June 2, 2026 Inland Wetland & Watercourse Commission Regular Meeting

001Fair is what we >> Good evening everyone. We're going to be opening the inlands, wetlands, and water course commission for the town of Treble for June 2nd, 2026. I will ask our clerk to do a roll call if she would. >> Richard Gerard >> present. >> John Lauria >> here. >> Carmine DeFeo >> here. >> Rich Deacon >> present. David Respie >> present. >> Greg Cernica >> present. >> Bob Fragno >> present. >> Town staff Tatiana Soliv >> here. >> John Mayer >> here. >> Attorney Cordone >> I'm here. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Colleen. All right. I'm now going to ask our town attorney to give us the legal aspect of doing a video conference meeting. If you would, sir. >> Sure, Mr. Chairman. As is the practice of this commission,

002we are conducting our meeting virtually, over the internet, and by telephone. The agenda and supporting application materials were posted on the town website at least 24 hours in advance of tonight's meeting. Um, I would ask the uh commissioners to please be acknowledged prior to speaking and remind everyone that tonight's meeting is being recorded. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, councelor. >> All right, we're going to open new business. It's a modification of application 26-02 Joseph Giuliano. It's a permit approval for larger patio, PA area, outdoor kitchen burgl. I can't even talk. Structure, boxwood, plantings, and retaining wall within a regulated area at 17 Applegate Lane. And I see Tracy is uh going to be speaking for the applicant. >> Good evening, commissioners. For the record, I'm Tracy Shalifo, um landscape architect based in Danbury,

003Connecticut, representing Mr. Joe Giuliano tonight for 17 Applegate, the modification to an existing wetland permit 2602. Um if I could share my screen, I'd love to show you what the proposed changes are here. They're quite minor. Okay. Is everyone able to view this clearly? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, just to give you a little background, um when Mr. Giuliano went to apply for his building permit, um an issue came up with uh the barrier to the swimming pool. Because if you recall this corner of the swimming pool um sort of the upper left corner here was uh basically a retaining wall. The pool wall and retaining wall are one and the same. And um it came to the building inspector's attention that what if someone were to walk on top of this pool coping

004and fall because of the wall height. Um so that that resulted in a minor change of just um adding a two- foot wide planting bed here and a a tightly planted boxwood hedge. So 15 um boxwood green gem are being uh called for just to create this very dense hedge so that a person either is either discouraged from work walking here or if they do they're not going to fall off the wall. And also another minor modification was Mr. Juliano realized that he really wanted an automatic safety pool cover. So, um the pool lengthened ever so slightly, just um another uh about a foot to accommodate the automatic pool cover at the deep end here. And what we did um to stay within as close to the footprint that was previously approved as possible was

005we narrowed these stairs that come down from the pool patio to the lower lawn. and um we just wanted to have the least amount of impact you know by pushing activity towards the wetlands area. And then at that time Mr. Giuliano realized that um it would be really a nice thing to have a very small outdoor kitchen um on the lower patio right up against the house. It actually meets the house. So that's this area here. Um just a very simple outdoor grill, a little bit of countertop, a few um seats, all built within the footprint of the um previously proposed patio. But with the outdoor kitchen, he realized that he just wanted to bump out the patio just a little bit, just a couple feet, but also stay out of the conservation area and

006wetland area. So he just we just sort of angled this to follow the line. Previously it had this um a couple radi on it here, but we just bumped it out ever so slightly to follow the conservation easement line. And um and then he added just a little bit more patio in this area towards the existing AC unit. So it's already within the envelope of what was approved. So, just to put this in perspective, um the the increase in imperous area that you're seeing with this proposed plan before you is 114 square ft approximately. And um Mr. Manny Silva of Rose Tiso and Company actually prepared a letter because um we we thought you might want to know if this results in any changes to the storm water management plan. And the answer is no,

007it doesn't. And on June 1st, Manny prepared this letter. I don't know if this has been shared with the commission or with Tatiana, but um he basically says that it represents a very small increase in imperous coverage and was evaluated relative to the storm water management system approved for the project. So basically, we're covered. It can accommodate the small increase. Um, so, so that's it in a nutshell. I'm happy to answer any of your questions and make any clarifications. Thank you. >> Right. Uh, Tatiana, do you have any comments? >> Uh, not at the moment. If you don't mind, Tracy, could you please send this to us? I don't believe we received this letter. >> Of course. >> Thank you. >> All right, John. Mayor. >> Okay. Now, go ahead, Carmine. Tracy, um there was

008no mention uh the application mentions a pergola, but you did not mention where that is and I don't see it. >> Yes, thank you. Um I neglected to mention that. I will show you now. The the pergola is here. I'm cha tracing the perimeter of it. So, it's an open air structure. Um just some probably light wooden slats supported on a few posts. So, it's right within this area above the outdoor kitchen. >> Is that allowed with a grill like that? >> It may depend on the material of the pergola. And we're not that far with the design of it. I don't know if the owner is considering like a composite or a metal type structure. We don't have the details on this at this point in time. That's usually a fire marshal issue. >>

009We could check with the fire marshal to see what is acceptable. >> That's true, David. But Carmine is putting on his Nicholls fire hat there. So, see, he serves on that commission. >> Any other question? >> Not the fire marshal. >> No, but you're uh you're there watching out. That's good. It's a good question. >> All I do is I pay their bills. I don't fight the fires. >> There you go. >> All right. Any other questions from the commission? All right. Looks like we're good. All right. Thank you, Tracy. >> Thank you. >> We'll let you know if this is something that has to be walked or not. We'll find out later from the commissions. >> Okay. Look forward to hearing. Thank you so much. >> All right. Thank you. >> Have a good

010night. >> I >> need a U motion to close new business. >> I'll make a motion to close new business. >> Okay. And seconded by Bob. Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. It's unanimous. All right. Old business application 26-10. Machados Properties LLC. It's a permit approval to build a single family residence within a regulated regulated area at 33 Broadway. Datiana, do you know who's uh speaking for the applicant? >> I just promoted two people. >> Yeah, looks like. >> Okay, I see. Yep. Okay. >> Hi, good evening. Can you hear me? >> Good evening. >> All right. If you can give your name and address, would appreciate it. And whether you're a homeowner or not. >> I'm Veronica Mrski. Um, address 33 Broadway. I'm going to share my screen. Can you see that?

011>> Does anybody else have a big red diamond over the screen? >> Yeah. I don't know what what's what's happening here. It's weird. I thought it was just me. >> Unshare your screen, please. >> Can you see my screen? >> Much better. >> Okay. >> It came back. Now back again. >> It's better now. >> Do you? And I've also got on here inlands wetlands water course commission on there. Everyone else have it? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Can you see that? >> Your your screen's like repeating itself hundreds of times in the background. >> All right. Uh Bill Chin, are you on available? >> Yes. So, it appears that the applicant, excuse me, is sharing their entire screen, not just the app, which is >> I can start again. Just a minute. >> You're

012still on with everything. >> Yeah, I see all your folders. There's the orange thing again. >> Multiple orange things popping in the back. >> Can you cancel the uh the sharing? I can open again. Okay. >> Tiana, would it be uh easier if you or John? >> We we don't have the materials that the applicant just had a second ago on their screen. So, let's let him let them try one more time. and just try to share like Bill said >> maybe the window >> I will um >> right so if you if you have the >> the material that you'd like to share the PDF or whatever presentation that was uh if you click the share button at the bottom of your screen and then select just that app >> um it'll be in

013under application windows instead of entire screen >> okay >> and then click share No, >> it's like tunnel vision. >> No, it's just gone into Is it something with the pointer? because this just happened. The it started on the last application as well. >> Yeah, I didn't see that on the last. >> Is this something with Zoom, Bill? >> Um I've I've not seen that before. >> I'm on a lot of Zoom meetings. >> Just blame it on Bill. That's it. >> Okay. I don't know. >> Is there a setting for like a pointer or something that got messed up? >> Let me ask you. Is uh Tracy uh working with you? Tracy, are you working with this applicant? >> Um, can you hear me? >> Yes. Are you working with the applicant? >> I'm

014sorry. I I was away for a moment. Um, are we on Governor's Ridge? >> No. No. No. Okay. Nope. Not yet. It'll be a while. All right. Well, at this point, uh maybe we should uh table this and go through a couple others and let's see if she can get somebody to help her with that. >> Good idea. Should we have somebody else test the sharing of screen just to see if there's an issue with Zoom? >> Here, I'll do it. >> It won't let me. I'm blocked. Somebody else want to try. >> Dana, can you put something on? >> Sure. >> All right. Can you see the survey for this application? >> Yep. Yep. Can you hear me now? >> We can hear you. Yes. >> Did you just attempt to do something with

015your uh >> Was that like a pointer or something? >> No, there was no pointer. >> No, we're talking to Tatiana at the moment because she's sharing her screen. But we're getting the same issue with the big red diamond. >> Yeah, I saw it pop up, but then it disappeared. Do you still see it? No, >> no, I don't see it at the moment. >> It disappeared right away, but um All right, Veronica, would you like to share your screen again? I'll stop sharing. >> Sure. >> Okay. I also just email you the presentation, so you're probably going to receive if we can't showing here. Danny, is this a presentation? Have we received this? >> Can you see my screen now? >> Yeah, but we've got again >> No, this this looks like it's just

016the >> Yeah, >> PDF. >> The PDF itself. >> Yeah, that's the PDF. >> Yeah, this looks good. >> Okay. Can you see the entire screen also? Thank you. >> The the entire PDF we can see. >> Yes, that's what we need, right? >> Okay. So, we are here for 33 Broadway in name of uh Ronaldo Mashado. Um we are planning to build a twotory colonial style single family uh with an unfinished basement and we have attached garage as well. >> And let me interrupt you for a second. We're we're seeing nothing on the screen that's showing a plan. >> That's the next one. >> We can see the PowerPoint. Uh Mr. Chairman. >> Yeah, she's on the intro page. >> All right. Can we move to the other one? So, as you're talking, >>

017I'm just giving you an overview of the application. So, here we have the two permits that the client has uh got for the property already. We have the res residential building for the foundation uh which is already in place in the lot and also we get um the retaining wall permit for this application that was issued by the town of Trumbo. We have the storm drainage plan that was reviewed um per request at request. So everything is in place. Uh the engineer is already in the meeting. Um if you guys have any question he's here for that. We also have the plans for a retaining wall in the rear of the property that in the walk through we could show every everything that's going to be built there. We have the drainage system for that

018as well. And also we have the revision of the um survey. Then we have the FEMA line in here and we have the 100 ft wetlands line here also. Uh we have the retaining wall showing in place. We have a minor change from the beginning. Uh the initial um process that was the driveway. So initially the driveway would access this front of the house and now it's sideways. That's the change that we made for this project. Here we have the before view. Before it was just one lot. We made the subdivision um um process and now we have 35 Broadway on top for this existing house and the new house is proposed on this area of 33 Broadway. Here's the photo of the existing now. So we have the foundation here on site garage and

019here will be the driveway to access. Also we're going to have the retaining wall retaining wall in the rear of the property. Also we have the landscape plan. Unfortunately the landscape uh wasn't able to join the meeting. Uh but we have updated as well with the new driveway. So we have to relocate some uh trees that he proposed. All the trees is going to be city native. Um he made all the the plans um to situate like near to the wetlands line and female line as well. And that's the overview of the application. If you have any questions, the CV engineer is here and the client glor and the client is on the meeting as well. >> Tatiana, um the planting plan was the one that we we got that on Friday that came in

020late, right? >> Uh the the hard copies, the fulls size hard copies with topography were dropped off on Friday. That is correct. But I think a smaller print was submitted earlier >> with the application as well. >> Reason I'm asking did uh >> Bob or David, do you either of you have the planting plan before you or have you been able to see it? >> I'm looking at it on the screen right now. you know, I'm the the the planting along the wetland or the planting along the wetlands and the property line that's going to get modified by the the request from the property that they've um encroached on. So, that is going to be modified. And, you know, I'm very concerned about the steep slope behind the retaining wall. I know it's beyond the

021100 foot setback, but you know, that's an environmental concern right there. Um, yeah, the the Nommo fescue, I would not really call that part of the planting plan. That's more of an alternative to lawn and an alternative plant should be suggested for that. Um otherwise it it looks it looks reasonable. Uh but again this is all going to change due to the uh additional planting requested by the people that they encroached on their property. >> My my question Mr. Chairman Bobo would be is can we get a plan? Can we get a plan that reflects David's concerns as well as my concern right now? It's proposed plan out the finish plan. >> What's going to happen is um it's owned by Seretta Builders and u they've made some requests and we'll be going through those

022and that would be part of the uh condition of approval. Um just to jump in it where they filled in where the uh trees are. Uh those are now damaged. Uh the um adjoining neighbors requested that those be removed because they were impacted by the construction. Um he's also got some planting request in here. Um the other thing from our engineer or engineer uh uh department, excuse me. Uh one of the conditions is they have to restore the floodway too to original conditions. Tatana, you want to jump in here? >> Uh, sure. So, first, if I may for a second go back to the plantings on the neighboring property, uh, can we clarify that the trees that the neighbor is requesting, are they going to be on the neighboring property or on the subject property?

023I guess the just to clarify that the applicant still has to implement the plant presented in addition to uh the trees that are being requested by the neighbor. Just want to make sure we're on the same page. Anyone? >> What was the question, Tatiana? The question is that the trees that got impacted on the neighboring property, they have to be replaced or they will go with the red diamond again. They have to be replaced >> uh per neighbors request by green giants, but they have to be planted on Seretta's property, not on the subject property. So applicant has to still plant everything that is being that's shown on the screen in addition to the trees that they have to uh make up for on Seretta's property. Correct. >> You know yes >> okay thank you

024talking about the these trees located on the next door. My concern there is we're we're taking native shade trees and replacing them with green giant arborites which have very little environmental or ecological value um other than screening. I think if three deciduous trees, shade trees are impacted here, which is that looks to be what the case is or maybe four. Um that should be replaced with four deciduous trees that are native um as well. >> Okay, thank you. So, it's just they would have to add four deciduous trees to this plan in addition to what's been requested by the neighbor, right? Wouldn't Mike Swa have some say in this too though? That's his property. >> Oh yes, John. We have received a letter from the neighboring property. Excuse me. It it is attached to the

025agenda. >> You saw that? Yes. >> Let me ask you a question, Tatown. If this were brought back down to the original uh topo and all that, would these trees uh not be as impacted? is right now they've got like somewhere between two and three feet maybe more soil that uh you know that retains they're going to be dead in a year or two. So >> Bob you could answer this better about the impact of compaction and soil on and I it's hard to see what kind of trees these are. Um >> you know basically what happens is with the addition of any so any material system you're what's happening is the uh oxygen levels are being produced water increasing and a rot takes place basically suffocation due to water it could be water or

026it could be just a lack of air lack of oxygen on the root system and is a slow death uh even even minor additions to the addition of both systems critical to the survival tree let alone multiple feet even inches would affect the ultimately affect the tree going forward living forward. >> All right, thank you Bob. So back to Tatiana. So if u what is the difference on the u on the uh heights here from what it was originally to what it is now? They bring it up couple feet, three feet. You know, I don't have the uh >> Yeah. Would you like to Do you have a survey? >> Yes, we do have a survey. >> Yep. Um >> it's kind of reduced so it's hard to see if you zoom in, but it

027looks like it's about a couple feet. Um >> I think at least because I live in that area. If I could say something about that ground there where that house is built, it's a bog underneath there. I don't see how they could uh put a footing down that as deep as it would be. What they did in my opinion was they put a footing not down so big but big walls up and they then they pulled all the dirt from the hill down and built up around the house. That's all built and fill. That's not that's not native soil. That's why we have a problem now with the floodway because it's been filled in the chair. >> What's there is there but it was done wrong. >> Right. A a question for Mr. Fitch. >>

028Mr. Lauria, um John, are you concerned about excessive erosion? I mean, if if there was, you know, substandard work done here, uh if somebody cleared out the area that was it's going to be >> Yeah, that's if what happens to the foundation of the house really isn't a concern of the wetlands commission, is it? >> But I know >> I'm concerned >> down there under those footings is is a peep bug. Well, that's >> we know that from the from the work even next door. And Mike Serta uh he even told me that that's why they didn't build in that last corner. He said it's all mud backed in there. >> Well, I guess the bigger concern, John, is are you more concerned about the foundation crumbling or that the entire yard is going to

029erode into the floodway? >> Well, we've actually added a big slope into the ravine there into the Ferraris brook. So when water comes sheathing down it's I don't see how that water detention system that they put in is going to do very much. It's putting put and fill right next to the stream. I >> mean isn't there also a significant amount of sand that was placed there that has no you know anti- erosion value. >> I I think what you the material you see on the side of the hill is what was used. That's why they took the hill down. >> So So a lot of that area was sand. what you see in the hill now be before it was much more level closer to the same level as the street. It did have

030some elevation above it of course but not as much as it has now. So I would think my estimates probably been raised at least 4 feet. >> So there's several cub several dozen cubic yards of fill that were placed there that are all going to erode. >> I don't know about that. Tatiana, I'm sorry to interrupt, but um the CV engineer is in the meeting. Could you please let him um join so he can clarify the questions? >> Yes, I'm here. Wayne Deans, Fairfield County Engineering. I didn't have anything to do with the footing, the foundation or the site work that's been done on the property. I just as regretting to the drainage system, >> right? Could you clarify then the change that we made? >> Right. Did you have anything to do with the,

031you know, can you tell us on the contours here? >> Yeah, I don't know what the pre-existing contours were. You know, I only had the existing I'm sorry. I I all I have is the pre-existing contours. the original at least as far as I believe the original contours of the property and uh what is proposed I can't say what is out there right now >> we have the photos of the before >> the state has liar that goes back a few years so we may be able to pull it from that >> but you can see it on the left there even >> yeah that was the pre-existing so there's >> there was a burn >> here as well yeah >> you You can see the burm on the left side. >> Can you see

032that? >> Was that >> now? We're above the burm. >> Did the burm was the burm removed or did it die? >> No, we blew we put more dirt or higher than the burm now. >> Is that what directly led to the trees failing? >> Part of it. >> We had the this is the before and this the existing conditions >> and so the dead trees would have been right on the left side. Yes, correct. Down below here. >> Okay. >> These ones was this right here. >> And when they removed those trees, those that area was filled with sand. >> They didn't You mean in the top, >> right? >> What was the question? Sorry. >> They they filled that with sand. >> No, they didn't fill here. >> Oh, okay. >> They're going

033to build the retaining wall right here in the rear. >> Okay. That's the plan. >> All right, Tatiana, again, one of the conditions is going to be restoring the floodway. Can you go back to where it shows the floodway with that green line? Okay. Are you with me, Tatiana? >> I'm here. Yes. And >> this is, if I may, if Veronica ask you to stop short because this is a reduced plan and it's kind of blurry at least for me. I don't know if the commissioners may benefit from a clear image that I'm happy to put on the screen. >> All right, if you can stop sharing and let uh Tatiana put hers on >> and it's also attached to the agenda. It's the survey that was submitted. Oops, sorry. Let me move this. Um,

034but you can see the pre-existing topography is depicted on the survey. Um so the 364 contour um is now overlaid by 368 and 370. So there is fill about 2 to 4 feet according to this. The floodway specifically however is in this corner you see the red dash line. Um there is you know about 2 feet of fill over there as well. So that all has to be restored. However, also this survey does not um encompass Serreta's property. So if any fill was placed beyond the property line, which it looks like it has been because there is encroachment there. So it all has to be removed. The floodway has to be restored completely to its original condition. There can be no fill uh in that area whatsoever. And that also pertains to the boulders that

035were put down by the uh head wall. >> Correct. >> All right. So, as I'm saying, then it looked like where those trees or that's why they they ended up buried because So, you're saying somewhere between two and four feet came into that area? >> Uh that's what it appears according to the survey. Yes. If if we look at um there's this yellow note that keeps popping up, but uh this is 364 contour, right? This line. Um this line and then the green bold is 370. Let me see if I can highlight it. Maybe it's better. Okay, 364. Right. So, this is pre-existing and the bold green line. Oh my god. I don't know what's happening guys, but uh 370 is the existing topography. Does it make sense? >> As we said, that's why the

036trees ended up getting buried like they did. >> And unfortunately for >> for the applicant, you you know, you've caused the issue with the uh neighbor. So that's encroaching on his property now. So, we've got to figure out how we're going to handle that. But, as I said, you're going to have to be uh definitely bringing the uh floodway back to its original conditions. I'm going to open this up to the other commissioners for questions. Go ahead. >> Comments, questions, the chair. >> Go ahead, Rich. Uh there was a mention of encroachment on the neighboring property. Um perhaps if uh Tatiana or others could uh just explain the the level of the encroachment on the other property. I know there was some issue with uh work being contained to the specific property and I believe

037the applicant failed to do so. So if somebody could just clarify how much work was done on the other property and if mitigation is needed. There was some confusion in the application process about that. >> You mean for 35 Broadway? >> Yeah. It would have had been mentioned by by numerous uh times that work had been done on a neighboring property. Now, what has happened, Rich, is that they filled over onto Seretta's property, and that's what happened with filling the trees, and then they also put soil and boulders down into the floodway, and there's big boulders by the uh head wall. And uh so all of that's going to have to be removed. >> Okay. So, why was work done on other properties? That seems to be somewhat unusual. >> I think there was an

038issue. I don't think they really knew their boundary lines. >> Correct. >> Because that was one of the things if you remember the first meeting I asked I said could you please stake out and make it very very clear where the uh boundary lines are. So >> and we made for the the walking as well so you could you could see that on site. Yeah, that was the >> really doesn't explain the issue with the flood whether it was owned by them or the neighbor explain the killing flood. Oh, no. It wasn't. If you look, Seretta, I I got to tell you, he's got a lawn back there. I would kill to have. >> And the odd thing is you don't even see it. But that's the way uh you know, Mike does things. But

039no, it's it wasn't anything that he did. And that's why uh he's also looking at if they can shore this up because the other question we have with that much soil that was added to their property, meaning the applicant, are they going to have to end up trying to do a retaining wall? Because otherwise, is this just going to eventually, you know, erode over time and just go right into uh Seretta's property and into the floodway? And again, not only is this a, you know, federally designated flood zone, but we're talking about the flood way here. And I'm assuming that full remediation of the neighboring property is going to exist um as supervised by the town engineer. >> No, Mike. Mike uh I know was out and he did uh drop off a plan and

040a u a letter stating know what he wanted done. So so >> civil who's the civil engineer is there anything you can add >> exactly? Uh no I'm sorry again as to what was done in the field. >> Did you did you were you with this at the beginning or have you come in towards the end? >> Well I designed the drainage for them initially and when they got approved or I believe that they had gotten approved but um that was the extent of it. >> Okay. Well the drainage is always handled by our engineering department. So >> correct. Yeah. And um I I don't know there may have been comments that I never saw. I don't know. I don't know exactly what happened, but um you know, I've since seen the comments and replied

041to them, but um somehow they got the permits in the meantime. >> Um Wayne, did you do the sedimentation and erosion control plan here? >> Yes. >> Did you do the grading plan here? >> The the grading for Yeah, I mean the grading for the um for the drainage. Yes. >> No, the overall site grading. Yeah, the the proposed grades Yeah. are show. Yeah. >> So, why did you show proposed grading within the floodway? >> I'm not sure we knew it was a floodway. I again, you know, I we did it and that's what was asked for and I was expecting to hear something from the town and never did. >> Who did the original survey? >> Uh, I'm not sure. It's probably on >> It's Jade. >> Okay. They made the show survey. Yeah.

042>> Who? >> Jay. >> Neil J. >> J. >> Neil Jane. >> Yeah. >> As I said, the biggest issue I see is not having the boundary stakes out there. And then you just inadvertently, however, went over onto uh Mr. Serreta's property and the issue now with that much additional soil on your property, he's worried about uh you know the erosion and this coming down into his uh property. Plus, we're worried that it's going to go into the floodway. So, that's why I know one of the conditions uh will be to restore the floodway back to its original condition. So, >> and through the chair, >> go ahead, Tatiana. Uh just to clarify the grading drainage plan that was submitted, it does not show fill in a floodway. So the existing topography doesn't quite correspond

043to the engineered um plan. So you guys should uh look at that and uh maybe go back to the approved plan. Make sure the site is built in accordance to your design. Thanks, >> Tatiana. Question, >> John, go ahead. Go ahead. >> Will this affect the water detention system that's in place if we have to refill repair the uh floodway and dig through there? >> Uh the drainage system is outside of it and they're adding another system to treat the runoff for the driveway, but they're both >> existing one will still work as well. >> Correct. >> That's right. Yeah. Okay. Do we need a do are we going to need a retaining wall on the property line? >> Good. Tatiana, do you have a question? >> Oh, no. Sorry. I was waving to my

044kids. >> Oh, okay. I I saw you doing the wave. I didn't know. I I thought it was a new motion here. So, sorry about that. Tatiana, >> do you do you believe we are we are going to need a retaining wall along the property line? Uh, great question. Uh, maybe again they filled more than it was originally approved. Once they remove Phil, I think we'll have a better idea if it it it needs to be stabilized with a slope that's there. >> And what is a slope? What is a what would be a reasonable slope? for coming off the property line. One and three, one and four, one, one and two. >> So, so there are two components. One, the fly the floodway. We have to just return to the original condition, but another

045component we don't have topography on Sorretta's property and that's where the slope is. Um, but we can modify it also. We can't make it any steeper than it was. >> I think what >> to the chair. >> Go ahead. Count >> Tatiana. Is there a possibility that there is a survey on record of Sarata's property? >> Oh yeah. Uh actually that's a great idea. We should we should have it from We have 435 Broadway that we made a subdivision plan for the property. So, we have the preview one showing both. >> so we're talking I'm sorry. >> Go ahead. No, go ahead. >> Uh, we're talking about 6540 Main Street, Veronica. Just so you realize the neighbor by neighbor, we're talking about Main Street. >> Got it. >> Back to your uh comment, David. I

046think what's going to happen is once they've cleared and brought this down um I think um Mike Seretta is going to go over and then tell us because he he did mention that but he said let me see whether it can be done on a a mild slope or whether they're going to have to do a retaining wall because if you look back there I mean it's beautifully uh it's a beautiful grass area I mean unbelievable season >> we should define what is a reasonable slope >> 2%. >> If I may just um for what it's worth, >> that's too shallow. >> I'm sorry. >> Um again, Wayne Deans of Fairfield County Engineering. Um just just for what it's worth, the approved plan does show, you know, the proposed grading showed about a 4ft drop

047in elevation over, you know, at the nearest point about 23 feet uh to that I guess it's western property line. So that's about a little little more than 5 to one slope is what was proposed, >> right? They did something. They extended that. They ignored your plan and filled straight out to the property line. So now we're 4 feet out of the ground at the property line. And that should come back off the property line at say a 1 and four or one in five slope, >> right? That's that's what it should end up being. So start back at original grade at the property line and then back off >> right >> at you know a one in4 or one in five slope. >> I don't want I don't think it would be acceptable for

048them to come out and say okay we're going to do a one in one slope and call it a day because then that would be unsafe and we would have the slope would fail >> to the chair. >> This is John. >> Oh go ahead John. Sorry, >> I through my observations from living in the area for a long time, I believe there was a burm, partial burm along that those two properties there. So, I don't know, you know, really have to look at what was the conditions before and after, but there was some difference in elevation and there was a burm there. So, you should talk to Mike and ask him exactly how much Berm was and where it was and what's been filled and and new is new now and and take his

049advice for it as well because I know there was a difference in elevation. >> Okay. >> All right. >> I point that out to be fair. >> Yeah. No, good point, John. I think what we'll have to do is uh get the u engineers and Mike possibly myself will go out and even walk the his property and give us an idea. But he did say once everything's been brought back to its original condition, he determined whether a uh retaining wall or whether they could uh you know plant my whatever that would you know shore it up. So >> yeah. Are there any comments, other comments or questions from the commission >> through the chair? >> Go ahead, Rich. >> Uh, does the commission share the worry of significant erosion based on the the poor maintenance

050of this Phil? My main concern is to make sure that whatever you know when this is finished that it doesn't create a problem for the adjoining neighbor and that's why we're saying either retaining wall or a slope and with proper plantings. So and that's why I know on that I always lean towards Bob and towards Dave because that's their area of expertise. Are we expecting with a planting plan stamped by a certified landscape architect? No, >> this this will come back once we get to the point of where they uh bring it back to the original conditions. This is going to be done in phases. That's how I can see it being done. So >> I chair, Mr. Chairman, that's it looks like a phases. Yeah, a lot of work has to be done that

051site before before any decision made. They got a lot of reparation they have to do that property. >> I mean removing the boulders from there that's not going to be a cakewalk either. So but again unfortunately it's in uh you know the uh floodway there. So are there any other comments questions? >> Yeah I have a question. What's the status with the building department now? Is there stop work on this? >> Is there stop work? >> There was no stop work for this project. >> Okay. So you continue working. >> I think that's good. You just have to you just have to fix these problems in the end, but keep working on your house. I feel that way too. >> How you got in this in this situation is a completely and completely your fault.

052It's >> it's a combination of things. So >> yeah, also uh the client and the attorney is uh in the Zoom meeting. If you could open I believe they have to at some point >> it's in the Zoom meeting. I didn't hear. the attorney, the client attorney, Douglas Lewis, and the owner is here as well, Ronaldo Mashado. Just in case they want to add some information. >> Can they raise their hand because I don't see Douglas >> Lewis and Ronaldo Mashado 20 from a licensed surveyor. >> Oh, Zoom user. Hold on. I'm promoting a Zoom user. >> Otherwise, it's not valid. All right. in the interim. Greg, you had your hand up. >> Yeah. I'm confused that Mike Sharetta's uh wants to put Arbite. Then I heard David say that's not a swap for three

053or four deciduous trees. So then we say we're going to put three or four deciduous trees back for the ones that are going to die. They have to be taken down. But does Mike, is there a planting plan that Mike wanted? And would David, would you approve Mike planting arborites there? >> Yeah, I think you know I'm not crazy about the arborites. I don't think they have a lot of ecological value. Um I think both the four deciduous trees and the arborites should both be done. one, they've removed the screening between the properties, so that needs to be reestablished and then, you know, adding the deciduous trees for what was what was lost ecologically is better. >> And also be on uh Mike Sheretta's property. >> No, those deciduous trees should be on their property.

054>> We can't originally were on his property. Well, we can't approve prop we can't approve plantings on a property that's not before us. >> Correct. >> And the Dave, I'm assuming all these these are native plantings to New England. >> Yes. The arborites are not native to New England. Um they are somewhat native. There is a >> there is a variety of arborites that's on the east coast, but you know these are more west coast. >> Are they in? >> No. >> Okay. They're all over the place. They're deer resistant. People plant them everywhere. It's just they don't have a lot of um wildlife value. >> Mr. Chairman, >> just just go ahead. >> Just a question. When the arborites are combined with the deciduous trees, the arborites do require it's a lot of sun.

055I'm not sure if the trees growing prevent the continuation of growth of the AR. the trees grow and provide a lot of shade. There'll be a lot of thinning taking place under figure out what type of plant type of tree they would. >> Well, one of the things is is Mike's going to have to look at this plan and approve it because it was, you know, it caused damage to his property and approaching. So, we would look at that. All right. Can I go ahead? >> Then basically the planting plan that was submitted we're saying is incomplete. Yes, >> four three or four deciduous trees added at minimum. Uh, and this I still don't understand. Are we going to tell the applicant they have to put arrivites in there now >> or they pay for

056Soretta to put him in? >> Okay. Sata could put him in on his property um and they would just have to pay for it. We still haven't seen that planting plan stamped by a licensed uh landscape architect in the state of Connecticut which is a standard unless >> Tatiana >> this is a landscape designer who's doing this work. >> Yesum >> it is there is um we had the letter attach it as well and it was a stamp but >> again yeah once we re review reveal everything he was stamped for sure. >> Okay. Yeah, >> he's a he's a landscape architect or a landscape designer. >> Landscape designer. >> Okay. So, he will not be stamping anything. Um, >> but who where are we getting the stamp from? I mean, is that a standard?

057>> It doesn't necessarily need to be stamped. It should be done preferred by a landscape architect by or by another environmental or landscape professional who's qualified. I don't know this guy. I don't know if he has a business. It says Rose Yellow Designs. It sounds like he is somewhat qualified as a landscape designer. >> Okay, we can work on that >> which is which is sufficient in you know >> and he's working at a federal flood zone here. This has to be you know >> Yeah. >> Okay, Rich. Again, this is going to be done in phases and uh monitored and everything. So, all right. At this point, if there are no other comments, questions, I'm going to uh ask Greg to do a motion and and due to the encroachment onto the neighboring property,

058we're going to split it into phases if we would. Uh Greg, >> uh through the chair, I'm sorry. Are we doing voting on this application now? Well, if you think we can do it in phases or should we uh you know, >> I think there's still work that needs to be done on this application. >> Oh, no. I'm sorry. I meant we have other business on the agenda, but I apologize for interrupting. >> But on this one, we can phase it. >> Yeah. >> But but like David said, there's there's still significant work that has to be done, especially concerning erosion. >> Okay. What we have to understand here is nothing gets done until the floodway is brought back to its original conditions. Then that gets uh checked out. Then the trees from the neighboring

059property that are damaged and that were impacted by the construction, they get removed and then there will be plantings per the neighbors approval. And then there will be a uh survey uh verifying that the floodway too and all that's been done properly. So it's going to be like one, two, three phases. So be >> before we move on, Mr. Chairman, uh it appears that there's someone named Zoom user. Is that another part of the applicants team? >> Zoom user. >> I don't believe. So, do we know who that is? >> Probably is the attorney. If you could >> Okay. >> All right. Greg, if you would >> Mr. Chairman, are we I'm sorry. Uh, we promoting someone to speak. Is that what just or we agreed that there was not someone? >> Nobody's come forward.

060So, >> no, there's someone on now. Zoom Zoom user. Can that person identify themselves for the record if they don't identif? >> Yeah, they're probably audience, right? >> Well, why are they promoted >> there? There it is. >> Veronica, can you tell us if there's someone from your team or the team that desires to speak now? >> Okay. Um, >> uh, can you guys hear me? >> Yes. All right. So, my name is Can you >> identify yourself? He will. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. So, my name is Ronaldo Mashado. Um, I'm the owner of the property 33 Broadway. So I just want to I just want to mention that the that that I follow that I follow all the rules that I submit all the permit and uh both permit building per got approve it

061that's why that's why I start I started the foundation I started the excavation I started the foundation work because everything got approved. So now I do have my job stopped for like three or four months because so the town realized that I need a wetland permit but again it's not my job to revise applications. My job is to submit application and uh the town they have to revise everything and see if I need anything else. That way I can provide. But nobody told me nothing about it. I got I got the permit. I got everything and I started doing the foundation. I just want to make, you know, I just want to make sure that I didn't did nothing illegal or or because, you know, I have all the proofs. So, >> it was it

062was an oversight and we're trying to correct it now. >> Unfortunately, you were in a flood. >> I do understand, but they should tell me from the beginning, not two months after. >> I do understand that. >> Right. Also, the plans have not been followed. The grading plan that and the grading that exists on the site today does not conform to the grading plan that was provided by the engineer. So, we're also running into an issue where you didn't follow the approved plans that you provided the town, which has resulted in an incursion onto an adjoining property owner and caused damage. And it's also not by not following those plans, you have put um deposited material into a federal floodway by not following the approved plans. So it's important when you're working on these projects

063to follow the approved plans. >> I do understand it, but nobody nobody knew. >> You're the builder. You should know that you need to follow the the plans. I I do. >> You're a developer in this town. You should know the rules and regulations and you should know to follow the approved plans. >> Yes, I do. I do. I I do work in prom for the last 10 years and I never had a one problem. >> Oh, fortunately, it's a federal uh issue there with the uh floodway, so can't be ignored. Go ahead. Sean, >> I just asked if there was a stop work and it sounds like Mr. Machado said he does have a stop work. Is does there is there stop work on this property? Not right. >> He's no stop work. >>

064He doesn't have a stop work. He he just can't move with the building application to get, you know, the remaining permits. So, he got the foundation permit, he got the retaining wall permit, and now he's stuck with the building permit. That's the point. So basically >> and he can't proceed with building. >> No control. Basically >> basically for me to start to start the framing >> I have to get this situation with the wetland resolve and after that I can start the framing. >> I gota So >> it's the question for the chair. You we had a lot of phases there and it's going to take a long time and I'm sure Mr. Machados wants to start this thing and get get this project over by the end of the year. Would it be possible

065to issue a uh a wetlands permit after he's restored the floodway? >> Well, there's going to be a motion made and if he follows the phases in that, he should be able to then uh come >> Well, that's the major one though, Rich, is the restore the floodway. The rest of the thing is landscaping and we have approved plans with telling the applicant that they have to do such landscaping. >> One thing we do need is the floodway to be restored though for sure. >> WP >> I don't want to cause a I don't think we should cause a hardship on this gentleman either. >> W Excuse me. We have to have a plan though. I mean we do have to have a plan. A plan has to be submitted that we can review. This

066is your planting plan, >> right? >> Yeah. In other words, >> we submit that, but the plantings don't have to all be in place and everything to to give him the permit, but he has to have the uh floodway restored and the plans have to be approved to move on from there. >> I don't think have to wait for those things. >> There's no WPA approval as part of that though. >> No, John. Once a survey is submitted verifying that the floodway too has been done and uh you know and that things have been shored up then we we would be able to do that for him. >> So like I said it's going to be done in phases. >> Okay. And again I'm quite sure he's going to work on this very fast but

067>> removing those boulders isn't going to be a uh you know take >> No, it isn't going to be easy. So we want him to get get working on that. That's the hardest thing to achieve. >> That's if we can get the motion and get approval, maybe start on it, Greg. >> Yeah. Make a motion for uh application um to set up a phase one correction uh on the floodway and the uh encroachment on the neighbor's property. Number one, uh, the floodway needs to be restored to the original topography, the original conditions. >> Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I'm I'm sorry. Yeah, this should be a motion. It's a motion to approve with these conditions. Is that what you're wanting to >> I'm sorry. I make a motion to approve application 2610 with these conditions. >>

068Thank you, sir. >> This is uh additional conditions. Section three, additional conditions. 3.1 was to restore the floodway topography to its original conditions. 3.2 remove the the trees from the neighboring property that have been damaged and impacted by construction. 3.3 um replace the four three or four deciduous trees. um on this site um for to replace the ones that are being removed on the neighboring property. 3.4 uh to submit a final survey verifying the floodway topography uh is cleared is restored and report uh that the the uh confirming trees were planted. Okay. Upon approval of this FA of these phases 3.1 2 3 and 4 phase 2 may commence which is the uh to proceed with the uh continuation of the building of the uh uh house. Although we would respect 3.5 that a site

069monitor um be uh hired to certify that the project is in compliance with the approved plans um and meet all the landscape plantings that are completed and installed and approved for Trumbull's IWCC permit. Dr. Donna, have we missed anything? >> Uh, just wanted to clarify two things on the site monitor. Um, would you like them to inspect erosion controls as well and submit reports? >> Yeah, that's one of the most important things so that we don't uh affect u the neighboring property in the future. All right, I'm gonna let you restate that then for uh 3.6 Six uh independent site monitor um be hired to certify that the project is in compliance with approved plans, all required erosion controls, periodic reporting back to Trumbull Engineering and that all plans are in place including landscaping planters

070and ensure and report that everything has been completed and installed as approved by Trumbull's IWWC permit. >> Uh, David, have we missed anything? >> Hang on one second. Have we missed anything, David? >> Um, I don't know. >> Through the chair. >> It was very long. >> I'm through the chair, too. >> Go ahead. Go ahead, John. Come back to you a moment. Carmine. So, if we're voting on this application right now and if we vote yes, they get an they get a inland wetlands permit and that's it. Is that what we're saying? Because we didn't get another we didn't get any updated plans or anything like that. So, we're going to go ahead with the documentation that we have right now. No, nothing else is needed. No other meetings. We're done. >> Is that

071correct? >> Do you want to address that? That's what the topo for. Go ahead, Tatiana. >> Um, so the suggestion on the floor is to make it in phases. So the idea is the applicant restores the encroachment uh on the neighboring property and corrects things on his site and submits documentation to the town confirming that these changes have been addressed and then they can proceed with their building. Um the I did have a question for deciduous trees. I think to me it's kind of vague that they have to replace three or four deciduous trees. So I don't know if any um clarification is needed or if I can bother David when um time. >> Oh no. There there there would be an approval of the planting plan before phase two comes in. Remember, it has

072to be that report confirming all trees have been planted. And what we should add in there, Greg, is that the uh an approved um planting plan has been submitted. In addition, Carmine, you've had your hand up. >> I have a number of concerns and comments regarding the trees. Is there a certain minimum size that should be done? Number two, it was mentioned in Greg's motion that they be planted on this site, which I believe is not correct. I I would like to see them on the existing site where they are. They're taking away trees from the Sarata property. Number three, uh rem uh restoring to topography. Does that imply that the boulders are being removed or do we have to mentioned that the >> b floodway that every restore the floodway too that's part of

073it any soil that was put there any of the boulders all has to be removed. I I think just to clarify it, it should be mentioned that it includes the removal of the boulders. >> All right. I see Greg doing that. So, he would but yeah, there would be a planting plan. Now, let me ask while I've got >> and go ahead. And the um documentation again clarifying that new um topographical drawing should be submitted as part of that documentation certifying that it was restored to the original conditions. >> That is number four. That's submit a a survey verifying floodway too. It's in there. I didn't hear the survey mentioned in the >> It's in there. >> Now, let me go to Bob and um David, what size of trees do you recommend? >> Your

074call. >> Um typical size range for planning and zoning and wetlands applications is two and a half to three inch caliper. >> All right. You agree, Bob? >> Is is pretty standard. >> All right. So >> do we have a time frame of and benchmarks when some of these things have to be met because I don't want this thing you know all these now they all have they can move ahead and finish their building and they can just ignore this and you know finish their building and sell it. >> No they do not get to move to phase two until phase one has been completed. >> And what's holding up the building? Phase two. During phase one, they're not building. >> Oh, phase two. >> Good. Is that you, Tatiana? Go ahead. >> It's me.

075So, David, I think they will have the wetlands permit attached to this building and if conditions of that permit are violated, then there may be consequences. So it is in applicants interest to follow all the conditions which include phasing it and addressing all the encroachment so that they can proceed with the building as soon as possible. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Um through the chair was that rich I'm couldn't hear. >> Yes sir. >> Go ahead. >> Hey uh I'm still concerned it seems to have not been addressed. Uh two issues. One of them was the off-site construction or planting and the other one was the significant level that Mr. Lauria and I were speaking of before about erosion, which is both on-site and offsite. Um, and you know, obviously near this site as

076a state park, but um, if we could just address that. Um, David, oh, >> that has to be addressed in this survey and it also has to be approved by u the neighbor Seretta that uh he's going to see it and he's either going to be happy or he's going to say I want a retaining wall. He wants to do this neighbor to neighbor. He doesn't want to get into a legal thing. So, which I kind of admire. I think the the engineer for the pro project should submit a revised grading plan and put his stamp on it. >> All right. I see Greg's going to put that down as one of the motions then or conditions rather of the motion. Okay. I think he's worn out two pencils so far, but um when he

077uh >> Yeah, we'll get it all typed up. >> You good? All right, we have the motion on the floor. I need a second. >> Seconded by Bob. Okay, I'm going to do a roll call. I'm a yes. Bob, >> yes. >> Carmine, >> yes. Gregory, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Rich, >> no. David, >> I have my concerns that all these steps aren't going to be followed. Um, I'm trusting in Greg to write this up so that it is ensured to be followed and the engineering to follow up on it, but I'll give it a yes. >> All right. So it's 6 to1 that it is passed. All right. Very good. Thank you. Let's move on to the next application is 26-11 Madison Properties. There was a permit approval to construct an

0788,500 square foot mixeduse building and its purchases including construction of a portion of building driveway parking sidewalks retaining wall drainage underground utilities and landscaping within a regulated area at 855 and 851 White Plains Road. Uh the applicant has asked for a continuence. So, I would ask uh Gregory if you can do a continuance motion on this. >> Yeah, I make a motion uh for application uh Madison Properties LLC at 855 and 851 to be 861 White Plate Road. um continued to the July 7th meeting for request from the applicant. >> All right, I need a second. >> I'll seconded by Bob. All in favor? >> I >> We're all unanimous on that one. Very good. Okay. Applica application 26-12 Bernardine Capazello Zello uh permit approval to construct a single family dwelling and its appertances I

079can't even talk including storm detention gallery system septic system footing drain outlet rating and a builder barrier within a regulated area at 5044 Madison Avenue. Okay, I see the applicants coming on board. Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Hi. >> Good. Go ahead. Introduction. >> My name is Ian Eller. I am a engineer with Jay Edwards and Associates. we are representing the client for the engineering services on this job. Um so we have some updated plans since the last time we were here as well as comments um to in response to the the commission's letter from the last time. So um if if I could I'll just go through a quick re uh remind you of what the project is and then I'll adjust those comments. >> All right. >> Now I'm going

080to go ahead and share my screen. Let's see if we get a big giant red diamond. A quick Google told me that that is a permissions issue and it's probably on your guys's end, just so you know. Um, okay. So, 5 5044 Madison Avenue is a single family home. Uh, it is on a lot of one of two from a subdivision. I'm actually going to spin through here and just remind everybody that, uh, L. Edwards and Associates did this subdivision in the, uh, late 80s. Uh we are this front lot that you see here. Uh there is a driveway uh and an access that leads to the rear lot which is developed. Um and I'll go back to the site plan now. So this is the existing conditions plan. As you can see the the

081site is very very wet. Um uh and so our development is limited to the uh I guess that that is the eastern end of the lot. Uh we're going to access like I said by way of an existing uh driveway that leads up and we're going to build a new driveway that goes in. Uh I'll zoom in here just so everybody can see. Uh we have the house going in uh and septic system. Obviously, we have the uh storm water system here uh doing some earth work to to get the house in, but trying to stay limited amounts of of disturbance as best we can. Um I believe that you guys had a walk. Um so you've seen kind of what the layout is like. Uh we we had comments and I will go through

082those unless somebody has a question before I start that. Oops. Oh no. >> I have a question. >> Sure. >> Back up to your existing conditions, please. >> Yeah. >> Zoom into the lower to the uh lower right hand corner. You're showing a wetlands line in the right hand corner of the property. >> Yeah. I don't think that's actually there. Um, as far as I understand it, talking to the other engineer on the project, uh, the wetlands line that we see here that the offset is coming from is the actual wetlands line. I'm not sure what that is, but that I don't think that is actually there. We talked a little bit about this last time and we had a >> error in the um in the offset or the or the setback rather. >>

083All right. So, that line should be removed from the drawing otherwise we're expecting a setback on it. Okay. >> Thank you, David. >> Um, all right. So, uh, in with regards to comments that we had, uh, uh, the comments were sent to us dated 472026 for the record. Um, from the town of engineering, town of Trumble Engineering Department. Uh the first comment was with regards to the drainage report uh which you guys should have. I have it here. Uh specifically asking for um wershed sub areas and these have been added to the to the drainage report. Um so the the the main existing and then oops sorry and then the bypass area have been put in. We also have the typical uh soil types and that sort of thing. Uh comment number two um was

084with with regards to the grass swailes. The engineer on the project uh uh gave the following response and I'll just read it out for for posterity. The current configuration is uh well let me read the the comment that was made just for context. Uh consider alternative to grass swails splitting the SMS system shortening swale length piping as they fill up and fail longterm. Swale across the driveway must be piped. Uh the engineer's comment was the current configuration is desirable to keep disturbance in the regulated area to a minimum. Two SMS systems would require double maintenance and the swale is easily accessible for cleaning. Uh a catch basin has been added to receive the easterly swale. Uh, let me go to the site plan. And you can see that a catch basin was added here to

085the end of the swale um to get that water caught correctly as opposed to just pouring through. Uh comment number three uh was uh a question regarding the name and phone number for the person assigned the responsibility of implementation of the maintenance and erosion and sediment controls. Uh that person responsible appears in note number 26 under the storm water pollution control plan notes on 41. 41 is the notes. Hold on. is the owner of the property. As you can see, we've added that information in for compliance with that note. Um the next few are or the next one is about bond estimate. We that is understood. Um uh the trees we did add oops where is it? a demo plan uh that zoomed in. Um we indicated the trees uh and we added a demolition

086plan showing all trees 8 in of di diameter or greater to be removed. Those are all in red that you can see there on this plan. Uh two comment number six was consider adding a buffer plantings to area between the wetlands and the house. Um we have a landscape plan. Oops. that will show. So if you recall when we discussed this last time, there was the idea of putting something that marks that area to help the future owners understand kind of like a uh where the limit of the disturbance is. And so this landscape plan that's reflected on our site plan shows this boulder wall that's sort of existing down here has been extended up through the yard uh to to make that easily understood to whoever ends up living in this house. Uh number

087seven, no debris or stumps to be buried on site. Um uh that is uh the lot development sequence indicates that that was on that same page 4.1. uh provide documentation of driveway and construction access easements on uh for 534 Madison Avenue. So that is the piece in the back. Um so this is the we'll go back here. So we have this this access right and it is accessible by way of Oh, let me share this. Can you see where I've got the driveway easement up that sheriff? Right. So, this document um does exist. It's it's dated all the way back for uh October 2022. Um it is the driveway easement and maintenance agreement between the two parties. So that is that is all set to go. Signed by all the important parties involved. That was

088one of that was comment number. Oh no. See there's that red again. >> How many comments are there Mr. >> That's We are near the end. I believe there was a total of 10 maybe. Oh, sorry. There's 12. Uh, so most of the rest of them, the next three are just understood driveway permits, wetlands permits required, and asbuilt requirements. And we all we acknowledge that those are true. Um, and then they're uh uh number the final one, number 12, is as part of the site plan review process, a maximum of fee of 75 will be charged. Uh, and we have an engineering review estimate uh at the end of this thing. and that those were submitted uh the uh as part of the response to this. Um and if but if you want to see

089it, it is here. This is the the cost estimate for the review fee. Uh so I can I'm happy to answer additional questions uh and get you back to the site set so that you can see what's going on. At this point, Tatiana or John Mayor, do you have any comments, questions? >> Uh, quick question and going back to David's comment. I believe that wetland line that was shown on the survey is accurate. Um, or at least there are wetlands offsite nearing on that border. So, the offset should be uh corrected accordingly. All right. So, I will confirm one way or the other on those. Um, as I understand the discussion I had with Nick that that those are not accurate or or were not flagged. So, we'll look we'll look into it. >> Yeah,

090it looks like wetlands are maybe on the neighboring properties. So, they're likely have not been flagged. But since you have line right there, it maybe is accurate. But anyways, um then regarding the swale, I think we may have to do minor adjustments just because the 90° band may cause um issues long term and we just see too frequently where they're failing. Uh but that truly is minor and shouldn't affect um this wetlands application because it's mostly outside of the regulated area. Um, >> okay. I will make a note and goodness gracious, I don't know what's causing that. Um, I will make a note and we can we can uh discuss specifics if you if you'd so desire. >> Um, yeah, I think that's u that's it for now. I'm not sure if John has any

091other comments. >> All right, I'm going to open it to the uh commission comments, questions >> Through the chair. Well, go ahead, David. I saw your hand at first. Go ahead. >> Um, just in review of the landscape plan, my only comment was they've got um Bayberry on this planting plan. Um, I think u a dogwood like a silky dogwood or a gray twig dogwood or red twig dogwood might be more appropriate in this location as opposed to the my to the bay. Um, and then a question for the commission is, do we are we happy with the layout of that boulder line shown on the plans? Um, does it give the homeowners enough area to utilize the property? Should we think about sliding it down the hill a little bit just so that the

092future homeowners aren't inclined to just, you know, go into that area on their own? And do we need placards? >> Those are my comments >> through the chair. >> Um well actually Carmine was next. I'll come to you next Rich. Go ahead Carmine. >> Well my comment is regarding the boulder. Um Mr. Eller, um I know what the definition of a boulder is, but what size boulder, minimum size boulder were you thinking of putting there? Well, to be honest, I wasn't because that that's with the landscape architect. Um, if I had to guess, it'd be a big enough rock that you'd trip over it. >> Um, we're not going to build a wall or anything. Um, >> no, I I'm not asking about a for a wall. Uh, we had a previous application where we

093asked for a boulder wall and we were a little surprised at the size of the the the boulders that they put down. Um I I agree with you. It should be a large enough size that it's going to be noticed and >> um >> easily be removed. >> Not easily removed, >> right? >> Um and in the past we have um suggested a distance between the boulders. We haven't seen that here. Are we going to ask for a certain distance? >> Mr. Eller, on your plan, what did it show? Because now I can't see the scale here. Are you going 10 ft between 8 ft? What what what's it projecting? >> Well, again, this is the the the landscape architect's plan, but if this is at 20 scale, I would guess that's probably somewhere between

0948 and 10 between each of those. Um, but again, I don't know if that is just intended to be visual design from the uh from the landscape architect or if they were specifically thinking real boulders that are about 3 ft long uh every 10 ft. Um, we can uh we can determine that or you guys can certainly make a this a preference known for what you'd like to see so that it is clear and I will you know we can we can make that happen. if you know that a size that you like, you know, >> through the chair. >> Go ahead, Greg. >> Yeah, just on the boulders, we had a different project. Basically, the boulders, I think we're trying to firm this up, but we're looking for a minimum height of 2 and

095a half to three feet and in the neighborhood of 3 to four feet wide. Boulders to be placed every 10 feet. And in between those boulders, uh, a, uh, 4x4 post and we have, um, placards that will be nailed to those posts >> through the chair. >> What, if I may ask, uh, uh, that sounds fine except for what what would those placards say? Because just for clarity, this isn't a conservation ement. This is the limit of disturbance, right? So would we say limit of disturbance? >> There's an example right here I'm holding in front of the screen. It's approximately twice the size of a silver dollar and uh it has a town seal and it says wetland boundary on it. Traditionally these are placed on wooden posts at distances no greater than 10 yards

096apart. >> But those are those indicate the wetland boundary. Correct. >> Yes. >> To the chair. That's not the boundary though. That's a landscaping demarcation. So, would we rather keep them moving them down in front of the wetlands themselves, which is pretty obvious once you get down there that they are wetlands. Um, okay. Let me >> decide if you want to put them up and where we should put them up >> through the chair. >> Okay. I'm going to jump in. That's what I was going to do. Ask you, David, because you had mentioned that we're kind of cutting in. Should we be moving this back? Would there be a problem of just marking where the wetlands are and letting them have a bigger lawn? Go ahead, David. >> Um, Ian, can you or Ian,

097can you zoom in on the the developed portion of the property on this plan a little for me? >> Yeah. Do you want this one or do you want me to switch to the site plan? >> This one's good because I can actually read the contours on this one. Uh, the contour intervals. What I was thinking was somewhere, you know, the 404 contour is about 20 feet off the wetlands. It's got a big flat area there. Um or the 406 contour. You know, you could slide the the boulders down to like the 404 contour or the four say, you know, between the 404 and the 406. And you know the the boulders should be big enough that they have to be machine placed and cannot be moved by hand. Um and then every like we

098said 10 ft. But I think getting the boulder line closer to, you know, that 40 406 contour there gives a few future homeowners enough room that they have a decent lawn, should they choose to have a decent lawn, and then enough buffer area there that, you know, the wetlands are protected. And if we want to do the placards at the wetland limit line, we could do that. Can you bring this down so so we can see where uh 404 continues to the uh neighbors? >> So yeah, so your idea is just follow the 404. I think it's a great idea >> or the 406. So >> all right, >> the 40 but that 405 area it's kind of got a flat area there just at the 404. So, >> what are you thinking to follow

099which? >> Maybe call it 405 between the two. >> You know, this seems kind of strange that we're asking the applicant to cut down more trees. It It just seems counterintuitive to what this commission is doing for environmental protection. >> The applicant only asked for so much, but why are we giving more? If the applicant wanted it, why didn't they ask for it? >> Why are we ordering them to do continued additional cutting? >> I'm I just rather give them what they asked for. I hear what you're saying, Dave, but they should have asked for it. I don't think we should be giving away things. >> Okay. That's why it's for discussion >> through the chair. >> Go ahead, Rich. >> Uh just a couple questions. First of all, there's a listing of Japanese notweed

100on there. I'm assuming you were giving them unconditional approval to remove and eradicate the all invasives. >> Didn't say that. >> I I think I think that should be unconditional approval to remove any the Japanese notweed or other invasives in that area. Um it's a significant issue. We've seen the proliferation of notweed bamboo elsewhere in town. Large stands appear within a course of a couple years. So that should be not only allowing them but you know we should be requiring them to remove it. I'm sure they're happy to remove it. Um, in terms of the wooden posts with placards, the wooden posts are small. They're easily seen. They're placed down in the wetland area. 10 yards apart is is is not a significant amount of them. Um, we're not asking them to place, you know,

101to build a split rail fence or to add additional boulders down at the bottom. Uh, simply a few wooden posts 10 yards apart. And um with those uh these placards here, it's very clear the wetland boundary. We know the current owner will be, you know, judiciously watching that. We want to protect future owners who may not be told. We we know sometimes the realtor doesn't get the full story. Someone in 5 years and 20 years should know, hey, this is a wetlands boundary. I can't go past this. Uh it's very easy. And with with wooden posts 10 yards apart, it should be very simple to to maintain. Uh the last point I had for David, we had mentioned a number of plants. Um I know there was a mention of uh in installing new plants

102there instead of cutting them. I don't know if they had considered other either small evergreens or um a small amount of service berries to be placed there. >> Um we could add Shadlow service berry to the planting list. I think what's shown is certainly appropriate and you know not uncommon for the area. >> All right, Rich. So your thought is we would put 4x4 post right on the border of the existing wetlands so they they know when they come up >> 10 10 yards apart. That's very reasonable. Well, again, we're not >> 10 yards or 10 ft. >> 10 yards. >> Okay, >> that's 30 ft. Okay, >> that's pretty much that's >> to the chair. I'd like to make a comment. >> Go ahead, John. >> Yeah, I went over to 17 Applegate today

103and I did look at those posts and their placards aren't nailed on. They almost seem like they're being held on by a magnet or something. I didn't want to pull on them, but they're not nailed down. when when we walk that. I'll check that. So, >> okay. You're going to go back over there to Applegate again. >> Yeah. Yeah, these do have >> Just want to make that as a comment. They have the up, but they I thought they would be nailed >> and I didn't want to pull on them in case it was a magnet or not a magnet. I don't know how they're fastened. >> No, they have nail holes that they can be nailed or screwed in, >> but they weren't nailed. Yes, that's all. Sorry to interrupt. >> No, no. remember

104you don't know what I went through to get those. >> Yeah, I know. I just want want to let you know they don't seem to be used quite correctly yet, but they're getting close. >> All right, so let's stick with the plan as it shows, but we will put 4x4 post along the uh wetlands boundary and then the U comment that Greg made with the size of the boulders. Um, then I believe you said every 10 ft or so. >> So, we'll stay with that. And >> 10 10 yards, Mr. Chairman. >> No, the placards are 10 yards. >> Oh, you're saying the boulders will be 10 ft. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And then we're going to add the uh addition of service berries. >> Okay. Anything else that we can uh think of here

105on conditions >> uh through the chair? >> Go ahead, Tatiana. Uh I'm looking at this wetland boundary and it just zigzags through the property and it's very long and plus there is potential additional um wetland encroachment on the side. Uh historically the commission kind of has demarcated um an area that is not to be disturbed. I'm not saying it's a conservation easement, but it's just it makes more sense with boulders and placards to be in one area. And if that's not appropriate in this case, I'm not sure that placards should follow this wetland line specifically. A it's more disturbance to it's just it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. So that's my thoughts. >> I disagree. Okay, >> it says wetland boundaries on the placard. Those are the boundaries. The boulders themselves

106have nothing to do with the with the wetlands. It was the landscape architect decided to put those there. They weren't supposed to be demarcating the wetlands, but the placards will. That's my opinion, Tatiana. >> Well, that's fine. It's just not what I think what historically has been done. And also wetlands boundaries, they do change. And those posts on their own, they're not going to last. Um, so that's why they've been combined or with boulders from what I've seen. But it's up to you guys. >> We use pressure treated posts, don't we? >> Yeah. Pressure treated 4x4 posts. >> Yeah. So, they should last 25 years. >> And they should be six foot because we're two feet into the ground. It gives you a 4ft high post. That's what we've been asking. So, And those are

107not >> for the motion. >> Go ahead. >> What was that, Rich? >> It should be clear that they're not to be removed. >> I mean, if they're in the if they're in the ground, someone who acquires the property should not be going out there and removing them. >> Well, >> that's just >> we'll send you out there to check every now and then. So, okay. Any other items that we can think of? Greg, are we pretty good? >> Yeah. And we'll probably uh I was talking to Tatiana about this uh earlier in the day um require a site monitor. We're seeing more and more projects where stuff is not completed or things are filled in in areas that shouldn't be filled in. And uh probably we'll put it in in a uh condition for

108a site monitor to make sure the project >> it's on here because it's a new uh new project and building. So >> do the chair. >> Go ahead. Uh Rich >> uh I would just ask if uh Mr. Cernica could add the um approval for unconditional approval for the removal of the Japanese notweed and the other invasives. >> Yep. On the plan. Okay, >> that's just in the planting area, right? >> Be in any part of the wetland. >> Um, another >> big wetlands. That's huge. >> That's acres. >> If they're going to go in there and remove the invasives, more power to them, man. And they're doing us a service. >> Yeah. >> Is the limits of disturbance defined on this plan? >> Yeah. But those limits don't apply to the invasive control. >>

109No, I'm talking about how far they can bulldozer down trees. Well, the limits of disturbance is where the boulders are. >> Is it clear clear that that is? Or maybe we should just make sure the boulder line is the limit of disturbance since it's not not called out on the plan. I don't think. >> All right. So, hold on. Give me one sec. That is a That is where that came from originally, if I may remind you. Uh, so this boulder line was originally put on prior to the last time we we came and saw you uh by the by the landscape architect to protect these wetlands and some of that that clearing and and planting that's going to happen there. And uh I don't remember who it was specifically on the uh committee asked

110that we continue that along the limits of disturbance for the for the actual project. That's why those are there. That was upon's request. >> So that would be the limit of disturbance then. >> Correct. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Very good. >> That's defined. Thank you. >> And through the chair, if we could just go uh if Mr. Eller could go back to the last um map, there was an issue uh excuse me, a uh a listing on the bottom right in regards to the invasive. >> Oh, the uh landscape plan. Yes. Hold on. >> Yeah, that to the right of general notes, it said non-native control. If you could just go a little farther. Yeah, there we go. Oh, okay. Sorry. I thought you were looking for the list of plantings. >>

111Oh, no problem. Um, it just says that um it's being cut and weed whacked. We we know Japanese notweed is going to come back. Um so, you know, and I know it's it's limiting it to cutting here. The wetlands commission, I'm sure, would be meanable to total removal and eradication if that includes um digging these plants out. You know, that should be considered as a viable option. We're not limiting you to weed whacking because it says it's weed whacking monthly for a two-year period, that means after two years, it's just going to come right back. So, if if the um commission is going to approve total eradication, they should those should be dug up and removed >> um and giving the applicant the opportunity to do that should be allowed. >> It's pretty defined on

112what they can do, including herbicides and stuff. So >> I I'm a little the herbicides itself that wetland itself may be the headwaters of the eastern reservoir. I believe it is but >> right that's why >> way down to to >> to the to east >> right that's why they should be dug out and removed. We should >> yeah you know using the pesticide of course we're using pesticides on the golf course which is the same wetlands too. No, >> I'm not intending to them or force them, but they should be allowed the opportunity to dig those up. As it's stated here, they can't go in the wetlands and remove them. They can only weed whack them, which seems somewhat silly. >> All right. So, Greg, I need a motion to approve. >> Yeah. Um,

113I'm still not clear what they want to do with invasives. I know we want to remove them in that wetland buffer area, but uh do we go into the wetlands or not? I'm just going to say the buffer for now. >> I I think we are allowing them unconditional approval to go into the wetland strictly for the removal of invasives. No clearing, but they should be allowed to remove them at any point in the entire wetland. That should always be approved and encouraged. >> Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. >> By hand, spade and augur. >> That's a huge wetland. It's just loaded with fragmitees and everything. We're not given permission to do the whole wetland. >> They're not there. It's unlikely they're going to, but with spade and augur, no machines, giving the homeowner

114the opportunity to remove them. Instead of saying there's invasives in this wetland, you're not allowed to remove them. Those invasives are causing serious trouble. We've seen bamboo stands across New England. I mean, certainly across Trumble. Um, it allows the applicant at his or her leisure when they see that there's a problem, they can go in there, >> probably do it anyways, Rich, >> but right now they have allow them to. So, yeah, we're giving them permission. We're not ordering them >> permission to dig up those after those particular uh evasive plants and that's that. Okay. >> Any plant listed on the non-native list is approved by uh >> in that area, >> right? native northern southern New England or what Dave would probably give us the specific region. Was it listed by Southern New England,

115David? >> For what? Invasives. >> Yeah. Is there a specific region we go by? >> Connecticut has a a list. It's a Connecticut invasive plant working group. >> They have a list. >> Any plants on that list are eligible for unconditional removal. >> Yes, >> that works. >> All right. And also I think Greg added the extra plants. They were adding the um the service berries. >> Is it called service or shad? >> Uh David, they're called service berries, right? >> It's shad service berry. >> Shad. >> All right. Uh I make a motion to approve application 2612. Um permit approval to construct a single family dwelling and it's a a purchases including storm detention gallery system septic system footing drain outlet grading and boulder barrier within regulated area at 5044 Madison Avenue uh in

116accordance with the following conditions from the town of Trumbull inland wetlands and water course commission. Section one general conditions 1.1 to 1.10 10 and section 3 additional conditions. 3.1 um adjust the planning plan to include uh some shadow service berry trees. 3.2 um extending the existing boulder line uh along the limits of disturbance. Install two two and a half approximately 2 and 1/2 to 3ft high three to four uh 3 to 4 foot long boulders every 10 ft along the limit of disturbance line 3.3 um install 6 foot 4x4 pressuret treated posts uh 10 yard every 10 yards apart along the wetlands border 3.4 um >> and and with the placards do agree >> and install placers wet lens placards to be supplied from the town. >> You failed to show the placard rich >>

1173.4 for >> um applicant um to free to remove all invasives uh Connecticut invasives that are located in on their property and along their wetlands invited to remove all wetlands in uh their property and wetland buffer areas. Uh and then 3.4 for applicant to submit a name of a site monitor. Um the name approved to the town of engineering department from the town of engine uh Trumbulltown engineering department to have the responsibility to monitor and certify that the project uh and any um required erosion controls are maintained and that the landscape plantings were completed and installed as approved by the Trumble IWWC permit. Is that it? I think we got Dana. Did we miss anything? >> Uh, the site monitor. Do you want weekly reports? >> Okay. >> And after 48 hours after every rain

118event, >> thank you. I think that's it. >> Y, >> now I told you when I do in Fairfield, they require the report and photos. Do you want photos or not? Uh the standard condition I believe 2.2 is specifically for erosion controls with photographs. >> All right. >> So if that's what the commission wishes then certainly. >> All right. Sounds good. Anything else you can think of? >> So we said that was weekly and then um is it Tatiana? What's the standard? Is it 48 hours after a rain event or 24? Uh usually it's just after each rainfall of it says half an inch or greater which is um a small rain but maybe couple inches or more. >> Okay. So every 48 hours after every 1 in rain >> um well it's right after

119the rain event. They don't have to wait 48 hours. >> I'm saying within within 40 >> within Okay, sure. I would put within 24. >> Okay. So, with a 1 inch rainfall within 24 hours, otherwise once a week. >> Yes. >> And you want them to submit photos. >> If you wanted to. >> Yeah, let's do it. >> I think Bob wants that one. >> Okay, so we're good. Greg? Yep. I think so. >> Okay. >> I need a a second on the motion. Second. >> Seconded by Rich Deacon. Uh Mr. Alec, could you remove the uh plan from the uh screen? >> I can. >> Thank you. All right, we're going to do a uh roll call. I'm a Yes. Bob Ferigno. >> Yes. >> Carmine. >> Yes. >> Gregory, >> yes. David, >>

120yes. >> Rich, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> I paused for a moment. I just noticed the applicants suddenly there because I hadn't seen you there. Good evening. >> All right. So, it's uh approved 7 to Z. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Take care. Be safe. Be well. All right. Application 26-15 Mark. It's the permit approval for hydraulic suction dredging of an existing pond. Temporary grading, disposal of dredge spoils, and restore all disturbed areas as lawn within a regulated area at 101 Governor Trumble Way. And I'm looking to see if Mr. There. There he is. I see Mr. Mayor's coming on. And I know that Tracy's working this one, too. Are you going to open the presentation and then turn it over to Mr. Amir or do you who's doing what first? >>

121Yes. For for the record, this is Tracy Shalifo, um agent for the applicant, Mark Amler, Pristine Waters LLC, based in Danbury, Connecticut. Um yeah, I'd love to share my screen and then um if there are any questions for Mr. Amler, then um uh he's happy to uh answer those. >> Okay. Is that visible to you all? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, um I I know that a commissioner site walk was conducted recently and I would just like to point out that there have been no changes to the site plans since that walk took place. Um I'm happy to go through and summarize the proposed dredging plan again. Um if you'd like me to sort of give an abbreviated presentation and then take questions, that's that's great. I know. I thought um last month's presentation was

122pretty good and pretty complete. So, I think you can kind of skim. >> Sure. Um I'll I'll just speak very generally then. Um here is the pond. It's about a halfacre pond. As you saw, it's filled with sediment. We're proposing a hydraulic suction dredging. The slurry would be pumped to this temporary temporary uh dewatering area staged um to the north of units 408 and 410. Um the bags would be surrounded by water walls and erosion controls. The water would be um directed back to the stream so that the pond would remain hydrated throughout the process. There's a construction access here between units 406 and 408. And once the uh once the sediment is completely dewatered and dried, the tubes would be cut open and the sediment trucked um through the development to a a non-wetland

123and non-wetland buffer disposal area. So this grading plan indicates the topography um in order to let's just say lose the 800 cubic yards dried sediment and silt fence would remain in place until this area is completely reveated in this case with grass. And just a reminder that no trees are to be removed as part of this application and that the dredge machine would be craned into the pond so that we would not disturb the substantial existing buffer along this shoreline. Um additional turbidity curtains could be added throughout the project uh as needed. Currently, one is proposed here, but I know that during the last meeting, a question came up, you know, should we perhaps add more? And yes, we could certainly add one on the other side of the covert along Main Street. And it's

124just something that um we keep an eye on throughout the process to determine if if um any sediment is becoming, you know, sort of thick within the water and the curtains are just added as needed, basically. But as Mr. Amler can explain to you, the the water quality as it seeps out of the bags, it's it's very very clean. So we we have not had this um be an issue in the past. And there are the pond sections. So you can show you can see the approximate amount of sediment that exists in the pond indicated with a cross-hatched area. And we're just returning to the p the pond to the original topography. We're not deepening it. We're not enlarging it. It's just back to what it had been before it filled in. And then you

125have all of your standard details here project. And >> um that summarizes it. So I'm happy to take any questions or turn it over to Mr. Amler. >> Dr. Questions, comments for Tracy. I'm good. Thank you. >> All right. Uh the commission any comments, questions? >> Chair, >> go ahead. Uh Carmine, >> just curious the time frame. How long do you think this would take? >> Um hi Markler, Christine Waters. Um it it's going to be somewhat dependent on weather to be honest, but generally speaking, this volume of sediment in a situation like this, I'd estimate that the actual inwater work will be 4 to 6 weeks. Um the dry time on the sediment is also going to be a little bit weather dependent. The drier it is, the hotter it is, the more sun,

126the faster the sediment in the tubes dries out to the point where it can be moved. Um but again upon completion you know uh 6 to 8 weeks it'll probably sit before it gets taken out of the tubes and then relocated either on site or based on testing if it needs to leave. >> Um yeah so that that gives you a basic general timeline. >> Okay. So your belief with good weather and everything you should be able to finish it before winter. >> Oh. Oh. Uh most most definitely. Unless unless there is some component to the sediment that um keeps it from releasing water, which is highly unlikely based on our experience. Uh, and we didn't see anything in the pond that would indicate that it was a higher than average clay content, uh, which

127would slow down dewatering, but no, I I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be predominantly stabilized before winter. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> Through the chair. >> Um, through the chair, it's Greg Cernica. >> Okay, Greg, I'm sorry I couldn't see you. Go ahead. for Mark or Tracy. Uh is there do you guys do uh uh reports document activity that's going on? Um erosion uh turbidity controls, erosion controls, how the dumping, you know, that the uh uh you we have these uh temporary um drying pits that they're solid. Do you guys do that? Do we have to put in a motion that someone's going to monitor that and send the documentation into our engineering group? Talk to me about how you control that project. >> I we we we're happy to submit weekly

128reports on progress and any issues that we encounter. Um if people want that, I'm happy to do that. um we'll visually um kind of define the turbidity and and show you pictures of it. No problem with that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. Anyone else from the commission? >> I told you on the walk I thought it was an excellent presentation last month. I thought you covered everything pretty well. >> Thank you. >> All right. If there is >> just one last question. So, we're going to put these turbidity screens up. We Is it going to be one or is it going to be two? Because we talked about putting one where Route 111 is as well where it exits. How many should we expect for the project? Um, I would say as as Tracy

129mentioned that I I we recall the uh request for the potential second on the other side of the road on the other side of the culvert. Um, I have no problem doing that if that's what we will. >> Okay. So, we should plan on that as well. >> Okay. >> If there being no other questions. All right. Um I'm looking to um approve 2615 as uh submitted. U Greg. >> Yep. I make a motion. I make a motion to approve uh application 26:15 uh a permit uh for hydraulic suction dredging of existing pond, temporary grading, disposal of dredged spoils, and to restore restore all disturbed areas at uh as lawn within a regulated area 101 Governor Trumbull Way in accordance with the following conditions from the town of Trumbull Inland Wetlands and Water Course Commission.

130Section one, general conditions 1.1 to 1.10 10 and section 3, additional conditions 3.1. Um, turbidity control screens will be installed at the exit of the pond uh and at the opposite side of Main Street. Um, in an uh both sides of the street. Uh, and then 3.2 to uh contractor to submit weekly progress reports and photos uh as the progress as the uh project progresses. That's >> Go ahead, Rich. >> Second. Okay. Uh Tatiana, did we miss anything? We're good. All right. So, we have a second on it. I'm going to take a roll call. I'm a yes. Bob Furrigno. >> Yes. >> Carmine. Yes, >> Greg. >> Yes, >> David. >> I'm a yes, >> John. >> Yes, >> Rich. >> Yes. >> 7 to zero. It's approved. Good luck. >> Thank you very

131much. Have a nice evening. >> You take care. Same to you. >> All right. Application 26-16. It's revised. It's Lawrence and Maria Sasslam. It's a permit approval to remove 13 trees plus four additional four trees previously removed and plant 41 trees and or plants within a regulated area at 272 Strobble Road. Uh the revision is uh remove stumps of all trees in the front. Let's see. I'm trying to see. Tatiana, do you know if we have anybody that's speaking for this? Yep, I see I see the applicant. >> Maria is there. >> Yep, I see her. The eyes haven't failed me quite yet. Carmine. Okay. Okay. There you are. >> All right. You have to introduce yourself. Give your address. >> Um, I'm Maria Hasslam. My address is 272 Strobble Road, Trumbull, Connecticut. >> Okay.

132>> Um, you did a presentation last month. Um, I see it's a revision just to remove the stumps of all the trees in the front. Anything else that you wanted to point out or say? >> Uh, no. Just the adding the stumps cuz they're going to re be replanting everything up there. >> All right. Tatiana, comments, questions? John Mayor, any thoughts? >> I'm almost up. >> All right. >> I'm good. >> You're good. Any comments, questions from the commission? >> No. >> I have one question through the chair. >> Go ahead, Greg. >> When you say removing the stumps, are you just grinding down or are they going in there and yanking? >> Just grinding, I think. >> Okay. So, you're just taking it down a couple inches. >> Thank you. >> Good catch, Greg.

133All right. If that be the case, then u I move to approve 26-16 as submitted. >> Second. >> Rick. >> Yep. >> Seconded by Rich. Go ahead. >> I make a motion to approve application 2616. uh the revised application uh permanent approval approval to remove 13 trees plus additional four trees previously removed and plant 41 trees or plants within a regulated area at 272 Stroable Road. Um the revision is that the stumps will be of of the trees will be uh ground down in the front. Um this um is uh in accordance to the following conditions from the town of Trumbull wetlands and water course commission. Section one general conditions 1.1 to 1.10. Section two sight specific conditions of approval 2.9 is um survivability. All plants shall have survivability period of one year minimum or

134anything else as determined by the town engineer. Uh section three, additional conditions. Uh applicant, I think we have a uh uh a fee of $350 that needs to be paid. So we'd like that to be paid before the project begins. >> Is that be instead of the 250 I paid? >> No. What happened there is that's an after the fact because this possession so >> it's okay. Yep. >> It was missed. So, and that would have to be paid before commencement of the project. >> Yep. >> Go ahead, Greg. >> Okay. And uh plantings uh trees and plants should be uh uh planted by uh in one year by 61 2027. uh uh a 3.3 uh applicant should submit a report to the town upon the completion of the plantings and 3.4 obviously if uh

135nothing is planted a sight a citation will be issued. >> All right. Have we missed anything? >> I'm just asking did what about the trees in the back? Is that on there? Remember the five trees? Is that on there? If that's part of your 41. >> Yep, it is. Okay. I just want to make sure it was said back. Okay, that's fine. >> Okay. >> All right. A motion's been made. It was seconded by uh Bob Ferigno. I'm going to take a vocal on this. Uh I'm a yes. Bob, >> yes. >> Uh Greg, >> yes. >> Carmine, >> yes. >> David, >> yes. John, >> yes. >> Rich, >> yes. >> Okay, seven is approved. Good luck. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Yep. Byebye. >> All right. I need a U motion to

136close. Oh, wait a moment. I got to go to U old business continuation of public hearings on application 25-10 and 25-11 which is Amelia Ferry. I'm going to ask uh attorney Cordone to address this for a moment. I understand they've asked for a continuence. >> Yes. Actually uh Mr. chairman, the town town staff in conjunction with the third party licensed environmental professional who's working with the town and with attorney Paul Jacobe who is an outside counsel um an environmental attorney. I have been working with the applicants licensed environmental professional to see if we could work on a uh mutually agreeable resolution to the environmental condition of the property. Um our our environmental attorney is recommending that we continue the matter for another 30 days to continue to work on that. So that's the request. The

137applicant's attorney has sent an email to the commission agreeing to that continuence and waving any statutory time periods to continue the hearing to the July 2nd meeting. >> Discussions, Mr. Chairman. >> I think it's actually July 6th or 7th. I'm trying. >> I apologize. That is correct. July I don't normally catch that that often. No, you're >> go ahead. Rich, you had a question. >> I I I a broken record. I say the same thing every month. It's been going on for a year. At what point, >> Rich? >> I think our town attorney just explained why this is a pretty serious issue. And you know, we're we're going into a lot of different areas. And you've got, you know, an LAP on their side, LAP on our side, and now we just brought uh

138attorney Jacobe, who happens to be one of the leading uh attorneys in the state on environmental, and he's helping >> I'm sure we got the best of the best, but nothing's ever been acknowledged about the uh illegal dumping, about the the illegal >> will be the wall that could collapse at any day. >> That's that's all been under discussion, believe me. So um I'm pretty sure you know once it's decided we will cover these. I mean this is in the 21st year of this and remember I go back to it. So it's been a long journey. All right. >> Make you feel any better? I spent on this application more than on any applications in the last month. So it eats a lot of our time and there is a lot of uh wheels moving.

139What we'd like to do is somehow resolve this without having to go to court. No, I mean that's always my first thing. I I nothing against Attorney Cardone. We love you, but you know, if I can stay away from court, that's what I like to do and that's what we're trying to uh do here. So, >> all right. So at any at any rate, Greg, there is a um need for a motion for continuence, please, on both applications. We can do them together, right? Uh Tony Cordell. >> Yes, sir. Just the application numbers and continue to the July meeting. I make a motion uh to continue uh the public hearing for application 2510 which is 6 Sycamore Street and application 2511 which is lot 321 Sycamore Street uh to the next inland wetlands meeting on

140July 7th with the applicant's attorney uh wavering um any um statutory time frames for the public hearing. >> All right, I need a second. Second. >> Seconded by Bob. Okay, I'm going to do a roll call. I'm a uh >> Yes. Bob, >> yes. >> Carmine, >> yes. >> Greg, >> yes. >> David, >> yes. >> John, I'm John is recusing himself. He won't be voting on this. >> And Rich Deacon, >> let me think about it. No, >> I know where you live, Rich. >> You know what game is? I love to go to the casino in Reno to play Kino. >> There you go. Now you got that out of your system. I'm happy for you. 5 to one. Uh continuence has been uh been granted. Um I hate to put this on

141you, Greg, but uh minutes for May 5, 2026. I bet you've gone through five pencils tonight. >> Yeah. Well, it's paper, too. Uh, I make a motion to approve the minutes of the town of Trumbull inland wetlands and water course commission meeting held on May 5th, 2026. >> Seconded by Rich. All in favor? >> I unanimous. Uh, let me review for one quick second here. Um, Tatiana, I think we have to walk uh Applegate. We actually have to make sure that they've uh followed through on uh the previous conditions, right? Can we do that uh by engineers or should we do a walk? What are your what are your thoughts? >> Um considering the history uh I you know anticipate a walk would be appropriate in this case. Okay. Then on that case, um, let's

142do a walk and Tuesday, July 16th. >> July or June? >> June. >> Pardon? >> June. >> No, I'm sorry. Backing up. Okay. We'll do a walk on Tuesday, June 16th. Thank you. And um seeing it's the only walk, we'll do it at uh 3. And um anything else that the commission can think of? >> That's the Juliano property, Mr. Chairman. >> Pardon? >> Juliano property. >> Yes. Yes. The applicant. Uh Colleen, is there anything else that has to uh come before the commission or be discussed? >> There is not. Thank you. >> Okay. >> You want the report, >> Rich? Yes, Rich. I was going to just ask you what's happening with planning and zoning. >> Uh just very quickly, there was a Wednesday, May 20th meeting. Uh there was only one application. It

143does have some wetlands interest. It was the reconsideration of the Reservoir Avenue properties by one Vessel Re Holdings LLC. Uh that had been unanimously denied. Um it's currently pending litigation. They came back for a reconsideration um which was again unanimously denied for among the following reasons. One of them was there's a substantial public interest to protect the wetlands. Uh as quoted from the minutes here, the application should be reviewed and approved by the wetlands commission regarding the existence of an intermittent brook. Connecticut law requires the applicant obtain wetlands approval prior to site plan approval. this issue clearly outweighs the need for affordable housing and that was put up um at the last meeting. So that application has now been denied numerous times. It's currently pending in litigation. Uh but as there was an issue with

144wetlands, I found that prudent to uh bring to your attention. Um for more information, check the judicial branch website. >> All right. Very good. If there be nothing else, then I move to adjourn. And I thank you all >> and I will see some of you on the walk and I will see the rest of you on July 7. >> Have a great July 4th, 250 years. >> Thank you. Have a good night everyone. Have a good night. Be safe everyone. Thank you, Mr.