001Hi, good evening everyone. Um, I'd like to call the Inland Wetlands Water Course Commission dated September 18th. It's uh 7:02 p.m. to order. Uh, roll call. Steven Melli, chair present. Rush Davenport absent. Jeffrey Lipincot >> present. >> Frank Oliviveri >> present. >> Gary Paganelli >> present. >> Matt Clawson >> present. >> Jamie Colligan >> present. >> Marian Marino >> present. >> And we have a vacancy if anyone is interested. Um next order of business under agenda review. >> Anybody with anything? >> Uh I'd like to, you know, be sure that we don't start any new business uh after 10 p.m. this evening. I think we have a an agenda where we can accomplish that, but >> so let's put that on the record. >> Um, approval of minutes for the August 21st meeting. Is there
002a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for August 21st 25. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Any changes to the ag to the minutes? Anybody? >> My name is B. I'm sorry. >> My last name is spelled wrong. It's only >> My last name is spelled wrong. A >> always innocent. >> So you're going to have to abstain because we don't know who you are. >> Two L. It should be should only be one L. >> One L. >> Okay. We'll note that for the record. Uh all those in favor of approval becomes unanimous. Thank you. Okay. Uh, next order of business, we have a public hearing. Inland Wetland Water Course Commission, 25-18. The applicant is Sha Stanz alley. The location is 504 East Wakefield Boulevard. Um, I'm concerned about
003the proposal on the agenda as it's written because the proposal the way it's written says that the demolition of an existing house, an attached garage, construction of a new house with an attached garage, removal and replacement of an retaining walls, remove and replace patio, uh, regrade site, adjust driveway configuration, remove and reconstruct lake wall and steps, remove concrete, and stone jetty, construct new walkways, install boat lift, jet ski, lift and a dock. Do you want that all on the proposal agenda for tonight or is there stuff that you'd like to eliminate? >> Well, um, >> talk louder because of this. >> So, I would like I would like to be able to >> come on up. >> Sean Saniel, 504 East Wakefield Boulevard. I would like to uh consider everything. We do have the engineer
004that's representing the town and the soil scientist that's here as well. Uh in regards to Jetty, >> all right. Um we're only concerned with your waterfront. You know, anything else that pertains to the waterfront we'll deal with, but in terms of the demolition of the house in the garage, that would be ZBA issues and we have no say in that. That's why I asked if you want to address everything. Well, I I mean, can we get an approval and make it contingent upon a ZBA approval? >> We can we can move ahead with your waterfront consideration for approval and then uh where you go with the approval or not approved, you'll you'll move forward wherever you want. >> And can we do a full property approval for everything and then if it's approved, make it
005contingent upon the ZBA approval? And the only consideration I'm asking for is we only meet once a month and ZBA always meets after well so I wouldn't even get a building permit probably until 2026 at the at because if after this meeting I will be going to a ZBA meeting in um October which means I'll be coming back to a wetlands meeting in November. Right. But I think I I think and maybe some of the commissioners can correct me that um the issues that are are before ZBA uh are important to you and to us to consider, but we're we would be more interested in uh the rain gardens and runoffs and things of that sort which wouldn't change our decision on your waterfront. I don't think it would. Jeff, am I correct in that
006assumption or is that a >> Yeah, staff was under the impression that we were gonna just focus on the waterfront after we last met. Um, it is possible to get a wetlands approval before a ZBA approval. However, if they then disapprove or something changes, you may have to come back and modify wetlands again. It also gets very messy for, you know, the file and keeping track of things. But you can if you want to. >> What can What What can we do? You confused me. You can approve the the whole shebang if we want to go through it. Waterfront and Upland, but I don't recommend it. >> I'm not anybody any feelings about that? >> Frank, anything? >> I would think we just >> I would say we just deal with the lake wall and
007steps and the the jetty. >> That's that deals with the lake. >> Okay. Anybody Matt get anything past the 100 foot upwards? >> We don't need to discuss >> a jurisdiction. We consider that this is coming to me that we can't we have the engineer obviously and the soil scientist is is will the engineer need to be here for any other meetings that um we would have to go through >> if we limit our our considerations tonight to the waterfront and what you're asking for on between the wall and the water you know I can't you know that area Um, that would be at your decision whether or not anything happens with ZBA which would necessitate coming back here again. >> So, you may need your engineer. I don't I don't want >> Not my
008engineer, the one that I'm that's here to represent you. You guys, you know, that was the last request to have. I think if again I think if we're comfortable with his input for the waterfront and then you somehow receive approval from ZBA or whatever you want to get approved and he reviews it and says he's okay with what you submitted and he may provide some recommendations then it may not be necessary for him. Well, I'm really concerned about the waterfront, you know, and how whatever you do on the water we deal with. And if there's something that's in the upland review area within the 100 ft of the lake, then uh your engineer would submit documentation, it would be reviewed. And if our engineer says you're good to go with that, then we're okay with
009that. >> That we're clear on that issue. >> Yeah. I I I guess so that still means that there if there wouldn't be an approval. So if I go through ZBA in October, which would be after the wetlands meeting, I would still be coming back to a November's meeting >> only for the house >> only for the property within the upland review area. I think your your urgency in my opinion is with a deep draw down. You want to get started on anything that pertains to the waterfront. >> Yeah. I mean it would be much more costly to get the equipment there for that and then two months later get the equipment to do my house. But that's my problem I guess. >> You know that was one of my concerns. Um I'll bring up
010my concerns. Why don't you talk to us and >> so um just for the record come up introduce yourself. talk louder because of the mic system here. >> Kyle Casease, KCC consulting the engineer on the project. Okay, we in sync here. We are >> okay. letters from my neighbor Mike Gonzale, my neighbor to the south of me with approvals to access um our property through his property for any work that needs to be done. So, we have a letter that okay given us. >> Have has anybody seen it other than right now? >> I don't think so. >> Okay. Uh All right. You can pass it around this way. We have it >> in case there was any concern. Well, there there you know that was one of the questions I was going to raise
011with the construction uh ability to whatever. >> Thank you. >> We're ready. Yep. Talking the lake frontage. >> Yeah. >> So, our demolition plan, we were proposing to remove the jetty in last time we we were here. >> We were asked to to come up with a plan sheet showing the details and processes for that. And here here's the proposed jetty with our removal sequencing. Um everything should be done in the dry during the the deep lake draw down. We'll have the um koer logs to prevent any runoff from the the work itself protecting it from the the rest of the lake. And the process was going to be to saw cut the concrete slab on the top and remove it in small 20 square foot pieces or or less um just with a a
012regular larger size excavator that has the reach to reach out over from the the edge of the the yard area at the the base of the property. uh all this material is going to be removed offsite and can't be stockpiled or remain on site during the process. Um so then I know there was questions about what the the structure of the existing jetty is. Um, so I don't have a firm answer as if there's a a footing or not under it, but provided that there is, we're proposing to leave a majority of that and just if it's below grade, just cover it with material matching the existing lake bed. If it's above, we'll hammer down and remove it to below grade and then cover with the material that's like the material that's currently there. level
013it off and then no equipment within the lake. And just here's a here's a generic profile of what's to be removed. So I'll have the concrete slab coming off in pieces stone being removed and then the lake lake wall that'll be moved as well. And then we have here the soil mixture based on some samples that Mr. understands how I was able to um dig up with like a a beach pale from the the lake bed there and it's sandy soil. Um so that that's what we're proposing to to match it with based on the state of depart the state of Connecticut Department of Transportation form 819 specifications and their materials section match it for the the fine aggregate there. And Chris is here tonight and he can speak to the the soil mixture in
014a better more in depth than than I can. Do you want him to speak to that now or >> go comfort level? >> Yeah. Chris, >> introduce yourself. >> Uh Chris, >> take a chair if you'd like. >> I can stand. >> Okay. >> Um just helping out Kyle as a sub on his job. Um, I guess there was some talk about what was the lake bed made up here. Like like I said in uh on the samples base, it's pretty much sand. So, we're we're looking to replace it with light material. I think there's a lot of benefits for that. I don't know if you want to get into it, but we know they're really good for oxygenation of the water, good for fish spawning. I mean, you're not going to put something that's
015not there back in place. >> I'm sorry. >> You're not going to put something that's not there back in place. So, again, this would be um a sandy substrate. And you excavated the soil samples? >> Um u I just know when I'm what was excavated by the property. >> All right. >> Obviously my preference would have been if you actually did it, you know, so but it's done what it is now. >> See the makeup of the chemistry of that soil profile if it's saying the same, you know. >> Tom, do you have any any reactions to this? Um well I asked >> for the for the record just introduce yourself. >> Yeah Tom Gald the uh consultant Tom and chair uh I I had asked them to do this plan and provide more detail
016and give us some methods and beans. Um the only additional thing I was thinking is that he's requiring no more than 15% clay silt in the mixture. So the material should be it's going to have to be mixed and it should be tested maybe a hydrometer test to provide to make sure that there's no more than the 15% clay and silt in the mixture as he's requesting. So there'll have to be a third party independent lab. Um I have not done my final report yet but I will add that in as a condition of approval. >> So that would be a recommendation for approval. >> That would be a recommendation for approval. Okay. >> And then the other thing is since we really don't know what's in there, >> there should be some oversight as
017to what's actually going to take place during that construction. So when they during the demolition when they remove the wall and they start working on the footing, it would be nice for the town to know what is it. Do they need to take it completely out? Is it grade is 3 ft into grade because even if it was on top grade at one point material is going to wash up against so I think it's important for the town to know what's going on out there and maybe give them some input while they're out there doing this demolition work and at that point they're really not going to know the quantities of material they're going to need so that's demolition is going to have to take place. Then they're going to have to determine the quantity.
018The design engineers have to determine the quantity of material. It's going to have to be mixed and then it's going to have to be tested and it's going to have to go back in. So timing is going to be critical. Do you know how far out the water will recede with this draw down? >> Yeah, it probably goes at least 20 to 30 feet past it. last I I purchased the home the year it was gone down and you can walk by my jetty and um so it's more than 20 ft past my jetty at the last draw down five years ago. >> Okay. So assuming it's going to be similar then you would have ample time to address the issues that Tom just raised. >> Yeah. So >> because the water will start to
019come up. >> Yeah. >> I think January they closed the gates. Is that >> uh might close a little sooner this year because they need more replenishment time. I forget the exact schedule. Do you know Marian? >> Yeah, >> for some reason I whatever you'd have probably two months. >> I don't envision the jetty taking more than a few days to >> Could you address I I see this letter I didn't read it. Um what does it mean to us? But just that um any access that needs to to like for a machine to get in there that the Gonzalez gave full um authorization to have you can theoretically drive the pickup truck right up to our seaw wall >> from his property >> which from your prop you need a helicopter. >> That's right.
020But he gave me full uh access. >> We were there in saying there's no way >> and Gary Gary disagreed. He said we can do it >> with the house there. Without the house there, yes, there would be no problem with the house there. >> I don't want to be the driver. >> I do an excavator down steeper. >> Right. But you have permission. >> But I do have permission to access all equipment for the repair of the wall and the construction of during the construction process for the home. >> Okay. >> Is it a repair of the wall or is it complete? >> It's a complete replacement. >> So the plan is to remove the whole wall, the jetty >> and I hope this is my last time I ever have to come. So
021I just don't want to repair it. I want to make sure everything's perfect, you know, one time. Yeah. >> Do it right. >> Way to do it. >> Tom, did you review the plans for the wall itself? >> I did not have a chance to do that. >> Okay. >> Has you have enough information to look at it and >> yeah, >> I I took a look at it yesterday and part part of today. Nothing jumped out at me that was alarming. Can't do that. Wall itself pretty straightforward. The biggest thing that I had concerns and I I told Kyle this we didn't have any point source discharges going directly into the lake. I was more concerned about that than the wall itself, you know. So obviously the wall What I need to do is
022take a closer look at it. And what's the height of the wall? >> Roughly between four and five. >> Four and 5T. >> Now you start getting into that gray area. You need a structural engineer to on the integrity of the wall. The wall design. Wall's going to be all uh stone and mort. You're bringing the stone in. >> Yes. >> And you have Voles in the wall to reduce hydraulic pressure. >> I did I did not have that. >> Yeah. So, you know, we may ask as a condition approval to have the wall design reviewed by structural engineer just to make sure that it's going to be fine. wall into >> I mean I think realistically if it has to go before a structural engineer to come back to us this project is not
023going to get done in a timely manner. I don't think it needs >> I'm just it just the engineers are busy. >> You know, we're we have to either close the public hearing tonight >> or get written permission from the applicant to keep it open one more month. So, we're like between a rock and a hard place timewise. >> Yeah. In my opinion, it's two separate things here. Welding approval and structural engineering. So I mean obviously the ultimate say is the commission but uh just to ensure that the wall has a proper base. It's got a batter on it. It's a weighted wall. So you know somebody a structural engineer which I am not qualified should at least take is it is it part of your plan the structure of the wall? >> Yes. on
024that. So typically that stuff is done at building level. So site plans are approved all the time with retaining walls and one of the conditions of approval is that structural engineer provide review it and provide a signal plan and the building official usually inspects that. So was um 16 inches at the top and then 3 ft at the bottom with the the batter that Tom mentioned. Um the only thing that I didn't show was was the weep holes just to reduce the pressure behind the wall. And and Gary, you would know back fill behind the wall and everything. >> Well, me personally, I back fill with stone around the cloth up against the dirt and let the water run through weak points in stone wide or something like that. So the hydraulic pressure stays even
025to >> how much of the wall is going to be exposed >> lake elevation >> above the ordinary. It's a foot and a half above the water, >> right? The nice thing about that is it's pretty stable when the water. What you worry about is when they drop down. >> When when Gary and I and Jeff during the week, we reviewed the uh your blueprints and everything. There was some discrepancy with numbers. >> Okay. Uh Carrie, you want to talk to that? >> On your schedule, you still have 78 foot, not 70. >> Revise that. >> You're talking. >> Yeah. The the wetlands >> the width of the waterfront >> you changed the number. I didn't get it in the table. >> You didn't do your calculation. Yeah. >> Right. >> For us, you didn't
026put a revision date. >> Okay. That to me is kind of kind of minor but >> right we were out there we measured the water into the pier only three and a half water out there so I don't know how much it's probably 3 ft of water >> yeah the water is not very water is very shallow I went over the spillway today and there's just barely some water so but That's the hype. That's the hype. >> Yeah. I didn't see anything else anything else planwise that >> let's let's talk about what you want to put in the water and what you want to take out of the water. And you're going to work with 69 plus or minus feet. >> Okay. >> So, uh what you need to talk to us about is You
027want a boat lift, you want jet skiis, you want this, you want that. You can't have more than a drop under 35 ft of occupancy in the water. So tell us how you're going to get to that 35 ft number. So the got the 10 foot dock, the 10 foot boat lift. So that gets us to the 20. And then uh the jet ski lift is 20 12. So that brings us to the 32. >> Okay. >> That keeps us under >> the 35. >> And that's provided we give you approval to pull out >> the uh concrete dock. Otherwise, you're limited. >> Okay. >> Removal of the trampoline tail without used to be on the old plans. >> Yeah. Well, that's not on the application. >> Question about that, too. Police. >> Yeah. that
028that was your bully for your >> trans. >> So that's going to come out the bully. >> Okay. Um All right. So I think what's in front of us is if the if the applicant is successful in in us granting him approval for the walk, the dock, the uh uh pontoon, the the boat lift, the double jet ski lift. He's at 32 32 and a half feet give or take a little bit one way or the other. That means that in order for us to approve it, he has to pull out that concrete pier or we have to leave the concrete pier and he has to get through something else. He can't have more than 34 and a half feet give or take. So that's what's in front of us. >> So question. >> Go
029ahead. If you did do your seaw wall over, you did put your new dock, jet ski or new boat lift, what would you be if you had to leave that pier in? What would you do with it? >> Um, I don't know. I mean, would the pier act as the same as if you had a dock in the water that So, if you had a 10ft dock and you had a access to your 10 foot dock, would the pier act as the same? >> We count the footage. >> Yeah, the whistles. >> We count the You don't you count the four and the 10 at the end. >> No, only we only count the 10 at the end. >> So, >> because the four is part of the 10 at the end, right? >> It's
030a T. >> So, aren't I just 32? Whether whether the jetty's there or not, aren't I still 32? >> If you if you have the you're putting in a new dock. >> Oh, yeah. Meaning if I So, I was saying if I'm moving it Oh, I see what you're saying. If I left the jetty there and I moved the dock over. Um, yeah, I guess that would the gate. The whole plan was so that I have the ability to use the other side of the dock with the jetty there. It would really So, right now, if I wanted to park on that side, Yeah. Right now, I would be into >> possibly John the lateral space with the moment. >> You're in his waterfall. >> Yeah. So that's really the goal is to be able
031to be >> So you'd have both sides of the dock to access, >> right? That's really it's it's really for when the guest comes. It's not to park a boat there, but when a guest comes by. Um right now I don't have a plan. >> So that's really >> I guess my my question was if you had all your new stuff >> Yeah. >> you're not going to maintain that jetty. >> Well, yeah. The jetty I mean it is saying I mean the the jetty is you know it's I'm going to be coming in front of you five or 10 years from now to ask for a repair permit. >> Not us. >> Yeah. So so the thing is I I would just want to do it right. Get you know and >> yeah I
032understand that's really a good point is just to do this right and >> um and it is it's not I mean 70 years old. Um, it's it's it's been patched. It's never been done right. So, >> all right. You have from your perspective, anything else to add before we ask for anybody in the audience? Is there anybody on the commission has any direct questions that you can think of right now? And just as a committee, let's remember that we need the applicant's permission to keep the public hearing open or if we're satisfied, it's going to close and we're going to vote with whatever we have. Okay? So, if you have anything, we can call them back. But if you have anything now, anybody? Matt, you good? >> Yeah, I'm satisfied at this point. >> Tom,
033anything to add right now? >> No. There won't be a a series of conditions of approval >> and stick around to give them to us if it happens. Um, you guys have anything else to Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak to the application? All right, two hands went up. One of the two of you come up. Doesn't matter. >> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. [Music] Good evening. I'm John Paul. That's my brother Frank. I'm the other half owner. >> Okay. >> Can you speak louder so we can hear? Go ahead, John. >> We're from a 502 East Wakefield Boulevard. Um, before we get started, um, if Sean decided to leave the jetty there, which I think is a good idea, and I'm going to explain why, I'd have no
034problem with whatever he wants to do with obviously with the lakefront, moving his dock over and everything else like that. So, I just want to make that proposal. Um, but before I get started, I wanted to say that one of the problems um with the jetty over taking the jetty out is um is going to be the lake bed. We don't know what's underneath the lake bed with the jetty. I I wrote I don't know, you must have remembered Fred Ivids obviously uh I helped him a couple of times with his jetty and I had it I I should pass this out first. >> This is something different than this. Of course, >> I spent a lot of time at Thank you. maybe follow. >> Okay. One of my concerns about moving the jetty is
035just in number one. He has a shed down there and it's 10 ft away from the lakeside and seven feet on the north side and then right next to the jetty there's stairs that's going down which is 8 feet. I don't really know um what type of a crane he's going to use or who who the contractors are, how how that's going to be done. The big thing is it's it's right on my property line or the latorial boundary. And um so I don't know is it possible for him to cross over to my property line or my latorial boundary to to take it out? That's one of my questions. Um, when Fred and I worked on it about 32 years ago, he had a problem with his foundation and we went down at least
036one or two feet and we had to work on the rocks down there. So, he definitely has footing down there. Um, it took us quite a while and the way I remember it was that Fred injured his arm moving the rocks on the lake bed and underneath it. Uh, number five, these large rocks in the jetty were around 1 to two feet in size and they're a mixture of various stones uh shell stones with sharp edges which are still visible today. These stones are embedded in the lake 70 years plus and will be next to impossible to move without heavy equipment. Stones will be too large to hammer down to 3 in. Um most of them will remain above the lake bed and rebar was also used in the jetty for strength. And this is
037going to make it even more difficult to remove the footing. If the footing is left in the leg bed, that's my major concern. It's going to cause major safety issues such as a person possibly hitting their head on the hitting their head or their feet on the exposed stone. If a small child dives into the lake head first and hits their head on the unexposed rocks footing, a serious injury can occur. Children and adults always fool around by the water and push each other and as a result an accident can happen such as a skull injury, a broken ankle or a foot injury. Also, the thing that sort of bothers me is Sean wants to raise his wall up to five feet. And um if he raises it up to five feet, the water in
038front of his wall is only three feet. So if you have five feet five foot wall jumping into three feet of water and landing on the bed better concrete footing, it could result in serious injury, crippling injury, or even death. And then if that's the case, somebody's going to get sued. A lawsuit against the property owner and possibly the town for allowing this negligent project to go forward to be approved. Uh may ensue. So if somebody needs to jump into the lake to rescue a child or an adult, not knowing where the concrete footings lie, they could also get seriously injured. Number seven, the town needs to wake up and not allow a wish request. Sean's jetty needs to remain where it is. And I'm saying that the inland's wetlands can't allow him to move
039his 40ft dock, his boat lift, his ski jet closer to the south side. So everybody will have something to gain. When the property is sold, the new owners, nobody's going to live forever. So when the property is sold, the new owners will not be aware of the covered up lake bed problem. Future property owners have the right to know upfront what is being covered up where the property lines are and where the latoral lines are. And after this I I'm going to discuss the cove method. Uh this is this is not the case here. We have two different surveys. A survey from my property 502, a survey from from Sean's 504 and the co method calculation is incorrect since the starting point the high water mark they had 78 ft and the correct amount is
04069 in. So they were off by 9 ft and the co method says that there's 11 and a half% um it's off by 11 and a half%. The other thing is the swimming area. if um he takes the jetty out. I'm thinking on not really on our side, but I'm thinking on his side and I'm thinking for the the good of the public and the citizens. Um you always have kids running around. My brother has a couple of grandkids and we have a lot of friends come over and they're small and you can't watch kids 24 hours a day and they could just jump in there and push somebody in there and to land on the uh the footing. The footing's going to be large. I figured it was supposed to be six feet times
04130 feet of concrete, stone, rocks, or rebar covered with three inches of material. I don't know what kind of material it would be, but it'll probably wash away with the underground layer over time. We need to make a agreement with both parties. Both both of our parties can live with uh for the future. Sean and the Pollocks have to reasonable use their lakefront property. The other thing that we I don't want people to forget is when he purchased the house in 2020, he didn't pay that much for the house or the property. Uh he only paid around 315,000 for it. And when he did that, he got a skiboat, he got a large metal dock, and he got a boat lift. And he was aware of the problems with the jetty, or maybe not at
042that time, but he knew that the jetty was there, and he knew it was on my latorial line. Now these now there's issues with the high watermark, the property line, the latoral boundary, and the calculation of the cove method. Sean brought the property at the right time and got a great price, but not with enough lakefront property to do what he wants with to do what he wants now. His personal pro, excuse me, his personal problem, which which he has to make adjustments to. Most of the homeowners in our cove acquired two lots when they built the inlands wetlands needs to make their decisions on facts and safety and not and not personal wishes. Removing the jetty jetty is a dangerous destructive plan just gain former feet of the lakefront. Removing the jetty needs to
043be disapproved. And then on the next page um I have from the um the regulations from the inlands wetlands. It says in no event should a permit be granted that would result in crossing of the latorial boundary that that's on the last page over here. And um I just have a couple more things that I just wanted to go through. Um just in case if we forgot what the jetty looked like, I I just wanted to pass it around. Um here's maybe you could just pass them around later. Marian, here's the new jetty that was repaired on the bottom. It's in very good shape. Um, we'll pass it out to it'll probably outlast all of us. Um, the other thing that I wanted to talk about was the um was the survey. I was a
044little bit disappointed to hear that there was a a problem with the um the high water mark and disappointed meaning that it wasn't 78 it wasn't 78 ft it was 69 ft >> we know that John >> okay I'm just showing it over here speak we know that >> okay good okay and the other thing here is um the size of the jetty. He has the size of the jetty as a 100 as 111 square feet and it's much larger than that. It's probably closer to 180 square ft. So that sort of teed me off. Um >> yeah, we know that. >> Okay. that John um Gary spoke to the engineer on that issue where you know the the survey or engineers report is inaccurate and and they recognize that. >> Okay. >> All right.
045And then here's the big thing. I went on AI and it said specifically I asked a question. Okay. So let me just explain one thing. If we had 78 feet and the correct amount was 69 ft, then there's a 9 ft difference. If you divide 9 ft by 78 feet, it comes out to be 11 and a half%. So, um, he's off by 11 and a half%. And I asked um went on the computer and I asked a question if the lake high water mark is wrong by 11% is the co method material affected and the answer is yes. It says that 11% error in the high water mark will significantly affect the latorial determination using the cove method. The entire mapping of the latoral boundaries in the cove is based on establishing accurate reference
046points. Inaccurate high water marks throw off um the measurements completely. And let me pass this out. It basically said that we're way off um on the cold method over there. And as a result of that, that means that his jetty probably is more on my side than what it was before. It really gives a great explanation. It says that the all the boundary lines will be screwed skewed. The cold method involves establishing a new outer line and u cold method relies on the shoreline. The COVID method like other methods for for the Latorial boundaries establishes property lines in the water by extending them from specific points on the shoreline. The starting points for these measurements is the high water mark and the high water mark should be 69 ft not 78 ft. So So to
047me that's >> that was just a frontage number. >> Pardon? >> That was just a frontage number. That wasn't a high water number. That was his frontage number. He went from 78 foot Yes. on his plan that he >> they calculated out. >> Okay. Because they took into consideration a return part that went to Galveves' propert. >> Yeah. Right. >> So when they reduced that came down to 69 foot of frontage. Nothing to do with high water, low water, anything. But on top of that, on top of that, if you look in that cove, everybody has walls. So your so your high water isn't going to change. It's not is not going to go back on the properties. There's no change in in the format of of of the dimension of the lake in the
048cove. >> Everybody have >> right in there. So, so when they're saying in in in a situation, I understand where you're going, >> but in a situation that you're talking about, >> it means an area that is free of walls to where the water can come up and it deviates your calculation. for for your tutorial boundaries. Here it can't because everything is everything's walled into them. But there's no difference here 78 foot to 69 as far as high water. >> Okay. But the question is I'm talking about the latoral boundary. >> The >> ft >> creates the the latoral boundary on both sides. >> Your side and Gonzalez's side. Right. >> Um, based on that, we're determining what the applicant is entitled to put in the water and footage. >> Right. >> Again, as Gary
049said, it doesn't change the high water mark at all. All it says is if he had 78 foot, he can put more stuff in the water. >> Right. >> By the half foot by the half. >> Yes. Right. >> Half correct frontage rule. >> But he only has 69. So he he's more limited than less limited. Let's put it that way. >> And I'm you I'm confused in the sense that I think your opening statement was tonight. >> Yes. >> That you supported taking the jetty down. >> No say that. >> No, we didn't. We didn't take didn't say that at all. I want to keep the jetty there. I I don't want to take the jetty down. I'm saying that if you take the jetty down, there's going to >> I know the repercussions
050of taking it down, but I thought you said you're not opposed. >> I said I was I was not opposed to him having his wall built and moving his dock over and everything else like that, Steve. >> Well, then I misunderstood you. >> No, I I still think that we need the jetty there. I think it's very important. >> All right. I just I I said I misunderstood you >> and um that was what I was going to say. >> All right. Would you mother like to say anything? >> Yeah, I got a s here. My name is Frank Poll. The other half owner of the property >> and I went out to the waterfront tonight and took a picture of the uh jetty. >> Frank, excuse me. If you're going to show pictures, they
051need to be uh entered in as an exhibit and they're on your phone. So, I just, you know, be careful. I don't want to take your phone from you. >> All right. >> Can Can you email them to us or something? Well, you can take the phone from me. I don't care. >> No, no. I mean, take it to enter it into the record. >> No one wants that. >> All right. Here's the uh >> No, no, no. >> Can you email it from your phone to Jeff right now? >> Well, if you give me the uh >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> site. >> It's g greentown.org and then I could print them. while while you you're doing that um >> my comments back to to John. Yes. >> Um >> one of the concerns
052>> that the commission articulated Yes. and that Tom Gumaldi addressed >> was that again there's an uncertainty about how far down that pier goes whether it stops at the lake bed or goes below the lake bed >> and one of the things that Tom suggested and we would have to incorporate if we move ahead with approval is that as as the demolition takes place and there's a determination as to what the reality is rather than what you think it is or what Mr. Benzali thinks it is then uh that issue would have to be addressed properly so that not only from a safety perspective what might be down there is covered but from a late bed protection >> perspective it would be protected. >> Yes. So, we talked about the soil scientist being here and
053talking about what kind of natural uh substance would be put back over that area to make it as uniform as the rest of the lake. Um, so we're addressing that concern. >> I think I think hypothetically every waterfront has rocks in it. Yes. Unless God created some waterfronts without rocks and some border fronts with rocks, right? >> But in reality, they're all there's rocks in all those waterfront. >> So there's always a safety aspect of jumping into the water and injuring oneself. >> But what I'm talking most likely, Steve, is the concrete footing. And I didn't think we could take the concrete footing out of the lake. >> If that comes out Yes. >> then if there's a hole there, it's going to be filled properly. If there's no hole, it's going to be topped
054properly so that there is some semblance of a lake bed that resembles the rest of the lake bed in in that area. So, I think that's been talked about by our engineer, the town's engineer on behalf of the commission. >> And what happens to like the property right next to me, like my ramp? How is that going to be affected? Who's going to fix >> you? You have your own property and your your own you >> but they both but they both are but together >> you both have a common latoral boundary. >> They both but the jetty is practically to the jetty. So >> hang on you have a there's a common latoral boundary. >> Yes. >> Stay on land. There's a common uh pin or concrete there right >> that says you're here
055and he lives there. >> Right. And that continues hypothetically or imaginatively out into the water and that becomes a latoral boundary in the water. >> Yes, I know. >> So now what are you saying? >> Okay. I'm say I'm saying Steve that just on my survey part of Sean's jetty is on my um >> we know that you acknowledge that four years ago. >> Okay. Right. We we know that. So maybe I don't want him to take it out. That's what I'm saying. I mean, why why? >> Well, again, I think one of the discrepancies, >> yes, >> that this commission has talked about, and I think Gary said it best, is we do not own the water. >> Yes. >> We own up to the end of the land, >> right? That's correct. And
056so where you're saying you don't want him to take out something in the water that's on your property, right, but belongs to him, >> the decision or the request is made by the applicant and the decision would be made by the commission because >> we have a responsibility >> and a right that if something is in the water prior to the ordinance >> and now is no longer in compliance with the ordinance that we're governed by that we have a responsibility if we choose to exercise it and we have a right if we choose to exercise it to bring that waterfront into compliance. >> I asked Jeff for a more definitive answer from the town attorney >> and basically Jeff I think that's where we're at. Am I correct? Yeah, I haven't gotten the answer
057yet. >> We didn't get a direct answer, but he's indicated that when there's an application that involves the waterfront, we can bring anything out of compliance if we choose, >> correct, >> into compliance. Right. >> And that's what we're facing here now. There's a jetty that's out of compliance and if hypothetically or not hypothetically, you gave approval to it four years ago. >> I gave approval for him to put his dock on it to the jetty. >> His what on it? his dock attached the metal dock to his jet >> and and you knew that would and again that's out of compliance because that's further into the Toral boundary. It's further out into the water. >> I felt sorry for him because >> Okay. Again, we're trying to remedy this. >> Yes. Okay. >> Uh
058if if I didn't give approval, what would have happened then Steve? >> We probably wouldn't have allowed it to stay >> and we would have asked him to take it out or told him to take it out. When there's a violation of the latoral boundary, >> there's a public hearing by necessity. Yes. >> And then the commission has the right to make a judgment on it. >> You you know you you made our judgment at that point easier for us because you didn't oppose it. >> Yes. >> You should have told us that there would be things that happened in the future. >> Come on. You want to come up forward and talk and introduce yourself? >> My name is Pollock. I'm a resident of the house and uh John John Pollock's wife. And I
059had more than that because uh there's there's so much information here that is like so they don't really person didn't really get the soil sample. Somebody else got the soil sample >> there. Uh the engineer is unsure about this or that. I don't know if you looked at our wall but that jetty is attached to our wall. So if you pull it out you could ruin our wall and and also the the uh the ramp that goes down is um >> attached to the jetty also. It's a ramp. I don't know if you saw that ramp, but that's partly on ours and partly on his and his and and Hope uses it all the time. I'm surprised you want to get rid of that, but um so I I I just think there's not enough
060information. It's like nobody knows anything. The um the lawyer hasn't said anything. It's because it's being pushed too fast because it's just pushed too fast and it hasn't and he didn't he didn't get the ZBA from So I I'm just upset because because uh well his ZBA but not I guess in the waterfront. People do have a right to have a reasonable use of their property and maybe we use it in a different way. We always had kids there that came and swam and it was very a good place for kids and I know that maybe it's not the what is it? What do you what did you say that it was like not not in a conformity or anything like that, but we do that's how we used our property. We have a boat
061and we and I I mean I swim way out, but it's just uh and that's been a for forever for >> I I think what you're saying >> I know it doesn't matter but it should matter a little bit. I think what you're saying in my understanding of what you're saying at least is that the position of your dock and and uh walkway going out to your boat lift your boat rather and the position of the applicant's dock which is partially on your property creates a sort of like a swimming area between the two of you if that's what you're saying and >> yeah I don't know if that's >> done in the past. >> Yeah, it creates a swimming area. >> Yeah, I understand that. Um, you know, the only Anyway, go ahead. I'm
062sorry. >> I don't really believe that the soil is that the natural soil in the lake bed there is sand. >> Okay, >> that's all I'm saying. It should be checked out. If you if you go beyond a certain area because I swim there every day, I see the bottom. It's all muck. And I don't know about other people's >> uh waterfronts, but a lot of people have a mucky waterfront because I've been in it. In fact, even Fred used to have one. So, >> all right. >> We should have the soil sampled. There should be something done on there and and just uh it's really mucky out there. So >> I I agree with you that the soil sample should have been taken by the soil scientist rather than the applicant. I agree with
063that. >> Let me just >> Is there anything else that's pertinent? >> Yes, Steve. Okay. >> Okay. Here's information regarding the lake beds and the damage that could be done to the lake bed. >> John, I need one, too. >> I thought you gave me one. Okay. to the lake beds when we uh abuse it and dig it up and then I'll be uh >> I I just wish and I'll say it publicly. I wish we had this information. >> I know there's a lot of >> before you handed it out tonight. >> Okay. It says, let me just quickly read it. >> You just summarize. Don't read it. Just summarize it for us. >> Yeah. Okay. when it's not possible to dig up a lake bed. Um, the feasibility and the effectiveness. Soft sediment.
064A lake bed often consists of soft sediment, muck, and organic debris. Pounding rocks into this material will cause them to sink and be absorbed rather than create a compact solid surface. Um the environmental and reg regulatory concerns pounding or otherwise disturbing the lake bed that can damage the aquatic microhabitants where the fish the amphibians and the invertebraes live. When it's when it says um it's not possible in the next page when it's not possible to dig up the lake bed. Um just on the bottom it says u permits denial regulators. It can deny a permit if it's if it's if it's feasible less environmental damaging alternative alternatives exist which may react which may reject the project if the impacts of the aquatic system outweigh the public interest and that would be like if we have
065a concrete footing in there uh we should probably just just leave it in there um instead of just digging it up and then filling it in with something that we don't So, and the big problem is we don't know how big that hole is going to be. And we fill it in with some kind of material. I guarantee it's going to get washed away from the currents on the bottom. I always see a ripples, especially with these big weight bolts. There's going to be a hole there and and then a lot of my uh soil is going to probably wash over to his side and and then I'm going to be on the short end of the stick. That's the other thing I'm concerned about. [Music] the soil scientist. Could you respond to any of
066these inquiries? >> I mean, like I said, like I wasn't >> just introduce yourself again. Come forward. >> Chris, right? So, um I mean, he's reading off like kind of a generic lake bed substrate. So, muck, all that stuff is true for muck. And if it's mucky, you know, you're not you're not going to have alial soils. They're not going to be moving around. That's why they're mucky. Um so, they kind of sit there and you kind of sink in them when you walk. Um again, the soil samples that were provided were That's what I answered on. Um, you know, if this is being done in the dry, I think the problem here is, you know, he's concerned about the footing. I think the engineer already said, I think you're going to take the jetty
067out. If you're going to take the footing out, you're going to replace it with like soils. So, whatever the chemistry of the soils that are there, that's what's going to go back in there. You're not going to like just dump rock there. It's not going to be a rock hole. So, whatever the substrate is, that's what's going to be replaced and that's what's reflected in the in the plan sheet. >> And what's going to keep it from not moving? That's what I >> what keeps the soil there right now that's not I mean the substrate's a substrate so you have like currents and stuff in a lake you have wave action from boats andor for weather events um actually you know muck moves around muck settles and that's why you have muck you know when
068you have sand I'm sure a lot of people have beaches and stuff where they like to walk out that sand's not moving but if it moves it moves a few feet then it moves back I mean the walls are going to keep it in place um again if you're worried about a hole you're not going to have the hole not reestablish itself. I feel like you think it's going to like flush out. >> That's what I feel like. And it's hard for me to believe that that's not >> You could also put a base in it. You could put some small stone in there and then you could put you could top dress it with like material. So that I mean that that's what replace it with like material. >> You know, we need we
069need a substantive plan. >> Yes. >> That's going to be reviewed by Tom as much of a normal lake bed >> to survive. So the people who were saying that we >> again that's what we're going to need. >> Yeah. >> You know, >> uh do you guys have anything else to say? >> I want to finish up here. I take five minutes or so. I'm talking about the U Jenny demolition plan. I got a couple questions on it. I passed that out. The first thing I read number one, I said it's going to be done during the drag conditions and when there's a deep lake draw down. And who's going to monitor that? Jeffrey. >> Yep. >> The combination combination of the engineer. >> And what about the excavating in the floor is prohibited.
070We said if you go down to number four on this demolition plan, they said they're going to use a hydro hammer. >> Yeah. >> I don't know what a hydro hammer is. I looked it up. >> The same thing. If you if you go to any uh any projects that takes place with a town, a state, anybody taking a peer out of a out of a river, doing anything, it's the same program. They're doing it every day. >> Yeah, but it says you can't use it on the floor. >> You can't use it on a floor bed if you're trying to put something new in. We're trying to recreate reconstruct the uh lake bed. We're not trying to destroy the lake bed. We're trying to rec recreate the You have an awake bed. You have
071a solid mass of concrete out there stone. >> And then it says u also that the hole if there is one or the rocks that are feet down 3 in are going to be covered by light material. And yesterday I I called up Chris Samoski, the soil engineer, and I asked him, uh, when did you go over to uh 504 East Wakefield Boulevard to look at the jetty? He said he never went out. >> Okay. >> What's that? >> I don't think that was established. >> No, I think No, I think I think what was established is that you didn't draw the sample. What what hasn't been established is how did you analyze the sample? And if he's saying you didn't go out there, then it was given to you. >> Here it is over
072here. >> Wait a minute. Huh? >> Yes, sir. I provided that before. I looked at that photo. >> He looked at a photo. >> It's not even a real thing. >> Okay. >> I mean, that's unbelievable. It's like a half a shovel of a four spots. >> I saw it on I was there. I saw the three or four piles of dirt. >> Yeah. I mean, it isn't even on the side of the where the boats are. Oh, it's on your side. >> It looks like he grabbed it from my side. Again, that's what I would have to say. >> We we established earlier that a better way of doing it would have been for the soil scientists to go out and analyze >> dig it himself. >> Dig it and analyze it. >> Right.
073>> So, that really sort of we don't know what exactly it is. I would have gone down at least two feet and done at least four or five samples. I'm not a soil scientist, so I don't know how far they have to go down. >> Anything else from you two gentlemen? >> Okay, just the last page here. On page three, uh when I was about 12 years old, I uh they dove into the U lake bed in front of 502 and I almost broke my nose going it. And uh right now I got four grandchildren and they come up and they end up jumping in or diving in where the jetty used to be. They're going to get seriously hurt. >> Well, let's establish one thing. where the jetty used to be is somebody else's
074latoral boundary, not yours. >> No, no. What I'm saying, I don't want them to get hurt. Uh, >> and neither do I. But I'm saying if they come on my property and jump in, it's it's irrelevant to yours >> because it's only going to be covered by 3 in of like material, which is um nothing. And uh I passed out the um injuries that are possible if you jump off five feet from the top of the wall into 3 ft of water. And the last thing I would like to say is I'm sure that uh Sean would not jump off the 5ft wall into this jetty that's covered with three inches of material. And I don't think anybody else should. >> Okay, >> that's it. I again I wish you guys had submitted this earlier
075so we had an opportunity to read it as part of our packet last over the weekend and this week but it's coming here now >> Mary want to come forward >> you want to just excuse yourself gentlemen >> I can't hear you >> if you have children swimming and his jetty is gone and you you can just dive kids dive into the water and you could easily because there's no jetty there you know where it is and you could easily hit your head that it really is a safety issue and I I don't I just believe it's really a safety issue and I also think well you don't have these materials but you also don't have all the information for most of the other people here that you should have like you don't have the
076full information that I don't I don't even know who's did you go out to the lake did you go out and look at it >> I mean if they don't have that you don't have the thing from the lawyer and they don't have a a real true soil sample That's true. >> Any commissioners? Any questions for the people here? >> All right. Anybody else in the audience that would like to address this application? >> There's one more thing. >> Go ahead. I'll give you a chance. >> I just wanted to say that one of the things that we wanted to do to ask which I don't know if John made it clear that was that was the whole purpose is we don't want not want Sean and Brooke to have to do their wall. You
077know, I wouldn't want them not to be able to do the to their well that they wanted having the meeting to end like that. But I also um I'm going to forget it. You're going to misinterpret it. But um >> but I also think why can't they just leave the jetty there? I mean >> what's wrong with that? Or you it's you now that want to move the jetty, not necessarily them 100%. I thought if they if the movie if the jetty could just stay there, then they could still move everything over and they would have another side on that jetty where they could put their jet ski if we allowed them to. all that kind of stuff. It just seems like would even work better. >> If the jetty stays in, they can't have
078the waterfront the way they want to what they're asking for in the waterfront because they exceed the half the 69 foot half rule. So they would have over 34 34 feet of occupancy in the water and they're not allowed to have that. We won't give them that. So that's why from their perspective, to answer your question, they need to have the jetty come out to get what they want to put in the water. If the jetty stays in, something else that they want can't go in the water. >> But they do they have to have the jetty pulled out in order to start the other things that they want to build the wall and to do all the things they need in the waterfront. There's a lot of work there. Why don't they just do
079that first and see what happen? >> We won't approve what they're asking for. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> Uh, you guys can step back. >> All right. Thank you, please. >> Anybody on the commission? Any thoughts on this? Let's go around the table. I'm just there's just so much new information that it's a lot to think about, but if the new if the regulations say that the jetty shouldn't really be there, then don't we have to go by the regulations? >> We we can go by the regulation. We don't have to. >> We don't have to. >> We can bring it into compliance, >> but that would be detrimental to the applicant in terms of what they can put in the water. But it's subjective. >> Okay. >> Uh Frank, >> I think >> Go
080louder. >> I'm sorry. Um I think that the jetty is has to go. I think we have to bring everything up to compliance. I think the jetty bring everything up to not today's with the dock and the boat boat lift and the thing. I think you dirty's got to go. Mian, >> well, there are three components to this analysis, right? There's what's compliant according to the dock and moing ordinance, what are the ecological impacts of this project, and potential safety hazards. So, uh I think the second two determine the first one. So, uh, if we approve this, we would, it would be prudent in my opinion to put in conditions regarding the soil scientist actually going to the property and taking soil samples himself from the area that will be disturbed um, and analyzing them.
081Uh, as Tom said, somebody has to have oversight over the analysis of the like material that will be suggested to replace, you know, the area where there's currently concrete and we'll have to have a condition about that. Um the safety issue probably could be overseen by a structural engineer maybe. >> Well, there's one way to eliminate the safety issue is require the applicant to remove the footing in its entirety, >> right? But we don't know how deep that is. >> I guess it really doesn't matter how deep it is. >> Doesn't matter if we're doing if we're >> It's probably not that deep, right? >> That's not going to be six feet deep. >> Yeah. >> You know, >> and I guess Yeah. So if we're if we add all those conditions in a more
082sort of uh robust way than I just described on the ecological issue which I think is the number one issue that we have to be you know really concerned about >> pull out if we pull out the pier it has to ecologically be sound of for the integrity of the lake. >> Correct. So, and I agree to mitigate any potential safety issues. If we're approving the removal of the pier, then it should be the removal of everything. So, that you know, okay, I mean, you're right. If their kids jump over the line, their kids are jumping over the line, but a future owner may not know that that's there. Uh, so I think it is sort of incumbent on us to think about, you know, many years ahead. So, um, yeah, I mean, I think
083with a whole lot of conditions and oversight and third-party oversight over the replacement like materials. And I think I'd have to hear from Jeff and Tom if the kind of oversight they're suggesting is even possible with staff availability or if a third party would have to be hired during that period of time. And if all that can happen, then sounds like that it's a go. >> Listen, just remember you're gonna make the motion. >> Matt, go ahead. >> Yeah, I think obviously Tom is got some stuff he's got to review. Um I I don't feel comfortable making any sort of decision tonight obviously and it's up to the applicant if they want to continue it. Um because obviously there's some conditions of approval that would have to be in there. who is taking responsibility to
084sign off on this lake bed that it's going to be restored to similar conditions what's around it. Um so those are things we don't have in front of us tonight. So >> Jeff, >> I think I heard also that they were kind of the polls were concerned about uh where are they? The uh their ramp being attached to the jetty. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. Is there some way we could rectify that? Also, when you take the jetty out to fix it so that the ramp isn't destroyed, maybe that could be a condition. Also, >> the the ramp the ramp from when I I I was there several times, took pictures, the ramp, if if there's a stake on the on the the boundary line between 504 and 502. And if you can continue
085that stake out into the water, the ramp is is really it's it's just ledge that wasn't addressed with a wall on top of it. >> That's is that the ramp correct? >> No, the ramp is 10 ft by 10 and it tilts down like this. >> Yeah, but it's it's ledge. It's not man it's not created. It's concrete stone. It's not ledge. >> I thought it was ledge, wasn't it? >> It was manmade. Manmade. Oh, I thought it was lead. Okay. >> Manmade. >> But again, that's on your property. >> Wouldn't it be the same as if my wall butts up to his? It would be my job to make sure that when it's severed, that is correctly done so that I don't >> the same thing. The same situation. >> You could saw cut.
086>> Yeah. >> Take a nice line, >> right? >> Yeah. >> And, you know, rub the edges so you don't have sharp edges. There's ways to grind it. Go ahead, Jeff. I'm sorry. >> Well, I would agree if that is one of their concerns. That would make it a little better for them. I believe um I think we're better off without the jetty. >> Without the jetty, I think we are >> as long as we get all the soil replaced properly and that's all all the oversight is is good. >> Do you feel comfortable making a a decision tonight? >> Can we put those conditions so that Tom has control of that and the soil scientist has good control or do we need to see that again and make that part of our decision? >>
087I think we should be able to put those conditions in. I don't I don't think we want to kick this can down the street. >> We're running out of time to run out of time. >> Can you as far as my conditions go and your conditions reference inclusion of my conditions because I would like to have some time. I can I can do it tomorrow, but I'd like to have time to sit down and write out the proper conditions of approval. I have a question for Kyle regarding the bond estimate erosion sedimentation control. I need to set that bond estimate which should be a part of my conditions of approval. So, as long as you can word it that my conditions that I'm about to write are included as part of the approval, then I
088don't see an issue from my perspective. I would only consider moving ahead is if the applicant would agree that whatever conditions we impose, whether it come from the commission or Tom, that you just agree to those conditions. >> What I've heard so far, I would be glad and I would be glad to pay for the soil scientist to come and review the >> Again, that would be a condition. >> I'd be glad to pay for him to review the soil. That is going to get put back in and I'll be glad to do that. But you don't know what Tom's gonna say. >> Well, >> I don't want to do the wall and he is going to be the limiting factor. So, if I have to do it, would just be coming back again to
089hear what he's >> That's what Steve's asking you. Like, >> I'm willing I'm willing to >> Are you willing to wear a blindfold and say yes? >> I mean, I want to do the job. So if the if the changes I still got to do it. >> I I think I think I think you can sense and everybody can sense that we're trying to get to >> the best viable solution to sort of make everybody >> reasonably satisfied with the decision. >> Uh you know it's not going to be perfect for everybody >> but it's going to be a decision >> I would accept. >> It's going to be a decision that we make and uh we can ask you and you can deny it. we can ask you to give us a written request
090to continue the uh public hearing until next month so that you then have time to sort of swallow what Tom is bringing up and deal with it or not >> have to do it anyways because I want to do the wall so I I will accept it because accept it a month >> I'm trying to put everything out there that we possibly can >> understand >> John go ahead >> yes Steve nobody's still answering the question >> make it Okay. Say for example, one of the contractors gets injured on the job and he's on my piece of property. Who's liable for that? Is it the town going to be liable for it or what happens? >> He will not be on your property. >> He shouldn't be on your property unless you give him permission.
091>> I mean, he's going to be two feet away. The property line. Yeah. How >> that's what happens when he crosses two over two feet. Let's be realistic. He starts chipping part of the cement and it flies over an air. No judge could ever be done if that was I'm talking about liability or something could happen. >> I think there is a solution for this which is that you can make the Pollock an additional insured on your policy for the period of the work. >> Yeah. But I I we're looking at >> never done this. >> Well, you know, this is ridiculous. If it was your property, you'd be doing the same thing. I wouldn't. >> Yes, you would. I mean, it's between Wait, let's not get into John. You made a statement. We're dealing
092with it. Okay. >> That's one of my big concerns is that >> I I hear you. >> I don't think we have the power. Correct. >> But all I'm saying is that is between them and that is a solution that they could work through. >> Yeah. >> Um I think also there should be some condition about that we holes in the wall. >> Yeah. That's got to be >> Well, I think the structural engineer checking the wall is part of your condition. >> That'll be part of my >> take care of that. >> Yeah. >> Prior to obtaining a permit to do the demolition that we have to have a signed seal plan from structural engineer >> on the wall. >> So, at least them knowing that, it gives Kyle time to get rolling on
093that tomorrow and get somebody to look at the plans. Is it fair to put a time contingency on this so that if we don't have a completed approval with all the conditions and the agreement on it that we can withdraw the the approval? >> No, >> I don't think so. >> Okay. All right. Matt, you you said you were uncomfortable moving ahead tonight. There was a lot of unanswered things, but obviously he just said that he would accept any conditions we put on it. I mean, it'd be nice to have him in front of us now, obviously, but he's willing to accept anything that we state. And obviously, we got to know who's going to, like I said, who's is our soil scientist going to be responsible for restoring the lake bed? That's whose name's
094going on it. And obviously, that'll be part of the conditions obviously. Are you up to the task? >> Yeah. I think the only question I have is if this footing is very deep into Lake Bed because nobody knows what would be sufficient to a sufficient depth below the lake bed to then be able to restore it and make sure it stays in place. So would it be 18 in below the lake bed 24 in would require crushed stone and then the substrate um I'm not a biologist or so scientist so we have to defer to one of the professionals. >> Can he answer that for us? >> Can you answer that for us? >> Sure. Yeah. We already talked about it. We remove the whole thing. We're going to put, you know, we're going to
095put something solid in the bottom and then we're going to put the temperature up to 3 ft six feet or even >> if it's ridiculously >> 18 in. >> Well, I mean, yeah, I mean, we don't want to chase on six feet, but I think we're all under the assumption that it's going to be probably it probably be about a foot and a half. >> That's what we're hoping. But let's say it is worst case scenario, >> two feet. I mean, two feet's not that bad. I mean, and then of course the top 18 in will be to match the soil that's on substrate on both sides. >> What happens if it's on shale rock, lake bed rock? >> No footing. It's just regular rock that's out in the lake. What do you do then?
096>> Sitting on rock. >> Could be. >> That solves a lot of issues. >> I mean, that's natural. >> You just peel it right off and on you go. >> That would be the best case scenario. >> You leave the natural chair. >> All right. leave the natural sh. >> Okay. >> Anybody else have anything to say before we close the public hearing? Because once we close it, the audience is out of the the conversation and it's up to us. Any other questions? >> First of all, I'm pretty sure we're all pretty sure that there's a footing. They when they were young, they saw it being built. They know there's a pudding. And I can tell you from the past where my we've had to take things down that my father-in-law and grandfather built the
097concrete that they used was really heavy duty. The uh one person had a hard time getting getting through with the jackhammer. So, everything may not be so easy. And I just want to know if what if all of this hypothetical things that you're saying, things that you don't really know for sure, what if it um it isn't what happens if it doesn't work and what happens if it does create safety issues and who's responsible for that? >> That's that's what I want to know. And other thing is when like I said with Fred, I worked with him a couple of times and it does go down at least a foot to two feet down there and it was very hard to work down there and that rock is in there and it's not going to
098be an easy job. >> Is that what you think, John? It's about two feet. >> No, it's between two feet down. Yes. >> Okay. >> John John stated 70 years ago this was built. So unless John's 80 or 90, I'm not at two or two years of age he remembers construction of this. I'm just >> I don't know either. >> Let me introduce something completely that we haven't talked about. >> Right. >> And again, the engineers or both of your engineers might possibly deal. When you start to dig into the lake bed, you're going to get water coming up from the lake bed. I guess that depends on the >> well the draw down the the draw down according to Mr. Spei and it wasn't contested will go out probably 10 or 15 or 20
099feet beyond where the digging will be. >> So >> do you remember last five years ago what the drive is at the same depth this year? >> Yeah. So it was well past 20 ft. >> But again, we don't know what what water, >> Steve. I think that calculation is based on the fact that they have 3 and 12 ft. When I measured that the other day, there's 3 and 1/2 ft of water at the outside of the jetty. >> Yeah. >> And we're going down five feet with it with the draw down. So your water level is still going to be a foot and a half lower. >> So you think you don't think you don't think water will be coming up? >> Not if it's foot and a half lower. You may get
100some water. >> I don't think you're going to get bubbling of water. >> At that point, you probably recommend stoning it >> before the substrate goes on. That's what your recommendation is, too. But that makes sense. We start getting the seage. >> Jeff, anything? >> Uh, we'll spend a lot of time monitoring this project should it go forward. That's all I've got to say. for some reason if it doesn't go right to be stopped and then what happens >> for example it's a disaster and we get like a hurricane and stuff like this we can't work anymore what happens >> it's hard to comment on hypotheticals I mean we have to see what actually >> everybody's comment hypothetical things right now >> right >> they have this vision knowing engineering this and that >> all
101right I think everybody's had ample time to articulate whatever is on their minds and on their beliefs. Um, are we prepared to close the public hearing? >> Is there a motion to close the public hearing? >> I'll make a motion to close public hearing on WWC 2518 504 Boulevard. >> I'll second. >> Okay. All those in favor of closing the public hearing. All right. It's unanimous. So, no more comments from the audience at all. All right, guys. Um, I think we kicked this around enough to to know where we want to go in terms of approval or or denial. Um, the motion will be for approval. If we don't get enough votes for approval, then it would automatically be denied. Okay? So, there's not going to be a motion to deny it. There'll be a
102motion for approval. And we will need one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. We need four out of the seven majority. Okay. Everybody understand that? >> Okay. And we're only addressing the waterfront. And I'm going to try to sum up what we're going to address. Okay. >> Uh we're going to remove and reconstruct the lake wall and steps. All right. >> Remove concrete and stone jetty. Construct new walkways. Install a boat. The the construction of the new walkways. Is that on the waterfront? >> That's got to be within the 100 ft, right? >> Yeah. But I But again, is it part of the waterfront? >> No, I think we're deal with the walls. >> Okay. So, leave that out. Leave that out. Okay. >> Removing concrete and stone jetty. >> A new walk. What? uh
103install boat lift, jet ski lift, and dock. We have the measurements for all of those >> instruments. We have the positions for them on the diagram, so we know where they're going. They're not going to impact the latoral boundary at all. They're the setbacks are all appropriate. Um the the sum total of what they're asking for with the removal of the concrete uh walkway and jetty uh allows them to ask for what they've asked for and we can approve it so long as we take out the jetty. All right. So uh that would be the oversight of the motion. Um >> I have a motion if you want it. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. It's long. >> I'm gonna want a copy of that. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, so motion to approve all the elements
104Steve just described um of this application. Uh, what's the application number? Sorry. Uh, IWWC25-18. Um, this approval does not pertain to the demolition of the house and garage nor the reconstruction of SAM with the following conditions. uh a licensed soil scientist visits the property, takes soil samples and analyzes them, then resubmits his methods and means plan according to the new analysis to staff and Tom. Um, a third-party soil scientist approves the methods and means and approves the suggested like material used to restore the dr disrupted lake bed and oversees the creation of the like material before it is placed onto or into the lake bed. All elements associated with the pier are removed to eliminate any potential safety concerns that could result from leaving any elements of the jetty on the lake bed. Any elements
105of the jetty that will be removed that are currently attached to the property at 50502 East Wakefield are restored to current condition if affected by the work. All conditions determined by Tom Grimmaldi, town engineer, are met and complied with um and a third party engineer and town staff oversee all phases of the project. >> How's that? >> The last condition is that the applicant has agreed to adhere to all of the conditions. Uh >> sure. >> Conditionally for conditional approval. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Tom, you're going to come up with the bond amount. I will I have one question include the removal and replacement of the seaw wall. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Uh any thought about a bond? >> Tom's going to come up with >> Yeah, that's going to be Tom's uh
106>> the ENS bond. That's the only thing that we ask. Is there anything else? >> Oh, the erosion and sedimentation bond. He's going to come up with the erosion and sedimentation bond. >> You need any um fences or hay bales or anything else out there? >> No. >> Okay. >> Anybody else? Is there a second for the motion? >> Gary, any comments before we vote? All those in favor of approval with all of the stipulations that we attached to the motion pending a bond amount that we don't know yet. Uh which the applicant basically has agreed to at this point anyway. Um all those in favor of approval, please raise your hands. All right, it's unanimous. >> Okay. Uh, obviously all of the conditions have to be met before any work starts. And when they're
107met and you're ready to begin to work, please let Jeff and Tom know that you're starting. And uh, tell Mr. Gonzalez. You saved he saved you. I don't know how it would have been done. >> All right. Thank you very much. Thank everybody in the audience for your participation. I think we really did due diligence in trying to resolve this in a in a proper manner. >> Thank you. >> You want to make a copy of that? >> Yes, please. >> Hopefully, you can read. >> The next application before us is IWC 28- 25-8. >> Uh oh, wait a minute. No, we're to old business 23. >> 23. >> Yeah. All right. 25-23. The applicant is Mitch and Paul Knight and the the address is 229 West Wakefield Boulevard. And the application the applicant wants
108to construct a new storage building with a deck above the roof line, the associate site and storm water improvements. Yourselves. Hi guys. Introduce yourselves please. Uh, for the record, my name is Robin. I'm a senior project manager with Haley Ward and I'm here today with the applicant tonight. Uh, Paul and I couldn't be here tonight. Um, so we presented at last month's Why is this All right. Um, >> anyway, um, >> so at last month's meeting, Oh, there it is. >> Come on, Rob. >> I'm getting there. I'm sorry. At last month's meeting, the only revisions that were asked to be made to the plan were that we put a pudding around the storage shed. Um, however, I waited around till the end of last month's meeting because Jim Rollins got up and I knew
109he was going to speak about um the the roadway in front of this property, which anybody who's been by this area is familiar with the puddles that accumulate here. And Jim's coming up with a plan to put in an under drain system at this. So to that end, I I thought, well, because we have to put in a foundation drain around this house, we have to discharge it somewhere. And there really is only one place to discharge it right now currently, and that is kind of at that catch base. But now that Jim came up, >> use your marker. >> Now that Jim came up with everything in red here. >> Yeah. So, now that Jim came up with the idea that they're going to be putting in an under drain along here, I asked
110Jim if it would help him if we extended the footing drain out and created a curtain drain at the base of the slope because what Jim is relaying was relaying to everyone at that meeting was that there's a high ground water table here and he's trying to get it down, you know, so to keep the water and stop that pooling. And I think that the curtain drain in conjunction with his under drain would um uh really help the problem that he's having down help with the problem he's having down there. So I called him and asked him if he thought this was a good idea and he loved the idea and I just built it into the plan. So at the base of the slope where you see this erosion control matting, you'll see that
111the drain gets extended uh this way and this way and then it'll flow towards here and towards here and then down current. Now it all depends on timing. Jim said if if they do the under drain before he does his, they could tie right into the under drain itself. If they if they do their work first, it's tied into the until he's ready to come along with the under drain and then they'll tie it in back there. So, >> at whose expense? >> Well, the town is already >> I know that, but they're tying it in. >> Tying it in is cut the line and put in a vertical. >> No big deal. >> Okay. >> So, um so yeah, and it would be part to answer your question, it would be part of the
112town's project because that would be done on town property because the the the line is here. property line is right here. This heavy line and the work will be done like right here only in the first quarter. So to tie in. So regardless of which one comes first, in either case it'll be tighted. This does not connect to this drain and go to the lake. This is a separate drain that Rick keeps clean all the time and make sure that it doesn't have any buildup in it. This pipe actually goes from here down towards Pat's house then crosses the road at Pat's house into the lake. So it eventually goes into the lake. >> This one it does not. That's what it does. And this is all clean. This is all clean water. >> It's
113all ground water only. So that's going >> deep. >> How deep is that footing going to be? >> No. Well, >> as he brought up, it's a stepped footing, so it's going to be high up around the top, but he's got slab right at the base. >> Actually, I meant the curtain drain part. How deep is that going to be? >> Uh, well, we could we could put it as as we can to get it into the basin and you know get pitch from here to the basin. So >> 10T7 probably 3 ft deep. You'd probably be with us 88 and what do we hold on? >> Well, there's a natural slope just on the top of the frame. So, and it's going to be below that even. So, there's a few feet there >>
114that they can use to tie in. It shouldn't be an issue. >> Um, I mean, like I said, the only revisions that were asked for was that, but I just thought it would be worth it to do what we're doing with with Jim in conjunction with what Jim's doing just so we could try to solve the problem that they're having here. I know Jim's probably coming up with a good idea of his own to solve the problem, but he thought this would help immensely considering this is one of the properties that contributes. I mean, this is where the water sits, right? Right here. It kind of doesn't make it in basin, and it's right in his parking area. So, >> is there any anything else you've added to the uh thing from the last time
115other than this? >> Only what was asked for. >> Okay. Anybody with any questions or concerns? >> No. >> Looks like a good good design plan. >> All right. Do we have a motion? Motion to approve IWWC25-23 uh construction construction of a new storage building with deck above the roof line and associated site and storm water improvements. >> Any uh second? Thank you. Any bond? >> Should >> thousand thousand dollar >> any remediation needed? Any protection of the lake? >> Yeah. >> All right. >> But I think he's probably got it on there, right? >> Okay. All those in favor of approval, >> Frank. >> Yes. It's unanimous. Okay. $1,000 bond. >> Thank you. >> Okay, guys. You >> appreciate your time. >> You're welcome. Thank you. >> Good luck with your project. >> Next
116application is 25-29 Jocelyn Gold Grand Branson at 522 Westfield Boulevard. Remove overgrowth, brush, vines, and property. Remove dead trees and limbs. Yes. So, >> introduce yourself, please. >> I'm Jackie Gold Brunson, owner at 522 West Wakefield Boulevard. My husband couldn't be here tonight. Um, he was with me last month when we came as new business. Um, yeah. So, last month we talked about what we were planning to do. No excavation, no stump removal, truly just >> topical. >> Yep. Um, there is a map. So basically we're trying to just clean out the overgrowth on this property due to 10 plus years of no maintenance. Um it's not intended to clear the property. Um work includes removal of brush shrubs. Um there is a desire to maintain maintain trees and privacy on the property. Uh certain
117area of the properties will not be touched at all which you can see on the map that we provided the yellow circled areas like that's not even being touched. So there's a lot by that sucker brook and over like that's not even just being touched at all. It's more kind of like that center area of the property and around >> it's overgrown right now. >> Oh my god. Yes. Terrible. Um and once the area is cleaned up, there's definitely lowlying areas that we would like to like fill in and seed just to prevent all the puddling um that we see. Um so yeah. Why are you going to do this? >> They did it already. You got >> so we had started worked realize permitting. >> Um so we're trying to do it the right
118way and then finish what we've started. Um so yes, so as soon as we can get back on a schedule to to get it cleared. >> How close to the water you getting? Um, well, so the stuff by the lagoon, if you can see in the map, >> y >> like like I mean there's stuff there's like limbs growing over the lagoon. We have like a little um arched bridge that goes from the lagoon out into the lake. Like you can't even get your canoe. Like the branches are like I mean this is stuff that honestly if I had I don't know months of just my own time I could come with clippers and just but there's just so much. It's too overwhelming. And then these vines, they're just like huge. >> It's incredibly overwhelming.
119>> It's amazing. >> Watch that. >> Strictly maintenance. >> I used to go kayaking under that bridge and go into that little >> So, you know what? So, again, like we're not trying to like take down every tree on the property. Everything healthy and >> big is staying. Um just it's literally like the brush and overgrowth. And so some of it is right along water to your question, but I'd say most of it is not. It's that center section of the property where um like if you were sitting at the house, you don't even know there's a lake. That's how overgrown the center section of the property is. >> Any concerns? Anybody? Jeff, you good now? >> I'm good. Um my only note is that when you are working around the lagoon, you really make
120every effort to keep the organic material on the land. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Because more organic material means more nutrients for cyanobacteria and other things we don't want to take over the lake, right? And where you that because it's so shallow and it has not really rained a lot. It's been warm. there's a lot of sun more nutrients mean in those conditions a higher probability of a cyanobacteria bloom or sim similar >> is it possible that when you begin where you when you after approval when you begin that you let Jeff know when you're beginning which is required but when you're working near the other lagoon in that area let him come out and see what you're doing >> just to just to check on what what uh Maryann is alluding to. I mean, once
121you get into the middle of your property, then we're comfortable. >> Yeah. >> When it's when it's all lawn, when you finish it and it's nice lawn and everything like that and you go through with your lawn mower, >> I I can't >> Are you going to blow the No, >> blow the lawn into the lake. Come on now. >> Yeah. You got to get one of those bags that collects your clippings. >> Anything else, guys? There's still a lot of unm because it still has >> that's their fiveyear plan to get to the lawn mower >> to be able to walk through. >> Try to mow it. >> Anything else? >> At least get five years to the window. >> Jenny, you good? >> I'm good. >> We have a motion. >> Come on,
122guys. I'm motioned out. >> Go ahead, Matt. You got it in your hand. All right. I'll motion to approve IWWC25-29. Uh remove overgrowth brush vines on property. Remove dead trees and limbs. >> Second. >> Do we need a bond? >> No. >> Just asked. No. >> Take the lawn mower out. >> All those of approval have plans if it's the lawn. Good luck. Next order of business, uh, application 2532. The applicant is Jennifer Pera. The address is 378 Wakefield Boulevard, East Wakefield Boulevard. Rebuild two peers under existing dock. Introduce yourself, please. >> Hi, Jen Pera. 378 East Wakefield. >> Okay. Um, spoke to us last month. Anything new to add? Anything? Um, I have a friend who came up and made a diagram and made a procedure that the commissioners had asked for. >> Yes.
123>> What's it called? >> Methods. >> Got it. >> Okay. The two peers in question. >> Yes. Neither of them or or any of them under that you have like an overhang deck dock on the side of the uh Right. Okay. Strictly on the pier going out. Okay. Will you be doing any work on the dock itself? The deck of the top of the dock? Nothing. You're going to lift this up, fix it, and drop it back down. >> Correct. >> So, you're going to put a foot in there. So, you're going to pull all those rocks out of there. >> Yes. Put a foot in. So that's so my friend Bill came and measured and found appropriate places for the footings. >> Jenner appears that are in there larger than than the footings that
124you want to put in. >> It's going to be built the same way. >> Same. Okay. >> Yeah, they're approximately 4T by 4T. >> Okay. Anybody? >> You're not putting any any peers in where there aren't already existing peers. Okay. Just want to clarify that. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> We're talking to a woman doesn't want to cut a tree out. >> I know. The only reason I asked is because I just was triggered by her her comment that he measured and said where things should go. >> Oh, no. Just because the commissioners last time had asked about where the supports would be while they're doing the building. >> How much time are you going to need on this? >> I think under a week. They're really fast. >> Okay. >> Anybody need anything else? >>
125I don't think so. >> Would you like a copy? >> Did you put it in the portal? I'm not seeing >> talking about this >> this. >> Oh, we must. >> We do not pack it. >> Never mind. >> We do not pack it. >> All right. Do we need any bond? >> Any >> All the work's done by hand. You're taking it down by hand. >> Correct. >> There's no equipment. No, I don't >> any erosion control. I mean, the water's going to be out, I think, at that point. >> It's all It's all rock. >> All rock. >> Okay. >> Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve IWWC 378 East Boulevard for rebuild two peers. >> Second. All those in favor of approval. >> Thank you. Don't move. >> I'm
126stay. >> This is the hard one. >> Uh next application is 25-33. The applicant is Katherine Perga. The address is 360 East Wakefield Boulevard. Replacing existing rift wrap lake wall with a masonary wall. May we proceed, Mr. Chairman? >> Work louder, please. >> May we proceed, >> please? >> Yes. >> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner and staff. My name is David Batista. I'm a licensed professional engineer in Connecticut with Haley Ward here in Winstead. And I'm here tonight with applicant uh applicants representative Jen Per. applicant is Kathy Ker and Jen's mother. Uh we were here last month. We gave you a presentation of a a wall that we would like to build. It's a very low stone wall along the lakefront, approximately 180 ft long. Uh it will be built on bedrock. There's very
127shallow bedrock here. So the wall will not be very tall. It's replacing uh modified rip wrap slope protection. Um so uh and we have a very comprehensive soil erosion sediment control plan which explains carefully uh how the project will be executed. It's primarily going to be all hand labor u because of a uh no tree removal restriction that's been placed by the owner. So everything's going to be hand dug. imported material with wheel barrels and it will be no heavy machinery uh in or near the lake bed. Um it will be a stonemasonry wall with mortar and maybe two or three feet tall uh one and a half ft above the high water mark or the normal ordinary high water I should say. Uh, and we're going to take the rip wrap that we have
128on site and use it behind the wall like as a sort of a wave erosion protection at the top of the wall. And the only issue that came up last month was uh somebody asked about weepholes. Um, internally we decided against it because there's only a foot and a half of a wall exposed. But um, we're we wouldn't object to that if that's something that commission wanted. And that way if a big boat came by and sent a big wave over the top of this wall and water got into the rip wrap, it would have a opportunity to drain out. >> How many would you put in? >> Um, I don't know, Rob. What do you think? 25 foot on center. >> Yeah, I was going to say 20 to 25 ft on. >> Yeah.
129Every 25 ft. >> Yeah. >> Oh, I think when it's a high water mark or the water's up, it's equal pressure on both sides of that wall. I think it' just be more or less maybe when the water goes down to get the hydraulic pressure out of there if it was to freeze. That would be my only thing. >> Right. Right. >> Well, it the topography goes way drop from the road, >> you know, it's all downhill. >> Oh, yeah. It's all coming to that wall. There's nowhere else for it to go, >> but that's the only thing I would. >> All right. Well, that's reasonable then. >> Yeah. So, we're we're willing to do that as a condition of approval. How are you going to attach the wall? >> Drill uh holes into the
130bedrock and grout uh >> steel that will come up inside of the stone wall. >> Because it's all ledge there, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> There is a detail that's on the and the green bars that you see on the steel reinforcement bars. Well, like 20 in you have there. >> Okay. >> I think it says 20 >> 20 in >> 20. That's a pretty good depth. >> No, no steps on the wall in and out. Correct. >> Uh there's already a there's a set of steps uh on the site right now in this area right here. >> Are you going to keep them? >> Yes. >> Okay. This this was a uh a work in progress, right? a lot of feet this year that we have approximately 25% per year. >> That's my
131question. >> And there was there are provisions in the erosion control narrative uh where we talk about means and methods to build a temporary tent or hut uh around the work so that it can be heated. Uh given the time of year that this is going to be taking place, um the masons will probably find themselves having to work inside this little enclosure and then move it along. >> How how how long will it take to do 25 30 feet? >> Couple weeks, a month, I don't know. >> Yeah, but if you start middle of October, >> well, is the water going to be all the way down by then? I >> I don't know all the way down, but it'll be maybe down enough away from the wall. Jim would know. Yeah, it's really
132shallow there, you know. >> So, is this dry every year? >> Yeah, I'm sure everybody would prefer we don't have to build in cold water. >> No, I'm just, you know, you're saying uh it's like an overkill on on this. >> No, >> you don't want the cement to freeze. >> What's that? >> You want the cement to freeze? >> Yeah. If you're working and it's 30° or 26 degrees at night, you >> you're better off having some heat on. >> Yes. >> And you can't place more than 40. >> Okay. your your your is even the stone. When they go to put the stone in in the morning, you can't put the mortar around the stone because the stone is too cold. >> So, you got to sit there and warm it up in
133a tent. You got it undercover. >> Maybe we should have the draw down there during the middle of the summer. >> Yeah. >> Any other concerns? Um, >> should we have an asbill on this? >> Yeah. That's a good point. >> Should have asked for that last month. >> Well, no, no, no. That's after the work's completed. >> You know, I think >> Well, that's going to be five years from now. Six years. >> Yeah. Well, when the bond, you know, when they go to seek their bond, return on the bond or whatever they go. >> Yeah. I think it's a good point. >> There's a lot of short. >> Yeah. Just a lot of short, a lot of curves and stuff like that. >> Let's stay with the bond. Any idea how much thousand.
134I didn't went like this. I don't know what that means. Okay. >> I would I would think a thousand was plenty because you're only doing certain amount every year stay in place for four years. >> And I would I would suggest that a a condition be that whenever the project begin that the inland wetland agent be notified year after year after year after year. Seriously, >> you know, not that all of a sudden 3 years from now there's work being done and it's out of sight, out of mind. For sure. >> All right. >> See all the time. >> That's reasonable. >> Okay. Uh, do we have a motion for approval? >> Made a motion to approve IWWC 2533 East Wakefield Boulevard. replacement of a masonary seaw wall with a $1,000 bond um over a
135period of four years, I guess. >> Well, they the how Jeff, how long is the permit good for? Four years, five years. >> Five years. Five years. >> So, it has to be completed without asking for an extension, >> right? >> Within the five years. And again, each year >> when you begin to do that another section of the wall that Jeff be notified uh in advance. Okay. >> Is there a second? >> Second, >> Frank. All those in favor of approval, >> are we is that with the condition of an asbuilt? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. Just making sure. Yeah. All >> in. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Okay. Good project. >> All right. We have new business. >> Uh just a point of order. Who seconded that
136motion? >> Frank. >> Thanks, Frank. Thank you. >> Good night, Rob. >> Uh, anybody from here from application uh 25-24? >> No. >> Yes. >> Come on up. That's That's you. >> Okay. >> Hi there. Michael Block, please. Uh the proposal is a postfacto application for removal of auto business building and regrade area. >> Yes. >> This is a new application now guys. Yes. >> Can I pass out another map? >> You can. >> There's one in one package. >> Is it different than this? >> This shows something else. >> Yeah. Send give it out just so you're more familiar with our process. The best you can hope for tonight is us accepting your application, right? >> So, anything you give us, we'll sleep on for a month, >> right? >> And you'll answer any
137questions or any concerns that we may have tonight. And hopefully by the time we get our packets next month, all of our concerns will be addressed in the package. >> Okay. And the other thing is is that for the next meeting, >> Yep. >> in um October, Yep. >> I won't be here. So, I need to do it in November. So, uh, what did you say? I should ask for the 65day extension. >> We might as well get it just just in case it goes any longer, Frank. >> Yep. >> Better to have it not need it. >> So, he'll submit it. >> So, Mr. Block, you're going to present to us tonight. We're going to accept your application. >> Yes. >> And next month, you're not going to be here. So, you're going to
138preempt ask Jeff to submit a uh a request for an extension. >> Correct. And then I'll be here at the November. >> Okay. Good. Go ahead. talk to us. >> So, the only thing this is a partial copy of the of the map you already have >> and the only thing on it I spoke with Je uh Jeff today on the phone and um we decided I should show this fence here that I want to put in >> um >> the one near Main Street. >> Yes, fence. >> That's not on the map you have. That's the only difference is that it shows that fence >> and the mailbox. Um, and then the driveway is put in straight, but that doesn't matter. It's really just about the fence. Um, so I could put it on
139the We could either leave it at this and I'll be back in November if you accept the application or I could make new copies of that with it on. >> I think we're I'm comfortable with leaving it just with adding this piece of paper to it. Just what I would like you to do is with final approval when you submit the the package to Jeff have it on this. We don't need nine copies of it is what I'm saying. >> Okay. >> Just give him a copy of it >> Just for the file. All right. That'll make it easier for you and no use burdening us with more paper. >> Okay. So basically um the front of the property is within 100 feet from wetlands across the street from it. Um the building that was
140removed was beyond the 100 the 100 ft. But the so nothing's been done in the 100 ft yet except for the pavement that was there was broken pavement in the parking lot that has been removed. So, that has been done. That was in the 100 ft. >> Okay. >> And this um is not done yet, but um I realized today that I should be showing what I want to do because I thought it was in the 100 ft. And it appears to be I'm not sure exactly where it's going to go, but that's the closest to the wetlands it would go. I want it to go there. It's 90 ft from wetland. So, it'll either be 90 ft or farther. What's the plan for the property? >> So, the property is a mobile home park
141and it was a pretty nasty mobile home park. I I've done a lot of mobile home parks. Um, and my I like them, believe it or not. I think they're they could be good affordable housing when they're kept and made nice. Um, this a lot of almost all of them I've ever worked with have something else attached to them too, like some other business in front of it. I don't typically like that. Most of the time I've gotten rid of them. Sometimes I haven't. In this case, um, I never thought I'd be getting rid of it because it had a long-term lease on it. So, it was what it was. So, I thought it was always going to stay that way. That long-term lease didn't end up working out and is gone. So, then I
142had the option, which never occurred to me, to get rid of it. It was a pretty crappy building to be upfront about it. Um, it wasn't nice. the property. I've put a lot into making it nicer and it doesn't look nice does not look nice from the road. >> So, the whole point is to make this a more appealing and more attractive property. And and you know, when they're not when mobile home parks are not, they uh they turn into junk like this one did. And I don't want that to be the case here again. >> We had something on this. >> Yeah. About two years ago, they developed they they re fabricated, they moved, they put concrete pad and then they rebuilt they rebuilt three three or five of the things. Yes. >> Right.
143But we were concerned with the creek behind it >> with the burn. >> That's where they were within the wetlands. >> Right. That was behind the property. This is across the street in front of the property. So, I have since I last came and saw you, I have upgraded the property considerably, but there are still some there's a couple of I own almost all of the mo the only way small mobile home parks stay good and are good is if the person who owns them owns the mobile home. So, it's not a normal mobile home park. It's more like a rental community instead of a land lease community. There are a couple of older trailers there that are owned by the people that live in them and they're really good people, but they're not nice
144and they really diminish the looks of the property. So, I am trying to let them be able to stay and make the property look nicer. Trying to kind of hide them. And uh >> it looks like you made all the did everything that the deep required of you, the soil test and everything. Yes, that's all. That was a big concern for us. >> Anything else, guys? >> So, now this is going to be just left the way it is now. >> No. Well, I I hope not. >> Um, no. I would like to um So, basically, it's just >> It doesn't If you go look at it, it doesn't look good. I mean, it's looking a little better each time, but I would like it to really look good. So, I would like to put
145a nice fence in front of it. I would like to put a couple of mobile homes back that were here that will hide that will actually hide the not as nice as looking older trailers. Um, and that's not anything I would go through wetlands for. Um, so that's another >> What about the broken concrete? >> Uh, the broken concrete. >> Did you say you broke some concrete? No, no, it's already been pavement. >> Oh, that's well done. >> Yeah, >> that's what was in that's what has been done in the 100 foot to wetlands is that the pavement that was there has been removed. The property hasn't been regraded or anything and it won't be regraded because it's already graded properly, >> right? >> It's it's like the proper grade the way it is. >>
146Um so it doesn't need any grading or anything. So, the sil fence that was put up these last couple of weeks is staying and the property is going to stay the way that is. >> Uh, well, until the grass is established. If you're planting grass, >> no, I won't be planting grass. That's going to be No, that will come out um when I move forward with the process. You know, I'll put the fence. There's nothing that will erode. It's just gravel like what's behind it. So, basically, the driveway is going to come down the middle of it instead of on the side of it. Um, and there's already a driveway there. There was already an entrance for the auto place. It's the same entrance I'm using. Um, and uh I'm hoping to have a fence
147blocking it so that it's not just exposed to the main street, not not where you enter into it, obviously. Um, like entering into the middle like it's shown. Will, you know, typically typically most commissioners will visit the property. Any problem with us walking on the property with a lot of different people in there? >> Not at all. Okay. >> Not at all. They're all very good people. >> No, no. I just, you know, I don't want somebody to say strangers walking around. >> Oh, no. No. I mean, they might I could let them know it will be happening. >> Let them know. And sometimes they let me know if they think something odd is going on. >> But let them know that within the next month. Well, actually we have two months, >> right? >>
148Let them know that somewhere in the future >> commissioners may or may not be I don't know if I'm not going to knock on 910 doors and say I'm here, but let them know that people may be walking around looking at what you're proposing. >> I will do that. >> Okay, good. >> Am I missing something here? This is >> so just to tell you this is a result of the demolition that happened which the permit wasn't finalized yet and as part of the demolition process there's a wetlands check >> and because of that wetlands check in the uh distance to the river across the street >> it became clear that it was in the upland review area so we needed a plan and Michael got the sil fencing up right away so everything kind
149of went like it needed to but it it it started out of sync and kind of >> we're going all the dishes there's no need for us to be down around those with trailers. >> No, this is all up front. >> All up front and when we when we move on to this is more P&Z stuff, but when we move on to extra trailers and site, >> we'll deal with all that. >> The only thing we're dealing with is putting a couple posts in for some mailboxes and some fence posts. That's all we're doing within the reg, right? >> Yeah, that's that's done. So, and it's stabilized. There's really nothing much going on. >> So, we got a couple fence post. >> Normally, this would probably be an agent determination. >> I I've had him
150roll that in because he was forced to come in. >> I I understand this one went a little >> Yeah, a little haywire. >> Out of sync with the normal process. >> Still go to agent determination. >> I mean, I don't understand why this is going to take our time. >> Why Why we still fences in place? You can drive by and see fences in place and it's >> I'm off of that. >> A fence with a couple of mailbox. It's >> Jeff I think Jeff is uncomfortable. Can I make a suggestion >> that we s accept the application and rule on it next month even though he may be >> we can rule on him without him here if you're that comfortable. >> What's that? >> Right. He doesn't need to attend if you're
151comfortable enough with the information. >> All right. That would be wonderful. >> Okay. Yeah. I'd like to move forward and um I do want you to know I'm sorry that I wasn't here last uh month. I've had some medical situations and then I got COVID so I couldn't come. >> And um >> thanks for asking. >> You know it's going around really going around. >> I am so careful I can't even tell you. And I've got that's the second time I got it now. >> What are you going to do? >> All right. Is there a motion to accept? Yeah, I'll make a motion uh to accept application IWWC25-24 applicant Michael Block uh location 928 Main Street uh postfacto application for removal of auto business building and regrade area and I guess I'm going to
152say also add fence posts and posts for the mailboxes. >> There a second. >> Second, Jamie. All those in favor of acceptance, unanimous. Okay. Hopefully next month you'll have an answer. And again, if if there's something that's going to come up, Jeff will notify you and your your request for an extension will go in automatically. >> Thank you so much. >> If you don't hear from him, don't worry about it then. Okay. >> Terrific. >> All right, guys. >> Thanks very much, sir. >> Thank you. Uh >> oh. >> Our next applicant will be >> This is serious. >> Teaming in uh he had travel plans and this is a So you can act tonight if you're comfortable. Just give me a few moments. 2131. >> Oh, sorry. So, I'm sorry. >> 2535. >> Hey,
153Jonathan. It's Jeff. Oh, did you disconnect? >> All right. So, you need to re-enter. Oh, it says you're still connected. Oh, [Applause] okay. Now it says you're leaving. So, come back in. 632. >> How about this? Why don't I put you on speaker phone? Uh we'll we'll forego the teams and we can just talk. How's that sound? >> Okay, >> this is absolutely right. >> Yeah. Okay, give it another go. Okay, >> as of right now [Music] for the All right, I'm admitting you now. You're popped up. So, if you can make your camera on >> and your microphone will be good. >> All right, now we're now we're getting there. All right, let me turn this around. >> All right, John, can you still hear us? John, can you hear us? >> John, you
154got to turn your microphone on. >> You always have to do this. >> Yeah. All right. Your mic wasn't on. Listen, we're just going to do it on speaker phone. Forget about this. So, it's just >> All right. All right. Hold on. >> Can everyone hear? >> Hello. >> Introduce yourself for the record. >> Hi, my name is Jonathan Abrams. Uh, I we have a house on 632 East Wakefield and I have uh an attachment to uh a file that we already have open that I want you to take a look at. >> Jen, want to just explain the uh the work for them? >> Sure. Um, we want to uh take the stone wall and re by the the lake and and repair it. um which would consist of uh removing the the dirt
155behind the stone wall, putting it behind a uh a fence, a uh a silt fence, uh and reconstructing the stone wall and placing cement from behind on the other side of the L on the opposite side of the lay and then filling it in with with dirt and uh re re um and putting down um sod or or or of that nature and re replacing it. >> Is that stone wall a lake front wall or is it a wall on on uh ground behind behind the lakefront? >> It's the lakefront wall. Yes. >> How how tall is that wall? >> I'm sorry. How how tall is the wall from the wall to the to the bottom of the uh lake bed? >> Um I'm not maybe four to five feet. I guess just a usual
156amount. >> That's not pre-existing. >> Maybe it's four to six feet. I don't know. >> Approximately how much how how big how wide is your waterfront? It's 100 ft. >> And how much of the wall are you taking down? >> Uh probably it looks like about 80% of it because there's trees on one side and we're not going to disrupt those. >> It's just where I have the law. >> I don't see this as a modification. >> This is not a modification. And unfortunately, you're going to have to get a design uh an engineer to design your wall. Seen as we just went through that >> just to repair it. We're not really checking. >> Okay. Um because anything over three feet call in the town calls for a design build. But this is not
157I can't see where where 80 80% of your frontage is just a modification. So there's got to be a plan drawn for the wall itself. >> Well, what what what would be considered a modification? I'm unclear. the amount of work it's it's uh >> I think a reason a a reasonable modification might be repointing a section of the wall or tidying up some loose stones in another section of the wall but when I asked you how much of the wall are you going to rebuild you said 80% of it and you have 100 feet of property that's not you know uh sort of touching up and you know uh adjusting some weak This is in the wall. You're taking a wall down. >> Okay. Well, there it's not going to be We're not going to
158be able to get it in for this season then. If if that's what >> I didn't hear the last statement. >> I'm sorry. >> I didn't hear your last statement. Well, I'm I'm trying to just repair the wall, and I thought the best thing would do is take the the dirt behind the wall, and you wouldn't even have to remove any stones if that's if that's the issue. I just wanted there's the the way that the wall was constructed. Cement was put on the on the lake side of the of the of the wall and it's crumbling and falling into the lake. So, I don't know if if putting uh if repointing the link side would be the right answer, but um we could just do that. Keep the wall, don't take it down, and
159uh repoint it, I guess, if that's what it's going to take. >> You know what? One of the things that was asked for in the application is a modification of an existing permit. Um I'm going to suggest that we eliminate the word modification. We accept this as a new application and we'll accept your application. You'll tell us what you want to do now that you know the parameters of what you may or may not be able to do. And um if we have all of the information in our packets by next month, we can vote on the approval or not approving you all or the way you're presenting it to us. >> But just by what you're saying, it's really not a modification. your your your you your your statement was that you're going to
160do about 80% of the wall and uh that that's >> and and and just to add the proposal reads take down and rebuild Stone Wall, >> right? >> Yeah. >> So that that is that's a big job. >> That's major work. >> Yeah, that's major work. You're bringing a mini excavator down on the property. It's a very steep property. Uh so there's a lot to think about here and and yeah, our strong suggestion is to come in with a designed wall with engineered plans. >> Well, you know what? Then I won't do it. >> Well, our meeting the problem is that I know that the the guy the mason I'm using if it gets into the winter, he's not going to want to put cement down anyways. It' be too cold, >> right? >> So,
161that's not going to work. Well, our our meeting next month is on the 16th. >> I'm not going to be around, unfortunately, >> and there's no way I could get on to a team's call. >> Well, I you know, I don't we don't want to take the position of forcing you into withdrawing your application because of the stipulations. Let me ask you a question. Um, do you need a deep draw down to do any work on your wall? Well, yeah. The draw down because there is the problem is there's some cement that's falling onto the lake. Get rid of that. That's acceptable, right? >> Let Jeff ask the question. Do we need do we need >> Jeff? Do you require the deep draw down to do the wall rebuild? I think that's the question. >>
162Or can a regular draw down? >> Yeah, I believe so. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not going to then I won't rebuild the wall. It just it doesn't it's not going to work. Um I just thought that Having cement fallen into the lake was not a great idea. Um maybe he can just repair what's there and not take down any stones. Is that would that be all right? >> if that's the way you go, uh this could be by right maintenance. So no application necessary. >> Um the only thing that I would like to do that I'd need your permission was the steps down into the lake are three feet. I want to widen it to six feet. >> Can't do that. Well, >> would that be a problem? >> That would be considered major work. >>
163Well, also you'd be >> and it would have to be >> increasing your footprint into the water >> if it >> No, it's deep. >> Are they into your property or are they into the lake? >> Oh, yeah. >> Will they come into the property? >> That's what the map shows. >> But it it would still need to be engineered and designed, guys. >> Yeah, but it's not it's not repointed. I mean, the steps are already there. I just want to widen them. >> Yeah, that's but that's major work. You're removing a wall. You're excavating an area. You're putting in >> steps. That that's >> that wouldn't that wouldn't fall under maintenance. Yeah, there there's there's the clarification >> that that repointing repointing your wall, having a mason walking along and repointing and barging and
164one where the stone fell out. you put it back in. That's that's legitimate ma legitimate maintenance. But if you're going to take stairs apart, that's not maintenance. That's >> So if I wanted to widen the stairs, you're saying I need an engineer to approve it >> and it drawn out. >> I don't know if you engineer to approve it. >> Well, he needs >> he needs a design. He needs methods and means, >> right? And depending on the nature of the work, he may need an engineer to, you know, approve the plan. >> Would a design be sufficient? I'm trying to figure out if I can do it. That's all. >> I think the best case scenario is, you know, submit for next month what you'd like us to consider. We'll we we'll accept your
165application tonight and you know that it's lacking information that we need. Uh if you provide us with that information for next month, then we can move on your application. If you choose not to provide it or you think it's too cumbersome or you're not ready to do it, then the application will just go to rest. That's all. It's up to you. >> Would maybe your Mason would mason be okay to draw it out? Yeah, it's really it depends upon what they draw out. >> If he draws out a nice plan for us, maybe your mason could do it, you know, show the steps and show what he's going to fill behind it and show how it's going to be done and how he's going to protect any erosion. >> And then a methods and means
166narrative needs to correspond with the drawing. >> Well, I I put some I wrote out a narrative, but that's not sufficient. Just by just narrow the scope just to the steps and then just repointing the wall. Would that do it? My suggestion is you have your Mason meet with Jeff and have have a conversation and uh Jeff will tell you, you know, this is not going to fly because it's not going to be approved and this is likely to be approved because it it makes sense to to Jeff and at least to him and we'll go from there. I don't know what else to tell you. I don't want to discourage you, but I don't want to give you false hopes either. All right. I'll I'll uh have my Mason and we'll we'll three of
167us will meet and see if we can come up with something that would probably be acceptable to the uh committee. >> I'll ask the uh building official to join us as well. John. >> Okay. >> And will somebody be present at next month's meeting? >> I don't know yet. I'm not going to be around. Maybe my Mason will come. >> We don't have to start the clock. >> All right. My suggestion is you have a representative here to speak on your behalf. >> All right. Okay. We'll see. All right. Well, thank you. >> All right. You stay on board. We're going to Is there a motion to accept the application and not as a modification, just as a an application? >> Yeah, I'll make a motion. >> Jeff, go ahead. I'll make a motion to
168accept >> 2535 632 East Wakefield Boulevard to repair >> put rebuild existing stone wall >> repoint existing stone wall and >> and re >> possibly rebuild the steps. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> The steps. Yeah. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Gary, all those in favor of a second, >> I'm going to say no on this. I don't think we have a good enough application. >> All right. Fine. There's uh one, two, three, four, five, six. Uh, seven yeses. Uh, Frank uh Frank said no. Okay. Thank you. Hopefully we'll see somebody next month. >> Thank you. The problem with it is until he comes back and says, you know, you're going to go to a six foot wide step. That's that's great. If you're putting stones this big step, but if
169you're coming down this slope to ease on and everything, you're going to come down with granite 6 foot,000 pounds a piece. >> I have a question. >> Can I ask a question? Is staff >> required to accept an application like this? >> Yes. That's what I'm saying. We could say no. >> Well, we could say it's incomplete. >> That's what I'm saying. I think >> but it's not incomplete because he's given us some information, >> but it's it's out there. It's not clear. I mean, it's >> No. I mean, then then we wouldn't >> Well, let me put it this way. It's starting the clock, right? >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. We just started the clock. >> We did. >> And he's screwed. >> Well, no. >> Well, maybe not. That's what I look at
170it. I mean, He wanted to know if he could do as of right use and you know I think we I think right come back next week with the guy talking to us and start the clock then that's all I'm saying. >> Well yeah but then >> might but you know what Frankank >> then it's November >> if he came back if we if we didn't accept it tonight then next month would he'd be starting his application then he would be carrying it to November at best. >> Yeah. So, >> so it's a >> Hi. Uh, >> I think we did the best we could with the situation. >> No, no, Jeff. >> Uh, yeah. IWWC 25-28. Uh, Brian Boothiller at 212 East Wakefield Boulevard. Uh, I visited the site and he's repointing existing lake
171wall. It seemed like a pretty minor, so uh, that's good to go. Uh, same with IWWC25-34. Applicant Michael von Kowarf at 624 East Wakefield. Similar situation. Pointing a repair, couple loose stones in the lake wall. Uh, we did have a couple other as of right determinations didn't make it to the agenda. I know for sure. The Savas, I forget their address. Uh, came in with a very nice package, showed everything. I said, "You saved me all the work. Go ahead. You're all set." Um, and >> what's he doing? >> What's Steve doing? >> Just some minor wall repair work. Yeah. Uh, and then down to violations 139 West Wakefield Boulevard, which is Michelle Babage. The court date is next Friday at 3:00 and I will be appearing via telephone and we'll have more for you
172after that, I guess. Happy to report. Never put the dock in this season. The for sale sign's still up. That might be working itself out. Uh, did Joe Bondi Jet Beyond? Did they >> They never did anything from last month. We didn't accept their application. >> Yeah, we haven't got anything. >> I didn't bring it. So, you can throw throw it away unless >> uh anything with the public works, Jeff? >> Yeah. Well, I called Jim today, this morning. He called me back. I didn't get the call, but he did leave a pretty detailed message. How detailed because we're not doing anything. >> No, no. He's got three things that he was uh happy to report. Let me see if I can find. >> All right, Jim Ms. I'm not going to make the wet
173meeting tonight, but three things to give you an update. We just put in a couple of 4 foot deep sumps at West Wakefield Boulevard right by Forest Avenue. Uh the driveway at 8:15 East Wakefield Boulevard is out to bid and the drainage for that driveway is going in is up and the drainage for that driveway is going in. >> That would be a big accomplishment. >> That's a big one. >> And then uh you probably next week some progress on that. So that's really all I got. There's three 4 foot songs west. >> Oh, okay. So, it's the driveways going out the bid next week. And then the third thing was the drainage by that drive. >> Okay. >> Drainage where? >> By the driveway by Dutton's house. >> That's a mess. The whole down
174there. That's a mess. But I saw the one house went on the market. >> Yeah. >> With the lights. >> Yeah. >> The grow light house. It's on the market. >> Do do we ever get a report from the selectman? >> No. Uh you saw him here a couple meetings back to back and and that's it. Yeah. >> He's not the liaison, is he? >> Troy. Troy. >> Oh, Troy was here. >> No, Troy wasn't here last month. >> Couple Bill Hester was here. Yeah. >> Yeah. Bill came for fun. >> Yeah. Are we getting any any more update in terms of uh how significant the wake board the wakeboats and the buoys are in the lake? >> So we have scheduled a meeting with deep. It started as as a buoy discussion uh but
175now we're we're shifting to get more information from them. Uh as well there's been talk of putting together maybe not a full ad hoc committee but uh representatives from like the water level committee and probably from wetlands to discuss this issue more fully. Uh I think we're going to have these talks over the winter. >> Okay, good. So >> see where we go with that. A friend of mine sent me something from uh and I didn't look look at look into it deeper but apparently the water sports industry association WSIA has done some extensive research on this. So that may be another >> they forward or they >> send it to I think I sent him a text back. I said am I looking at the whole thing? It's only five notes and it looks
176like it's looks like something that should be you know several pages long. And he just sent back >> ask him to send it. Ask him to send a printed copy. He didn't have it. He said WSI research on damage lakes. Seems like center of third bay is a logical place for weight sports. I guess there are rebuttals to some being presented to IWC town. Seems like there will be small window for town to get in. I thought he didn't really have anything but there is another source of information. See what you can get. I'm going to give it to Jeff. >> He's making that up. I'll look it up. >> He wants to get the wakeboards away from him and put them down for you. >> The southern most point between the bays between the
177bay. >> It should have put it up under agenda review and I I just didn't think of it. We still need need a liaison on to Highland Lake Wershed Association. >> I mean, do you want me to be both? Because I'm on the board of the wershed. >> That's why we get the >> I think information. >> I mean, if you're comfortable with that. No, >> hang on. I think we should have two people. >> Yeah, I agree. >> That makes more sense if if we if Maryanne is >> because it's checks and balance if I forget something. >> Yeah. No, and I'm I would suggest that there be a second person, >> someone from wetlands who's not me. Jamie, >> Jamie, there you go. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> But if you do
178want a little report, I can give you the latest and greatest. Um, one piece of good news, uh, the Highland Lake Watershed Association worked closely with the state of Connecticut to put uh, retention uh, basins at the boat launch. And after that really super heavy rain we had uh two weekends ago, um they were doing their job. So that's great news. We went and checked on them and they're doing their job. Um the divers were in the lake a couple weeks ago. They found mil foil two mil foil plants. Um and they pulled them and uh >> where were they? They were in First Bay. In First Bay in the in the cove that's not the cove where the beach is. >> Okay. Okay. Sandy co >> um >> in front of your old place.
179Yeah. uh >> as I mean I might be getting ahead of myself but I I'll just say that I've been approached by several people in my capacity as a board member on Highland Lake Watershed Association. I have been asked about a boat washing station. Lots of different people have been asking about it. So um we will probably make research on a boat washing station a winter project for the wetlands association to do a bunch of research on it. I mean, what we know is the state of Connecticut owns the boat launch >> and what we also know is the representative from the state of Connecticut who is typically there uh there are real limitations uh regarding what he thinks or he's been told his job description is. Um, but we also know that if mil
180foil gets in the lake, we're doomed. So, um, so, so, you know, I think people are concerned with good reason. Um, they can see how the plants grow if you don't treat, right? This year there was only spot treatment. So, there have been a lot of complaints about the plants because by the end of the summer, they were tickling a lot of toes. >> I didn't think there was any treatment this year. >> There was spot treatment. understand how it works in New York State. The way it works in New York State is before you get to the boat ramp, you go to like a station where you get the boat wash, they tag it and then you go to the boat ramp. If that tag is locked, the guy the boat ramp unlocks the
181boat goes in. If that tag isn't there, you're not allowed in. >> Oh, yeah. I mean, a lot of states. I'm saying this boat washing station is not going to be part of the boat ramp. It's going to be another facility before you get to where you want to get with the unloading the boat. >> Okay. >> Well, >> we need state action. >> That'll go into our research, Frank. That's a good that's a good piece of information because maybe that's something that the town can take upon themselves. >> I bet you Eric Dearina would be interested in putting those I had that idea for him in the past. I reached out to the folks down at Candlewood Lake and they had a big meeting with Deep and they were trying a similar thing and
182they didn't get anywhere with it >> with Deep. >> Yeah. The state won't pay for it. >> Have to charge the boat charge. >> Do they wash it with something that makes the plant life and kills it? They wash it with that or they just wash it off? >> No. No. If they just wash it off like at Erics, it would go into the Mad River. >> I'm saying no. A boat wash have to go into the sanitary sewer. >> It's a super super specific thing. >> But even that then if they're using a soap or something like that, it's got to be in an area that's got sewers. >> Correct. >> Have to go into the sewer >> or or it has to have its own >> treatment. Exactly. That's why they're so expensive,
183right? That's why the state doesn't want to do that. It's not as simple. It's not somebody watching, you know, it's not >> ugly. >> Anyway, okay. So, as you can see, there's a lot of research to be done. >> Cherry Bur, >> you know, I think I think we've we sort of ripped out of the waters and we're stimulating interest. Uh there's talk on Facebook, not Facebook, on Highland Lake Facebook marketplace about wakeboards and buoys. So people are starting to listen to the show, so to speak, because no one's in the audience here to to observe. Uh but they know that we're looking at it and contemplating some kind of uh approach to enforcement, whatever that word means in reality down the road. So I'm glad we're we're moving ahead and you know, we're doing
184it with due diligence. That's all >> good. Thank you. >> Um are we talking about the dock and moing ordinance because it's on here. going to bring that up. >> We never really got to it because the meetings always go long. Uh you might have seen in Jeremy's report sort of the the status of that. >> Uh it got punted back to you guys. >> So see that at the very end of the report there. >> Well, so basically they I was at a couple meetings where this was discussed. Um the the board of selectmen wanted to change some of the language that this uh commission suggested to just define what lifts. So not just to say vessel lifts, but to say jet ski, right, jet ski lifts, boat lifts. I think I I think
185that was the language they wanted. >> They wanted it back to more >> they wanted to tweak and send back. But as part of that, they're also asking to add something additional, which is a waiver provision in the dock and moing ordinance. >> We brought this up and I discussed this at length with Paul. We discussed this here because we've gotten out of a lot of tight situations by only being authorized to make variances on the Toral borders. I'm I'm totally in agreement with you and I'm gonna just tell you guys my thoughts on this because I wrote them down. Um so the the argument was we should be able to consider waiver requests because of potential potential safety issues. So my first question is who defines what a potential safety issue is? who you
186know um like is it a water safety officer? When you go for a waiver with ZBA, an engineer has to come to the property and deliver all of the evidence of hardship. So, who would be the equivalent of an engineer? Is it a water safety person who hires them, who pays for them? So, that's question number one. Um like how would the evidence of hardship or safety that argument be made? Um, and I also like this is a commission of volunteers. We're not necessarily, you know, qualified to determine what a navigational hazard is or isn't. Like in terms of the pier tonight, you know, the determination was take it all out, right? Because we know if it's not there, it's no longer a safety issue. >> That's kind of a simple thing because anything that
187protrudes out past the wall is navigational safety hazard. If it protrudes out with our 40 feet. If you go 50, it's worse. >> It's worse. Right. So, I I think that like this could expose the town to legal action if we're required to make decisions about something like this and then we make a decision and there's an accident. Um so, you know, the other thing to remember is when docks were put in this lake initially, we didn't control the water level. The pin factory controlled the water level. And there was a lot of bare lake bed. People had to have docks to get out to the water. Now we control the water level. And we're really lucky. We have a lot of depth in this lake. There really aren't a lot of waterfronts with, you
188know, tiny amounts of depth right at their walls. So, um, you know, I think that's probably why the docks ended up being as long as they are. Um uh so so that that was just a note. Um so what else? >> The the only thing though is though if if we start to allow for waiverss. >> I mean people are very creative >> and we're going to be dealing >> Well, that's the other problem. We're never going to get home at 10:30 at night on any meeting because everybody will appeal to us. >> If if one person wants a 50ft dock and their neighbors don't want the 50ft dock, then we're, you know, we've got hourong public hearings >> on one application. >> We have a tough time controlling what we have. >> Same thing
189as the application earlier where the guy said my wall is four to 5t. Okay. We want engineered. We want everything. This guy, my walls 5 feet, nobody comes up with the fact it's got to be engineered. >> You know what I mean? We're not we're not playing we're not laying the cards down even over here sometimes. >> Let me just give a little history. >> I guess two years ago we got a submission just photographs. Somebody gave you photographs about extending the 15oot dock and we said how come and he wanted to do some sort of easement agreement with his neighbor. Marianne's brother. >> Yeah. >> What? >> Marianne's brother. >> Yeah. Well, yes. Listen, that's >> that's you want to be entertained, come to the board of selectman meetings I attend. No, but uh
190he he he said >> I can only imagine >> he said in the meeting there, that's no secret. He said out loud in the meeting that he wants a 50-foot dock. You know, I think he and anybody else who had been on the lake, he's been on the lake 50 years when he bought his property. He knew the kind of property he was buying. So, I just don't think that's a strong argument because you have the opportunity to >> you know what >> to assess the dock and moing ordinance when you buy a property even if you are a newbie. I mean, in his case, >> that issue with with the a waiver for any and all issues that an individual may create was put at rest when we didn't entertain the conversation. >> Yeah.
191>> We said we're not going to, you know, >> we discussed it. Our our ordinance says the only wave of li liberty we have is with the electoral boundary and we think that's sufficient and it addresses everything we're concerned about. >> And we're already struggling with people putting these uh markers out to try to keep boats open issue. >> Yeah. Away from their waterfront because of the increased wave action. You have longer dots, you're pushing more boats into the middle. It's going to we're going to create >> we had an application probably 10 or 12 years ago where there was it was a handicapping condition and we denied the waiver and they decided they wanted to take us to court and I don't think that it ever went anywhere. You know, I mean, you just
192can't, you know, we, you know, we're a commission of volunteers and we have rules and guidelines that we're obligated to enforce, >> but we'd rather not rewrite them to >> individual. And you know what, with regard to that ordinance, we made, I thought, major concessions to the public, you know, the the homeowners on the lake where we said you can have two kinds of lifts. You weren't specific, >> right? But that's not even changed yet because they're trying to add this to >> You know what? Then Jeff has got some work to do because there's people who got boats on two boat lifts. >> Well, I'm going to recommend that we do because you're doing an assessment anyway, right, this winter of the lakefront because of the bog issue that we do we add to
193that assessment uh like an a review. we take stock of how much there is around the lake. And I knew I was going to suggest this to you guys. So, what I did on the morning of Labor Day was I took my boat and I went around the whole lake and I videotaped every single waterfront parcel and I can screenshot all of them and create a spreadsheet. It's going to be a big job. I can help do it. Um, and we should catalog everything that's there and then understand what's permitted and what isn't permitted. >> That's a big job. >> We need six Jeffs. >> Yeah, it's a big job >> or one me. >> You know, the other thing you might I I might want to suggest is ask the selectman's liaison on to
194wetlands to come and sit in front of us. >> Yeah. Well, he's not really the one proposing this. >> Well, again, you know, let him sit in front of us. Let him bring back a firsthand conversation about what we think about the way. How would the selectman come back to us and get our opinion? How would that what's the process? >> Well, let's not forget an ordinance is driven by the selectman, >> right? >> No, they set the ordinance. >> Yeah. But >> so they could take your recommendations or not. >> Well, attorney Nelligan, >> can they write the ordinance, rewrite it? in their discretion, but attorney a lot of vacancies. >> Attorney Nelligan Attorney Nelligan's recommendation to them was to bring it back to us. >> The if a waiver were to happen, he
195thought it should lie with this body. So, I can see both sides of that. But >> a waiver, but there is there's endless possibilities of waivers, >> right? >> Yeah. We we >> it's quite a can of work. >> This guy over here in front of us tonight said, "Well, I want a waiver. I don't want an engineered war waiver for me." You know, make a give me a waiver, >> right? >> You know, now we we give him a waiver. Why not? >> I mean, yeah, it would. Yeah. I mean, and to draft something that's even remotely like the ZBA, >> then we need a whole >> Yeah. >> second body. >> Correct. Then you'd need a whole second body like the ZBA that only >> deal carried away. >> I make a motion
196to adjurnn. >> I second that. >> Those in favor. >> Look at that. 10 and 10. >> Uh, you know what? >> You know, a little at a time. just it's first screenshotting everything. It's like 600 properties. So it's >> it's not uncommon to reestablish weapons or restore. I mean these guys work in rivers all the time. They work in bodies of water and then identify what's there with >> drive around the lake get the addresses. Some of them we know but the address of what's peritted is an AI agent that can compare our spreadsheets to your in the first problem. We don't have a database. You know, we've got paper files back there having a scientist make sure that on your guys like if you were going to do it just with the way
197the soil scientist sign off on that broken river has one right now. So I need to explore things >> cuz I can do that first part for you as a volunteer. So you don't have to pay anybody to do that. It'll just take time to build our side. >> Yeah. And then I can hand it off to you and maybe that gives you several months to see if I can line up an intern. And then I'm good with a deadline. So you're like, Mary, my intern's coming in April. I need it done by then. >> Okay. >> Um so Willie told me that you guys are now long enough to do an overlay. >> So what happened was it seems like the scope of what we're talking about uh is so wide that it's really
198>> because the whole town is >> so really we need to address the regulations holistically for the town >> cuz if we overlay here and here and there and there you know there's one little sliver that doesn't apply to him. What's the >> Yeah, cuz Jeremy said like, "What are the definitions of >> the watershed?" So, I sent it to him and he was like, "Well, that's the whole time." >> Exactly. >> Because you've got Mad River and you've got all these rivers and but I think it would be weird to just do the lake. Like, if I'm on if I'm on Lake Winchester and I notice that you guys have put an overlay zone over Highland Lake, then I'm going to say, "Well, how come my lake doesn't have it?" >> Yeah. or like
199that you don't have it cuz it's a little more relaxed. But you know, like I said, there there's so much water around here. It really needs to address. >> So is So is it being addressed? >> Well, the conversation hasn't stopped. It's just how how best to implement what we're going. >> Okay. Okay. >> And you know, so I was starting to make a little bit of a pitch for either an extra a new body or them. My thought was to enhance the water level ad hoc committee. Uh-huh. >> to have this group that could work on all these kinds of things, have some wetlands representation, all that kind of thing. >> A good idea. >> I thought it was a good idea. Um, so maybe I'll bring it back up after the election. >>
200Yeah, >> cuz right now it's not going anywhere. >> Well, the the the the nature of the board of selectment is not going to change, right? There are only two Democrats running. >> Exactly. >> So, it's not it's going to be the same guys, so you might as well start bringing it up. >> Yeah. But yeah, I mean I thought it was a fine idea. Where I think I might have lost uh the argument is when I suggested that since Candi will be stepping down from the board of selectman that she would be a great member on this board. >> Maybe I should have kept that to myself. >> Yeah, definitely definitely definitely. >> Uhhuh.