[0:00] All right. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the town that you're going to be on. And of course, the commission

[0:06] regularly agenda of Tuesday, August 5th. Please rise, joining the federal issues.

[0:14] Oh,

[0:17] I believe it's the United States that we have. The Republic, which extends ordination of the

[0:31] Thank you.

[0:33] Thank you.

[0:35] Chairman DeGrobe.

[0:36] Mr. Arvibhi.

[0:37] President.

[0:38] Mr. Arvibhi.

[0:39] President.

[0:40] Mr. Arvibhi.

[0:40] President Meirali.

[0:41] Mr. Grahame.

[0:42] And, Mr. Thompson is at the Shines House.

[0:45] At that point, Mr. Graham is a very good fellow and he's fine.

[0:51] All right.

[0:56] Do we have any additional changes? Everybody finds necessary for this agenda tonight?

[1:03] All right, very none. We want to see some positions to everybody.

[1:07] We're going to speak to your commission about some non-agenda items.

[1:10] To self, please come to the podium, say, to the event.

[1:13] Yes.

[1:17] Okay. Nobody?

[1:18] All

[1:22] right. Well, here we do improve our public hearing.

[1:25] We've never had our last meetings around the whole business here.

[1:28] which is to a special incident of an operation IWC 25-5 for 1929, 39 military highway.

[1:41] Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am.

[1:42] I would like to make a comment or statement. Please do.

[1:45] I just want to transform the commission, the chairman, and also the planner that I have most recently purchased at home over on five make the corners road over in Kelsberry.

[1:56] whether or not there is objects for bias or unbiased, I think that I have historically

[2:06] presented as unbiased and neutral in my position, in my voting, and I just wanted

[2:12] to put that out there for whatever reason, so do you necessary?

[2:18] Thank you.

[2:21] All right, so, I'm sorry, it starts off.

[2:26] Actually, I'm not going to start off with the record of this verdict, Lane News Director.

[2:31] I just wanted to say for the record that Kyle Halbert of CLA Engineers is here on Zoom

[2:39] to answer any questions that you have.

[2:42] Is there anything that was put on the record C for the public hearing flow?

[2:47] So you can't ask about anything new, but you could certainly ask him questions as staff, as our staff, about anything from the record. So he is here this evening to answer any questions that you may have.

[3:00] Hannah has prepared a staff report and she can go through that with you and then you want to start your discussion prior to that.

[3:09] So I'll use this for the report first, if you don't mind.

[3:12] Yeah.

[3:13] The problem.

[3:15] And you know, no, no, no, boom.

[3:17] There you go.

[3:18] Can you know, zoning and what one's official.

[3:21] So in my, in my staff review of all the exhibits, the application for the 278 unit building housing development for the two six story buildings,

[3:34] the regulated activities, including the Tumper temporary upland review area disturbance during

[3:40] the construction and drainage outflows from the Entity River Lake areas. So as we know,

[3:47] in 2015, 2025, at least Smith's staff report detailed regarding the application, which included

[3:55] my comments and the Landage Director's comments regarding comments and concerns submitted by

[4:01] have a tons of consulting engineer, Mark Langport,

[4:03] the Dying Mar for Waste Water,

[4:05] and the proposed application for Waste Water

[4:07] discharges from sub-service sewage treatment

[4:10] and disposal systems for the proposed project.

[4:13] So, it is part of the application

[4:15] that did not receive approval from DEV

[4:16] and as a result, that the clean tech

[4:18] on the half of the applicant states,

[4:20] it should revise its application

[4:21] to re-submit the full application package to DEV.

[4:24] We had additional comments and concerns

[4:26] from our town consulting engineers.

[4:28] soil scientists, sorry, consult the engineer and soil scientists,

[4:33] Paul Hubbert, me and Bob Russo, certified soil scientists of CLA.

[4:37] Regarding the soil mortar management in which they stated, in our opinion,

[4:41] additional site soil evaluation should be performed to document the existing soil

[4:45] conditions and to substantiate the soil mortar management system design.

[4:50] So without the additional information CLA couldn't confirm whether or not the

[4:55] stormwater management features would have an adverse impact on our inland wetlands and water

[5:00] forces.

[5:04] It's going to be open soon, due to because they could determine if the basins were perfectly

[5:10] assessed for stormwater management.

[5:14] The applicants engineer Jeff Ford, Keable, engineering at the public hearing on 715, 2025 stated

[5:20] in part the reasons for not conducting the testing requested by seal engineers were

[5:24] that the rock face and or bedrock would have to be blasted and removed during excavation

[5:29] then fill the soil from other areas of the site with known permeability.

[5:33] In this one instance, we thought it was not necessary to form those test pits in areas

[5:38] where rock is present as it would be going and in doing unnecessary excavation and blasting

[5:43] to have rock move through another location on the site then place spill in more free draining,

[5:48] sorry, that is more free draining.

[5:50] doing additional test bits would not get us additional information other than that of brown

[5:54] water. So that was verbatim. Staff recommendation is deny application number 25-5 site without

[6:02] prejudice for the following reasons and I will read them into the record. Reason one, the

[6:07] application is incomplete and that the applicant did not comply with multiple requests of the

[6:11] town's consulting engineer, CLA, engineers, CLA to provide test bits and permeability information

[6:17] and which soil evaluations can be done

[6:19] by a qualified professional at any time of the year

[6:22] and help document that the given site can support

[6:24] the store water management design of the project.

[6:27] Without this information,

[6:28] CLA cannot determine if the soil's onsite can fully support

[6:32] the proposed store water management system design

[6:34] and that without this information,

[6:36] CLA cannot confirm that the store water management features

[6:39] are appropriately sized in a forest of the 2024

[6:41] and it gets store water quality manual

[6:44] and it cannot be determined if the project

[6:46] of the Department of Impact on the on-site regulated

[6:48] uplands, inland wetlands, and or water-course areas.

[6:51] C-C-L-A engineers exhibits number 27, number 37,

[6:56] number 46, and number 50 for the record.

[6:59] Reason number two.

[7:01] For someone to Connecticut General Statutes 22A-19,

[7:05] the Galesbury Fire District,

[7:06] A-K-A Galesbury Fire District,

[7:08] Emily and Barry individually have filed

[7:10] verified notices of intervention exhibits

[7:13] it's number 17 and 26 respectively.

[7:16] Here and after will be notices.

[7:18] Stating the proposed administrative proceedings

[7:20] involves conduct which has or which is reasonably

[7:23] likely to have the effect of unreasonably

[7:25] gloating, impairing or destroying the public trust

[7:27] and air, water and other natural resources of the state.

[7:32] Within the jurisdiction of the agency

[7:34] and the following ways in staff's opinion, number one.

[7:37] Notices are from sections 4A, B, C, M, and Q

[7:42] which state. Hey, the applicant's application does not meet the standards of approval.

[7:47] B, the applicant has failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that the application will not

[7:52] result in long-term impacts on what leads to four water courses. C, the applicant has failed to

[7:57] provide evidence to demonstrate that the application will not result in irreversible and irreversible

[8:01] loss of water versus. No soil testing has been conducted in Mason 1D to determine if the soils

[8:09] are suitable for infiltration. The applicant has to be able to demonstrate that the required

[8:14] vertical separations in the 2024 manual, then get the 24-storm order volume annual,

[8:20] are met for seasonal high ground water and or bedrock. The design for Basin-1D is not in compliance.

[8:26] Q, such other and further aspects as may be determined from the applicant's storm order management plan.

[8:33] 2. Notices from Section 6, which state? It is the responsibility of the applicant in this

[8:41] administrative proceeding to adequately develop by the introduction of substantial evidence

[8:45] of record evidence that will address the issues raised hearing with respect to potential impacts.

[8:51] And the applicant has the burden of establishing that the proposed action would not have significant

[8:56] impacts as alleged in that no alternatives exist that would reduce or eliminate the potential for such

[9:01] adverse impacts.

[9:03] Reason three, the agency is unable to determine

[9:06] what the impacts on the regulated

[9:08] upwind, inland, wetlands, and or water-course areas are.

[9:11] And therefore, the agency cannot determine if feasible

[9:13] and prudent alternatives are required.

[9:17] Thank you.

[9:18] Well,

[9:24] this is very discussion.

[9:40] Thank you, Mark.

[9:41] Thank you, Anthony.

[9:41] There's also an online question that's there.

[9:44] You can ask questions with respect to his comments as well.

[9:48] Thank you.

[10:03] Well, I'm Robert Graham. I just had a question about this test fit 1D, the engineer

[10:13] 1D. The engineer, Mr. Board from Boulder Engineering stated that the test fit, you'd

[10:24] bedrock and therefore that last but so forth. So the question is, is this test bit just

[10:32] trying to determine what type of soil will sit on top of the bedrock or is it trying to determine

[10:37] whether you could have infiltration through bedrock? Does it take a lot of sense to

[10:42] that?

[10:45] Kyle, that question is for you. There you go. Hi everybody. Kyle Habbert from CLA

[10:53] engineers were located at 317 Main Street and Norwich for the record. Yeah, the test bits

[11:01] that would be needed, you know, for the infiltration basins that were proposed will be one to document

[11:08] if and where, you know, ledge would be encountered to determine where the seasonal high ground water

[11:15] table is, whether that's above ledge, if it's out there or anywhere in that soil profile,

[11:21] And also to help determine the nature of the soils, how permeable they are and what they can support, you know, for infiltration rates.

[11:30] So that would be the purpose of the of the test bits to confirm the actual field conditions that are out there.

[11:40] is there a limited amount of options for where those calculations can be placed on the site given that development?

[11:55] You know, that would be up for the for the applicants engineer to determine if there are, you know, limited areas on the site for them.

[12:03] but testing how the naval been to determine that.

[12:10] Yes, of what?

[12:16] Dan Pieler here.

[12:19] So just to make sure that I fully understand this.

[12:27] With regards to this site specifically and the established position that there is bedrock there that would have to be blasted away.

[12:38] and replaced with material with a known fill condition.

[12:45] What

[12:49] would the primary objectives of having these test bits put here be given the fact that there would be a significant if not total replacement of the soils in the condition or in the location following the lasting.

[13:11] Well, one thing to be clear from our end and from our review, we did not see evidence

[13:19] presented in the documents that re-reviewed that there is no ledge there.

[13:24] I don't believe they submitted probes or test bit data or how they know that ledge was

[13:31] there.

[13:31] If they had done something on their own and didn't submit that, as part of the application

[13:36] I don't know for sure if it is known legend and that documentation is out there somewhere that we did not see, you know, the limits of the ledge and groundwater elevations or potential groundwater elevations or provisions for those groundwater elevations if they're going to intercept it, you know, with their rock excavation and providing, you know, means to mitigate that and the design would be important.

[14:04] Thank

[14:07] you.

[14:13] Chairman.

[14:14] Yeah.

[14:15] Yeah.

[14:15] Ms. Burtick.

[14:16] I'm your instructor.

[14:18] May I address Mr. Harvard?

[14:22] File which the kindly one of the things you wrote in your report is that you cannot determine that the base and is appropriately sized.

[14:33] And can you explain.

[14:34] and why that is with regards to the testing.

[14:39] Could you be trying to give us the reader side just

[14:41] or the, you know, the dumbed down version of it

[14:43] for, for, for, for labels?

[14:46] Sure, and the sizing, part of the sizing calculations

[14:51] takes into account an infiltration rate

[14:53] or a permeability of the soil.

[14:57] They use a rate that they determine from, you know,

[15:00] So, you know, elsewhere on the site. But, you know, soils change are variable across the site. So, documenting what the permeability rates in the primarily the infiltration basins 1 E and 1 D, the two large ones that are on the west side of the site.

[15:30] based on a separation to the ground water table.

[15:34] But we don't believe there was enough evidence

[15:37] to establish what that ground water table elevation is,

[15:41] particularly in basin 1E.

[15:45] That ground water elevation they established from the boring,

[15:48] which only has that water elevation at that point in time

[15:52] when the boring is done.

[15:54] And it's not necessarily the seasonal high ground water table.

[15:58] So we couldn't confirm that one that there was the adequate separation to the ground water table, and then also that it was sized the volume of the base and the size appropriately for the strong water quality manual.

[16:12] I have a follow-up question to that.

[16:16] So the outlets for the stormwater management system are right at the 100-foot up-and-review

[16:23] areas.

[16:24] Would knowing that information affect your comments with respect to how much runoff is going

[16:31] into that regulated area?

[16:34] It would, confirming that the basins were sized appropriately for the stormwater quality manual.

[16:40] We would be able to confirm that the peak flow rates

[16:44] wouldn't impact or volumes wouldn't impact the wetlands.

[16:48] And then we could also confirm that the volume of the basins

[16:52] would treat the suspended solids per the water quality manual.

[16:58] And we could say that it would meet the storm water quality manual guidelines.

[17:02] Thank you.

[17:07] What's my parole?

[17:10] So, that recommendation, reason one, that the petition is

[17:13] complete because that gets to not comply with multiple

[17:16] personal doubts of someone in the community.

[17:18] And over here, I have a letter submitted by you,

[17:25] the July 10th that says, we concur with

[17:30] all the statements that comments from the previous CLA that had dated, May 29th, have been addressed

[17:35] with the exception of test fit items and some other items, number 4 or 5 or so.

[17:41] One of them says information was submitted. They have another document that says

[17:47] that information was submitted. Can you play it yourself?

[17:53] Regarding the test fit information?

[17:56] Yes. They did. They did address, we had a series of, I believe, 29 or 30 comments in a

[18:04] May let it be submitted. They had addressed all the comments with the exception of the test bit.

[18:12] We had requested additional test bits in the basins and that information had not been provided.

[18:20] So that was the outstanding comments and the outstanding item was addressing the test bits for

[18:27] the project.

[18:30] There would be information that would provide additional test bits.

[18:35] I'm sorry, I couldn't quite hear you.

[18:38] The information was speaking about what would have been, information that would have been

[18:41] derived from the additional test vids.

[18:45] Correct.

[18:46] Yes.

[18:47] Thank you.

[19:02] That's fine.

[19:04] Thank you.

[19:16] What I have here is an applicant to say that they're going to have to go out to the current biggest

[19:20] test fit regardless in order to determine how this cash basin is going to be constructed.

[19:28] to prior to them, you know, finalizing the plan.

[19:36] That's one of the things they asked us to approve it

[19:38] with that contingency and that condition.

[19:44] My reflection on that statement is that you're asking us

[19:47] to make this application a condition that it meets our regulations.

[19:55] If I haven't planned it already meets the regulations,

[19:58] we can make a well-informed decision on whether to approve it or not. So I've missed this information.

[20:06] You know, it's defined in this coverage reports.

[20:09] Let me show you some of the include plans. And I think listen to Mr. Bourd at our

[20:16] 2015, the hearing of 2015, you know, any kind of define that. I think this plan is incomplete. It

[20:21] doesn't define whether it's going to be a catchphrase in, you know, the incision of digging out

[20:26] work, it has to be blasted out and then back filled in to reach the fragmented dead. So neither

[20:33] of those options are defined in the time. And how this cash waste is actually going to be

[20:39] obstructing. So therefore, you're supposed to run out of offers so you can see some can't determine

[20:45] what's going to discharge. So what the effect is going to be or what's what. Right. It's not a good

[20:51] contingency. No, I don't know if it is. Oh, yes, we make decisions,

[20:56] contingencies, or conditions, all the time. And he's not saying, however, those

[21:01] conditions are typically, you know, to express milestones in a plan, will not

[21:07] to further develop the plan before moving forward.

[21:14] Thank you.

[21:21] Thank you, apparently. Say, I'm looking, you know, as incomplete and then,

[21:32] We don't exactly know the conditions that we have to build this catch basin in, and then

[21:37] once they know these conditions, then they can finalize the plan and how it's going to

[21:41] construct it.

[21:41] And we can turn and calculate the discharge quality of the team.

[21:47] It's like, that's the information that we use for sample.

[22:00] So

[22:10] are you suggesting that the motion tonight will wrap up all of that, or are you suggesting something else?

[22:17] I think that's included in the suggested motion.

[22:20] It's basically reason and reason.

[22:25] You see it's unable to determine what the impact of the regulatory level of the elements.

[22:28] What are the course that are and therefore the agency that's determined the piece of it.

[22:32] Yeah, it's also to find a reason to have a lot to say, you know, referencing this for our support,

[22:38] to where that information is requested, and what.

[23:04] I think that will solve that.

[23:10] For the questions and comments,

[23:17] go around that.

[23:18] And Daniel, just, no, I don't have a role of both.

[23:27] Like, he should pull out of the box and pull

[23:30] the last four. That seems him to run.

[23:35] 7.43.1.

[23:40] My 10th.

[23:41] To my 10th thing.

[23:44] Said the application was submitted by the packet.

[23:47] The latest revision should be delivered by the packet.

[23:49] regulations in February or June on the twat.

[23:53] There's an area in there you think.

[23:56] The application was submitted via to the effective date of the latest revision of your

[24:01] and then weapons, weapon regulations in February 2025.

[24:06] According to the criteria, you may apply it to this existed prior to that event.

[24:11] The event will speak about its activity that is outside of the

[24:16] Yeah.

[24:18] Most of this project, except with a small range of section.

[24:24] It's outside clearly.

[24:26] What we're trying to say is we have a maintenance termination.

[24:29] We have regulations.

[24:32] We're going to revise the.

[24:36] See therefore.

[24:37] We

[24:40] answer that question.

[24:42] Yeah.

[24:44] Yeah.

[24:45] So take this.

[24:45] Yeah.

[24:46] So, those basins, the drainage is going directly into the regulated up-and-review area.

[24:52] So there is activity with the discharge which is relevant to a regulated area that

[24:57] you guys need to make the discharge addition of adverse impact.

[25:02] You look at the plans, you see the outlet structure, the litter, the edge, so the water is

[25:09] not going to stop at an imaginary line and the problem if discharge is into the regulated

[25:14] up-and-there.

[25:15] So even though majority of the project is pulled out of that URA, they still have activity which is water coming off the side.

[25:24] I just want to see.

[25:25] Yeah.

[25:27] Thank you.

[25:28] Well, it's a good point.

[25:29] What kind of station?

[25:31] Good.

[25:37] Awesome.

[25:42] You're in.

[25:43] No.

[25:50] So my piece.

[25:53] Don't have any work.

[25:59] We are ready for the motion.

[26:04] Motion to deny.

[26:12] Sorry, before you continue, may I make a suggestion?

[26:16] Yes.

[26:18] Staff is actually recommended that the motion be denied without prejudice.

[26:22] that we give the applicant the opportunity to state the required testing and lease immunification.

[26:32] So we are suggesting that it's a denial without prejudice. You can make a motion to deny. That's fine too.

[26:39] But staff is suggesting without prejudice.

[26:45] I was just reading the motion number in motion to deny it. Oh, I'm sorry.

[26:50] But then we said that again, I know, I got it.

[26:53] I think the staff reports they have denied with them.

[26:57] Yes.

[26:58] I followed those for that.

[26:59] So it would be a motion to deny without prejudice, correct?

[27:03] I'll make that motion.

[27:05] Okay.

[27:06] Please read it.

[27:08] After giving due consideration to all relevant factors, including those in section 6 of those

[27:12] ledgered inland wetland regulations in section 22A-40 of the Connecticut General Statutes,

[27:17] I move to deny application IWC number 25 site and associated site improvements for construction of a 278 unit multifamily dwelling housing development and two buildings and associated site improvements as more fully described in the application and supporting documents dated to 2425 and a plan entitled proposed site plan documents for CL clue and LLC proposed residential development 1929, 39 military highway gills buried ledger new London County, Connecticut.

[27:47] prepared by the whole engineering data, 219-25, revised, 5 2025, and all application exhibits

[27:54] for the following reasons. Reason number one, the applicant is incomplete and that the applicant

[27:59] did not comply with multiple requests of the task consulting engineer, CLA engineers, DLA,

[28:05] to provide test bits and permeability information, which soil evaluations can be done by qualified

[28:10] professional at any time of the year and help document that the given site can support the storm

[28:15] water management design for the project. Without this information, CLA could not determine if the

[28:20] soil's on-site can fully support the proposed storm water management system design, and that without

[28:25] this information, CLA cannot confirm that the storm water management features are appropriately

[28:29] sized in accordance with the 2024 Connecticut storm water quality manual, and it cannot be determined

[28:34] if the project would have an impact on the on-site regulated uplands inlands, inland wetlands, and

[28:39] and more water forces areas.

[28:42] CCLA Engineers Exhibit Assembly, 27, 37, 46,

[28:45] and 50 for the record.

[28:47] Reason number two, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes,

[28:51] Section 22A-19, et cetera.

[28:54] The Gail Ferry District, A.K.A. Gail Ferry Fire District,

[28:57] and the Emberry individually have final verified notices

[29:00] of intervention, exhibit 17, and 26 respective length.

[29:04] Here in notices, stating that the proposed administrative

[29:07] proceeding involves conduct which has or which is reasonably likely to have the effect of unreasonably

[29:13] polluting, impairing, destroying the public trust in the air, water, and other natural resources

[29:17] of the states within the jurisdiction of the agency in the following ways in staff's opinion.

[29:23] Number one, notice inspections for a, b, c, m, and q, which state, a, the application has not

[29:31] meet the standards of approval, b, the applicant has failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that

[29:36] the application will not result in long-term impacts on wetland and water

[29:40] courses. See the applicant has failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that

[29:43] the application will not result in irreversible and irretrievable laws of

[29:47] wetland and water courses. And no soil testing has been conducted in basin 1D

[29:53] to determine if the soils are suitable for infiltration. The applicant has

[29:56] failed to demonstrate that they're required vertical separations in the

[30:00] 2020-24 manual, and I kick deep, 2020-24, water quality manual. I met for seasonal high-ground water and or bedrock. The design per basin is billened. One D is not in compliance. Q, such other and further aspects as may be determined from the applicant's store and water management plan. Number two, notice the section 6, which states it is the responsibility of the applicant in this administrative proceeding to adequately develop by the

[30:29] the introduction of substantial evidence,

[30:31] all record evidence that will address the issues raised herein

[30:35] with respect to the potential impacts in the applicant

[30:37] has the burden of establishing that the proposed action

[30:40] would not have significant impacts

[30:42] as alleged and that no alternatives exist

[30:44] that would reduce or eliminate the potential

[30:46] for such adverse impacts.

[30:48] And the reason number three,

[30:50] the agency is unable to determine what the impacts

[30:52] on the regulated uplands, inland wetlands,

[30:54] and or water courses area of harm.

[30:57] And therefore, the agency cannot determine

[30:58] and infeasible and food and alternatives are required.

[31:03] Just to ask you to amend your motion,

[31:06] just to slide it.

[31:07] Sure.

[31:08] At the beginning we said include those in session six,

[31:10] which are first just defines regulated activities

[31:13] to also include session 10,

[31:14] which is our criteria for decision session.

[31:19] So after you and do serage of our own factors,

[31:21] including those in session six,

[31:24] also in session 10, which is our criteria for the seat.

[31:27] So in section 10, I also asked the removal phrase, the staff's opinion, as this is our

[31:34] motion, and not the staff's opinion.

[31:38] So we moved.

[31:39] Thank you.

[31:42] Thank you.

[31:42] At all.

[31:43] I kind of request you're exposing them to the subject, whether it's the gift of the second

[31:50] on the first motion, and then doing the second, I'm sorry, do you have a second to alter

[31:57] it back in the second?

[31:58] The original motion.

[31:59] No, you haven't answered any questions.

[32:01] I'm sorry.

[32:02] I'm sorry.

[32:02] Thanks.

[32:03] No, you're welcome.

[32:03] Thank you for your support.

[32:04] Okay.

[32:05] Thanks.

[32:05] Thank you.

[32:05] Thank you for your support.

[32:05] That's probably.

[32:06] All right.

[32:07] I think you were stated.

[32:09] And I actually had.

[32:11] May I.

[32:12] Also.

[32:13] As we're reading along here.

[32:15] In paragraph one.

[32:17] You made it clear it was emotional to die without prejudice,

[32:19] but the motion said just denied.

[32:21] Could you amend that to say.

[32:23] deny without prejudice in the first notion and one thing that I wanted to check

[32:28] with our town engineer on I believe the town engineer said Basin 1D could

[32:35] the town engineer confirm that it's Basin 1D versus 1D that the testing must

[32:43] not conduct an inquiry. Yeah, I'm still here. Yes, Kyle Haber from CLI. I believe

[32:50] It was one E is the larger base and that was that did not have the testing in it.

[32:56] The verified notice of intervention stated one D but I believe there was a lack of testing in one D also more so and E was my was my concern.

[33:17] So I would, I would amend it to save one day and I'm talking, you know, we, we, we forwarded

[33:23] from the, you know, if I notice a intervention, so what you may want to do is add, add a reason

[33:35] So let me see the motion at a reason two, the way it's three, stating that one he didn't even,

[33:47] there's not adequate testing done on the post-base in one he.

[33:51] Is it at 51 to email to you from Mr. Hubert to mention the one he and one D.

[33:56] Okay, so both.

[33:58] So that would be the reason number three.

[34:01] Well, or because you need cash now. So if you look at reason number two, okay, point one,

[34:09] staff has put directly from the verify notice of intervention. So the

[34:13] interveners stated and no soil testing has been conducted in base in 1D to

[34:21] determine if soils are suitable. But our town engineer is telling us that it's

[34:26] not just 1D, it's 1D. So I wish, and then reason number two to be reason two point array

[34:36] that adequate no soil testing has been conducted in basin, 1D or 1D,

[34:43] churned soils are suitable for infiltration. So after notice the section six, because that's

[34:51] That's a comment that did not come directly, was not quoted directly from this verified nurse of intervention.

[35:00] 1A for Q were quoted directly from the verified nurse of the instrument.

[35:06] I see. So that doesn't capture the 1V. Correct.

[35:10] So we don't capture the 1V. Correct.

[35:12] And two points. You could use the same wording.

[35:15] Three. So it would be reason number two.

[35:17] adding 5.3,

[35:22] that no soil testing has been conducted in basin 1D 4.1D to determine if the

[35:32] soils are suitable for infiltration. You can say what I said.

[35:40] So it would be an addition of

[35:42] it would be 3.3. So the reason is number 3.

[35:53] And we can re-resistrate the records for you if you

[35:56] would like I would want to then do it then

[35:58] deliberating on which one. So it doesn't affect

[36:02] A through Q because that was directly from the

[36:05] intervention correct right so it's just the

[36:07] 2.3 that's about where you're passing

[36:11] wasn't too much it's an addition it's an addition

[36:16] and his report did say one point D to do so it's not

[36:22] new information information that was submitted

[36:24] during the public care.

[36:26] I'm still not seeing Justin when you're adding.

[36:28] Also, I don't feel like number 10, section 10.

[36:31] At the very beginning, after meeting new considerations

[36:33] with all of our old partners,

[36:34] including those in session six,

[36:36] and session 10s,

[36:37] about the lettering the number, and so on.

[36:38] That's your reason.

[36:40] That's your reason.

[36:40] Is that it just captures our criteria for the suit?

[36:43] Well, it says including captures all of our regulations,

[36:45] so I guess we're having to think about that a little bit.

[36:47] That's okay.

[36:55] So that in section 10, adding without prejudice,

[36:57] I just, prejudice, motion to deny with that prejudice,

[37:01] adding section six and section 10

[37:04] in the legend, the law of the law,

[37:06] section two A, and then adding a 2.3,

[37:10] and out of the testing, and based in 180.

[37:15] 1D and 1D and 1D.

[37:23] For the tech, you can say,

[37:24] for the talent's consultant to you, how's that saying?

[37:27] Quick.

[37:45] So does this constitute a new motion after all those?

[37:48] Yes, you have to, all right.

[37:49] So you had a original motion in a second, and then you have to discuss it, and now you have to

[37:56] amend the motion and have a second for that.

[38:01] Would you like us to read the amended motion in?

[38:04] Would you please position and tap into this amendment so that you can, you want me to read the whole

[38:09] thing in or just the changes? This is just read the whole thing. Okay, so I'm going to just do this

[38:15] So a motion number one, a motion to deny without prejudice.

[38:19] After giving due consideration to all relevant factors, including those in section 6 and section 10 criteria for decision,

[38:32] of the ledger in the wetlands regulations in section 22A-40 of the clinic of general statutes,

[38:38] I move to deny without prejudice application.

[38:41] IWWC number 2-5-5-5 site and associated site improvements for construction of a 278 unit

[38:49] holding family dwelling housing development in two buildings and associated site improvements

[38:53] as more fully described in the application and supporting documents dated to 24-24 and a plan

[39:00] in title proposed site plan documents for St. Ericville and LLC proposed residential development 19-29-39

[39:07] military, high-might-gill history, ledger New London County, Connecticut, prepared by

[39:12] Boulder Engineering, data, 219-25, revised to 520-25, and all applicable exhibits in the

[39:19] following reasons. Reason number one, the applications incomplete in that the applicant did not complete

[39:25] with multiple, did not comply with multiple requests of the times consulting engineer. CLA,

[39:31] engineer, CLA to provide test grids and permeability information which soil evaluations can be done

[39:37] and by a qualified professional at any time of the year

[39:40] and help document the given site

[39:42] can support the scoreboard management design

[39:44] to the project.

[39:45] Without this information,

[39:46] CLA could not determine if the suicide can close

[39:49] aboard the proposed scoreboard management system design

[39:52] and that without this information,

[39:54] CLA cannot confirm that the scoreboard management features

[39:57] are appropriately sized and important

[39:59] with the 2024 Connecticut scoreboard quality men.

[40:02] And it cannot be determined if the project would have an impact

[40:05] on the onsite-regulated uplands in the wetlands and our water forces areas.

[40:10] C-C-L-A engineers exhibits number 27, number 37,

[40:14] number 46, and number 50 for the record.

[40:18] Reason number two, for sure, to Connecticut General Statutes 22-A-19,

[40:22] at Thal, the Galesbury District also known as the Galesbury Fire District,

[40:29] and Leonbury individually have filed a verified nurses of intervention.

[40:33] Exhibits 17 and 26 respectively, here and after notices, stating that the proposed administrative

[40:40] proceeding involves conduct which has, or which is reasonably likely to have, the effect

[40:46] of other reasonably polluting and parent or destroying the public trust in the air water

[40:50] and other natural resources that is made within the jurisdiction of the agency in the following

[40:55] in ways. Number one, notices sections for A, B, C, and Q, which state? A, the applicant

[41:02] does not meet the standards of approval. B, the applicant has failed to provide evidence

[41:06] to demonstrate that the application will not result in long-term impacts on wetlands

[41:11] or water portions. C, the applicant has failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that the application

[41:17] will not result in irreversible and irretrieve the loss of wetland or water portions, and no

[41:23] No soil testing has been conducted in Basin-1D to determine if the soils are suitable for infiltration.

[41:29] The UFN is built to demonstrate that the required vertical separations in the 2024 manual

[41:34] NECD-2024 stormwater quality manual are met for seasonal high-ground water and-or-fed rock.

[41:41] The design for Basin-1D is not in compliance.

[41:44] Thank you. Such other and further aspects has maybe determined from the UFN stormwater management.

[41:50] 2

[41:54] .2 notices section 6 which states it is the responsibility of the applicant in the administrative

[42:00] proceeding to adequately develop by the introduction of substantial evidence of the record evidence

[42:05] that will address the issues raised herein with respect to the potential impacts and the applicant

[42:10] has the burden of establishing that the proposed action would not have significant impacts as a

[42:16] ledge in that no alternative success that would reduce or eliminate the potential for such adverse

[42:21] in fact. Reason number 2.3 seconds.

[42:31] No soil testing has been conducted in

[42:34] base in 1.1 B and 1.E to determine if the soils are suitable for infiltration

[42:40] in accordance with the reports of the town engineers, CLA engineers. Reason 3, the

[42:50] agency is unable to determine what the impacts on the regulating

[42:54] helplines in the wetlands and our water forces areas are and therefore the agency

[43:00] cannot determine if the usable and through alternatives are required. I think we

[43:05] got it right there.

[43:07] That's your motion.

[43:10] That would be an amended motion.

[43:14] Yep.

[43:15] If you have any motion, can you view any motion?

[43:18] Is that any?

[43:19] Yeah.

[43:21] I recommend the amount of motion.

[43:24] Right?

[43:25] All in there.

[43:26] All right.

[43:28] Motion passes.

[43:28] Thank you.

[43:32] Thank you.

[43:41] Welcome.

[43:43] Welcome.

[43:56] So, we still have the rest of our meeting to get up.

[44:00] Okay.

[44:01] Thank you.

[44:03] Thank you.

[44:04] All right.

[44:06] We've run new business.

[44:07] Now, if you have a single thing to get at,

[44:09] I mean,

[44:10] especially on that,

[44:11] Just introduce what we're talking about.

[44:15] We'll just give it a minute here, very little drought.

[44:21] Thank you very much.

[44:31] Thank you very much.

[44:39] Thank you.

[44:39] I mean, thank you.

[44:42] Thank you.

[44:43] I'm gay, I'm a second.

[44:46] I'm glad that someone said that.

[44:49] I hope it's seen our commissioners.

[44:52] I'm happy.

[44:53] I'm in love.

[44:54] Thank you.

[44:55] Thank you very much.

[44:56] That was pretty fun.

[44:57] I love the phone.

[44:58] I like.

[44:59] Okay.

[45:00] We have a state of Connecticut ad hoc rate. Do you want to take this or do you want me to? So, so there's an organization called Sustainable CT. And in 2020, on March 11, 2020, the Leather Town Council adopted a town of ledger resolution supporting the participation in the Sustainable CT municipal certification program. I was here when this happened and I was involved in

[45:29] this resolution at that time.

[45:32] Recognizing built that stateable CT

[45:35] is a comprehensive statewide action-oriented

[45:38] voluntary certification program

[45:40] built by informed municipalities

[45:42] with the vision that stateable CT communities strive

[45:45] to be thriving, resilient,

[45:47] collaborative, and forward thinking.

[45:49] I'm not gonna read the rest.

[45:53] I'm trying to give you a summary

[45:55] of what stateable CT does.

[45:57] And that pretty much summarizes their, they're, they're, they're,

[46:03] I can't think of the word right now. It's been a long day. Not their purpose, but

[46:07] they're mission. They're mission.

[46:09] They're mission. Yes. Thank you.

[46:11] So we're a sustainable CT community.

[46:16] And we can apply through grants. Sustainable CT gives out grants, not large ones.

[46:22] But once you're a sustainable CT community, you could in fact apply for grants

[46:27] that's her sustainable CT.

[46:28] It's not just municipalities,

[46:30] other people can apply for grants.

[46:32] I think the Tritown Trail,

[46:34] by birth grant through there at one point.

[46:36] I could be wrong.

[46:38] So the current town council has decided

[46:40] that it wants to go further.

[46:42] So now therefore, they passed a resolution on June 25th,

[46:49] I believe, I'm off 2025.

[46:52] Now therefore, be it resolved that to focus attention

[46:54] in effort within the town of Lederd on matters of sustainability in order to promote local initiatives

[47:01] and actions toward sustainable Connecticut municipal certification, the Lederd town council

[47:06] establishes a Lederd sustainable Connecticut ad hoc committee to be comprised of five members

[47:13] appointed by the Lederd town council. Those members shall, as much as possible, be representative

[47:20] as well as one member from planning and zoning or in the wetlands and water

[47:24] forces commission, one member from economic development commission or

[47:28] conservation commission, one member from the town council, Lane News Committee and

[47:33] two members from the community at large. For the result each member shall serve

[47:39] a term of two years, members shall commence to serve their terms immediately

[47:42] upon appointment and shall serve until their successor has qualified or have been

[47:47] re-appointed or removed by the time council. And it goes on to talk about absences. Be it for the

[47:53] result that the committee is authorized to work with the legislature and the mayor to engage staff

[47:59] and or contract with consultant or a sustainable CT fellow through the Southeastern Connecticut

[48:05] Council of Governance. Review the sustainable CT toolkit and guidelines into ownership of

[48:11] preparation and submission of application at the appropriate time. Develop initiative goals and

[48:17] recommendations to achieve points required to complete the process to obtain sustainable

[48:22] CT certification to include building our community and our local economy, equiably promote

[48:28] the health and well-being of current and future residents, encourage and participate in

[48:33] regional collaboration in other forms of partnership, and improve the services of quality of

[48:38] life for our residents as well focusing on sustainability efficiencies and reducing the impact

[48:44] of inflationary cost for residents.

[48:46] Work for the public work circle and through-based composting

[48:49] can under a waste management initiatives

[48:51] worked with the PNZ commission to ensure

[48:54] town's POCD supports proposed

[48:56] sustainable communicating initiatives

[48:58] work with the Board of Education to ensure

[49:00] that literature educational facility needs are considered

[49:03] and met in developing a plan

[49:05] and implementing sustainable CT initiatives

[49:08] fair and present to the town council for approval.

[49:10] A capital improvement plan to support

[49:12] and move the Sustainable CC plan forward, identify funding sources including grant funding and other

[49:18] grassroots funding options, such as in our backyard grants to support the goals and initiatives

[49:24] conspiring with the town's grant policy, and work with the finance director on the application

[49:29] administration of any grant funding received, and the preparation of BIDS VACS and advertisement

[49:34] or request proposals to facilitate stateable CC initiatives and importance with ordinance 200

[49:41] does 0-0-1, purchasing organs for the time of the ledger.

[49:45] So if I can, I'm going to tell you what I know about the Sustainable CT

[49:50] program and then Anna is going to tell you a little bit about the

[49:54] points that you can use that, right? So Sustainable CT has three levels

[50:00] of certification for municipalities, bronze, silver, and a bowl.

[50:05] I think that I'm pretty sure Preston has it. I know that Montville

[50:10] achieve from certification when I was the town planner there and there's multiple other

[50:15] towns in South Eastern Connecticut that have achieved these certifications to basically

[50:22] get back to the park that says review the sustainable CT tool getting guidelines and oversee

[50:29] the preparation and submission, develop initiatives goals recommendation to achieve points.

[50:34] So various initiatives and various goals get a certain amount of point value.

[50:43] One thing that Anna and I have already been sort of talking about this since this before

[50:47] this was even adopted is when we think of things that I recall when Montenegro got their

[50:52] bronze certification.

[50:54] We've started a little look.

[50:56] For example, the Lantern Hill Park out on the Long Pine Road that's going to the Recreation

[51:03] department. It's going to be creating parking areas, cartop, vote launch for kayaks, news.

[51:12] They're going to be putting in a gizmo. That's something that would most likely

[51:19] become an initiative that we've received points. Once you get a certain amount of points,

[51:24] you get bronzer page. And you get a nice fact. You are honored by the sustainability of people

[51:30] with the banquet. And your hard work is recognized. The town's hard work and being sustainable

[51:38] is recognized. Once you have bronze, you can move up to silver and then gold. I don't know a lot

[51:42] about how many golds were there. Did you have them to see? Oh, it's looking to be less than 100 golds in

[51:47] somewhere in here. So Anna's been sort of put Anna and I in an attempt to try to get ahead of the

[51:56] games are trying to put, when we see projects or things

[52:00] that the town is doing, we're trying to make a list.

[52:04] So that recreation project is something

[52:07] that is current that can receive point 4.

[52:11] Now back in March of 2020, the town had done

[52:14] a ton of things, like street light replacements,

[52:19] different things that they thought we

[52:22] could be able to get the strong certification.

[52:24] Unfortunately, when all the points got added up, you know, it was, did it too long ago,

[52:29] there's a certain time period in which you have to do these things, and it kind of fell

[52:33] through the cracks. And you know, we have small staff and it never got off the ground as far

[52:39] as getting certification. That is what the town council would like to do at this ad hoc committee.

[52:44] I think they're going to maybe, well, it's a month. We don't have all of the information.

[52:49] It's managed well, there's wanted to be a mandatory that the committee needs orderly if needed more, but definitely for 20 years. So I have a question certification.

[53:00] Does that equal getting grants are those two separate things? Now, we can still get grants, but you know, you know how the certification or corresponds with getting grants, I think.

[53:14] I'm sorry, what?

[53:19] I mean, it's nice to be certified, but I mean, if we're doing this stuff, and we're getting grants, you know, how much weight do we get to see?

[53:29] I don't know, like, level of grants.

[53:31] If it's essentially the equivalent of the, I don't know, the play buttons that YouTube

[53:41] sends out to people that get tons of subscribers on YouTube, I don't really see the whole big deal.

[53:51] It's just a, hey, you get a party and wow, you got black.

[53:55] So, from this discussion, what's really being asked straight?

[53:58] We can debate whether we like this or not, but to our effect, that what is being asked of the weapons commission, but this...

[54:04] We need somebody to sign up.

[54:07] Thank you.

[54:09] Thank you.

[54:11] Thank you.

[54:12] So, the EDC, at the last meeting, we put this forth to them and they decided to sit down at it once.

[54:23] No, the economic development commission they're sitting on that's there the town council made one member of either economic or conservation permissions economic development provision.

[54:34] I can tell you no one raised their hands and said they would think about it.

[54:40] Till the next month, I'm not positive.

[54:45] So we're going to get any volunteers.

[54:47] I think that one of the members thought that maybe more members of the public, some younger

[54:52] members of the public that want to see where future ledger is going, would sit in on it,

[54:59] but we have what we have.

[55:01] It was passed by the town council, so we are going to the folks that they would like to have

[55:06] them this committee and asking for a volunteer.

[55:08] You can certainly read through this, Anna was putting together, what were you putting together?

[55:13] I've drafted up an information email to send out to anybody who's interested on all the

[55:18] communications, or there's you can see here, you guys, if you want more information about

[55:22] the program, it looks like your expectations to be a workload would be, but there's a lot

[55:27] of resources and training that's already listed on website, so if that's something that you're

[55:32] interested in, there's a lot there, but obviously, I would definitely be interested.

[55:41] I'll squeeze it in sometime, I'll squeeze in some time.

[55:46] So I think that, so, so I don't know that you need a motion, but since you have a motion in a second, would you like to vote?

[55:56] I'll look very, very well.

[56:02] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[56:04] And Mike, you don't have another shot at it.

[56:09] You see your funds are based on my.

[56:12] So you have another shot at it.

[56:15] And I know that.

[56:16] I'm not in the email today.

[56:19] I look for members of the community at large as well.

[56:22] So, I don't know that anyone's yet volunteered there,

[56:27] but I think they'll be happy that someone from

[56:31] in the mountains in water precious.

[56:33] There's a thing, a lot of this stuff we're doing,

[56:36] like it's really just a sort of brainstorming

[56:39] and saying, hey, we're already doing this

[56:42] for what can we do?

[56:43] So, one thing that Montville did was their youth services person,

[56:47] that's what Montville what they did was,

[56:50] They did not use mission volunteers, they used town staff, they had someone from

[56:55] recreation, youth services, social services, senior centers from their land use

[57:01] and one other. And they all sat down and brains for bold

[57:06] the things that they were doing. And they were able to use services, they were

[57:11] able to come up with a program that gave away laptops for those who were

[57:18] income limited. So that was something that got points for this. So it's kind of a sort of

[57:26] brainstorming session where you say, okay, this is a task. We get this many points for it.

[57:32] Have we done this already? Have we done it in the time period that they allow it to be done?

[57:38] What can we do to do it? So that's what this is. Has the board of ed been? They were not on the list.

[57:45] So they're not, I thought they have signed on this.

[57:49] No, it says to work with the board of ed,

[57:51] the committee will work with the board of ed,

[57:53] but they are not one of the members

[57:56] that was a great senior call that was called out.

[58:00] Um,

[58:03] that's a job.

[58:06] Maybe that was that the single CT USA has also provided a very

[58:09] comprehensive list of essentially actions that get points.

[58:13] I'm out of you guys want to put that on the screen.

[58:15] Yeah, it's what you're doing.

[58:18] I have a couple more for my benefit.

[58:19] Yeah.

[58:20] Anybody else?

[58:20] We support you then.

[58:22] Which one?

[58:23] I want to take up all your time.

[58:27] Um, I'd love to see that actually.

[58:30] What?

[58:31] Sure.

[58:32] What's your name?

[58:33] Doug Kelly.

[58:34] I'm on the historic commission.

[58:36] Right.

[58:36] That's appropriate for us.

[58:38] But you still say.

[58:40] Well, I am.

[58:47] I'm not sure that I want to volunteer for this, but I certainly would like to know what we can send you information about that.

[59:05] Okay.

[59:05] It's a great, the great open way, which was done, but I don't know if that's now too old.

[59:12] Well, we have a lot of things in our brains in the house.

[59:16] So you should volunteer, I think, don't you?

[59:19] They would.

[59:20] They would have said, I don't know.

[59:21] I shouldn't.

[59:23] Brands.

[59:24] So here's your, here's the list.

[59:25] Yeah.

[59:26] But it looks like.

[59:27] I mean, it's a little bit hard to see, but it's broken down by categories.

[59:31] So here's stuff on like equity and community impacts.

[59:34] They have stuff on like local economies.

[59:38] I mean, this is such a long history of stuff too.

[59:41] There is quite a bit.

[59:43] And so in this column over here, up towards the end,

[59:46] you can see how many points everything is worth.

[59:49] They categorized by action type.

[59:52] And then they have on submission requirements.

[59:54] So if we were to submit this for as part of certification,

[59:57] they have guilty there as well.

[1:00:00] And I think the other thing you want to do is once you've got your bronzer vacation, you want to then look ahead for silver and for gold. And we wrap this into the POCD, or is it? Or no, but the POCD does talk about sustainability, or maybe when the POCD is updated, there is a chapter on sustainability. Right now, I don't have the funds.

[1:00:28] and that's it.

[1:00:30] So it's Chris B.

[1:00:32] I'm trying to see if there's some sword section.

[1:00:34] There's also stuff on woodlands and management and.

[1:00:38] Yeah, making trails.

[1:00:40] But as creative culture yeah, all that type of stuff.

[1:00:46] Yeah, the performances.

[1:00:48] You don't have to do all of them.

[1:00:50] You could do, you know, pick some you can pick one so that the town has already done.

[1:00:56] And if they meet the guidelines, you can submit your application.

[1:01:00] We only take them like, I think twice a year, there's deadlines that you have to submit

[1:01:05] them by.

[1:01:08] But they do give you a nice little pocket, they have a nice little party and they, I think

[1:01:13] they come to the town wall and it's kind of, or the record I looked at up there are only

[1:01:19] seven towns that can get their gold certified.

[1:01:21] So I'm just saying we don't know how you're doing over 150 yes, but it's like a hundred hundred thirty eight that are

[1:01:28] Registrar's sustainable CT only seven number gold certified

[1:01:32] There's a cool. No, there you are

[1:01:35] Okay, so for example, and now keep an eye out of the tone here. Yeah, yeah, I just wanted to say to no

[1:01:42] No, you didn't have they are gonna be a jitter's gonna be a jettas. It will be you know

[1:01:48] The real hope can happen.

[1:01:51] And maybe there's a full participation section in two.

[1:01:55] So that's it for me.

[1:01:59] Sorry, Doug.

[1:01:59] OK, no, no.

[1:02:00] So for example, if we were trying to develop the area

[1:02:07] around what had been the lettered over in conjunction

[1:02:11] with the tribe and sort of further develop what

[1:02:17] but we offer at the lesser house,

[1:02:19] that pull ups for our property,

[1:02:21] maybe something like that.

[1:02:22] Yeah, we have to look at the task list.

[1:02:26] Sure, there's going to be a very good,

[1:02:27] but yeah, that's, that's,

[1:02:29] we've already started, we've already started,

[1:02:32] I'm like, an idea will come and I'm like,

[1:02:34] oh, I know about this, I'm not going to list,

[1:02:37] so we've tried to get a list going

[1:02:38] so that we can get a,

[1:02:39] when the committee gets farmed, we can get a jump.

[1:02:42] So, but the meetings will be posted,

[1:02:44] and we can send you the email,

[1:02:45] but if you want a lot, that would be fine.

[1:02:48] Okay,

[1:02:51] that's true.

[1:02:53] Yeah, that might be.

[1:02:56] Hannah, you're also now a assistant person.

[1:03:00] That's too many.

[1:03:03] Yeah, you have a idea, you're in.

[1:03:07] So, no, thank you.

[1:03:09] I appreciate that you have volunteered to serve us.

[1:03:15] So we got on that. Thank you. Thank you guys.

[1:03:21] I've learned a bit, Mr. Chairman.

[1:03:26] Say yes, Melissa. Say no.

[1:03:30] No, just keep saying, yeah.

[1:03:32] We'll just start here with the regular meetings for minutes of July to

[1:03:39] versus everyone have an opportunity to review them.

[1:03:44] I know Jeff Ward's name is Mrs. Spelke, on set at page 4.5

[1:03:51] set of graphs down, B-O-R-D, B-O-A-R-D.

[1:03:55] Also, we'd be appointed to the top of this regular 100th

[1:03:58] and it means that it's important to know

[1:03:59] because the main set of options is hand-goated.

[1:04:04] So if that were thing again, is that something?

[1:04:06] No, she's going to be never a point to type in.

[1:04:11] They'll never actually said that he was seated.

[1:04:14] So is it your thing or else I got to know what to talk really important?

[1:04:17] Are you sure? We go back to check it.

[1:04:19] Would you mind going back to check it again?

[1:04:21] If there is, is that true?

[1:04:23] Yeah.

[1:04:24] It is a matter of point, but he is the motionor for the adjournment.

[1:04:27] Right.

[1:04:29] So we're still there.

[1:04:31] Still go on.

[1:04:33] What was I chairing that mean?

[1:04:34] I didn't see it.

[1:04:35] I was scared, I didn't see it.

[1:04:37] I can tell you.

[1:04:38] You can go.

[1:04:41] Yeah.

[1:04:42] We can find you for a bill.

[1:04:43] I'll go get stretch again.

[1:04:45] Go on.

[1:04:49] Stand up.

[1:04:50] Stand up.

[1:04:50] Hold off.

[1:04:51] Hold the dog foot.

[1:04:51] We're going to use the last.

[1:04:53] You're going to have to count the last.

[1:04:55] You're going to have to count your last.

[1:04:57] So, right.

[1:04:57] Don't find it.

[1:04:58] And then buy it.

[1:04:59] All right.

[1:04:59] Let's start the weeding minutes of the July to 2nd, so.

[1:05:02] But let's go.

[1:05:03] The POSR ends.

[1:05:04] We can include it.

[1:05:04] No, the polar史.

[1:05:46] More names.

[1:05:47] Not here.

[1:05:48] Right.

[1:05:49] It's okay, so I'll page two, very bottom, Jim Kelly.

[1:05:57] Jimmie.

[1:05:58] Jimmie.

[1:06:01] Eleanor.

[1:06:03] I don't know if that's her.

[1:06:04] That's not.

[1:06:04] She's here.

[1:06:05] She's here.

[1:06:10] She's here.

[1:06:16] I get a memory.

[1:06:18] I'm sorry.

[1:06:19] Oh, tired.

[1:06:21] She trained me.

[1:06:22] Okay.

[1:06:22] She did.

[1:06:23] I failed her.

[1:06:26] page 3 or 4, prepare yourself, wish them early, and it's settled.

[1:06:35] Sorry guys.

[1:06:38] I'm not meant to be.

[1:06:42] You've got both of the most people to think.

[1:06:59] I don't have to follow any additional commuters.

[1:07:08] I just think we're all going to have.

[1:07:10] Jerry, Jerry, what?

[1:07:11] I don't know.

[1:07:12] Since there are certain strategies ready for everybody.

[1:07:15] I think Chairman DeBroad asked for clarification of the basis.

[1:07:18] I think maybe even the basis.

[1:07:21] Yes.

[1:07:22] And test pit.

[1:07:23] You should have started out beyond.

[1:07:24] Come on.

[1:07:25] I'll choose page three.

[1:07:27] One, two, three paragraphs up from the bottom.

[1:07:31] Basin.

[1:07:34] Page three.

[1:07:35] John, two, three.

[1:07:37] that's first line and the third. Yeah, based on the basis. Based on the basis.

[1:07:47] H3, fourth, bar and bar, up to long. That's it. That's it. It's the computer style.

[1:07:55] Morally? No, actually, second line of that, where it says the director of verdict stated that the

[1:08:03] to come but have not been addressed as key time.

[1:08:07] Oh my gosh, there's a lot of things I need to do.

[1:08:10] It is, you're not fired.

[1:08:12] Yeah, let's say, just don't know

[1:08:14] if she takes these leads in correct order.

[1:08:16] If I know, just hold these,

[1:08:20] look at some, look at that.

[1:08:23] That's all for that page.

[1:08:27] I mean, there's a,

[1:08:30] I mean, there's an empty telekery school.

[1:08:31] should it actually back to page 3 again. I don't remember this being mentioned. Second

[1:08:41] fault paragraph. She said that the town engineer asked for tests. It's on May 5th and

[1:08:47] May 29th. There is no space between May 29th and the PAH should be... There's no period.

[1:08:57] just saying, I think it's a very good hold off the motion to approve.

[1:09:02] You want us to redo them and you have to do the motion at your next meeting.

[1:09:10] I think for the 15 points, three fighters.

[1:09:14] I got to prove that as amazing.

[1:09:17] Yeah I have.

[1:09:22] I have a problem with this.

[1:09:23] Yeah, but I'm not proud tonight.

[1:09:24] I'll surround, just grab.

[1:09:25] Really when you decide.

[1:09:26] I'll вроде tonight.

[1:09:27] I'm older than.

[1:09:29] I'm older than.

[1:09:30] I'm older than.

[1:09:31] I want to leave.

[1:09:32] Okay, so we can make a motion to approve this one, right, that is.

[1:09:35] As amended, as amended.

[1:09:37] If I make a motion to approve this one.

[1:09:38] second, but I must say we're going to say what they're all in favor.

[1:09:42] As I ended, thank you.

[1:09:48] First of all, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

[1:09:51] I received cars upon its conservation commission.

[1:09:56] It's somebody making a D.D.E.

[1:09:59] fee application, both willing to dock.

[1:10:04] Yes, and we received that today as well.

[1:10:07] That's 40 block road.

[1:10:09] Right.

[1:10:09] The sound.

[1:10:10] That's on jurisdiction. It is. It is. It steeps your section. When you got it, we

[1:10:18] issued a permit for the stairs to the dock because they were exempt something

[1:10:23] postal management would do as, you know, an accessory structure. But anything in

[1:10:29] the water has to be approved by the, but I think they're just giving us a, just

[1:10:32] added stuff. She has to add stuff. Yeah, we worked with them for a long time. One of

[1:10:38] There were other reasons we worked with them.

[1:10:40] We needed to get a sign off of the gentleman

[1:10:42] that released Shelter's Benz, too.

[1:10:46] And we finally got that.

[1:10:48] So he was able to, he needed that sign off for deep.

[1:10:52] So it took a little while because he was not easily found

[1:10:55] or reachable or whatever, but that what I'm pretty,

[1:10:59] we're aware of the project and the Hanna's R.A.

[1:11:01] should donate for Mr. Stairs to the doc.

[1:11:04] Just curious why they sent it to me.

[1:11:05] I don't know, just because some ledger we got it.

[1:11:10] See, do you want me to just get it today for months now?

[1:11:12] Yeah, yeah.

[1:11:13] Yeah.

[1:11:16] But I have something to go with.

[1:11:18] Normally, normally, if you're building, if it's not exempt,

[1:11:22] you need a chair application review from planning and zoning.

[1:11:26] But in this case, the manwork side was exempt.

[1:11:33] So there was nothing to have to do with the petition.

[1:11:37] This is why. Yeah, that's, I don't know.

[1:11:40] Yeah, because they wanted you to have some more work to do.

[1:11:45] Actually, I think that I know what they're going to do,

[1:11:49] because I used to work on that.

[1:11:51] Yes, you have. You wouldn't know what they're doing.

[1:11:55] Okay.

[1:11:56] We want to correspond in the second.

[1:11:59] So which one?

[1:12:00] Yeah, I don't have any permits ever approved.

[1:12:03] And let's July, I've got pending applications.

[1:12:05] I need to review right now.

[1:12:07] So that'll be next meeting.

[1:12:09] One, zero, three, one, co-root.

[1:12:11] I'm actually going to go do a drive-by.

[1:12:13] I'm going to actually just kind of like walk down the driveway.

[1:12:16] It is public access.

[1:12:17] Like it's okay for me to walk down that if I don't.

[1:12:19] that. Slistered or dried wood? Yeah, cartilage, as they'll say in the law for zoning officials,

[1:12:27] I can't just walk on your property. But I'm just going to check the, you know, and crossing

[1:12:31] to make sure that if they did anything that, you know, or if it looks different, I'll observe it

[1:12:37] and then we'll go from there. And because they haven't reached out, you know, I don't know what they're

[1:12:42] back in, back in April. Yeah. They were pretty vocally. Yes. Vocal with their signs and all of a sudden, everything went quiet. So yeah, because sometimes the

[1:12:54] standards work out things between each other and they don't necessarily tell us what's going on. So I'm going to take a look. So that was, that was just something that we're going to go into. What happened was there was a berm there that I stayed was keeping the water level up. And it was removed when they put the sheer drive way in and

[1:13:09] accordance with the plan that was approved by the well-insed division. So they wanted the

[1:13:14] bar moving back in or some sort of the boulders that were there to be an actual place. So it's

[1:13:20] ours who knows maybe they did it and being jealous and things happy but I ask them to follow

[1:13:26] All right.

[1:13:29] Okay.

[1:13:30] Which is nice.

[1:13:34] That's that is true.

[1:13:36] All right.

[1:13:36] Let's move to the rest of it.

[1:13:40] Where was the graph?

[1:13:42] Sorry.

[1:13:43] He is.

[1:13:44] Yes.

[1:13:45] All right.

[1:13:47] Hi.

[1:13:48] All right.

[1:13:49] Build the ceiling.

Inland Wetland and Water Courses Commission on 2025-08-05 7:00 PM - Regular Meeting

Agenda

Transcript