April 7, 2026 Inland Wetland & Watercourse Commission Regular Meeting

001Good evening everyone. We're going to open the Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Commission meeting for the town of Trumbull, Connecticut for April 7th, 2026. I'm going to ask our clerk to do a roll call if she would. Colleen? Richard Gerard. Present. Don Loria. Here. Carmine Defeo. Here. Richard Deegan. Present. David Verrastro. Present. Greg Sennottico. Present. Robert Fredneau. Present. Town staff, Tatiana Soloviev. Here. John Mayer. Here. Attorney Cordone. I am here. Thank you. All right, thank you, Colleen. Um nothing so far, uh Attorney Cordone. I I I can, but let's put the Zoom in Zoom information on the agenda, if that's okay, Mr. Chairman. All right, at this point I'm going to ask our town attorney to give us the legal aspect of doing a Zoom meeting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As is the practice of this

002commission, tonight's meeting is being conducted virtually over the internet and over the telephone. The agenda and application materials were posted on the town website 24 hours in advance of tonight's meeting. I'd remind everyone that tonight's meeting is being recorded. I'd ask that you be acknowledged by the chair prior to speaking. And um when there's an opportunity for the public to speak, you can raise your hand electronically um or um hit star nine on your phone, and you will be uh acknowledged by the chair. Uh Mr. Chairman, um if I could ask uh just a point of order on one of the applications. I don't know if Attorney Willinger is present for application 2510 and 2511. He's not until the end of the agenda, so I'm just going to ask is Attorney Willinger present? If you

003could raise your hand. I see someone from his office, but I don't see him on yet. So, I'd say let's just proceed with the meeting, Mr. Chairman, and if um if I uh am able to interact prior to that time, I will do so. Let you know. All right, uh otherwise we'll go through new business, and when we open old business, we'll go to that first. All right, we're going to open new business application 26-08. Alexandra Moch, I believe. Permit approval for an in-ground pool with a spa, pool terrace, pool equipment pad, and stormwater detention system within a regulated area at 112 Hilltop Drive. Hi, good evening. Um my name is Alexandra Moch, wetlands soil scientist, and uh tonight I'm going to be presenting um the proposed pool. Um Let me try to share um

004Okay, um Do me a favor, if you would, give us your business and your address. Um Alexandra Moch, um uh environmental consultant, uh 95 Halpin Avenue, Stamford, Connecticut 06905. Thank you very much. Uh I'm ready. Am I ready to go? Go ahead. Uh good evening. Uh tonight uh we are proposing uh a pool which with with a spa. So, the pool is going to be uh located uh it's going to be 16 by 36, and it's going to be located behind the existing residence over an area which is uh pretty flat um or slightly sloping. So, the grading associated with the pool is going to be kept to the minimal. Uh we are also proposing a spa, and uh the large uh rectangle is the proposed uh pool terrace. To mitigate uh for the increase

005of uh impervious surface, we are proposing four uh Cultec chambers uh behind the pool, which is going to be uh uh detaining the stormwater runoff and addressing the uh increase of impervious surface. Also, during the construction activities, we are going to have erosion controls, which are shown here. So, this is our silt fence, and then we are going to be supporting it on the wetland side with hay bales. And uh this is our construction entrance, uh which is going to be using uh the existing driveway, and then access on the opposite side to the wetland uh uh of the house. Um uh over the area of the pool. Uh pool equipment is going to be here. Uh since the area which is being affected is maintained as a lawn, we do not have to remove

006any trees. But, let's go describe the wetland, um and probably I should start with it. Uh the wetland area enters uh it's a stream, a perennial stream which enters uh from the street uh via a culvert, goes down steeply in a man-made channel. Means that both sides of the channel are basically uh stone walls as as stone walls. And then uh enters a pond, which is also man-made. And uh the uh water there is detained by a dam, which is located uh over here. And then um there is a overflow, which allows uh the water to continue uh flowing down, and then underneath a footbridge, which is a crossing of the stream to a small cottage on the opposite side of the stream. And as you can see that the wetland fringe here is pretty

007narrow because uh the stream enters pretty steep area. Uh therefore, the um the fringe is narrower. And then uh it flows uh continue flowing, and uh the wetland opens up at that corner of the property, which is the south uh eastern corner. And uh the stream slows down and enters more uh level uh section of the area. This area is wooded uh and there is very little uh man uh interference um uh as uh opposite to the man-made channel portion uh uh to the north. Uh we are proposing a planting plan. So, actually we are proposing three mitigation measures. The one which is going to be taking care of the potential short-term impacts. Uh this is during the construction phase, where where the area is going to be disturbed because we have to excavate for

008the pool, we we'll have to do some grading. So, the area is going to be exposed to potential erosion. Uh therefore, we're going to be using the soil erosion controls, and the stock pile area. That's our short-term uh uh preventions or mitigations. And then the long-term, which I already mentioned, will be the in-ground infiltration system. So, we are not going to be um causing any erosion or um increase in the stormwater uh discharge from the area because of the increase of impervious surface. The third mitigation uh measure is our planting plan. And um here's uh the stretch of the channel. I did mention that uh this area is wooded. That's where the wetland opens However, there is some um debris here, uh landscaping debris. And I thought that we would like to remove those debris

009and uh plant some shrubs, and those shrubs will prevent uh from continuing the um adding of the landscaping debris to this side of the uh of the stream. >> [clears throat] >> Uh this area is uh lawn, except for those two trees. And also, there is some lawn here. So, we're going to be creating buffer between the lawn area and recreational area and the protected area of the wetland and watercourse. On this side of the stream, I added a few more shrubs because this is also a lawn, and I thought that it would be nice to um restore this entire stretch of the stream. So, this is all I have to offer uh for tonight. And I'm here to answer any questions um and uh if the commission has any concerns. Yeah, I have two

010questions. Is the wetlands flagged? Yes, I Yes, the wetland uh uh was flagged, yes. Okay, and then uh flag numbers here uh on the survey. Okay, and then you mentioned something about wanting to do some removal debris and things down at the uh end of the property. This is the side of the um stream, which has not many, but uh it looks like uh probably landscapers were they mowing the lawn and blowing the leaves uh from the lawn area. Uh probably that's their storage. Uh my I would suggest you add that to your application, then. All right, I'm opening it up uh firstly uh John Mayer. Do you have any uh comments on this? Um we have a couple engineering review comments which we'll send to the applicant. Um the main one that's pertinent to

011wetlands is that the um patio fire pit that's next to the pond. Um Right here? Yes, that that patio appears to have been installed in the last 5 years and was not permitted. So this is just the fire pit or actually fire pit and >> The the larger patio mostly. The whole patio. Um so that should be added to the wetlands permit as well as um modeled as new impervious area in your drainage calculations. Um and the rest are mostly minor engineering comments about the drainage system. All right, thank you John. All right. Opening it up to the commission. Comments, questions? Remember that I can't see everyone on the screen, so. All right, in that case >> through the chair. Okay, go ahead Carmine. Um when were those when were the when was the wetlands

012uh flagged? Is it recent or I'm not sure. I will have to check the uh wetlands report which I can I maybe I can open it. Hold on a second. So it was done by uh Dr. Danzer and um it was done August 7th, 2025. So So within the last year, okay. Yeah. Uh as [clears throat] far as the pool goes, what type of filter is that that's being proposed? Probably the cartridge filter. Cartridge? Can we get a Can we get a confirmation that it will be a cartridge type? Uh yes, I can get you the confirmation. Okay, thank you. >> [snorts] >> All right, David, any comments? Um nice seeing you out Alexandra. Um always pleasure. Um on your planting plan, you have two VC identified. I'm assuming those are vaccinium corymbosum, highbush blueberries,

013but they're not specified on the planting schedule. Or are those a viburnum? I have red dogwood and inkberry and buttonbush. What are your CBC? Uh If you see the three CS right next to the swings? This one? Oh, this one, yes. Right below it. Two VC. IG. Nope. Why? Two? You've got two big green blobs. Uh this one and that one. This is a tree, existing tree. And this is also an existing tree. And there's a label right above it that says VC two. I think this is probably PVC pipe. This This is like on the map. Yes, this is probably applying to this PVC pipe. Um it's not a plant. So those are existing trees? Yes. The big green blobs? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Also, it'd be helpful if you do put on the

014plan that they're existing. Okay. At this point uh John Lauria, I'm going to ask you so when we do the walk give the perimeter or the um marks and uh stakes that you'd like to see. All right? And if you can move the plan back down so uh Yeah, so we can see the pool area >> Lauria can see it. Uh which part? There you go, that's good. Yep. So [snorts] where where's the upland review area exactly? It's supposed to be the whole thing? Where's the 100 uh 100 foot uh uh park course line? >> the 100 foot uh upland area. What is >> So you can see the whole pool. Okay, so can we stake out >> [clears throat] >> let's call the four corners of the pool patio. >> or the patio? Or

015both? >> Let's do them both. Okay. So we should have two uh rectangles one inside the other. And how about two where the water detention system is? Does that look good to you, Rich? I always trust your judgment, John. You know that. Okay, I'm willing to take any other input. All right, any other comments, questions? >> we'll know where we are. All right. Any other comments, questions before we go on to the Go ahead. Carmine. Uh is is this a salt water pool or fresh water? Fresh water. Okay, thank you. Through the chair. Go ahead uh Rich. Uh in the past we've used a standard condition for pools that for complete pool drainage, pool water would be trucked offsite. Uh is that the standard we're expecting for here despite the fact that there's gravel on

016the property? Can you repeat the question? I'm sorry. Um are we for complete pool drainage, uh the pool water will be trucked offsite? Is there going to be any Okay, no water will be pumped into the sewer system. No. Okay. Um that's a standard condition of approval. Thank you. Thank you, Rich. All right. Through the chair. Go ahead, David. Just to confirm um John Mayer's um thoughts. The 2018 2019 aerials do not show that patio next to the pond. Um but the 2023 aerials do. All right. So as we asked, then that should be added to the application. And that's already built, so we don't need to have that staked out, so. All right, is there any uh other comments, questions? Otherwise, I'm moving on to the next application. All right, thank you uh Alexandra.

017Thank you. Okay, we're moving to application >> I >> [clears throat] >> Who? Go ahead. >> It's Attorney Kordown. If I could ask the applicant to take the application down. Yes. Thank you. And a a point of order again, if I could see it I see uh I think Attorney Belito may be here from Mr. Willinger's office. Attorney Belito, Mr. Saltus, Ms. Lanoci, if any of you can hear me, if you can raise your hand. Okay, we got somebody coming in. Very good. Um so he is if I if I if um I could speak with one of them just so that they're not waiting the entire time. The the the chair would um request that we continue application 2510 and 2511 so that our LEP could meet with their LEP and town staff. Um

018There There is another uh interaction that did not take place this week that was expected to and due to some scheduling errors and some staff illness, we were unable to do that. So that's the request. I don't know if Mr. Willinger can be brought into the meeting, Mr. Chin, for a moment. Uh yes, I've uh requested to be promoted to a panelist. You just have to click yes on that. All right, for the public right now, we're going out of order for as we said, application 25-10 and 25-11 which is Sycamore Street. Um Can Attorney Lanoci address this? Uh there I see Attorney Willinger now, so. Unmute. Uh there you are, Attorney Willinger. All right. Uh I'm sorry. Uh let me get out of here. Um Okay. So can you hear me now? Yes. Yes.

019Uh unfortunately, my client uh is >> I'm going to inter- I'm going to ask that you identify yourself first, Attorney. My name is Charles Willinger of Willinger, Willinger and Bucci and we represent the two applicants in reference to 25 application 25 10 and 25 11. And uh I would prefer since my client has given me marching orders to to try to conclude it tonight, I would prefer not to lengthen it any more. If at the end of the proceedings you believe a meeting to uh >> [snorts] >> tie up some loose ends would be necessary, we would uh uh acquiesce to that, but I'd like to get the uh uh main argument and on the record tonight. Okay, that's fair, attorney Willinger. We just didn't want you to uh wait the entire meeting. Um did

020not know that request. I know you have. I appreciate I appreciate that. No [clears throat] no problem. So yes, it certainly if you consent to a continuation of the hearing if that's required, um then we can we can present tonight and um we'll go go forward with your application uh as it is in the order of the agenda, which is um a few more applications later. So thank you. Thank you, counselor. All right, we're going to application 26-10. A Hados Properties LLC, permit approval to build a single-family residence within a regulated area at 33 Broadway. >> [snorts] >> Mr. Chin, you can um move Mr. Willinger and Ms. Lenoci to out of the meeting. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. John, is it your understanding that uh there'll be somebody speaking for 33 Broadway tonight?

021I see a um Souza, is that for them or Yes. Yes, that's Can you hear me? Yes. Hi, good evening. Uh my name is Veronica Mintroski. I'm here in name of Ronaldo Machado for the application 26-10 >> have to interrupt you and ask you to give us your name, your address, and your firm. So I'm Veronica Mintroski. I'm here in name of Machado's Properties, Ronaldo Machado. Application 26-10 33 Broadway. Okay. Are you Are you a company or you know, consultant? Yeah, we are a company. Okay. And what is it that your company does? I'm a little uh I'm Veronica Mintroski Design LLC. All right. Okay. There you go. Go ahead. Sorry about that. No problem. Uh can I share my screen right? Sure. Just one minute. It says that I'm unable to share my screen.

022Uh hold on. Hold on. Let me just check the setting. All panelists have the ability to share. Let me see. John, do you have the uh plans that you might be able to put up for the applicant? Uh I'm sure. Possibly. All right. Okay. Now I'm able. So we have here uh the application for 33 Broadway. That's uh it was one lot. We made the subdivision for 35 Broadway and now we have 33 Broadway. In this plan, we have um the proposed house location. Uh in here, we have the wetlands setback. We don't have any wetlands inside of the lots, but we have the 100 uh line setback right in the middle of the property. Here is the driveway to access the house. On the rear of the house, we're going to have a retaining

023wall as well. As you can see in here. So we have the concrete retaining wall right in the rear of the house. And we have the proposed two-story house in the new lots. No set No wetlands inside, but we have the 100 ft setbacks line inside of the uh the lots. We have a better view here. Just one minute. Here you can see the proposed foundation, the existing house right on top for 35 Broadway. And here below, we have the wetlands line. Here's going to be the driveway to access the two-story house and here is going to be the proposed retaining wall. For this project in particular, uh we have applied before uh for the subdivision, which was approved and then we have applied for the regular permit process, which was approved. Uh so we

024got uh the foundation uh permit, which was building here, as you can see. Uh and then we got the notification that we had to apply for the wetlands. So that's why we're doing this application right now. So we believe that's all the information that we have for now. If you have any questions, um please feel free to tell. Hey John, did you want to address this, John Mayor? Any comments, questions before we go to the commission? Um no, just uh the you know, the fact that this is um obviously a permit has been issued. Um and this is technically after the fact, not necessarily through the fault of the applicant. All right. No other comments, okay. Let's go to the chair. Uh we have both permits. We have the retaining wall permit and also we

025have the foundation house permit. Approved and we already made all the inspections. Uh-huh. Through the chair? Yes, Mr. Chin. Go ahead, John Mayor. Okay. Right now, the foundation is in. You have foundation drains in as well? Yes. Where are those foundation drains going? Are they going into a water detention system? We're going to have the cool tech system. It's already in place? Yes, it is. Okay. Do we have for the next application a aerial photo, a detailed aerial photo of what this property looked like before this project started and what it looks like now? Because there may have been some differences in the landscaping along the brook, which prevented water from flowing into the brook directly and now it it may be that the land itself has been changed, so everything is sloping into the

026brook instead of being protected by a berm. I don't have the >> true? the before photos right now. I just have the existing >> see before photos for the next meeting and current photos if so we can do a comparison of what's happened in the landscaping. Also, is this in a floodway? I don't understand. I know that the Mhm. Echo Restaurant complex behind it, that brook, which is known as Farrar's Brook, is also a part of a a floodway, I believe. Could we check into that as well? We have the 500 500-year flood zone on the lots. Okay. John, would it be helpful if we had the uh before topography plan before the uh Yes, I believe there I haven't pulled them apart. Are they already there, John Mayor? >> that the site plan they

027submitted does include um existing topography before any work started. Yes. We have for the previous lots for 35 Broadway. All right, so we can look into that. Any other comments, questions from the commissioners? Through the chair. Through the chair. Go ahead. Go ahead go ahead Rich. Oh, just a quick question. All the all the documents that have put in been excuse me been put been put in for both the original application and this one, they've all been stamped with a live stamp from the the licensed surveyor, correct? Cuz >> Yes, correct. >> Okay, there were there were some serious issues with properties in in the region that had significant um forested issues. Uh this is adjacent to a to a state designated forest and a FEMA designated floodway. So we just want to make sure

028it's all um you know, in in accordance with those policies. Yeah, we have the surveyor and the civil engineer. All the plans are stamped in. Okay, thank you. Mhm. Thank you, Rich. All right, Carmine, you had a comment or question? Yes. The drawings that were included in our packet do not match the ones that are being put up. I've seen RW 1 2 and 3 and the ones I have are marked just sheet one of one one of two and two of two. And they're different drawings. For the wetlands plan? Everything that you're showing here is not in our package. We have we dropped it off two sets. One it was a different setback and then I dropped off with John the updated one the same day. John Mayor, what are your comments on that?

029We're looking at a X-1 of 1. And let's see. Unless I'm mistaken, the plan that's on screen right now was included in your package. It's included in the agenda. It's not it's not here. Oh. Actually, sorry. I'm actually looking at it here Carmine. Oh, yes, I am. It's RW X-1 of 1. I have that one, but she had another one up RW-1 which showed the topography and I do not have that drawing. Okay, let me see what we have here. Cuz I've got a drainage plan, a detail plan. Yeah. You're you're right, I don't see a topography. You got RW All these RW-1 2 and 3 are not included in our package. It's for the retaining wall. It You're showing it, we don't have it to review it. All right, can you get that to

030the office and then the office will get it out to the commissioners for the next meeting if you would. It has been dropped off all together. Um just one copy of this because it was an extra item of the application. But I can bring more copies for sure. All right. Any other comments? Go ahead David. It's customary of this commission to require plantings between proposed activities and the wetlands. And typically we have required a alternating row of native shrubs 5 ft on center across the area of disturbance. Um I think it would benefit this application and this site for a planting plan to be submitted with buffer plantings extending from Broadway up to um you know, 30 ft beyond the proposed residence past the limit of grading. So we should add a planting plan into

031the application okay. You want to add that they all have to be native plants David? I think I stated that in in my comments that they they need to be native plants. Okay, sorry. I'm I'm trying to write and I might have missed that. Mhm. >> [clears throat] >> All right, anything else from the commission? And just for a reference um the proposed house is following all the zoning setbacks. We have made variance as well which was approved. So the location of the house is following all the necessary setbacks uh for the zoning regulations. All right, thank you. Okay. All right. No other comments, questions. All right, I'm going to ask for a motion to close new business. Motion. Second. Made by Bob, seconded by Rich. All in favor? I. Can you take your plan

032down by the way uh Mr. Souza? Sure. >> Thank you. Mhm. Okay. So everyone's uh in agreement. All right, we'll go to old business. Application 26-02 Joseph Giuliano permit approval for an in-ground pool within a regulated area at 17 Applegate Lane. >> [clears throat and cough] >> John Okay, see the applicant's on. I don't see his engineer or his landscape uh architect. Hi, good evening Chairman. Um Manny Silva should be on. All right. Is Mr. Stahli with this application? No, he's with the next one. He's with Old Dyke Road. All right, uh Mr. Giuliano, I was going to say if uh the engineer is going to be held up for a while, I'll go to the next application. Okay, yeah, that that works. Do you folks see Manny Silva on? No, he would have been

033promoted right now. Uh No, he's not he's not in the crowd. I'll give you some time to hunt him down. All right? Okay, thank you. >> he's I believe he's listed under the attendees. Yeah, he should be on cuz Tracy's on vacation. And he was standing in for her this evening. There's a Tiago Silva, but not a Manny Silva. Yeah, unrelated. Okay. All right, so we're going to go to the next application which is 25-43 Aris W. Stahli is permit approval for restoration and reconstruction of existing residence, landscaping, replacing driveway and front walk, and installation of storm water retention system within a regulated area at 201 Old Dyke Road. Good evening, Mr. Stahli. Uh good evening, Chairman commissioners. My name is Aris Stahli. I'm the principal landscape architect of Aris Land Studio located in Hampton,

034Connecticut uh representing Mr. Silva tonight for his application regarding 201 Old Dyke Road. We did have a uh site walk um on the 25th of March um to observe the site and one of the issues that came from our last the last meeting of consequence was in December when we first uh showed the application was asking for the uh well at the back of the property to be identified if it's a water course or not. This is a letter I received today from Mr. William Kenny of William Kenny Associates uh saying that uh that swell is not in in fact a water course. So, that is to clarify that issue. I'm just looking to share the drawing now which you you are looking at the drawing which, uh, we had submitted updated plans which are

035dated January 28th, 2026. Uh, the tree removal plan was updated to reflect the number of trees that we could determine that were removed from the site. Uh, on the drawings we submitted, we uh, provided the number of trees that are within the 100-ft setback and then the trees outside of the 100-ft setback and we divided those kind of by, uh, by caliper size that are that is on the drawing here the lower area here. Trees that were within the 100-ft setback, we had one that was around 6-in caliper, three trees were approximately 30-36 in calipers and then one tree was at a 43-in caliper. Um, I won't go through the other trees that were outside of the setback. Uh, and the setback line is this heavy line that kind of cuts through the existing residence.

036We also updated the planting plan. Uh, we increased the, um, number of shade trees on the project. Uh, this includes the addition of a, uh, sweet gum, an additional, uh, smaller scarlet oak and then a larger 2-2 1/2 in caliper, uh, scarlet oak. The sweet gum is proposed here. Uh, one scarlet oak here, another scarlet oak near the street. Um, so that's additional shade trees added to the project and then we, um, essentially clarified one of the plans that Mr. Bresby had identified that was on the plan. Um, also as I mentioned in the last meeting, we uh, participated in last month was that the, uh, uh, engineer of record had determined that utilizing the wall that's on the property today uh, does not alter the storm water calculations and will not increase any any

037flows. Um, with that, I will open it to questions. I believe I've addressed all of your questions and concerns. I'm going to go to, um, our engineer, John Mayer. Any comments on this, John? Uh, not right now. Um, that's all. All right, thank you. Um, and I open it up through the chair. Go ahead, uh, Greg. Yeah, that So, this planting plan has been updated because I guess the last time there's been new plants a lot of new plants put in since we visited. Um, so this is up to date. Um, This is This is up to date. This doesn't reflect all of those, uh, which half of them have already kind of died, uh, which are the the arborvitae and I'll be recommending to the client to stick with our planting plan which is,

038uh, a plethora of, uh, native plantings. Okay, so is it going to change again? I cuz normally >> No. we have some some of our commissioners review the planting plan, but, uh, my understanding is this is a a miss one of the missing pieces from the last time that we need to get in, um, prior to a CEO. Correct. To get to get the CEO, then, uh, that you know, the the everything that's on these plans has to be installed, um, and then certified that that it's it's been done for the approval. Okay. Now, second question I have, this has got a big drop-off from the house down to the street which works down to the, uh, lake. Um, from an erosion control, every time it we were there on a couple, uh, rainfalls last

039year and it was just dirt and everything pushed out into the street and, uh, across the street and and all that. So, we're going to be probably requiring some sort of site monitoring for erosion control. Um, I would think it's probably something on a big rainfall something you would be, uh, willing to, uh, document and make sure that we, um, you know, if there's any issues, it gets reset because this is where we've even had complaints, uh, from the local neighbors. Yeah, no, that's completely understandable and yes, when it was, um, you know, when the soil was exposed, it was, uh, it definitely caused problems. Uh, we've got a a pretty healthy buffer of plantings at the edge to help collect that and then the owner is, um, I When we met, we I I

040told him that now is the perfect time to reseed so that we stabilize any bare soils right now. Okay, thank you. On that same note, uh, Greg, what will you be using be on the as I'm looking at the property to the right where you're doing all the plantings from the plantings down to Booth Hill, uh, stream? How are you stabilizing that area? Is that wild grass? Is that, uh, grass? No, so so it's so it's plants here. So so essentially what's what's happening here is that, you know, the the erosion control fencing comes out once everything's been stabilized and that these plantings are placed here along the edge to act, you know, to assist in that stabilization which includes the turf areas around the residence being seeded and stabilized. So, once that's all stable

041and and, um, you know, we won't have any more erosion control, then then the erosion control fencing can be removed. Okay, but my question was not the interior. It's the other side between the plantings and that stream. Yeah, there's >> planted there to prevent erosion? >> There's nothing We're We're not introducing anything else in that area because it really we didn't see, um, severe erosion happening there and it's essentially going to remain the the native forest that it is. All right, David, do you have any comments on this, the planting plan and all that? No, I reviewed the the plant list and the the planting plan. I think it's well put together. It's thoughtful. It's mostly native plants. I think they're appropriate for the area. Um, you know, I think it's an excellent planting plan.

042What my concern here is certification of the planting plan at the end of the project before a CEO is issued. So, we need to build into any approval of this project that, um, a certification by the landscape architect has has to be obtained certifying that all the plants went in per the planting plan before a CEO can be issued. Um, I think this we've this application has been around and bounced around and that's my concern is that, you know, things will will change. Yeah. And we're this is what we're approving and this was this is what needs to go in. All right, Mr. Stellas, would you agree to that plus, uh, monitoring the, uh, site during construction? Well, I I cannot, I mean, um, what I can say is that the your approval would require

043um, observation of the erosion control by someone who is a certified erosion control inspector which could be me or another party and then that a a landscape architect would certify if the plants that the plan was installed per per the town requirements because for the sake of discussion, if for example, I win lotter the lottery, I may not come back. I may go someplace else. So, just that the the the approval should specify a landscape architect, not myself since I'm not an owner of the property. You're not what? I'm not an owner in the in the property and and if the construction happens a year from now, if I'm not around, that shouldn't, uh, hold up the the applicant in getting a CEO. All right. And uh I'm sorry, and who was the letter from?

044Um The letter was from William Kenny. Bill Bill Kenny is the one. >> all right, then we could see if we can get Bill Kenny to uh be the monitor and to oversee the uh planting. What do you think on that, David? Uh that would be fine. I think we could say an either or with that. I mean, it's essentially that the the the proper professionals come in and, you know, with the certifications provide the documentation that's necessary. All right, so I have checked the applicant would have to agree then that uh Mr. Kenny would be the gentleman that would give the uh landscape certification and act as monitor. So, I don't know if he's on tonight or not, but He he is not. I just, you know, it's it's usually I haven't seen commissions

045specify specific professionals. Well, this has been going on for a couple years, and plus the property was clear-cut. So, you know, we just Also, there's been you know, quite a bit from the neighbors. So, we want to try to keep everyone happy. Uh Mr. Chair. Hi, Greg. Why don't we just we we could draft a motion basically saying that uh the before we uh issue the uh wetlands um approval, uh they just the applicant send um one or two certified um landscape architect names to to handle the erosion monitoring and the sign off on the landscape plan. They don't have to uh we don't have to make that call, but he should submit that to engineering before uh we give our final approval, and he can choose two, three names. All right. Or two or

046three firms, whatever. All right. Thank you, Greg. >> Final The final certification needs to be stamped and sealed by a licensed professional. Whether it's um an environmental professional or a landscape architect. Um I don't think I think either would qualify. It can't be an engineer cuz they don't know their plants, and it can't be you know, an architect cuz they don't know their plants or anything. It should be a landscape architect or environmental professional that can certify that the plants that were specified on the plan went in per plan. All right. Mr. Chair. Uh firstly, thank you, David. Go ahead, Rich. Um what Mr. Foresby said, I I brought this up on the last application. Uh it's been a significant issue that if you've watched um applications throughout the Southwest Conservation District in the last

047eight to 10 months, there's been a tremendous number of applications that have come up with um without the right stamp. And it it's um it's a very easy uh issue to fix. You have a licensed professional or registered professional taking care of these maps and plans. Unfortunately, we've seen a number of them come through in various locations without them, and it creates unnecessary delays. Um I I think it should be a standard procedure for you know, any professionals at these levels should should be able to have these done very easily. So, I'm sure the applicant will have no issue um acquiring the uh correct certifications. All right. Thank you. All right. Any other comments, questions? If we're good, I'm going to uh move on. All right. Uh good night, Ms. Dallas. Thank you. Good night.

048Thank you very much. All right. Let's see. I'm going to go back to uh application 26-02. Mr. Giuliano, did you find uh your engineer? Yes, I reached out to him, and he said he should be on. So, you may see him as a panelist? Is he on yet, uh Mr. Chen? There he is. Okay. >> his crazy background. All right. Good evening. Manny Silva from uh Rosete & Company representing the applicant at uh I think it's 17 uh uh 17 Applegate Lane. Um so, the uh the application >> second. You have to give your spiel. Yes, sir. Um so, again, Manny Silva at 35 Brentwood Avenue, uh Fairfield, Connecticut, uh licensed civil engineer in the state of Connecticut, representing Mr. Giuliano at uh 17 Applegate Lane. And your company? Oh, Rosete & Company. Thank you.

049Yep. Um the uh the application, I think the the the the uh commission finally had their uh or able to go out and do their site walk um on property. Um the application in front of you today is the um is the phase two of the overall project, uh where we have a pool and a and a play area, um which is not going to be which is going to be a pervious surface, not impervious surface. Um I believe some of the questions that the uh the site walk uh that came out of the site walk was that the uh the approved boulder location, all the boulders were there, um but the uh commission envisioned that the boulders would be larger, uh so, they requested that uh additional ones be added in between, um and

050the applicant agreed to do that uh along with the phase two of this application. Um there was some bare spots due to the um harshness of the winter. Um so, as the spring Now this Now that we're in the spring, we're going to see what plants are going to are are going to take or come back, and we'll supplement um any uh any seeding or or plants that uh didn't make it through the winter. Um and then there was another concern about the stockpile over here off to the uh side of the property. Um the reason why the stockpile is still there is because uh we envision using some of that material for phase two, but then once that's completed, the that all that material will be moved offsite. And I think that was the

051questions that everybody had at the the site walk, but I could, you know, but if there is anything else, I'll be happy to answer it. Okay, the posts that were there were like about 4 in into the ground. What we would like to see is 6-ft posts, 2-ft buried into the ground, so we have a 4-ft posts showing, and they would have the uh um wetlands uh markers on them. We definitely do that. >> that are there, if you you put your hand on it, they fall over, so Yeah, I think they were trying to drive them in while the ground was frozen, um but now that that is not the case, we'll we'll drive them into your what the specification that you just described. >> [snorts] >> All right. And um site monitor, would

052you be willing to uh act as the site monitor for this project? Um I think it's appropriate for me to be a site monitor um for the soil erosion control. Um I think uh Tracy has been the site monitor for any of the wetlands and the plantings, and I think she should continue to do that. All right. Since she's not on task, so we'll just make that a condition then. Correct. So, that would be So, Tracy for the land, and you for the other. Did you get that, Greg? Yeah. Um Go ahead. You want to finish up? I had something to add to that, though. Go ahead. Did you got it? Go ahead. Um Yeah, for you erosion control is one thing, but there was when we did our site walk, I think there's a

053little concern uh to be pretty honest here, the location of all that soil that is around the trees is not in the area that was on um on the plan. It was farther toward the wetlands. Um so, I think it was and our engineering group didn't know anything about it, so I think it was a surprise if Tracy's monitoring is a surprise that that wasn't recorded or or engineering wasn't notified. Um So, that's fine. We do Tracy, if she's going to be a site monitor, that's fine, but we've got anything that's being adjusted or changed has got to be communicated with engineering. Okay, I'll relay that to her. We're kind of kind of concerned there's so much dirt piled up on some of these established trees to the west that uh you're slowly killing them.

054So, um if you go out there and see it, there's a lot of a lot of dirt there. The other thing that my understanding is uh from engineering, I our engineer is um ill tonight. Um They're the rain garden, I think an as-built needs to be submitted. The final location, size, whatever, to engineering um for the land for the uh property records for the land property records. Uh I think they're missing that, so I wanted want sure that's there before any uh CO is going to be issued. Yep, we'll issue a lot I think the the plan uh the as-built was done. We just haven't issued the um the record Mylar. Or we were going to do that after this phase. That's what we agreed on. Okay. Just putting it in as a condition. Right.

055Mhm. Are you good, Greg? Yep. Hey, David. Um right now when we went out on the uh walk, you weren't there, but right now the uh rain garden is just like a big huge mud pie. Uh what is your suggestion that they plant in there to stabilize the sides of the sides of the rain garden and the naturally, you know, base of it. Um I talked to Tatiana about this. Um Fortunately, she's not here tonight. She's been ill for last couple days, so. Um Okay. I had spoken to her about this. To It's tough going when you do planting in the fall that, you know, and if you have a bad winter, all the seed won't take, so that area should be reseeded. Um Yeah, it's pretty common and a lot of those seeds take

056more than one season to establish. All right. So, my understanding it's going to be like wild grass in there? Yes. All right. Thank you. Anyone else from the uh commission? Okay. Are we good? Nothing else? All right. So, at this point then um let's see. Mr. Chairman. Go ahead, uh Attorney Cordon. I was wondering if since these two applications are fresh in the commission's mind, we want to go ahead and entertain motions for approval on the >> That's exactly where I'm going on it right now. I didn't mean to steal your thunder. Uh I'll tell you, my age I got no thunder, believe me. Um no, just looking down because I'm thinking we could do it before we go to uh That's an excellent idea because I'm abstaining from the next two as well, so.

057All right. All right. So, while it's fresh, let's uh do um Applegate, which is application 26-02. Uh Greg, can I get a motion to approve? Sure. And we'll submit with the following conditions. Yep, I make a motion to approve application 2602. Uh Joseph Giuliano, uh permanent approval for an in-ground pool within a regulated area at 17 Applegate Lane. Uh in accordance with the following conditions from the Town of Trumbull Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Commission, section one general conditions 1.1 to 1.10. Uh section two site-specific conditions of approval uh 2.1 and 2.2, which are focused on erosion control. Um section uh conditions 2.14 to 2.17, which are are standard conditions for pools. Um 2.9, I skipped over, which is the survival survivability of all plantings and grasses for at least 1 year. Uh we know there

058was some washout here over the winter. And then uh section three additional conditions. Um the uh engineering department asked uh me to s- also put down that the pool contractor needs to acknowledge that uh uh the IWWC per- um permit uh by letter to engineering before commencement of the work. 3.2 add three additional boulders to the uh um existing um line of boulders uh from left to right on the print. Add one between boulder one and two. Add one between three and four, and add one between four and five. Condition 3.3 um post are very unstable. Um 4-ft post needs to be replaced with a 6-ft post and buried 24 in, so that the uh above ground height will be 4 ft. Condition 3.4 uh issue of final uh as-built of the rain garden shape

059location to the engineering department uh prior to the CO being issued, so it can be filed on the property land records. And 3.5 uh stockpile of dirt needs to be removed around the trees uh to avoid killing them. Second. We have to add the uh site monitors on there, too. Okay, those are Certification of landscape architect. Yeah. The uh 2.1 are site monitors uh for contractors and uh 2.2 is the same thing, erosion control. So, I guess what do we need to s- additional condition of uh 3.6, uh applicant to submit uh names of site monitors for for the project and um erosion control. That's it. And they would The approval is contingent upon having all the correct stamps on all these um as-builts and original site plans. All right. 3.7 Thank you, Rich. David,

060does that cover the uh certification of the landscape architect in that motion? Uh I did not hear a certification by landscape architect. >> I did I think I think we were going to add that to the last one. Maybe if Greg could just uh 3.7, we'll do we'll put in a um condition that all uh prints um and as-builts uh that are submitted um at the end of the project but need stamps from a licensed architect landscape architect or licensed environmental professional. Or certificate. Certified, right. Arborist >> That should just be one of our standard conditions that all plantings shall be certified at the completion of the project. 3.7 Honestly. And and David, you would accept an arborist as a qualified professional? Um do they have a stamp? No, they're performing the work. They have

061a Do they have a license? They presumably they're licensed, bonded, and insured. As long as they're li- they're licensed, then, you know, cuz if if they put it in and we go out there and it's not right and they've certified that it is, then there's some recourse. Mhm. Arborists Arborists are licensed. Yep. I I'm sure there are unlicensed you know, fly-by-night outfits out there, but any any respectable outfit would be licensed. Well, yes, we're not >> Yeah, if there was a letter from an arborist with the license number on it certifying that the plantings went in per the plan, um that would be acceptable. All right. Have we missed anything? Are we good before I go to uh I I need a second. Second. Seconded by Rich. Okay, we'll do a uh vote. I'm a

062yes. Carmine? Yes. Bob? Yes. David? Yes. John? Yes. Rich? Yes. And as I said, I'm yes, so it passes unanimous. All right. Let's go to uh Thank you, everyone. Appreciate it. I would just uh can I add that um the applicant has done an excellent job and their consultants in bringing this project into compliance. And thank >> Thank you, David. I appreciate all your consideration. Thank you all. All right. Sir. And we'll be there at the pool party, but that's another story. >> Oh, you're all invited, for sure. Thank you all. Good job. You haven't lived until you've seen Rich Deacon in a Speedo. I'll be out of the country for that. >> [laughter] >> Sorry. All right. Thanks again, all. Have a good evening. >> All right. All right. Application 26-10. Um I need

063a motion to approve as uh Excuse me. I'm sorry, wrong guy. Um application 25-43, which is 201 Old Dyck Road. Application to approve as submitted with the following conditions, Greg. Yep. Uh from the Town of Trumbull uh Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Commission, section one general conditions 1.1 to 1.10. Site-specific conditions of approval 2.1, which is the erosion control um inspection. Um additional conditions uh 3.1 um a final revised planning plan needs um to be submitted and signed off by a licensed uh landscape architect or licensed environmental professional uh certifying that all plants uh were went in that were um listed on the plan, stamped and sealed. Second. Hey, then uh no, hold on. We uh need to talk about the uh monitors, remember? Yeah, well, 2.1 Okay, so we want to Remember we talked about

064we talked about Bill Kenny, but if he wants to submit somebody that he wishes that's different. Mr. Stalis declined. He didn't want to take the responsibility. And I don't want to speak for uh for uh you know, Bill Kenny, but we would like a licensed architect. Well, they can nominate anyone and either Tatiana or or Dave can approve them. Yeah, I don't think we should be specifying any individual to do it. Anyone who's qualified should be able to do this work. Yeah, I I I agree, John. They have to put their license behind it. Yeah, Tatiana or Dave I mean you know, as long as they have the stamp, this presumably the state stamp should be sufficient for our needs. But I when I say Dave is approving it, I don't mean Dave personally is

065going to grant him the approval, but I mean Dave is giving us a a list of qualified personnel that we can approve from. For example, the arborist, the landscaper. >> I'm not giving you anything. No, but you you provided it for the last um uh condition of approval. Right, it's a should be a licensed environmental professional or landscape architect. That's what I mean. You can just name put their license behind it, that's fine, but I'm not giving a list and as long as Tatiana can get their license number, their stamp, all that sort of stuff, it should be fine. They're the ones who are standing behind it saying this work certifying that this work went in per the plans. And if it doesn't go in per the plans, then the town has recourse with their

066license. Right, Dave, I'm not asking you for to list the names. I'm asking you to for the for you to give a a a a list of qualified titles. Yeah, I think that you want categories. Just did. Yeah, that's that's that's fine. >> Just did it. All right. Bob, do you have anything to add? No, no, thank you. Oh, you're good? All right. Anything else before I ask for a uh second? Okay, seconded by Rich. Okay, we'll bring it to a vote. I'm a yes. Carmine? Yes. Bob? Yes. Yes. David? Yes. John? Yes. Rich? Yes. Okay, it's unanimous. Uh we're going to go to the uh next application and at this point John Lauria is going to abstain. So, thank you, John. You want to get me when we're all done? Yes. We'll come back.

067Um keep watching the sky. We'll we'll shoot up one of those rockets in the air for you. All right, application 25-10, Amelia Ferry, permit approval to legalize existing improvements for retaining wall location, topographical contour changes, proposed underground infiltration system location in rear new rear deck within a regulated area at 6 Sycamore Street, modification of application 21-07. Uh Attorney Cordon, should we bring these together and discuss both at the same time? >> Yes, both uh both applications can be heard in one public hearing. So, when the time comes, we need to deliberate differently. All right. So, we will include application 25-11, again Amelia Ferry, permit approval to legitimize proposed retaining wall location, relocate scour hole location, and encroachment of limit of disturbance within a regulated area at lot 321 Sycamore Street. Uh if you're ready for

068me, I'll start, Mr. Chairman. >> counselor. Uh my name is Charles Willinger, firm of Willinger, Willinger and Bucci, and [clears throat] we represent the uh petitioner, Amelia Ferry, in reference to both uh the applications you just uh referenced. Um I'd like to, if I can, set the table. I'm sorry, somebody said something? Nope. Go ahead. All right. Um we the last time we appeared before you in a public hearing for these applications was September 2 of last year. At that time, uh I requested that uh rather uh than uh having uh your own um uh LEP um to uh to to perform the various tests, investigation, and reports, that it was more proper and normal and usual uh for our uh licensed professional uh LEP to do the same and that you peer review the

069application. That was denied. That request was denied. It cost my client about $35,000 or so, uh and a 7-month delay. Um In any event, um we're here tonight. Uh WSP and Mr. Derek Jones uh uh issued an investigation report and a remedial action evaluation. I'm assuming you have that in the record uh in your record somewhere. Uh if not, I would like to make it a copy of the record uh just for Mr. Chairman, I I'm going to enter if I could um counselor. Um I I don't know that that is in the record. I don't know if Miss Sully Bay, I know she's not well if she is here, but I believe that that was in draft form and was exchanged between the applicants W environmental LEP and our LEP in the efforts of

070trying to have an agreed upon uh report, which was in progress as of the end of this week. So, that that's that's what I was trying to convey earlier to you, Attorney Willinger. I know it was later in the day. So, I I don't know that our LEP report is submitted to the commission because it was in draft form and interacting with your LEP in an effort to um have a meeting of the minds, which we believe is still in progress. I don't know if the >> No, we haven't we haven't we haven't received any of those yet, uh counselor. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman, to confirm it. So, I just I just wanted to make sure that we're setting the table, right? So, uh uh and that may impact what you want to

071say tonight, counselor, as well. Well, no, because if I assume eventually you're going to get some report after tonight and you'll make it an exhibit uh Yes. I'll introduce our own report uh as an exhibit in a few minutes. But I can tell you that uh Mr. Jones' report, draft or otherwise, was dated January 26th um and noted that uh there was extensive testing uh on the property and properties in question and the neighboring piece, all three properties uh that my client owns. Uh the intention is to have one property um the house that's built and has been sitting there for months and months will be the home residence of Amelia Ferry. Uh her sister will have uh one of the other two uh houses hopefully constructed after approvals, and her mother will have the

072third. So, the three houses will all be owner-occupied uh residential homes. In any event, uh there were uh 22 test pits, four soil borings, two ground water wells. There was sampling of 37 soil samples, uh two ground water samples, and all those tests uh results were uh exactly as our LEP, Jay Saltus, who's in who is here tonight if you have questions of him. Uh Jay Saltus of Reef Environmental uh found months ago. The findings are that there are few hotspots and mostly minor, if any, exceedance of the former uh standard for environmental remediation. It was called the remediation standards, RSRs. Um the um report, uh when you get it and read it, uh has three uh possible alternatives. The one that uh Mr. Jones has uh selected uh is known as alternative three. It's

073on page nine of this report when you get it. Uh and um uh basically um what he is recommending is that uh as our environmental uh professional recommended, that the hotspots be removed uh and the properly disposed of. Uh that the excavations to remove the hotspots um would be filled with clean fill. [clears throat] Uh that um that um there'll be a cap on the on the property. Uh and um we don't have issue with all that, and that's all reflected in our remedial remedial action plan as well. But the point in controversy is that um um according to Mr. Jones, the commission wants an EUR, a land use restriction recorded on the land records. And that's the non-starter for us and I'll explain why in a few minutes. [clears throat] But in any event

074alternate three uh he estimates and it's an estimate good estimate but it's a it's an estimate. We hope it's not going to exceed that. But his estimate was $290,500. Then you add to that our LEP our attorney fees and you're exceeding four and you're exceeding $400,000 on this remediation. Uh $400,000 uh is a significant sum. Uh that doesn't include the $35,000 we paid. >> [clears throat] >> In any event things got complicated uh and um because uh um February 28th of this year the former act known as the transfer act was abolished uh for all properties that were not already in the transfer program. And on March 1st, the new regulations were issued. Now, these new regulations uh are named the release-based cleanup regulations, RBCRs. Uh and um and the law uh uh is uh

075has changed uh significantly. Uh there was just for the record purposes cuz I'm hopefully speaking more than just to the record. Hopefully the commission is uh going to appreciate the situation we're in. But the but for the record regulation 22a-134tt-1 and subsections uh has now a um it now has an exception or an exemption from cleanup for residential properties. Um and um our LEP J had uh numerous conversations with the DEP official involved [clears throat] in the in the cleanup in Trumbull and neighboring uh towns. His name is Kevin Neri. Uh he's the act the official the top official in charge of remediation. Uh and um as a matter of fact, we've asked on more than one occasion that um uh J uh and I Mr. Jones of WSP uh set up a phone call

076uh with Kevin Neri. And for some reason um Mr. Jones didn't want to do that. Uh the In any event, um based on our LEPs um reading of the new regulations verified by Mr. Neri uh we have determined that there's absolutely no remediation required on this property. Um the the um new news is just this afternoon I understand Mr. Neri you've been asking to put him in writing and he he did send a uh an email >> [clears throat] >> which J has or will forward I guess to Mr. Jones verifying everything I just said. We fall under the exemption. No remediation is is necessary. Now, notwithstanding notwithstanding that um we have agreed that we will we want to do and we would be we don't want to do but we would be willing to

077do a significant amount of remediation. Uh now um Robert, I don't know uh did you get that March 22nd, 2026 letter that we emailed you which is our LEP? Uh Jim, I'm sorry. Jim, did you get that? I emailed >> we I I did get that late in the day. Um if you can share your screen, I don't know that it went to the commission. No, but he did not. Okay. Yeah, I'd like to I'd like to share this. Sure. And again, Attorney Wallinger, just to be clear though, that letter I believe is in response to this draft report from WSP which my understanding was that the applicant requested that it not be shared yet because it was in process. You're more than welcome to reference it. It's not There's nothing we are keeping from

078anyone. Um so I'm happy to get that on the screen if you cannot, but I believe it's probably better to if you're able to do that. >> Okay. I can share it right now. Thank you. Who was that speaking? That's uh Carolyn Lenoci of uh one of our attorneys. Okay. Uh I hope that's large enough where everybody could see it. Uh this was dated March 20th. It was sent to Mr. Jones. And it's our remediation plan. Uh and I'm not going to read it verbatim. You're going to have it. I would uh request that it be made an exhibit in this action. In the in the in these applications I should say. Um the introductory was actually thanking Mr. Jones for his cooperation and assistance because I I think that the two LEPs at the

079end of the day uh agreed on everything other than this EUR and they were pretty cooperative uh through the process and that's an acknowledgement. Uh the second uh paragraph talks about the testing and some of the more technical uh aspects of the testing. Uh and what was found and some contaminants um uh relating to the fill uh materials containing asphalt pieces and millings. Uh and uh we acknowledge that and that was some of the hotspots that we I referred to. Uh now, the last paragraph on that first page uh is uh as previously discussed as previously discussed, uh J is telling Mr. Jones, Kevin Neri, supervising analyst uh DEP confirmed that the newly enacted release-based cleanup regulations superseded the RSR criteria on as of March 1st and the um and are applicable to the subject

080property. And then the last couple sentences or the last couple words on page one going into page two are critical. And he says, "And that the residential exemption which would not require remediation is appropriate." The exemption which would not require remediation is appropriate. Notwithstanding this exemption, we are willing uh to alleviate town concerns by agreeing to the following. We will excavate and offsite disposal of soil in the locations noted. These are the hotspots. Sample four area test pit eight area sample nine area TP9 and TP13 areas. We'll do the actual excavation. We'll dispose of them at considerable cost in the in the proper vein with the proper manifest and proper landfill. Uh we will then fill the holes with uh clean fill and we will cap the site which is number two, placement of clean

081fill and topsoil areas that would not be that are not covered by buildings, pavement, or otherwise hardscape. Uh so that is what we propose uh to address your concerns about the contamination on on the site. Uh now >> [clears throat and cough] >> the um And as I said, the only thing new is that instead of referring uh referencing his conversations and conclusions with Mr. Neri, we now have an email to that effect which Mr. Jones either has this late this afternoon or will have. Um now we are willing to do what is on that remedial action plan. We will we're willing to have uh Mr. Jones uh WSP peer review our final verification. Uh we are not inclined to have WPS so involved in the day-to-day minutiae that it runs up fees. It's totally

082unnecessary. Mr. Mr. Soltis of Reef Environmental is a professional and licensed. We will do the cleanup that's on that report. Uh it could be monitored in your normal course of events. You can have a monitor there. We'll share everything we do with Mr. Jones. Uh and uh and that's uh and that's what uh I'm uh prepared to report tonight. Now, I do want to say uh that the elephant in the room is as I understand it and maybe I'm wrong that every individual that's on this commission that voted uh against the peer review issue back in September uh has been uh requesting an uh environmental use uh restriction. Uh we will under no circumstances allow that to happen. We can't agree to that. Uh in fact uh uh doing so, if we were uh to

083agree to it, uh it would have the effect and you're ordering it as a matter of fact, I should say, has the effect um of actually inversely condemning our property because if you put an environmental use restriction on residential property, on these three potential building sites, uh you have destroyed destroyed the marketability of those three. Now, we have no intention of selling it today, but eventually uh people are going to sell homeowners sell their house. And uh it's just a um it's it would be a draconian measure. Uh it it frankly it exceeds your jurisdiction. You have no right to ask for it. Uh and it's not appropriate with the to or advisable by the one agency that does have jurisdiction, which is the DEP. Uh so um I could go on and explain more

084of the legal effects, but I I I'm I'm not going to do that tonight. Uh so that's basically uh our presentation. If you need more details, Jay is here, he'll answer uh questions. Jay, if you feel as though you want to add anything to what I said uh or take I know you'll take questions, but uh let us know. Uh and if not, um we're uh we're um basically done with uh what we uh are requesting of this commission uh to approve in reference to remediation. Now, Mr. Chairman, what I'm a little unclear about is uh how that impacts the applications uh to legalize improvements to the retaining walls. And I'm I'm assuming if we agree to do this remediation, that will positively impact those two applications. Uh but I would like some clarification on

085that because that's what's on the agenda. Uh And I know you wanted remediation, you've got the remediation at considerable cost to us, uh but uh in turn, we would like application 2510 and 11 approved. Thank you. All right, just uh as a matter of the record, this application's been before us for 20 years. So, I'm sorry about the September till now, but 20 years this has been lingering. Um it's very difficult without having our LEP here to uh be able to advise us and also to counter or agree with uh Mr. uh Soltis, and that's why it would have been nice if we could have uh you know held off until next month, but uh nothing will be done tonight until we get our LEP in and uh you know we can actually see all

086this in hand. Um Do you have anything to add, Attorney Cordon? Uh no, Mr. Chairman, I I I appreciate Attorney Attorney Willinger's um presentation. I I do think it was actually beneficial tonight that you did present uh on behalf of your applicant, Attorney Willinger, because it does uh make clear to the commission what you're requesting. And if I just a couple of points, I just want to make clear that this commission had has not gone on the record requesting um a uh environmental restriction on the land records. That may have been a recommendation in the draft report from our LEP, but that has not been before this commission yet. So, I do want to put that on the record. And um also um you know, I wanted to make clear have you are you is

087your applicant agreeing to do the remediation that is in what is his what you reference as alternate three in that draft report from um Mr. Jones? Uh I I believe that our RAP report is alternate three with more specificity. So, you're to Okay. And so, what I think what the chair is is requesting then is um you know, obviously we will need to consult with our uh LEP. Perhaps there can be a meeting in between. That would be my recommendation to um the chair that staff and maybe even attorneys meet um in between the meetings to uh either narrow any dis uh any issues and present them to the commission or see if our experts um have a certain amount of agreement on the issues, which it sounds like to some extent they do and

088some extent they may not. Uh that would be my recommendation if uh the commission is inclined and if uh the council would agree with that. Okay. Well, um uh Jim, I appreciate what you just said. Uh in terms of a uh an interim meeting, uh there is a chance when the uh Mr. Jones gets and reviews what Neary said, Kevin Neary from DEP DEP said, uh we're we're hoping that he will drop his uh he Although I understood it's not his, but at the recommendation of an EUR. If not, uh I would um have no objection to having uh a meeting of the two LEPs. And frankly, I think you and I should be there frankly, to do to be in attendance as well. And Tatiana, uh uh and any other staff people that you

089have, and maybe um maybe if they can't agree in advance of that, maybe we could uh foster agreement at that meeting. And then uh the next commission meeting I I assume is in May, uh and hopefully we could wrap this up in May. That would be my hope and I I I've no objection to that, uh council. Obviously, if the LEPs can work things out without with individually directly together based on these other events that have come up in the last few days, uh of course that would make make good sense. So. Okay. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, if you have any other questions for the applicant or for the commission does tonight. Um I know a lot of this is is highly technical in nature and we are going to rely on our expert

090uh to to direct us, but if there's anything that would be important to bring up now might be the time. If not, we will be back here next month. All right, as I said, it would have been a lot better had we had our LEP Mr. Soltis could give his presentation, ours could, and then we could have opened it to the uh commission. At this point, I'm going to go to uh Commissioner Greg. Go ahead. Yeah, through the chair, uh to either uh Mr. Soltis or Mr. Willinger, can you put up your letter that you just had, page two? I want to clar- clarify some Okay. Your point one said you're offering to clean up sample four area, sample test pit eight area, and sample nine area. And then nine includes test pit 13. Now,

091if you look at the map that's been submitted where all the samples are, there's hot spots on the entire site. The first the old house, the current foundation, and then moving to the west uh to the north of the property along uh the Sycamore Street. Um I I see why wasn't test pit six or test pit uh test pit seven, which also had sample three and monitoring well number two. I mean, if you look at sort of that northeast corner all the way down to test pit 13, that's really where there's a lot of noise. So, it sounds like you're doing selective picking of what you want to go after. Uh how did you choose those three areas? Uh Jay, that's a question for you. Sure. [clears throat] Um For the record, I am a

092licensed >> Soltis. Uh thank you. Go ahead to your introduction. Thank you. I'm a licensed environmental professional with uh Reed Environmental, 301 Katherine Terrace in Fairfield. Trying to find my map here. And yes, again, this is all from the draft. Um While you're doing that, that's the other difficult thing. As I normally we would have had a site map up as we're discussing this and we'd be seeing what areas you're talking about. So, right now it's kind of yeah. So, so in a nutshell, I mean these these are these are the worst areas is the best way to describe it. Um these compounds we're talking about when I see a thousand parts per billion of benzo(a)anthracene, it's it's over the criteria, but it's like when when I see a sample for area where it's you

093know, 142,000 parts per billion that's that's a hot it's a hotspot to go after. And different states, you know, our criteria in Connecticut are very um conservative. So, for example, Massachusetts is, you know, multiples of these. So, when I see something like, you know, 1.1 part per million of this it's it's it's it's noise in the sample data to me because this is fill and we know it's what's in here is ash and asphalt. It's not anything exotic. It's typical construction yard material we're seeing. And when we test these are the compounds we find. Okay. Is there are is there anything in there about groundwater compliance testing? Uh we do have the groundwater we have the the wells in place now. Okay, but because normally deep deep ones aren't done and they cuz I've got

094one site that for 3 years we've been testing every quarter. So, Is that a residential property as well? No, this happens to be commercial. Yeah, that's so so I don't want to get into this detail at all, but this new program is is very is a very big change from what we've had because it's typically deep set up, you know, a very light touch on residential especially with like tank releases and things like that historically. This this new program is is going to be a big net that's going to capture a lot more properties, but they do have this residential carve out for owner occupied. And that's the big distinction is if it's owner occupied, they're not requiring us to enter the program and demonstrate compliance for every P everything on the site like we

095would with any you know, any any site that is actively in a deep program. Okay, can I >> [clears throat] >> can I jump back with another question for you? Go ahead, Greg. Um leach leachable lead Mhm. We got hits in a in a bunch of different areas. Isn't that a groundwater source issue? Yes, but I believe And you're not concerned about it. No, because they tested both both wells monitoring wells and they were both below method detection limits. So, lead was >> about test pit four, test pit seven test pit 11 Mhm. test pit >> So, it's it's it's theoretical versus reality, right? So, the the leachability is a synthetic it's basically it's synthesizing what's happening to rainwater as it passes through the soil. Is there a potential for this material to mobilize? The

096groundwater data that WSP collected shows that that's not happening in reality. And that's we do we see that up very often where we'll have potential exceedances on mobility, but then we can show in the groundwater data that's not happening. And it all depends on the materials because some of this stuff especially ash things like to bind to ash cuz it's got a high carbon content and we just, you know, we see that that happen with petroleum a lot of things bind to ash. Okay. Um I don't know. I'm a little more concerned cuz since it's right near the edge of our wetlands. Uh we'll have to understand that a little more. Another question for you is um where's my uh note um I'll order I have all this paper from front Oh, uh can you

097put up your letter your page two again? I want to make sure I understand what you're saying here. >> [clears throat] >> Second paragraph, evacuation excavation limits will be determined based on field observations and analytical data from previous investigations. That doesn't my historical background that's not uh the way you clean up soil. Don't you take samples? Do you just happen to be a point some like test pit six went down six feet. Test pit sample number four was four and a half feet. You go down to four and a half feet if we're still getting dirty soil, you have to continue to go down, don't you? Yep. Yes, and there would be there would be closure samples collected. I mean, this was really just an outline of our plan. We would do an actual remedial

098action plan um which is similar to what Derek prepared with more formal outlining everything. This was just kind of a summary to show where we were heading with this. All right, that I have a problem with that first sentence in that second paragraph. So, that will definitely have to be cleaned up. That looks [clears throat] like you're saying if based on the previous investigations, if there was a a hit at four and a half feet, you're going to stop at four and a half feet. Right? I'll just look for clarification on that going Okay, that's all I have. Thank you, Greg. Um as I said, it'd be a lot easier if we had our LEP here. Um I'll open it up to the commission. Go ahead, David. Uh David, one first and I'll get you

099next, Rich. Go ahead, David. >> Mr. Saltus and Mr. Willinger, how are you they reconciling the fact that this was a property that was owned in a commercial operation run as a commercial operation as an illegal dump and now it's suddenly owner occupied residential so that they can skirt the regulations. Uh there's no one skirting anything, Commissioner. The fact is the plan was always to have these three lots uh owner occupied by the family of the the Ferry family. But they were owned as commercial businesses and the contamination happened under the operations of a commercial business. I don't know how you could possibly say that. How do you know it's a commercial business? What what makes you say that? It's a piece of property that he's going to be developing for his three two kids

100and himself. What is how does that make it a commercial? Uh If you look at the ownership history, they were all all owned in LLCs by building companies. Makes no difference. >> at the aerial photography, there's there's dump piles of dumped material all over the property so it was used as a contractor's stockyard. It was it was used as a commercial stockyard. Mr. Commissioner And it it is not a pristine piece of land and I I I don't see how you can qualify it as that. Well, you know, I'm not an expert. You're certainly not an expert, but the experts have. And the fact is how is it going to be used when developed? And it's going to be used as owner occupied. And the fact that it's in an LLC is totally immaterial. Uh

101it's not ownership, it's use. It's a it's a common maximum in uh legal in the law. And the >> was being used as a matter of fact, my yard is a dump. Excuse me. Excuse me. As a matter of fact, my own residence is owned in an LLC. Doesn't make it a commercial piece of property. It's how how do you use it? You use it for residence. So, I respectfully disagree with you. And I'm I know I know by your tone last time and I know by your tone tonight that there's not going to be too much that we could do to to let you know that we're we're here to do the right thing. We're going the extra mile. It's costing us a lot of money and has already, but we're going to address

102it and we're going to address it and remediate it more than is required by law. I don't know what else to say. Mr. Chairman, if I may your comments. I'm sorry, Commissioner Verespy, what did you say? I said I appreciated Attorney Willinger's comments. Thank you, Commissioner Verespy. >> [clears throat] >> Attorney Willinger, I've got 20 years of experience walking this property and I've walked it something between 25 and 27 times. And what um Commissioner Verespy is kind of pointing out every time I walked it, there was different material there, different and I mean I'm talking all kinds of things. And uh uh Commissioner Deakins got quite a background on this, too. So, that's, you know, where you know, I have empathy for what they're going through. But the applicant brought this about himself by dumping

103what he dumped and did what he did. Cuz originally this application as you went in, we went straight up. The houses were supposed to be there, not to the side of the property. So, there's been many many changes through the years. So, as I said, it'd be a lot easier once we get our presentation from our gentleman and we actually have something that we can read. We have the uh uh site plan showing the various test pits and all that and then, you know, we'll we'll be able to come back uh what I believe it's May 5th. Rich, did you have a comment? Yes, sir. Um so, I've [clears throat] been reviewing the minutes of the July 14th, 2009 meeting. Uh this is when I was I just joined the commission. A young a young

104man of 22 and uh no idea what I was doing. But this was one of the first applications we saw and this was application 0909 Emilio Ferrari. And same property. This specifically was parcel C Sycamore Street. And I was reading the reasons why the seven reasons why it was unanimously denied. And 17 years later I just I just I find it very troubling that we're here again. And we've heard how costly it is and we've heard how much hard work has been done. And I'm indeed impressed that someone's been paid to analyze our tone. Uh I'm not sure what tone one can gather from the way I'm speaking. Looking back 17 years ago. But like Mr. Gerard, I've toured this property numerous times and um there's been a wide plethora of items, vehicles. Indeed we

105changed the very regulations of this commission to abolish the storage of vessels on properties because of the presence of boats just parked on this property. Nobody knows who owned the boats. As boats don't have license plates, it's we'll never know. Someone dumped boats on this property. Someone dumped construction debris on this property. Now no one is pointing a finger at any of the applicant or their family to say they did it. Someone did it. We don't know who. But there is a significant amount of clean up that needs to be done here and I I think it should be done with with great care and not hurried because of financial reasons. I hear that there's a new, you know, this this new owner-occupied concept. In '09 and '10 and all the other times this application's

106ever been before us. This property cuz I know it's not the same application. Hi future appellate lawyer. Um every time it's here it's always well, we're building it for the family. Somebody's going to live here. Okay. One could go back and find that in the minutes. But just because it's owner-occupied shouldn't mean it should be automatically looked past. I understand state law gives some exemption. But 20 years by our count, by the attorney several months ago, his own account, 30 years of applications. Um so that's about three quarters of my life this application's been before us. And when is it going to end? I mean it's I understand a lot of it's because the commission said, well, we have to have our own LEP do it. Or we've commissioned certain types of work to be

107done. You have to ask a question after 30 years, 20 years, whatever sure whatever amount of time you want to use. What's going on here, guys? I mean 20 years later it's it's still the same property is dumping this and that. All I'm going to say is 20 years later what the heck are we doing here, guys? That's it. Well, let me answer that commissioner as as a guy as you referred to me. I don't know what happened 17 years ago or 30 years ago. It was a lot less than half of my life, but what you should be focusing on is the fact that after all these years and all these people that dumped stuff on the site we've finally got to the point where some some substantial remediation is being done. And I

108think let's forget the past. I would recommend you forget the past because we're here to rectify the past. So if you're going to dwell on what happened 30 years ago, I would suggest that's the wrong aim. Your aim should be to and that's our aim too is to clean it up pursuant to actually not pursuant to state law. Now it's far exceeding approaching a half a million dollars exceeding state law. So your goal is to get it cleaned up. We're willing to do that within within a reason. And I would suggest that that's how we we keep our eye on the ball. That's my suggestion. All right, but For the record by I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was going to say for the record this was [clears throat] application 05-40 and it was originally brought

109in in 2005. So this has been before us. The other thing Rich was saying, remember they had the trailer that was on the site with all of the fluids and the uh zoning enforcement officer came out and had him remove it because that thing was loaded with oil and get remember that? So the site has not been treated too well over the years. So and I would love to see it all cleaned and occupied and you know, off of our agenda it would be pleasant. So And I and I agree Mr. Chairman as as this esteemed attorney forgive me for calling him a guy before. As counselor here has stated, it's finally getting cleaned up. Everybody appreciates that. I just think it should be done carefully and if we have the opportunity to have our

110own LEP and it's it's not any uh challenge to the integrity of his LEP. I'm sure he's licensed as I've said numerous times in in today's hearings. We trust the guy, the individual. Oh, I got to watch my words here. We trust the esteemed professional who's doing the job. However, with the history, if I'm allowed to go in the past I am a history teacher, forgive me here. With the history of this project I don't think it would be unreasonable to have our own individual go out there test it, work together with your your individuals here and find a mutually beneficial agreement that because of the such a long delay happens to now be pursuant to state law. Hey, you know what? It works. So I think uh my potentially sounding uh kidding tone here.

111I am very serious. This project needs to be get gotten through. The land needs to be fixed. Um so you forgive my somewhat aberrant tone, but let's let's do this the right way, guys. All right, is there anyone else from the commission that wants to discuss this and hopefully in the next couple days we'll actually have site plans showing all of the uh areas that were tested, the test holes, both reports, any of the draft reports and so that we can you know, study it for our next meeting which would be on May 5th. So is there anything else you want to add counselor meaning attorney Cordon? You good? I'm good. Thank you. Attorney Willinger, anything else before we move to uh Thank you. Thank you. No. Thank you. No, Mr. Chairman. All right. And

112I'm sorry Mr. Sellas, we didn't get to hear too much from you, but hopefully next month when we have the two and possibly if we can do a meeting beforehand to kind of iron things out. You know, that might help too. All right. So if there be no objections, I would like to get a motion to close old business Greg or whoever. Mr. Chairman, can we continue a motion to continue these two applications till next month, please? Yep. To to yep. Okay, we're going to go to May 5th. So Greg Make a motion. Continuance of both applications. Thank you attorney Cordon. We're going to continue both to May 5th if you would, Greg. And the Mr. Chairman, the petitioner um agrees to waive all time limits. I want to state that for the record. Thank

113thank you, counselor. I appreciate that. I make a motion to continue applications 2510 and 2511 Amelia Ferrari um for uh modification of application 2107 was 2510 for uh permanent approval for to legalize existing improvements for retaining wall location, topographic contour changes, proposed underground infiltration system location and new rear deck within regulated area at 6 Sycamore Street. And is a permanent approval to legalize proposed retaining wall location, relocate scour hole location and encroachment of limit of disturbance within regulated area at lot 321 Sycamore Street. Yeah, I need a second. Seconded by Bob. Okay. All in favor? I'm a yes. Carmine? Yes. David? Yes. Yes. Um Rich? No. Self and no. Okay. And then John Lauria is abstaining. So it's five yes and one no. All right, we will see you May 5th as far as the

114commission meeting and then we'll I'll talk to attorney Cordon and see what we can do to possibly get a meeting of the LEPs and yourselves. All right. Um Greg can you go over the minutes for March 3rd's 2026 meeting approval? Yeah, I make a motion to approve the minutes of the town of Trumbull Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Commission meeting held on March 3rd, 2026. Second. And I Seconded by Richard. All in favor? I. Okay, okay, unanimous. And for the record, John Lauria has rejoined us. Um Tatiana and John Mayor. Um are you okay if we do the walk either on April 20th, which is I know that April, I mean uh yeah, April 20th for the walk would be a Monday or Tuesday the 21st. Does that work for you? I know you having problems

115talking on Tatiana, but I hate to do it and find out you're already tied into some other meetings. That works for me. Thank you. That works. So, you want to do Monday the 20th? Uh either one is good. Richard, I'm I'm away on the 20th. I'll be back at that night. If So, let's do the 21st. You always do the walk with us, so we'll do the 21st, which is Tuesday. Um so, this would be for application 26-08, which is 112 Hilltop Drive. Um 26-10, 33 Broadway. And is anybody interested in taking a uh ride over to uh Sycamore while we're out there and sort of refreshing ourselves? Yes, I'll do it, Bob. Yes, I would. Yes. Okay, how about you, Greg? You want to take another look? Uh Carmine? I've only been over there,

116I think, a year and a half. I have a lot to catch up with you guys. All right, so let's add that to our our walk then, too. Uh Tatiana, is there anything else that we need to not Tatiana, I mean uh Colleen, anything else that we have to bring before the commission? Are we good? No, we're good. All right. Um real quick, Rich, I understand uh there's quite a bit of activity or concern about, I believe, it's Unity and Booth Hill. What's happening on that? I'm getting calls, that's why I'm asking. Unity and Booth Hill is requesting a modified into VRD, the Village Residents District. Right now, there's a certain frontage requirement on a state road. The applicant would like to alter that frontage requirement to be an and or with being within 2,500

117ft of the old exit 50, which would encompass a property on the corner, the northwestern corner of Booth Hill and Unity Road. What's supplied what will be applied for there most likely would be approximately 50 homes. Um it's unclear if they would be standard rate, a 30G, or senior housing, that's yet to be determined. Uh there was a public hearing in which there were numerous uh individuals who spoke in favor and or against that property. Um you can check the minutes of the last meeting for more details. PNZ is always on the third Wednesday of the month. Uh that will be uh potentially up for vote at the next in the April meeting. Um so, that would be a zone change we had change to the zone, and then they would have to apply that

118new regulation change to that specific zone before they could apply to build there. However, they'd need a wetlands approval first. So, first you create the ability for the zone to be applied somewhere, then you apply to make that property part of a new overlay or uh other type of zone, and then you bring the actual special permit application. They're still at step one. Uh if it fails, obviously, it can't come to wetlands. If it passes, then they could come to wetlands. So, uh even if it does pass PNZ at the next meeting, that doesn't mean anything's going in. They still have to come before us. What is it about what, 15 acres or so, I'm told? Uh I want to say around the 10 range. Perhaps attorney Cardone could chime in, but I believe it's

119in the 10-acre range. Uh somebody told me 15. I don't know at all. I would sell that, plus there's a bit of wetlands to it, so >> a question, Rich. I have a question. Why would the zoning board consider change? Wouldn't that be Wouldn't that be a change change which would make other changes more viable? Well, what they're doing is they're changing a current existing regulation for the Village Residents District. That's an overlay zone that could be applied in various areas. What they're doing is applying for the ability to apply that overlay zone to a new area. In this case, it would be anywhere within 2,500 ft of the old exit 50, north of Unity Road, east of White Plains. With the obvious target being the northwest corner lot on the corner of Unity and

120Booth Hill. Theoretically Doesn't that set a precedent if you modify change one thing now why is it more viable to change make another change and make more multi-family houses? You're bending the Bob, I would love I would love to answer I would love to answer your questions, but Jim will kill me in appellate court. >> [laughter] >> All right. I'll I'll end it there. Thank you. >> Another question. Yes, Mr. >> Go ahead, John. Sorry, Richard. Didn't Was it there an application maybe 10, 12 years ago for the same property for some other development? I remember going on a walk with Carmine. There was actually an application within the last It was to split It was just to split the property into two. And we approved that with some stipulations. I believe. There was an

121application approximately 1 year ago, give or take. No. It failed John is talking about wetlands. It probably is 10 years ago. Yeah, I said 10, 12 years ago. Uh I think I had just come on the commission. No, Carmine, you came on with me back in '09. Well, I remember Carmine and I walked together on this property. Yeah. And it was to split the property because Mrs. Negurney was still alive. She wanted to live in the house, but she didn't want the whole property. So, they were looking to split it. And uh I don't know if they presented any development. It was mainly to split it, if I remember. Uh there was nothing that came before us, so I'm not sure, and and lest I get too far into a detailed conversation that could um

122compromise next I I I will simply say your your state your statements are noted. I want to be very careful not to compromise my future vote. Just check into it. I I know Carmine remembers it as well, us doing something with that property before. I'll certainly review >> And then then we would hear something from some attorney, well, you already approved this or this or that. And that may have been for two houses on on all of that property instead of a huge development, so I'll definitely review Yeah, it was previous owners of the property. Uh >> [clears throat] >> the applicant did not have all these six lots yet when that when that one came forward, John. It was Yeah. We were concerned about some of the trees along the brook. There were some

123little waterfalls and stuff like that in the brook that ran through the property, and you know, this is a long time ago, but I don't know what came of it, but we did go and inspect that property at one time. I I encourage you to read the minutes of the last meeting for for best results. All right. Anything else? If there be no objection, I move to move go ahead. I I had sent you that comment, and I didn't you know, how how can we discuss that? Okay, what we'll do is we'll get it on the agenda for next month. Unfortunately, with the holiday and with uh uh Tatiana being ill, plus there's something else that I want to discuss next month then. Um New Canaan has a contractor form, and it's part of the

124application where exactly what we asked for on uh one of the applications tonight that the contractor will review. Well, in this case, they review the plans, and they agree to follow them, and they're taking on uh you know, um the fact that you know, they can't say, "Well, we didn't know." And now, so And Dave, just for your information, what I was suggesting was for those applications that are above and beyond a single-family residence, uh that we increase the distance of the review area to some bigger number. I threw out 250 ft. That's certainly open for discussion, but I feel we need to increase that 100 ft on these large projects. Um that I'm fine with that. I'm, you know, I think that's something that would have to be changed in our our bylaws, which

125means we would have to go back through city council, I believe. Yeah. You know, we had also talked about the idea of having sort of these larger overlay zones that were connected to the Pequannock River and its tributaries or substantial rivers in town where we could get a broader review of what's going on. Agree with that one. Um, I like the idea of anything, you know, being two or more units having a certain level of information that's required to come into the commission being for, you know, tree locations as or existing conditions survey with topography and everything. So, there's no question of what information they should be coming in with. And I think we need to figure out some way of getting information in to this commission on a more timely basis because one of

126the previous applications they were they may they sort of made the sort of argument that, "Oh, we got our information to you at 4:59. It wasn't our job to upload it. So, if the commission or the public didn't get it, it's it's your fault, not our fault, because we got it to you at 4:59 on the night of the meeting." Which is unacceptable. I think what we need to do is figure out a way information has to be in a week before or something like that or it's not even considered. That's something we'll discuss. And I and I agree because it really puts a hardship on engineering, it puts a hardship on us to be able to review it. And I think there's got to be stricter compliance. And I think, you know, look, I

127don't want to be harsh. You know, we uh the best piece of advice I got was from our first attorney when I came out which was Neil Lieberthal. And what he said to me was, "Richard, remember at the end of the day, these are your neighbors." I don't enjoy being vindictive, mean, anything. That's not my makeup. But, we do sometimes get taken advantage of. It's not being harsh, it's being consistent. No, but uh that's the problem is we haven't been. And as you said, you had one at uh they said if we I think it was New Milford if they didn't get in 60 days beforehand, they wouldn't you know, accept it. Yeah. And that's also the the great town that has the distinction of tampon dispensers in their boys' room in the high school.

128That's the town. >> chair right there? Who's the chair? I would just point out that if you look at the P&Z agenda, uh the schedule for meetings that's put out annually, there's a list there's two lists of dates. One of them is the meeting date and one is the deadline date for submitting information. Now, the problem with the Wetlands Commission agenda is we allow anything that rightfully may come before the commission. What whatever that means. See, P&Z is run very smoothly by having a strict deadline. Now, if that deadline is not always adhered to, you'd have to speak to staff. But, it's on the sheet. And every year we go by that. Why can't Wetlands do that? It's already been set as a precedent by our sister board. Uh it should not be difficult to

129stick to that. We should not be accepting >> I believe we're already doing that. When we see the schedule for the following year, there's two columns. One that is the meeting and one is for when the information needs to be presented. Uh you know, and entered to the staff. Well, then we shouldn't be allowing anything that rightfully may come before the commission because that may include an application. Um we either get rid of that little it's kind of like motioning to receive an application. I love it because of my general uh objection my my my nature in voting against receipt of applications um for various reasons, but in reality it's not really needed and that's why we did away with it. Um despite my general obstructionist nature, I have to agree that it meant well

130to get rid of motions to receive. By the same token, why do we have anything that rightfully may come before the commission when I challenge anyone here to think of the last time something met that specific agenda requirement. Nothing meets it. It's just there. And they use that against us. What's the point of having deadlines if we don't ever if we never listen to them? Commissioner Deakin, we Right, it's the a formal application needs to be filed with the commission. And once that happens, there are statutory timelines that we have to follow. So, that's that is the process that governs all Wetlands Commissions in the state of Connecticut. Now, some of those applications may be incomplete or may be lacking, but if once someone files something, we have to begin a process. We just can't

131ignore it. So, that that's kind of the situation we have been dealing with in some regard. Uh Mr. Chairman, also if before we uh close the meeting, I do want to let the commission know that the Plum Tree application uh an appeal was filed um a couple weeks ago for that application. So, we will we will be in court if they do not otherwise resubmit. In behalf of Trumbull or I I the applicant filed an appeal of Trumbull's decision. I don't know what's happened in Easton. Easton denied. How was Easton denied? All right. Well, John Mayher, I have a question. Do we have an application or any information on a property on Fresh Meadow? Like a past application or is there an app to building permit or something because I've been going by there and

132there's a ton of activity right next to a stream. Um do you know you don't happen to know the address? Hey Mr. Vresky, why don't you call the office I was going to say, do that in the morning of David so we can you know Fine. Be that way. Oh, just you know. Nope. Nope. Nope. That's fine. Hey. Well, it's it's more just to um Nope. Stop. I'm telling you, snarky and testy on each side here. All right. So, at any rate, if there be no objection, I move to adjourn and I thank you all and I will see some of you on the walk and I will see you on May 5th. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> And thank you, Mr. Chin, as always. Yes. Good night. Good night. Good night, everyone.

133Good night. Good night. Good night, guys. Good night.