2026-11-02 - Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission

00:01Okay,

00:05>> I think our cell phones

00:07come from like the epicenter of the

00:09universe. So, we'll we'll run by that.

00:12Okay. So, I'd like to go ahead and

00:14order.

00:15>> Hold on.

00:19>> Okay, you're good. And turn on your mic.

00:23>> Okay. I'd like to call to order this

00:25meeting of the Killing the Inland

00:26Wetlands and Water Course Commission.

00:28And we'll start with a roll call.

00:31>> All right. Reie Legal

00:32>> present.

00:33>> Paul Archer

00:34>> present.

00:34>> Sandy Acres

00:35>> present.

00:36>> Tory present.

00:37>> And uh there was a text from

00:39>> Rodney

00:40>> Rodney Gton that he is absent with

00:42notification because he is in route from

00:45Vermont but nowhere close to out of the

00:47state of Vermont yet. So the chances are

00:49quite slim that we'll see him before a

00:51reasonable hour. Uh actually before we

00:54move on I think when we're looking at a

00:55roll call you'll see some new faces

00:57here. Uh, first of all, Allison, you're

00:59not really a new face. You have been an

01:02authorized agent and worked with us. How

01:04many years have you been in the town

01:05hall now?

01:06>> Um, I started in August of 2021, so a

01:09little over five years.

01:10>> So, a well-versed

01:13and experienced new face, but uh she is

01:15our

01:17>> working staff and our our person who we

01:20will be dealing with on a day-to-day

01:22basis. She's also our enforcement

01:25officer for wetlands. Authorized agent.

01:28Yes.

01:28>> Author.

01:28>> Well, you're authorized agent, not

01:30enforcement.

01:31>> Uh, what do you mean by enforcement?

01:33>> If we had a cease violation. Yes.

01:35>> Yes. Okay.

01:36>> So, you would be acting as that.

01:38Anything else you'd like to add? Just so

01:39everyone knows.

01:40>> I don't think so. No.

01:41>> And then the truly new face, Robin

01:44Newton. I'd like to welcome you. We're

01:46glad to have you on board and you'll be

01:48helping us. Why don't you fill us in on

01:50your background and just what you're

01:51doing for us and with us?

01:53>> Sure. So, um, obviously with the

01:55departure of your town planner, um, the

01:58town saw a need to have somebody come in

01:59and fill in while they look for, um, a

02:02new person to come in as your town

02:03planner. So, I work for Teiki Planning

02:05and Policy Group. We are, uh, there's

02:07eight of us. We're consultants. Um, the

02:10senior planners in in our staff are all

02:12AICP, CZO certified, wetland certified.

02:15Some of us have economic development

02:17certifications, including myself. Um, so

02:20we run the gamut of what we do. We do

02:22everything from uh staffing boards and

02:24commissions and towns to comprehensive

02:27document reviews, plans of conservation

02:29and development, zoning comprehensive

02:32rewrites, um etc. I personally have been

02:35doing land use for 24 years and multiple

02:37municipalities uh so a really long time.

02:40I just aged myself, but um here to help

02:43in any way that I can, in any way that

02:44the commission seems fit.

02:47>> Thank you very much. and we appreciate

02:48that we haven't been left in the lurch

02:51during a lot of these projects and it's

02:52great to have some input and some

02:55background. All right. Uh we're going to

02:56go on to adoption of the minutes of the

02:58October 5th, 2026 regular meeting.

03:03Did you have a chance to review them?

03:06>> Most of Yes, I'm catching up on the last

03:09page now, but from all looks it looks

03:13looks good. Um motion to adopt the

03:16minutes as presented.

03:19>> Second.

03:20>> Motion's made and seconded to adopt the

03:22minutes of the October 5th, 2026 regular

03:25meeting as they were presented. Any

03:26comments?

03:29Uh hearing none. All in favor?

03:31>> I

03:31>> I

03:32>> opposed. Motion carries.

03:35>> Oh, and also just for the record, you

03:37have been moved from a alternate to a

03:40full voting member on a regular basis.

03:42So, it's not like we even have to act on

03:44that anymore. It magically happened. So,

03:47thank you. Okay. Uh, citizens

03:49participation, uh, once things have been

03:52reviewed, uh, things are running a

03:55little differently than

03:58the past. Robin, would you like to take

04:00a second? So, basically, if it's on the

04:02agenda, we cannot comment on it during

04:05public hearing. Would you like to fill

04:07people in

04:08>> a little bit different? Uh if it's on

04:10the agenda and it's subject to a public

04:12hearing, the comments should be taken

04:14under that agenda item. Yes. Um right,

04:16but not under just general citizens

04:18participation. If it's a uh application

04:21that is not subject to a public hearing,

04:23then you shouldn't be taking public

04:24comment on the application at all.

04:26Anything else not found on the agenda is

04:30uh free reign for the public to make

04:31comment on violations, uh issues that

04:34they might want staff to look at, etc.

04:37>> Perfect. So, at this point, is there

04:39anything that is not on our agenda that

04:42anyone would like to address this

04:44evening?

04:48All right.

04:49Looks like we have a room full of people

04:51with a purpose. That's always nice to

04:52see. So, we welcome that. Okay. So, then

04:56we're going to move on to our regular

04:58meeting. Uh, but we would like to ask

05:00for a motion to change one item on the

05:03agenda and move application 26-1643

05:07of Greenwich Bay Development uh to the

05:10first item on the agenda just because

05:12we're quite sure it'll be a lot shorter

05:14than everything else that's coming.

05:15>> I'll make that motion.

05:18>> Motion's made and seconded uh to move

05:20application

05:22>> 26-1643

05:24to our first item on the agenda. All in

05:27favor?

05:27>> I opposed. Motion carries. All right.

05:30Would you like to present that for us,

05:33Robin? That's what we had done in the

05:34past. Or would you like

05:36>> or do they have someone?

05:38>> I think uh someone is online to present

05:41the application, but I'm more than happy

05:43to uh add to it. I see I think Bob's up

05:45there.

05:46>> I am.

05:47>> Perfect.

05:49>> All right. Would you like to start give

05:51your name and address?

05:52>> Yeah. Let me um share my screen.

06:02>> [clears throat]

06:03>> Can you see that?

06:04>> Yep.

06:05>> Okay.

06:09>> So, for the record, Bob Tuca with CLA

06:11Engineers representing Greenwich Bay

06:14Development LLC for a septic system

06:16repair plan.

06:18The parcel is 12 North Frontage Road.

06:23I'm going to zoom in on this to get you

06:25oriented.

06:28So, this is the parcel. It's about 4,000

06:32ft east of the Route 6 395 interchange.

06:37This is a mobile home park. The parcel

06:39is 105 acres and the parcel is largely

06:44made up of um

06:47wetlands. fall brook runs through it as

06:51you can see

06:56and uh the this yellow area in the

07:01bottom right corner these are the mobile

07:03home parks. This represents about 10

07:06acres of the 105 acre parcel. So the

07:09parcel is uh mostly wetlands. This area

07:12here is very mountainous very hard to

07:14develop. So the uh the portion of the

07:18the parcel that can be developed is is

07:21developed in this 10acre portion here.

07:29Just going on to sheet two.

07:32To give you a little background, the the

07:35property owner bought this in 2024.

07:39He's been working to get the septic

07:42repairs permitted. there's about 10

07:44sites that are were either in disrepair

07:47or um the mobile homes are in disrepair.

07:51He's either removing them or all the

07:54septics themselves are in disrepair and

07:56he's he's in the process of replacing or

08:00getting them permitted to be replaced.

08:01These this site is under the

08:04jurisdiction of Connecticut D,

08:07not Department of Health. So it's it's

08:09somewhat of a lengthy process compared

08:11to the local health department.

08:15Um

08:17the mobile homes are p primarily

08:20serviced by cess poolools or drywalls

08:22right now and they don't meet um

08:26separation requirements. So

08:30there are 11

08:33septic systems under um this

08:36application.

08:38uh four of which in this top corner and

08:41this may not have been clear in my

08:42application. I mentioned this to Robin a

08:45little later tonight with an email. Four

08:47of these were prepared by Kellingly

08:49Engineering. Uh

08:52and those are this 3536.

08:58Hang on a second. this

09:0238,

09:0335, 36, and I believe 39. And then there

09:10are seven other ones that we prepared

09:13plans for. These are the orange

09:16highlighted

09:17um

09:19mobile home areas. These are primarily

09:23vacant lots. Now, the homes were in

09:25disrepair and they were removed. and

09:28we're showing the new mobile home pretty

09:31much going back where the old one was.

09:35So, just to make it clear, we're looking

09:37for all 11 of these under this

09:39application to work to be uh um under

09:42consideration.

09:45Our approach was to

09:48uh we soil tested for a couple days to

09:51find the most suitable soils for the

09:53leech fields. Um, as I said, the the

09:57cess pools and currently trying to use

10:00the areas around the existing mobile

10:03home do not does not comply with the the

10:08health code. So, we needed to find areas

10:10further away and we did find soil areas

10:14of gradient of wetlands. Um, however,

10:17there are some piping

10:20uh to get to these areas that get that

10:23that gets somewhat close to wetlands.

10:26Um, but we feel we we found the most

10:29suitable areas for the leech fields.

10:32Um,

10:34our plans are consistent with

10:38ENS guidelines for erosion and sediment

10:40control. We also provided a letter from

10:43Rick Zulich, the soil scientist, who um

10:48states he doesn't feel there's any

10:49adverse impacts to the wetlands due to

10:52these repairs.

10:53And finally, these will require a DP

10:57final approval, which they will weigh in

11:00uh

11:10may have lost him for a moment. And

11:12while we have I'm sure that all of us

11:14sitting here this evening need some

11:17information from you Robin on just what

11:20our jurisdiction is and how this applies

11:22to this commission because we've never

11:25dealt with the septic repairs at that

11:28place and it's been in existence forever

11:32and I think hopefully he can hear me as

11:34well now.

11:35>> I I can hear you now. Did how much of

11:38myself got cut off there?

11:42Okay, we were concerned about just what

11:45our jurisdiction is. It's also going to

11:47DEP

11:49and it is a repair and obviously it's

11:52got to be an upgrade to what's sitting

11:54there now with with basically old

11:57cesspools.

11:58>> Yeah, I mean it is unusual to see a

12:00septic system repair on a inland wetland

12:02commission agenda. Um you and I talked

12:05about this previously. You hadn't seen

12:06it. Um updates uh repairs to septic

12:09systems are usually uh done by either

12:12your local health department, department

12:14of public health depending on the size

12:15or in this case because of the size D is

12:18going to be overseeing that. Um so this

12:22would usually fall under one of the

12:23exemptions. Obviously people who live in

12:25their homes need to have a working

12:27septic system and leeching fields um in

12:29order to maintain their residence there.

12:31Um, with that though, I did actually

12:34provide you guys some just general

12:36conditions of approval um, including the

12:38need to have the uh, D approval on the

12:41record before the work starts. So,

12:43>> because I would assume that it could

12:46change with D review. Am I correct?

12:50>> I'm just asking their engineer because I

12:53mean it's going to be whatever they

12:55decide. Um, and if that's the case, I

12:57guess if it changed significantly, would

12:59come back to you or it may be something

13:01you'd allow your staff to uh uh look at

13:05and approve.

13:07>> Yes. So, D could definitely change the

13:09plan. Um, you could authorize your agent

13:12to review any changes. Um, the only

13:15changes that your agent can't uh

13:18otherwise sign off on is if there was

13:20some direct impact to wetlands, but

13:22that's highly unlikely with the D

13:24reviewing and approving this.

13:28>> Okay.

13:31Like I said, my I had a lot of questions

13:33about jurisdiction, so it may very well

13:35come back to visit you, Allison.

13:39What about you guys?

13:40>> Hey, Bob.

13:42>> Yes. How um now on I'm looking at sheet

13:45three and a lot of the grading is

13:47getting very close to the wetlands, but

13:50are you not filling any wetlands? Is

13:52that what you're pretty much saying?

13:54>> Yes. The the grading that gets close to

13:56the wetland is is the temporary

13:59disturbance to get the pipes uh to the

14:02leechfield areas.

14:04>> Okay. And we don't have big maps here.

14:07What is the closest leeching field get

14:10how close are you getting to the

14:11wetlands?

14:13Um

14:16the closest to the wetlands is

14:21in the repairs

14:23by Kellingly Engineering. There's 26 ft.

14:26That's not a downstream distance. So

14:28that's lateral.

14:30>> Yeah.

14:30>> Ous is probably more like 80 ft. Ours is

14:3380 ft. um in this system here and then

14:38the next system downstream it's probably

14:41closer to 100 ft but laterally it's

14:44about 65 ft. But I like I said I think

14:47it's the downstream uh distances that

14:50really matter more. Um is that those are

14:53the distances you you look to with your

14:56nitrogen dilution and uh things that

14:58that D look at.

15:02>> Yeah, thank you. I just we just couldn't

15:04see him on the plan.

15:19>> Now, Rainey, I know you had some

15:20concerns about some of the piping. Yeah,

15:23I think when we received it last month,

15:25I may be mistaken, but I thought we

15:27might ask for some kind of like

15:30cross-section in that corner where it

15:32gets really close to the wetlands of the

15:34piping because there's what, four pipes

15:36in there and there's an existing outfall

15:39pipe, I think, in there as well. Um,

15:41just the amount of work that's going to

15:43be done, but I don't know if that's

15:44something that's going to be coordinated

15:46with deep. Um

15:49but again that proximity to wetlands

15:50over there and and how much is going in

15:52and it was just you know we have

15:54individual

15:58>> yeah just to give you a little

15:59background these these are pretty small

16:02pipes. Um the three of those pipes will

16:07are 4 in and the other ones pump. So

16:12it's probably actually two of them are

16:13pumps. two pumps and two uh two are 4

16:17inch and two are two inch and they would

16:18all go in the same trench. So um they're

16:22pretty small pipes.

16:26>> I'm just curious what do you think the

16:27time frame is with the

16:30>> uh quite honestly

16:33um has submitted his three or four

16:36months ago. I think there are minimum

16:39six months

16:40uh to a year to review these. Um we

16:44still have to submit ours but I think I

16:47think um

16:50they tell us that it's sooner than that

16:51but compared to the local health

16:53department which was which is within

16:55typically a month. Uh this could be six

16:588 to 10 months. [clears throat]

17:02>> Is this normal that it it goes through

17:03town approval before it goes to deep? I

17:06I don't

17:07>> Well, we we've on all sorts of projects.

17:10We've uh um

17:15we've conditioned um well, I shouldn't

17:18say wetlands is typically you try to get

17:21your uh uh septic system approval, but

17:24in this case where we're willing to come

17:26back to you if we need to. Um, and the

17:31the

17:32owner was trying to he's hoping to get

17:35an approval any day on those first four

17:37and he was hoping to do these repairs

17:40prior to the winter. I don't know if

17:42he's going to make that deadline, but

17:44um, without your approval, he can't. So,

17:47he he wanted them to seek it now.

17:51>> What's your take on that? Is our staff?

17:53>> Yes. So, normally I would just see

17:55notification of the septic system

17:57repairs again. Um, every town is

17:59different, but um, all of the wetland

18:01commissions that I've ever staffed,

18:02they've just come in as notifications.

18:05Um, I've never seen one have a direct

18:07impact to wetlands. So, um, I think that

18:10would probably be the the piece that

18:12would change that requirement. Um, being

18:15a septic system repair, it's normally

18:17overseen by, like I said, your local um,

18:21health department or deep the department

18:23of public health if it's a larger one.

18:25In this case, it's deep because of the

18:27size and sometimes they have unique

18:28systems that they also would oversee um

18:31and sign off on and permit. So,

18:34>> Karina, you would as well have been here

18:36a while. Do you recall anything coming

18:38in like this for a repair?

18:40>> No.

18:44>> [clears throat]

18:46>> Ju um just a little background, we did

18:48contact Jonathan and um initially asked

18:51if this could be seen as an agent

18:54approval and and maybe that's typically

18:57what's done. Um but but uh he I I think

19:01when when you saw it last month, you

19:02decided it didn't need a um a full

19:05application

19:07or

19:08>> be seen by the meeting.

19:13Karina, do you have any questions for

19:14him on it?

19:20>> Well, I I personally I think it's

19:22probably

19:23it's got to be improvement to what's

19:25sitting there. It's literally 60 years

19:28old.

19:33Yeah, these these don't have sepic tanks

19:37which handle a lot of the treatment and

19:40they're they're going directly to

19:41cesspools or dry wells. So, yes, it's

19:44there's no question it's an improvement.

19:48>> Bob, just one one more quick question on

19:50the on the ones that you're getting the

19:52pump chambers on. Why is it a reason why

19:56you have a separate tank for the pump

19:59chamber instead of putting it all into

20:00one tank?

20:04>> Um,

20:05>> putting a larger I know you

20:07>> Yeah. No, we we've just found it it

20:09easier to uh provide

20:13um storage that way. Leave the the

20:17septic tank otherwise it becomes a very

20:19oversized septic tank. Um

20:23it could have been done multiple ways.

20:25We we we found this way to be the

20:27easiest way. Uh these are very shallow

20:30and and so the pump chamber um since the

20:35groundwater is high in this area, we we

20:36wanted a very shallow pump chamber and

20:38that's why we used this a very similar

20:40size

20:42um tank also that's shallow.

20:45>> Thank you.

20:49We need a motion to approve.

20:50>> We do need a motion.

20:54And I think where was it that you had

20:55some She does have some sample

20:58information available.

21:00>> We have to find it in the 100 pages of

21:02paper.

21:02>> Yes. Yeah, it's in my staff report. Um

21:04hopefully was printed in your packets.

21:07Um I wasn't sure how if you guys have

21:09standard uh conditions. I usually have

21:12standard conditions for my inland

21:14wetlands commission. So, I put the ones

21:16I've used uh in the past with my inland

21:19wetlands commissions on here.

21:21>> I'm curious what they are because there

21:22are some things that we always assume

21:24were standard operating procedure, but

21:26I'm not sure that we actually have them.

21:28>> Okay.

21:30>> We can talk about that. You can adopt

21:32them. So, they'd be applicable to every

21:34application that comes before you. Um

21:36and then I did have three special

21:38conditions that I added on here.

21:41>> Let us just look at those. You found

21:42them first.

21:44Okay. Uh Karina,

21:48if you want, you can find at this point.

21:51Did you find them too raining? At this

21:52point, uh her special conditions were a

21:54pre-construction meeting is required

21:56with the commission's agent prior to the

21:58start of the project, which I assume

22:00you're open to, Allison. It makes

22:02perfect sense. So, you know what's

22:04happening. No activities have been

22:06approved associated with this permit for

22:08work within the mapped wetland soil.

22:10Work beyond this permit will require

22:11approval from the commission. will be

22:13considered a violation of the approval

22:15if it commences prior to the necessary

22:17approvals. A copy of the Department of

22:20Energy and Environmental Protections

22:21approval along with any plan changes

22:23that may happen as part of that

22:25approval. Um actually I think those are

22:28things that we had somewhat assumed and

22:29probably makes a lot more sense to have

22:31them in writing rather than having

22:34anything assumed.

22:37Okay, standard conditions.

22:40This is a good chance for us to just

22:42look at them because these are things

22:43that we may or may not have had.

22:45Commission's agent shall be notified at

22:47least three business days prior to

22:49commencement of any regulated activity.

22:51Allison, what has been the the standard

22:54operating procedure on that in the past?

22:57>> We've never put anything like that in

22:59writing, but 3 days is pretty pretty

23:01standard for past practice, but it's

23:03never been something conver.

23:04>> That's what I mean. So, it probably

23:06makes sense to

23:08to actually add it as conditions until

23:11until there's actually something in the

23:12regulations. It needs to be a condition,

23:14I would assume.

23:15>> Yeah. And we can talk at a different

23:17meeting, but you can actually adopt

23:19standard conditions of approval. Like I

23:21said, that would be applicable to every

23:22application that comes before you. Um,

23:25so we can talk about that at a later

23:26date, but these would be some of them

23:27that you see here.

23:28>> And then final stabilization

23:31all times during site work until soil

23:33areas are stabilized. applica applicant

23:36shall install and maintain erosion

23:38sediment control members. Now, see, I

23:40think it makes sense maybe to list them

23:42as standard, but I think that they're

23:44usually right in the are they usually in

23:46what we approve or we don't approve them

23:49>> typically,

23:51>> but it makes sense to have them in

23:52writing.

23:53>> Sometimes they're in the plan set under

23:55the erosion and sedimentation control

23:56details. I find it's best to have them

23:59in your actual approval so that it's

24:01clear what the expectations are of the

24:03applicant. Um, so I like to have them in

24:05in your actual approval letter. Makes

24:08sense. So then uh even later this

24:11evening instead of holding everyone up,

24:13we could have a motion to adopt these as

24:16standard operating procedures or can we

24:18just do that right away now and be done?

24:20Do you guys have any concerns with them?

24:22>> I don't.

24:24>> No, I like these. I think it makes sense

24:26that we have because we can always add

24:28to them.

24:32Think so. Is that a motion?

24:34>> Sure.

24:35>> It can be a motion.

24:36>> Motion to adopt standard conditions for

24:39future approvals.

24:42>> Perfect.

24:44>> Vote. Second.

24:45>> Second.

24:46>> Okay. Okay, motion's been made and

24:47seconded uh to adopt standard conditions

24:50that we will use as our standard

24:52operating procedures that are listed in

24:55our staff report this evening under

24:57items four, five, six, seven, and eight.

25:01And that will apply to all applications

25:04commencing

25:05today. Okay. Any other discussion?

25:10>> All in favor discussion on that?

25:13>> No. All in favor? I

25:15>> opposed. Motion carries.

25:19All right. So, those are in place.

25:23>> Now we can act on

25:26this project.

25:27>> Yes.

25:37I make a motion to approve application

25:402643

25:43of Greenwich Bay Development with the

25:46conditions as noted.

25:48>> Okay. Is there a second?

25:51>> Second.

25:52>> Motion's made and seconded to approve

25:55application.

25:57I should have this

25:58>> 264

25:59>> 26-1643

26:02um with the conditions recommended by

26:04staff. One, the pre-construction meeting

26:06is required with the our agent prior to

26:08the start of the project. Two, that no

26:10activities have been approved associated

26:12with this permit for work within the map

26:14wetland soils. Work beyond this permit

26:16will require approval from the

26:18commission will be considered violation.

26:20And three, a copy of the de approval

26:23along with any plan changes uh that may

26:26happen are part of the approval. Any

26:28discussion on any of this hearing? None.

26:31All in favor?

26:32>> I

26:33>> opposed. Motion carries.

26:35>> Thank you so much.

26:37>> Thank you all.

26:38>> Yep.

26:43Probably nice to have some housekeeping

26:46done with them. I think those are kind

26:48of things that we've always assumed that

26:49we do, aren't they, Allison? I don't

26:51think it's anything really

26:53>> outside the norm.

26:54>> Pretty typical. Just nothing.

26:57>> No, there is.

26:59>> And that never hurts. Okay. Then we're

27:02going to move right on to um public

27:05hearing for application 26-1636

27:09of Ryan Company's uh for construction of

27:12new warehousing and distribution center

27:14totaling 1,288,220

27:20plus or minus square feet. And it is

27:23revised to 1,230,256

27:28plus or minus square ft on a 556

27:32more or less acre acres consisting of

27:35340 plus acres for development

27:38which includes a 76 plus or minus acre

27:40conservation easement and uh 216 plus or

27:44minus acres proposed to be deed to the

27:46town for conservation.

27:48Okay. And our first item before we even

27:51get into anything with you people this

27:52evening will be action on the petitions

27:55of the intervenors and just what our

27:58action will be on on the interveners. Uh

28:01for the record the pending

28:06uh petitions for intervenor status are

28:08the following. Just so everyone knows

28:11there are one two four five six seven

28:14eight nine 10 12 of them. It is Diana

28:18Weber, Alfred Draain, Ketta Rose

28:21Cotting, Jennifer Bryant, Jennifer

28:24Press, Lorraine Whit Whitmore, Michelle

28:27Murphy, Patricia Doerty, Paul Doherty,

28:31Ralph Mastenello,

28:34Robert Coding, and Theodore Whitmore.

28:37And I do apologize if I did not get the

28:40names right, but we do have them here

28:42for the record. And actually, can we

28:44have a little bit of input from you and

28:48the attorneys on just where we stand

28:50with intervenor status?

28:52>> Um, well, I was going to punt to Ken,

28:55who is supposed to be sitting next to

28:56me.

28:57>> That's what I was going to say, but I

28:58was So, now, um,

29:00>> once again, we throw you under. Welcome

29:01to Killing White.

29:02>> That's okay. Um so um you guys are

29:04actually a little bit easier than the

29:06planning and zoning commission because

29:07all of these petitions have um very

29:10specific uh statements about wetlands

29:12and impacts um wetlands and water

29:14courses impacts which does fall under

29:16your purview. Um so I think that you can

29:19accept the petitions uh into the record

29:22um and as was indicated uh for planning

29:25and zoning um it is the intervenor's

29:27responsibility to prove um what they're

29:30claiming. It is not the applicant's

29:32responsibility to disprove. So, they are

29:34allowed to submit evidence and documents

29:37into the record just like they're a

29:38party to these proceedings. Um, they can

29:40ask questions of the applicant and the

29:42applicant can ask questions of them. Um,

29:44that's my very non-legal representation

29:47of

29:48>> Now, I do not see their representative

29:50listed on here as an intervenor. How

29:52does that work?

29:53>> Should he be include? He's not on this

29:55list.

29:56>> I'm not sure who that is. I' I've mainly

29:58been and I think Michelle is here. I

30:01think I've been mainly

30:02>> Michelle, can we just have a little

30:04information from you on that before we

30:05act?

30:07>> I believe it is um

30:08>> Sorry.

30:09>> Uh what is Mr. Trinkus' first name?

30:13>> Steve Trinkus.

30:14>> Steve Trinkus. He is not listed as an

30:15intervenor. How does he

30:17>> He is their expert, not an intervenor.

30:19So that he is their expert that they are

30:22putting information into the record

30:23using him for that purpose. Um but I

30:26believe Michelle's been mostly

30:27coordinating um the intervention

30:29petitions.

30:30>> Okay.

30:31>> Yep. So Steve Trinkus, we may get a soil

30:33expert as well and our lawyer, you know,

30:36anybody here, they'll say I'm here on

30:38behalf of Michelle Murphy, the

30:40interveners, keep killing the burough.

30:42>> Perfect.

30:42>> All right. And also outside,

30:44>> we just wanted to make sure we kept it

30:45the way it needs to be.

30:46>> Absolutely. For the record.

30:48>> Thank you, Sandy.

30:49>> Thank you.

30:51Okay. Uh at this point, do we have a

30:53motion uh to accept the status of these

30:56individuals as interveners in this

30:58action?

31:00>> I'll make a motion to accept.

31:04>> Second.

31:05>> Okay. A motion's been made and seconded

31:07uh to accept the 12 individuals that

31:10were previously listed on the petition

31:13as um interveners in this action. Any

31:17discussion on that now? Paul, I can see

31:20you.

31:21He's thinking. He's thinking.

31:23>> Don't know enough about it.

31:25>> So, I mean, last month, I know we

31:27discussed this and opened it up and in

31:30the package and materials we've

31:32received, Steve's comments were even

31:34addressed by

31:36>> third party reviewers and stuff like

31:38that. So, if that's how it's going to

31:40function, I don't think it hurts to have

31:42one more

31:43>> more input.

31:44>> Yeah, exactly. One more commenting

31:45voice. Even

31:46>> a better decision can be made,

31:47>> right? Even if you know um you know

31:51wherever these comments lead more

31:52information just being brought forward

31:55yeah from questions is is

31:56>> and actually uh Robin you want to

31:58explain a little bit how that works as

31:59far as I understand this now opens them

32:02that um the applicant can now

32:05cross-examine

32:06the intervenors and their experts as

32:09well as

32:10>> that's correct anyone else explain

32:12explain for everyone so they know what's

32:13happening. So you guys are a little

32:14different than planning and zoning

32:16because you have been holding a public

32:17hearing which means the public does get

32:19to speak and they can ask questions.

32:21Generally um public hearing general

32:23questions don't necessarily have to be

32:25answered by the applicant. In this

32:27particular case once they're granted

32:28that intervenor status um they get to

32:31submit information into the record. It's

32:33weighted differently than just general

32:35public uh hearing comments that you hear

32:38from other individuals. Um but that does

32:40have to be backed up by expert

32:42testimony. Um and that does open the

32:44door to exactly what you said cross-

32:46examination um applicant interveners um

32:49commission can ask questions of both

32:51those parties. Um so it does uh increase

32:54the threshold of what they need to

32:56submit into the record.

32:57>> It also increas increases the

32:59information that's available to us

33:01>> does

33:01>> while we weigh everything.

33:03>> Yes.

33:05>> Okay. Any other comments?

33:08All in favor of the motion to add the 12

33:11individuals

33:12um as interveners in

33:16application 26-1636.

33:20All in favor?

33:21>> I

33:22>> I

33:23>> opposed.

33:24I I'll vote for it.

33:27>> Okay. I wasn't sure you

33:29>> Yeah, me.

33:30>> I could tell. [clears throat] My theory

33:32is

33:34knowledge is power

33:36and it doesn't hurt to to hear something

33:39else from people. Okay.

33:43>> Yes.

33:44>> Uh so now we'll commit continue with the

33:46public hearing. First item would be

33:49opening it up to our applicants to

33:51address and bring us up to date on just

33:53where we stand.

33:55>> Great.

33:57Thank you. Commissioners Evan Seaman,

33:58Robinson, and Cole on behalf of the

34:00applicant, Ryan Company's US, Inc. And I

34:02think we're loading our slides right

34:03now. Great. Here we go. Um, so as you

34:06know, this is an application for a

34:08permit to conduct regulated activities

34:10about 556 acres of land, uh, 25 parcels

34:14primarily in the business park uh,

34:16zoning district. Uh, that's where the

34:18project site is located for a warehouse

34:20and distribution center use. Um, that

34:22use in this zoning district is allowed

34:24by rate. Um and out of those about 556

34:28total parcels involved in this

34:30application uh nearly 300 acres of those

34:32about 291 acres um are proposed for

34:35conservation and that represents more

34:37than 50% of the land involved in this

34:40application. Um so I wanted to provide a

34:43quick recap of um this is the third

34:46session of the public hearing. We

34:47appeared in September. Uh we appeared in

34:50October. Um, as part of our prior

34:52presentations, we discussed the first

34:54application process. That first

34:56application, as you know, was denied

34:58without prejudice for failure to exhaust

35:00feasible and prudent alternatives. Um,

35:03as part of this application, uh, we have

35:05provided, uh, the applicants provided

35:07additional information on feasible and

35:08prudent alternatives,

35:10um, which we've gone over in the prior

35:12meetings and we'll, uh, get to a little

35:15bit more this evening.

35:16>> [snorts]

35:16>> Um we also discussed project

35:18modifications with this application. Um

35:22one such modification is a building size

35:24reduction of about 58,000 square ft.

35:27That's in addition to the 87,000

35:31uh square foot building size reduction

35:33from the first earlier application that

35:35was denied without prejudice. together.

35:37Uh those building size reductions total

35:40about 145,000 square feet or about 10

35:42and a half to 11% of the overall

35:45building size as originally submitted in

35:47January 2026.

35:49Um in addition to that building size

35:52reduction, there's also been a reduction

35:54in the number of total parking spaces.

35:55About 230 spaces in total have been uh

35:59eliminated. 201 associate spaces, 29

36:03trailer spaces and together that

36:05building size reduction and that parking

36:07size redu that parking space reduction

36:09accounts for about 4 and a half acres

36:11less impervious coverage than uh uh the

36:14project as modified in its final form in

36:18the first application. Um [snorts]

36:21we also discussed the wetlands

36:23mitigation enhancement. Uh you'll hear

36:25hear a little bit more about that this

36:26evening. And uh uh just to reiterate uh

36:30as part of this application, we're

36:31proposing a ratio of 3.59 to1 wetlands

36:35mitigation enhancement and that's about

36:37three and a half times the requirement

36:39of your wetlands regulations which are

36:41uh which require a 1:1 wetlands

36:43mitigation ratio. Um at the last meet I

36:46think it was at the last meeting um you

36:48heard from Tigen Bond. Tigen Bond has

36:50again been engaged as the commission's

36:52third party peer reviewer. As you know,

36:54Tigen Bond was also involved in in the

36:56first application. Um, we've uh since

36:59that meeting in October, Tigen Bond has

37:02issued um I believe a couple rounds of

37:05uh review comments. We've respond the

37:07applicant has responded this past

37:10Friday. Um was the latest round of uh

37:13review comments that we received. Um we

37:16haven't provided responses to those.

37:19finally gathered.

37:20>> We haven't provided responses to those

37:22yet, but we will be doing so. [snorts]

37:24Um,

37:25and at the last meeting, uh, you also

37:28heard from at that time the proposed

37:30intervenors. Now, they're the

37:32interveners, but at that time you heard

37:34from Mr. Trinkus. His report was in the

37:36record. Um, we discussed that um, uh, we

37:40do not believe Mr. Trinkis uh or his

37:42report are credible based on the

37:44superior the four superior court

37:45decisions within the past two years uh

37:48the land use litigation docket which has

37:50found Mr. Trinkus and his opposition

37:52work to be not a credible witness. Um uh

37:56in addition to that Mr. Trinkus um it

37:59it's it's important to note Mr. Trinkus

38:01is is an engineer. He's not a wetland

38:03scientist. He's not a soil scientists.

38:05Uh so uh we'll we'll touch on that a

38:07little bit later, but if you could Okay,

38:09we're on the summary of the presentation

38:11slide. Um uh uh in addition to myself,

38:15you'll hear from Tim Andurko from Langan

38:18uh this evening. Dean Gustoson, our

38:20wetland scientist and soil scientist

38:22from Alpoint Technologies, Dustin Kurr

38:24from Ryan Companies is uh to my side and

38:27also uh Andy Moffett and Andy Adam and

38:29Stanley are here as well.

38:32>> [snorts]

38:32>> Um,

38:35so, uh, if you could go to the next

38:37slide, please. Um, I wanted to to just

38:39again touch on the first application

38:41denied without prejudice. This is a a

38:43cut and paste from your emotions page.

38:45The town has a motions page. And this is

38:47the language from from that denial. And

38:49I just want to read the first bullet.

38:50Pursuant to section 10.3 of the

38:52regulations, a permit shall not be

38:54issued for an application that received

38:56a public hearing for a significant

38:58impact unless the agency finds on the

39:00basis of the record that a feasible and

39:02prudent alternative does not exist. Um

39:05so that again that was the earlier

39:06application denied without prejudice. If

39:08you could please uh advance.

39:11So, uh, following that denial, as I

39:14mentioned, we've provided additional

39:15information on alternatives. Um, in, uh,

39:18one of Tyen Bond's um, uh, comment

39:22letters, they asked for additional

39:24information on why can't the building

39:25size be reduced to around 450,000 square

39:28feet, which is, uh, the size, the

39:30approximate size of other warehouses in

39:33town. And we provided a response to

39:35that. And, and here's a summary of that.

39:37>> [snorts]

39:37>> Um, and the first thing that is really

39:39important to keep in mind is that any

39:41alternatives analysis has to consider

39:43the applicant's purpose. And that's by

39:45statute and it also appears in your

39:46regulations. So, what does that mean?

39:48That means that uh another land use,

39:51another another use type isn't going to

39:53serve the applicant's purpose. So, uh a

39:56housing development, a a retail

39:58development, those are not going to

40:00serve the applicant's purpose here. So,

40:02those are not feasible and prudent

40:04alternatives. Here the applicant's

40:06purpose is a warehouse and distribution

40:07robotics facility uh that can receive,

40:10store, package and distribute products

40:12at a scale necessary to serve forecasted

40:15regional consumer demand on a daily

40:17basis. That's that's the applicant's

40:19purpose as part of this application. And

40:22uh we've provided some additional

40:23information to Tagen Bond. uh 75% of the

40:26ground floor area for this proposed

40:29building uh uh and mezzanine footprint

40:31is dedicated to product storage uh to to

40:34satisfy the applicant's purpose to allow

40:36that to come about. The remaining area

40:38is allocated to material handling

40:40equipment, conveyor systems, and

40:41ancillary tenant spaces to support

40:43operations. And [snorts] what does this

40:45mean? This means that a building size

40:47reduction to about 450,000 ft just isn't

40:51possible. It's not possible because it

40:54would compromise the viability of the

40:55projects. The project couldn't move

40:57forward. The applicant's purpose of

40:59serving that regional consumer demand

41:01couldn't couldn't be satisfied. And and

41:03for that reason, this uh a building size

41:05reduction to about 450,000 square feet

41:08does not represent a feasible and

41:10prudent alternative. Um in addition to

41:12to the building size reduction, um the

41:15applicant has provided information um

41:18through presentation and also uh uh

41:21application submissions about other

41:23alternatives that were considered. Um

41:25and and that begins with even before the

41:28first application was ever submitted. um

41:30going through the design process and it

41:32started with actually multiple buildings

41:34that were considered for development and

41:37and there were a couple iterations of

41:39that and those were were ruled out

41:41because they would have greater impacts

41:43to the environmental resources. Uh from

41:45there the applicant then moved on to

41:47well let's consolidate this into a

41:49single building and and they uh the

41:51applicant considered the single building

41:53in different portions of the site or or

41:55are or greater in size and and that also

41:57would have uh resulted in greater impact

41:59to wetlands and water courses and and

42:01for that reason that was dismissed as as

42:04an alternative uh option. Um, from there

42:07in January [clears throat] 2026, the

42:09original application was submitted, uh,

42:11a building of about 1.37 million square

42:14feet. Um, it was modified as part of the

42:17the first application process. Um, as

42:19you recall, um, there was a a uh there

42:23were actually two driveways proposed

42:24initially. Those were eliminated and

42:26consolidated to one driveway. That's uh,

42:28one an additional modification, an

42:30additional alternative. Uh there were

42:33bridges over the wetlands in response to

42:35commission comments. Um there was the

42:3887,000 square foot building size

42:40reduction that I previously mentioned

42:42and and also as part of this application

42:44the additional reduction in building

42:46size of 58,000 square feet. Uh and then

42:49on top of that the elimination of about

42:51230 parking spaces. [snorts] If you can

42:54move on to the next slide please.

42:56So um this is section 10.3A of your

42:59regulations and and this is important.

43:01Um, uh, I want to read it to you. In the

43:04case of an application which received a

43:06public hearing pursuant to a finding by

43:07the Inland Wetlands Agency that the

43:10proposed activity may have a significant

43:11impact on wetlands or water courses, a

43:14permit shall not be issued unless the

43:16agency finds on the basis of the record

43:18that a feasible and prudent alternative

43:20does not exist. And as I mentioned, this

43:23is the regulation that the commission

43:24relied on to deny the first application

43:26without prejudice. And the important

43:29thing to point out here uh before I get

43:32to that, there are three ways in which a

43:34wetlands agency can determine to hold a

43:36public hearing. First, if a petition is

43:39submitted by residents, uh uh requesting

43:42a public hearing, I think it's 20 or 25

43:43residents, uh that will require a public

43:46hearing. Another way to have a public

43:48hearing held on a wetlands application

43:50is if the commission determines out of

43:53public interest that it makes sense to

43:55hold a public hearing. And then lastly,

43:58uh the commission if it makes a finding

43:59at the time of receipt of the

44:01application that the project may have a

44:04significant impact on inland wetlands or

44:06water courses, it can also require a

44:08public hearing for that reason. And the

44:10reason I bring this up is because at the

44:12time of receipt of this application, the

44:14commission didn't make that finding. It

44:16didn't make a finding at the time of

44:18receipt of a potential for significant

44:20impact. And what does that mean? That

44:22means that this this regulation section

44:2610.3A requiring exhaustion of feasible

44:29and prudent alternatives uh it doesn't

44:31apply. It doesn't apply because that

44:33finding wasn't made. Nevertheless, the

44:35applicant out of good faith is going

44:37through the process of alternatives

44:39because we know that's what the

44:40commission has requested. But like with

44:42the first application at the time of

44:43receipt, the commission never made that

44:46finding of a potential for significant

44:48impact um when scheduling the public

44:50hearing. And that's significant because

44:52this regulation is based on that finding

44:54at the time of receipt.

44:58Um so uh I also have a quote from the

45:01staff report and the staff report uh

45:03reiterates this point. Um uh next slide

45:06please.

45:14Um and and this slide uh is uh also from

45:18the staff report and kind of gets back

45:20to the issue that we had previously

45:22discussed of reduced building size and

45:24going back to applicant's purpose and um

45:27posing the question to the to the

45:29applicant why can't you reduce the

45:31warehouse to 450,000 square feet like

45:33Fredo or UNFI um those those

45:37developments those uh land owners have

45:39different have and had different

45:40purposes than uh the the proposed tenant

45:43does here, Amazon here. Um and and we

45:46believe um it's it's not um an

45:49appropriate comparison because of those

45:51different purposes. As I discussed,

45:53Amazon has a very unique purpose to sue

45:56to serve forecasted regional consumer

45:58demand on a daily basis. Those

45:59warehouses have different purposes. So

46:02um that is uh one point uh in addition

46:05for the commission to keep in mind as it

46:07goes through the consideration of

46:08alternatives.

46:11Um so with that um that's my little

46:15introduction. You know, although we

46:17don't believe section 10.3A of the

46:19regulations requiring exhaustion of

46:21feasible alternatives applies, like I

46:23said, we're here to try to put forward

46:25the best project we can. We're here to

46:27collaborate with the commission, which

46:28is why we've gone through so many uh

46:31versions, so many alternatives, at least

46:33eight, maybe more alternatives that have

46:34been presented to the commission. And

46:36and we believe that the project before

46:38you this evening is the the most

46:40feasible and prudent alternative. And

46:41I'd like to now ask um with that

46:44introduction Dean Gustoson and Tim

46:46Andurko to come talk about the

46:48coordination with Tigen Bond and the

46:49peerreview comments. Thanks. If you have

46:51any questions, I'm happy to answer them

46:52or we could wait.

46:53>> Do you I know you had an entire list. Do

46:56you want to start or so that they know

46:58or you going to wait until they're done

47:00presenting because we want to make

47:01[snorts] sure they have time to get back

47:03to you.

47:04>> Thanks.

47:22Good evening. Tim Mandurko, professional

47:24engineer with Langan. Uh, next slide.

47:27So, uh, a little little blurry on the

47:29the small font, but we're going to try

47:31and, uh, summarize where we are in terms

47:34of comments, uh, received through Tai

47:39and Bond, uh, of both our application as

47:43well as, uh, materials that they have

47:46reviewed, uh, including the, uh, the

47:48Trinkus reports. So uh at at the top uh

47:52we have uh initial comments from time

47:56bond to the uh application team dated

48:00October 5th. On October 22nd we

48:04submitted uh response and uh revised

48:08plans and reports accordingly. And then

48:10on October 30th, Time Bond had reviewed

48:15our October 22nd submission, uh removed

48:19a number of items that required action,

48:22had a few uh that required some

48:25additional input or may have asked for a

48:28note revision or a detail to be added.

48:30So uh the chain of of time bond was

48:32October 5th to the 22nd to the 30th and

48:37uh the ball is in our court to respond

48:39to those comments uh received at the

48:42very end of last week. Uh the next uh

48:46half of the screen here is the steps of

48:50review to uh the interveners uh engineer

48:54and uh Mr. Trinkis submitted a uh report

48:59or comments on October 1st. We touched

49:02on them briefly uh last meeting when we

49:05were here in the beginning of October.

49:08Time bond reviewed that first letter

49:11issued comments to us on October 19th

49:15and October 28th uh we responded back

49:18through time bond. Uh there was a number

49:20of items the time bond removed as

49:22needing input from us and there were a

49:24number that they asked for additional

49:26clarification or plan revisions. Uh and

49:29that was completed on October 28th. Uh

49:32in between when we were here last time

49:35reviewing the October 1st letter, Mr.

49:38Trinkus issued a second letter on

49:40October 14th. I would call it generally

49:44the same. A couple of comments were

49:47expanded, added in. The numbering is not

49:50necessarily consistent. So, it takes a

49:53little bit of time to kind of parse

49:54through them. And at the on last Friday,

49:58Tai and Bond completed their review of

50:00that letter. Uh, and now the ball is in

50:03our court to respond to the outstanding

50:06items from their October 30th. Now, the

50:09October 1st and October 14th drink house

50:12letters are I don't want to put a

50:14percent, but if I had to, 80% the same.

50:17So, we've essentially answered 80% of

50:20the comments in our October 28th

50:22response, but there are a couple more uh

50:24that balls in our court to respond to.

50:27So, um, from where we sit, uh, we owe,

50:31uh, Time Bond a response to their

50:33October 30th letter, and we, uh, owe a

50:36response to the the second, uh, Trinkus

50:39review.

50:42So, um, we we think we've made good

50:44progress. If you've had a chance to

50:45read, uh, the responses from Time Bond,

50:48I I know they're here, and I assume

50:50they'll have a chance to speak at some

50:52point tonight. Um but we hope that we've

50:54addressed a lot of the the major

50:56comments that we understand there are a

50:58couple uh a couple related to phasing of

51:01soil erosion and sediment control. Uh we

51:04were just in planning and zoning last

51:06week and working with staff on uh some

51:08of the limitations that planning and

51:10zoning believes they have relative to

51:12project phasing. And as we sort through

51:14that, we will uh come back with uh a

51:16final our our intent is to do uh a

51:20single plan and report submission that

51:23closes out all of the the comments

51:25including uh the staff report comments

51:28as well if there's any that require um

51:31plan revisions. So trying to consolidate

51:33it recognizing that the commission

51:35doesn't like receiving peace meal

51:37materials and you know large submissions

51:40of documents. We we get it. um but have

51:43been trying to chip away at those

51:45outstanding comments and and get to a

51:47coherent response. Thank you.

51:52>> Uh good evening Dean Gustin,

51:54professional soil scientist, senior

51:56wetland scientist with All Points

51:57Technology. Um so I want to start some

52:01more wetland related discussion on

52:03functions and values. Uh and you've

52:06heard through my various testimonies

52:08about that particular topic. Um this

52:12evaluation and discussion of uh wetland

52:15functions and values is important since

52:17not all wetlands are considered equal.

52:20That is not just my professional

52:22opinion. That is based in fact and it's

52:24reflected in the state of Connecticut

52:26inland wetlands and water courses act.

52:28It's reflected in your own wetland

52:30regulations and exhibited in the

52:33information required in your wetland

52:35application form.

52:37This recognizes that individual wetlands

52:39perform different ecological functions.

52:42There are functional diff differences

52:44between wetlands and not all wetlands

52:46provide the same degree of benefits. So

52:49when you review an application

52:52is important to evaluate specific

52:54functions that will be lost or impacted

52:56by the proposed regulated activity. That

52:59evaluation also informs the review of

53:02wetland mitigation proposed to replace

53:05those lost functions and values. Uh so

53:08it helps frame your analysis of your

53:11impacts as well as what you're doing for

53:14mitigation for impacts that are

53:16unavoidable by the proposed project.

53:19[clears throat]

53:23that proposed uh so it replaces the area

53:25of lost wetlands um which is important

53:28from a mitigation standpoint but more

53:30importantly you need to make ensure that

53:32the wetland mitigation replaces the lost

53:34functions

53:36in the best of wetland mitigation plans

53:38you increase both the wetland area

53:41that's being replaced for the areas that

53:44are being impacted as well as improving

53:47the functions that are lost

53:49and that is the particular case for this

53:51application we are significantly

53:54increasing the area of of new wetland

53:56areas through creation and restoration

53:58and enhancement. Um and also increasing

54:04the function value of the surrounding

54:05buffer zones to those creation and

54:07mitigation areas. Um we are providing

54:1282,800 square ft of new wetland areas.

54:16Um and that provides a ratio of 3.59 to

54:20one, a significant ratio that not only

54:23increases the area of wetlands that are

54:25being impacted, but also from a function

54:28of value standpoint, we are

54:30significantly enhancing the wetlands

54:32functions of values to compared to the

54:34four isolated low functioning wetlands

54:36that are being lost by the proposed

54:38development footprint.

54:41So, we check check off some significant

54:44um areas of evaluating an impact uh and

54:50what is being provided from a mitigation

54:52standpoint

54:53uh to provide an overall benefit to the

54:56wetland resources in the town of

54:57Kelling.

54:59Next slide, please. So, we pro we've

55:02gone over some of these photographs

55:04before um just try to exhibit uh through

55:07photographic evidence, you know, some of

55:09the the high functioning wetland systems

55:13um that are present on the subject

55:15property. Uh a lot of these high value

55:18wetland and and stream systems are being

55:20permanently protected through

55:21conservation easements that are

55:23encumbering uh significant wetland areas

55:25on the subject property. Um they also

55:29encumber some of the highest functioning

55:31rural pool systems that are contained

55:33within these wetland systems. Um, so

55:36you're providing protection to extremely

55:39high value wetland systems that are

55:41scattered across the property uh outside

55:44the margins of the proposed project

55:46impact zone.

55:50So these photo series of photographs are

55:53representative of the four isolated

55:55wetland systems um that will be impacted

55:57by the proposed project approximately a

55:59half acre in total. Um these areas do

56:03not have uh significant sustained

56:06hydraology through the majority of the

56:08growing season. They p primarily remain

56:11uh saturated soils uh during the early

56:14uh spring fresh during the runoff uh and

56:17snow melt water uh in the early spring

56:20months. uh and then progressively dry

56:22out because they are just capturing a

56:25small drainage area um that feed these

56:28wetland systems um and sustain at least

56:32characteristics long enough to support

56:34the creation and development of uh

56:37poorly drained wetland soil profiles. So

56:40they do in fact are regulated by under

56:42your regulations and under the

56:44Connecticut statutes uh because they uh

56:47satisfy those soil requirements.

56:49However, other features uh consistent

56:51with what you would typically see for

56:53wetlands for a strong dominance of

56:56wetland vegetation and hydraology uh

56:59they lack some of those characteristics

57:01and as a result of the lack of the some

57:03of those characteristics and their small

57:06isolated nature um they do not support

57:08wetland functions and values uh in a

57:11significant capacity. Uh in fact we've

57:14submitted and this is in the

57:16documentation that we provided in the

57:17wetland assessment report. Uh we

57:20submitted a request to the Army Corps of

57:22Engineers for jurisdictional approved

57:24jurisdictional determination to

57:26determine if these four isolated

57:28wetlands would be considered waterless

57:30United States. And we received a formal

57:32determination that they do not in fact

57:35uh classify as federally regulated

57:37wetlands. Uh and that uh documentation

57:40from the Army Corps of Engineers New

57:42England District is located as an

57:44attachment to our wetland assessment

57:46report.

57:50And these are, you know, if you kind of

57:52compare the photographs of the the

57:55wetland, the four isolated wetland areas

57:57and some of the surrounding upland uh

58:00forested habitats. Um, you know,

58:02certainly to an uh just an untrained

58:05eye, they look very similar in

58:07characteristic. Uh, they have similar

58:10vegetative cover types. Um, they look

58:13similar on the ground.

58:15>> Thanks. And if you could go back to the

58:18last last slide, Dustin.

58:21Um so the reason I know we've touched on

58:22that issue before. It's such uh a

58:25crucial point of our application. The

58:26the fact that um the wetlands to be

58:29impacted are those of the lowest

58:30functions and values while the remaining

58:32wetlands uh about 97% of the wetlands on

58:35the property [snorts] uh are of the

58:38highest functions higher functions and

58:40values. Um, an additional reason we

58:42bring that up is because um, uh, it's

58:45actually a comment um, uh, Commissioner

58:47LGO that you made in writing as part of

58:49this the you had prepared a speech that

58:52you wanted to to read and um, there are

58:55some points in there and the reason

58:56we're addressing them is because we want

58:58to make sure that you and the commission

58:59are focused on the regulatory criteria.

59:01That's it. We want to keep the

59:03commission focused on section 10 of the

59:05regulations and and in that uh statement

59:08that uh you had prepared you stated that

59:10we don't qualify wetlands based on their

59:12functions and values. We protect

59:14wetlands regardless and obviously we

59:16disagree with that statement. The wet

59:18your wetlands regulations require a

59:20wetlands uh functions and values

59:22assessment which we have provided and we

59:24want we want to make sure that that is

59:26not lost on you or the commission as

59:27part of this application. Um there were

59:29a couple other comments as well that we

59:31wanted to address in your letter just

59:33just to to demonstrate uh what is within

59:36the commission's decisional criteria

59:39purview and what's not. Um the first

59:42statement is [clears throat]

59:44this project would redefine this town.

59:47Um obviously that is not with anywhere

59:49within your wetlands regulations. That's

59:51not within section 10. Uh that is not

59:53something that you should consider when

59:55rendering your decision.

59:58It's not even relevant to the planning

59:59and zoning commission and it which

1:00:01considers uses and it's not relevant to

1:00:02the planning and zoning commission

1:00:04because this use is allowed in the BP

1:00:06district by right and and that means

1:00:08that when the planning and zoning

1:00:10commission amended its zoning

1:00:11regulations to allow that use.

1:00:12>> Excuse me one minute, Rainey. You had

1:00:15that I had not seen that letter. Where

1:00:16was that?

1:00:17>> This was a letter that I had emailed to

1:00:20Jonathan. never went public, never was

1:00:22read, never was in the public record,

1:00:24but was part of the freedom the yeah the

1:00:29the request of information uh and since

1:00:32it was emailed to Jonathan just as a

1:00:35>> part of the request

1:00:36>> right before I was a voting member

1:00:38>> that in the record now

1:00:40>> what's the stand on that and we would

1:00:42>> doesn't that falter litigation as

1:00:45opposed to what we are currently

1:00:46discussing

1:00:47>> that was never in the public record for

1:00:49the record [clears throat]

1:00:50>> should it Now though, if it's being

1:00:51discussed, that's we're

1:00:53>> we're we're simply raising it to to make

1:00:56to make sure to make sure we're simply

1:00:59raising it to make sure that that um

1:01:01that the commission understands what

1:01:03when it renders its decision what it is

1:01:05appropriate to consider and what's not

1:01:07appropriate to consider. If Commissioner

1:01:09LGO wants to put it in the record, he is

1:01:12free to do so. Um we we aren't

1:01:16introducing it into the record at this

1:01:17time,

1:01:18>> but it's being discussed. That makes it

1:01:20different.

1:01:21>> Yeah. So, I I was taking notes because I

1:01:24hadn't seen this document. So,

1:01:26>> Okay. So,

1:01:26>> so it's it's new to me. Um I guess I'll

1:01:29just pause. Um Attorney Seaman and I'm

1:01:31going to um Do you want this to be part

1:01:34of this record or those thoughts?

1:01:36>> Not particularly. No, it was a private

1:01:38email to the previous liaison of the

1:01:42wetlands commission that I

1:01:44>> Do you still have the same concerns that

1:01:46were expressed in that email? because if

1:01:48you do then I think you could make those

1:01:51part of it and they can address it. You

1:01:53guys are short on time. You really only

1:01:55have a month to sort of wrap all of this

1:01:57up. So I do want to make sure any of the

1:01:59commission concerns are appropriately

1:02:01addressed. So if there's something that

1:02:03was in there that like now would be the

1:02:04time.

1:02:05>> Yeah, of I mean I have comments still.

1:02:08>> So you get to those. So Attorney Seaman,

1:02:09if you don't mind, if we could like skip

1:02:11whatever was in that private email since

1:02:13it's not part of the record and then he

1:02:15can ask the questions he has now.

1:02:17>> Sure. There was actually just one more

1:02:18thing in that letter that I wanted to

1:02:20raise.

1:02:22>> You guys,

1:02:24>> we'll deal with it. We'll talk to you

1:02:26guys when you have your turn. We want to

1:02:28make sure you have your turn. Let

1:02:30everything follow the process.

1:02:34>> Thank you. Um, and and so I'll move on,

1:02:37but there's one more point I want to

1:02:39make, and this I think is the most

1:02:40important one, and this is a statement

1:02:42from that letter, which was a written

1:02:44statement that was prepared to be read,

1:02:45but ultimately was not read. Quote, "And

1:02:48now I want to speak about Amazon

1:02:49quickly. It's a bit beyond the scope of

1:02:51what we truly regulate, but I think it's

1:02:52relevant. There is an even larger First

1:02:54Mile robotics center in Charleston,

1:02:55Massachusetts, less than 30 miles away.

1:02:57There's a distribution warehouse twice

1:02:59the size of the one proposed here, being

1:03:00built in Waterberry, roughly 70 mi west

1:03:03of here. There's a five-story Amazon

1:03:04warehouse 20 miles east of here in

1:03:06Johnston, Rhode Island.

1:03:07>> These are things that we would tell the

1:03:08rest of the people are not applicable to

1:03:11us right now. So, I think it's only

1:03:12right to tell you the same thing.

1:03:14>> And and the reason that I think it's

1:03:16important to address is because it's

1:03:18it's clearly not within uh the

1:03:21decisional standards, the criteria for

1:03:23decision. And I want to make sure that

1:03:26everyone understands that these are

1:03:29things that are not to be considered

1:03:30when rendering a decision on the

1:03:31wetlands application.

1:03:32>> That makes sense. Can I just

1:03:33>> I don't think you can be specific

1:03:35>> and point out Rainey was an alternate

1:03:38member at the time. He would not have

1:03:39been voting on that application.

1:03:42[snorts]

1:03:43>> He was only named a a full member within

1:03:46the last what six weeks.

1:03:48>> That's correct.

1:03:49>> But those are things that probably don't

1:03:52need to be brought up at this point.

1:03:54Okay. I can see where you're concerned.

1:03:55>> Yes.

1:03:56>> But when

1:03:57>> the litigation flies, so be it.

1:03:59>> I will.

1:03:59>> But let's not be at that point tonight.

1:04:02I I agree and I will move on. Um just

1:04:04want to make sure um

1:04:07uh

1:04:07>> we have staff that will help us decide

1:04:09yes what's within our purview.

1:04:12>> Yes. Thank you. if you could move on to

1:04:14the next slide.

1:04:16And then regulated activities to be

1:04:18licensed. And um this is important

1:04:20because um during deliberations denying

1:04:23the first application, Commissioner

1:04:25Tori, you um made the statement that you

1:04:29were posed the question, I believe, and

1:04:31please correct me if I'm wrong, you

1:04:32posed the question, what would it take

1:04:34for you to support this application, to

1:04:36vote in favor as opposed to against it?

1:04:38And your response was um uh in not so

1:04:42many words uh well you you discussed

1:04:45there being an irreversible and

1:04:46irretrievable loss of wet of wetlands

1:04:49and that that was the response. Um and

1:04:52we wanted to make clear I know we've

1:04:53discussed this in the past. This is

1:04:54Connecticut general statutes 22A36

1:04:57and um uh just because there's an impact

1:05:00to wetlands doesn't mean that an

1:05:02application has has to be denied. And in

1:05:04fact, this commission approves

1:05:06applications with impacts to wetlands

1:05:08frequently and in many of the we

1:05:11discussed some of the other projects and

1:05:12in some of those projects uh we believe

1:05:15that the from a percentage standpoint we

1:05:17believe that the impact to direct impact

1:05:19to wetlands was actually greater than it

1:05:21is here. Um [snorts] and I just wanted

1:05:24to read this statute. Part of it um uh

1:05:26it's a little difficult to read but um

1:05:29at the end it talks about balancing the

1:05:30need for economic growth of the state

1:05:32and use of uh of its land with the need

1:05:35to protect its environment and ecology.

1:05:37Uh [snorts] and then earlier on it

1:05:38actually uh talks about um making

1:05:41provisions for the protection,

1:05:42preservation, maintenance and use of the

1:05:44inland wetlands and water courses

1:05:45themselves. So again, this is all a

1:05:47balancing test. and I can understand why

1:05:49you're hired and why you're put up here

1:05:51this evening, but we would [snorts] tell

1:05:52the same thing to the other group that's

1:05:54here. We we do not want to hear any of

1:05:58you telling us about [snorts] about what

1:06:02how we're being bribed or this or that.

1:06:04We don't want to hear it. We do not want

1:06:06to hear from you that we need we know

1:06:09what our directive is and we also have a

1:06:13little more integrity than some of the

1:06:14people may think we have and it's just

1:06:18the way it is. So this evening,

1:06:21trust our staff,

1:06:23trust us. We don't have to like what

1:06:25we're seeing, but we have to I think

1:06:27we're all aware [snorts] of the fact

1:06:28that we have to live within the letter

1:06:30of the law.

1:06:31>> Yes.

1:06:32>> But and that's what it comes down to. So

1:06:35move on with something that has to do

1:06:36with the presentation.

1:06:37>> Great. If if

1:06:38>> and you know I think I I I would like to

1:06:41apologize to both of you. I think that

1:06:43you [snorts] were somewhat

1:06:45thrown out there. We tend to throw the

1:06:47staff under the bus. I don't want to see

1:06:49my commissioners thrown under the bus.

1:06:50There's a difference.

1:06:51>> Okay. Thank you. If if you could advance

1:06:53the slide, please. [snorts] Um

1:06:57>> so again, uh this to get to the end of

1:07:00our presentation. Um again this project

1:07:02proposes 291 acres of land for permanent

1:07:05conservation. Um

1:07:08as we discussed the functions and values

1:07:10earlier uh the four isolated wetlands

1:07:12are of the lowest functions and values u

1:07:14you heard from Mr. Gustoson. Um and 97%

1:07:18about 97% of the sites wetlands of

1:07:20highest functions and values are going

1:07:21to be avoided, protected and preserved.

1:07:24Um there is uh you heard previously

1:07:27about the stormwater treatment plan. Um,

1:07:30and then the the wetlands mitigation

1:07:32ratio. I I I wanted to ask Mr. Gustoson

1:07:35to um I uh to talk a little bit about

1:07:38that, the 3.59 to1 wetlands mitigation

1:07:41ratio and [snorts]

1:07:43um and how that is going to be

1:07:45implemented as part of this project.

1:07:48>> [snorts]

1:07:50>> So I I think it's important to to kind

1:07:53of frame this discussion in the context

1:07:55of wetland mitigation and there's been

1:07:58some comments about you know the

1:07:59successfulness of mitigation projects

1:08:02over the years. Um so when folks kind of

1:08:06draw that um out as a potential concern

1:08:10or commission member draws that as a

1:08:11concern, most folks reference a report

1:08:14that was issued by the US Army Corps New

1:08:16England district from 2003

1:08:20uh titled success of core required

1:08:22wetland mitigation in New England. Uh

1:08:26that document is dated April 3rd, 2003.

1:08:29uh and it essentially concluded that of

1:08:31the 40 sites that were evaluated

1:08:33approximately 33%

1:08:36provided inadequate or insufficient

1:08:38wetland area and replacement of loss

1:08:41functions.

1:08:44So that's that's a a wellrecoognized and

1:08:48referenced document that's out there uh

1:08:50issued by the core through um very

1:08:53detailed analysis of various

1:08:55applications that have been had been

1:08:56before that agency over the past you

1:08:59know prior to 2003 over probably over

1:09:02the past 10 to 15 years prior to that

1:09:04date. Now, as a result of those

1:09:07concerns, the Army Corps New England

1:09:10District intentionally developed much

1:09:12clearer standards for wetland

1:09:14mitigation.

1:09:15And those resulted in the issuance of a

1:09:17document titled the New England District

1:09:19Compensatory Mitigation Standard

1:09:21Operating Procedures dated April 26th,

1:09:242024 or commonly referred to as SOPs

1:09:28or wetland mitigation SOPs.

1:09:31So this document provides a standardized

1:09:34format for designing wetland mitigation

1:09:36sites and establishing performance

1:09:38standards to ensure a successful

1:09:40mitigation. Uh and intentionally was

1:09:42drafted up with uh explicit details for

1:09:45mitigation plans to ensure

1:09:47successfulness of those mitigation and

1:09:49and significantly improve kind of the

1:09:52past history of wetland mitigation that

1:09:54have been before that that agency. Um

1:09:57and that very uh same document, the

1:10:01wetland mitigation SOP was used um by

1:10:04myself and other wetland scientists uh

1:10:07in my team to develop the the current

1:10:10wetland mitigation plan. Uh that

1:10:12includes the planting schedules, all the

1:10:15planting construction sequence notes, uh

1:10:18the mitigation monitoring during

1:10:19construction, and then the a five-year

1:10:21period of post construction monitoring.

1:10:24It's important to note that that same

1:10:26wetland mitigation SOP is adopted by the

1:10:28Connecticut deep wetlands mitigation

1:10:30program which is a relatively new

1:10:33program was established a few years ago

1:10:35by the department um to essentially do

1:10:37the same thing the core has been doing

1:10:39provided uh better guidance and standard

1:10:42standardizations for designing uh

1:10:45implementing and moning wetland

1:10:46mitigation projects throughout the

1:10:48state. So by following these standards

1:10:52in combination with you know the very

1:10:53high 3.59 to1 mitigation ratio it

1:10:57ensures that the loss of the four

1:10:58isolated wetlands uh associated with the

1:11:01proposed development which I've noted

1:11:04numerous times have low function value

1:11:07uh will be replaced by a much larger

1:11:09wetland area that supports significantly

1:11:11higher wetland functions.

1:11:14That conclusion is supported by you know

1:11:17what's would be permit enforcable

1:11:19asurances that uh include bonding a

1:11:22five-year post construction modern

1:11:25period and standards of performance that

1:11:28would be established as part of that

1:11:30modern period to ensure that at the end

1:11:32of five years all those wetland

1:11:35mitigation areas the creation

1:11:36restoration enhancement areas are

1:11:39providing the functions uh and values as

1:11:41stated in our documentation. If for some

1:11:44reason one or more of those performance

1:11:46standards aren't met at the end of that

1:11:485-year mon period, that monitor is

1:11:51established until such date as those uh

1:11:54all those performance standards are

1:11:56satisfied. So those provide the

1:11:59commission with essentially what's

1:12:00coined instruments of protection uh to

1:12:03ensure that the mitigation plan uh will

1:12:06be properly implemented will

1:12:08significantly increase the amount of

1:12:11wetlands present on the subret property

1:12:14as well as improve uh significantly

1:12:16functioning values of those wetland

1:12:18systems in comparison to those being

1:12:20lost and thereby providing a benefit to

1:12:23the town as far as the wetland resources

1:12:26on this property.

1:12:27uh particularly when you combine them

1:12:28with the areas that are being preserved

1:12:30through conservation uh and the area of

1:12:34the hunt club that contain significant

1:12:35wetlands as well which will be um

1:12:38bequeathed to the town.

1:12:41So thank you.

1:12:44>> Yes, can I got a question? I've been

1:12:46trying to find

1:12:48>> Sorry. You said that there was a letter

1:12:50that you had four of your wetlands

1:12:53looked at and

1:12:56>> from the Army Corps of Engineers.

1:12:58>> Yes.

1:12:58>> Yes.

1:12:59>> Which four did you have looked at?

1:13:02>> So it's wetlands

1:13:0616, 17, 18, and 25. And those are the

1:13:09four isolated wetlands that are we're

1:13:11proposing to impact with the proposed

1:13:13project.

1:13:16And that letter is contained as an

1:13:18attachment to our wetland assessment

1:13:20report.

1:13:20>> Okay. I don't

1:13:21>> I don't think I'd seen that.

1:13:22>> I haven't seen the letter. That's our

1:13:25>> multitude of papers in the Dropbox.

1:13:30>> It was attached it was attached to the

1:13:32wetlands assessment report because I did

1:13:34comment on it in my staff report. So it

1:13:37is in there.

1:13:38>> Okay.

1:13:38>> And it was also noted by your peer

1:13:40reviewer. time bond noted it uh that was

1:13:43present in one of their response to the

1:13:45comments from uh Steve Franis.

1:13:47>> Okay. It might be a good chance to get

1:13:48some of these things on the record. That

1:13:50needs to be on the record. I know you

1:13:52have some things that need to be on the

1:13:53record.

1:13:53>> Yeah, I have some questions and actually

1:13:55it's good that we're talking about the

1:13:56wetland functions and values because I'm

1:13:58curious and and maybe it's in all of

1:14:00this uh multitude of documentation, but

1:14:04um what functions and values are

1:14:07permanently lost?

1:14:10like what cannot be recreated, what

1:14:12cannot be restored, um what functions

1:14:16cannot be mitigated.

1:14:18>> So essentially any function value that a

1:14:20wetland system supports currently can be

1:14:23replicated with an appropriately

1:14:26designed wetland mitigation plan.

1:14:32So we should believe that these newly

1:14:38created wetlands are going to be

1:14:40equivalent

1:14:42to something that's naturally

1:14:43functioning.

1:14:44>> That's correct. Yep. And those so those

1:14:47are and this is exhibited in various

1:14:50agency documents particularly the ones I

1:14:52referenced where they've set up

1:14:54standards for um creating designing and

1:14:58implementing wetland mitigation uh plans

1:15:01and this is what happens across the

1:15:03state happens all across the country but

1:15:07in particularly New England um under the

1:15:09Army Cor's jurisdiction

1:15:11there are multiple mitigation sites that

1:15:14are approved every single here and those

1:15:17are specifically designed to at least

1:15:20replicate the functions values that are

1:15:22being lost

1:15:23or what is more common is that you try

1:15:27to improve the functions and values of

1:15:29the mitigation site compared to what's

1:15:31being lost. So there isn't a net loss

1:15:34there's a net gain at the end of the day

1:15:35with the proposed project.

1:15:38>> Okay. And in our packets and all the

1:15:41documentation and reports that we've

1:15:42received is documented what groundwater

1:15:45recharge functions are lost, what

1:15:47habitat functions are going to be lost,

1:15:50what nutrient retention functions are

1:15:52going to be and I mean permanently lost.

1:15:55>> So in

1:15:56>> is that all documented in there?

1:15:58>> It is. Yep. In our wetland assessment

1:16:00report, uh there's a specific section in

1:16:02there that's called functions and

1:16:04values. in that we discuss what the

1:16:07current function values that are being

1:16:08supported by the various wetlands.

1:16:11In the particular case of the four

1:16:12isolated wetlands that being impacted,

1:16:15>> um they're their principle, they really

1:16:19don't because of their size and the

1:16:21small area of drainage that feeds each

1:16:23particular one. None of them really

1:16:25support what's considered principal

1:16:27functions or values. So generally you

1:16:30look at either principal, secondary or

1:16:32it's not being provided at a significant

1:16:34level. Their primary secondary um

1:16:38function that they're supporting is you

1:16:40know localized groundwater recharge and

1:16:43that's on a seasonal basis. um when the

1:16:46wetland is at its hydro period peak uh

1:16:49it has an ability to recharge uh the

1:16:51shallow uh localized and when I mean

1:16:54localized I mean it's it's within

1:16:57uh it's not within a mile it's within

1:16:59you know thousands of feet at most

1:17:02within the specific drainage area of

1:17:04recharging that surface water into the

1:17:06very shallow groundwater that's

1:17:08supported in the overburden

1:17:11as you've heard in other documentation

1:17:13um the site is generally overlaid by

1:17:16thin glacial till or uh dense bedrock.

1:17:19Um so there we're not talking about

1:17:21significant acryers that were associated

1:17:24with those isolated wetlands. They're

1:17:26very localized uh shallow groundwater uh

1:17:30seasonal resources on that property

1:17:33where we have our wetland restoration

1:17:35and mitigation areas principally and

1:17:37associated with wetland one which is a a

1:17:40high value high function wetland system

1:17:43um as well as down by wetlands 22 and 23

1:17:47down by Baker. um those areas will uh

1:17:52support that groundwater recharge

1:17:55function

1:17:57um in a much higher capacity because

1:18:00they're much larger wetland areas that

1:18:02are being provided. In addition, there's

1:18:05um a significant ability because we're

1:18:08dealing with wetland one. Um we are you

1:18:12know densely planting them with native

1:18:14uh trees, shrubs and herbaceous species

1:18:17that'll support that existing high

1:18:18function value wetland system and by uh

1:18:21association those mitigation areas will

1:18:24support a significant amount of function

1:18:26of value uh particularly in compared to

1:18:29the four isolated wetlands that'll be

1:18:30impacted.

1:18:33>> Thank you.

1:18:33>> You're welcomey.

1:18:36anything for the record.

1:18:40>> I understand. I agree that you know by

1:18:44improving and and you know creating and

1:18:48restoring wetlands that are going to be

1:18:51adjacent to this property, you are going

1:18:52to meet or exceed the functions and

1:18:55values being provided by these four

1:18:56isolated wetlands. However, you know,

1:18:59and again, I know we're going to get

1:19:01into outside of jurisdiction topics and

1:19:03territories here, but the wetlands have

1:19:06their associated jurisdictional areas

1:19:07and upland review areas associated with

1:19:09them. And then they are part of a larger

1:19:12complex within this larger, you know,

1:19:15property and there are habitat values

1:19:18and wildlife passing corridors. And

1:19:20again, not in 10.3. I understand this.

1:19:23There are rules about wildlife and what

1:19:26we cannot make decisions based on unless

1:19:28the impacts will affect physical

1:19:30characteristics of such wetlands or

1:19:31water courses. I understand you can in a

1:19:36vacuum take out one of those wetlands

1:19:37and say well the groundwater recharge

1:19:39from here is going to be accommodated by

1:19:41here but you're also going to be putting

1:19:43tons of fill on that wetland and the you

1:19:47know surface flow and you know outlet

1:19:49flow of BMPs and things like that is

1:19:52still an enormous potential increase in

1:19:56waters being put into these new restored

1:20:00created wetlands to recharge. So, you

1:20:02know, one to one it's may not be exactly

1:20:04equal. It's just it's it's an enormous

1:20:07project that it's not as easy as remove

1:20:11these four isolated wetlands and it's

1:20:13covered by these other larger improved

1:20:16wetlands.

1:20:18Um

1:20:20yeah,

1:20:22>> there's a lot.

1:20:24So, so it if I could just add some

1:20:27additional um description of those

1:20:30wetlands and how they function in the

1:20:32landscape. So, they're they like I said

1:20:36they are isolated in nature. There's

1:20:38[clears throat] no surface connection to

1:20:40any other surrounding wetland systems.

1:20:43However, when you look at a larger

1:20:45drainage area scope of that surrounds

1:20:47those wetlands, they all drain to the

1:20:50west and they all like all the upland

1:20:53areas, they uh drain towards the

1:20:56headarters of Davis Brook.

1:20:59So, one of the things in and uh Mr.

1:21:02Durko has discussed this in previous

1:21:04testimony is that you know we

1:21:06intentionally ensure that the storm

1:21:08water management system mimicked

1:21:11existing drainage conditions. What I

1:21:13mean by that is that if it's drained to

1:21:15Davis Brook

1:21:17>> needs to drain to Davis it'll drain to

1:21:19Davis Brook tomorrow. Uh the same thing

1:21:22there's a small drainage area on the

1:21:24eastern side that drains to the Mashant

1:21:25Tuckbrook. Um, same thing. We have a

1:21:29very intentionally designed and

1:21:31controlled storm water outfall in those

1:21:33locations to spread that storm water out

1:21:36in a very controlled fashion and get

1:21:38that water back to recharge to the local

1:21:40groundwater that's feeding feeding those

1:21:42stream systems that won't result in an

1:21:45adverse you know impact adverse

1:21:47maintenance issue with those areas. Um,

1:21:50so I think we've uh intentionally gone

1:21:54through a very thoughtful design from a

1:21:56stormwater standpoint so that if there

1:21:59was any possible relationship between

1:22:01those four wetlands and some of the

1:22:02receiving wetland systems that are down

1:22:04slope, those relationships from a

1:22:07hydraulic standpoint will be retained

1:22:09post development.

1:22:11Thank you.

1:22:13>> Did that bring anything else up from

1:22:15your questions? We had time to digest a

1:22:18little.

1:22:18>> Yeah. Well, it's kind of moving into

1:22:20environmental consequences. Um, and I'd

1:22:23like to understand has anything been

1:22:25forecasted out as far as what changes

1:22:30this project is going to have over, you

1:22:33know, what changes are going to happen

1:22:34in the next five years, in the next 10

1:22:36years, the next 20 years. And I'm

1:22:39talking about like habitat

1:22:41fragmentation, wildlife impacts,

1:22:44long-term vegetation type of changes.

1:22:47Has that been forecasted out? Can you

1:22:49say, "Hey, you know what? This is what

1:22:51that site's going to look like in five

1:22:53years, 10 years, 20 years, and I don't

1:22:55know whose purview across all of you

1:22:58this falls under, but is that in our

1:23:01reports? Like, do we know what the

1:23:03future is going to look like?"

1:23:08>> Um, so some of those concerns are in

1:23:11fairly broad terms. I'm just going to

1:23:13take some liberties and feel free to

1:23:15follow up with additional questions to

1:23:17get additional clarification with

1:23:19respect to uh wildlife you know concerns

1:23:23quarters impacts whatnot. Um I'm sure

1:23:27the commission is very familiar that

1:23:28that your purview is significantly

1:23:30restricted. It has to result in a

1:23:33physical impact to this adjacent wetland

1:23:35resource.

1:23:37this project will not result in that

1:23:39type of impact to wetland dependent

1:23:42species that will have a adverse

1:23:44physical impact to those wetland

1:23:46resources with respect to how vegetation

1:23:50may change over time. Um, and I think

1:23:53this may draw back to some of your

1:23:56previous comments u maybe with the

1:23:59previous application with respect to

1:24:01invasive species. Um, that is a

1:24:04significant concern. Uh it's a great

1:24:06comment. It should come up in pretty

1:24:08much every application that you have

1:24:09that's going through land use changes.

1:24:11Um

1:24:14what we've done and I've provided that

1:24:17in in previous testimony is we not only

1:24:20have a wetland uh as part of our wetland

1:24:23mitigation plan, we have a requirement

1:24:26and a performance standard to monitor

1:24:28invasive species within the wetland and

1:24:31upland review enhancement mitigation

1:24:33areas.

1:24:35um those are specific standards. They

1:24:37can only attain certain aerial coverage

1:24:39at which point they require treatment to

1:24:42essentially knock them down while the

1:24:45native plants that we've put in the

1:24:46ground are getting established. And uh

1:24:49long term as long as those plants um get

1:24:54established and like I said this is

1:24:56would be a permit required assurance

1:24:59through our notations which you can

1:25:01certainly incorporate in

1:25:04uh some of your special conditions

1:25:06should the commission desire to approve

1:25:08this application is that those standards

1:25:11have to be adhered to uh through five

1:25:14years. um and if they don't then the uh

1:25:18that particular standard needs to be

1:25:20continue to be worked on until it

1:25:23achieves it.

1:25:25The other aspect which I again I think

1:25:26you brought up and and rightly so is

1:25:29that all right well you know you have a

1:25:31lot of land clearing uh you have a lot

1:25:34of equipment movement um and that there

1:25:38is a potential once you expose ground it

1:25:40provides a potential vector for invasive

1:25:42plants to come into the project site

1:25:45>> either off equipment uh or you know

1:25:49travel uh from vehicles etc. Um, so we

1:25:53um developed and it's in in the

1:25:56notations and it's in our wetland

1:25:58assessment report uh description of it.

1:26:00We have invasive species control plan.

1:26:03sale that requires before the contractor

1:26:07um moves one piece of equipment on site,

1:26:09they attend a pre-construction meeting.

1:26:11Uh and we go over the various elements

1:26:14of the resource protection plan which

1:26:16includes wetlands, fernal pools, any

1:26:19fertile pool wildlife, uh any herpa

1:26:22which is reptiles and amphib amphibians.

1:26:24Um but we also make a point that um all

1:26:28of your equipment needs to be

1:26:29powerwashed at your yards. uh and before

1:26:33you bring it on site so that you're not

1:26:34tracking dirt off a site that has

1:26:36invasive species trapped in the tires

1:26:38and the undercarriage and potentially

1:26:40had now has an avenue to get a foothold

1:26:42in the site once you open up uh

1:26:44disturbed soils. Um so that is a very

1:26:48intentional plan. We monitor that

1:26:51closely during construction. Um, as part

1:26:54of our protection plan, uh, we do have,

1:26:57uh, continuous monitoring, regular

1:26:59bonding throughout the duration of the

1:27:00construction project. Um, we ensure that

1:27:04not only are all the contractors

1:27:06properly trained and aware of the

1:27:08sensitivity of the project, but they're

1:27:10maintaining, uh, that sensitivity

1:27:12throughout the duration of the project,

1:27:14we're monitoring materials being brought

1:27:15on site. We're monitoring uh

1:27:17establishment, permanent establishment

1:27:19of vegetation, make sure there's

1:27:20non-invasives mixed in those areas. Um,

1:27:23and that will provide assurances that

1:27:26for kind of long-term vegetative

1:27:28stabilization of the site, it's going to

1:27:29be dominated by native plants which are

1:27:31out there presently.

1:27:35[clears throat]

1:27:36>> That just opened it up to a few more

1:27:37questions.

1:27:39>> Um,

1:27:40>> did it start to make any sense?

1:27:43>> It it is. Yes. I still need to process a

1:27:46bit on that. But yes,

1:27:48>> the if I could just add one more thing

1:27:50um for the the Hunt Club property, you

1:27:53know, there is some vegetation

1:27:54maintenance is intentionally going on uh

1:27:57to this day and that's to support the

1:27:59existing use of the property um you know

1:28:01promote feeasant um you know habitat uh

1:28:05and areas for for hunting. So that

1:28:09intentional maintenance um will be

1:28:11discontinued once the property is is uh

1:28:14signed over to the town. Um that will

1:28:17allow those habitats to naturally

1:28:19attenuate and u reveate uh which will go

1:28:23through a natural succession process and

1:28:26eventually revert back to forested

1:28:27habitat which is the dominant cover type

1:28:30uh across that property and also the

1:28:32project property.

1:28:37Paul,

1:28:38>> I'm good right now.

1:28:40>> Actually, I I have been too. There's a

1:28:42lot of information out there and thing

1:28:44is most of it's there. We have to find

1:28:47it and sometimes we might need you to

1:28:49help us walk through it. Rainey,

1:28:52anything else on on you from that?

1:28:57It's there. It's finding it.

1:29:01Just

1:29:04one comment that it don't even need to

1:29:06be addressed, but you know, out of good

1:29:07faith for since we missed

1:29:11specifying for the purpose of a public

1:29:13review that this was potentially for

1:29:16significant impacts or prudent

1:29:18alternatives. Uh I would just make the

1:29:20note that by making the argument that

1:29:23your 1.3 1.2 2 million square foot

1:29:26warehouse being asked to explore prudent

1:29:30alternatives and feasible alternatives

1:29:32and coming back with well we can't make

1:29:34it one/ird of that size is not exactly

1:29:37an exhaustive

1:29:39uh exploration of alternatives when you

1:29:40have 800,000 square feet of wiggle room

1:29:43there to play with. I think that there

1:29:46potentially are other building

1:29:49footprints or layouts and other

1:29:52potential construction ideas that could

1:29:56have avoided some if not all of these

1:29:59four isolated wetlands if you didn't

1:30:01just chop it to compare to like you said

1:30:05in the last meeting 30-some year old

1:30:08developments for completely other uses

1:30:11commercially. Uh, I think that it it's

1:30:14still to me not an exhaustive effort of

1:30:17prudent and feasible alternatives when

1:30:19you have that much wiggle room to play

1:30:20with. And I think that it's not our

1:30:26fault Amazon has a [clears throat]

1:30:28footprint for a robotics facility that

1:30:30you need to make fit on this property.

1:30:33They can explore other alternatives

1:30:35somewhere in the maybe 750,000 foot

1:30:37range, 900,000, you know, like there's a

1:30:41lot of room there. It's not just 1.2

1:30:43million square feet or 450,000 square

1:30:46feet. That seems

1:30:48>> and also just for the record when we

1:30:51went to public hearing on this as you

1:30:53said there are three options. We could

1:30:55have waited and I find it hard to

1:30:57imagine that we would not have found 25

1:30:59people to to sign a petition. We did a

1:31:04with the the idea that it was the second

1:31:09one where there was considerable public

1:31:12interest and that was the reasoning for

1:31:15it and perhaps we're a little too naive

1:31:19and thought that perhaps it would

1:31:20encompass the other things.

1:31:23We may or may not be wrong dependent

1:31:25upon which legal opinion you get on on a

1:31:27certain day. But we clearly defined a

1:31:30purpose. We didn't just say, "Oh, off

1:31:33the top of our head, yes or no public

1:31:35hearing." There was a reason. It was

1:31:37because we were sure there would be

1:31:38considerable public interest and we we

1:31:41set it for that purpose.

1:31:42>> Yes. Thank you. We agree with that.

1:31:44>> Okay. Robin, I'm sure you have something

1:31:46to say at this point.

1:31:48>> I was just going to add because there to

1:31:50your point about there being so much

1:31:52information. Obviously, I'm coming in

1:31:54and I've only been reading it for two

1:31:57weeks and there's over a hundred

1:31:58documents in the record. So, I'm

1:32:00drinking from a fire hose. You all have

1:32:02been sitting here for months. Um, but if

1:32:05there's any questions, like if

1:32:07something's coming up and you're like, I

1:32:08can't put my finger on it. Um, I'm happy

1:32:11to research that for you. You guys just

1:32:13have to reach out to me and and I'll do

1:32:15that and pinpoint that to you.

1:32:16>> As we have set up the new communication

1:32:19system, it is not working. Mine is

1:32:22working merely because I happen to be

1:32:24moderating here for the for early voting

1:32:28and had the ability to get the IT staff

1:32:31to fix it. I'm sure you could not make a

1:32:33password work.

1:32:36>> Yeah, mine's working. I got

1:32:38>> this. You had to be with the second run.

1:32:42>> No, no, I had to be on the second run.

1:32:44>> Not when not the initial.

1:32:46>> Yes. No, I didn't I didn't do it until

1:32:48like this morning. So,

1:32:49>> okay. because the initial the initial

1:32:51passwords would not work.

1:32:52>> Yeah, I saw the second one.

1:32:53>> So, just to confirm, all four of you

1:32:55have your town emails up and running.

1:32:57You two? No. If you need any help, you

1:32:59can come in and we can find somebody to

1:33:01help you set it up. [laughter]

1:33:03>> I knew it wasn't just me because I threw

1:33:05it at a much younger person. [laughter]

1:33:08Password isn't valid. It wasn't just me.

1:33:11>> Before we get too far off topic, I just

1:33:13wanted to piggyback on what Rooney was

1:33:15saying though because one of my

1:33:16questions is why is the 1.23 23 million

1:33:19square foot

1:33:21size considered feasible.

1:33:25I mean the first application you guys

1:33:28came to us and said this is the most

1:33:32feasible alternative but now you found

1:33:35another more feasible alternative. So, I

1:33:39think that's kind of why we're

1:33:40wondering, are there other feasible

1:33:44sizes that could be

1:33:46uh

1:33:48um I don't know, uh

1:33:51investigated, considered something. Um

1:33:55because what we're hearing is that the

1:33:59economic development benefits for your

1:34:02client outweighs the environmental

1:34:05impacts to that lot

1:34:10[applause]

1:34:12>> I don't expect them to be clapping you

1:34:14just so we just want to make sure we are

1:34:18being presented the most fed and prudent

1:34:22and feasible option Sure. And I I think

1:34:26um Dustin Kern from Ryan Companies can

1:34:28can address that. Um and I can chime in

1:34:31um as part of that.

1:34:33>> Sure. Dustin Curran, uh director of real

1:34:35estate for Ryan Companies. Um when we

1:34:37were looking at the building footprint

1:34:39and programming, part of the exercises

1:34:42we went to to look at smaller building

1:34:44footprints involved uh exhaustive um

1:34:48planning on on eliminating potential

1:34:51programming from the facility. And so

1:34:54there are additional program items such

1:34:56as a print ondemand um program that has

1:35:00been removed from this facility in order

1:35:02to reduce the footprint size of this

1:35:04building. So we are down to what is the

1:35:09critical component of the facility type

1:35:13and that's why we've explained that we

1:35:15have kind of exhausted the um the levers

1:35:19to pull related to reduction of building

1:35:22square footage and size.

1:35:26>> Okay. Anything else from the commission?

1:35:29Robin, any questions from you now that

1:35:31you've heard actually heard some of it

1:35:33instead of reading it until your head's

1:35:35gonna pop.

1:35:36>> Well, her question was good because I

1:35:38asked the same question on a meeting.

1:35:39So, um I did ask them to just give an

1:35:42explanation and and maybe it's

1:35:44forthcoming because there's been a lot

1:35:46of back and forth um when staff reports

1:35:48get in tie and bond when they're

1:35:50submitting stuff. But I did ask um the

1:35:52exact same question and I did ask that

1:35:54it be put in writing as as part of the

1:35:56record why they can't further reduce the

1:35:58footprint because it had been previously

1:36:01uh reduced. I don't have any questions

1:36:03right now. I mean, unlike you guys,

1:36:05because I'm staff, I get to ask my

1:36:07questions directly and timely um as I'm

1:36:09reviewing stuff and and um I've been in

1:36:13contact with both our third party

1:36:15reviewer and the applicants uh team when

1:36:18issues have come up um so that they can

1:36:20address them in real time. Again, you

1:36:22guys are on a time crunch and I want to

1:36:24make sure that you have all the

1:36:26information you need at that final

1:36:27meeting.

1:36:27>> They were very helpful and made it

1:36:29perfectly clear to me what the correct

1:36:30protocol is. But now you can remind me

1:36:32once again. Will we go with Tai and Bond

1:36:35at the moment or will we go with our

1:36:36interveners first? I'm thinking Tai and

1:36:39Bond because it would

1:36:40>> I think you should go to Tai and Bond.

1:36:42There there's been a bunch of back and

1:36:44forth and they can probably give you an

1:36:45update of where they are waiting on any

1:36:47plan responses. And then just a head

1:36:49heads up because then now that we do

1:36:52have recognized intervenors, they will

1:36:55be our first priority on on [snorts]

1:36:58speaking and then they do have an

1:37:01opportunity for interaction

1:37:04because they are now presenters.

1:37:07>> Okay. So at at this point we'd be

1:37:09looking for our third party.

1:37:28Uh, good evening. Uh, for the record.

1:37:32>> There we go. All right. Uh, good

1:37:34evening. For the record, Joseph Canis.

1:37:35I'm a licensed professional engineer in

1:37:38the state of Connecticut. Uh, principal

1:37:39engineer with Tai Bonnet of our Shelton,

1:37:41Connecticut office. And uh I was

1:37:43retained by the commission for the

1:37:45engineering review. So um my um

1:37:48[clears throat]

1:37:49area of the review covers storm water

1:37:52sediment erosion control and grading.

1:37:54And with me tonight is Rick Canavan.

1:37:56He's a professional wetland scientist

1:37:57also with Tyenbond. And uh he did uh is

1:38:01um responsible for the wetlands review.

1:38:04Uh so [clears throat]

1:38:05as uh Mr. Enduro uh um said in his

1:38:09presentation earlier uh he recounted the

1:38:13um documents that he's received from us

1:38:15and uh that is accurate and um again

1:38:18just to u recap that uh my initial

1:38:21letter was dated October 30th to the

1:38:24inland wetlands commission uh responding

1:38:26to the initial submission materials. I

1:38:29then uh prepared a letter dated October

1:38:3219th responding to the U interveners

1:38:35engineer uh Mr. Trinkus' letter of

1:38:37October 1st. And then most recently on

1:38:40October 30th, there are two letters in

1:38:43the file for you. uh one addresses um

1:38:48Langan's uh the applicant's responses to

1:38:51our October 5th letter and the other one

1:38:54uh dated Octo also dated October 30th

1:38:57addresses u Mr. Trinkus' October 14th

1:39:01letter. So uh in an overview from the uh

1:39:05storm water uh erosion and control

1:39:07perspective um you know we had maybe um

1:39:12I don't know maybe 50 comments initially

1:39:14and about half of them have been

1:39:16addressed satisfactoryy you know what

1:39:18would we consider be uh fully addressed

1:39:20there are some additional comments out

1:39:22there that relate to uh consistency

1:39:26between plans and details uh you know

1:39:28those are minor comments that I think

1:39:30with the next round of uh responses from

1:39:32the applicant that they should be

1:39:34resolved. Uh the biggest issue for us

1:39:36right now uh from my perspective is the

1:39:39um sediment and erosion control and the

1:39:41phasing of how that gets built. Um the

1:39:46uh the plans uh you know in our initial

1:39:48review needed uh additional detail that

1:39:51documented you know uh where um

1:39:53materials coming from and where it's

1:39:55going where the excavation's going uh

1:39:58you know where it's being excavated from

1:39:59where it's going and the additional

1:40:01erosion controls diversion swailes and

1:40:03all that's in the letter and as I

1:40:05understand the applicant based on our uh

1:40:07planning and zoning meeting is working

1:40:08on uh preparing a more detailed phasing

1:40:11plan uh going forward which we'll be

1:40:12happy to view.

1:40:14>> Excuse me one second. Don't we have

1:40:15limitations on how much of an area can

1:40:18actually be exposed at a time? I would

1:40:20assume that's what this is dealing with.

1:40:22Allison, you work on with this on this

1:40:25more.

1:40:28C can't only can't they only have so

1:40:30much area exposed at a specific time?

1:40:33So, I would assume that's what they're

1:40:34phasing. We'll we'll have to address. Do

1:40:38we have I think that's in some of the

1:40:39regulations in town, isn't it?

1:40:42So

1:40:42>> only for gravel, not for anything else.

1:40:44>> So under the excavation um regulation

1:40:47section for planning and zoning, um

1:40:50there is a section that says 5 acres,

1:40:52but it says it can be increased subject

1:40:55to the planning and zoning commission

1:40:56approval. Um this was a question as to

1:40:59what that upper limit came up at the

1:41:01last meeting. The town attorney is going

1:41:03to weigh in on the response for that. Um

1:41:06what I've uh talked to Tai and Bond

1:41:08about um and the applicant is they

1:41:11should submit a phasing plan that shows

1:41:14the 5 acres, but quite frankly I don't

1:41:16know that it's feasible for a site this

1:41:18big and that's what I've talked to Ty

1:41:20Bond about. Um so in the absence of that

1:41:23I've asked them to come up with a

1:41:25reasonable plan that doesn't open up the

1:41:27site that makes sense. So, for instance,

1:41:30the driveway um construction, just

1:41:33opening up the area that gets the

1:41:36driveway constructed, whatever that is,

1:41:3710 or 15 acres, and then whatever makes

1:41:40sense from there on out. So that's um

1:41:43what I have posed to both the applicant

1:41:46and with uh Tai and Bond just thinking

1:41:48out loud uh what we think works and

1:41:51they've been great at looking at some

1:41:53other sites that are comparable um so

1:41:55that we can all have this conversation

1:41:58together but that is still outstanding.

1:42:00>> I was thinking there was some regulation

1:42:01somewhere and I didn't I was sure it

1:42:03wasn't ours

1:42:04>> but it's P&Z but it becomes our issue

1:42:07because of the ENS concerns. So that's

1:42:11why

1:42:11>> it does and and if they have a greater

1:42:14um area open they may have to adjust

1:42:17their erosion and sedimentation control

1:42:19plans um and their their temporary uh

1:42:23drainage areas sediment basin. So that's

1:42:26all part of the ongoing discussion for

1:42:27that.

1:42:28>> Okay.

1:42:29>> Yeah. And and as a clarification to that

1:42:30point, uh you the um state um erosion

1:42:34control sentiment erosion control manual

1:42:36recommends a limit of five acres uh to

1:42:39be exposed at any one time. But with

1:42:41additional controls, you can certainly

1:42:43go beyond that. And also as another

1:42:45point, uh this uh the sediment erosion

1:42:48control plans ultimately do go to D for

1:42:50review uh because of the area that

1:42:53they're opening exceeds a total of five

1:42:55acres. So it's subject to a state permit

1:42:58and review.

1:42:59>> Okay.

1:42:59>> Right. So that that that's part of it as

1:43:00well.

1:43:01>> Some size.

1:43:02>> It is. Yeah, it is five acres. Yeah.

1:43:04>> Trying to mumble it out in my thought

1:43:05process.

1:43:06>> But uh we have uh we did do some

1:43:10research on some other facilities and uh

1:43:12for warehouses of this size it's uh you

1:43:15know it is common for them to expose you

1:43:18know 20 15 20 25 acres at once.

1:43:22>> What I wonder it's got to be a lot

1:43:23>> right? But with that also becomes you

1:43:25know a higher standard for how you

1:43:27design your erosion controls. Like for

1:43:30example you know instead of uh you know

1:43:31a small sediment trap you have to have a

1:43:33full sediment basin that's sized for a

1:43:35certain storm event. So the uh the bar

1:43:38gets much higher once you get to the

1:43:39larger area disturbances.

1:43:42So uh so that that that's really where

1:43:44our primary concern is. You know we had

1:43:45some additional storm water comments and

1:43:47I I won't go through all the points in

1:43:49the letter. uh just uh kind of give a

1:43:52quick overview

1:43:54uh where we are. I had some additional

1:43:56comments on snow removal. Again, just uh

1:43:59there were just some minor clarification

1:44:01comments. Uh again, some minor

1:44:04clarification comments on uh the

1:44:07stormwater operations and maintenance

1:44:08plan specifically with the burm for that

1:44:10extended detention basin. Uh there were,

1:44:13you know, they uh the applicant was very

1:44:15responsive to uh my comments about

1:44:17providing some additional information on

1:44:19how that burm gets maintained. I was

1:44:21just looking for a little bit more

1:44:22specificity with the animal burrows and

1:44:24how they get filled with what material

1:44:27just so it's all there for, you know, uh

1:44:29when it is maintained in the future,

1:44:31they know exactly what needs to go in

1:44:33place.

1:44:35Uh I also asked the applicant to uh do a

1:44:39storm drainage analysis of uh the

1:44:42impacts downstream. Uh so they've

1:44:44analyzed down to Davis Brook for

1:44:46example. Uh the other thing I did ask

1:44:49them was uh to take a look at the

1:44:51impacts on 395. I I think it won't be a

1:44:54problem, but they just need to prove

1:44:55that out in their computations.

1:45:06And then I just had some minor comments

1:45:08on the the stormwater computations. Uh

1:45:10just a couple points of clarification,

1:45:12but uh the the biggest issue uh that we

1:45:15see that's out there are the sentiment

1:45:18erosion controls

1:45:21>> and we look forward to the applicant's

1:45:23response. And I I'll turn it over to

1:45:24Rick for his uh and you may end up being

1:45:27able to offer a few more insights into

1:45:30some of your questions.

1:45:33Sorry about that.

1:45:36So, Rick Hannavan, uh, professional

1:45:38wellness scientist, professional soil

1:45:40scientist with time bond. Um, yeah. So,

1:45:44also in, uh, the March 30th letter, I

1:45:48provided some comments on the wetland

1:45:50mitigation. So from the previously

1:45:54denied application, the there was a well

1:45:57and mitigation package in that

1:45:58application that was modified to add an

1:46:01additional area

1:46:03um at wetland one which during the first

1:46:08application had done a sitewalk with

1:46:10Dean Gustoson

1:46:12Jonathan um where we looked at the

1:46:14impact areas the mitigation areas but

1:46:16that we didn't get to that corner of the

1:46:18site because um there was no activity

1:46:21proposed there. So on October 16th, we

1:46:25looked at that area, reviewed the

1:46:28um approach, which is a combination of

1:46:32restoration and creation.

1:46:34Um had a few comments on the proposed

1:46:38grading of that area, which I think is

1:46:41it it appears that's still in in

1:46:44production on the plan set. Um, so I

1:46:48expect those comments will be addressed,

1:46:49but it's just getting that information

1:46:51on in the plant side and making sure

1:46:53that the the information like the

1:46:57species list tables and things like that

1:46:59are are up to date to

1:47:02encompass the new area.

1:47:04Um

1:47:06we did have some comments on an

1:47:08alternatives analysis that's you know is

1:47:11a challenge because um you know that is

1:47:14not on the list of uh items that Joe ran

1:47:18through of storm water ENS and wetlands.

1:47:21So, you know, we know through the whole

1:47:24process understand that this is a

1:47:27significantly sized process project and

1:47:29trying to um bring that up in the

1:47:32discussion and you the commissioners,

1:47:34you know, raised that with your previous

1:47:36denial. So, you know, I do think it's

1:47:39valuable to keep this discussion going.

1:47:42Um

1:47:44there was some dialogue on intervenor

1:47:46comments about alternatives which

1:47:49I think we issued comments right when

1:47:51the staff comments came out where um we

1:47:55had suggested that someone respond to

1:47:58intervenor comments but also um the town

1:48:01staff comments address those. So there

1:48:04may be a little overlap in the dialogue

1:48:07on those but I expect that you know we

1:48:10will all need to continue to hear about

1:48:12that but would just note that you know

1:48:15we're not able to respond to comments on

1:48:19like operational size as well. you know,

1:48:22some of the references on building size

1:48:25were really also

1:48:27just trying to to find some regional

1:48:31references. That was part of the the

1:48:34responses in the earlier meetings, but

1:48:36um you know, that's that remains a

1:48:39challenge.

1:48:40Um, I guess one other comment I'd like

1:48:42to make from um

1:48:46questions about uh the wetland impact

1:48:49areas,

1:48:51the isolated wetlands that are on site

1:48:55and like I think you said something to

1:48:58the effect of like impacts to natural

1:49:00wetlands.

1:49:02the

1:49:04one of the at least one of the isolated

1:49:05wetlands has really kind of been created

1:49:07by um human activities where the soil

1:49:11was compacted and that's why it's not

1:49:12well drained. So,

1:49:14you know, like anywhere in New England,

1:49:16you're you're in the woods and it seems

1:49:18like it's never been disturbed, but

1:49:20there's stone walls and there's been

1:49:21activity. So some of the isolated

1:49:24wetlands do really you know exhibit a a

1:49:27more undisturbed

1:49:30uh appearance and that the the the high

1:49:33groundwater and uh poorly drained soils

1:49:36are just a function of you know the

1:49:38glacial past and some of that is human

1:49:40impact. Um similarly the areas that are

1:49:44being proposed for restoration also some

1:49:47of them are are pretty obviously a fill

1:49:51you know like not necessarily in the

1:49:54last year and not something you could

1:49:56maybe chase after a previous owner but

1:49:58certainly in you know the 70 years or

1:50:02something that it's like a associated

1:50:04with residential development other just

1:50:07you know people dumping stuff in their

1:50:09backyard. So there's

1:50:12um parts of

1:50:14you know natural

1:50:17natural systems and human impacted

1:50:18systems and and I think in both the

1:50:20impact areas and the restoration areas

1:50:23there's a a a gradient of human activity

1:50:29and you know it's a functioning mature

1:50:31forest. You know, there's there's parts

1:50:33both of of um you know, ecological value

1:50:36in those those areas, but also like just

1:50:39just to note and understand that there's

1:50:41like some of the existing functioning of

1:50:44those wetlands relates to human impacts.

1:50:48So,

1:50:50wanted to wanted to add that to that

1:50:51discussion because it it I thought it

1:50:53might be helpful. Um I think that kind

1:50:56of covers the comments I had on the the

1:50:58past letters.

1:51:03Yep. C A N A V A N.

1:51:07>> Yep.

1:51:09>> Does our commission members have any

1:51:11questions for him?

1:51:15>> Okay.

1:51:16>> Did some of it help?

1:51:20>> All right. So, at this point, would we

1:51:23move on to interveners?

1:51:25>> I think that's appropriate.

1:51:26>> Okay. So, at this point, we do have the

1:51:28list of interveners. If any of them

1:51:30would like to to speak,

1:51:36I probably need a gavvel less than

1:51:38anyone else in this whole town.

1:51:41>> Okay. Al,

1:51:43>> your name and address for the record.

1:51:44Who would have thought you'd be an

1:51:46intervenor?

1:51:47>> What a surprise.

1:51:48>> Good evening. [laughter]

1:51:50>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh 148 Pond

1:51:53Road, Daveville, Al Durain. And uh yeah,

1:51:57I used to live out there on Westcot Road

1:52:00for many, many years. And uh Fall Brook,

1:52:02I used to walk it in the winter time as

1:52:05a young man and uh drank out of the

1:52:08brook in the winter time, right out of

1:52:09the ice when I was thirsty in the woods

1:52:11hiking. So hopefully we can keep it that

1:52:14way. Uh that is one of the watersheds

1:52:17that this site dumps uh puts water into

1:52:21offbrook wershed and also mash mash uh

1:52:25mash and tuck whed you know it's not

1:52:27well defined and it's two different

1:52:29wersheds on that uh south um south side

1:52:33of the property out there um in them um

1:52:37this disturbed wetland area 161 17 18

1:52:41and 25 uh according to the um applicants

1:52:45maps. It looks like there are small

1:52:47rivlets or brooks that do come out of

1:52:50those. I it's kind of hard to tell where

1:52:52do they go to. Uh you know, ge ge uh

1:52:56geologically, you know, under the

1:52:59ground. Um

1:53:01but I, you know, there also the um

1:53:06the level spreader on that side of the

1:53:08property uh that's going to have

1:53:10millions of gallons of water going

1:53:12through it at times. Um, it comes from

1:53:15the truck court, the ashalt and the roof

1:53:17area. So, that that water is going to be

1:53:21uh sent out on that side of the

1:53:22property. So, it's got to go somewhere.

1:53:24And it's hard to tell where the uh

1:53:26waterershed split back there. You know,

1:53:28the Mashtuk brook watershed and the um

1:53:32Fbrook wershed on that side of the

1:53:34property. I know a lot of water, you

1:53:36know, is supposed to be going down Davis

1:53:37Brook. That's a whole another watershed.

1:53:40So, there's several waterheds on that

1:53:42property.

1:53:43and they [clears throat] all have

1:53:44different um effects and um so

1:53:48you know you it's it's okay to m

1:53:50mitigate a watershed by replacing it in

1:53:53another area but does it still has the

1:53:55same functions that it would have if it

1:53:58was in the area that it started off

1:54:00with? It seems like that should be part

1:54:02of the um you know what what is um

1:54:05involved you know to have a replacement

1:54:08replace the same functions on that side

1:54:09of the property. I don't think the level

1:54:11spreader is going to, you know, be the

1:54:13same type of replacement for the water

1:54:15on that side of the property. Um, you

1:54:17know, that water just that's going to

1:54:19have, um, you know, chlorides in it and,

1:54:22um, other types of contaminants, you

1:54:24know, that can't be removed. And that's

1:54:26also Mash and Tuck Brook is the

1:54:29headarters to our aquafer, uh, town of

1:54:31Killing aquifer. Mash and Tuck Brook

1:54:33goes down to Wetstone Brook and on down

1:54:34to um, the Hopkins Wellfield. And then

1:54:38Fbrook also goes down to another aquifer

1:54:41area, Fbrook Mobile Home Park. It's a

1:54:43public water supply. It's under

1:54:47um sur it's probably under surface

1:54:49influence of surface water and the

1:54:52beavers also block the brook up there at

1:54:54Route Six up quite frequently. So it can

1:54:56get flooded down there. And um these all

1:55:00these um waterheds eventually go down to

1:55:03Long Island Sound. you know, you can

1:55:05follow it on down and you you guys know

1:55:07that. But I'm just um what I really

1:55:10wanted to point out is the um headarters

1:55:12where they begin. If you look at the

1:55:14maps, the applicants maps and you can

1:55:17see where these rivlets go down towards

1:55:20the um waterheds there. Uh Mash and

1:55:23Tuck. Let's see.

1:55:27So, [snorts]

1:55:28that's probably about it. I just want to

1:55:30say it is um affects the

1:55:33um

1:55:35resources, natural resources. This is

1:55:37what I'm saying. You know, it affects

1:55:38our watersheds. it does affect the

1:55:41natural resources and I would say

1:55:43adversely when you put uh chloride into

1:55:46the uh watershed

1:55:48and um amphibians uh wildlife plant life

1:55:54aquatic plant life that's um the type of

1:55:57um that is involved with the natural

1:55:59resource filtration

1:56:02um

1:56:04that would be about it I and I would

1:56:06like you to keep the uh hearing open you

1:56:10keep it going. Um, and thank you.

1:56:12That'll be it.

1:56:13>> And also just make sure for the record,

1:56:16Al does also have a a statement

1:56:20in here too regarding watershed and

1:56:23water quality.

1:56:26Thank you, Al.

1:56:27Okay, anyone else?

1:56:34Michelle Murphy, intervenor break neck

1:56:36Hill Road. Uh so I heard uh one of the

1:56:39gentlemen say that uh Tigen Bond and

1:56:43Steve Trinkus' stuff was 80% the same

1:56:46and then at the same breath they

1:56:48discredited Steve Trinkus. So does that

1:56:50mean Tigen Bond is is no good? Um so

1:56:55what do I got? I got several things. Um

1:56:59the first is just kind of conceptual.

1:57:01Um, when you talk about water recharge

1:57:05and they're going to I can see where

1:57:08they they're saying with the level

1:57:09spreader they're going to replace the

1:57:11water uh into the streams and that's

1:57:13going to work but it doesn't really make

1:57:15sense when we were talking about

1:57:17blasting and the other uh meeting which

1:57:20I don't know how we're we should really

1:57:22have a meeting together like this is

1:57:23like really difficult we're all getting

1:57:25such different information but uh it

1:57:28question was asked so where is the water

1:57:30table because you're not supposed to

1:57:32blast unless the water table is, you

1:57:34know, 6 ft below. And nobody could

1:57:37answer. So

1:57:39my question is like we we took down our

1:57:41RBC at one point. They have these big

1:57:43covers if anybody's ever seen a rotating

1:57:46biological contractor. Uh you take off

1:57:48the hut and we covered up about 1,200

1:57:51square ft. And the tree beside it died

1:57:54and we only had it down for like a

1:57:56month. So, I understand that down the

1:57:59line they're going to be spreading out

1:58:01water and it's going to go to the

1:58:02rivers, but what's going to happen with

1:58:041.2 million square feet of no recharge

1:58:08at all to the underground

1:58:11um water and there's a stream going

1:58:13right under by Al's map. So, to me to

1:58:16say it's going to be recreated

1:58:18identically doesn't really make any

1:58:20sense because you're going to have

1:58:22nothing suddenly going to 1.2 million

1:58:25square feet. So, I just think that's

1:58:27really strange. And I do think uh

1:58:29absolutely you're going to lose

1:58:31something. We don't really know what

1:58:32it's going to be changed forever. The

1:58:35other thing I was uh reading about level

1:58:37spreaders and uh you know, if there's

1:58:39like a quarter of an inch of a change,

1:58:42then you can end up with a rivlet going

1:58:44down the the hill and uh a new erosion

1:58:49spot. So, we all know what happens with

1:58:51concrete over time. we could have the

1:58:53best intentions or whatever and it's

1:58:55going to settle. The other thing uh it's

1:58:58in there I heard it at the other meeting

1:59:00so I I hate to go across but it's it's

1:59:03in their paperwork so it should be okay.

1:59:05They were asking about chlorides and

1:59:07best practices and they said we're going

1:59:09to uh follow the best practices and they

1:59:11quoted a manual which is good you know

1:59:13uh probably the 2024 storm water quality

1:59:16manual and they said uh you know we're

1:59:19going to follow best practices and we're

1:59:21going to have a certain amount of sand

1:59:22and a certain amount of salt and I want

1:59:24to know in the middle of a noraster on a

1:59:26mountain who's going to be out there

1:59:28with a measuring cup to make sure that

1:59:29that happens. And then they said a

1:59:31really funny thing. Uh and and for the

1:59:33record, I I'm a wastewater operator.

1:59:36I've been grade seven Massachusetts

1:59:38waste water operator. I've been an

1:59:41operator for 19 years. I was chief

1:59:44operator in Brockton for eight years. 15

1:59:46million gallons a day. Uh I am a plant

1:59:49manager now and chief operator at

1:59:51Maynard Wastewater Treatment Plant. 1.5

1:59:54million uh gallons a day. Uh I am under

1:59:57a storm water permit. I wrote it myself.

2:00:00Uh me and Darlene Darlene Domingos and I

2:00:03wrote the storm water prevention plan.

2:00:06So I have a little bit of knowledge. I'm

2:00:07not an engineer. I'm not a genius. I

2:00:09just I have experience with it. And the

2:00:12the best practice that made me laugh out

2:00:14loud was which is in the their thing.

2:00:17So, I know it I'm crossing

2:00:19meetings here, but it's in their best

2:00:22practices is if big clumps of salt come

2:00:25off the truck that somebody's going to

2:00:27follow behind and get rid of those big

2:00:28clumps of salt.

2:00:31And I I'm going to tell you, I'm in the

2:00:33business and the chances of having one

2:00:36of your guys in a noraster follow the

2:00:38truck with a shovel and take away big

2:00:40clumps of salt is zero. Okay, good luck

2:00:43to you. Blizzard and they're going to be

2:00:44out there with a shovel. just not going

2:00:46to happen. So those are your best

2:00:47practices. Uh it's good that they are

2:00:50following best practices, but one of the

2:00:52things I wanted to say to you guys is

2:00:55you're going to have the chance here to

2:00:59go with best practices or go with more

2:01:01stringent. You're allowed to. You're

2:01:04allowed to uh when Steve Trinkus does

2:01:06anybody have water? I'm like dying up

2:01:08here. Uh so you're allowed to when Steve

2:01:12Trinkas says um his belief is that it's

2:01:17only going to do 60% remove 60% TSS and

2:01:22uh they say 80% and the D is requiring

2:01:2690% with their hydrostatic

2:01:28uh I don't have it in front of me but

2:01:30you know uh cascade having a brain fart.

2:01:33It spins it out and it takes the

2:01:34floatables out and it takes the solids

2:01:36down the bottom. have experience with

2:01:38them. Um, when they throw out those

2:01:42different numbers and even their own

2:01:44number doesn't reach the D requirement,

2:01:47then I I think you have to think about

2:01:49uh are you going to go with best

2:01:51practices? Like you have a choice which

2:01:54engineers to believe and all of them

2:01:57seem respectful to me. They're talking

2:01:58about best practices. That's fine. Or

2:02:01you can decide this is our home. This is

2:02:03our forest. we're allowed to have more

2:02:06stringent

2:02:07um rules and so you know and we're going

2:02:11to go with that. We're going to go with

2:02:12more than best practices when it comes

2:02:15to that decision. You will be able to

2:02:16make that decision. You can look at

2:02:18Trinkus' stuff of what he's saying and

2:02:20say, "Yeah, I really don't want 80%. I

2:02:22want the full 90%." Um when he

2:02:24criticizes the 2024 storm water manual,

2:02:28uh we do that in the business all the

2:02:30time. we look at something that, you

2:02:31know, they say is best practice and we

2:02:33laugh and that wouldn't work. And if we

2:02:35want to do better, we do better. And

2:02:37that's the type of criticism that I I

2:02:39would ask you to really look at the two

2:02:41Tigenbond reports and Steve Trinkus'

2:02:44report because you have a choice to

2:02:46make. There's nothing wrong with his

2:02:48credibility. It's just a choice. It's

2:02:49just a choice between different

2:02:51engineers. And uh I can't find it. The

2:02:55staff member was talking about math and

2:02:57somebody said there was a math error.

2:02:58There wasn't. There were two different

2:03:00methodologies used in the calculations.

2:03:02Steve used the uh Schuler method and

2:03:05they used the MS4 in Massachusetts. Both

2:03:08uh accepted methods and Steve used uh

2:03:12different pollution removal rates than

2:03:16them. They he used lower rates and so

2:03:18their numbers were different and you get

2:03:20to look at that and really just analyze

2:03:22and decide which one do you believe. So

2:03:25I I would say, you know, to keep that in

2:03:27mind. I'm just going to look through

2:03:28here real quick and see if there's

2:03:30anything else. Uh you talk about a

2:03:32bypass uh valve on your jellyfish and I

2:03:35would ask is it automated? Because it's

2:03:37the same type of thing. You're coming

2:03:38into the storm. Uh Steve was complaining

2:03:41about he said you don't really put them

2:03:42in the in the beginning of the thing.

2:03:44And I can see that you get your first

2:03:45flush and then uh the sediment all comes

2:03:50and it sinks before it gets to the

2:03:52jellyfish and it it doesn't sink enough

2:03:54so that you got to suck it out. And then

2:03:56the next storm comes and it's bigger and

2:03:58then it goes into the jellyfish and now

2:03:59it's like really dirty and it doesn't

2:04:01really work that well. So, you know,

2:04:03your answer is you have a bypass valve

2:04:05and uh I would ask is the bypass valve

2:04:09automated or is somebody going to have

2:04:11to look at the flow, you know, one of

2:04:12your staff members and go, "Oh, okay. I

2:04:14think it's too dirty right now. We're

2:04:16going to open the valve." Because that's

2:04:17important. Um Steve talked about how

2:04:20hydrocarbons and metals and nutrients um

2:04:24in the separator they don't even talk

2:04:26about metals or TP or nitrogen uh with

2:04:32their verifying lab NJCAT.

2:04:35Um so it's good you had a NJCAT lab that

2:04:38verified but they didn't talk about zinc

2:04:43and Steve gives you resources to look

2:04:45into those other things. So, I think

2:04:46it's legitimate to think about are those

2:04:49things really, you know, are those

2:04:51things that you want to be verified and

2:04:52and to think about. Um, let's make sure

2:04:55I got through everything.

2:04:59[laughter]

2:05:00[sighs]

2:05:01>> Yeah, I just got look through my list

2:05:03here. [snorts]

2:05:05[clears throat]

2:05:08Petition and due process. What is that

2:05:10about?

2:05:13Uh uh so I'll just talk to uh feasible

2:05:17changes or whatever. I completely agree

2:05:20with what I heard the commissioner say

2:05:22that it's really about money because

2:05:25if you weren't going to damage nature

2:05:27and you weren't going to damage uh the

2:05:29wetlands, you would come in with your

2:05:31project and you look and you of course

2:05:32you wouldn't think 1.3 million square

2:05:34feet, you'd go, "Okay, I'm going to

2:05:36avoid these wetlands. I'm going to do

2:05:38several small buildings so that rain can

2:05:40come down in the in the middle. And your

2:05:42goal wouldn't be to get all of your

2:05:45manufacturing building be in there

2:05:47necessarily. That's the money part. It

2:05:50would be what can we build here that

2:05:52works. And so I just don't really think

2:05:54it works. You know, I I think for their

2:05:58economic goals, they've done a good job

2:06:00to try and make it work. But I think,

2:06:02you know, you have a choice here. You

2:06:04don't have to accept something because

2:06:07of somebody else's economic goals. You

2:06:09can say, "No, it really, you know, you

2:06:11know, and I'll talk about the PCD."

2:06:13Several times they've said it's

2:06:14consistent with the PC. The PCD has a

2:06:17line in it in the economic uh section of

2:06:20it where it says, you know, this area

2:06:22was designated for manufacturing from

2:06:241995.

2:06:26Um, I didn't even take my water yet.

2:06:32who was designated in 1995 uh for the

2:06:34Southeast Quarter for manufacturing.

2:06:36That PCD was signed into law or whatever

2:06:40it is with uh tons of public input in

2:06:432020 and then in 2022

2:06:46uh in these hearings they changed the

2:06:48text uh from being a b a distribution

2:06:52center being 40,000 square feet

2:06:54accessory use only. So I can look at

2:06:58Mash and Tuck Mountain and say, "Yeah,

2:06:59we could have a little medical research

2:07:01center. There'd be spots for

2:07:03infiltration in between, you know,

2:07:05100,000 foot building. Then we're going

2:07:06to have a 40,000 square foot

2:07:08distribution center beside it." That's

2:07:10what it was. And then gradually over a

2:07:12period of 14 months, uh, which most

2:07:15people did not know about.

2:07:17>> Um, and that's fine. They're going to

2:07:19say it was legal, whatever, but you can

2:07:21see from the down that most people

2:07:22didn't really understand the

2:07:24implications.

2:07:25You've changed the concept of what was

2:07:29agreed on in 2020 with the BOC. The

2:07:32concept was manufacturing 10,000 50,000

2:07:36square ft. It wasn't 1.3 million square

2:07:38ft like that came about later after the

2:07:41POC was signed. It was changed. When you

2:07:43look at the minutes, you had economic

2:07:45development people saying, "Yes, uh,

2:07:47what we have now isn't working. We need

2:07:49a change." Da da da. I sympathize with

2:07:51them. But people signed on to a certain

2:07:54concept of what manufacturing was in

2:07:562020 and that changed. So I'll just

2:07:59throw that out there.

2:08:02Not sure what all this stuff is. Loading

2:08:04docks. Oh, so uh Tigenbond was talking

2:08:07about um whether it's going to be

2:08:11whether whether a truck service station,

2:08:14it's not the right word, but I don't

2:08:16have it written down here. Um is by

2:08:19definition a high pollutant zone. and he

2:08:21said he wasn't sure because he doesn't

2:08:22know if it's going to qualify for a

2:08:23permit. So then he went through the

2:08:25storm water manual and he looked all

2:08:27around. He said, "Well, if there's

2:08:28maintenance there, it might qualify. Uh

2:08:32if there's what were some of the other

2:08:33things? I can't remember." But anyways,

2:08:35he didn't mention the loading dock. So I

2:08:37went to the industrial storm water

2:08:38permit and I looked at it and

2:08:42it's on there that a fleet storage There

2:08:44it is. This sucks to get old. uh a fleet

2:08:48storage facility is a high pollutant

2:08:51zone and what they can do is they can

2:08:53apply for uh an exemption. They can say,

2:08:57you know, there is not really not any

2:08:59opportunity for pollution here or they

2:09:01can uh give them the storm water

2:09:02prevention plan. Now, they're already

2:09:04doing a storm water prevention plan.

2:09:06That's that's what we're talking about.

2:09:08So, I don't understand why he said he

2:09:10couldn't understand if there was a

2:09:11definition like the fact that he has to

2:09:13fill out either one of those forms and

2:09:16get a permit tells you you're a high

2:09:18pollutant zone. So, what I would ask is

2:09:20uh because I've heard some of the plan

2:09:21that looks really good is loading docks.

2:09:23Like when you go to the industrial storm

2:09:26water permit, what they say is are your

2:09:28loading docks fully enclosed? Do they

2:09:30have an overhang? um they don't want um

2:09:35fork trucks driving around outside in

2:09:37the open. If you have any type of truck

2:09:40uh delivery that's outside outside a

2:09:43loading dock without an overhang, you're

2:09:45probably going to be get your permit.

2:09:47They're going to require your permit. I

2:09:49mean, I think they know they're going to

2:09:50get a permit anyway, but it's a high

2:09:51pollutant load. And that speaks to some

2:09:53of Steve's numbers about uh petrol on

2:09:56the ground and uh other pollutants. So,

2:09:59I put that there. Um,

2:10:02I think we need a hydraolog

2:10:04hydrogeeological study for the the

2:10:06reasons I talked about with uh the

2:10:10blasting and and nobody was quite sure

2:10:11where the ground level was and what is

2:10:13it going to do when we cover up 1.3

2:10:16million square feet. Uh they're saying

2:10:19they want us to prove it. We're not

2:10:20going to come up with 60 or $90,000 to

2:10:23do a hydrogeeological study, but

2:10:26somebody could require it. Like I think

2:10:28that's really important. They're not

2:10:30going to recreate the same thing. They

2:10:31might do really good things with uh

2:10:34wetlands in a different area or

2:10:35whatever, but something is going to

2:10:37change. Like you can't cover up that

2:10:39much spot and have no infiltration and

2:10:42think the underground waterways are

2:10:44going to be the same. So, I'd like to

2:10:45see a hydro geological study done. Uh I

2:10:49think I'm almost done, you guys. Sorry.

2:10:51Make sure I don't miss it.

2:10:56>> [snorts]

2:10:59>> So, I would just ask uh that you keep

2:11:02the public hearing open and uh even if

2:11:05it means just for submitting information

2:11:09because I have several people working on

2:11:11some studies to to uh Steve talks about

2:11:15the the things that were mentioned here

2:11:16tonight about how uh pollutants from

2:11:20storm water and erosion will uh you know

2:11:23destroy the wildlife and uh you

2:11:27he it's in his report 13 AB and C and uh

2:11:31we have people out looking to expand

2:11:33upon that with studies and we'd like to

2:11:34be able to have the time to turn it in.

2:11:36So I I would ask that you keep the

2:11:40public hearing open and at least for the

2:11:43submission of materials. Thank you.

2:11:48[applause]

2:11:49>> Any other interveners?

2:11:55Any other interveners

2:11:59now at this point? Uh you're Yes. Go

2:12:02right ahead. [clears throat]

2:12:04So yeah, I too would request that you

2:12:06leave the um the hearing open in that we

2:12:10can continue to put our facts together.

2:12:12I mean, um, one thing that concerns me,

2:12:16I'm Diana Weber, 238 Mashantuk Road, and

2:12:20it was measured and pointed out by them

2:12:22that I am less than 2,000 ft from this

2:12:25building. So, my property has the water

2:12:28and the pond and everything else. and um

2:12:32we can get an hour's notice when they're

2:12:34going to blast and things like that. But

2:12:36again, it's just like and not to cross,

2:12:41but it's a big big deal. They asked for

2:12:4330 acres at a time the other night and

2:12:47we're told, you know, that would be

2:12:49catastrophic. And I have spent like all

2:12:51my time since then trying to find

2:12:54something that would cooperate that you

2:12:56could do such a thing, but you can't.

2:12:58not when you have, you know, 20 wetlands

2:13:01and this whole area and what it it's

2:13:03made of and everything. Um, so the

2:13:07distance I am from it is um

2:13:11about 3 to four minutes for an average

2:13:15adult to walk to. Um, it's about 5.5

2:13:20standard American football fields laid

2:13:22end to end. And again, walking time, it

2:13:25takes an average person about six to

2:13:26eight minutes to walk 2,000 feet at a

2:13:29normal pace. So, this is huge, you know.

2:13:34And one other thing, um, with leaving

2:13:37the hearing open because we are so

2:13:39overwhelmed and we're doing our best and

2:13:41I have more to submit and and go

2:13:44through. Um, it's just really important.

2:13:47And one other thing I would like to

2:13:50correct, and actually attorney Slater

2:13:53can correct me if I'm wrong, but the

2:13:55other night he the only thing about the

2:13:58interveners that he stated was different

2:14:02to what um Miss Robin said tonight was

2:14:05that it's on them to prove it, not the

2:14:11other way around. You know, he did

2:14:13disagree with that assumption. Um, so

2:14:18it's not all on us, you know? I mean, we

2:14:20need to do our part and everything else,

2:14:23but Attorney Slater did say that it was

2:14:27for them to prove that we're wrong, you

2:14:30know. So, um

2:14:33and

2:14:35um

2:14:37before this started, like all my hair

2:14:40fell out from my treatments and stuff

2:14:41and I was wearing wigs through the

2:14:43winter and summer and it's like my hair

2:14:45grew back. This has been going on

2:14:47forever, you know, and it's just it's

2:14:51like putting a square peg in a round

2:14:52hole and you can't make it work. And

2:14:56I'm, you know, for [snorts] my own

2:14:58safety on my own property because I do

2:15:01have water. When they start blasting and

2:15:04those animals leave, you know, that are

2:15:06living there peacefully in their caves

2:15:08right now because it's mostly bedrock,

2:15:10they're coming to my house, you know. So

2:15:13that puts my life in danger and my

2:15:16neighbors and all of my neighbors.

2:15:18Mashantuk brook runs

2:15:21far and you have three ponds in in

2:15:24between. Um, and the animals are going

2:15:27to come to us first. Um, when they're

2:15:31blasting and the poisons are flying and

2:15:33everything, can't grow food anymore. I

2:15:35mean, it's really it's so huge. And that

2:15:38that's not just on my property. That's

2:15:40like the whole impacted

2:15:44um zone.

2:15:46So, um

2:15:49that's it. Please keep this hearing

2:15:51open.

2:15:52>> Okay. Any other interviewers?

2:15:54Michelle. Yeah.

2:15:58>> So, this is quick. I just wanted to say

2:16:00uh when we watched very closely to see

2:16:02if there was going to be a public

2:16:03hearing, we had our 25 pet we actually

2:16:06had 40 petitioners. Freddy,

2:16:07>> I would think so. Thank you.

2:16:10We suspected as much. That's why we were

2:16:13just going to do it automatically. All

2:16:15right. At this point, I believe that

2:16:18since they were interveners, we would

2:16:20also open it up if if they if the

2:16:23applicant wanted to address anything

2:16:25again. Am I correct?

2:16:26>> Yes, you can do that.

2:16:28>> Anything you would like to say?

2:16:43Just bringing up the slides as we wait.

2:16:45Sorry, there was just one slide um that

2:16:48I wanted to

2:16:50have brought up.

2:17:00So this is on the the point that um Miss

2:17:02Weber just addressed about the burden of

2:17:05proof. Who is the burden of proof on

2:17:07under the environmental intervention

2:17:09statute?

2:17:11This uh language on the slide here is

2:17:14from the town attorney's memorandum

2:17:16which was submitted to the planning and

2:17:18zoning commission as part as part of the

2:17:20first application the site plan

2:17:22application that was withdrawn because

2:17:24in that proceeding there were two

2:17:25interveners. I know for the first

2:17:27application here before this commission

2:17:29there were no intervenors but this memo

2:17:32uh this is language from that memo and

2:17:34um we agree with the town attorney that

2:17:36the the the law is clear that the

2:17:39interveners have the burden of proof

2:17:41under section 22A19 of the general

2:17:44statutes to prove with evidence that

2:17:48there's a reasonable likelihood of

2:17:50unreasonable adverse impact to natural

2:17:52resources of the state. And an important

2:17:55part of this is um here the applicant,

2:18:00this is a quote from a case called uh

2:18:02Riverbend and it says the applicant need

2:18:04not disprove environmental harm. So um

2:18:07that's exactly the opposite of what you

2:18:09just heard from one of the interveners.

2:18:11Um on top of that um uh you you can see

2:18:16I'm not sure if it's on this slide or

2:18:18not, but uh yeah, the applicant need not

2:18:21disprove environmental harm.

2:18:22Additionally, as such questions are

2:18:24generally technically complex,

2:18:26interveners generally must come forward

2:18:27with expert evidence. So the Connecticut

2:18:30courts are saying generally for the

2:18:32interveners to satisfy their burden of

2:18:33proof, there has to be expert evidence.

2:18:35And uh Mr. Trinkus has submitted a

2:18:37report, he's an engineer, he's not a

2:18:39wetland scientist, he's not a soil

2:18:40scientist. Um so to the extent that

2:18:42these allegations um in in the

2:18:45intervention petitions raise issues

2:18:46about impacts to wetlands and impacts to

2:18:49water courses, u Mr. Trinkus is not um a

2:18:53wetland scientist or soil scientist and

2:18:55can't isn't qualified to speak to those

2:18:57impacts. Um uh on the other hand, Dean

2:19:00Gustoson from Allpoint Technologies is a

2:19:03wetland scientist, a soil scientist. You

2:19:04also have Mr. Canavan from Tigen Bond,

2:19:07your third party peer reviewer who you

2:19:09heard from.

2:19:11Um

2:19:14and you know, to the extent that Mr. Mr.

2:19:16Trinkus raises general complaints about

2:19:17the 2024 CTE uh stormwater manual. Um

2:19:23obviously CTD Deep disagrees with Mr.

2:19:26Trinkus, which is why those guidelines

2:19:28are in place. Um and and we don't

2:19:30believe um that this proceeding is is

2:19:33the the time or place to to take issue

2:19:36with with guidelines uh that on the one

2:19:38hand Mr. Trinkus criticizes and then on

2:19:40the other hand relies on or tries to

2:19:43rely on um as part of um as part of his

2:19:46report. [snorts]

2:19:48>> Um

2:19:49>> has there been any additional testimony

2:19:51from their expert or just the last one?

2:19:54>> Not yet. There's there's been a a lot of

2:19:56back and forth. It is my understanding

2:19:58that they are working on a response to

2:20:00be able to give to the commission. Um,

2:20:03so I would anticipate um and Michelle

2:20:05can maybe just say yes and confirm that

2:20:08that there's uh possibly additional

2:20:10information that is forthcoming

2:20:12>> and he is not even on here remotely to

2:20:14be

2:20:15>> he's not I could call him but it it

2:20:17would be mad he's hurt his shoulder and

2:20:19he have to wake up. Um

2:20:22I will ask him if there's more on on

2:20:24this particular issue. Uh I think it's

2:20:28clear if you read Tigen Bond you can

2:20:30just see there's engineering

2:20:31disagreements and if you look into the

2:20:34different methodology and the different

2:20:36uh pollutant loads there's just

2:20:39disagreements and that's okay that's for

2:20:40you guys to decide. So I'm not sure how

2:20:43much he's more he's going to say I know

2:20:45we're talking to a soil expert. We might

2:20:47bring him in. Um can I make a brief

2:20:49comment on on this or do you want to

2:20:51wait and let the applicant speak a

2:20:53little more? Why don't we let them

2:20:54finish and then kick it back to you.

2:20:57>> Thanks. Just one more point I wanted to

2:20:58make and then I'll hand it over to

2:21:00Timurko and and that's the last uh quote

2:21:03on this side which is um also from the

2:21:06Riverbend case which is a a Supreme

2:21:09Court case. General environmental

2:21:10impacts, mere speculation or general

2:21:12concerns are not substantial evidence.

2:21:14And as the commission knows, it has to

2:21:16base any decision on substantial

2:21:18evidence. So um it's our position that

2:21:21um Mr. Trinkus' report and the evidence

2:21:24that you heard tonight is exactly this

2:21:26general environmental impacts, mere

2:21:28speculation, and general concerns.

2:21:30There's no identification of particular

2:21:32resources uh to be harmed. Um and um

2:21:36with that, I'd like to now ask Tim ando

2:21:39to address some of the engineering

2:21:41comments. Thanks.

2:21:44>> Hi, Timurko, professional engineer

2:21:46Langan. Um,

2:21:49my response to some of Miss Murphy's

2:21:51comments, um, I would point to the

2:21:54October 30th time bond letter. Um, I

2:21:58know you just received it at the end of

2:21:59last week, so you might not had a chance

2:22:01have it had a chance to digest it, but I

2:22:04think it addresses a number of the

2:22:06topics that she raises. I put some stars

2:22:09next to some items. Uh, like comment

2:22:12number one related to storm water. uh

2:22:15time bond discusses uh and clarifies

2:22:20uh about warehouses and the industrial

2:22:23permit are you we got am I the only one

2:22:26with feedback here am I too far away

2:22:29um

2:22:31on the let's see one two three four the

2:22:34six paragraph uh time bond uh talks

2:22:36about industrial uh activities and when

2:22:40material handling equipment uh products

2:22:43and waste materials are exposed to storm

2:22:46water and that is not the case here.

2:22:48These loading docks are completely

2:22:50enclosed. The truck backs up to it has a

2:22:53gasketed buffer around it. Um so uh we

2:22:57we do not consider oursel high pollutant

2:22:59land used because we don't have those

2:23:01activities outside and um we make some

2:23:04notes in the comments back and forth

2:23:06that warehouses are specifically

2:23:08excluded from the um that determination.

2:23:13Uh I would also um point to the fact

2:23:15that we uh do not believe that we are

2:23:18fleet storage. Fleet storage is you have

2:23:21a public works garage where you have all

2:23:23the dump trucks and plows and excavators

2:23:25parked outside. Fleet storage would be

2:23:27the school bus yard where all the school

2:23:29buses are parked outside. We do not have

2:23:32the storage of the tractor part of the

2:23:37um tractor trailers on site. We have the

2:23:40trailer storage. Those trailers do not

2:23:42have engines. They are not refrigerated

2:23:44units. They are an aluminum box. So, um

2:23:48we there's a lot of lot of paragraphs

2:23:50related to this in these comments, but

2:23:52wanted to to point to that. So, when you

2:23:54have a chance to digest the time bond

2:23:56response, you'll see that um with regard

2:23:59to the jellyfish, it's also discussed in

2:24:02time bond's response to storm water

2:24:05comment number three. Uh the jellyfish

2:24:08have an internal bypass. It is

2:24:09automatic. It's a function of the panels

2:24:12and wheels that exist inside the system.

2:24:15No one has to pull a lever. No one has

2:24:17to make any manipulated changes to it.

2:24:19Uh it happens automatically. Uh and

2:24:23storm water comment number four goes

2:24:26into uh a counter to Mr. Trinkus'

2:24:30argument about the location of the

2:24:31jellyfish filter, which I know you're

2:24:33tired of talking about because we've

2:24:34talked about them so many nights, but uh

2:24:38their their comment in the again the

2:24:40last sentence of their first paragraph,

2:24:42in fact, detention systems limit

2:24:44discharge rates and may be more

2:24:46hydraulically advantaged and allow for a

2:24:49more compact filtration system by

2:24:51placing the jellyfish after the

2:24:53detention system as we have designed. Uh

2:24:57then

2:24:59I think um

2:25:04comment number 16

2:25:07uh relates to the applicability

2:25:10and uh call it the above and beyond

2:25:14design relative to the 2024 storm water

2:25:17manual. And uh I think Ty and Bond did a

2:25:20very nice job of helping describe why

2:25:23the 2024 storm water manual is

2:25:26appropriate and it goes through the

2:25:28entire history of how killingly itself

2:25:30is regulated by the state because it has

2:25:33storm water management systems. That

2:25:35state permit requires its agencies and

2:25:38departments to follow the guidance set

2:25:41forth in the storm water quality manual

2:25:43which is the reason it's reflective in

2:25:45the zoning rigs and and the wetland

2:25:47regulations. So, uh, if you get a chance

2:25:49digesting, uh, qu the response to

2:25:52question number 16 will hopefully also

2:25:54answer some of those questions. So, um,

2:25:58off the off the bat there, uh, I think

2:26:00many of the comments you heard, uh, were

2:26:02addressed in the October 30th, um,

2:26:09uh, in the October 30th letter. Um, and

2:26:18I I I think there was some confusion in

2:26:20Miss Murphy's statement about how uh

2:26:24answering 80% of Ty Bond's questions

2:26:27somehow meant that we didn't think that

2:26:29they were doing a good job. Uh I don't I

2:26:31don't think that was my statement. My

2:26:33statement was uh we received uh

2:26:36comments, we responded to them, time

2:26:39bond came back and was able to remove

2:26:40some from the list. That's what I would

2:26:43expect from a peerreview process. You're

2:26:45you're probably not going to hit all of

2:26:46the answers exactly uh the first time

2:26:49through, but um I think we've been

2:26:52working collaboratively and and their

2:26:54recommendations and comments have been

2:26:55wellreceived and uh you know, we

2:26:58continue to plan on working with them to

2:27:00to close out their comments 100% not

2:27:03just 80%.

2:27:05>> Paul, were you looking to make a motion

2:27:07to have a brief recess?

2:27:08>> Yes, I was.

2:27:09>> And that must be that motion.

2:27:10>> That's it. Is there a second? Motion's

2:27:13made and seconded to recess for 10 five

2:27:16minutes.

2:27:19I can't move or I'll

2:35:36Motion to reconvene.

2:35:38>> Second.

2:35:39>> All in favor?

2:35:40>> Let's go.

2:35:42>> All right. I think we're at the point

2:35:43where Michelle was going to respond to

2:35:48>> Michelle is not here. I'm here.

2:35:51>> Oh,

2:35:52>> I'm too short to see over that.

2:35:55>> I have that done. You guys done?

2:35:57>> Yeah. So, uh I don't have too much

2:36:00problem with what he said. Like I said,

2:36:01it's it's engineering disagreements. Um

2:36:04except Tigen Bond it on the October 28th

2:36:07report did say that they agree with

2:36:09Steve that it's a fleet storage area. I

2:36:12remember that. Um, speaking to the proof

2:36:15thing, uh, just to clarify what the

2:36:17attorney said, he said when they get to

2:36:19court, they have to prove that they're

2:36:21not polluting. We have to prove that we

2:36:23belong in the meeting at all. So that

2:36:25that was the burdens of proof just to

2:36:27clarify that. Um, 80% I think I did

2:36:30misunderstand what he said. I thought

2:36:31you said Trinkus report and um, Taigen

2:36:35Bond was 80% the same, but you were

2:36:37saying it was 80 something different. So

2:36:38I did uh, misunderstand that. But when

2:36:41you read Taigen Bond report, you're

2:36:43going to see that they agreed all the

2:36:44time. And some of uh Taigen Bond took

2:36:48some of Trinkus' suggestions. So, you

2:36:51know, to trash him like he's not a good

2:36:53engineer. I just I really didn't like

2:36:55that. Thanks. All right. Any other

2:36:58interveners?

2:37:01>> Okay. If no other interveners, if

2:37:03somebody else needs to address us with

2:37:05in all honesty, and it's not trying to

2:37:07cut anyone short, but if it's something

2:37:09that actually pertains to our

2:37:12jurisdiction

2:37:13and

2:37:15is something that you have not already

2:37:16stated, if it's already in the record,

2:37:19it's there. But if there's anything

2:37:21else, we'd love to hear from you.

2:37:24>> Anyone else?

2:37:29>> You, either one of you. public comment

2:37:32basically.

2:37:32>> Yep.

2:37:33>> Okay.

2:37:34>> All right.

2:37:37>> I um

2:37:38>> and we do need your name and address for

2:37:40the record.

2:37:40>> I know. My name is Greg Davis. I I live

2:37:42on Stone Road in um beautiful rural

2:37:46Killingly for the time being. Anyway, um

2:37:50at least I'm saying about the rural

2:37:51aspect.

2:37:53Um, I can't believe what's going on

2:37:58with these people coming in from other

2:38:00places and

2:38:03picking our what what I want to know is

2:38:05how this community was chosen

2:38:08by your company to um to make a 1

2:38:13million square foot

2:38:16facility here where it's supposed to be

2:38:18the the the last green valley.

2:38:22It's rural to where it was. It's getting

2:38:24worse and worse. And now we've got this

2:38:27coming in. I mean, I could go into

2:38:29specifics. I've got all kinds of

2:38:30information here, but I don't want to

2:38:32bore everybody to death. I'm sure a lot

2:38:34of this was already covered.

2:38:37But it's, you know, whatever you're

2:38:38trying to say. You know, it's still not

2:38:41what it was. What's what's going to

2:38:43become is is going to replace something

2:38:45that can never be replaced again. So, so

2:38:48I asked the commission to really really

2:38:51deliberate upon that aspect because

2:38:54something that can't be replaced. I

2:38:56mean, you can say, "Oh, we're going to

2:38:57make this. We're going to mitigate it by

2:38:58this and this." It's not going to be the

2:39:00same. Once the forest is gone, it's

2:39:02gone. There's no bringing it back.

2:39:06Once the water is polluted, you can't

2:39:09bring it back. It's all the same.

2:39:12Everything that you do with this kind of

2:39:13development, and who's it going to

2:39:14benefit? Is it benefiting us the

2:39:16residents?

2:39:17>> No.

2:39:18>> How many residents benefit from this in

2:39:20here?

2:39:21>> We need something that pertains to the

2:39:23wetlands.

2:39:24>> Well, I'm pertaining it right now. I'm

2:39:26just asking questions. I'm a resident

2:39:28here. I love this town. I want it to

2:39:30stay as much the same as it can be

2:39:34because it's supposed to be a rural.

2:39:35It's supposed to be the last green

2:39:37valley. Okay. When I go up on North

2:39:39Road, I look down, I see the Mashuk

2:39:41Mountain. It's a nice little mountain

2:39:42there. Now, it's going to be all lit up.

2:39:44it 24 hours a day. It's going to be like

2:39:47a beacon of of I don't want to say it,

2:39:50but to everybody around. It's it's it's

2:39:52crazy to have this kind of thing. And

2:39:54it's not helping anybody but rich people

2:39:57who come in from out of town and look

2:39:58for places that they can go ahead and

2:40:00build these kinds of things. You know,

2:40:02they come in, they try, they say, "Okay,

2:40:04let's see how we sneak this in." And

2:40:06that's what they do. They sneak it in.

2:40:07They get in there. They get in lender or

2:40:09some kind of a rule. Sometimes you got

2:40:11planners, I'm not going to mention any

2:40:12names, who let it happen and we don't I

2:40:16heard that at the beginning of this

2:40:17there were three people that showed up

2:40:19to the first meeting.

2:40:21So, how the heck are you going to fight

2:40:23something like this? Now, we have to

2:40:24fight it in earnest three years later.

2:40:28>> We're going to we're going to start uh

2:40:29newspaper campaigns. We're going to do

2:40:31everything we have to do to fight this

2:40:33thing. And then eventually, you're going

2:40:35to say, "Well, you know what? They got a

2:40:36good plan. It's going to we're going to

2:40:37have to stop this. We're going to have

2:40:38to nyx it because we don't want it. And

2:40:41then we got two more coming up right

2:40:43around the hill from where I live.

2:40:44>> We do have to have it on on this.

2:40:46>> Okay. I'm just saying it's the same.

2:40:48Okay. I'm just maybe that's not as

2:40:49relevant, but what I'm saying is we

2:40:51there's others coming in too. This is

2:40:53not the end. So this is what I'm trying

2:40:56to say. I just want to make put myself

2:40:57on the record here that I'm going to be

2:40:59involved in this too and we're going to

2:41:00try to like stop this. I'm not going to,

2:41:03you know, I'm not going to mince words

2:41:04anymore. And the commission should look

2:41:06at this and say, you know what, just

2:41:08like uh Michelle was saying, you can

2:41:10make it more stringent, this is our

2:41:13town. It's not their town. Okay.

2:41:16>> Okay. Thank you.

2:41:17>> That's all I'm going to say. I'll stop

2:41:19there.

2:41:20>> Okay.

2:41:30>> I'm glad I got up and didn't sit down

2:41:32again. I'd never get up again. That's

2:41:34why I stayed right where I was. And

2:41:35they've decided they're going to wheel

2:41:36me out and dump me.

2:41:37>> That Well, being chair, you should have

2:41:40aids that will help you. You know, I'm

2:41:43sure the town of Kelling can afford

2:41:45that. I'm I'm Charles Spurl and I live

2:41:47at 86 Knox Avenue with my wife Pamela

2:41:51Alfie the Poodle and more important my

2:41:54well. And that's that's why I'm here

2:41:56today again to discuss it. I have uh two

2:42:02issues. Uh first uh we we were talking

2:42:06about just few minutes ago about the

2:42:09loading docks and last night in

2:42:12California at the Amazon warehouse and

2:42:16it's not Cuka Macho I can't think of the

2:42:18name of the town right now 100 1,100,000

2:42:23square foot warehouse a trailer caught

2:42:26fire right at the loading dock and

2:42:28that's my concern. It's it's the uh

2:42:33it's the danger of chemicals that these

2:42:37uh I keep I keep on getting the wrong

2:42:40name for the filters. So, we'll just

2:42:41call them the filters.

2:42:43>> It's safer that way. You've called it

2:42:44most everything.

2:42:46>> Yeah. And uh u they we do know one thing

2:42:51and I'm not and I won't say that I know

2:42:54very much about filters except that

2:42:57these filters cannot filter out forever

2:43:01chemicals the PAS that's been a problem

2:43:04in the town of Carol because I believe

2:43:06you need to have a carbon base some sort

2:43:10of carbon filter to get those out. I

2:43:12could be wrong. Uh I only play one on

2:43:16the radio. Uh an expert on filters.

2:43:21And then inside the building, uh there

2:43:24was yesterday there's also a fire at the

2:43:26UPS. I believe it was in Kentucky

2:43:30inside the building. And this is of

2:43:32great concern because if attorney Cody's

2:43:36letter is correct, the polluted water

2:43:41would go directly and and he and it may

2:43:43be that

2:43:45he wasn't sure what he was talking

2:43:47about. Uh but it's uh uh would go

2:43:51directly into the septic system out and

2:43:54I know a leeching field cannot get out u

2:43:57these type of chemicals that you would

2:43:59find. uh they're not designed for that

2:44:02would go directly into the groundwater

2:44:04into the ponds and into the streams and

2:44:08right into Dr. Carlson's uh two pristine

2:44:12ponds on his on his property.

2:44:15So these these are things I hope that

2:44:18Tai Bomb will look at these questions.

2:44:21uh because we have someone who said uh

2:44:25one of the uh ex one of the experts for

2:44:27the applicant said that these filters

2:44:30can take care of everything but unless

2:44:32they know what's in the warehouse and

2:44:35the and TABOM

2:44:37can evaluate that in case of fire

2:44:42it's it's meaningless what they say.

2:44:45Now, my last thing is credibility.

2:44:48And you you have a very difficult job

2:44:51ahead of yourself. You're very similar

2:44:54uh to a jury. You got lots of evidence.

2:44:56And in this case, you've got three

2:44:58different experts giving you

2:45:01information. You've got the intervenors

2:45:04who appear to be quite knowledgeable.

2:45:07and and so you have to it's you have to

2:45:11evaluate

2:45:12u all these reports. Taibbomb isn't the

2:45:17sole arbittor.

2:45:19Uh the applicants

2:45:22they're not either the sole arbittor or

2:45:25Mr. Trinka. So you got to look at it.

2:45:27And what I'm the problem of course here

2:45:29is that the applicant from the day one

2:45:32has not been truthful with this agency.

2:45:36We know that now from the last meeting

2:45:39when the gentleman who was developing

2:45:41the the this whole concept this property

2:45:44putting it together talked about months

2:45:48and months and months

2:45:51uh selecting the right applicant. He

2:45:54rejected I could be American Standard

2:45:56that he rejected but he re rejected

2:45:59somebody and then the applicant through

2:46:03their attorney had the gall to tell you

2:46:06we don't know anything about what's

2:46:08going to happen here. We're just

2:46:09building a warehouse and and that is and

2:46:13so that that taints what the applicant

2:46:18is um

2:46:20taints their their evidence. you have to

2:46:22evaluate that and you use your common

2:46:25sense

2:46:26uh as as

2:46:29in just in life to evaluate the

2:46:32truthfulness of the evidence. And then

2:46:34recently the after Mr. Cody was uh went

2:46:38somewhere else the new attorney um

2:46:41talked about Mr. was it Tigus Triggus

2:46:45>> Trinkus Mr. Trinkus and he really uh uh

2:46:52really I I was surprised that Mr.

2:46:54Trinkus could uh get up and talk after

2:46:57what he said about him. But it turns out

2:47:00that he you know sometime you you can be

2:47:03uh

2:47:05by

2:47:07omission

2:47:08you you can be also telling a lie. And

2:47:10it turns out if Mr. Trinkus is correct.

2:47:14The the attorney used him as an expert

2:47:18and as an officer of the court. He can

2:47:20tell you what that means. Um and so I

2:47:24just ask you to carefully evaluate the

2:47:28truthfulness of all their

2:47:30representations

2:47:31because

2:47:33there was no reason to tell us a story

2:47:36from the very beginning. There was there

2:47:39was and I anyway um and uh and I know

2:47:44you'll do a a good job whatever you come

2:47:47down to and I just ask you as as the

2:47:50chair um elegantly said you may think

2:47:55this is the and I'm parap I'm taking

2:47:58interpretating her statements. You may

2:48:01think this is the greatest project in

2:48:03the world, but if it doesn't meet the

2:48:07regulations,

2:48:08no matter how much you think it would

2:48:11benefit the town, you have to reject it.

2:48:15So, thank you.

2:48:16>> All right. Anybody else? And like I

2:48:18said, [applause] make sure make sure it

2:48:19is something that's not already on the

2:48:22record and pertains to this because a

2:48:25lot of it has already been on the

2:48:26record.

2:48:30Hi, I'm Dr. Angelina Wagner. I'm at

2:48:32Providence uh Street in Putnham. So, I

2:48:36wrote this down. Um

2:48:39this is a new application, correct?

2:48:41>> Yes.

2:48:42>> Okay. So,

2:48:45I have been to every meeting. You have

2:48:46seen this face a lot. And I find it

2:48:49interesting that the Ryan company has

2:48:52spent the like a large part of their

2:48:54time shaming this commission for denying

2:48:57the last application and shaming our

2:49:01newest commissioner to the board. Um I'm

2:49:04so sorry that he did that. That was

2:49:06ridiculous. And it feels like an

2:49:08intimidation tactic. My doctor is in

2:49:11global business management. I study

2:49:13businesses. It's an intimidation tactic.

2:49:15But him specifically bringing that up

2:49:17was so that it was on the record that if

2:49:19you guys were to deny this application

2:49:21that they have evidence to point to to

2:49:23say that he was compromised and that he

2:49:25was going to deny it no matter what. And

2:49:27I find that so gross. You can shake your

2:49:29head. That's fine. Um but I just find it

2:49:32interesting that you guys at this the

2:49:34commissioners could not bring up this

2:49:36other application because this is a

2:49:37completely new application. but that the

2:49:39lawyer for this applicant can bring in

2:49:42things that are happening in litigation

2:49:44with another application that was

2:49:45denied. And I just really needed that to

2:49:48be on the record. I also just really

2:49:49needed to thank you guys because I have

2:49:51been here for the better part of a year

2:49:52and I've watched you guys operate. I've

2:49:54gone to sitewalks with you and you guys

2:49:56have such integrity and grace and

2:49:59compassion, not just for applicants and

2:50:01their shenanigans, but for us and our

2:50:04shenanigans. and I can't thank you

2:50:05enough because I know that this is a

2:50:08volunteer thing for you and that you

2:50:10guys are combing through a lot of

2:50:12information all the time. So, I just

2:50:13want to say thank you and then I'm going

2:50:14to see my way out.

2:50:15>> Thank you.

2:50:18[applause]

2:50:21>> Good evening, Rebecca Rainville, 120 Leo

2:50:24Road. Um I was wondering if you could

2:50:27bring up the site plan, the first um

2:50:31picture that was up there this evening.

2:50:33I don't think that

2:50:35>> at this point

2:50:37>> she's not an intervenor. We cannot have

2:50:39interaction at this point, can we? No.

2:50:41>> No, we can't.

2:50:41>> Can I just say we do have her as an

2:50:43intervenor and I didn't know why we

2:50:45didn't have Al and we had her. If you

2:50:47look at the list, if you look at the old

2:50:49I don't know why that was

2:50:52>> I don't I don't have her.

2:50:54>> But if you if you look through the old

2:50:56minutes her into So maybe take a rest

2:51:00Rebecca and she can look if you look

2:51:01through the meeting materials. I And I

2:51:03don't understand why.

2:51:05>> It may not have um

2:51:06>> I didn't have somebody.

2:51:12>> It may be someone that depending on how

2:51:14the petition was written, if it wasn't

2:51:15the same template, it may not have fit

2:51:17the the description.

2:51:19>> I don't know. We had I had staff put

2:51:21together a folder with all of the

2:51:23pending interveners that were submitted

2:51:25for wetlands, and she's not one of them.

2:51:27>> No. Where is Okay.

2:51:31>> Okay. So I can't speak.

2:51:33>> Yes, you can speak. But but would you

2:51:35know they can't be an interaction with

2:51:36them or bringing stuff up like

2:51:38>> um so I was you know if you look at this

2:51:41it looks like their access point to

2:51:43reach that land. This is just all

2:51:46wetlands. I mean the whole the whole

2:51:49property is wetlands.

2:51:50>> No it really isn't.

2:51:52>> It isn't.

2:51:52>> No actually the step I don't know if we

2:51:55should if anyone did want to know what

2:51:58is it how many acres of wetlands and the

2:52:00percentage. It's a tiny tiny percentage

2:52:01of the 500 acres

2:52:04>> cuz to me it just looks like the access

2:52:07the access from their road goes right

2:52:09through water and I was just wondering

2:52:11how they had planned to

2:52:13>> there's a bridge there.

2:52:14>> They're going to put a bridge there.

2:52:16>> Yeah, there's there's actually currently

2:52:18a crossing there. It's a driveway with a

2:52:20culvert that they're not going to

2:52:21disturb because they don't want to have

2:52:23any more uh wetland impacts. So, they're

2:52:26going to leave it in place and they're

2:52:27actually road there now.

2:52:28>> Yeah, they're going to put a bridge over

2:52:29it.

2:52:30And the plan that you're talking with

2:52:32all the like different colors. Yes. It

2:52:34shows not just the wetlands, the upland

2:52:36review area, the wetland creation, the

2:52:38wetland mitigation areas. Um so it's

2:52:41it's not just wetlands that you're

2:52:43looking at on that that colored plan.

2:52:46>> Well, I just wanted to say that, you

2:52:48know, we all feel that this is just

2:52:50still wrong for our community. This

2:52:52isn't the right place for this to be in

2:52:54our downtown. Um

2:52:57um it's just going to affect us for the

2:52:59rest of our lives with everything. Um

2:53:02air pollution, noise pollution, water

2:53:04pollution, um a a sizable um a 1.3

2:53:10million square foot building just

2:53:12belongs in an industrial park, not in

2:53:14our backyards. And um and this will be

2:53:17in everybody's backyards cuz it is in

2:53:19our downtown and it it's just not the

2:53:23appropriate place for us for that place

2:53:25to be here. And I'm you know if there's

2:53:28something that could be better for the

2:53:30land, you know, a a veterans hospital, a

2:53:33school, another nursing home, something.

2:53:36uh to have um you know anywhere from 3

2:53:40to 6 or 800 tractor trailers or private

2:53:43vehicles driving down our rural roads in

2:53:46our downtown. Um it just does not fit.

2:53:49Does not fit. And um thank you.

2:53:52>> Okay.

2:53:55You Okay. He was waiting up here in the

2:53:56front. I wanted to say real quick there

2:53:59are there was 24 flagged wetlands on

2:54:02this property because I don't want to

2:54:05diminish that you know make it like it's

2:54:08not that much because if you look at the

2:54:10percent there was 24 flagged wetlands

2:54:13and I believe six or eight vernal pools

2:54:16and Mr. Dean Gustoson their wetland

2:54:19scientist said it was in the top 10 um

2:54:22in Connecticut and all of Connecticut

2:54:24>> for the size of the

2:54:25>> as far as for the size of what he had

2:54:27done

2:54:27>> the number of wetlands and vernal pools.

2:54:30So it's not a little thing.

2:54:36>> Good evening. Uh Russ Daniels 27 sales a

2:54:40Daveville. Um, I wanted to point out

2:54:43right off the bat when this first got

2:54:45going, Amazon lied to us by advertising

2:54:48500 jobs. They didn't tell us that

2:54:50they'd be robotic jobs. We found that

2:54:53out later. Um, as far as truck traffic

2:54:55goes, Amazon claims 400 to 800 trucks a

2:54:58day. Let's take the medium number of 600

2:55:00trucks a day. That means one truck

2:55:03either coming or going every 4.8 minutes

2:55:07on both Knox Avenue and Guthia Street.

2:55:10um the diesel fumes, the noise, the

2:55:13traffic, um the noise is going to rattle

2:55:16people's windows.

2:55:18It's going to uh

2:55:21cause irreparable harm to the the

2:55:22different houses all through that area.

2:55:24There's about 100 houses that I'm

2:55:26talking about between Broad and uh

2:55:28Gothier.

2:55:29>> Just so you remember though, we have to

2:55:31deal with the wetlands regulations on

2:55:33that property.

2:55:34>> Well, this is this is, you know,

2:55:36pollution, noise, traffic.

2:55:38>> Yep. ours. We're not charged with that.

2:55:41We have to for the public hearing. Yeah.

2:55:43>> We have to have what pertains to our

2:55:46jurisdiction.

2:55:46>> Well, how about storm storm runoff?

2:55:49>> Yes, that's perfectly legitimate.

2:55:51>> In um a building that size, 1 in of

2:55:54rain, and we got a lot of rain this past

2:55:57summer

2:55:58would equal 810,290

2:56:01gallons of water storm runoff. The sew

2:56:05she sewer treatment plant, I can't take

2:56:08that. We're um pretty much at capacity

2:56:10and that's why Fredo Lelay has to call

2:56:12us or we have to call them when our

2:56:14tanks are fairly full. Otherwise, we'd

2:56:17overflow into the Kunbog River and Deep

2:56:19would be after us finding us like they

2:56:21did many years ago. Um no one I I have

2:56:25not heard anyone address how big the

2:56:27storage tanks in this building would be.

2:56:31>> Nobody said a word. I know. And I know

2:56:33that as far as water, they have two

2:56:36250,000galon

2:56:38tanks for fires. That's 500,000 gallons

2:56:41of water. Um, in February 2022, my house

2:56:45burned down. I sat in a killingly fire

2:56:48truck in the back for like 5 hours with

2:56:50two women from the Red Cross. Watch my

2:56:53house burn down. It was a five alarm

2:56:55fire. um

2:56:58five alarm fire and uh it took them

2:57:01about 5 hours to put the fire out. Now

2:57:04flash forward to all the mega warehouses

2:57:06that have caught fire across the United

2:57:08States in recent years. A lot of them

2:57:11take they burn for four, five, six,

2:57:13seven days. And you ask yourself, how

2:57:15could that be? Because a lot of them use

2:57:17lithium eon batteries which are highly

2:57:20flammable.

2:57:21Um, and it for for whatever reason, um,

2:57:24there's a chemical reaction between

2:57:26water and the Eon batteries that it's

2:57:29just

2:57:31it creates a tremendous amount of toxic

2:57:33water. Destroys whatever site it's on.

2:57:36And God forbid if it takes 5 hours to

2:57:39put my house of fire out in less than

2:57:412,000 square ft, imagine what 1 million

2:57:441.3 million square foot would be. It

2:57:47would just we'd probably have to vacate

2:57:50or evacuate people within a mile or two

2:57:53of this area right where we're standing.

2:57:55You got to think about these things

2:57:56because we only get one chance and we

2:57:59screw it up. We screwed up killingly. As

2:58:01far as I'm concerned, the appropriate

2:58:04response to this application is to deny

2:58:06it. And I'd like to thank you for having

2:58:08the courage to do that last July. Thank

2:58:10you.

2:58:12[applause]

2:58:17Good evening. Uh Ian McDonald, 548

2:58:19Valley Road. Um I first of all just ask

2:58:22you to uh keep the hearing open. I think

2:58:25there's a lot of outstanding issues.

2:58:27There's materials that are kind of being

2:58:29presented um that I think folks haven't

2:58:33had chance to really go through and

2:58:35there's been some back and forth here

2:58:36that I think still needs to be resolved.

2:58:40Um, you know, there's a lot there was a

2:58:42lot of conversation from the attorney

2:58:44earlier on today about specifically how

2:58:47they didn't care for your previous

2:58:50ruling. Uh, which we understand there's

2:58:52a legal case that's kind of in that

2:58:54universe dealing with that. But at the

2:58:56end of it said, "What?" But we're here

2:58:57in good faith. I think being in here in

2:59:00good faith means we're they're coming to

2:59:02the commission. And I think much of what

2:59:04I heard was that um you know the scale

2:59:08uh scope and scale of this project uh

2:59:11there were there were significant

2:59:14alternatives there. Uh I think what they

2:59:16came back with was a percentage uh um

2:59:21uh a very small uh percentage um

2:59:25diminishment that I don't think uh yeah

2:59:29is very very small compared to the scope

2:59:31and scale that was was requested and and

2:59:34I take the the commissioner's point that

2:59:37you know there

2:59:40the idea that we we are stuck at you

2:59:42know 1.23 two, three, you know, million

2:59:45for this specifically for this robotics

2:59:49uh distribution center. Um, you know, in

2:59:53the regs we have distribution center and

2:59:56then

2:59:58that that very much could mean something

2:59:59that's 450,000 square ft. And we could

3:00:04have had a tax change for a robotics

3:00:07distribution center if that was so

3:00:08determinative of what the size and scale

3:00:10and nature of this particular project

3:00:12was. Uh but that wasn't made and I I

3:00:14know the attorney was present at those

3:00:16workshops and that that was not put

3:00:18forward. So under what our town has

3:00:22normally considered these sorts of

3:00:24things, 450,000 is certainly not out of

3:00:28line. um or something or something in

3:00:31between possibly, but uh the fact that

3:00:34it's not suiting the tenant um you know,

3:00:36maybe this is just not a match. And I

3:00:38think that's something we need to

3:00:40consider and that you know that's that's

3:00:42okay too if if if it doesn't work. I

3:00:45know there's been time put in here, but

3:00:48um as to Mr. uh Trinkus' uh analysis, I

3:00:51just say that um you know, I happened to

3:00:54learn from the last uh and I I know

3:00:58we're wetlands here, but I'm just saying

3:00:59that I think this is relevant from the

3:01:01last planning and zoning meeting that uh

3:01:04in fact, you know, something that he had

3:01:05brought up about the sort of the the

3:01:07chlorine um

3:01:10not not really truly being uh not the

3:01:13chlorine, I'm sorry, the chlor the

3:01:15sodium chloride salt not totally being

3:01:18uh you

3:01:19dealt with by the jellyfish filters.

3:01:22That was something he brought up that I

3:01:23hadn't heard in this application uh

3:01:25prior to that. And that was confirmed by

3:01:29the applicant. Um they said, you know,

3:01:32there's, you know, possible obviously

3:01:34diluting it is possible, but there's no

3:01:37active dilution as far as I know. This

3:01:39is something that we're kind of re

3:01:41relying on passive melting. Um, and uh,

3:01:45I'll also say in terms of I understand

3:01:47that the applicant has put forward some

3:01:49various kind of policies on

3:01:52instructing people what best practices

3:01:54are. U, but M. Murphy makes a makes a

3:01:57good point that kind of informing people

3:01:59as in in terms of what best practices

3:02:02are versus what best what practice are

3:02:05actually uh, attained are two very

3:02:09different things. And if I am the

3:02:12contractor uh salting these driveways, I

3:02:15might know that best practices are to

3:02:17put X amount of salt on. But if I know

3:02:19that my job depends on there never being

3:02:22any slight issue with any of these this

3:02:25salt, uh that might come to a different

3:02:27determination. And I don't know that the

3:02:30that the owner uh of the facility is

3:02:33going to be uh you know really keeping a

3:02:37a a close eye on exactly that level of

3:02:41uh salt usage. Um and and that goes for

3:02:44other contaminants as well. I don't

3:02:45think salt is necessarily the only

3:02:46contaminant that's not fully dealt with

3:02:49by those jellyfish filters. And so that

3:02:51that's just one thing I I think and and

3:02:53so I think Mr. Mr. Trinkas' um testimony

3:02:57certainly needs to be looked at

3:02:58carefully. I found that informative and

3:03:01I um I think one thing that was also

3:03:04brought by the applicant at the recent

3:03:06PNZ meeting is that some of the runoff

3:03:09uh is proximity to 395 and that being a

3:03:12mitigating factor. But I think we also

3:03:14have to ask about the cumulative impacts

3:03:16of both you know potential runoff from

3:03:19uh issues

3:03:21particularly the aquifer from 395 and

3:03:24this facility that kind of compounds.

3:03:27Um, one thing that one other thing that

3:03:28was brought up was sort of that, you

3:03:31know, you guys have looked at different

3:03:33facilities that have um, and not

3:03:36facilities or or projects that have uh,

3:03:39larger percentage of of

3:03:43wetlands disturbance and I understand

3:03:45that, but I don't think it's that

3:03:48difficult to understand that

3:03:50it's not just about the question of

3:03:52percentage, it's a question of scale.

3:03:54And so it's the scale of the disturbance

3:03:57that is is really at issue here. And the

3:04:01fact that you might allow something on a

3:04:03much smaller scale versus at this scale

3:04:07is uh is is very understandable. And so

3:04:11it's not simply a matter of whether you

3:04:13let an applicant uh the percentage uh

3:04:16it's also a question of scale. And I

3:04:18think that's um

3:04:23I think that's about all I have. I I

3:04:25think we you know I understand that the

3:04:28applicant has their wetland expert and I

3:04:31you know certainly welcome to bring that

3:04:33before the commission but I think we

3:04:35need to bring you know there are

3:04:38differing opinions on some of these

3:04:40things and I hope we continue to get uh

3:04:42some more uh insights into these

3:04:44particular wetlands because that see

3:04:46still seems to be a point of contention

3:04:48but I echo the feeling that you know 1.2

3:04:51to this the degree of disturbance here

3:04:55um is going to have an impact and I

3:04:58suspect that if we had some scientists

3:05:00from Yukon over here uh they would find

3:05:03that statement that we these can simply

3:05:06be recreated uh I find that dubious and

3:05:09I think others experts might find that

3:05:11as well thank you

3:05:16[applause]

3:05:18I'll set her

3:05:21Pardon me. Is it uh is it possible for

3:05:24those of us online to testify?

3:05:26>> Yes, by all means. I was just going to

3:05:28ask if there was anyone up there.

3:05:32>> Okay, wonderful. Um, thank you all so

3:05:34much for for hosting this hearing and uh

3:05:37continuing this conversation. My name is

3:05:39Rachel Briggs. I'm an attorney with

3:05:41Conservation Law Foundation. And for the

3:05:43record, my address is 542 Chapel Street

3:05:45in New Haven, Connecticut.

3:05:48Um, I appreciate that you, you know, are

3:05:50not looking for a repetition of our

3:05:52comments on the record. So, I will I

3:05:54will not do that, but I just wanted to

3:05:55respond to a couple of points that came

3:05:57up in the conversation today. Um the

3:06:00first is on the alternatives analysis

3:06:02and the applicant's contention that you

3:06:04know their purpose needs to uh come into

3:06:06the conversation for reasonable um for

3:06:08feasible alternatives which is certainly

3:06:11correct but that doesn't mean that uh

3:06:14their purpose is is you know concurrent

3:06:18with the project exactly as they've

3:06:21proposed it. Um, and I would offer as an

3:06:23example Rivertown Development versus

3:06:25Inland Wetlands and Water Courses

3:06:26Commission of the Town of Old Sabbrook.

3:06:29Uh, in that court case, the applicant

3:06:31had proposed a 18-hole golf course and

3:06:35single family residential housing

3:06:37development. Uh, and the court upheld

3:06:40the commission in finding that a 9-hole

3:06:42golf course and smaller footprint condos

3:06:45were a feasible alternative. Right. So,

3:06:48so addressing the scale of the

3:06:50development is certainly on the table

3:06:52and I think you know the applicant has

3:06:54not done sufficient work to explore

3:06:56feasible alternatives at a smaller

3:06:58scale. Um the second bucket of things I

3:07:03wanted to respond to you know relate to

3:07:05to mitigation and and the impacts here.

3:07:08Um

3:07:10one of those is this conversation about

3:07:12the waters of the United States

3:07:14determination from the Army Corps of

3:07:16Engineers. the letter that the applicant

3:07:18was referencing on the record. And I

3:07:20just want to be really clear that a

3:07:23determination that these wetlands are

3:07:24not waters of the United States does not

3:07:26mean that they're insignificant. It just

3:07:28means that they're not subject to

3:07:30federal jurisdiction. And that's not a

3:07:33matter of them being important or not

3:07:34important. It's just a matter of whether

3:07:36they can be considered to affect

3:07:38interstate commerce. Uh it's it's a

3:07:40legal question. Um, but from an

3:07:42ecological perspective, these wetlands

3:07:44are incredibly important and that's the

3:07:46purpose of the law. That's the purpose

3:07:47of this commission is to protect these

3:07:49important resources for the state of

3:07:50Connecticut. Um, you know, the the

3:07:54legislature in passing this law found

3:07:56that these wetlands and water courses

3:07:57are indispensable and irreplaceable.

3:08:00Um, you know, and they shouldn't be

3:08:02disturbed by random, unnecessary,

3:08:04undesirable, and unregulated uses. So, I

3:08:08I just want to be really clear about

3:08:09that point. Um

3:08:15and you know finally there was there was

3:08:17some discussion about the degree to

3:08:19which this commission is empowered to

3:08:21address wildlife and plant life in its

3:08:24consideration you know and

3:08:27again there's there's precedent in the

3:08:30state of Connecticut Unistar Properties

3:08:32LLC versus conservation and inland

3:08:34wetlands commission of the town of

3:08:35Putinham right that uh that in analyzing

3:08:39impacts to wetlands commissions cannot

3:08:41treat them as containers of soil and

3:08:44water. That we have to recognize that

3:08:46wildlife and aquatic life impact the

3:08:48functions of these wetlands. And at the

3:08:50very least, I think this commission

3:08:52could find that it needs more

3:08:54information to determine uh what the

3:08:56effects of this development will be on

3:08:58those aspects and how that will affect

3:09:00water quality, wetland function, wetland

3:09:02health. Um, and finally, a point I just

3:09:06I I haven't heard today and I really

3:09:09want to make sure is front of mind here

3:09:10is that, you know, the applicant's basic

3:09:13argument seems to be that it's

3:09:16acceptable for it to destroy these

3:09:18wetlands because it will provide

3:09:19mitigation. But it has not fully

3:09:22addressed that these mitigating wetlands

3:09:26are themselves at risk from pollution

3:09:29from, you know, a lack of proper erosion

3:09:32control, storm water management, etc.

3:09:34And to, you know, have compromised

3:09:37wetlands as your mitigation for wetlands

3:09:39that you're destroying is not actually

3:09:41preserving those values that we're

3:09:42talking about. So again, thank you all

3:09:45for for your attention and this late

3:09:47night uh and for allowing me to speak

3:09:48here. I very much appreciate it.

3:09:51Thank you for being in.

3:09:53[applause]

3:09:57Good evening, Clet Rogers, 294 Putham

3:10:00Pike. Just want to say amen to that lady

3:10:03online. Woo.

3:10:06Um, yes, obviously, like always up here,

3:10:10I'm nervous. I didn't have time in my

3:10:13busy day to prepare a speech, but I have

3:10:15the thought process in me that um I want

3:10:19to talk about and that I want you guys

3:10:23to know that um yes, I know that we are

3:10:28all connected. No, they they say that

3:10:30you cannot just nothing. This is all

3:10:34connected. This is the worldwide web.

3:10:36This is the web of mushrooms and plant

3:10:39life and water. Water is life. Like we

3:10:42are all connected. So to say that

3:10:46putting a distribution center on top of

3:10:50ledge and wetlands 500 ft above sea

3:10:54level and leveling some of that blasting

3:10:57that rock out of there

3:11:00that it's not going to affect the waters

3:11:02downhill. Like it's all downhill. It's

3:11:05up.

3:11:07It's all downhill. threequarters of it

3:11:09is downhill for that amount of space.

3:11:12But um I also want to speak of the um

3:11:16amphibian

3:11:18um study that they have done for this

3:11:21project for the wetlands. I looked it up

3:11:23and it said that they did three years of

3:11:25study

3:11:26um for the wetlands or the vernal pools

3:11:30because you have to know if there's any

3:11:32spotted turtles or salamanders or I

3:11:36think I got it the other way around. Um,

3:11:39but that uh I just don't know where the

3:11:43three years came from because as far as

3:11:46I heard they started this

3:11:50um process with you guys in 2025 I think

3:11:55is when it started with the town. And so

3:11:58where did the three years of studying

3:12:00the vernal pools in early spring,

3:12:04midspring, late spring? when did that

3:12:06come into play? Um,

3:12:10and that they have been on the books to

3:12:13say that the closest aquifer is in

3:12:17Davville

3:12:18where it is on our maps, it shows it

3:12:21right under the town of Danielson. And

3:12:24if you look back in the Connecticut

3:12:26waters maps 2010, it was all the way up

3:12:30to Westcot Road. So somewhere in the

3:12:32ledge between Westcot Road and Danielson

3:12:37is the aquafer. My roots run deep in

3:12:40this town. My mother grew up on Furnace

3:12:43Street. My uncles will talk of the

3:12:46aquafer and if they went down the well

3:12:48that they would end up under the sewer

3:12:50plant. They there's a a strong current

3:12:53of water that is under the town of

3:12:55Danielson and that flows from Knoxav

3:13:00Gothier downstream.

3:13:03Um the

3:13:07so Bernal pools the aquifers right

3:13:10there. um just not um being truthful I

3:13:15guess and the whole transparency of this

3:13:19and knowing that I don't know too many

3:13:23contractors my husband does plow for

3:13:27automatic rolls during the winter that

3:13:30want to plow up a hill that tractor

3:13:33trailer trucks are going to have to go

3:13:35up of and not be able to put a ton of

3:13:38salt down to um

3:13:42protect the the machinery. You can't

3:13:44push heavy snow, wet heavy snow because

3:13:47what comes out of ledge is warmer water

3:13:50than air temperature. It's called the

3:13:53frost heaves I believe frost heaves in

3:13:55the road, frost heaves that come out of

3:13:57that. Um, I I

3:14:00second Michelle and everybody saying

3:14:03that you guys not only should, but I

3:14:06think you really need to have stricter

3:14:09regulations for where this is going. You

3:14:12know, it can't just be this isn't where

3:14:15the old staples is. This isn't a flat

3:14:18piece of land that's not going to This

3:14:20is hills and valleys on top of a

3:14:23mountain and um it's going to affect a

3:14:27lot of

3:14:29>> the the way of life in the the wetlands.

3:14:35>> But no, thank you. I enjoy everybody's

3:14:38like input. I think that the public

3:14:40coming together and showing that we are

3:14:44stronger united, you know, one weak link

3:14:47when and I'll say this, the weak link in

3:14:49killingly right now is our POB stuff.

3:14:52Like if we going to keep going POBS, we

3:14:54got POSs, we got the sewer weight waste

3:14:57treatment plant. If we can't do a

3:14:59win-win for both Amazon and Killingly,

3:15:03then I I I think everybody, you know, I

3:15:06I I haven't had a no in my vocabulary

3:15:09for very long, but I have had an

3:15:12absolutely not. That's what I tell the

3:15:15kids on the bus. Absolutely not.

3:15:18So,

3:15:19>> okay. Anyone else?

3:15:22[applause]

3:15:28Uh hello Kevin Olsen, 699 Cookill Road,

3:15:31Danielson. Um my house is probably the

3:15:34closest to this project, if not the

3:15:36closest, one of the closest. And I'm not

3:15:39going to bother with everything I wrote

3:15:40because you've already heard it so many

3:15:42times tonight. There's no sense in it.

3:15:43But I did want to talk to about uh

3:15:46Commissioner Tori's question dealing

3:15:48with wildlife. Uh we do own I do own the

3:15:51hunting preserve and uh we will stop

3:15:53hunting obviously and uh the hunting

3:15:56process does kind of drive the these

3:15:59animals off but we'll stop that and that

3:16:02also means we stop cutting trees. I

3:16:04stopped cutting brush. I stopped

3:16:06planting corn. And in a very short

3:16:08period of time, secondary succession

3:16:10that I have to fight every day in order

3:16:12to be able to hunt is going to take

3:16:14over. And that land 220 acres will be

3:16:18available to the wildlife.

3:16:21And depending on what the town decides

3:16:23to do with it, if they want to let it go

3:16:25wild or if they want to keep it

3:16:26maintained, I don't know. But uh just

3:16:29the answer to that. The rest of this

3:16:30stuff is already been dealt with.

3:16:34Okay. Anyone else?

3:16:46>> My name is Sam Moer and I live at six

3:16:49Mountain View Landing which is kind of

3:16:52behind the uh whole area here being

3:16:54discussed. One of the things I haven't

3:16:57heard discussed is the issue of nitrogen

3:17:00oxide dioxide. Okay. It's a very

3:17:04poisonous gas.

3:17:06It's created by trucks

3:17:10and cars.

3:17:13It blends into the water

3:17:16and creates an acid.

3:17:18And I would like to see somebody that's

3:17:22a little more educated on that basis.

3:17:25But it's a real bad thing that trucks,

3:17:29particularly the amount of trucks that

3:17:31are going to be sitting in front there,

3:17:33plus 600 or 500 or 100 parking cars

3:17:38there that create this kind of gas. It's

3:17:42going to it affects adults but

3:17:45particularly the older uh generation

3:17:49plus the children that go to school

3:17:52downstream from this place. So I don't

3:17:57think we've

3:17:59and this company hasn't even brought up

3:18:04that item that's created by how many

3:18:09trucks are there going to be there

3:18:11parked and rotating through the system

3:18:13there

3:18:15>> 100 200 300 a day plus all the cars

3:18:19coming up

3:18:21the nitrogen dioxide is going to have a

3:18:24tremendous effect on of water because

3:18:27nitrogen dioxide also creates nitric

3:18:31acid.

3:18:32So I think there's a lot of research to

3:18:35be done that hasn't been even discussed

3:18:39nor brought up by the company

3:18:44setting up this

3:18:48area here.

3:18:50That's what I got to say. We have to do

3:18:52something about that. And I like to see

3:18:54that somebody reported on that before

3:18:58you approve anything.

3:19:00You don't know how much dioxide is going

3:19:03to be put in the air.

3:19:06That should be monitored starting now

3:19:09with simple equipment to see what

3:19:12happens. And then what's going to happen

3:19:15to the water that's around there and the

3:19:18aquifer

3:19:20hasn't even been brought up by nobody.

3:19:23These guys know about it. They know

3:19:26about it.

3:19:28>> Okay. Thank you.

3:19:28>> Thank you. Anyone else?

3:19:39>> Ulatique Barklay, 26 Dark Lantern Hill

3:19:42Road. I'm here representing my

3:19:44constituents in the third district of

3:19:45Killingly and also a resident of

3:19:47Killingly. Um, so there's no way that um

3:19:52covering up 45 or 50 acres of a recharge

3:19:56area is not going to negatively impact

3:19:59our water. So um there's a project in

3:20:04Kent, Washington that has a similar

3:20:05footprint as um proposed in Killingly on

3:20:10October 29th of 2026. So, just a few

3:20:14days ago, the conservation group um Puet

3:20:18Sound um filed a federal lawsuit against

3:20:21Amazon under the Clean Water Act. The

3:20:24lawsuit alleges that the massive

3:20:26facility has repeatedly discharged

3:20:29heavily polluted industrial storm water

3:20:33directly from um paved surfaces of the

3:20:36fulfillment center

3:20:38um into local waters, bypassing um

3:20:41standard mitigation and failing to meet

3:20:43the strict water quality standards

3:20:45required to protect regional water

3:20:47tables and um salmon bearing streams.

3:20:51Although um they have stricter

3:20:53standards, this is just an example, one

3:20:56example of um not having their own um

3:21:00storm water mitigation plans followed.

3:21:04And in regards to the jellyfish filters,

3:21:07um there will be a a lot of diesel fuel,

3:21:11oil, and other um oily contaminants

3:21:15and also um from the surfaces that

3:21:19will go into the um the filters. And

3:21:22once the jellyfish filters are covered

3:21:25with the oil, they are no longer

3:21:27functioning. So the filters are

3:21:30underground and um not seen. So, who is

3:21:34going to be checking those? Um, just

3:21:37washing them off with lowflow water will

3:21:39not clean the oily oiliness off of the

3:21:42filters, making them um not usable. You

3:21:46know, from yourself, if you have some

3:21:48oil on your hands, um on your pants, on

3:21:50the on your um tred areas that it

3:21:53doesn't wash off so easily. So, same

3:21:55thing with the jellyfish filters. They

3:21:57will not be functioning um when they get

3:22:00those contaminants on them. Even if with

3:22:02with a plan, how long in between getting

3:22:06um the um contaminants on them and not

3:22:09functioning will will that be?

3:22:12Thank you.

3:22:14>> Okay. Anyone else?

3:22:18>> I don't have a comment. Uh I just wanted

3:22:21to read into the record that we found

3:22:22Rebecca Rainville's

3:22:24thing.

3:22:26>> Yeah, I I have it noted so they can act

3:22:28on it at the end.

3:22:29>> Okay. Actually, do we have a motion to

3:22:31add Rebecca Rainville as an intervenor?

3:22:37>> Uh motion to add Rebecca Rainville as an

3:22:39intervenor.

3:22:41>> I'll second.

3:22:43>> Okay. All in favor?

3:22:45>> I.

3:22:46>> Okay. Motion carries.

3:22:57It's tired.

3:23:00>> Okay. Uh, anything else to add this

3:23:02evening? Actually, did you want to

3:23:05address any of her comments now that

3:23:06she's an intervenor?

3:23:09You remember recall them?

3:23:13>> I think we've already addressed it as

3:23:14part of our prior comments. Thank you.

3:23:16>> Okay.

3:23:19All right.

3:23:20Can we have a rundown on time frame?

3:23:24>> We want to leave comments open in

3:23:27between.

3:23:28>> Yeah, you guys are going to have to

3:23:29close your hearing um at your next

3:23:31meeting because you'll be out of uh

3:23:33time. So December 7th is your next

3:23:35meeting. Um one of the issues I'm sure

3:23:38as you all have experienced um much more

3:23:41than I have, but I have in the two weeks

3:23:43I've been here is that there's a lot of

3:23:44overlap in when these reports are coming

3:23:46in. Um, and there's certainly not enough

3:23:48time between when they come in and when

3:23:50the commission andor staff can review

3:23:52them. Um, so I think it's prudent and

3:23:55I've already sent an email about

3:23:56planning and zoning um to all the

3:23:58parties asking them to try to get

3:24:00information in ahead um at least a week

3:24:03ahead of uh the planning and zoning

3:24:05commission meeting. And I think it would

3:24:06be prudent to set the same sort of

3:24:08standards for you guys so that all

3:24:10parties have a date when they know they

3:24:12need to have all of their responses into

3:24:14the record so you have adequate time,

3:24:17especially since December 7th is the

3:24:19last opportunity for you guys to ask

3:24:22questions um and get information into

3:24:24the record before you close it because

3:24:26once you close it, unless it's in the

3:24:29record, you you can't ask questions. You

3:24:31can't consider it. So it's super

3:24:33important back basically with you and

3:24:36>> staff. Yeah.

3:24:39>> Okay. Uh so do we have a motion that all

3:24:42all of the correspondence regarding this

3:24:44needs to be submitted by November 23rd?

3:24:47>> I'll make the motion.

3:24:50>> I'll second.

3:24:51>> All in favor?

3:24:52>> I.

3:24:53>> Okay. So then at this point we would be

3:24:54continuing the public hearing until

3:24:58December

3:24:59>> 7th.

3:25:00>> 7th.

3:25:01But all all comments need to be

3:25:04submitted by November 23rd.

3:25:07>> I'll make that motion.

3:25:09>> Good. Second.

3:25:10>> Second.

3:25:11>> Okay. Motion's made and seconded that

3:25:13our public uh hearing continue on

3:25:15December 7th, but all correspondence and

3:25:19all information has to be submitted by

3:25:21November 23rd.

3:25:23Okay. All in favor?

3:25:25>> I I opposed. Motion carries.

3:25:28>> All right.

3:25:30>> Thank you.

3:25:32All right. Now, we also had a couple of

3:25:35other items of business.

3:25:38>> We do.

3:25:41>> Allison has been busy. She hasn't been

3:25:43hiding here since she took over.

3:25:45>> Oh, we still got old Killingly Pond.

3:25:47>> Old Killingly Pond.

3:25:49>> And actually, immediately for the

3:25:51record, I'm sure some of you have stayed

3:25:53for Old Killingly Pond. Al, we do have a

3:25:57letter submitted from

3:25:59>> Town of Glaster. Town of Gloucester

3:26:02>> supporting that there be a pond.

3:26:04>> Yeah, I attended that meeting. So I know

3:26:06that.

3:26:06>> Okay,

3:26:07>> that's about it. Everything's

3:26:08discussions are kind of behind the

3:26:10scenes. That's and I don't know. I'm not

3:26:12>> Everything's going fine.

3:26:14>> I don't know because I I don't know

3:26:16what's going on. You know, Alison, I'm

3:26:17not privy to that.

3:26:18>> I'm thinking you may have gotten an

3:26:19update more than Robin on this point

3:26:21with

3:26:22>> I know nothing.

3:26:24I I don't believe there's been any new

3:26:26updates as far as from deep or from

3:26:29wish. This is the only piece of

3:26:31information I had to add tonight. But I

3:26:34will

3:26:35>> keep you updated.

3:26:36>> Okay. We don't need to know everything

3:26:38if it's

3:26:38>> I think at this point there's a lot

3:26:40transpiring, but it is confidential,

3:26:42>> right? And we don't I don't need to know

3:26:44everything.

3:26:45We whoever knows it might may want to

3:26:47keep themselves. I don't know. But I'm

3:26:50not asking. So, thank you. That'll be

3:26:52your next project to jump into

3:26:55>> Allison.

3:26:56>> Alison can handle that.

3:26:58>> Okay. But actually, Al, any questions

3:27:01you do have, bring them to Allison

3:27:04>> and she'll help you out.

3:27:05>> Appreciate that.

3:27:05>> Aren't you glad I did that to you? Look

3:27:08what we did to her.

3:27:10Okay. Um,

3:27:12we had no new business. That's

3:27:15>> That's what I

3:27:17>> That's shocking.

3:27:19Okay. um staff report. Um we did have

3:27:23two

3:27:25agent approvals.

3:27:27You want to talk about those, Alison?

3:27:29>> Yes. So, application 261645 was Wesky

3:27:33Builders. They had an application to

3:27:34demo their existing cottage and build a

3:27:37new single family cottage. Um I did

3:27:40approve that on 1022. I have the file

3:27:42over in the bin if you'd like to review

3:27:45it. I did notice that I made an error

3:27:48because I was reviewing the minutes from

3:27:49last month and Rodney had said he wanted

3:27:51to see that one before the commission.

3:27:53So, I don't know if you want to review

3:27:55that now.

3:27:57>> Were you involved in it? Is that why

3:27:59>> I wasn't here?

3:28:00>> No. Were you involved in this?

3:28:02>> Were you?

3:28:03>> Yes.

3:28:05>> Oh, so that's why he requested

3:28:07>> that. But um I did approve it. I didn't

3:28:10see that until after I issued the

3:28:12approval. So, I don't know if you want

3:28:13to take that folder and review it now.

3:28:15It It was a pretty straightforward

3:28:16application. It was just a new cottage

3:28:18on Alexander's Lake.

3:28:20>> You've seen nothing until you've seen

3:28:22[laughter] Alzod.

3:28:24>> I'm sure you've come across some zoning

3:28:26overlay districts over the years.

3:28:29>> It's our lake.

3:28:33>> It was a slightly different footprint,

3:28:35but it wasn't a major expansion.

3:28:37>> And outside of all of the setbacks, cuz

3:28:39I know that those can get tight. It was

3:28:41out of the water,

3:28:43>> right?

3:28:44>> It conformed with all the setbacks. Yes.

3:28:47>> Okay. So, I would assume that

3:28:49>> it's approved.

3:28:50>> It's approved. Okay. The other one, Ben

3:28:53Davidson. Tell us about that.

3:28:54>> 261646 Ben Davidson. He has an

3:28:57application to construct six single

3:28:59family homes with driveways, oil,

3:29:00septics, and associated site work within

3:29:02the 200 foot upland review area, which

3:29:04is 10. I won't list all the addresses,

3:29:07but it's a previous approval from um

3:29:10Jonathan Shatzman for

3:29:13it was a flex subdivision. I believe the

3:29:15year was 2008 or 2009 that the original

3:29:18approval was issued. But this section

3:29:20here that this new person would like to

3:29:22pursue has minimal wetlands from what

3:29:25I've seen, but it's currently in review

3:29:26and I haven't taken any action yet. It's

3:29:29a couple pockets of little wetland areas

3:29:31in the backyard, but it's not extensive

3:29:33wetlands on this portion of the flex

3:29:35subdivision. In future phases, he would

3:29:37have to come back before the commission.

3:29:39>> Now, is that something that she may want

3:29:41to sit with you about regarding the

3:29:44bizarre

3:29:47situations on how things were extended?

3:29:50It may be still approved.

3:29:53>> Um, 2008 would the Wellins approval was

3:29:57from 2008. that that's probably not

3:30:00going to fall under one of those funky

3:30:02time frames. Um, but we've we've sort of

3:30:04already begun having the conversation.

3:30:06I'm happy to take a look at it though

3:30:08and just double check that it doesn't

3:30:09fall.

3:30:10>> Look at that. Make sure everything falls

3:30:11into place.

3:30:12>> Yeah.

3:30:12>> And so if not, it comes back.

3:30:14>> Just curious. So like this is just a

3:30:16finalizing something that wasn't like

3:30:17it's what was approved. They're just

3:30:19going to start construction now.

3:30:20>> Yes. It's the exact same plan. He didn't

3:30:22make any changes. He's just pursuing the

3:30:24previous approved plans. But um yes, we

3:30:28will review that one together before any

3:30:31>> because that may end up coming back.

3:30:32>> Yeah. Yeah. And then

3:30:33>> depending upon what you find but because

3:30:35what kind of time frame there's some of

3:30:36them that were extended like

3:30:39>> there some are 14 years some are

3:30:41actually 19 years if they were during co

3:30:44um absolutely crazy

3:30:46>> back to like 2011

3:30:49>> that just barely doesn't make it.

3:30:51>> I I think it's going to like I said

3:30:52originally I think it's outside. There

3:30:54is a 2009 extension. it's like 2009 to

3:30:572011. Um, if it hadn't expired by that

3:31:00date, which this might fall into that

3:31:03language. So, we'll we'll just double

3:31:05check and make sure. Yeah.

3:31:06>> All right. So, that one is still sitting

3:31:09as it is. All right. The other one is

3:31:13>> Christa Nolan.

3:31:14>> Yeah. Another Alzod 2647 Christa Nolan.

3:31:18It was an application to construct a

3:31:2012x8 detached onecar garage. It is if

3:31:24you look at the map in between the house

3:31:26and the road it's not on the lakeside.

3:31:28So I didn't anticipate that there would

3:31:30be any impacts to wetlands and I did

3:31:33approve that on October 22nd.

3:31:35>> No.

3:31:36>> So that one stands. That's fine with you

3:31:38guys.

3:31:40>> All right.

3:31:42That sounds good. But lake is a

3:31:45different world.

3:31:47>> They normally are.

3:31:48>> Yes.

3:31:49>> It's a nice world. But, you know, to be

3:31:51honest with you, they have internal

3:31:54regulations that are probably tougher

3:31:56than anything anyone in town has dreamed

3:31:58up.

3:32:00They really do. All right.

3:32:04Um, that was it. Council Oola, come join

3:32:08us.

3:32:13Oh, sorry.

3:32:19>> All right. From the town council meeting

3:32:21on October 13th, um the water plant

3:32:25capacity planning consultant um

3:32:27presented three plans to address

3:32:29projected flows and nutrient loading

3:32:32constraints. Preliminary costs will be

3:32:34available within the next few weeks. Um

3:32:37the Rogers area um Wells PAS and Greater

3:32:40Killingly PAS test. The testing

3:32:42continues in the Rogers area. Um the

3:32:46town manager met with Connecticut Water

3:32:49and they were able to resolve the 20%

3:32:51matching requirements for grant funding.

3:32:53They originally said they would um um do

3:32:57the 20% match and then I believe they

3:32:59didn't want to do it. Um, additional

3:33:02funding will be available through the

3:33:04um, Department of Public Health on first

3:33:06come first serve basis. There's $800,000

3:33:09available. So, if the homes have PAS in

3:33:12the Rogers area and they don't want to

3:33:14be hooked up um, and want to hook up

3:33:17later, they they'll have to pay for it

3:33:19themselves.

3:33:21Um,

3:33:21>> how many residences roughly are they

3:33:23talking?

3:33:26>> I don't think there's that I don't think

3:33:28there's that many.

3:33:30Not in the Rogers area and in the

3:33:32killing the whole lake there. There's a

3:33:34lot.

3:33:35>> I mean the for the hookup.

3:33:38Oh,

3:33:38>> are they running a water line in Rogers?

3:33:40>> Yeah, they're going to run a water line.

3:33:45>> Um Oh, Killingly Pond um deep met with

3:33:48wish um regarding draft consent order

3:33:51and and discussion will be continued. As

3:33:53you said, it's confidential. The

3:33:55brickyard project is on schedule and um

3:33:58continued through the fall and the final

3:34:00paving will be in the spring um in

3:34:02warmer weather. The emergency access

3:34:05road for Killing Lee High School. Um the

3:34:08road grading continues and this is being

3:34:11done mostly by the town staff. Um Right

3:34:14Bridge Road, the town was awarded a

3:34:16grant by the um Connecticut Department

3:34:18of Transportation to redesign and

3:34:19rebuild a few bridges. There was a

3:34:22publicformational meeting that was held

3:34:24on October 15th and um no one attended

3:34:28the meeting. Um Peeptoad road bridge

3:34:31also funded by um

3:34:34Department of Transportation proposed

3:34:37resolution is to eliminate the bridge

3:34:39and install two culde-sacs on either

3:34:42side. The DOT doesn't want to replace

3:34:44the bridge because of the cost. It has a

3:34:47cultural and historical um character

3:34:49that would they would think would be too

3:34:51costly to to um replace. Um there will

3:34:54be a field visit planned for um well

3:34:57that was in October with the DOT and

3:34:59property owner primarily affected. Um

3:35:04also historical activists were invited.

3:35:07Um they're opting for bridge closer um

3:35:10bridge replacement instead of closure.

3:35:13um Westfield Community Center

3:35:15construction. It further engaged a bond

3:35:18holding shity for project with ongoing

3:35:21issues um in to um prelude to terminate

3:35:25the contract with Downs Construction.

3:35:28They're saying that the work will be

3:35:30will be completed by the end of November

3:35:33and this is an ongoing process. They

3:35:35keep

3:35:35>> So is the rec department actually

3:35:37setting a I'd heard a rumor that there

3:35:39was an actual move in date. Um, it's

3:35:42supposed to be complete at the end of

3:35:44November, but we've heard that before.

3:35:45They just keep giving us new dates.

3:35:48>> Oh, yeah.

3:35:50>> I believe it's over a year now.

3:35:52>> Yeah.

3:35:54>> Um, regional housing plan. Um,

3:35:58Niko started working on regional housing

3:36:00plan. It's due June 1st of 2027. The

3:36:03town will participate. They will opt out

3:36:05and develop their own plan if they don't

3:36:06like the one developed by NECOG. and

3:36:09Spooktacular already happened and that's

3:36:12it.

3:36:14>> Thank you.

3:36:18>> Is there anything else?

3:36:22>> Aren't you glad you came to Killingly?

3:36:24>> It's fine.

3:36:26>> Um, just a reminder if there's anything

3:36:28you guys need me to like fish through

3:36:30the documents for, I trust me, I

3:36:32understand it's a lot as I've been

3:36:34sitting and reading through not just

3:36:36your stuff but planning and zoning

3:36:37because you are not the same. So I have

3:36:39to read both submissions. I'm happy to

3:36:42try to find it for you so that you have

3:36:44the information available.

3:36:47>> Thank you.

3:36:48>> Can you tell me a little more about this

3:36:50course that we have?

3:36:52>> Oh, we got to get moving on that.

3:36:53[laughter] Jesus. Good thing you said

3:36:55that.

3:36:56>> Yes,

3:36:57>> it's safe now. We haven't turned on each

3:36:58other. So, [laughter]

3:37:01>> and thank you for coming.

3:37:02>> That's quite all right.

3:37:04>> Tell Keith we were made of tougher stuff

3:37:05than him last week.

3:37:09Yes.

3:37:10>> Thank you though.

3:37:11>> So, um, Connecticut General Statutes and

3:37:13I think it was either in 2023 or 2024,

3:37:16um, required that you guys retake if you

3:37:19took the previous D in the wetland

3:37:21training course. Um, every agent and

3:37:24every commission member had to retake it

3:37:26by December of December 31st of 2026.

3:37:30Um, so you it's online.

3:37:33>> Remind us again though. We will

3:37:35>> um I think staff was going to send the

3:37:36link out. We can send it again.

3:37:38>> I think Oh, she did right away.

3:37:39>> Yeah, we we can resend [laughter] it.

3:37:41>> I did cuz I have trouble. I had trouble

3:37:43getting into her new emails.

3:37:45>> If

3:37:47>> Yeah. If you have issues getting into

3:37:49it, let me know. I reached out um for

3:37:51one of my other commissions um to the

3:37:54contact at Yukon and was able to get

3:37:56them in. Um they had an issue early on

3:37:58about having the number of seats filled.

3:38:01I don't even know why you have seats on

3:38:02an online um training course, but you do

3:38:05have to take it. you do have to pass. Um

3:38:08they say it can take up to eight hours.

3:38:10If you've been on this board for a long

3:38:13time and you have experience, um it will

3:38:15not take you eight hours. I promise you.

3:38:18Um but it is they don't let you skip

3:38:20through. Um so you have to like watch

3:38:23the videos and um other content that's

3:38:26in there. Um it took me an hour and a

3:38:28half. So if if you have a good base of

3:38:31knowledge um you you should be able to

3:38:34move through fairly quickly. And if we

3:38:35don't pass,

3:38:37>> better pass.

3:38:38>> I'm off.

3:38:40>> We We know you're off.

3:38:42>> You can't get off that easily.

3:38:44[laughter]

3:38:45>> We know you're off, but not in that in

3:38:47that way. And don't be afraid to still

3:38:52utilize downstairs. Allison's there as

3:38:56is everyone else.

3:39:00Life goes on.

3:39:04Motion to adjurnn.

3:39:06>> Second. All in favor?

3:39:08>> Second. I

3:39:09>> Thank you.