2026-11-02 - Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency

00:0026

00:03meeting of the Woodstock Inland Wetlands

00:05and Water Courses Agency. The time is

00:07700 p.m. We'll start with a roll call

00:14>> Pasley

00:17Grace Luddy

00:20>> Kathy Bareric

00:24>> Belitzky

00:27and

00:29here but she's uh

00:36here. Mara, sorry I was muted.

00:38>> Okay.

00:39>> Okay. Um, we're all

00:45>> we're all here and uh we have no need to

00:48appoint any alternates.

00:50Um,

00:53we'll move on to action on minutes of

00:55the previous meeting of October 5th,

00:582026.

01:01Does anybody have any uh comments or

01:05changes?

01:09>> Can you see the minutes if can if you'll

01:11see them on the screen?

01:12>> Yes.

01:12>> Okay.

01:13>> Yes.

01:21>> Sure. Nobody can

01:23Nobody has them, but

01:30Normally you have to look for them, but

01:32there's two of them on the on the the

01:36website, the I WWA

01:40section of the town website about

01:43minutes, the town website that they

01:46screwed all up.

01:49Is anybody else having problems with

01:51that?

01:52>> Yeah, it's hard to navigate.

01:54>> It's an imperfect transition. We we ask

01:58for patience.

02:01>> I think a better word would not be

02:04something better might be than

02:07imperfect.

02:14>> Okay.

02:14>> Hey, does anybody see anything that

02:16needs to be changed or corrected or

02:18updated?

02:20>> I didn't see anything.

02:22No,

02:24>> I wasn't there, but I listened to the

02:25recording, so I don't really have an

02:27opinion.

02:30>> Seems to be fine.

02:33>> Yeah, I didn't find anything either. So,

02:36I would entertain a motion for based on

02:40these minutes.

02:43>> I make a motion to accept the minutes of

02:45Monday.

02:48Whoops. Printed this on the wrong

02:52Oh, no. October 5th,

02:55uh, minutes of the Woodtock Inland

02:58Wetlands and Water Courses Agency.

03:01>> Good job. Good job.

03:04>> 2026,

03:05>> right? Once in a while.

03:10>> Grace Ly, I'll second it.

03:14Okay, we have a motion by Kathy Bareric,

03:17second by Grace Ley to accept the

03:19minutes as presented of the October 5th,

03:232026 Woodstock Inland Wetlands and Water

03:26Courses Agency uh meeting.

03:29Any further discussion?

03:32All those in favor signify by saying I.

03:35>> I.

03:35>> I.

03:37>> Any opposed?

03:39Any abstain?

03:40>> I abstain. Marlo, I wasn't there.

03:44>> Yep. The motion passes.

03:47Okay, we'll move on to citizens

03:49comments. This is the section of the

03:52meeting where uh we can entertain

03:54comments of something that's not already

03:56on the agenda and uh as long as the

03:59comments are held brief in nature, we

04:02will entertain them. Does anybody wish

04:04to comment on anything?

04:07>> Hi, Bill. This is Carla.

04:10>> Hello. Hi, I have a question for you.

04:14Uh, I was just listening. So, if I have

04:16a comment about something that's on the

04:18agenda for tonight, this would not be

04:20the time to say anything. Is that

04:22correct?

04:24>> That's correct.

04:25>> Well, that that said, there are there's

04:27there no public hearings like the all of

04:30the items on the agenda unless you are

04:32an applicant or a representative of the

04:34applicant are they're not public

04:37proceedings. Obviously, people can

04:39attend and listen But uh most comments

04:42are not are not subject to public

04:44hearing.

04:47>> So I'll leave that to you. But I I don't

04:50I

04:51>> Go ahead. I'm sorry.

04:52>> Yeah. No, I mean, but broadly speaking,

04:54unless unless there is a specifically a

04:57scheduled public hearing um at which the

04:59the public is invited to speak and

05:01testify on specific applications um

05:04which is a relatively rare thing in

05:06wetlands um applications over the last

05:09couple of years. But um but broadly

05:12speaking,

05:13applications that are before the

05:15commission that are not subject to

05:17public hearing generally do not invite

05:20active public participation unless the

05:22com the the the chairman so deems it.

05:25But it's it's

05:26>> Yeah.

05:26>> So if I had questions about erosion due

05:30to one of the things going on basically

05:33I can't say anything at this point is

05:35what you're saying. Is that correct

05:36John? you my well again and I and and

05:39it's really up to the the chairman's

05:41discretion but if you had a specific

05:43question about a a property or project I

05:47would suggest the proper channel would

05:48be to direct that to myself as as staff

05:52separately

05:53>> at another time.

05:56>> Yeah. Or via email at any time. Um but

05:59you know but or you know if it if it

06:02takes the place of a if you have a if

06:03you have a complaint or a concern

06:05generally the first place would be to

06:07address that to staff. If if that fails

06:10if staff does not get back to you or you

06:13know does not answer to your

06:14satisfaction then then it would be more

06:16appropriate to come to the full

06:17commission. But um coming to the full

06:20commission with a complaint or a concern

06:22on a given project or property um

06:26shortcircuiting the process a little

06:28bit. But again, Bill, it's your it's

06:29your meeting.

06:31>> Bill, can I ask Carla a question?

06:34>> Go ahead,

06:35>> Carla. Are your comments related to an

06:37application that's pending before the

06:39commission tonight?

06:40>> Yes, it is. Then I think it's

06:42appropriate for you to make your

06:43comments now if you have unless Bill

06:46wants to do them during the meeting.

06:48These are we are late commissions.

06:50Technically John is correct but you do

06:54have an opportunity to make statements

06:55to us if there's information that you

06:58think is of value to the commission. I

07:01think it's appropriate for you to say

07:02them now because that's what this

07:04section also is for. Citizens comments

07:07on agenda items.

07:10Okay, recognizing John's comments and

07:13your comments also, then I would uh

07:16allow Ka to speak on

07:19her uh

07:22>> question. Okay. It's in regards to the

07:26um Crystal Pond Road um the application

07:30for uh the uh uh boat ramp being put in.

07:36I'm not I don't have a problem with a

07:38boat being put in, but what my concern

07:41is the soil erosion because of the

07:44sloping from where it is going to be

07:48placed. I mean, I can stand on my

07:51property and look over and the property

07:52is taller than I am. So, my concern is

07:56is will that be addressed? Um, right now

07:59there is a black fence up with hay

08:01bales, but I'm thinking down the road

08:04those hay bales and black fence are

08:06going to be gone. And then what's going

08:08to happen then at that point to prevent,

08:13you know, long-term

08:15erosion? U Mr. Gabriel himself had

08:18already said that there was an issue

08:19with erosion on that property and I was

08:22just wondering if there is anything that

08:25will be put in place to help prevent the

08:29erosion from happening such as a

08:32permanent permanent uh permeable grid pa

08:36or if you do any of the um you know

08:40where you place uh

08:44areas where you the rain can uh be

08:47collected or um depressions in the yard.

08:51And that's what my question is all

08:53about. Sorry

08:56>> to go on.

08:58>> That's it. That was my question.

09:01>> Well, we can take a look at that when we

09:04get that that point. Uh and there's

09:08other discussion that needs to happen on

09:10that item. So,

09:11>> okay. Uh, we will take that up when we

09:15get to that point.

09:17>> Thank you very much. I appreciate you

09:18letting me talk.

09:20>> Yeah, you're welcome. Does anybody else

09:23have any comments on something that's

09:26not on the agenda?

09:29>> Bill Ron Petro, can you hear me?

09:32>> Yes, I can. Yes, I can. Um, Bill, I have

09:36a a question and I'm looking for some

09:38guidance on an issue with the pond on my

09:41property. I'm sure most of you remember

09:44that we had the pond dredged about five

09:46years ago. It is a fire pond. Um,

09:49>> yeah,

09:49>> I realize we've had very little rain

09:53over the course of the summer, but the

09:55pond is literally 5t below the spillway.

09:59Uh if the fire department were to come

10:01right now, they wouldn't be able to get

10:04very much water at all out of the pond.

10:07So, I'm just looking for some guidance

10:09as to who I need to speak to to find out

10:13if if there's something going on other

10:16than lack of rain to cause the pond to

10:19not have uh any water in it. Uh I in

10:24April it was full. I actually hired a

10:26company to come in and treat the algae

10:30uh in duckweed so that it wouldn't get

10:33caught in any fire department apparatus

10:36if they were to come. Uh but the next

10:39month they came and said there's very

10:41little water in the pond. There's not

10:43much to treat uh what's going on. So I'm

10:47I'm just looking for some guidance as to

10:49who I speak to uh about this issue.

10:54Well, probably hasn't. Unless there's

10:57been something changed uh further up uh

11:00in the watershed,

11:02then uh we would expect, you know,

11:07similar conditions to be draining down

11:10the the the watershed to your pond. uh

11:14unless your neighbor across the street

11:15did something to divert it. But uh the

11:20only other alternative would could be is

11:22if you have a leak somewhere uh in your

11:25dam uh or your drainage that uh is not

11:30recognized currently. Uh other than

11:34that, it could be just uh environmental

11:37with the uh the weather we've been

11:39having. So, I don't know what else I can

11:42tell you other than those two things. If

11:44if somebody else has a comment

11:51about speaking, I live on that side of

11:53the town and I haven't seen anything

11:54that looked like water is getting

11:56diverted. So, I tend to suspect that it

12:00may be because we haven't had much rain

12:02in the last couple of months. But, okay,

12:06>> 5T is a lot. Um, but I

12:09>> not aware of anything.

12:11>> I think um not sure but I think you get

12:14some water from Kleman's Pond which is

12:16actually near the border of Thompson and

12:19Woodstock. I think it's actually in the

12:21town of Thompson.

12:22>> Yes.

12:23>> I think that drains towards you.

12:25>> Yes.

12:26>> Um but I'm not sure what the condition

12:30of that pond is. If that pond is

12:31similarly low as yours, then I would

12:33suspect that it's rainfall.

12:35>> Okay. Um, you might take a drive up

12:38there. There's a road that goes up

12:40there.

12:41>> And take a look and see what that pond

12:43looks like.

12:44>> Okay, I can do that.

12:49>> Okay, thank you.

12:51>> Is that Yep. Does anybody else have any

12:53comments, Ron?

12:57>> Okay, Ron, that's about all we can do

12:59for you at the moment. If

13:03>> Yeah.

13:04>> Thank you, Bill.

13:05>> Okay. is you're welcome. Does uh anybody

13:08else have anything that's not on the

13:10agenda this evening?

13:16So, moving on to pending applications.

13:21We have a request

13:23to uh we should probably amend

13:27the uh first item on the uh put an

13:31amendment before the first item the on

13:34the uh pending applications.

13:36Uh John is familiar with this. They have

13:40requested an extension.

13:48Uh so in brief uh the Jeffco fibers

13:52application that we discussed briefly we

13:55received and discussed briefly last

13:56meeting. Um this is the the proposed

13:58expansion of the former Crabtree and

14:00Evelyn uh warehouse facilities on

14:03Crabtree Lane and Peekbrook Lane. There

14:05were a number of issues with their um

14:07site plan and application materials uh

14:10that we've we've we've relayed to them

14:12asking for revisions. Um those revisions

14:15are not quite done yet. Um and so in lie

14:18of uh presenting this evening uh and

14:21hearing those concerns expressed again

14:24um or withdrawing they have asked the

14:26commission if they would consider

14:27extending uh discussion or continuing

14:30discussion until the December meeting

14:33and we received that email uh which is

14:35on the screen uh this morning.

14:41>> Go ahead, you go on to say something.

14:43Yeah, take a look at what the language

14:45is first. He's asking for a con

14:49requested continuence for the Islands

14:51Wetland Commission hearings. We are not

14:54in a hearing situation at this point. We

14:57are just considering it. And under the

15:00statute,

15:00>> nor are we islands.

15:02>> Yes, I know. Nor are we commission.

15:04We're an agency. Um and so the statute

15:09says we have 65 days with which to

15:12render a decision or to hold a public

15:15hearing. So the application was

15:17statutoily received on October 5th. So

15:21the 65day time uh is December 9th. So

15:27technically they would be giving us an

15:29extension of some sort past that

15:32December 9th date, but we have no idea

15:36what the length of time is that they are

15:38giving the extension for cuz the statute

15:40says they can we can be given up to 65

15:45days and they can be multiple requests

15:48for extension but they cannot total more

15:50than 65 days. So, it's unclear to me

15:54exactly what he's granting to the

15:57commission, what kind of extension.

15:58However, be advised that we are not

16:00required to render a decision at the

16:03December meeting. But we would be

16:06required to either hold a public hearing

16:09by that date or render decision by that

16:11date unless we have a specific extension

16:14time given for the consideration of this

16:18matter either to hold a hearing or to

16:21render a decision. So

16:25I I'm unclear as to what exactly is

16:28would be granted by the applicant and I

16:32think that needs to be clarified. I need

16:34to know whether I think we need to know

16:36whether or not he's granting us an

16:37extension of the total 65 days to either

16:42render decision or hold a public hearing

16:44and that would be tacked on to the

16:46December 9th date or is he just giving

16:49us 30 days uh of an extension with the

16:52idea of maybe giving us 30 days later on

16:55because we can get a total of 65.

16:58So I'm unclear as to what that is. And

17:02second, um, since I wasn't at the last

17:06meeting and I started reviewing the

17:08application

17:10after the fact and I listened to the um,

17:14minutes, I had a lot of concerns and I

17:18put those concerns in writing and I did

17:20have a meeting with John and the first

17:22selectman to discuss that. And what I

17:25would like at this point in time is to

17:28get clarification of what the ex

17:30extension that's being granted by the

17:32applicant. And two, I would like my

17:35comments available to the commission

17:38members, the agency members for their

17:40perusal. So when those revised documents

17:43come in, the agency members can look at

17:46my comments and see what kinds of

17:48changes and corrections have been made.

17:50I'll give you an example. The

17:53application stated the wrong property as

17:57the site of the application. That's on

17:58the application form. Second, the

18:01application listed Jeffco Fibers Inc. as

18:05an applicant, but there is no um

18:08registration valid registration for

18:11foreign corporation at the Secretary of

18:12State for Jeffco Fibers, Inc. There was

18:16one at the time that the lease was

18:18established on the property, but the it

18:20was withdrawn and there is not one now.

18:23Jeffco Fibers is a foreign corporation

18:26registered in Massachusetts

18:28and to do business in Connecticut, they

18:31have to be registered in Connecticut.

18:32However, you don't you can own land as a

18:36foreign corporation without being

18:38registered. But the question is is what

18:40constitutes doing business in

18:42Connecticut? So, I'm not sure who the

18:45correct applicant is, and I think that

18:47needs to be clarified as to whether or

18:50not this entity, Jeff Coers, Inc., is a

18:53legal entity capable of being a a proper

18:57applicant in Connecticut. Um, and so I

19:00would like my documents and I had a lot

19:03of questions about the the the site

19:06plans. A lot of concerns, things like

19:08the FEMA lines were missing. The topo

19:11lines did not have numbers associated

19:14with the elevations. We don't know what

19:16datim those elevations are on, whether

19:18they're NA NGBD or they're NAVD.

19:22I don't know whether it's an assumed

19:24baseline elevation. There's a lot that

19:25was missing. There was no legend. So I

19:28would like to have those shared with the

19:30commission and posted on the next

19:32meeting as part of the record for this

19:35application. But I and also

19:38clarification of what how much the

19:40applicant is extending to us, how much

19:42time,

19:43>> Mr. Chair.

19:46Well, we have several choices as far as

19:50uh I mean we kind of already got into it

19:53without adding it to the discussion to

19:56the agenda, but we have several choices.

19:59We could table it for this evening

20:02>> or we could deny it without prejudice.

20:05>> Um there's probably something else, but

20:08I'm not thinking of it off top my head.

20:10But we have at least those two choices.

20:13I don't think it's appropriate for the

20:15comm the agency to deny it at this time

20:17because they don't have the information

20:19in front of them. They don't have the

20:22documentation that I generated that goes

20:25along with the application. So at this

20:28juncture I I I don't see rendering

20:31decision on this application at this

20:32time. You see what they generate what

20:35they pres present at the next meeting.

20:38John, you've already shared these

20:39comments my comments with them correct?

20:42>> I have. So they have all the things that

20:44I'm concerned about and they can

20:47>> they were in process of right they were

20:48in process of of updating their flight

20:50plans. They just didn't get it done

20:52before this evening's meeting

20:53>> and they can address the issue of them

20:54not having a corporation anymore in the

20:56name of Jeffco Fibers Inc.

20:58>> and how are they doing business in in

21:01Connecticut. Those kinds of issues

21:04become important if you ever have to do

21:05an enforcement action. You need to know

21:07who your legal entity is.

21:11>> Okay. I guess if I might

21:13>> go ahead.

21:14>> So to the two the two major questions or

21:17requests that Mara forwarded um first in

21:20terms of distribution to uh the full

21:23commission or the full agency of her uh

21:27notes um while she was speaking I hit

21:29send and if you all check your inboxes

21:31you should have her comments in your

21:32email. Um so that's been distributed. Uh

21:35the second which again and were

21:37distributed to Jeffco fibers as the

21:39applicant. um and and have been

21:42addressing those comments. Obviously,

21:44they they have not completed their

21:46revisions. As far as how much time they

21:49want, um

21:51I would suggest you don't really need

21:54clarification at this point or that

21:56doesn't need to hold up your proceeding

21:58with the decision. You have 65 days. The

22:01applicant has asked for an extension. Um

22:06the next meeting is you know a month

22:08away actually almost ex just uh just

22:11over a month away. Um and so you have up

22:14to 65 days. I will represent that on the

22:17phone. Obviously it didn't make it into

22:18his email. I asked if he wanted to you

22:21know regroup and and uh proceed with the

22:24December meeting. He said yes. That did

22:26not get into his email but I will put on

22:28the record he was referring to the

22:30December meeting. Um, but so I I would I

22:33would be safe in in recommending that an

22:37extension be granted, a continuation be

22:38granted through um I think it's December

22:426th.

22:44>> We have that we have we don't need an

22:46extension for that. We have we don't

22:48have the decision tonight. So

22:50>> if he wants to give us till January

22:52because we may need some time to chew

22:54over.

22:54>> Yeah. I my my suggestion would be let's

22:56cross that bridge when we get to it.

22:58>> Okay.

23:01Can I ask a question just

23:04mostly for my own education? Go ahead.

23:07>> First of all, Mara, how did you happen

23:09to look for

23:11the fact that this was a foreign

23:13company? I never would have thought to

23:15do that, little old Woodstock.

23:18>> So, the first thing I did was I looked

23:21>> foreign meaning outside of Connecticut,

23:23not outside the United States.

23:25>> I'm sorry.

23:26>> Foreign means they're out of the state.

23:29They're they're registered in

23:30Massachusetts.

23:32>> Ah, okay.

23:32>> But to do business in Connecticut, they

23:34have to register with a secretary of

23:36state as a foreign corporation.

23:39>> Okay.

23:41>> But the question is is what constitutes

23:43what constitutes business? You know, you

23:46can own property and that's apparently

23:48is an exemption. And there's a bunch of

23:50exemptions for um foreign corporations.

23:54And these are legal matters that really

23:56would need clarification by legal

23:58counsel.

24:07So, um, well, I said, as I said before,

24:12we still have the same two choices,

24:16but I would entertain a motion based on

24:19this discussion of where we should uh

24:25go with tonight's discussion.

24:27>> I move to table application 09-26-2,

24:31Jeffco Fibers, Inc.

24:33till next month's meeting with an

24:36opportunity to give the applicant an

24:38opportunity

24:40to make modifications to their

24:42application.

24:44>> I'll second the motion.

24:48Okay, we have motion by Malabut, second

24:50by Stuart Peasley to table application

24:5409-26-02

24:5729 Crabtree Lane, map 6397,

25:01block 62, lot 16A, Jeffco Fibers LLC for

25:07new warehouse building and upland review

25:09area. Is there any further discussion?

25:14>> All those in favor signify. The other

25:17question I have is where do they ask for

25:20an extension?

25:22The only word I find that is even close

25:25to that is continuation. Is that

25:27considered the same thing?

25:32>> That's kind of their intention.

25:35um it's not using the same word, but uh

25:40statutoily

25:42we don't have to grant that this evening

25:45because we still have through the

25:47December meeting.

25:49>> Okay.

25:51Thanks.

25:52>> I the use of extension um was mine in

25:56the naming of the PDF.

25:59So please don't read into that. Um in my

26:02head I considered them equivalent. Marlo

26:03was shaking her head. there's probably a

26:05term of there's probably a a

26:07distinction. Um, but what I meant by

26:10that is that, you know, he was not ready

26:11this evening and wished to discuss it at

26:13the next meeting.

26:18>> Okay. Any further discussion?

26:21>> No.

26:21>> All those in favor signify by saying I.

26:24I. I.

26:26>> I. Anybody opposed?

26:30Anybody abstain?

26:32Okay, the motion passes.

26:36Moving on to new applications.

26:39Applications 10-26-01

26:44173 Crystal Pond Road, map 6385, block

26:4839, lot 39F, Town of Woodstock. Request

26:53for determination of use as of right for

26:56creation of emergency access boat ramp.

27:01>> And here I'll note, Mr. chair that uh

27:03first selectman Pakette had hoped to

27:06participate. He had um another meeting I

27:10think that apparently he couldn't uh get

27:12out of in time. Uh we do have the

27:14property owner I believe Mr. Gabrielle

27:17here um and if he is so inclined he

27:21could explain what his uh interest in

27:23the property is. that this is an

27:25application on behalf of the town uh who

27:28is being offered access across a private

27:31piece of property that Mr. Gabrielle

27:33owns.

27:36>> Okay. Mr. Gabrielle, do you have any

27:39questions or would you I mean comments?

27:41Would you like to make presentation or

27:43anything?

27:44>> Uh no. The first selectman uh I've uh

27:48given him permission to act as our

27:50agent. This was in response to the

27:52tragic drowning of a 15year-old on

27:54Crystal Pond. I offered emergency access

27:58through our property if needed and

28:01apparently it is needed. I had the first

28:04selectman of Woodstock and Eastford as

28:07well as the fire chiefs from several

28:09departments out for a site visit. They

28:12looked at the area and said it was

28:14suitable. It's just what they need with

28:16adequate space for staging and parking.

28:19and the first selectman said he would

28:20take it from there. So, uh I'll let him

28:24take it from there.

28:28>> So, I

28:29>> Okay. So,

28:30>> there so I mean there is a nar there is

28:32a narrative in um the application that

28:35describes the licensed area and the

28:38emergency lake access area. Um I don't

28:40want to over represent but my

28:42understanding is the major activity

28:45would be um uh just add like removing a

28:50little bit of the um the lawn and top

28:52soil right along the lake basically wide

28:56enough for emergency vehicle access and

28:57and establishing basically a stone a

29:00stone basis a a crush stone basis so

29:02that emergency vehicles can um bring in

29:06um a rescue apparatus uh without without

29:10you know getting stuck or destroying um

29:13the the lawn.

29:17>> Uh Bill Rowinsky, I fully support what

29:20the intention is here. However, I do

29:22have some some questions.

29:25Um

29:29>> so, and I did I did let Mr. first

29:31selectment podcast know um that you know

29:34the the the worst case the scenario this

29:37evening is that the commission doesn't

29:38have enough information. They would have

29:39to continue their discussions uh until

29:42the next meeting. Um well

29:44>> but yeah I I don't I don't want to be in

29:46a position of answering questions on

29:47this because I don't have all the

29:48information.

29:49>> Yeah. Well, I'm just going to present my

29:52questions and then if anybody has

29:53comments on them that they can uh

29:57uh comment and some of them are out of

29:59our realm, but I still would like to

30:00have answered such as what is the

30:03relationship between the town and the

30:05fire departments?

30:07Uh we're giving access to the town. Does

30:10the town have jurisdiction over the fire

30:13departments? And uh the town can grant

30:16them uh authority to use this

30:20That's one. Um,

30:24another one would be who might have

30:27access besides the property owner and

30:29the town.

30:32Um, who? Another question. Uh,

30:36maintenance is going to be whose

30:38responsibility and is there an agreement

30:41as to maintenance?

30:44Uh, also is there room to turn around a

30:49truck and trailer in that uh responder

30:53parking area? First responder parking

30:55area

30:57uh so that they can turn around and back

30:59in. Otherwise, you're could take them a

31:01half hour to back down the driveway if

31:03they have to back down.

31:06And

31:08another question is this

31:11um this

31:14sort of gives a little bit of a license

31:16for uh maybe indirectly for public

31:19access.

31:21So uh I would like to know who is

31:25uh going to be restricted for this

31:27access.

31:29Um,

31:31I don't want to see this

31:34coming uh something where everybody in a

31:36lake, you know, goes there to put in or

31:40uh charging fees to go in or before you

31:43know it, there's uh uh unpermitted uh

31:49uh what do I want to say?

31:50>> Boat launch.

31:51>> Boat uh not so much the boat the boat

31:53launch, but uh a wararf and uh boats

31:56being mored there. So, uh,

32:01I would, uh, feel more comfortable if

32:04Jana could be here and answer those

32:06questions and if he would talk through

32:09some of these with the town attorney and

32:12see if we need to have something a

32:14little bit more formal. Uh, agreed.

32:20uh because and you know is the town

32:22going to have liability insurance for

32:25this when when the uh fire departments

32:27use them.

32:30>> So if anybody has other questions or

32:32comments

32:35>> this is this is Steve Gabriel. All very

32:37good questions. I will tell you that

32:39Chandler had the town attorney draw up a

32:42formal agreement that answers all of

32:45those issues and I he sent me a draft.

32:49I've yet to see the final that uh we

32:52haven't signed it yet, but all those are

32:53addressed except for the uh room for

32:56turning around. I will tell you in the

32:58site plan, there is a turnout for

33:01emergency vehicles right there where the

33:04um in the area we're talking about that

33:06was required by the fire marshall. So a

33:0933 foot fire truck with a 28t turning

33:13diameter I believe can do can turn

33:15around down at the at the base of the

33:18property by the lake. But again, the

33:21first seleman is a guy to give you all

33:22the details there.

33:26I have a question.

33:28>> Go ahead.

33:29>> Um, do we have a PDF of the plan that

33:33shows up on the screen? When you enlarge

33:35it, it's unreadable.

33:37Um, do do we have a full size copy

33:41instead of just a snapshot

33:43of

33:44>> uh Yeah. I mean, this was pasted in uh

33:47this you can see on here. This is this

33:49is public map 2536. So, we can, you

33:52know,

33:52>> Okay. Okay.

33:54>> This is in the clerk's office. So this

33:56was the the the map for this application

33:59had a base map that's on file on the

34:01land records and then placed on top of

34:04that were these notations in addition to

34:07what was on the original

34:11record drawing. Correct.

34:12>> That's that's how it appears to me.

34:14>> Okay. So this map was not drawn

34:18originally for this specific purpose. it

34:22was for something else and then we're

34:24using it as as a basis for coming up

34:26with a new application.

34:28>> Correct.

34:29>> All right. Um I don't know if that base

34:32map has better topography, but when I

34:35looked at map geo or not map, the GIS

34:40for the town and you look at the

34:42topography, you turn the topo layer on.

34:47Uh you got to turn off the wetlands

34:50layer though. You can't see anything

34:51under that. So if you turn on the to

34:54layer the base map local 2023 statewide

34:59aerial with the geology with the topo on

35:02it as you scroll in where they want to

35:04do the turn around there is some flat

35:05land there but then it drops like 6 ft.

35:09These are two foot contours.

35:11So to get to the water. So um trying to

35:15figure out whether or not if this was

35:17used as the base map that showed the

35:19location of things for us for our

35:22purposes, not for any deed or any

35:25easement, but for us to to to know where

35:28things are and where things are going to

35:29go. That would have been helpful to have

35:32that in the application. So we could see

35:35drawn on here because you can see it's a

35:37field. So, and it looks like it's pretty

35:40the slope is pretty consistent. So, it

35:43would I would think that trucks would be

35:45able to get across there without a whole

35:47lot. It's not like you're going to

35:48construct an axis road, per se. Um, it

35:52sounds like you're only constructing an

35:54access point at the W's edge. And the

35:57question about erosion, potential

35:59erosion comes up only because you have a

36:01steep slope. And I don't see much for

36:03details on the actual the the uh rip

36:08wrap um approach. I think the stone was

36:11what 2in stone that they wanted to use.

36:15Correct me if I'm wrong.

36:17>> Uh this talks about 3 in and 2 in

36:20depending where it is.

36:23>> Yeah. So,

36:27I'm not sure what vehicles what, you

36:29know, if you're trying to launch a a

36:31boat into the into the pond, whether 3

36:34in or 2 in stones would actually be

36:36smooth enough for them to cross over,

36:39unless it would they were, you know,

36:41placed in a certain way. And I do wonder

36:44if they if the town ever looked at uh

36:46alternative

36:48materials to be used uh such as um the

36:52concrete waffles that we've seen that

36:55allow for ground stability. I think I

36:59mentioned that there was some that you

37:00can see down at the YMCA

37:03um along the road where they've put in

37:06some. I'm not sure where else there is

37:09around this this part of the state, but

37:11um those remain very stable and they're

37:13easily driven across where I don't know

37:16if 3-in stone's going to be easily, you

37:19know, transversible by by a boat trailer

37:23because that's what they'd have to do to

37:24to get a boat out there.

37:26>> Mar Stewart calling here. Uh two inches

37:30is fine. Three inch is fine.

37:32>> They are.

37:33>> Yeah.

37:34>> Okay.

37:36So they would probably have to compact

37:38it, I would think. And would they be

37:40putting in a a

37:42geoexile separation material to stop the

37:46stone from being pushed into the into

37:48the soils and becoming mucky. A lot of

37:51times if you use if you're going to use

37:53something like this on a slope, you want

37:55some kind of stability. either you grade

37:57the materials up from a from a gravel to

38:00the stone so that when you get weight on

38:02the stone, it doesn't end up pushing up

38:05the soil from below. Um, a geoexile, a

38:10road stabilization geoexile underneath

38:12the stone might make sense um only

38:16because it'll help to keep the stone

38:17stable when it's driven across. But

38:20these are just these are design features

38:22that I don't know if the town looked at

38:24those or not.

38:27I don't know who was giving them the

38:28advice on how to design this.

38:31>> No, we don't know what the slope is on

38:33that.

38:34>> Well, appears to be fairly steep as you

38:36get close to is there's a flat layer and

38:38then it looks like it gets steep as you

38:41approach the water.

38:44It drops in a span very short span about

38:48six feet or four at least four feet two

38:52four six feet. Yeah, something like

38:54that.

38:55So I I think we need a better detail on

38:58exactly what the slope of that uh access

39:01way is going to be

39:03>> like a cross-section.

39:05>> Yeah.

39:06>> And a plan view.

39:07>> This this slightly heavier orange line

39:10is about 8 ft above the water.

39:12>> Yep. Yep. But then you get this nice

39:15flat layer after that yellow line and

39:19then it drops as you get to the the

39:20water's edge. And that's where you'd

39:22have the concern about gaining whether

39:25you'd have erosion or what kinds of

39:27access whether the access would be

39:29adequate. Would you need to to cut into

39:31that slope to make it shallower so that

39:33you could bring the the vehicles in

39:36without having them have to go over a

39:38steep slope?

39:41Don't know.

39:45Um, does the town question for John I

39:47guess does the town have an engineering

39:48firm on file on on hire?

39:51>> Uh, we have uh design professionals on

39:53call.

39:55>> That's something that they could have

39:56come up with a design for it and just

39:58actually done a a plan a plan view and a

40:02cross-section that would make it very

40:05clear as to what's going in. cuz right

40:07now it's it's not really clear to me

40:08exactly what's going other than it's

40:11going to be two or 3 in stone and I'm

40:13not exactly sure where and I'm not

40:15exactly sure how wide it's going to be.

40:18Um

40:20I just don't know.

40:21>> I I would suggest that it's would be if

40:24the if the com if the wetlands agency is

40:26going to

40:28essentially require that or determine

40:30that they can't make a decision in

40:32absence of it. Uh my suspicion is that

40:35for Selecman Pakquette and the others

40:37are not interested in spending any money

40:39to do design that they don't have to do.

40:40So if you believe they have to do it,

40:42they'll do it. If you don't know that

40:44it's absolutely necessary, then I

40:46suspect they won't spend the money.

40:48>> Yeah, I don't I don't think they have

40:50the money to spend it at this point in

40:51time. But I know that when we were at

40:54the I understand why the Crystal Pond

40:56Park side, the concern might be people

41:00gaining access for, you know, launching

41:02boats and that kind of thing being

41:04controlled. Um, but that seemed much

41:07shallower on that side than this. This

41:09appears on this topography

41:11that you have here.

41:14>> I don't know.

41:17>> Well, let me go back. Let me go back

41:19here and say

41:22the form that we have before us is a

41:24request for determination that a

41:26proposal is a permitted use as of right

41:29and or a nonregulated use.

41:32>> Under what clause then? There are there

41:35are five or so different uses permitted

41:38as of right and three or so

41:40non-regulated uses. Which would this be

41:42under?

41:44>> That's the question I would like to

41:45know.

41:51Yeah, there was not an indication on on

41:53which of the categories

41:55>> or or a nonregulated use.

41:59>> Well, under non-regulated uses, as long

42:01as you're not altering the natural

42:02indigenous character of the wetland or

42:04water course, you could potentially call

42:06it conservation of soil and water,

42:09>> right? So,

42:10>> kind of stretching that a little bit.

42:11it. I mean, it doesn't Yeah, it appears

42:13that no work will be taking place in the

42:15wetland. By by the wetland map, it looks

42:17like basically the water is the

42:18boundary.

42:19>> So, they're not going to have a ramp

42:21that goes into the water.

42:23>> They are. It said and they plan to go in

42:266 to8t something like that.

42:30>> Yeah, we think they Yeah. Well, it says

42:32removal.

42:33>> I thought I saw 24 feet and 4t deep.

42:38Yeah,

42:39>> the water would be 4t deep and the rock

42:41has to go down into the water so that it

42:44can back up a trailer.

42:45>> The water depth of about 4T.

42:49>> Yes, correct.

42:50>> Yeah.

42:53So, I think a plan view of that would be

42:56would have been helpful to know where it

42:58was going to be and then we could take a

43:00look at the topography to see whether or

43:02not the topography looks like it's going

43:03to fit or where are they going to have

43:05to do grading work. Are they going to

43:07have to cut back the slope there where

43:08they want to have the approach?

43:11Um,

43:13I mean, I I I agree. It's a great idea.

43:15I I really think it's an important thing

43:17to have, but you just need the details

43:19cuz the the devil is in the details on

43:22this, I think.

43:26Is that water navigable? In other words,

43:28when they bring the boat in, are they

43:30going to hit anything in the water,

43:32rocks or anything? Is it deep enough?

43:37Yeah, I think so.

43:44>> Can I just offer some information? And I

43:46don't even know if this would be

43:48relevant or not, but there are a couple

43:51of

43:53they call them docks

43:55on Lake Wangi

43:58that are really

44:01molded rubber things that float in the

44:05water and if you cut come off the come

44:08at them from the water side, you can run

44:11a boat right up on them

44:14and it just sits there on the top of

44:16this thing. And if you come from the

44:18from the the landside, you can actually

44:23drive. You can't go too far with the

44:25with a truck. I mean, just because a

44:27truck is heavier, I guess. I don't know.

44:30But but you can get it out to there and

44:33slide the boat off and then take off and

44:35the boat goes into the water. I mean, I

44:38wonder if there's some other solutions

44:41besides building a ramp

44:44if we've got these these different funny

44:48levels of land.

44:51>> Well, that's another thing that takes

44:53going to take money, too. I mean, I'm

44:56familiar with the floating docks like

44:58you're doing because I used to uh put it

45:00in and take it out for my aunt. So, uh,

45:04and I know they have those that you can

45:06drive right up on. So,

45:09>> yeah,

45:09>> but that's, like I say, it's another

45:11expense.

45:13So,

45:15we're kind of

45:17trying to decide here what is the extent

45:20of our

45:22uh uh

45:24extending our jurisdiction

45:27for this project. I I would suggest that

45:31they look into we're talking about

45:33feasibilities on different options and

45:37the one option that's been presented

45:40needs to to have it uh verified as

45:45feasible and that that's going to take

45:48some

45:50uh

45:52generation of information to determine

45:54is it is it a proper slope the materials

45:58How are they going to affect the

46:00existing conditions? Um

46:04there's several questions that need to

46:06be addressed professionally.

46:11Now that isn't to say that somebody if

46:14they had the proper

46:18uh experience and knowledge that they

46:20couldn't put together uh uh you know a

46:24presentation that that outlines

46:28general

46:30answers to these questions

46:34>> could be done could be done if somebody

46:36had the experience and knowledge to do

46:37it but if they don't then then

46:40uh a professional approach is really

46:43what we're talking about.

46:46So, I was just checking on the

46:48regulations, the current regulations

46:50regarding fees, and there is because I'm

46:54concerned about how it's coming in as a

46:56jurisdictional ruling, and I can't find

46:59a a category that it would fit under,

47:02but under the regulations, it could come

47:05in as an individual permit, and the fee

47:09is waved because town departments are

47:11exempt from fees. So, it could be

47:13processed like an application and it

47:16probably should cuz I can't think of how

47:17it would fit under the uses permitted as

47:20of right and non-regulated activities.

47:23So, this may be the wrong vehicle to

47:28bring in to get approval from the

47:30commission. um but bringing it in as an

47:33actual application

47:36and then if somebody really had problems

47:38with it, they could always try to

47:39petition a public hearing.

47:42But

47:42>> so I Mr. Mr. Chair,

47:46>> go ahead. So, I think I I think Mara's

47:48probably correct and I I I I don't

47:50necessarily find um a justification for

47:53a jurisdictional ruling either. And and

47:56so I would suggest that this commission

47:58could uh move to to you know receive

48:03this as a standard individual

48:05application waving the permit as it's a

48:08municipal application uh and request the

48:10additional information as discussed this

48:12evening uh to to be reviewed um by the

48:16for the December meeting.

48:18>> Uh John, do you have any uh idea of what

48:20the timetable is that the town wants to

48:22execute this construction work?

48:26I don't I I you know I would assume that

48:28you know as this is for emergency

48:30purposes as soon as they can do it the

48:32the better but um I I wasn't given any

48:35kind of timetable.

48:36>> Okay.

48:36>> And yeah and I don't know if Mr.

48:38Gabrielle has has you know some

48:40availability uh constraints on this.

48:43>> Mr. Gabriel, do you have any uh ideas of

48:47construction timetables?

48:49>> Uh no I don't. It's uh I offered this to

48:52the town as a trying to be a good

48:54citizen.

48:55>> They seemed interested and now it's in

48:57their ballpark.

48:59>> So, um I think that we have to deny it

49:03as a jurisdictional ruling. Um and then

49:06let the town submit an application form.

49:09The using the the declaratory ruling

49:11form as an application form. Uh it's for

49:14a jurisdictional ruling and not for an

49:16individual application. And I think it

49:18should that should be filled out as an

49:19application and then we receive it if

49:22there's no real critical timetable. I

49:25mean we're not under the gun uh

49:28specifically since it's only in

49:30emergency situations and we can process

49:33it as best we can. It'll also give time

49:35to perhaps provide a little better

49:37detail. But if the town doesn't have the

49:40resources to come up with better detail,

49:43um,

49:45we're going to be at a little bit of a

49:47loss.

49:50>> What is the key point we're trying to

49:53address? Is it the slope?

49:57>> Um, yes. Access. Are they going to

50:00accomplish what they want to accomplish

50:02in a way that remains stable?

50:07I don't have a problem with a with an

50:09access point at that location. Just that

50:11you have to know that what you're going

50:12to get is going to work.

50:13>> Yeah. It's got to be sustainable over

50:15time. that that we don't just put

50:17something in and have it create

50:21erosion problems over time and and just

50:24have if it's not being used and uh

50:27maintained then it'll have uh

50:31you know runoff that goes down and have

50:34all kinds of problems like

50:37it won't be usable you know it'll have

50:40uh

50:42I can't think of the word just craters

50:44and stuff going down into the water. So,

50:48>> so one of the questions, one of the

50:51areas that they might be able to get

50:52some assistance from is the if the soil

50:56and water conservation district try to

50:58see if there's some design assistance

51:01that they could provide to the town or I

51:05know that town of Thompson has used this

51:07the University of Connecticut's

51:09engineering department. They will do

51:11projects for towns and they will come up

51:12with plans

51:14as students projects.

51:16>> That would be a good exercise. Yeah.

51:18>> Yeah, that would be a perfect one.

51:20>> Very good.

51:21>> I don't know how the cont what the

51:24contacts were that Thompson had, but I

51:26know they had several projects that were

51:28done by engineering students and it was

51:31a good training exercise for them and it

51:34didn't cost the town anything. Yeah,

51:39that's a good alternative

51:43educational.

51:48Um, I would move that we table this

51:50application, a request for a

51:52jurisdictional ruling

51:54until next meeting and give the town an

51:56opportunity to provide additional

51:59details or modifi or change the

52:01application, withdraw this and submit an

52:04individual application or seek

52:06additional assistance from say the

52:08University of Connecticut's engineering

52:10school

52:12so you get it done right.

52:15>> Yep. Good idea. I second that.

52:18I think I think using the somebody who's

52:23even a soontobe expert um is better than

52:27all of us trying to to figure out um

52:33you know let's let's let them do the

52:35work.

52:35>> Well, it's just civil engineering. I

52:38mean you could go to the engineering

52:41department at Yukon.

52:45>> Mr. Sure.

52:47>> Go ahead.

52:48>> So, it's just a procedural question.

52:50Marley, your motion was to table,

52:53>> right? Um,

52:55I guess my question back to you before

52:57the commission votes on this, the agency

52:59votes on this, is do you perceive a

53:02circumstance based on what you know

53:06where you would would agree that this is

53:08a jurisdictional ruling or no?

53:11>> Are you confident? Are you confident

53:13enough that this is not that that

53:14tableabling it

53:16>> gives the town an opportunity to

53:18withdraw and submit a proper application

53:20andor look at additional methods for

53:23getting better plans?

53:26I it's maybe the cart's before the horse

53:29a little bit is what I think.

53:32>> So So why Okay. I guess

53:34>> I I don't I don't think I want to deny

53:36it right out. I think right so much

53:39better

53:39>> right

53:40>> if they choose to withdraw it.

53:42>> So my my question sort of following that

53:45would be what is the the I guess the the

53:50harm done procedurally

53:54>> because you know there there is no fee

53:56involved. There will not be no fee

53:57involved.

53:58>> There was a request made to the to the

54:01agency and some information presented.

54:04What is the procedural harm in

54:07receiving? Because you can't act on an

54:09application tonight anyway. The

54:11procedural harm in

54:14interpreting this as a individual

54:16application from the town on behalf of

54:19the Gabriel property.

54:21>> So what information the the wrong form

54:24was was submitted,

54:25>> right? Because the information

54:26>> beyond that, is there a reason you can't

54:28proceed with an application?

54:30>> Because the same information on a

54:32jurisdictional ruling is not the same

54:34information on an application form.

54:36>> Right. But there's a whole bunch of

54:37information that needs to be supplied

54:38anyway.

54:39>> Right. Right. So just file the correct

54:42form.

54:43>> But but you could, you know, filing the

54:46correct form as long as with the rest of

54:48the information would allow you to act

54:49on it in December rather than receiving

54:52it in December and not acting on it

54:53until January or later. But if there's

54:55no rush from a con construction point of

54:58view, I could understand if there was a

55:00time if if if we had some kind of

55:03urgency to do that. That's kind of

55:06stretching it because we don't have the

55:09actual form. We don't have the a lot of

55:12the details.

55:14I see what you're trying to say, but

55:16you're just trying to shorten it up. And

55:17we I I think the town's going to need

55:19some time to be able to get this

55:22information together because you're not

55:26going to do it. I mean, somebody's got

55:28to come to to together to find out if

55:31these options are available um for the

55:34town to get better plans.

55:37>> Um and and that's why if the town just

55:40at this they I would still pursue it.

55:42Definitely. I think it's a a good

55:44possibility, but I just don't think we

55:46have the the right vehicle to do it.

55:49>> And I don't think converting I don't

55:51think it's good good policy to convert a

55:55request for a jurisdictional ruling into

55:56an individual permit application.

55:59>> Okay. I I Yeah. Al say I don't I don't

56:02see the harm in this case in doing that

56:04and and leave it at that. It's not my

56:05decision.

56:06>> We do it for the town, then we're going

56:07to have to do it for other people who

56:09come, the citizens that come.

56:10>> I I think that's not true. I think

56:12that's not true. But

56:14>> okay.

56:15>> Yeah. I just say if they if they were

56:20capable, it's really not that

56:21complicated.

56:23if they were willing to if they if time

56:27were a factor in this equation and and

56:32they were able to get someone to produce

56:34some relevant details that we could look

56:37at and understand and make a decision

56:39on, would next month be okay if they

56:42could get the information done?

56:48>> Are you asking me?

56:49>> Uh, anybody? everybody

56:52if if you know really we just need a

56:54cross-section of the entrance into the

56:57water at the at the driveway.

57:00>> So the reason for the the 30-day

57:04wait time is to allow the public an

57:06opportunity to review what's coming in

57:09and see if they have any reaction to it.

57:14We make the decision whether it goes to

57:15public hearing except when there's a

57:16petition filed for a public hearing. So

57:20the whole purpose of

57:22>> I'm sorry, Marl. I'm sorry. I think we

57:23just lost Bill.

57:27>> I don't see him.

57:28>> I'm sorry. I just for that we're we're

57:31chairmanless.

57:32>> I'll wait.

57:34>> Okay.

57:38>> We lost Bill.

57:40>> Boy, I hope I didn't kick him out. I'm

57:42I'm pretty sure I didn't. I didn't do

57:43anything.

57:48All right, we'll give I'm sorry. We'll

57:49give him a moment.

57:57He must know he's gotten knocked off

57:59accidentally.

58:01Whatever. Maybe something happened to

58:03his system

58:05>> or he knocked himself off doing

58:07something.

58:08>> Yeah. I mean, it's up to who? I'm sorry.

58:11Who's the vice chair? Stu, are you the

58:13vice chair? Yeah.

58:14>> Do

58:15>> you want to

58:17act as chair in the interim?

58:19>> Um, sure. I think right now I'm I'm

58:22trying to figure out procedurally

58:26um what our steps

58:29are in that we're facing a

58:31jurisdictional ruling or a permit

58:34granted as of right.

58:36>> No jurisdictional ruling or an

58:38individual permit

58:39>> or an individual permit. your actual

58:41your very immediate next step is you

58:43have a motion that's seconded on the

58:45floor for tableabling this

58:48jurisdictional ruling.

58:49>> Okay. So, if we if we've already

58:53accepted that motion and uh seconded it,

58:57we need to vote on it

59:00>> or I can withdraw it

59:02>> with or withdraw it. So that would be my

59:05only question, Mara, uh

59:08is if it were feasible for somebody to

59:11come through and produce a cross-section

59:14for next meeting, we would have some

59:16reference information to be able to say,

59:19"Yeah, okay." or not,

59:23or do we have to wait two months for

59:25that? Because technically speaking, a

59:29it's it's not a complicated drawing.

59:33Well, if it's that really that critical,

59:35we could always hold a special meeting

59:36and render decision after it's received.

59:40>> I would think that the timing isn't a

59:43pressure because they are um

59:49>> you know, this time of year it's not

59:51it's not something that there's a lot of

59:52people using the lake for swimming and

59:54stuff.

59:55>> Right. Right. Unless somebody falls

59:58under the ice, right?

59:59>> If you ever get any ice this year.

1:00:02Right.

1:00:03>> Sorry, I missed uh some of that

1:00:05discussion and I guess my internet went

1:00:07out.

1:00:08>> Oh, glad to see you back

1:00:10>> temporarily.

1:00:11>> Yeah. So, yeah, Stu Stu was just uh

1:00:13chairing in your absence. We still have

1:00:15not uh move made forward uh progress on

1:00:19the motion.

1:00:21>> Okay. Oh,

1:00:23>> is there a motion before us?

1:00:25>> Yes.

1:00:25>> Been seconded. when you

1:00:28>> to table to table the the re

1:00:30jurisdictional ruling till next month

1:00:33and we were just discussing the options

1:00:35where John was suggesting convert this

1:00:37jurisdictional ruling into an individual

1:00:39permit application

1:00:42>> I would note for public information this

1:00:44has already been given an application

1:00:46number and has appeared on an agenda so

1:00:48I believe the public has been informed

1:00:50as to its presence on on the

1:00:52commission's docket clearly uh Miss

1:00:55Sharet was aware of

1:01:04But it was on the agenda as a request

1:01:06for determination as use as of right,

1:01:10not as an individual permit application

1:01:12or work in the upland review area.

1:01:16Um,

1:01:21it's too bad the ch the first

1:01:23selectman's not here to be able to

1:01:26discuss what his concerns are um

1:01:28regarding timing.

1:01:30>> Is that uh Ephra or Woodstock?

1:01:33>> Woodstock.

1:01:34>> This is Woodstock's application for

1:01:36>> Okay.

1:01:37>> in the town of Woodstock.

1:01:42>> Um

1:01:43>> we can invite him back for December.

1:01:47>> Yeah. But we'll still what John's point

1:01:49is is if if they change turn it into an

1:01:52individual permit application, we cannot

1:01:54render decision in December. We'd have

1:01:56to wait till January to render decision

1:01:59because we have to wait according to

1:02:01statute 30 days from the date of

1:02:03receipt.

1:02:04>> Oh, okay.

1:02:05>> Of an application. You can't we have to

1:02:07receive it at a regular scheduled

1:02:09meeting. So that's why he's suggesting

1:02:11>> 15 days, right?

1:02:12>> It's

1:02:14I think you're right.

1:02:16But at any rate, I mean, on a monthly

1:02:18meeting schedule, it it

1:02:19>> in any case, what John is trying to get

1:02:21us to render a decision next month and

1:02:24um I'm just asking whether or not it's

1:02:27really critical. We could do it in

1:02:28January. That's why by tableabling it,

1:02:30it gives the town a chance to to figure

1:02:32out what it wants to do,

1:02:35>> how it wants to proceed.

1:02:38>> Good point.

1:02:41Well,

1:02:41>> and I you know I there's I mean there's

1:02:42clearly a lack of information, you know,

1:02:45satisfactory or sufficient information,

1:02:47but and and you know, between all of us,

1:02:49I I I doubt that uh the town will be

1:02:52able to pull together everything by the

1:02:55beginning of December anyway. But in the

1:02:57case that they did and were able to

1:02:58answer all questions,

1:02:59>> I didn't want the the the

1:03:03form of the application form to be the

1:03:05thing that pushed them off an additional

1:03:07month unnecessarily.

1:03:09That's it.

1:03:11I I don't think that we're we'll be done

1:03:13in December one way or the other. I just

1:03:15didn't want to delay things an extra

1:03:18month if it wasn't necessary.

1:03:20>> Well, then if we accepted it as an as a

1:03:22permit application, we have 65 days to

1:03:24render decision and if we don't get all

1:03:26the information and we'd have to end up

1:03:28denying it anyway. So,

1:03:29>> of or continuing discussion, Mara?

1:03:31>> Yeah. True. True.

1:03:35If it's critical in the timing, we could

1:03:38do a special meeting.

1:03:39>> Yeah, we could have if it was time

1:03:43timing was critical.

1:03:45>> I mean, people ice fish, people fall

1:03:47into the

1:03:51>> Exactly.

1:03:54>> I had a question. Um, is a is there a

1:03:57professional

1:03:59doing the work to create this or is the

1:04:02town doing it? Um,

1:04:08>> are they capable of

1:04:10>> the issue of hiring a professional is

1:04:12the expense?

1:04:14>> I I Grace, are you talking about the

1:04:15actual construction work?

1:04:17>> Yeah. What I'm wondering is, is there

1:04:19somebody with the knowledge to deal with

1:04:21the slope issues

1:04:23>> without having to spend money or

1:04:27>> my my suspicion would be the town crews

1:04:30have the equipment and expertise to do a

1:04:32minor, you know, grading and and

1:04:36deposition of gravel. But

1:04:38>> but

1:04:38>> you know I I

1:04:39>> but my point on that on that John is

1:04:41like one in the citizens comments the

1:04:44woman Carla

1:04:45>> Sheret

1:04:46>> is concerned about the erosion.

1:04:49>> Sure.

1:04:49>> So

1:04:50>> I mean erosion is a concern in any

1:04:53grading or construction project. Sure.

1:04:55>> Yeah. that really needs to be addressed

1:04:57with uh even diagrammatic drawings that

1:05:01>> no no of course and again I don't think

1:05:03anyone is saying that we don't need more

1:05:05drawings or or higher higher quality of

1:05:08description of uh controls.

1:05:10>> Yeah,

1:05:12>> I don't think that's that's an issue.

1:05:14>> The only way

1:05:14>> that's my question is it's limited

1:05:17resources. So, who can do this um

1:05:20without them having to hire

1:05:23what a civil engineer

1:05:27>> or a landscape architect

1:05:30>> or civil engineer or Yeah.

1:05:34>> landscape architect, too. I know an

1:05:36architect that could do it, but

1:05:39>> so the the only the only way I can see

1:05:42that it could be covered under uh use

1:05:45permitted as of right is if the request

1:05:48for jurisdictional ruling came from Mr.

1:05:50Gabriel under uh uses incidental to the

1:05:55maintenance enjoyment of a residential

1:05:56home. if we could make the determination

1:06:00that the maintenance um that it's that's

1:06:05typically for um

1:06:09incidental uses like maintenance of

1:06:11existing structures and landscaping but

1:06:13shall not include the removal or

1:06:15deposition of significant amounts of

1:06:18material from or onto a wetland or water

1:06:20course or diversion of a water course.

1:06:22So we determine if it's significant or

1:06:24not. So the placement of stone

1:06:28um in this area, you know, because you

1:06:31were going to have an access way for

1:06:33heavy equipment that could be construed

1:06:36if the application came from Mr. Gabriel

1:06:38because he has a residential home there,

1:06:42>> but the town does not. So, the town

1:06:45technically doesn't cover under the use

1:06:47permitted as of right under that

1:06:49section,

1:06:49>> right? Yeah. Well, typically we require

1:06:52for we would be requiring a permit for a

1:06:54homeowner to be coming for this kind of

1:06:58excavation and uh soil moving and access

1:07:02to the water. So

1:07:03>> that's true. We have done that in the

1:07:05past.

1:07:07>> That is our typically our uh the way

1:07:11that we conduct the business.

1:07:14Um, the only other

1:07:16>> also because it's a municipality that it

1:07:18would sorry to interrupt but back to the

1:07:21other issue is we could go to Yukon and

1:07:25and not have a licensed professional but

1:07:27at least a

1:07:30related studies

1:07:33involved and that would it would really

1:07:36make sense.

1:07:38Now, I'm just going to throw this out

1:07:39here is that

1:07:43I don't remember if it's a tacky wick

1:07:45last year or the year before, but Janet

1:07:47Brook says that we did did not need to

1:07:51use the 30 days between accepting the

1:07:55application and then starting the 65

1:07:58days of discussing it. we can do that

1:08:03but her intimation was that it was not

1:08:06required to do that.

1:08:09>> I think that'll be a good question for

1:08:10the upcoming annual meeting legal

1:08:13section.

1:08:15>> I mean we have we did do that once.

1:08:19>> Yeah, I don't recall that but

1:08:22there's a lot of things I don't recall.

1:08:23So the only other place where it could

1:08:26potentially be covered under as as a

1:08:29non-regulated use, it says the following

1:08:31operations and uses shall be permitted

1:08:34as non-regulated uses in wetlands or

1:08:35water courses provided they do not

1:08:37disturb the natural indigenous character

1:08:39of the wetland or water course by the

1:08:40removal or deposition of material

1:08:42alteration obstruction flow. in there.

1:08:44Item B is outdoor recreation including

1:08:48play and sporting areas, golf courses,

1:08:51field trials, nature study, hiking,

1:08:53horseback riding, swimming, skin diving,

1:08:56camping, boating, water skiing,

1:08:58trapping, hunting, fishing, shell

1:08:59fishing. Uh they'd be a stretch to put

1:09:02it in there, but that would be the only

1:09:03other place it potentially could be. And

1:09:05that

1:09:07>> um boating,

1:09:09outdoor recreation, boating,

1:09:10>> it's it's emergency response,

1:09:13>> right? But it's for boating. They want

1:09:15to be able to have access to put a boat

1:09:17out for emergency.

1:09:18>> They do. Oh, I see. I didn't know that.

1:09:20Okay.

1:09:20>> Yeah. Yeah.

1:09:23But and and then we'd have to make a

1:09:25determination that the the material

1:09:26being used does not alter the natural

1:09:29digous character of the wetland or water

1:09:30course.

1:09:32And I I think I think that could that

1:09:35argument could be made that it's not

1:09:37really altering the natural digous

1:09:38character of Crystal Pond.

1:09:43But um still don't have good plans. So

1:09:46>> yeah,

1:09:48>> that's why I still think we should just

1:09:50table it and let's see what can come out

1:09:52of it.

1:09:56Yeah, it'll take time to uh

1:10:00assemble a plan,

1:10:04but if the plan comes in in a fairly

1:10:07short period of time,

1:10:10um

1:10:12one that that addresses that slope

1:10:15concern right next to the lake,

1:10:18um with you know, like a a site plan, a

1:10:20small site plan, a hand sketch

1:10:22>> and I don't know if there's somebody a

1:10:24public works that's capable of pulling

1:10:26that together. I don't know um whether

1:10:28Jason can do that or not.

1:10:32I'm sure it's his people who would be

1:10:33doing the work.

1:10:35>> Is that correct, John? Is that was the

1:10:36intent of the of the selectman?

1:10:39>> I I haven't heard anything to indicate

1:10:42otherwise, but I I I don't know that for

1:10:44certain.

1:10:44>> Okay. Okay. This is um a policy

1:10:48question. If we've received the

1:10:51information, no matter what form it's

1:10:53on, and if the public has been notified,

1:10:56when we determine that they need to put

1:10:58in a new form, are we still subject to a

1:11:02new

1:11:03mandatory delay? Because the public has

1:11:06the information even though they got it

1:11:08on the wrong form.

1:11:12I so that and this is this is kind of

1:11:14the question, you know, and and to to to

1:11:17my mind um the only thing that the

1:11:21public has not gotten a chance to see is

1:11:25the is the different application form. I

1:11:28we there's there's still a bunch of

1:11:29engineering details, technical

1:11:31specifications that are remaining that

1:11:32the commission or that the agency has

1:11:34said they need but the scope of the

1:11:37project, the location of the project,

1:11:38the extent of the project, uh the

1:11:40applicant information and an application

1:11:44number has all been presented.

1:11:47>> So the only

1:11:48>> and will not change. The only real

1:11:50distinct difference between the two

1:11:52processes in a lot of ways as far as the

1:11:54public's concerned in a declaratory

1:11:57ruling, it's a commission declaring

1:11:59declaring its jurisdiction. The public

1:12:02has no way to force the commission into

1:12:05any public hearing. When you have an

1:12:07individual application, there is an

1:12:09opportunity for the public to petition a

1:12:13public hearing if they have objection to

1:12:16an application. And it has to come in. I

1:12:18think it's within 15 days of of the date

1:12:21of receipt of the application, I think.

1:12:25>> So, so you're saying it really is

1:12:27different, but

1:12:27>> there is a different process for

1:12:29processing an application versus

1:12:31processing a jurisdictional ruling.

1:12:33>> The public doesn't have the same

1:12:35opportunity.

1:12:36>> They don't have the same rights in a

1:12:37jurisdictional ruling as they do in a

1:12:40public. I mean in a individual permit

1:12:42application and

1:12:45that's I think probably the real

1:12:47distinct

1:12:49if you hold on a second I'll read it

1:12:50from the the current rigs you look for

1:12:54it

1:12:56unless you know it off the top of your

1:12:57head John I don't I can't remember where

1:13:00>> no

1:13:01>> yeah it's in there though it's in the

1:13:03statute

1:13:05um it's part of um

1:13:09I think it's now located in section um

1:13:14it's in the planning and zoning statutes

1:13:16now it's located there about the public

1:13:19hearing process all the public hearing

1:13:21processes are there and the rights for

1:13:23petition um

1:13:27okay inland wetlands and water courses

1:13:29agency shall not hold a public hearing

1:13:31on an application unless the inland

1:13:33wetlands agency determines that the

1:13:35proposed activity may have a significant

1:13:37impact on the wetlands or water courses

1:13:40A petition signed by at least 25 persons

1:13:43who are 18 years of age or older and who

1:13:45reside in the municipality in which the

1:13:47regulated activity is proposed

1:13:50requesting a hearing is filed with the

1:13:52inland wetlands agency not later than 14

1:13:54days after the date of receipt of such

1:13:56application or the inland wetlands

1:13:58agency finds that a public hearing

1:14:01regarding such application would be in

1:14:03the public interest. So those are the

1:14:05two conditions upon which the commission

1:14:07holds a public hearing. We think it's

1:14:09either in the public interest or we get

1:14:10a petition on 25 signatures. There is no

1:14:13such opportunity

1:14:15in a jurisdictional ruling. The

1:14:17jurisdictional ruling is totally the

1:14:19AY's determination

1:14:23excluded from the public. The public

1:14:25could appeal, somebody could appeal our

1:14:28decision of a jurisdictional ruling, but

1:14:30that's a little different than mandate

1:14:32demanding a public hearing.

1:14:38learn something every day, huh?

1:14:45>> So, we have a motion on the floor.

1:14:49>> I move to call the motion.

1:14:54>> Okay.

1:14:55>> Okay. Have a second.

1:14:59>> Thought Stewart had done that.

1:15:02>> Yes.

1:15:02>> To call it.

1:15:04Well,

1:15:07>> wait a minute. What

1:15:08>> the mot? No, she's

1:15:10>> calling the question.

1:15:11>> I'm calling the question.

1:15:15>> Mara had made the mo had made the motion

1:15:19>> and I believe you had second the motion

1:15:21to table the application.

1:15:23>> Correct. And then we needed to vote on

1:15:25it.

1:15:27>> I withdraw my motion to to call the

1:15:30question.

1:15:31>> So, we don't need to vote. We just are.

1:15:33No, you have to vote.

1:15:34>> Oh, I'm calling the question.

1:15:37>> Okay, so we're voting on withdrawal.

1:15:40>> Voting on tableabling, right?

1:15:42>> Tabling.

1:15:44>> I'm trying to figure out what's the

1:15:46difference between a declaratory and a

1:15:47jurisdictional rule.

1:15:49>> They're the same.

1:15:52>> You're declaring your jurisdiction.

1:15:54They're the same.

1:15:55>> Okay.

1:15:56>> And if you if you withdraw your motion,

1:16:00there's nothing to vote on. No, no. I

1:16:02was withdrawing my motion to call the

1:16:04question.

1:16:06>> I wanted a vote on the on my motion.

1:16:08>> All you need to do is pound the table

1:16:10and demand it.

1:16:13>> All right. Could you please repeat the

1:16:15motion, Mara?

1:16:18I move to table application 10-26-01

1:16:23173 Crystal Pond Road by the Town of

1:16:26Woodstock to request the determination

1:16:28of use brunet arrive for the creation of

1:16:30an emergency access boat ramp till next

1:16:33month's meeting.

1:16:35>> I'll go ahead and second that again.

1:16:39>> Okay. All those in favor signify by

1:16:41saying I.

1:16:43>> I.

1:16:45>> I. Anybody opposed?

1:16:48Anybody abstain?

1:16:51Okay, the motion passes.

1:16:53>> So, I will I will relay these uh

1:16:56concerns and and recommendations to the

1:16:58first selectman.

1:17:01>> Okay. Thank you.

1:17:04All right. Next, new application.

1:17:07Uh application 10-26-02

1:17:12Baxter Road map 6393

1:17:16block 64 map uh lot 213 Carl Cune single

1:17:22family through single family residents

1:17:25and we have a site plan before us.

1:17:30Now I would like to note that uh

1:17:34Dennis Blanchett I believe is involved

1:17:36in this but the document is not signed

1:17:50and the other thing I would note is this

1:17:52is within 500 ft of another

1:17:55municipality.

1:17:57It's not a mandatory referral.

1:18:01>> No, but there are certifications that

1:18:03are now required.

1:18:05Uh, no, wait a minute. Those are for

1:18:07permits, not for agent approvals.

1:18:10So, no work is proposed in any wetland

1:18:14or water course. Correct.

1:18:17>> That's my understanding. We have the we

1:18:18have the applicant with us, Mr. Cune.

1:18:21Mhm.

1:18:26>> Carl, do you want to unmute yourself and

1:18:27and join the discussion?

1:18:33>> How was that? Can you hear me now?

1:18:35>> Yep.

1:18:35>> Yes.

1:18:37>> All right. What was your question?

1:18:41>> I believe it was that you you are not

1:18:44proposing any work to be performed in

1:18:46the wetlands themselves.

1:18:49>> That's correct. No, not in the wetlands.

1:18:53>> Okay. If you look, Bill Rowinsky, if you

1:18:55look towards to the left of the B and

1:18:58backs there, you see like little

1:19:00campfires.

1:19:01That's where the wetlands are.

1:19:04And

1:19:06uh there's an arrow on the left side

1:19:09there says 100 foot upland review area

1:19:13leading to a heavy dashed line that

1:19:16swings that 100 foot upland review area.

1:19:23>> So yeah, the the entirety of the

1:19:25proposed house structure itself is just

1:19:28within the upland review area. The

1:19:31septic system is outside the upland view

1:19:34area.

1:19:36>> That's half and half.

1:19:39>> The you might be looking at the well

1:19:41circle.

1:19:43>> This right here is the upland review

1:19:46area.

1:19:48Oh, I see. Okay. I'm sorry. Yeah, I am.

1:19:51>> So, yeah, the the tank the tank is

1:19:52within but the leech field is outside.

1:19:55>> Yeah.

1:20:03I don't have a problem processing this

1:20:05as a wetlands agent approval.

1:20:10>> I'm fine with that. Also,

1:20:15>> now someone said it was within 500 ft of

1:20:18a municipal boundary.

1:20:20>> Yeah, this this the um this right here

1:20:24is the Southerntherly property line.

1:20:25This is the Palm Woodstock line right

1:20:27here.

1:20:27>> Okay.

1:20:29So, I think there are certifications

1:20:32that are required for that.

1:20:35Um,

1:20:36I'm looking for the statute citation. I

1:20:39think it was in

1:20:418-7D.

1:20:44I'm not sure.

1:20:45>> 8-7 is about Yeah. legal notices.

1:20:48>> Yeah. primarily

1:20:54>> it's got to be in the zoning statutes

1:20:56because that's where

1:20:58>> right no I mean if it's if there's a

1:20:59project uh of of like a special permit

1:21:02project that would create drainage

1:21:04traffic or other issues um spilling out

1:21:08onto another uh jurisdiction

1:21:11they need to be notified but this is

1:21:13this is under an entirely different

1:21:15statute

1:21:23Well, well, I don't think it's critical

1:21:26for this kind of thing, but when the

1:21:29when I'm working on the revising the

1:21:32regulations, I'll put a comment in where

1:21:34that section comes from cuz it's not in

1:21:37the inland wetlands act, I don't think.

1:21:40Let me just double check one more thing.

1:21:44Maybe it is.

1:21:45>> I mean, unless there's unless there's a

1:21:46reference in, you know, 22A back to

1:21:498-87.

1:21:52>> Yeah.

1:21:55Um,

1:21:57it's a it's in the in the Wlands Act.

1:21:59It's HS22A,

1:22:01excuse me, 22A-42B

1:22:04and 22A-42C.

1:22:09It's really a certification that's

1:22:11probably is irrelevant for this project.

1:22:18>> 22A 22

1:22:19>> 22A and what was the other part?

1:22:23>> It was 22 A. Hold on a second. I was

1:22:26looking at the index. It's 22 A and 42B

1:22:31and 42 C.

1:22:35Uh yeah, if I if you can see my screen.

1:22:38>> Yeah.

1:22:38>> Yeah.

1:22:39>> Those sections were repealed in October

1:22:41of 2003.

1:22:45>> And I think they were placed elsewhere.

1:22:49I think they were placed in the zoning

1:22:51statutes. That's why they re re resended

1:22:54them here, repealed them here

1:22:56>> because they put them somewhere else.

1:22:59>> But anyways, it let's not focus on that.

1:23:01that's not critical for this particular

1:23:03project. I just think it should be

1:23:05processed as a wetlands agent approval.

1:23:10>> So would somebody like to make a motion

1:23:12to that effect?

1:23:16>> Well, I could do that. I would like to

1:23:21make a motion. I got to get the uh

1:23:25>> Oh, lot.

1:23:26>> Here you go. Uh, I don't know if you can

1:23:28see the screen.

1:23:31>> A little small.

1:23:33Um, can you enlarge that for me?

1:23:36>> 639364213.

1:23:42>> Is that a little bit better, St?

1:23:44>> Yeah. Thanks.

1:23:45>> Got it.

1:23:45>> Do you want to go ahead with that,

1:23:46Katherine?

1:23:47>> Sure. What am I doing?

1:23:50>> Making a motion. Making a motion to

1:23:52accept this as

1:23:55something.

1:23:56>> Agent approval.

1:23:57>> Agent approval.

1:23:58>> When's agent approval?

1:24:02>> I think that's perfect.

1:24:07>> Yeah. I mean, just maybe this is a side

1:24:10again, but is there anything that

1:24:14requires both municipalities

1:24:18to approve something or have any kind of

1:24:22>> this this pro this property is in is in

1:24:24Woodstock. It is not in Palm.

1:24:26>> Oh, okay.

1:24:30>> Okay. Anyway, I make a I forgot what the

1:24:33motion was. How about I'll give you the

1:24:35numbers, too, and you can do the motion.

1:24:39>> Okay. This is so for 1026 10-26-2

1:24:44Baxter Road,

1:24:45>> right?

1:24:46>> Blocking lot number 639364-213.

1:24:52It's for Carl Cun's new single family

1:24:55residence

1:24:57as to be processed as a wetlands agent

1:25:00approval.

1:25:06Do we have a second?

1:25:09>> Maybe I'll second it then since Steuart

1:25:11did such a good job of

1:25:13>> Okay.

1:25:14>> making it to start with.

1:25:15>> Thank you.

1:25:17So we have a motion by Stuart Peasley,

1:25:19second by Kathy Bareric to designate

1:25:23application zero 10-26-02

1:25:28for Baxter Road for Carl Q and these new

1:25:31single family residence to designate

1:25:34that as a wetlands agent approval. Is

1:25:36there any further discussion?

1:25:39All those in favor of us signify by

1:25:40saying I.

1:25:42>> I.

1:25:43>> Anybody opposed? and he abstain and the

1:25:47motion passes.

1:25:51>> Okay.

1:25:52>> Thank you.

1:25:53>> Thank you.

1:25:57>> So, moving on. Administrative business

1:25:59agent report.

1:26:04Uh my report was posted uh this morning.

1:26:07Um basically reviewing the application

1:26:11materials that were the applications

1:26:13that were presented today. noting again

1:26:15that we had been in touch with uh the

1:26:18representative of Jeffco Fibers uh

1:26:20expressing our concerns about the the

1:26:22level of their detail of their and and

1:26:25um information provided obviously they

1:26:27they requested the extension I'm sorry

1:26:29continuation

1:26:31um note that uh as I think Kathy

1:26:36stated earlier the town has converted to

1:26:38a new website host Civic Plus um much to

1:26:42the constrnation of just about everybody

1:26:44body um and most particularly the

1:26:47administrative staff that has to try to

1:26:49figure out how to migrate data over and

1:26:51post agendas properly. Um it's an

1:26:53ongoing it's an ongoing um hassle that I

1:26:56I we ask only for your um patience if

1:27:00not your understanding because we don't

1:27:01understand it either. Um and uh then

1:27:05again noting as as Mara had stated

1:27:08earlier, we met um to discuss the Jeffco

1:27:11fibers application as well as some FEMA

1:27:13mapping uh processing concerns and um

1:27:18she was also good enough to uh provide

1:27:20some updates to the application

1:27:23documentation particularly for the

1:27:24extension modification and uh transfer

1:27:28forms that we'll discuss later. But um

1:27:31that's the extent of my report. I'm

1:27:32happy to answer any questions.

1:27:42>> Looks good to me. And if anybody else

1:27:44has any questions,

1:27:47>> I'm good.

1:27:50>> All right. Well, let's move on to

1:27:52financial report uh correspondence. We

1:27:54have any correspondence? Yeah, I have no

1:27:56additional correspondence other than I

1:27:58had I had forwarded everyone that you

1:27:59know you anyone that's attending um

1:28:03uh Khakiwick if you um have paid and

1:28:07want to get reimbursed please let us

1:28:08know. Um

1:28:11otherwise that's that's all I've got.

1:28:12I've put on the screen the financial

1:28:14report.

1:28:15>> Is it is this is this still open John? I

1:28:17haven't I looked at it today and I

1:28:19realized I haven't filed

1:28:20>> I I do not know. I they they it's

1:28:23usually a pretty robust venue. I I they

1:28:25have I would assume they have space, but

1:28:27I I do not know for sure.

1:28:28>> Okay, I'll check into it.

1:28:33>> Uh not much new there except for a few

1:28:36more uh legal notices.

1:28:37>> Legals. Yeah, it's pretty much just

1:28:39legals.

1:28:40>> So after Khakiwick, we might have some

1:28:44charges to mileage and uh confusing

1:28:47conferences.

1:28:51>> Okay. Okay, unless anybody has any

1:28:52questions about that, we'll move on to

1:28:55>> question question before you go. How

1:28:58many people have signed up for that? So,

1:29:00we have enough. Do we have enough in the

1:29:01account? I've signed up to go.

1:29:03>> I I signed up.

1:29:06>> I want to sign up,

1:29:09but I haven't yet. I will do it soon as

1:29:11possible. And

1:29:13>> I I would also note relative to that

1:29:14that we did renew our our membership

1:29:17along along with the conservation

1:29:19commission to PACUIC as a municipality.

1:29:21Yeah.

1:29:22>> I'm sorry. What's the date of it?

1:29:25>> 14th. Week from Sat.

1:29:28>> Two weeks almost.

1:29:30>> Okay.

1:29:38Okay. Let's move on to the

1:29:41draft application forms.

1:29:45>> And now I'd note there are two things

1:29:47here. the the application forms as they

1:29:49stand in in current um format here that

1:29:54we discussed. And then I would also note

1:29:56that based on discussion um

1:30:02at the last meeting that Mara had missed

1:30:04um we had you had requested uh some

1:30:08additional changes specifically

1:30:10ownership information and signature

1:30:12block for the permit extension transfer

1:30:15and modification forms. And so Marlo was

1:30:18good enough to do that and and provided

1:30:20red lines and clean versions of each of

1:30:24those three forms. So I believe that

1:30:27responded to all of the pending

1:30:31additional

1:30:33questions about about those forms. Um

1:30:36but I I'm I'm happy to go wherever the

1:30:38the agency wants to go with this

1:30:40discussion.

1:30:43Um, I have one question about the

1:30:46request to modify inland wetlands permit

1:30:50and that one has listed in it the $35

1:30:54fee.

1:30:54>> Mhm.

1:30:55>> And do we put fees in any other forms or

1:31:01is that should be

1:31:03>> that's or anything?

1:31:05>> That's in section 19 of the regulations.

1:31:09modifying a permit requires that fee.

1:31:14>> So, when I was working on the

1:31:16regulations, I noticed that

1:31:18>> that there was a fee, but there's not a

1:31:20fee for extending or a fee for unless

1:31:23you consider extending a permit,

1:31:25modifying a a permit, extending it,

1:31:28extending it or transferring it. If you

1:31:30call that a modification, then you would

1:31:32have 35 for all of them.

1:31:36But I looked at it as

1:31:38That's just my question is whether that

1:31:42>> is something that belongs on the form or

1:31:45belongs on a fee schedule elsewhere.

1:31:48>> It is on a fee schedule but all the

1:31:50other forms that we had the the

1:31:52application form for for jurisdictional

1:31:54ruling uh wetlands agent approval and

1:31:58subdivisions and individual lot permit.

1:32:01They all have the fees on the form the

1:32:03draft form. So, um, if there's a fee

1:32:07involved, it should be on the form. Let

1:32:10them know on the form because the fees

1:32:11in the regulations.

1:32:14Regulations don't get changed very

1:32:15often.

1:32:16>> Yeah.

1:32:18>> Yes.

1:32:19>> Okay. So, when

1:32:21>> it says,

1:32:21>> does anybody have any Okay, go ahead. It

1:32:24says right on uh section 19.5 it lists

1:32:28all of the fees and it's got the second

1:32:31from the bottom modification of pvious

1:32:33it mean meant to say previous that's a

1:32:35scrier's error previous proposals

1:32:38excluding typo errors or technical

1:32:40changes $35.

1:32:42So that's clearly to modify a permit.

1:32:46>> All right there's there's no there's no

1:32:48similar indication of fees in anywhere

1:32:50else in the regulations.

1:32:51>> Correct. Correct.

1:32:53Okay.

1:32:55So, does anybody have any further

1:32:57comments about these as they're

1:32:59presented? This is the request to

1:33:01modify, request to transfer, and request

1:33:05for extension.

1:33:10So, there's some question as to whether

1:33:13or not these constitute an application

1:33:15or not. Um, and I'm going to try to

1:33:18resolve that in the drafting of the

1:33:20regulations, the revisions to try to

1:33:24distinguish between

1:33:26uh what's an application that's like

1:33:28new, like a jurisdictional ruling or

1:33:30wetlands agent approval or an individual

1:33:33permit application or subdivision

1:33:34application from something that is a

1:33:37request. Technically, this is a form.

1:33:40It's a John and I had a little back and

1:33:43forth on emails today about applications

1:33:47and is this does this constitute an

1:33:50application? Technically, it does. It's

1:33:52a formal request. So, it's an

1:33:55application to that extent, but I kind

1:33:58of want to distinguish it from the other

1:34:01types of applications which are

1:34:04approvals or jurisdictional rulings. Um,

1:34:07it's different from a request like this.

1:34:09I don't consider a permit application,

1:34:12an application for a permit, a request

1:34:14for a permit. You're applying for a

1:34:16permit. Um, so anyways, that's neither

1:34:20here nor there. We can have discussions

1:34:21about that at a later time.

1:34:24>> But I can

1:34:26>> these different

1:34:27>> perhaps I don't know if Black's law

1:34:30dictionary would have any enlightenment

1:34:33on that because that is uh used for

1:34:36reference in some uh

1:34:39uh justifications for rulings and

1:34:42lawsuits.

1:34:44>> Yes. In fact, that was discussed by

1:34:47legal council at one of the cac

1:34:49meetings, if not last year, the year

1:34:51before.

1:34:52>> Yeah.

1:34:53>> Where they consider anything that we get

1:34:55that's on a form that we have is

1:34:56considered an application. That's what

1:34:58it sounds like.

1:35:00>> Anything that would create the necessity

1:35:02of the commission to make a decision,

1:35:04>> right? And and I'm I'm saying that no,

1:35:08why should we have to pay if they don't

1:35:09file the fee? why should we have to um

1:35:14pay why should it come out of the the

1:35:15town's coffers to pay the legal notice

1:35:17that's required for that decision

1:35:20and um so I'm that's one of the things

1:35:22that I'm trying to get get a handle on

1:35:26when somebody submits something that's

1:35:28grossly incomplete

1:35:30um the legal councils um have some have

1:35:34said you've still got to process it as

1:35:36an application just deny it and then you

1:35:38have to you have to bite the the the

1:35:40cost of the legal notice if they didn't

1:35:41pay the fee. Um

1:35:45>> um I I think there's a way to to do it,

1:35:47but we'll see how that works out. Stay

1:35:50tuned. I'll put it in the regs

1:35:52explanation in the regs.

1:35:55>> Okay. So, where do you want to go on

1:35:57these three documents at this point?

1:36:00>> I think they're ready for approval to to

1:36:02be adopted and put on the website

1:36:06>> in theory.

1:36:07>> Does anybody have any

1:36:10directions or other alterations? Uh,

1:36:13Stuart, did they meet your

1:36:15>> I I'm I haven't had a chance to look at

1:36:17them. I'm sorry. But I I don't have any

1:36:20major issues. I just The questions I

1:36:23brought up before are really not

1:36:26>> make or break items.

1:36:28>> The the questions you raised last time

1:36:29was was specifically about the the

1:36:31ownership which was added.

1:36:34>> Okay, good. That's fine.

1:36:37I think that I think that whatever we

1:36:40can do to to promote consistency and and

1:36:44remove vague relationships, I think will

1:36:48be helpful in the long term.

1:36:51>> Yep.

1:36:51>> V any vagueness, you know, I think that

1:36:54uh

1:36:56so we're we're dealing with a lot of

1:36:58terms that people don't understand and

1:37:01it would help if we can be consistent

1:37:04and clarify things. Yeah.

1:37:09>> Okay. Would somebody like to offer a

1:37:11motion on these three request forms?

1:37:17I move to adopt

1:37:21request forms for permit modification,

1:37:25permit extension, and permit transfer as

1:37:29presented at this meeting,

1:37:34>> November

1:37:35Second 2026.

1:37:38>> I'll second it. Did somebody else second

1:37:40it? Doesn't matter.

1:37:44>> Yeah, we have a motion.

1:37:47>> Malabuts to adopt these three forms. I

1:37:50don't not sure that's the exact word you

1:37:52used.

1:37:53>> Yes, it was. You're correct.

1:37:54>> Second by Stuart Peasley. These perform

1:37:57forms as presented at this meeting. for

1:38:00request to modify, request to transfer

1:38:03and request for permit extension.

1:38:06Is there any further discussion?

1:38:09All those in favor signify by saying I.

1:38:12>> I. I.

1:38:13>> Anybody opposed? Anybody abstain? Okay,

1:38:16the motion passes.

1:38:19All right. Now we have the other forms.

1:38:25Now, my question is,

1:38:27do we have the latest forms

1:38:30in tonight's uh

1:38:33blog? Because we added the print,

1:38:37the name

1:38:40>> and I'm not sure we had that uh not it's

1:38:44not on the base forms in the individual

1:38:46forms.

1:38:47>> Correct.

1:38:49You want me to put

1:38:51>> please please print and I provided that

1:38:54>> revision old start here.

1:38:56>> That's the old one.

1:38:57>> Oh, these are the Okay,

1:38:59>> that's the old one.

1:39:01>> All right. Uh, so I think that's a

1:39:04>> I'll re email them to you.

1:39:06>> I'll re email them to you when they can

1:39:08be posted next month.

1:39:11>> Okay. Yeah, that's Yeah, we we pulled

1:39:14this from a I guess the wrong the wrong

1:39:18>> old uh website.

1:39:22>> Okay, sorry about that that we have to

1:39:24>> just wait

1:39:25>> put that off again, but we'll hopefully

1:39:28make progress the next meeting on that.

1:39:31Uh

1:39:34does anybody have any comments

1:39:37any ways on those forms at this time?

1:39:42No.

1:39:44>> Okay. So,

1:39:45>> John, John, Bill,

1:39:48>> uh, I'm going to take a look at those

1:39:50certifications that are in there

1:39:52>> that if you pull up the forms again,

1:39:55you'll see, um, any one of the ones that

1:39:58actually get a permit or an approval.

1:40:02Um, there are four certifications that

1:40:05are required regarding if you're within

1:40:08500 feet of a municipality.

1:40:10And I'm I'm I've been having a little

1:40:13bit of while we've been talking, I've

1:40:15been having trying to find where where

1:40:17the language in the statute is at. So,

1:40:19I'm going to have to do some research on

1:40:21that. And if that somehow has been

1:40:22repealed,

1:40:24it's a possibility. Everything changes.

1:40:26Um, then I might have to change those

1:40:28forms and take strip that out. But I I'm

1:40:30pretty sure it's in the statute

1:40:32somewhere. I just can't find it. So, I

1:40:34don't have any problem with holding off

1:40:37until next month. And I'll do that

1:40:38double-checking.

1:40:42>> Okay. Thank you.

1:40:44>> Next item on the agenda is the Butts

1:40:46Road Bridge discussion and updates.

1:40:49>> Nothing new on that, John?

1:40:50>> I I have nothing new. I just kept it on

1:40:52the agenda in case there was anything to

1:40:54report, but I I have nothing.

1:40:57>> Okay. I'm going to take a little detour

1:41:00for a couple other discussions is that

1:41:02uh

1:41:03I guess I should probably address this

1:41:05to Chandler, but uh I think they're

1:41:08doing preliminary work on Rosen Park

1:41:12Road Bridge.

1:41:14Uh I would like them to recognize in

1:41:17doing that that uh this is a heavy truck

1:41:20route as opposed to a

1:41:24you know road uh just a rural road.

1:41:28>> Yeah. Because between all the people

1:41:31with fire equipment uh couple weekends

1:41:34ago there was uh full silage trucks

1:41:38running in both directions. So there are

1:41:41dozens of trucks over that day. There

1:41:44are common carriers like FedEx and uh

1:41:48RNL like that that are going down here

1:41:51every day. So

1:41:54uh even the butts road bridge it was

1:41:56done to through a uh truck capable

1:42:01capacity that that that make sure that

1:42:04that happens on Rosland Park Road. The

1:42:07other thing is I've seen that bridge

1:42:09over top several times. So, we might

1:42:11want to think about um the capacity

1:42:15flowing underneath that bridge and

1:42:17whether they would want to raise the

1:42:19head the headway of that. And there was

1:42:22probably a couple other things, but I

1:42:23don't have them off top of my head right

1:42:25now.

1:42:26>> Bill, is that for Rosland?

1:42:27>> Sorry, that that's for Rosland.

1:42:30>> Rosland Park Road next to an exit there.

1:42:34>> Um the other thing I want to say about

1:42:36the Scranton shops, I don't know

1:42:40We didn't have anything involved at

1:42:42least along the road with that silt

1:42:44fence and I don't know if they offered

1:42:45that themselves, but that silt silt

1:42:48fence is not trenched in. Uh it's

1:42:52probably not that big of an issue next

1:42:54to the road, but uh I think there's silt

1:42:57fence in the back also. So I'm not sure

1:42:59that that was trenched in also. So

1:43:03otherwise it's not really doing

1:43:04anything. So, uh,

1:43:09>> check up on that and see.

1:43:10>> I will. Yeah, I I'll I'll I'll reach

1:43:12out.

1:43:18>> That's all I got.

1:43:21Uh, yeah. Once again, have time for

1:43:24citizens comments.

1:43:26Uh, Carly, I think you're the only one

1:43:28on still on. You is anybody or Mr.

1:43:31Gabriel is on. Does anybody have any

1:43:34further comments?

1:43:37I don't think.

1:43:39>> Okay. Thank you.

1:43:44>> Okay. Then I guess we'll entertain a

1:43:46motion to adjurnn.

1:43:50>> I move to adjourn.

1:43:54>> I second the motion. I'm just in time.

1:43:56My battery is just about to die.

1:43:59>> Okay. We have motion by Milo, second by

1:44:02Stuart Peasley to adjurnn. All those in

1:44:04favor signify by saying I.

1:44:06>> I.

1:44:06>> I.

1:44:07>> I.

1:44:08>> Anybody opposed? Abstain. Uh motion

1:44:11passes. Thank you very much everyone.

1:44:14Thank you.