kind of looking I was looking out

47:49for the dump, but I didn't catch it. It

47:51probably happened like while we're

47:52sitting here tonight. That's usually how

47:54it is.

47:55But um yeah, up at Putnam Pike, um,

47:59what my concerns were was the, um,

48:02rock cut into the side of the hill and

48:04how that could affect an APA overlay

48:07area.

48:08Um,

48:09the, you know, the APA doesn't just

48:11start and stop in one spot. It kind of

48:14continues under the ground, you know,

48:16and we're talking about blasting and

48:18chemicals that are going you can go into

48:20the fractured bedrock and

48:23it's an it's the town's aquifer. So, I

48:25don't know think that was addressed by

48:26Tighe & Bond, uh, really. Uh,

48:30yeah, there was s- quite a few issues

48:32that weren't addressed by Tighe & Bond,

48:33but maybe Tighe & Bond came back to

48:35today with some of the things that may

48:37they may have addressed some of the

48:38issues. I don't know. I d- I didn't get

48:40a chance to check that out, but anyway,

48:42we can always we're going to have public

48:44comment the next time in November or

48:47>> It's public hearing

48:49while this meet public hearing is open,

48:51there'll be time opportunity to speak.

48:53>> Okay, so I'll just that'll be it for

48:54tonight then. Uh, we'll take a look at

48:56the Tighe & Bond reports. That's seems

48:58like the important things to be checking

48:59out, the third-party review. So, thank

49:02you. Appreciate you guys.

49:04>> Anybody else?

49:05>> Yeah.

49:06>> Sam Moser, 6 Mountain View Landing in,

49:09uh,

49:09Danielson. I I just wonder if if if if

49:12if this group actually asks the state

49:18for a full environmental,

49:21uh, report on this project

49:24or a state environmental quality review.

49:28I think that's available for free

49:31from you guys if you ask for it and you

49:34find out not just get opinions by some

49:37other,

49:39um,

49:41organization giving you some advice.

49:45I just wonder if you do that.

49:48Do you reach out to the staff?

49:49>> I'm not sure what staff did because they

49:51usually call on for that stuff, you

49:53know, to

49:54unless we specifically and I'm I can't

49:56speak to that. I don't know.

49:58>> Thank you.

50:04>> Anybody else?

50:10>> I Alfred Albert I live at Route 12.

50:14I guess uh

50:16I want to let you know how disappointed

50:18I am.

50:20I thought it was important that you knew

50:22what the people that are going to be

50:25directly involved

50:27were what what concerned with.

50:30One of the biggest problems down here

50:31already is traffic.

50:34And there ain't one of you guys on the

50:36board that can say there ain't.

50:40And if you don't think so, come down

50:43here between 3:00 and 5:00 and see if

50:46they can get through there.

50:51Just trying to make a point, but I guess

50:53my our points don't count.

50:55We're all here

50:57>> for nothing.

50:57>> but for nothing and we don't belong here

51:00apparently.

51:01Right or wrong?

51:03>> It's a public hearing. We're here to

51:04listen. This is a different situation

51:06because it is a public hearing.

51:09>> Okay. Well, is it going to be a public

51:11hearing next time?

51:12>> Yes.

51:13>> So I know whether to come or not.

51:17>> As I said, it's a public hearing. It

51:19will be continued to the next meeting.

51:21>> Thank you very much.

51:29>> Rebecca Reinville, 120 Laiho Road,

51:31Danielson. Um

51:33I just think that anything that requires

51:35a special permit um is just asking for

51:38trouble. Um it is above an aquifer area,

51:42in a school zone, in a heavy trafficked

51:45area on um

51:47101 and

51:49an average of 300 tractor-trailer trucks

51:52coming down a 6 to 8% grade onto Route

51:5512 just sounds like we're just asking

51:58for trouble especially with the high

52:00school and the other schools that are

52:03around that area. Just ask you to deny

52:05with prejudice. It's a bad idea

52:07especially if it's called a special

52:09permit.

52:21>> Hi Dr. Angelina Wagner, 3 Province

52:23Street, Putnam.

52:25Um

52:26I was trying to listen online on my way

52:27here

52:28but

52:30I know that in the most recent inland

52:32wetlands meeting they mentioned that

52:34there seems to be a pattern of

52:36um

52:37dumping of answers or documents just

52:41before you guys have your meeting. I I

52:43try to look through. I know that

52:45Jonathan is no longer here so things are

52:46probably going to change in how

52:48the materials get into the folders and

52:50when that happens. I just feel that as

52:52the public because it is a public

52:54hearing and we are trying to

52:55participate.

52:56I know that Keith has said in the past

52:58that you guys do care about our voices

53:00and we haven't shown up before and

53:03people have been showing up continuously

53:05month after month. I'm sure you're tired

53:07of seeing my face at this point and

53:08that's fine.

53:09But is there a way that we are going to

53:12have access to these answers that I

53:14heard that

53:15you guys are continuing this till next

53:17month and possibly December so that you

53:18guys can get all your questions and

53:20answers.

53:21But a lot of the times it is the public

53:23that points things out that are missed.

53:25So how are we going to have an

53:26opportunity to go through these things

53:29with the changing of Jonathan no longer

53:31being here and the documents dropping so

53:34soon before the meeting. Is there

53:37any way that we can consider having

53:40those things dropped on a Wednesday so

53:42that we the public for public hearing

53:44have an opportunity to go through these

53:45documents. Just like you, I realize you

53:48guys are the commissioners and you make

53:49the choices, but as a public hearing our

53:52opinion matters here

53:53and we should have the same opportunity

53:55to comb through the massive piles of

53:58documents that these applicants drop.

54:01>> Go ahead, Robin.

54:03>> So, the process isn't going to change. I

54:05don't know if Jonathan was personally

54:07putting them up on the website, but as

54:08soon as they're coming through the

54:09administrative staff in the office is

54:12has access to them to put them up on the

54:15website.

54:16Literally, they came in this afternoon.

54:18I just looked at it doesn't look like

54:19staff put them up. So, I have not read

54:21them. You have not read them.

54:24But, that process shouldn't change just

54:25because Jonathan's no longer here and

54:27I'm interim staff. So, the process that

54:29they have in the office as far as how

54:31they dealt with applications won't

54:33change.

54:35You should have readily access to all

54:37available information that's part of the

54:39record. That shouldn't be an issue. And

54:41if you run into something, just let me

54:43know. Happy to help. We don't control

54:46when the applicant submits information,

54:47however.

54:48>> I know. It was CND in Inland Wetlands

54:51that had asked the Ryan company at the

54:52last one to get her stopped doing it on

54:55the last day so that everyone has time

54:57to because

54:58it was the commissioners in that

55:01commission asking for the extension to

55:02be able to go through time. And I

55:03realize that this time is the applicant

55:05asking, which I completely respect. I

55:07would just love for all of us to have

55:09the opportunity just like you to look

55:10through the documents.

55:12>> Of course.

55:13>> Be able to give our opinion

55:14wholeheartedly. Thank you.

55:18>> [applause]

55:24>> In McDonald, 548 Valley Road, um I'm

55:27sure you guys all

55:29saw this the letter from the Board of

55:30Education. I'm not going to read it out

55:32here.

55:33But, I think it's

55:35the you know, the folks who are kind of

55:37at the top of the uh food chain for

55:39responsibility for our kids, um

55:42they're really highlighting a lot of the

55:43same issues that folks have come up to

55:45the mic here.

55:46And uh I urge everybody to read that

55:48carefully.

55:49And I I think

55:51they're in earnest and I I think as we

55:53are and and I think it's um

55:56there's

55:57you know, there's some other issues that

55:59have been brought up uh that's germane

56:01to this this application uh from this

56:03podium. Um but I think there's a lot of

56:06alignment with their concerns and our

56:08concerns. And just want everybody to go

56:10through that carefully.

56:12And and and take heed. Thanks.

56:16>> [applause]

56:17>> Anybody else?

56:22Okay.

56:24Okay, we have uh we had a motion, right?

56:28And we got a second.

56:30Oh.

56:33>> [sighs]

56:35>> Good evening. I'm Liberty

56:38from from Killingly on planet Earth.

56:42I am here to speak after my email was

56:44denied today

56:46and I had to come down here. And all I

56:48wanted to say is that it's called the

56:50quiet corner for a reason.

56:52And keep the valley green and the corner

56:54quiet. Thank you.

56:56>> [applause]

57:03>> Okay.

57:05One last time for anybody?

57:09All right, we had a motion, a second.

57:11Any further discussion?

57:13Just to continue. Uh

57:15All in favor say aye.

57:17>> Aye.

57:17>> Opposed? Any abstentions? Okay.

57:20Let's continue

57:23to

57:24>> [sighs]

57:24>> What's the next meeting date?

57:26>> November 16th.

57:27>> November 16th, 7:00 p.m.

57:34All right, subdivision 26-13-81 Lenny

57:36Zadora & Sons six lot subdivision 6169

57:40Rock Avenue and 32 Highview Drive.

57:47Norm's online, I think it.

57:51>> Uh

57:54Thank you, uh

57:55Mr. Chairman. Um

57:57for the record, Norm Thibault, Killingly

57:59Engineering Associates. Um

58:02I received a couple of comments from

58:04engineering um

58:06at about uh 4:50 today that I did not

58:10have time to address.

58:11Uh so, I would respectfully request

58:14that the application be tabled uh until

58:17the uh November meeting. And uh

58:20I'll be able to um address those last

58:22couple of comments from engineering uh

58:24prior to that point.

58:26>> All right.

58:28Um a motion to continue.

58:32>> Make a motion to continue.

58:34>> Second.

58:35>> John makes a second. Any further

58:37discussion?

58:38All in favor say I.

58:40>> I.

58:40>> I.

58:41>> It's continued to

58:44>> November 16th.

58:45>> November 16th.

58:46>> 7:00 p.m.

58:48All right, unfinished business special

58:50permit 26-13-68 Killingly 1 is

58:53continued.

58:56Uh

58:58application 26-13-81

59:01Lenny Zadora & Sons

59:04is also continued.

59:08Do I have to say the date and time again

59:09or is Okay.

59:13And act on individual intervener status

59:16petitions only. Site plan 26-13-83 Ryan

59:20Companies.

59:22Uh

59:23Mr. Attorney.

59:24>> Sure. Um we've touched on this,

59:28um, in prior

59:30petition application that,

59:32um, raised a number of issues.

59:35Several of them have been revised.

59:37Robin, what are the other six in the

59:39planning and zoning?

59:40>> There is

59:42>> Or so.

59:44Three revised.

59:53Three of them did three that then were

59:55revised

59:56>> It looks like

59:57three revised, but we got two

1:00:00in today.

1:00:02Um [clears throat]

1:00:05Hold on.

1:00:09Which I don't even know if,

1:00:11um,

1:00:12staff was able to

1:00:14get those into the packets.

1:00:17Um, hold on.

1:00:19Uh, we had a revised one from Michelle

1:00:21Murphy and another one from Patricia

1:00:24Daugherty dated today,

1:00:26um, that came in at 3:00 this afternoon.

1:00:30>> Okay, I haven't seen

1:00:31>> Do you want me to send them over to you?

1:00:33>> Yeah.

1:00:37But they had there was already a revised

1:00:40um

1:00:41Murphy and

1:00:43two Daughertys already Daugherty was

1:00:45revised already, right? So, this is the

1:00:47second revised one?

1:00:49>> Yes.

1:00:58>> So, as we discussed this, there's a

1:01:012020 19 it's considered a remedial

1:01:04statute. So,

1:01:05tend to read things liberally,

1:01:08um,

1:01:09and it's designed to give

1:01:12people an opportunity to be heard and to

1:01:14intervene as parties in administrative

1:01:16or judicial proceedings.

1:01:18Um, but you You the case law requires

1:01:21that there be specific allegations.

1:01:24Um and they don't need to prove that the

1:01:26allegations are true in order to get

1:01:28status as a party. Uh they just have to

1:01:31have detailed allegations and those

1:01:34detailed allegations have to fall within

1:01:36the jurisdiction of the agency. Um and

1:01:39the the I've just been been handed one

1:01:43of the revised ones. Um

1:01:45I was I had reviewed

1:01:48the what I'll call the second uh revised

1:01:51iterations of the ones that started to

1:01:54uh refer to the report um by Steve

1:01:56Trenkus. Um the one that's just been

1:01:58handed to me also includes the report by

1:02:01Steve Trenkus.

1:02:02Um

1:02:04and

1:02:08I can go offline here for 1 second.

1:02:25>> [snorts]

1:02:29>> What I've just conferred with uh Ms.

1:02:31Newton is that what I've been handed

1:02:33today is it there's a supplement to the

1:02:37what was already the revised petition.

1:02:40Um

1:02:41and uh this one this is

1:02:44by Patricia Doherty and what it does

1:02:46rather than include a new

1:02:48verification allegations in it, it's

1:02:51just providing an additional an October

1:02:5414,

1:02:552026 report by Trenkus um and adding

1:02:58that to the allegations. So, whether or

1:03:00not qualifies for intervention status

1:03:04rises um

1:03:06based on the allegations that are

1:03:07contained in it. Now, Ryan Companies

1:03:10filed an objection. Uh they take the

1:03:12position that the the statements have

1:03:13too much conjecture in them

1:03:15um and that there were things that that

1:03:17are outside of um

1:03:20the the the uh legal requirements of

1:03:2322a-19,

1:03:24and that they should not be granted

1:03:26intervention status. Um, I haven't

1:03:28changed I I I think that the revised uh

1:03:32petitions have more detail than the

1:03:34prior one, and and the prior one, um, I

1:03:39counselled this commission, and I will

1:03:41continue to

1:03:43there's elements of that are not within

1:03:45your jurisdiction. Statements are made

1:03:46about air pollution. Statements are made

1:03:48about wall water quality. Uh, those

1:03:51things are within the jurisdiction of

1:03:54the Department of Energy and

1:03:55Environmental Protection, um, and to

1:03:57some degree Department of Public Health,

1:03:58depending on

1:04:00depending on on one. But, either way,

1:04:01that's not what this commission does.

1:04:04This this commission does not have

1:04:05drinking water standards. This

1:04:06commission does not have air quality

1:04:09uh standards. Um, but the one area that

1:04:12in in my prior opinion that I still

1:04:16base my recommendations today is there

1:04:18are two sections of your regulations

1:04:20that are implicated by the petition.

1:04:23Uh, one is the soil and erosion

1:04:24controls, any allegations that the soil

1:04:27erosion conditions are are such that

1:04:29they are reasonably likely to cause

1:04:32impact to an environmental resource, um,

1:04:34and uh stormwater management. Those are

1:04:36two things that are within this

1:04:38commission's jurisdiction. Um, and based

1:04:40on what I I think are the um

1:04:44uh the the the the important purposes of

1:04:47giving people a seat at the table to

1:04:49talk about environmental issues if the

1:04:50things are within your

1:04:52within your jurisdiction, and the

1:04:53petition's properly verified, and they

1:04:55are, that you should grant uh

1:04:57intervention status, um, but limit it to

1:05:01um the areas that are within your

1:05:02jurisdiction. Um,

1:05:04and you know,

1:05:05you could hear from if you wish the

1:05:07applicant is a party to this party to

1:05:10the proceeding, uh and and they do have

1:05:12an objection and if you want to hear

1:05:14from the applicant, you don't not

1:05:16required to. They've submitted their

1:05:18They've submitted their their objection

1:05:20to the intervention status, but if you

1:05:22want to give them a few minutes to

1:05:23comment on why they think you should not

1:05:25grant intervention status,

1:05:27uh but based on my review of the

1:05:29documents, uh that you should grant

1:05:31intervention, uh but just limit the

1:05:33testimony. So, what would happen

1:05:35uh during the course of of of the of the

1:05:38It's not a hearing. The application

1:05:40process, if you found that they did have

1:05:42standing, um on the grounds where where

1:05:45you give them standing to

1:05:48appear during this agenda item, either

1:05:51tonight or, you know, when when

1:05:52appropriate, the interveners would given

1:05:55given opportunity to uh present

1:05:57information on that. If you denied them

1:05:59intervention status, and then then they

1:06:02wouldn't have an opportunity to present

1:06:03any additional information. The pleading

1:06:05is in there, and, you know, they could

1:06:07potentially take an appeal after the

1:06:09final decision is made by this

1:06:10commission. Um

1:06:12if you did grant intervention status,

1:06:13then I would be further counseling you

1:06:15down the road uh of what your

1:06:17responsibilities are in terms of

1:06:19ultimately deciding whether or not

1:06:21they've proven the allegations, and and

1:06:24whether or not they're feasible and

1:06:26proven alternatives that would reduce,

1:06:28if there if there is evidence of harm.

1:06:31Um did the applicant satisfy the

1:06:34feasible and proven alternative test to

1:06:36show that there's no way to reduce or

1:06:38eliminate the harm? Um so, I don't know,

1:06:40Mr. Chair, whether you want to give the

1:06:42applicant an opportunity to be heard on

1:06:44the petitions before you act or or not.

1:06:47It's really your prerogative.

1:06:49>> So, as long as you have no objection to

1:06:51it,

1:06:52obviously, like I said before, I'm

1:06:54listening to you as a our attorney, and

1:06:56if you have no objection to it, then I'd

1:06:58certainly give them an opportunity.

1:06:59>> be brief, and you've submitted it in

1:07:01great detail, so, I mean, it's in the

1:07:02record that way, but if you could, you

1:07:04know, state your position, and then we

1:07:06can turn to the turn of the discussion.

1:07:09>> Sure, thank you. Um

1:07:10>> [clears throat]

1:07:11>> Mr. Chair, members of the commission,

1:07:12Evan Seaman, Robinson & Cole on behalf

1:07:14of the applicant. Um

1:07:16And I just wanted to

1:07:18to make sure um we actually submitted

1:07:21the applicant submitted two objections,

1:07:23the original objection in September, and

1:07:26then um a more recent one-page objection

1:07:29last week um after several revised

1:07:32petitions were

1:07:33um submitted. So, you may have it in

1:07:35your packets. It's a one-page document.

1:07:36Just for ease of reference, I'd like to

1:07:38pass it out.

1:07:40Please pass that out. And

1:07:41[clears throat]

1:07:42um we agree with with the town attorney

1:07:44that um

1:07:46when considering 22 and 19 intervention

1:07:48petitions under the environmental

1:07:50statute, that only issues within

1:07:53the jurisdiction of the agency can be

1:07:55raised. And And it appears right now

1:07:58um we're really focused on stormwater

1:08:00and soil erosion and sedimentation

1:08:02control.

1:08:03I'll wait till you have our our

1:08:05objection. Um

1:08:07So, all of the petitions

1:08:10in in in just just to to make it brief,

1:08:13I I think that the commission can deny

1:08:15these petitions on the ground that all

1:08:17allegations are not within this agency's

1:08:19purview. And if you look at the

1:08:21intervention petitions, all of them have

1:08:24a paragraph which appears immediately

1:08:27after I believe it's paragraph five.

1:08:29Paragraph five is the one that lists

1:08:31that sets forth the various uh types of

1:08:33conduct um

1:08:35uh that they allege that the proposed

1:08:37interveners allege um will unreasonably

1:08:40uh

1:08:41uh pollute the environment.

1:08:43After Roman numeral 11, it's

1:08:45[clears throat] clear based on these

1:08:47petitions,

1:08:48um including the allegations regard

1:08:50regarding stormwater management and the

1:08:52allegations regard regarding soil

1:08:54erosion and sedimentation control, that

1:08:56everything that the harm that they're

1:08:57claiming is to wetlands, water courses,

1:09:00and wetlands-dependent wildlife. That's

1:09:02the basis of all claims, including

1:09:05including the stormwater allegations,

1:09:06including the soil erosion sedimentation

1:09:08control allegations.

1:09:10Just on Just on this alone, the

1:09:12petitions have to be denied. In attorney

1:09:15Slater's June 27th

1:09:21memorandum on this subject during the

1:09:23first application,

1:09:24it says on page six, allow the

1:09:26interveners to present evidence

1:09:28regarding stormwater and erosion control

1:09:30impacts on environmental resources, but

1:09:33not on wetlands and species impacts.

1:09:36That's exactly what's alleged in these

1:09:38petitions. Impacts stormwater impacts to

1:09:41wetlands, watercourses, and wildlife.

1:09:43Soil erosion impacts to wetlands,

1:09:45watercourses, and wildlife. These issues

1:09:47are with the wetlands agency, not the

1:09:49planning and zoning commission. So, just

1:09:51on that basis alone,

1:09:53we we object to the petitions and

1:09:55respectfully ask that you deny them.

1:09:57Thank you.

1:10:03>> Guidance?

1:10:05>> It it it remains unchanged. I think this

1:10:07the safest bet. I mean, they we

1:10:11we are in agreement that this is not the

1:10:12wetlands agency, and the wetlands agency

1:10:14has jurisdiction over determine what's

1:10:16going to affect

1:10:17affect the wetlands.

1:10:19But, if there's going to be um

1:10:22an environmental resource that falls

1:10:26within There There can be Let me Let me

1:10:29go one step further.

1:10:31One thing this commission has to do in

1:10:33any wetland on any zoning application is

1:10:35when there's rate when there's activity

1:10:37that involve

1:10:39inland wetlands, the this commission has

1:10:40to give due consideration of what the

1:10:42wetlands agency decides. So, there is a

1:10:44little bit of an overlap. This

1:10:46commission is not the wetlands agency,

1:10:48but if you're charged with evaluating

1:10:51stormwater systems and whether or not

1:10:54they they properly managing storm water

1:10:57and and avoiding erosion to

1:11:00environmental resources. In my view,

1:11:03that's jurisdiction that your commission

1:11:06has to make sure that those systems are

1:11:07working. You shouldn't sit in the in put

1:11:10the hat of a wetlands agency on you, but

1:11:13if there's going to be erosion that's

1:11:14going to go down and it's going to

1:11:16affect environmental resources, that's

1:11:19something that I think this commission

1:11:21can consider and and under the under the

1:11:25ameliorative purposes of the

1:11:27Environmental Protection Act. So, I

1:11:29think the safest course,

1:11:31but

1:11:33also, we have an experienced planner at

1:11:36the table who's had an opportunity to

1:11:37look at those those petitions

1:11:39and able counsel for the applicant. So,

1:11:42there's not not necessarily a black and

1:11:44white answer here. But do you feel

1:11:46differently in terms of

1:11:48whether or not

1:11:50even though there's references to

1:11:51wetlands throughout these permits that

1:11:53when it when it relates to the design of

1:11:55a storm water system and the design of

1:11:59erosion and sedimentation controls,

1:12:02that that's something that the

1:12:03interveners have

1:12:05have stated sufficient allegations to to

1:12:08warrant them being granted intervention

1:12:09status.

1:12:12>> I agree. I think

1:12:13those are very limited in nature and I

1:12:16think it will be up to the interveners

1:12:18at the special meeting and their

1:12:21engineer to stick to

1:12:24if they are compliant with the storm

1:12:26water management plan and erosion and

1:12:28sedimentation control manuals

1:12:31that DEP puts out in your regulations.

1:12:34They can't talk about wetlands or their

1:12:35impacts or the wildlife.

1:12:37That is for the Inland Wetlands

1:12:39Commission. So, provided that can be

1:12:41done and they can make the argument that

1:12:44those plans are

1:12:46insufficient on their own without adding

1:12:48those in. I think doing a limited scope

1:12:51and

1:12:52having them present that evidence

1:12:54is I think is the best course of action.

1:12:57>> Okay. Commissioners?

1:12:59Any comments?

1:13:02>> So, I have a question that on the

1:13:03overlap piece cuz there's a couple

1:13:05sections in our gravel regulations that

1:13:07specifically talk about a few things

1:13:09that are typically wetland

1:13:10jurisdictions, but

1:13:12when it comes to excavation and impacts

1:13:13on the groundwater levels associated

1:13:16with gravel excavation and specifically

1:13:18it says that statements and supporting

1:13:20documents shall be provided for impacts

1:13:21on groundwater levels and how they

1:13:23affect wetlands and private wells.

1:13:25Right? That's a statement in our gravel

1:13:27rules. So, to me does that open up the

1:13:29door

1:13:30for them to look at that aspect of it in

1:13:32relation to the wetlands? Not so much

1:13:33the filling of the wetlands and those

1:13:35impacts, but how their other operations

1:13:37on the balance of the property may

1:13:39impact the other off-site or on-site

1:13:42wetlands.

1:13:43>> That's exactly the now analysis we do.

1:13:45We look to your regulations to see

1:13:47whether they have provisions in them.

1:13:50And this agency might have more

1:13:51experience in terms of designing and

1:13:54managing, whether it be, you know, earth

1:13:56excavation, whether it be erosion and

1:13:58controls

1:14:00that that if it's within your

1:14:02jurisdiction to evaluate those things

1:14:04and and then that's something that that

1:14:06we've that that we favor getting gaining

1:14:08status because of the overlap. Now, I'll

1:14:10tell you I've looked at lots of cases on

1:14:12this stuff. And you know, most cases

1:14:15have come out where there's been an an

1:14:16absolute where someone has come in and

1:14:19has just cited wetlands protection

1:14:22issues without any tie to the zoning

1:14:24regulations. And clearly that's not

1:14:27permitted.

1:14:28And then others where it's an

1:14:31environmental consideration that's

1:14:32totally unrelated to to wetlands, that's

1:14:35obviously permitted. This is this is a

1:14:37twiner in the sense that there's no case

1:14:40on the money

1:14:41that I found that says where there is a

1:14:44little bit of of overlap of the

1:14:46jurisdiction whether or not you have to

1:14:48to to lay off it all together. I think

1:14:51the safest course is where your

1:14:52regulations have provisions in them that

1:14:55you that they're tying into, that that's

1:14:58where you should allow evidence

1:15:00regarding again the stormwater

1:15:02management system, erosion and and uh

1:15:05and and you know, where earth materials

1:15:07are can be managed, those kinds of

1:15:09things. If they can show that there's

1:15:10going to be Now, they If you grant

1:15:12status, it's going to be their burden to

1:15:14prove the evidence that there actually

1:15:16is and likelihood of unreasonable harm

1:15:18to the environment. Um and that's

1:15:20something that they would have a burden

1:15:21to do and you'd have to make findings on

1:15:23it afterwards if you grant intervention

1:15:24status. Um but you mean you can be

1:15:27persuaded by the applicant that because

1:15:29they all seem to have a tie to wetlands,

1:15:31it's all wetlands jurisdiction alone and

1:15:33don't touch it at all. My recommendation

1:15:35is that you do but in a limited way.

1:15:38>> Other commissioners?

1:15:42>> Yeah, I'm agreeing with the lawyer.

1:15:45Is to maybe grant him with limited

1:15:48limitations

1:15:50to the two

1:15:51circumstances that you stated, the soil

1:15:54and the stormwater.

1:16:00>> And just make a motion and then I think

1:16:02we're all set. We just need a motion to

1:16:03that effect, correct?

1:16:05>> Yeah.

1:16:07>> State it.

1:16:08>> I'll state that as the motion.

1:16:10>> Is there a second?

1:16:12>> I'll second.

1:16:15>> Discussion?

1:16:16>> My only thing was I I would add in the

1:16:19again, I think the gravel operation

1:16:21rules. Um

1:16:22now, the question is they didn't

1:16:23specifically list that in their

1:16:25intervenor status.

1:16:27Uh but they did it list the impacts to

1:16:28wetlands, which I see the link there.

1:16:31Does that open that up or

1:16:33>> Well, we we'd have to look We They're

1:16:36going to Their ability to prove is based

1:16:37on what they actually state in their

1:16:39allegations. You're Let's just say for

1:16:41example, they didn't reference those

1:16:43specific regulations.

1:16:44You're You're raising them

1:16:46is a good point as to how an example of

1:16:49how someone could do an intervention

1:16:50petition and get it before your

1:16:52commission. If they don't cite something

1:16:54that implicate if the facts that they

1:16:55allege don't implicate that particular

1:16:57section of the regulation, then you

1:16:58should stick with the things that they

1:17:00do comment on.

1:17:01>> Okay.

1:17:01>> They're They're They're frank They're An

1:17:04intervention petition is really what

1:17:05guides what they can present evidence

1:17:07on.

1:17:07>> Okay. Thank you.

1:17:09>> Any more discussion?

1:17:15Okay.

1:17:17>> Grant to grant intervener status to

1:17:19Michelle Murphy

1:17:21and Patricia Daugherty

1:17:23limiting

1:17:25>> We can't

1:17:25>> We can't hear.

1:17:26>> I'm sorry.

1:17:27>> Is her mic on?

1:17:28>> Can you repeat?

1:17:33>> Okay.

1:17:34Uh to grant intervener status to

1:17:37Michelle Murphy and Patricia Daugherty

1:17:39limiting it to

1:17:41um

1:17:43the erosion controls and storm water.

1:17:52>> True, why it was just those

1:17:54those two.

1:18:00>> Yeah, so you guys have

1:18:02um

1:18:04Let me scroll up. I was reading.

1:18:06Uh one of them

1:18:08Um you have the Michelle Murphy.

1:18:12You have a Lorraine Whitmore.

1:18:16Um

1:18:18Theodore Whitmore.

1:18:21Um

1:18:25You're quicker than I am.

1:18:27Uh

1:18:31I don't know where the names are on

1:18:32these ones. This doesn't have a name on

1:18:34this one.

1:18:36>> Bryant

1:18:38Daugherty

1:18:39Murphy

1:18:41>> Yeah, two Whitmores, two [clears throat]

1:18:42Dohertys, and and Michelle Murphy.

1:18:44>> Yeah.

1:18:44>> Right.

1:18:46>> And Bryant.

1:18:54>> You have Patricia and Paul.

1:18:59Yeah, Theodore and Lorraine Whitmore,

1:19:01and Jennifer Bryant, and Michelle

1:19:03Murphy.

1:19:04>> That's what I have.

1:19:10And the new things that came in today

1:19:11were just adding half

1:19:13>> They were just adding the Trincus

1:19:14report.

1:19:15>> report to it, but there's no new

1:19:16verified allegations.

1:19:17>> Correct.

1:19:27>> Doesn't Inland Wetlands have a say in

1:19:30this

1:19:31at this point?

1:19:32>> They have their own application, and

1:19:34they evaluated under their own set of

1:19:36regulations, and there's a series of

1:19:38intervention petitions to that agency,

1:19:40um where the interveners would have a

1:19:42broader authority to present information

1:19:44because the Wetlands Commission clearly

1:19:46has jurisdiction over a variety of

1:19:48wetland and in watercourses. So, yes,

1:19:50they do.

1:19:53>> [clears throat]

1:19:54>> John, is Turn your mic off.

1:19:56>> Oh, sorry.

1:19:58>> [clears throat]

1:19:58>> Okay, so

1:20:00we got that clarified, Joanne?

1:20:02Are we satisfied?

1:20:04So, any more discussion from the

1:20:05commission?

1:20:08All right, then uh all in favor say aye.

1:20:11>> Aye.

1:20:11>> Aye.

1:20:12>> Opposed?

1:20:13Abstentions?

1:20:14>> None.

1:20:15>> Okay.

1:20:16>> Thank you.

1:20:21Commission

1:20:24>> Just a brief thing, can I as an

1:20:26intervener speak?

1:20:28>> You may ask.

1:20:29>> Procedural question.

1:20:32>> Go ahead. I mean, cuz is it okay, Mr.

1:20:34Chair?

1:20:34>> Yeah.

1:20:35If you have a procedural question, go

1:20:36ahead.

1:20:36>> Yes, so I had a couple questions. Uh

1:20:39One is what we'd like to do uh is submit

1:20:43Steve Trinkaus' report now for them to

1:20:45uh come and then he doesn't have to do a

1:20:47big presentation. They'll give their

1:20:49answers to the questions and then he'll

1:20:51be online to uh go back and forth. I

1:20:54don't know what you guys feel about

1:20:55that.

1:20:57Like his his speech is is the report. So

1:21:00we want to submit that tonight if that's

1:21:02okay.

1:21:04To them and then he will be here to

1:21:06answer questions. Like they'll come back

1:21:08with their rebuttal and

1:21:09is that is that sound agreeable to

1:21:11people? Rather than give the whole

1:21:13presentation.

1:21:14>> It It's your prerogative of what

1:21:15evidence you'd want to submit on behalf

1:21:17of your agent particular

1:21:19>> I'd like to submit that report tonight.

1:21:21Then the other thing is there was a lot

1:21:22of inconsistencies with the

1:21:25uh this is a procedural question with

1:21:26the amendments and uh the supplement. Do

1:21:30we need to pull them all out and write

1:21:31one again or you guys are fine?

1:21:35>> No, I think you're fine. Staff had

1:21:37labeled them like your original

1:21:40and the new ones just came in um today.

1:21:42We'll label label them supplement.

1:21:43That's fine.

1:21:44>> Okay.

1:21:46>> Uh Steve Trinkaus will need to be

1:21:47available for the special meeting on

1:21:49October 29th cuz now that you're a party

1:21:51to um the applicant and the commission

1:21:54have the right to ask questions of them.

1:21:56So yeah, just as long as he's available.

1:21:57>> Yep. Thank you.

1:22:03>> Okay, anything else with the intervener

1:22:05section? Um

1:22:07>> [clears throat]

1:22:08>> And so that's all we're going to discuss

1:22:10for Ryan Companies tonight.

1:22:12>> Yeah, and just for the record for anyone

1:22:14who's interested and wants to be here

1:22:15October 29th is a special meeting uh for

1:22:18Ryan Industries application where um the

1:22:21applicant's going to make a

1:22:22presentation, the commission will get to

1:22:24ask questions, the interveners will um

1:22:27get to uh well, they submitted their

1:22:28report. So, I suppose the applicant will

1:22:30respond to that along with the town's

1:22:32third-party reviewers,

1:22:34and then they will have a chance to ask

1:22:36questions of the interveners expert as

1:22:39well.

1:22:40>> And that's at 6:00, not 7:00, correct?

1:22:44>> That I don't know.

1:22:45Keith

1:22:476:00?

1:22:49>> Oh, yeah, 6:00. We We made it earlier.

1:22:51>> At 6:00, okay. 6:00.

1:22:56>> Yes.

1:22:57Um

1:22:59Okay, do we need to make any kind of

1:23:00motions or not for this one?

1:23:04Okay.

1:23:06All right.

1:23:07Uh subdivision application 26 13 84

1:23:11Lawrence and Lynn Liebscher

1:23:13two lot subdivision 129 Bailey Hill Road

1:23:15map 204263

1:23:18alternate ID 206-18 rural development

1:23:21zone.

1:23:22Is Norm

1:23:24>> Yes.

1:23:25Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh for the

1:23:28record uh Norm Thibault, uh Killingly

1:23:31Engineering Associates, and I am here

1:23:34representing Lawrence and Lynn Liebscher

1:23:37for a proposed uh two lot subdivision

1:23:41uh with access from Bailey Hill Road.

1:23:44Uh this is an existing

1:23:47um

1:23:488.919

1:23:50acre parcel. We're proposing to divide

1:23:52it into two

1:23:53uh 3.673

1:23:55acres and 5.234

1:23:58acres.

1:23:59Uh these will be serviced by a shared

1:24:02driveway. Uh the access strip uh will be

1:24:06uh uh a part of the uh 5.234

1:24:10acre parcel. Uh and these are two

1:24:12parcels that uh the Liebschers are going

1:24:14to be uh uh deeding to their sons uh so

1:24:17that they can they can build uh their

1:24:20homes there.

1:24:21Uh we we're showing uh

1:24:23two [clears throat] single family homes,

1:24:25uh four-bedroom homes. We do have

1:24:27approval uh from the Inland Wetlands

1:24:29Commission. That was That was received

1:24:31on uh

1:24:33the 14th, last Monday.

1:24:35Uh, we received uh Northeast District

1:24:37Department of Health approval on July

1:24:406th.

1:24:41And um

1:24:43it's a relatively uh simple subdivision

1:24:46in the sense that uh uh there are no

1:24:49roads here.

1:24:51Uh uh just uh one shared uh

1:24:53a gravel drive. Uh the shared portion

1:24:56uh will be 16 ft wide and then as we get

1:24:59after we pass the shared portion, uh

1:25:01it'll just be 12 ft wide to the rear

1:25:03lot. Uh the wetlands on the property are

1:25:06almost off the property itself. Uh and

1:25:09uh they are um

1:25:11located uh

1:25:13sort of on the on the the far down

1:25:15gradient side of lot number two adjacent

1:25:18to the property line and then going into

1:25:21uh the adjacent property uh as well.

1:25:24Um we've uh shown the limits of clearing

1:25:27on the plan.

1:25:28Um

1:25:29Um

1:25:29warning drains, silt fence. We're trying

1:25:32to keep the the clearing footprint

1:25:34minimal. Uh

1:25:35both will be about about 3/4 of an acre

1:25:38or so of clearing for the properties.

1:25:41Um there is an an existing uh frontage

1:25:45lot on Bailey Hill Road that's also

1:25:48owned by the Leapshers. That is actually

1:25:50a rental property uh that they they rent

1:25:52out. And um

1:25:54I think that's kind of it in a nutshell.

1:25:56Um no need for sidewalks or anything of

1:25:59that nature here. Uh we do seek the uh a

1:26:03waiver of the open space fee because uh

1:26:06these are lots that are going to be

1:26:08deeded to family members.

1:26:10Uh and I'd be happy to answer any

1:26:12questions you may have on this.

1:26:14>> Commissioners, there questions?

1:26:18Anything?

1:26:19>> I

1:26:21Go ahead.

1:26:22>> Norm, uh Brian, just quick comments. I

1:26:24was looking at the engineer's comments

1:26:25that were on our table,

1:26:27um and I didn't see them on the plans.

1:26:28He was talking about sight lines.

1:26:30That adequate sight distance was

1:26:32provided for the driveway. Is that on

1:26:34one of the sheets?

1:26:36>> Uh let me see

1:26:38if we actually added that to the sheet.

1:26:42Uh it doesn't It doesn't look like it uh

1:26:45it it made it there. I mean, the sight

1:26:48line is pretty extensive in both

1:26:49directions. Um

1:26:52there. Um if it's you know, something

1:26:54that we have to add to the plan as a as

1:26:55a condition, we'd be happy to do that.

1:26:57Um

1:26:58some reason I don't I don't see that uh

1:27:01it uh made it to the version of the

1:27:02plans that the the commission got.

1:27:07>> Yeah, just cuz it it's I don't see any

1:27:08response in the record to the engineer's

1:27:10comments that we have anyway.

1:27:12>> Okay.

1:27:13All right.

1:27:15Um I apologize for that.

1:27:17>> No.

1:27:19And the the shared drive, that that uh

1:27:21that that property goes to the back lot,

1:27:23correct?

1:27:24>> That does go to the back lot, yes. Uh

1:27:26>> Okay.

1:27:27>> It will be the

1:27:29you know, the required shared driveway

1:27:31access agreement that that the town

1:27:33typically requires for these types of

1:27:35things.

1:27:36>> Yep.

1:27:37>> So.

1:27:38>> All right, thank you.

1:27:39>> So, is there a a paved existing paved

1:27:41apron on that property, Norm?

1:27:43>> Uh no. There is not an existing one. Uh

1:27:46we are showing it uh

1:27:48uh as uh putting one in there.

1:27:50>> Okay, so you you are proposing it.

1:27:52>> Yeah, there will be there will be a

1:27:53paved apron up to the uh up to the

1:27:55street line. Yes.

1:27:56>> So, it's a gravel road

1:27:58per the original subdivision agreement,

1:28:00is that what it is?

1:28:03>> Yeah, well, gravel shared driveway.

1:28:05>> Right.

1:28:08And that on uh Jeffrey Johnson and Judy

1:28:11Johnson, you've got the hash mark of a

1:28:13right away. Was that something new or is

1:28:15that just that's already?

1:28:19>> No, that's already there.

1:28:20>> That's just something existing. Okay.

1:28:22Let's clarify.

1:28:23>> That's existing. Correct.

1:28:25>> So, all underground utilities for this?

1:28:28>> Yes.

1:28:31And believe it's a requirement of your

1:28:33subdivision regulations.

1:28:34>> Just got to verify, John.

1:28:36>> Right.

1:28:36>> Norman, I'm sorry.

1:28:38>> [laughter]

1:28:38>> Any other questions?

1:28:41>> I got I got one. Norman, have you

1:28:44received any comments from the fire

1:28:46marshal and the fire district as our

1:28:50subdivision regulations require?

1:28:53>> I have not received any comments from

1:28:55them.

1:28:57>> From who? I'm sorry, I didn't hear.

1:28:59>> The fire marshal and the fire district.

1:29:03>> And what regard? I'm just for

1:29:05clarification.

1:29:06>> The reg I'm quoting on the reg.

1:29:11It's part of the reg.

1:29:13>> Yeah. But typically typically

1:29:16in my experience in the past in the

1:29:17town, the the staff distributes those to

1:29:20the

1:29:21to the fire marshal and fire chief.

1:29:24I have not received any

1:29:27correspondence from either.

1:29:31>> For water supply, adequate water supply.

1:29:34Do they feel

1:29:35>> These are

1:29:36These will be These will be on-site

1:29:38wells. Um

1:29:39I mean, it's uh

1:29:41I said it's a two-lot

1:29:43two-lot subdivision. And as far as a

1:29:45water supply goes,

1:29:47I would I would assume that

1:29:49if there were need then it would they

1:29:52would have to be

1:29:53they would have to utilize tanker trucks

1:29:55for these.

1:29:56That's my assumption.

1:29:57>> I just was wondering if they had any

1:30:00comments.

1:30:02>> I have not heard from them at all. No.

1:30:06>> Okay. So, uh that have to go before

1:30:09Wellins?

1:30:10That one?

1:30:11>> Yes. Yes, it did go before Wellins. It

1:30:13was approved on on the last Monday, the

1:30:1614th.

1:30:17>> Okay.

1:30:19Anything else from commissioners?

1:30:22John?

1:30:24Anything?

1:30:26Okay, um

1:30:28we can act on this, right? I'm not used

1:30:30to just acting on something.

1:30:32>> You can act on it. Yep.

1:30:33>> Does anybody want to make a motion

1:30:36on this one way or the other?

1:30:41>> Do you need your letter?

1:30:44>> Yeah.

1:30:47>> Do you want

1:30:48>> Yeah, I

1:30:49>> Sorry, do you want to comment? Do you

1:30:50want him to submit it to the fire

1:30:52marshal or fire department?

1:30:55>> fire district

1:30:55>> So, I mean, then we're going to have to

1:30:57continue this

1:30:58for him to do

1:30:59>> But, can I make it a con-

1:31:00>> I can make it a

1:31:01>> Can you make it a um

1:31:03condition?

1:31:04>> You can, but you're assuming that the

1:31:05fire department, fire marshal goes,

1:31:07"Hey, no problem." which

1:31:08>> Well, if they don't

1:31:09>> 99.9% of Yeah, then they don't, then

1:31:11it's not approved.

1:31:12>> Then it doesn't go through.

1:31:13>> Okay.

1:31:14All right. I mean

1:31:14>> I mean, correct me if I'm wrong. We've

1:31:16done this in the past.

1:31:18>> That's That's That's a new condition.

1:31:19But, I'll No, I think you're right. So,

1:31:21I mean, I'll make a motion to approve.

1:31:23>> Go ahead, Robin. You say what you first.

1:31:24You're looking at me with

1:31:25>> I I I just um yeah, I was just looking

1:31:28at your uh subdivision regulations, and

1:31:31it does say it is a requirement like you

1:31:33shall require that all applications be

1:31:36reviewed by the Killingly fire marshal

1:31:38um and appropriate fire district. So, if

1:31:40that didn't take place and you don't

1:31:41have comments, I would discourage you

1:31:44from making a motion, and you should

1:31:46continue it because it is a requirement.

1:31:48>> I'll then make a motion

1:31:50>> As I was saying, I make a motion to

1:31:51continue this to November. [laughter]

1:31:53>> If it So, this is a matter where it

1:31:54hasn't We don't even know if it's been

1:31:55given to

1:31:56>> know if it's been given to him, and just

1:31:58it it it typically just went to the

1:31:59email notification.

1:32:00>> There There's no big rush on this

1:32:02anyway, so we're you know, uh we have no

1:32:05objection to that.

1:32:07>> Okay, there's a motion. Is there a

1:32:09second?

1:32:11>> Second.

1:32:11>> Seconded by John. Any further

1:32:13discussion?

1:32:15All in favor say I.

1:32:16>> I.

1:32:17>> Opposed, abstentions.

1:32:18>> Okay.

1:32:21>> Subdivision application 26-13-85 Pine

1:32:24Acres Properties LLC proposed two lot

1:32:27subdivision 753 Cook Hill Road map 4012,

1:32:31alternate ID 139-40 rural development

1:32:34zone.

1:32:36>> Norm.

1:32:38>> Thank you. For the record once again,

1:32:39Norm Thibault, Killingly Engineering

1:32:41Associates.

1:32:43This one's rather simple. There's really

1:32:46no no construction or

1:32:49or site work proposed here. This is the

1:32:53existing

1:32:54163

1:32:56plus or minus acre parcel of Pine Acre

1:32:59Pine Acres

1:33:02known lot

1:33:04by a lot of people as Markover Game

1:33:05Farm.

1:33:06They do have an existing kennel on the

1:33:09property. It was uh

1:33:12approved by the commission back in I

1:33:14believe 2023.

1:33:17The the kennel was constructed

1:33:20and it's actually operated by a

1:33:22different family member. So in order to

1:33:26just kind of clean things up a little

1:33:28bit, they're dividing the kennel off

1:33:31from the remainder of the property. So

1:33:33you've got the uh

1:33:35163 plus or minus acres. They're they're

1:33:38splitting off a 3.78 acre parcel

1:33:41and providing an access right-of-way

1:33:45for that in in the in the event that

1:33:48it's needed. Currently, they just use

1:33:50the existing driveway in the site and

1:33:53they're going to continue to do that,

1:33:55but if at some point in the future they

1:33:58need to have a dedicated driveway for

1:34:00this, they're giving themselves

1:34:02that opportunity to to do so.

1:34:05Um, if you look on sheet three of the

1:34:08plans, it really kind of

1:34:10shows it pretty clearly. I'm not I don't

1:34:13know what you've got

1:34:14up there,

1:34:15but the red outline is the the existing

1:34:20163-acre

1:34:22parcel.

1:34:23The shaded area is the kennel that the

1:34:263.7 acres 3.78 acres that they're

1:34:29proposing to subdivide off of this.

1:34:32Um,

1:34:33and it's

1:34:35like I said, it's it's that simple.

1:34:36There's no uh

1:34:38no actual work proposed here. We're

1:34:41striking the lines on the paper and just

1:34:44creating a separate parcel parcel

1:34:46that'll be a separate deed

1:34:49and separate ownership.

1:34:53>> Commissioners, any questions?

1:34:56Hey Norm, Brian again. Um,

1:34:58>> Yes.

1:34:59>> Just I don't know if I I don't have it

1:35:01with me, but I thought I looked up

1:35:02section 410

1:35:0412B, the special permit requirements for

1:35:06kennels. I think it calls for 150-ft

1:35:09property line setback.

1:35:12But I didn't see you note that in your

1:35:13table.

1:35:16>> A 150 property line

1:35:19Um, I believe so. Yeah, from from from

1:35:22adjoining

1:35:23properties. I believe we met that. Um,

1:35:27except I

1:35:28clearly I think you know, the the new

1:35:30property

1:35:32it it does not look like it it meets

1:35:35that 150. Right. So, um,

1:35:38>> Yeah, so that was that was something I

1:35:40didn't want to create something that was

1:35:41non-conforming. If you can double check

1:35:43that.

1:35:44>> Yeah, I could double-check that for you,

1:35:45absolutely.

1:35:46>> Um, and then the other

1:35:47>> I know that I know that when we when we

1:35:50are the uh kennel.

1:35:52Originally, we did meet those

1:35:54requirements to the abutting properties.

1:35:57>> Yeah.

1:35:58Yeah.

1:35:58>> Is it Is it Is it a Is it a property

1:36:01line or or a residence?

1:36:03>> I thought I read property line. That's

1:36:04what I wrote down. Now, if I wrote it

1:36:05down incorrectly, then

1:36:07so be it.

1:36:08I don't have electronic copies. Someday

1:36:10they'll give us tablets.

1:36:13>> What section was it?

1:36:14>> 410.1.2

1:36:17B.

1:36:22>> 410.1.2

1:36:24B.

1:36:25Let me see if I can look it up quickly

1:36:27here.

1:36:29>> See which one.

1:36:30>> 410.1.2.

1:36:33I don't have a 410.1.

1:36:34>> Like I said, maybe I wrote it down

1:36:36wrong.

1:36:37>> I have a 410.2.

1:36:40>> It's under special permits.

1:36:42That's special permits.

1:36:45Thank you. Allowed by special permit. If

1:36:47you go to kennels.

1:36:49>> Let me just search kennels.

1:36:56No such facility shall be located within

1:36:58100 ft of any pre-existing residence.

1:37:03>> Okay.

1:37:04But

1:37:05Yeah, so we we do meet that.

1:37:07We we met that when we had the um

1:37:10the um

1:37:13uh

1:37:14kennel permitted. And that doesn't

1:37:15really change anything at this point

1:37:17because nothing nothing is being um

1:37:20uh built

1:37:22uh and we're not

1:37:23um moving the kennel. We're not moving

1:37:26it any closer or any further away from

1:37:28anywhere. It It exists there. Uh

1:37:31it uh

1:37:32we we met that requirement when the

1:37:34kennel was permitted. Uh so,

1:37:36um it's my opinion that even though we

1:37:38are striking that line, it doesn't

1:37:39change the fact that we are

1:37:42um 150 ft or further from all these

1:37:44pre-existing um

1:37:47uh structures and homes.

1:37:50>> Okay. Um

1:37:52I think we're going to probably going to

1:37:53move in this one as well cuz I don't

1:37:55think you have a fire department letter.

1:37:57Um

1:37:58but my other question just to consider,

1:38:00too, and I don't recall from when we

1:38:02approved this was I'm sure we discussed

1:38:05things about um the kennel and noise and

1:38:07issues and stuff like that, but it was

1:38:09on obviously the same property

1:38:12as the existing residence stuff, but now

1:38:13that it's a separate property and a

1:38:15separate business.

1:38:16Um

1:38:17do

1:38:18>> Well, it's in the family.

1:38:20>> It's in the family, but still it's still

1:38:21separate property, could be a separate

1:38:22business.

1:38:24Um I don't know if we need to re-

1:38:26just look at those approval conditions

1:38:28um just out of curiosity like when that

1:38:30thing was approved

1:38:32and that discussion to see if anything

1:38:33needs to change from again, maybe just

1:38:35additional buffer,

1:38:37right, versus the minimum buffer.

1:38:40Just cuz you're going to have

1:38:41potentially new lots on the backside cuz

1:38:44you're you're taking this off.

1:38:49>> Correct.

1:38:49>> Um

1:38:50>> Hang on. Let me Let me take uh a look

1:38:53back at the approval here and see if

1:38:55there's

1:38:56if I have anything in my file

1:38:59that I could uh hopefully enlighten us

1:39:01with.

1:39:03>> Yeah, you don't need to pull up now.

1:39:04Like I think we're going to

1:39:05I'll keep this my guess to keep this

1:39:07open till the next month. It's just

1:39:08something if you can bring back at least

1:39:10address verbally, right? Like, hey,

1:39:12we talked about this during the approval

1:39:14of the kennels. Those things don't apply

1:39:16because you know, even though we're now

1:39:17adding a property line on the backside

1:39:18versus it all being part of the

1:39:19contiguous property before. I know it's

1:39:22the same might be the same family, but

1:39:23we are creating a separate lot, separate

1:39:25business, separate entity, whatever,

1:39:27right? So, make sure there's no impact

1:39:29to that lot in the back that's being

1:39:31created.

1:39:35I think you can probably verbally

1:39:36address just you know, those conditions

1:39:39or comments or issues that may have been

1:39:40discussed during the the the the

1:39:41hearing.

1:39:43>> Although, it would be helpful if you

1:39:44could just submit it to

1:39:45acting planner Newton so she could just

1:39:47take a look at that too in case she has

1:39:48some recommendations of any changes that

1:39:50might be

1:39:50>> Okay.

1:39:51We can do that.

1:39:58Check the approval conditions.

1:40:11Okay.

1:40:14>> So Norm, can you explain the frontages?

1:40:17I I'm

1:40:19with these lots.

1:40:24>> Yeah, sure.

1:40:25Yeah, the um

1:40:27>> So you got parcel A is kind of confusing

1:40:29me a little bit.

1:40:35And also the one to the right.

1:40:39>> [clears throat]

1:40:42>> I mean this is rural development, right?

1:40:43So it's 250 frontage.

1:40:47>> Correct.

1:40:48Yeah, so we've got um

1:40:51got

1:40:52uh

1:40:53all the all the frontages kind of on the

1:40:56the northern edge. There's a small that

1:40:59that that parcel A

1:41:01is it's kind of odd because it's just a

1:41:04it's just a little

1:41:05uh a little triangular piece that is

1:41:08connected um

1:41:11uh to the uh the game farm property.

1:41:13It's uh I know it's it's kind of

1:41:15odd-looking, but that's just the

1:41:17configuration that the property is in.

1:41:19Um and then I'd have to tally up all of

1:41:23the um

1:41:25all the uh the line lengths in order to

1:41:26get you the total frontage uh cuz we

1:41:29have L

1:41:333 4 5

1:41:3416 30 31

1:41:37um I could certainly verify all of that

1:41:39for you to make sure

1:41:40that we have the proper frontages, but

1:41:43I'm a

1:41:44>> So, the one

1:41:45>> I'm a

1:41:46certain that we do.

1:41:47>> So, Maryann Wood and Ann Griffith, 139

1:41:50and 38, it says 272.

1:41:52So, that's

1:41:54272 on its own or that needs the 76 from

1:41:57Marcel A? I'm I'm not clear, you know,

1:42:00clear on that. I just

1:42:02want some clarification if I could.

1:42:06>> Okay, which one was that again, Keith?

1:42:07I'm sorry.

1:42:08>> Um Maryann Wood and Ann Griffith. It's

1:42:11lot map 130, if I can read it right,

1:42:14nine.

1:42:15Lot 30

1:42:16>> Yeah, that's that's a that's under

1:42:18different ownership. That's that's not

1:42:19our lot.

1:42:21>> Okay, so that 78 ft on the RA isn't

1:42:25needed for any of that. That 272 is

1:42:27actually the frontage. Is that what I'm

1:42:28reading?

1:42:30On that existing lot.

1:42:32>> Yeah.

1:42:33Because that parcel that parcel's part

1:42:35of the bigger parcel.

1:42:36>> Well, that's what I'm wondering is this

1:42:39What is

1:42:40Where is that going to? That 2 that 78.6

1:42:42is it

1:42:44It says it's part of

1:42:47the house next door, right?

1:42:50>> I'm sorry, Keith. I'm not following

1:42:51>> I'm not following you. That's the

1:42:52problem. I'm not following the diagram

1:42:54in here. I'm not You got two property

1:42:56lines and I'm not sure

1:42:57>> we're not

1:42:58The The Maryann

1:43:01Maryann Wood and

1:43:03and the Ann Griffith Wood property,

1:43:06that's that's not their property. That's

1:43:07an existing lot of record.

1:43:09>> Okay.

1:43:10>> It's It has nothing to do with this

1:43:12subdivision.

1:43:13>> Right.

1:43:14>> Uh and the same thing with the Ishmael

1:43:16Alamo, that is not their property.

1:43:19That's

1:43:20That's a separate park property

1:43:22altogether, different ownership, not

1:43:23part of this

1:43:24>> Right.

1:43:25>> um this particular subdivision.

1:43:28>> So, that you got the driveway going back

1:43:30to access the dog kennel.

1:43:32>> Correct. And that and that is a that

1:43:36that is a that's a an access strip.

1:43:38That's a deeded access strip and that's

1:43:40why we've got the 3.78 acres there. So,

1:43:43we've got we've got twice the lot area

1:43:46for the kennel because that is

1:43:48considered a real lot by our

1:43:50regulations.

1:43:53>> All right. So, the 172 that isn't part

1:43:56of this?

1:43:57Uh

1:43:58>> No.

1:43:58>> I'm looking at the frontages.

1:44:00>> Oh, no. The one the 172 is

1:44:03it is a portion of the frontage for the

1:44:04remaining land. Correct. Yes. That's

1:44:06that's a portion of it.

1:44:08And the rest of it is

1:44:10uh all of those line segments you see on

1:44:12Peekaboo Street all the way to the

1:44:14north.

1:44:15>> Yeah.

1:44:15>> You got L27, L28, 29

1:44:193, 4, 5, 6, 16 and uh and 16. Those are

1:44:23all

1:44:25you know, portions of the of the

1:44:26frontage as well. So, that combined with

1:44:30the 172 comprises the frontage for the

1:44:34remaining 159 acres.

1:44:37>> Okay.

1:44:39Okay. Anything else any other

1:44:40commissioner?

1:44:42>> No, but I did to your point I see that

1:44:43that that note on two is a confusing

1:44:47part.

1:44:48So, on sheet two that little piece of

1:44:50triangle that you had that weird shaped

1:44:52lot norm you know it says it's going to

1:44:54be come part of lot 152-4 which is that

1:44:57lot to the left.

1:44:58The 8.4475

1:45:00acres.

1:45:01>> Yes.

1:45:02>> But yet on sheet three you're showing it

1:45:04as

1:45:05being part of the larger lot.

1:45:10With the with the red color.

1:45:12>> All right. I will I will clarify that,

1:45:15Brian.

1:45:15>> Yeah, I think that might

1:45:17>> I'll get I'll get that clarified.

1:45:18>> it's to me it's not clear at all.

1:45:22Of course I'm easily confused sometimes.

1:45:25>> Well

1:45:26Yeah, well that that that is a separate

1:45:29that's a separate lot of record that

1:45:318.207

1:45:34that is also owned by Pine Acres, but

1:45:36it's not part of the it's not included

1:45:38in the 163 acres.

1:45:43>> Any other questions?

1:45:45Go ahead.

1:45:47>> No.

1:45:48>> That's that's just a boundary line

1:45:49adjustment.

1:45:50>> Right.

1:45:52So we're going to continue this norm,

1:45:54right?

1:45:56>> Yeah, so I yeah and I can verify all of

1:45:58the

1:45:59the

1:46:01approval conditions from the kennel

1:46:03for you folks.

1:46:05>> Okay, can I have a motion to continue,

1:46:06please?

1:46:08Make that a motion. Second.

1:46:11>> I'll second.

1:46:13>> Mike and Norm,

1:46:16any further discussion?

1:46:19All in favor say I.

1:46:21>> I.

1:46:21>> Opposed or abstentions?

1:46:25Okay, new business is um

1:46:29site plan of application 261386

1:46:32of Paul Leveille.

1:46:35The restaurant Thank you for your time

1:46:36tonight.

1:46:37Do you want to speak to that? Is that

1:46:39Norm? Is that yours?

1:46:45Okay, I guess not.

1:46:49>> [laughter]

1:46:50>> Okay, restaurant and retail

1:46:51establishment specializing in smoked

1:46:53meats, barbecue food service, and

1:46:54barbecue supplies 1076 1072 North Main

1:46:58Street map 162 Bolton ID 130-6 general

1:47:02commercial zone

1:47:04receive and schedule for action for

1:47:05November 16th, 2026.

1:47:09Can

1:47:09somebody remind me where the heck 1020

1:47:1276 is?

1:47:13>> It's on the subway the bank subway.

1:47:15>> Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah.

1:47:18Okay,

1:47:20Uh, we're all set then for that just

1:47:21motion. Somebody make a motion.

1:47:24>> Make a move.

1:47:26>> Make a motion to

1:47:28>> receive

1:47:29>> receive application 26-1386

1:47:33and schedule it for

1:47:35November 16th,

1:47:372026.

1:47:41>> John seconds it. Any further discussion?

1:47:43All in favor say I.

1:47:45>> I.

1:47:45>> Opposed? Abstentions? Okay.

1:47:51Ken, I don't know if we need you

1:47:52anymore. If you want to I know you go a

1:47:54long way.

1:47:56I appreciate you.

1:47:57Huh?

1:47:59I appreciate you

1:48:01coming in.

1:48:04>> [laughter]

1:48:06>> You write it up, there'd be a stack

1:48:08behind you.

1:48:12>> [clears throat]

1:48:13>> Uh, okay. Adoption of minutes, September

1:48:1521st, 2026.

1:48:20There are some for August, but we don't

1:48:22have the minutes in the packet, so we'll

1:48:24do them next month.

1:48:37>> Make a motion to accept.

1:48:39>> As written?

1:48:40Second?

1:48:42>> I'll second.

1:48:43>> Norm seconds.

1:48:45>> [clears throat]

1:48:45>> Any further discussion?

1:48:46All in favor say I.

1:48:48>> I.

1:48:49>> Okay.

1:48:51Uh,

1:48:53opposed or abstentions?

1:48:55Miscellaneous. Appointment of Paul Gazo

1:48:57as zoning enforcement officer. I guess

1:48:59that's another new thing we have to

1:49:02vote him in as accepting him. So, if you

1:49:05don't accept him, don't vote for him.

1:49:09I'm sure he'd appreciate that.

1:49:12So, can we have a motion to accept Paul

1:49:15Gazo as the uh

1:49:16>> I'll make a motion.

1:49:18>> is zoning enforcement officer.

1:49:20You make a motion. I have a second.

1:49:21>> Second.

1:49:22>> Second. Any further discussion?

1:49:25All in favor say I.

1:49:27>> I.

1:49:28>> Opposed or abstentions?

1:49:30You win.

1:49:35Discuss with town manager if you get a

1:49:37raise at all.

1:49:38>> [laughter]

1:49:39>> Never mind.

1:49:40>> All right. Uh correspondence. Anybody?

1:49:42No, we don't have a correspondence.

1:49:44Zoning officer's report and zoning board

1:49:47of appeals report.

1:49:49We have any?

1:49:51>> We have an application coming up on

1:49:54uh in November

1:49:56for Chris Bersom. I

1:49:58forget the uh address, but it's up on

1:50:01Closson Road.

1:50:02>> Oh, yeah.

1:50:03>> So, we'll be

1:50:04uh

1:50:06having that in November meeting.

1:50:09>> For the ZBA?

1:50:10>> Correct.

1:50:12>> Okay.

1:50:13Inland wetlands and watercourses,

1:50:16you know, you're not up to speed on that

1:50:18yet, right?

1:50:19So.

1:50:21Economic development.

1:50:23>> Hello.

1:50:25Um we had a couple of businesses expand

1:50:28in the last month. Uh 181 Main Street,

1:50:30which is right across the street. Um

1:50:32Full Circle Counseling was originally on

1:50:35the second floor only and they've taken

1:50:37over the whole building.

1:50:38Um we have uh 91 Main Street um right

1:50:42next to Pouring and Passages. Um

1:50:45Dollhouse Studios, which was

1:50:48uh before on Water Street. Um she

1:50:50quickly needed more space, so she's

1:50:52moved to the Main Street. Um

1:50:55uh you may have noticed that the

1:50:57Brickyard Plaza is well under

1:50:58construction. It's expected to be

1:51:01completed um the first week in November

1:51:04with the final paving being done in the

1:51:06spring after everything settles.

1:51:08Um

1:51:09uh uh,

1:51:10Connecticut Main Street Center and NECOG

1:51:13partnered and were awarded a USDA Rural

1:51:16um, Development Grant. Um,

1:51:19and it's to focus on Plainfield,

1:51:21Killingly, uh, Putnam and Thompson.

1:51:24With

1:51:26the aim is to strengthen and grow

1:51:28downtowns uh, with comprehensive um,

1:51:31activities including mapping of assets,

1:51:35taking business inventory and uh, using

1:51:39a mapping tools so we can put arts and

1:51:40culture organizations, public spaces and

1:51:43um,

1:51:44uh,

1:51:45ecosystem um,

1:51:47opportunities on the map.

1:51:50And then on September 2nd, our EDC met

1:51:54for their annual meeting to go over goal

1:51:56setting for 2026 and 2027.

1:51:59They reviewed their policies under the

1:52:01POCD. Um, you know, the number one goal

1:52:04was that they identified that the

1:52:06wastewater treatment facility upgrades

1:52:08is critical to achieving the goals and

1:52:10objectives outlined in the POC section

1:52:13under economics.

1:52:14Um, their second concern was business

1:52:17retention.

1:52:19But it was also linked to wastewater

1:52:20infrastructure and expansion. Um, and

1:52:23thirdly um, local [clears throat] labor

1:52:25development uh, was a concern um,

1:52:28because our local stakeholders are

1:52:30competing with electric boat. So we'll

1:52:33be promoting uh, local companies in

1:52:36Killingly spot spotlighting the quality

1:52:38of work and the life as a competitive

1:52:40edge to working within Killingly.

1:52:43And then our next meeting is November

1:52:453rd at 5:00.

1:52:48>> Thank you. Town Council.

1:52:51>> Uh, the Town Council um, agreed to

1:52:56acquire the um, the property at 32

1:52:58Putnam Pike. It was a tax sale if the

1:53:01um, property owners do not pay the um,

1:53:03due taxes. It abuts already um, town

1:53:06owned property.

1:53:09The water plant capacity planning, the

1:53:11consultant um presented three plans to

1:53:13address projected flows and nutrient

1:53:15loading constraints. The preliminary

1:53:18costs will be available in the next few

1:53:20weeks.

1:53:21The Rogers area well PFAS and greater

1:53:24Killingly PFAS tests um

1:53:26continue in Rogers um

1:53:29Town Manager met with um

1:53:33Connecticut Water and they were able to

1:53:35resolve the 20% matching requirements

1:53:38for the grant funding and additional

1:53:39funding is available through um

1:53:42DPH and it's first come first serve

1:53:45basis and another $800,000 will be

1:53:48available.

1:53:51The Old Killingly Pond Dam, deep met

1:53:53with um the Wish Foundation regarding

1:53:55draft consent order and the discussions

1:53:58will continue although the discussions

1:54:00are private. Jill already addressed the

1:54:02brickyard brickyard project. Um the

1:54:05emergency access road for um Killingly

1:54:08High School, the road is being graded

1:54:10currently.

1:54:12Wright Bridge Road, the town was awarded

1:54:15a grant by the um DOT to redesign and

1:54:18rebuild a few bridges

1:54:20um an informational hearing was held on

1:54:22October 15th. There was um no one from

1:54:24the public attended the meeting.

1:54:28The Peep Toad Road Bridge also funded by

1:54:31um Connecticut DOT, the proposed

1:54:33solution is to eliminate the bridge and

1:54:35install two cul-de-sacs on either side.

1:54:38The DOT doesn't want to replace the

1:54:41bridge because of the cost um associated

1:54:44with culture and historical character.

1:54:46There will be a field visit planned um

1:54:48this week for um with the DOT and

1:54:51property owners primarily um affected.

1:54:55Um Killingly would like the historical

1:54:57um

1:54:59uh aspects of the bridge um maintained

1:55:04and replace the bridge instead of having

1:55:06it closed.

1:55:08Westfield Community Center construction,

1:55:11further engage with the bond holder for

1:55:13surety for

1:55:14that the project will with ongoing

1:55:17issues to terminate

1:55:19will to prelude to termination of the

1:55:22contract. Downs Construction does say

1:55:25that they will complete by the complete

1:55:27the work by the end of November.

1:55:30Regional housing plan is being planned

1:55:33by NECOG. They're starting work with the

1:55:35regional housing plan that was um,

1:55:38legislated by the state. It's due by

1:55:41June 1st of

1:55:422027.

1:55:44The town will participate. They will opt

1:55:46out if they don't like the plan and

1:55:48Killingly will make their own plan.

1:55:51And the Spooktacular is on October 24th.

1:55:54The rain date is October 25th.

1:55:56Trick-or-treating starts at 4:00.

1:55:58There's a block party at Daisy's Park

1:56:00until 6:00 and the parade parade starts

1:56:02at 6:15.

1:56:05And that is it.

1:56:07>> Thank you. Motion to adjourn.

1:56:09>> Motion to adjourn.

1:56:10>> Second. All in favor, done.

```*