Board of Selectmen - August 4, 2025 Regular Meeting 7PM

001Good evening. Tonight is Monday, August the 4th, 2025 at 7 p.m. >> I'd like to call the regular board of selectments meeting to order. Linda Grappo, >> Troy Lamir, Paul Marino, Paul Arrington, Todd Archalashi, >> Glennius, >> William Hester, >> Candy Perez, >> William Poso. >> Please join me for the pledge of >> allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Item number three, agenda review. Anyone have anything? Item four, approval of minutes of a reg. >> That should be our regular meeting on July 21st. >> It's correct on the minutes. It was a special on the draft that came out initially, but it was changed from special to regular. >> I

002apologize. I missed that myself. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Troy. Any discussion? Actually, is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? No corrections, no additions. All in favor? Unanimous. Moving on to item number five, citizens comments. The board of selectman welcomes public comments. Speakers be limited to three minutes and may speak once this round. Please give your name and your address. This is an opportunity for you to comment, share a concern, a suggestion, a complaint, or yes, even praise for town or town staff. This is not meant to be a back and forth between the board of selectmen and the residents. Any comments requiring investigation and answer will be completed and released through the town manager's office on social media and at our next meeting. If a selectman wishes to respond to a

003comment, they may respond in selectman's comments and reports. Please turn the mic on. >> Is that is that what you're saying? >> Yes, that is what I the board is saying. >> That is what I said, not what the board had said. Um, hi, I'm Maryanne Marino, 631 Vera Road. Um, last week or last meeting, uh, I presented some data to you and at the time I did caveat that it was based on the minutes and agendas that were available online. Since then, I had a little more time. I found the ones that were missing, the ones that were mislabeled, and I updated the data. So because it's public record, I just wanted to get you guys the updated data. Uh not terribly different, but the instead of there being 19 uh properties with dual

004oversight at ZBA and wetlands between mid 2018 and mid 2025, there were actually 23. So I had previously stated there were 19, which would have been 4.9% of all applications during that time period. It's actually 5.5%. So, I just wanted to correct the record. I have new data. I was only able to print out four before I had to leave because I didn't have a lot of time after work. So, hopefully you guys can share. >> Okay. >> Thank you for the clarification. Anyone else wants to speak. >> Last chance. Seeing no one else. Town manager report. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um Before we begin, if you all want to leave me one, I can get that scanned in and also email it to you all um tomorrow or or even tonight. I can

005do that. So, um thank you and I'll get that scanned to the board as well. Uh town managers report. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and board. Uh it's great to be back after a restful week with the family. As most of you probably know, I actually couldn't wait to return. I truly love my job and I truly love being in this town. Um things seemed to have run very smoothly while I was away and I want to thank everyone including my the staff and the department heads for keeping things covered in my absence. But now let's go on to what's been going on. So communication update. Uh I want to start with uh an update on the property check service from COP which we implemented several months ago. Recently we received an email from a resident

006who was alerted that his property had uh had a release of mortgage. He had in fact paid off his mortgage, but he was impressed that the town sent both an email and a text to notify him. He did sign up for the service. While this was an innocent transaction, I'm using this as a reminder to everyone in our community to please sign up for this free service that if anything were to happen on your property, the service does work. this resident took the time to let us know that, hey, I got my mortgage paid off and the second everything hit the town clerk's office, um he was alerted by email and in text. Um so that was a very uh positive communication update from the town. Uh a little uh unfortunate one is um as

007you've probably seen on the town's website and also um on uh uh social media, Everbridge is planning a power outage up on Spencer Hill on August, August 6th. It is going to be mostly during the business hours from 8 to 5. Uh I went into Everbridge uh last week and I geoargeted geo fenced that particular area of Spencer Hill. Um, one, I wanted to play with the technology and see if I could figure it out. It was very simple to use. Um, the message went out as intended. I went in and looked at the data. Here's the unfortunate news. Only 13 residents up in that area actually had signed up for Everbridge. So, I bring that up during this particular meeting right now is that we need to register ourselves to get on Everbridge. It

008does literally take a minute to register yourself. um it could save your life one day. But more importantly, which I hope we use this for, it tells you what's going on in the town. So, um Spencer Hill residents, this is a a warning to you all. I would have included you in uh the text message, email, and and and voicemail uh blast that we did send out, but I only had 13 unique residents up in that particular area sign up for Everbridge. So, um the service does work. I love playing in the back office of it all. Um, and I really liked playing with the I drew all kinds of all different types of things I was drawing on the maps and ultimately decided on where I was going to geo target and and when

009it pulled and and populated. We only had 13 unique residences uh contact information. So, please if you haven't uh sign up for Everbridge, all of the links are available on the town's website. Uh, moving on, safe streets for all uh grant update. In September 2024, the board of select meeting approved two resolutions. one, committing the town to the local match, and two, formalizing our intent to implement a vision zero action plan through the federal safe streets uh for all SS4A program. This $250,000 planning initiative funded with $200,000 grant from the US Department of Transport transportation and a $50,000 town contribution will allow Winchester to partner with professional forum to conduct a comprehensive townwide road safety study and create an action plan. Importantly, the findings and recommend recommendations that emerge from this plan will position the

010town to pursue federal future of federal construction dollars to address unsafe roads and intersections identified in the action plan. We have now received a draft award agreement from the US DOT which is currently under review with my office. A key component of the SS4A process will be the formation of an ad hoc committee to help guide the development of these action plans. We are seeking residents with an interest in traffic study to join this committee. Obviously, we are going to reach out to our traffic uh speed committee that we formed several months ago. They are on a little summer uh hiatus, but they are going to come back in September. But if anyone out there is interested in serving, uh please contact my office and we'll see what we can do. And I do open

011it up to the board of selectment. Obviously, we're limited how many you could join, but if you if you do have an interest in uh safety uh in all of our streets, please let me know. Um personnel update, union negotiations with both our clerical and supervisor unions are progressing very well. We do have another meeting with our supervisors union tomorrow. Hope to reach an agreement by early fall to bring to you. Um on a different note, our building inspector is currently testing for a certification. Uh the state did switch up how the testing is performed. It's now done all online. you don't have to wait for certain times of the year. He goes to a test site in Harford and and takes the test and he feels very confident that he's going to pass the

012first shot around. Uh he made lieutenant uh in his firefighting career, so he's very confident that he's going to uh hit the test and and pass it. Uh Bachelor Project Update, uh I know, as you probably all know, that their contract does expire um to purchase the property on or before October 30th of this year. They were in uh town last week meeting with us and a few other individuals. They are going to be on track to close on that property on or before October 30th. They don't have all of their funding secured, but they're very confident that they will be able to secure it. They should have it all secured by early part of 2026 with shovels hitting the ground late of 2026 with opening uh somewhere around 27 28 depending on weather and

013all that. So, bachelors moving forward. And last but not least, the Eversource update. Uh it does continue uh work along Main Street while the weather has been very cooperative. Uh their luck with avoiding water lines hasn't matched it. Uh they've struck a few water lines uh down Main Street and we've obviously had to bring in our water department. So we've had a few emergencies. I'm sure you've probably seen, you know, complete road closures down on Main Streets because they've probably hit a water line and then we've had to bring our crew in. They've been very responsive. They've owned up to to hitting the uh the water lines. Um, and I did speak with Tim today, our Eversource liaison, um, about already the patching job that they have right down our main street. I already see

014holes in it, and they're going to address that with the contractor. I'm waiting for Tim to follow back up, but I want to put another skim coat on it until the final pavement comes because it's already creating a rough ride. I see it out my window every day, and we simply can't have it because our main street was a very, very smooth coat. But speaking of Eversource, and as the mayor mentioned in my town manager report when I was away, uh we officially applied for the $10,000 grant that they offered to replace not only the two trees that were taken down recently, but there were trees that were taken down throughout the years on our main street. So, we went for the full uh full aotment that Eversource uh does offer for towns to apply

015for. Um, fortunately, uh, we have Friends of Main Street. Um, and we applied for the grant on behalf of them because Eversource needed to fund it through a 5013C. Um, so, uh, Friends of Main Street is truly living up to their names. They are Friends of Main Street because hopefully, you know, Eversource gives them the grant and then we'll work with Friends of Main Street to minimally replace the two trees that were taken down um, and hopefully replace some of the trees that were lost throughout the years. With that, I'll uh I'll open it up for any questions that the board may have. >> Questions from the board. >> Paul, back to the bachelor school thing. Um back when that was um awarded um I believe that the um the winning bidder was supposed to

016maintain the property. Last time I was up there, it's not being maintained. >> So, they were here uh late last week. Um they are doing the best that they can. Um Jeff and I spoke with them. They don't have a lot of funding right now. Um they obviously are not collecting rent. Um but uh they're doing the best that they can, but uh as of October, you know, they they'll own the property, but Jeff, you and I go up there. I I was up there recently, but it's probably four weeks ago. It didn't look >> I go by every couple of weeks. >> Yeah. It didn't look horrible, but we we'll put it on our radar. But they are maintaining the property. But it attracts uh mischief and vandalism and and that's happened already. >>

017Yes. >> Um so >> and any vandalism that happens, broken windows, the town is not covering those costs. They're covering the cost of >> they don't build it yet. So >> that is correct. >> Just >> we'll take a look at it. >> Yep. >> I I have a question. Uh the water lines that they're hitting, are these is Eversource reimbursing uh the water and sewer department for time and materials? >> Yes, they are. Yes, they will. >> Time and materials. time and materials. Yes. Want to make sure. >> Yeah. Um we've hit they've hit two. Um the last one happened uh middle of last week and it was >> the road started to cave too. Um it was an all hands on deck. Even the DOT came out because it got >> the water

018line would be pretty >> Yeah, they they hit a pretty pretty bad one uh middle of last week and that's why I brought Tim in today because we we needed to get a handle on it. But um yeah, they are reimbursing. I have to tell you, um, as much as this has been an inconvenience, Eversource has been, uh, very pleasurable to work with, uh, during this. They're responsive. They're doing the best that they can. Uh, they are a little ahead of schedule. I think the weather has a lot to do, um, with them being ahead of schedule. They're going to be out of here probably, uh, before, you know, the, uh, the fall fest that goes on. Uh, which is great because I absolutely enjoyed myself last year at it. So, I want to make

019sure they're out of out of this area so we can, you know, obviously your friends of Main Street can host host that festival. >> Were they unmarked lines or haven't they? >> So, they are unmarked. Um, they did a bunch of camera work. They did a bunch of, you know, looking at all the maps. One of the reasons, if you remember, they were going to be on this side of the median. And ultimately they made the decision on the first day that there was so much stuff that wasn't on the map that they moved it into the center of the road where they thought they were going to be safer because they were looking at a clear path. And it ultimately ended up being that the maps weren't showing all of the infrastructure that was

020underneath the roads. >> So So it was an older line then? >> It was an older line that was still operational. >> Yeah. I mean it was an older line. >> Yes. Yep. After the flood, the main street's a disaster to work in. >> From what I've heard, they buried a lot down there. >> Old days working. >> There's old uh you know, SNET or before that was uh old ducks down there that has telephones. It's >> abandoned. A lot of abandonedness down there. Yeah. Yep. >> Other questions? Paul, any uh other than what we've read on social media, any feedback on the our experiment here with the lines and the cones and that intersection and are you getting any feedback in town from residents or >> I have I've had a few people uh

021stop in my office. Um some were happy with it, some not so happy. Some great ideas had had had surfaced. There's a a liquor store Berts up there. uh a recommendation that came in was we should put that uh side of the street as no parking to help traffic navigate a little bit better. We're taking all of those comments before we obviously make the the the final, you know, uh call and what it's ultimately going to look like. But any any comment is a is a is a good comment because it could help, you know, change what what that street's going to >> When does that get built out? >> That gets built out next spring. So, a little less than a year from now. >> Got it. So, we're going to go through the

022winter. >> We're going to go through the winter. Yeah. The cones obviously will disappear in the winter because one plow truck will take those cones down. But um if it's if it's not snowing, we'll we'll obviously get the cones out there. But um when we know snow's coming, we'll have to remove the cone so we can clear the street completely. >> So So the design is still up for debate. >> Designer, you know, it's as as Bill, you probably know, it's 90%. You know, it's not at the 100% stage. So there is room. Are you going to see a drastic change in the plans? Probably not because you're going to go right back to the drawing board with simply the grant doesn't allow for that uh type of redesign work, but you're probably at a

02390% right now. >> Is there going to be a public hearing on that >> before everything's done? >> We there wasn't one planned. I believe there was one prior to me getting here when when they did all that. But, you know, that's a phenomenal idea that we could showcase the 100% um design once it's been decided. No issue with with uh with that. I think that's a great idea. So, uh, but that'll probably be >> late winter, early spring by the time you get that 100%. So, but that that's a great idea. >> Yeah. Paul, you said something about at the the package store that's up there. >> Yeah. >> You said about posting the no parking. Was it on the package store side or on the other side? it was on the package store

024side was the comment, >> right? So, because I don't know how you do that to a business, >> right? So, I I I think that that's really not a solution for for the traffic piece. I think no parking on the river side of that package store is where people stop, park on the sidewalk, and get out and go across over to the package store. But at the package store, I would think that if you're going to find a solution or they have to find their solution uh over there is if there was a way to put any parking more on the side of their building anywhere. But putting no parking signs up there is just going to have people violate the no parking signs and I don't think it's going to solve problems, >> you

025know. And then it's also the, you know, the business has been there, you know, I don't know if it's older than me. I mean, it could be, but I don't know. It's been there a long time. >> And this is why I usually say everything that's in my mind because that was something I didn't think about. And here you you have the opposite which I'll say 100% right. You don't want to, you know, hurt a business by both sides. It's problematic and that happens from time to time. >> I mean, in a perfect world, if they were to start their business there today, they would not be allowed to have park just parking on the street. They would have had to provide for parking and all that. But this isn't, >> you know, this is

026an old time. >> This is an old business >> kind of thing. So, I just be careful with, you know, stabbing in some parking signs on that side. >> Are you going to repair the sidewalk on that sidewalk? >> A brand new sidewalk. >> Brand new sidewalk. So, part of all that is to create a more of a of a of a to transit orient district, a walkable main street. So, all of the sidewalk will be repaired as well. Yes. >> Because cars do park on the sidewalk there and it's it's dangerous. You have pedestrians coming up from Main Street. >> Yeah, I I purposely I I did take a ride today. Uh I wanted to go up the lake and one of the areas I I took that route several different ways and um

027I my opinion um I'm glad it's only at 90% because I think we have to make some changes. What they are I'm not an engineer but I I think we do need to do something up there. Um, I'm not a I'll say it public. I'm not a huge fan of what it looks like right now. Um, but that was all in process before I had gotten here. So, luckily it's it's not final yet. We got to get it better. We do. >> I think as people ask about it, we have to communicate why it's happening, right? Because it's that was a statemandated thing. We were that was an F rated mandate. So that >> it was it was through a grant that we did a safe streets grant and it was identified as a spot

028we could look at and then >> was rated as an F intersection though right it was >> well yeah there's a lot of that you know there's a lot of different grades of things but it wasn't a like a mandate that we had to do it like some of us thought it it was not a great intersection but that we had so many other roads to do that maybe that wasn't a priority but then it's in there Right. But that's also being funded by the grant. >> Yeah. Well, yeah, there's a new grant for the the funding of it, but even before that, after the first safe streets and then and then, you know, because now it's kind of like things that rise up and are required to get done that cost $300 400,000. That's

029less money than you had planned to go do something else. So um so it wasn't mandated. >> So I misunderstood the mandate then. That was I I misunderstood it. >> No, it's okay. I mean it was it was a long time ago. It's when the planning office Steve Sloowski was there and there's a document on it and I forget the date on it. I don't know if it's like 2016 or something like that. >> Any other questions? >> Uh just one quick thing. Any other on the Everource project any more light poles get damaged and what's our status on those? Um, it's you're obviously talking of the one right out in front of town hall. So, it is on order. It is on back order. Uh, I followed up with that prior to me leaving

030on vacation. They think it's probably still two months out before uh they get that light pole in stock. Then you have shipping of it. The town is not obviously paying for the light pole. Eversource is, but the light pole has been ordered from Eversource, but it is on back order and we're still looking roughly two months. >> Both light poles are one because there's two. So, the one that is by the post office is not going to be replaced. Um, Eversource wanted to remove that pole. That will not be replaced. Only the one in front of town hall. >> That one's been hit several times. Anyway, >> that's why they do not do not want to replace that one. That is correct. So, the one in front of town hall will be replaced. Yes. >>

031Thank you. Anything else? Moving on to item number seven, correspondence. Does anyone on the board have anything? >> So, I don't I don't know. Does I'm going to say it under correspondence. Uh I I was uh reached out by the fire department and um as everyone knows the carnival is coming up in what is it the third week of August. Um and uh they wanted me to let the public know that uh ticket sales are way down from prior years. >> Raffle tickets. You mean >> raffle tickets? Um the raffle tickets support the fire department in a big way. Helps taxpayers. Um, so anybody out there, um, look up a fireman. I think it probably has something to do with we don't have as many firemen anymore either, so that don't have tickets, so that

032could be the numbers are down. But also, you know, people need to reach out to their neighborhood firemen and and uh purchase some tickets for the the benefit of the fire department. >> I think there were some tickets available in town hall a couple weeks ago, too. Well, I could tell you that I have not seen one notice about it. And and I'm not saying that they nobody put out notices. I'm not saying that there aren't any out there. I'm just saying that in in my scrolling hasn't come across. >> I'll agree with you because I haven't seen anything that promoting the ticket. >> I've seen the carnival but not ticket sales. >> Yeah, the I see the carnival, not sales. >> But to Candy's point, years ago, it was everywhere. There was flyers up,

033billboards up that it was everywhere. Farman's car, fireman's carinal. So, they got to work a little on pushing it a little more as well. >> For those that are watching, we all know that they need to sell some tickets. So, >> uh the mayor just uh asked a question to me. Is the town able to promote it? I don't see why not. It offsets any additional cost that, you know, taxpayers have to fund. Since I was asked the question, I I'll speak. I have to be honest, no one's even told me that the Fireman's Carnival is is offering tickets. So, if I didn't even know about it, and I'm still learning as I go. Um, makes sense out to their leadership. >> Yeah, you just have to check to make sure you can do the

034rap. I'm sure they have a rapper. >> They probably just being able to advertise. >> Yeah, they've been doing it for 100 years. When I was in the fire department, they did it. >> Is it considered a town event? Can you do an ever legally? Can you do an Everbridge thing on it? At least whoever is signed up, the thousand people. I >> think I got a lot of questions to ask about it tomorrow, we'll figure it out. I I I don't want to say either way, but I think >> I just again the Everbridge thing, >> you know, I mean, it's, >> you know, Everbridge notices are emergency in nature. And when you start putting too many things on there, >> people are going to, >> it's kind of like what happened, you know,

035not the same level, right? One's here, one's up there. But people stop listening to messages when they're usual, when there's too many of them. So I noticed there was a flurry of Everbridge recently from us, right? So there's a maybe last week and the week before all of a sudden there was a flurry of Everbridge things. So I just be really careful with policy about what you put out and use Everbridge for and what you maybe don't. I would use social media. I do all that, but I don't, you know, just >> I would add to that that the minute you send an advertisement out on it >> to buy raffle tickets, >> that's true. >> Then it becomes No way. Good point. That's a good point. I mean, we we have a tremendous following

036on social media. I want to make sure we're allowed to do that because you're talking raffles and with laws. Um, I I think Selectwoman Perez is right. you start advertising sales or you know things of that nature on Everbridge when it becomes a power outage >> but that's where the other things are important the uh what is it the one that Torington uses they don't use their Everbridge emergency for it but they have a constant contact >> yes >> they have another constant contact set of emails that I will get some stuff from that from Torington and that constant contact from people kind of like people that signed up for our news on our website. So if you put a news article out, it automatically goes to a bunch of people. Um, and that's kind

037of where you can start disseminating. You're ruining my my my surprise that I wanted to enroll because that that is another form of I I do want to get to town and it's very inexpensive for, you know, 10,000 email addresses. you're talking $29 a month and people have to opt in and then we have another form of communicating with them of this information. I just haven't had a chance to unlock all that and come up with it. But I I I love constant contact. It's if you look at pretty much any email you get from businesses go all the way to the bottom. It's probably a platform of constant contact that is sending >> I introduced it. >> Yeah, you did. Thank you. Thank you. >> Any other correspondent? $10 a month is reasonable if

038you get more than 29 people to sign up. >> I think we will. I just based off of the web subscriptions of being able to opt in of agendas and and and and uh items like that. I I think we'll have no problem. Um sorry, but I think it's also important. Just so you know, um on a on a different note, we uh we roughly have um 6,000 people signed up for Everbridge. We were fortunate that uh I approached the state that anyone that um signed up for 211, we were able to take their information and bring it over into Everbridge. Here's the unfortunate part. Um had a woman call from Vermont or Maine. She goes, "Why am I getting notifications from the town of Winchester?" So I ended up talking to her. I said,

039"Ma'am, did you ever sign up for 211 from?" She goes, "I did." I go, "Well, I was able." So, I was able to go in and and turn her off, but um we'll see how many times that happens. But we were able to grab the 211s from the state of Connecticut. Um so, if anyone and the state does not use that system all that often, but a lot of people have signed up for it. We were able to grab all of those contact people and you know, they've been doing it for teen years. So, it was good that we got a lot of names over bad that some people forgot that, you know, they lived in Connecticut. There you guys. No other correspondents. Moving on. Uh we have no boards and commissions tonight. >> Moving

040on to item nine, unfinished business. A discussion on the applications for land use fees with assistant planner Jeff Green and Taichi consultant Jeremy Darly. >> So before those two gentlemen begin and thank you both gentlemen for showing up. Uh obviously most of us obviously or all of us know who Mr. green is um Jeremy is our consultant planner from Taichi if you remember uh we brought on Taichi uh January time frame so um Jerry Jeremy's uh and and the firm has been a tremendous asset to the town uh I think when uh you asked the planning and zoning commission in the wetlands they are absolutely uh thrilled with the with the work that not only you Jeremy but your firm provides uh with the professionalism so um this started off uh two weeks ago uh

041at the last meeting. Uh we do apologize that we didn't get you all of the information. We should have learned um when we went through the um other fees that we the building fees that we should have shown you what other towns uh are doing, but more importantly, we should show you actually what it costs to list these ads. Um you'll see in your sheet, and I'm going to turn it over to these gentlemen, but I had to make a couple of points before I I I gave them all the good stuff. You'll see a sheet that currently looks like this. It does list Torington, Colbert, Goan. You'll see that the fees were last updated anywhere from 2004 all the way up to 2017. This is something to be very proud of that Winstead is

042way ahead of the curve that, you know, they're all paying Hurst Media to advertise, you know, and they may have not realized that they're losing money. We jumped on this immediately, saw that we were losing money. Um, with that, I'm gonna turn it over to to two professionals to run you through all of the information that we've gathered in two weeks. Jeremy, you taking it? >> Uh, I don't know. Am I taking it? >> I guess I'm taking it. All right. Good evening, everybody. >> You want screens or no? >> Um, don't need it. >> I guess we could No, I don't think we need it. I think you should have it all. have it all. But yeah, >> there's a spreadsheet there that um shows you the the neighboring towns uh juxtaposed next to

043the fees that we currently have as well as a few select towns from around the state that are of sim similar population. And you know, I just grabbed similar population kind of as a baseline. It doesn't necessarily mean that their commercial stuff is near uh near what you have here. They may be below or maybe above, but I think it's just a good starting point. Um, we assessed the neighboring towns because I think that makes sense. You share a lot of the same contractors. Um, I actually heard from uh Mike Lucas over in New Hartford late last week. They're in the process of looking at their fees as well because you can see that those are 14 years old. Uh, and I heard from Stacy Sephik. I think I'm pronouncing her name correctly. >> See

044you. >> Seek. Okay. So, she's over in uh part-time in Norfolk and I heard from her today. Uh, they're not listed because I hadn't gotten those fees. Not everybody posts their fees online in 2025. That kind of surprises me, but that's all right. Um, so I heard from her today. I still don't have their numbers, but they also are looking at updating their fees because they too were losing money on uh on legal notices. So, uh, I think you'll find that, you know, our numbers are are sort of in line with some of the other towns. We're a little low compared to some. We're a little high compared to some. Um, but I think the big takeaway here is that we're trying to not lose money on these applicants or on these applications, right? The

045goal should be pay for play. Um, if if you're at home and you're not doing work on your house, you shouldn't be subsidizing a contractor coming into town and doing work uh to pay for his permit fees. That's that's always been my take. Um, you know, if a contractor is coming in or somebody's doing work on their house and they need a permit, they should their application fee should cover the staff time to process that fee. It should cover the legal notices that are required if you're in front of the commission. Uh and it should at least cover some of Jeff's time when he's out in the field doing inspections for erosion and sedimentation control and some of these other things. Um so I think you know the numbers that we put together I think

046are are fairly reasonable um and and get us to a point we where we are again at a baseline covering our hard costs. uh when you factor in the $60 fee that goes to TE for each land use application uh and the legal notices that have to go off to the newspaper uh for any of those commission applications. The other thing that we did is we we tried to cover all of the different application types in the new fee structure as well. Currently, uh you know, wetlands applications are $230 across the board. Um that covers that covers the cost of of getting the application in the door. It covers the cost of the state fee and it covers the legal notice with that we are required to file when the application is decided upon. If

047there's a public hearing, which we have coming up for one application, it comes nowhere near to covering that. Um, and so what we're proposing to do there is add a public hearing fee because public hearings require as as a lot of your notifications do as well, they require two legal notices to be posted prior to the the opening of the hearing. And that's, you know, upwards of could be 250 bucks if uh depending on the application type. So, it's quite a bit. Um and then on the planning and zoning commission side, you currently have a site plan application fee of 175. You have a special permit fee of 250. Um and you have an excavation renewal permit. Um that commission recently decided that they want to hold public hearings for excavation renewal so that any

048public can come in and talk to them if there's issues. uh which means holding a public hearing, which means additional cost for uh legal notices. So, we've got to deal with that. The other thing that the the you currently don't have in your planning and zoning commission fees is you don't have a fee related to subdivisions. So, if we got one tomorrow, I have no idea what we would charge for it. Um and you don't have a fee for text amendments or map amendments. So, if somebody wanted to come in and do a zone change or change the text in the regulation, both of which require public hearings, there's no fee associated. Now, I think we consider those special permits so that that fee would get applied, but again, we're losing uh we're losing money

049on the legal notices. So, that's the quick and dirty of why we're here looking for an increase in these fees. Any questions from the board? So, if you look at Canton, they're uh just for an example, their wetlands application is $160. is theirs so low because they have all the other fees. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And and this is a a spreadsheet. There's a lot of details behind some of these numbers and so you'll see like Woodbury has $160 base and then just based on what the application is, it's every application that gets in the door there is going to be more than 160. It's just hard to capture that all in sort of one neat way to present it. Other questions from the board? >> Do we need to make a motion on

050this or is this something that's going to get pushed? >> That's up to the board. Um, in order to set the new fees, we are proposing there are two sheets included in your packet. There's the uh I'll start uh in the order that you'll have is the uh inland wetlands proposed fees and then you also have the PC uh planning and zoning proposed fees. Um, if the board wanted to, they could make a motion to change the fees as presented or think about it. We could put it on uh next agenda, whichever whichever the board would like to do. >> So, um, is this they're in our agenda and it's on the agenda and it's in our packet or was it put under like our public notices, legal notices at all on our website? >>

051Wasn't put under legal notices? Um, >> is it like a standalone somewhere on our website that people could have seen it? >> No, it would only have been included in the in in the board packet that went live Friday afternoon, >> right? So, if we voted on it tonight, it would be a big surprise, >> right? >> Uh, yeah. I you could use big surprise. You know, it was talked about two weeks ago. Um, the fees were out there. I I don't know if it got picked up on any >> Well, I guess my concern is there is no newspaper. >> There is no newspaper. >> Like there's no newspaper and so I'm not sure what anybody knows. I mean, I don't how many people watching now. Hi. Um >> Oh, one thing too before

052I forget, the reason people couldn't hear us the last time was on channel 194. That's a cable channel still versus YouTube streaming. >> Y >> if they can't hear us and only hear music, you have to call down to New Bulford or New Town, wherever the places that host cable and tell them they need to flip a switch down there so that you can hear things that happen here. >> Just an FYI. I don't know why that just flooded back into my mind, but it but it did. >> So that wasn't the YouTube feed that they were hearing music because I thought that's the way it was. >> But I'm bringing that up because I don't know how many people see this. And then I don't know if people will see this anywhere else. So

053I think I'm comfortable with the fees. I just think that either we set a date like not tomorrow with these fees just to give notice that these fees are coming. Right. >> So, similar to what we did with the cemetery fees that we took on several several months ago, it was 30 days um that we made them effect. So, it did it didn't, you know, happen overnight um that we set it 30 days from when when when it was approved. Um, if the board would like, we could obviously, you know, if if the board was going to motion it this way, we could set it for sometime in September or October, whatever the board's pleasure is, and we could put a lot of uh marketing behind it of advertising that these fees will, you know,

054accept it and and go into effect on whatever the the board decides. on the on our website this said on the news this a news article proposed fees are going to be in effect or or something like that >> because otherwise they're just >> surprise. Yeah. And that's not and that's not proper. >> Were these fees presented to the different commissions? >> Yeah. The commissions were the one >> they agreed. They agreed. Okay. >> Yeah. So, I'd make a motion that we accept the P and Z proposed fees and the inland wetlands proposed fees as presented with an effective date of October 1st, 2025. We have a motion, we have a second. Do we have any other discussion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor? >> Unanimous. But I I would I would still say that,

055you know, like this information that we have here in terms of how it compares to actual costs and how it compares in other towns or maybe not other towns, but how it compares to actual cost. At least be something that there's a little news blurb on our on our website on news that says it was passed and these were the factors. Yep. >> That the commissions and the staff recommended to us. just so that it's recorded somewhere instead of buried in an agenda on our >> completely agree with that. We'll we'll get on it uh immediately. We'll get obviously with with the with the uh October 1 start date. Um it gives we can put together a nice uh marketing piece that we can push out to the residents and give them plenty of time

056to make sure they've read it. Um we'll get it up on the website. open gut will have to, you know, work through that with with with the fees and when they're going to start. But, um, yeah, there won't be any surprises to any residents and who knows, maybe we get a a flurry of action because they have up until October 1st with the with the lower fees. So, I like it. Thank you. Okay. >> Uh, that took care of the inlands water course as well. >> No, that did not. >> I thought his motion was for both. >> A motion for both. >> That was for both of the fees. >> That was the fees. You still have to do >> on the agenda. B is an item you need to know. >> Item B,

057discussion regarding possible inlands, wetlands, and water course ordinance changes. Uh so you do have in your packet an updated uh draft which includes 73125 uh proposed changes and those appear in red. I think we caught all the minor issues that were discussed at the last meeting. Uh most importantly probably uh subsection E under 380-7 public hearing shall be deemed necessary. Uh that was a big one. Uh that's how wetlands treats it now. But to have it codified is definitely uh a move in the right direction. Uh we also cleaned up the uh no part of swim flow should be located more than 40 ft from the shorefront which we assume was just an error in the regulation uh that had been held over. So that's been cleaned up. Uh when it comes to uh previously

058called vessel lifts, uh it is back to boat and personal watercraft lifts. Uh so I'd say just if you guys haven't had a chance to read through that, make sure we captured everything that uh we were looking for there. And uh lastly, the quoteunquote relief valve uh section 380-9 waiverss has been presented to you all in red. This is a brand new section, so I think this would probably be the the most uh discussion points here, but if you have any questions or further concerns on the other text, we can go through those. I just want to add before we get into discussion. So, I know this is an ordinance change. It is going to require three meetings. The last uh two weeks ago meeting was not the first one. This is not the second

059one. I think we should get a document that is 90 95% if not 100% and then we'll start the actual three meeting process. So we get a live document out to our residents if they want to come in and weigh in on it. So again, I just wanted to stress that this is not considered one of any meeting or two of any meeting. Once we get a document that this this board feels that it's it's good, then we will start the process of the three meetings. >> Jeff, um I know I I think we're pretty sure we discussed this at the last meeting. Um these buoys that are pe people are putting out. Um I'm on the lake at least once a week, maybe sometimes more. There seems to be more and more and more

060every single >> multiplying. They are multiplying fast and they're way out. They're not 40 feet from their property. They're 80 100. Some people are putting them even further. So are are is anything in there to take care of that? If we're going to change the orders, we might >> those are actually according to what we learned last time markers, which is what those are. >> These are markers. >> Well, they are because they're not boats tied to it. So a buoy is something that's got a boat tied to it. a marker is what people are putting out and the the intent that they're doing is trying to keep the boats further away from their correct shorelines. But that according to Jeff last time if I correct me if I don't remember this was a state

061those are state directed markers have to be issued by the state not us. >> Yeah that's right. >> Do we have the ability to change that so that we can issue markers? I don't think I I think, you know, if you start going down this road with markers, you're going to take a very narrow lake and push more boats to the middle. So, >> no, I'm saying we it's happening by itself right now. So, something has to be done. >> Yeah. And people are not supposed to have them there, but but they do, >> right? >> And so, >> well, that's what I'm asking. Do we have something in there that we're going to >> to take care of this problem or >> No, it's already in there to take care of it. It's already

062they're not allowed. So then why aren't we taking care of it? >> I don't know, Trey. That's a good question. >> Who who is the uh That's my This has been brought up as at wetlands as well. Uh and we're struggling with what TAC to take on that. >> Who's the enforcement authority, Jeff? Is it us or the state? >> Who has the ability to enforce question >> the marker rule? >> Well, it's probably D ultimately since they're the ones that would issue the the approvals for those markers. >> Correct. But functionally, I mean, I think it's going to be left to the locals. Um, because, you know, it's your police boats that are out on the water. It's you folks that are out there on a regular basis, and it's, you know, it's the

063Inland Wetlands Water Courses Agency or commission rather that has the jurisdiction of this uh chapter in the code. So, what is the town able to do then about the markers? if it's a state if the state would issue the permits. First of all, we don't know if it's a permitted marker or not. Right. >> Right. >> I mean, it actually would be cool if the state issued a marker that the marker was somehow labeled with a license number so that we could look at it and go, "Okay, that's a legitimate marker and >> and track back to the owner." >> Exactly. >> Because right now it's difficult to determine. >> That was going to be my How do you know >> Well, the markers, if you're going to put in a state approved marker, you

064yourself as a property owner can't drive whatever it is that you're marking off, >> right? >> Like if you made a swim area, you can get a state permit to make a swim area and put those markers by your house, but you cannot take your own boat through that, >> right? >> That's going to happen. >> So, I I'll just say this out out of the start. This is an ordinance that came to us for changes that we're going to be what I consider like tweaking some things in there. If we and I'll get when it's my turn to get to the the red last page. Um if we start going way beyond this little tweaking thing, you know that little can of worms you used to fish with, it's all going to pop right

065out. So, um that's why this ordinance is is very difficult is because There are so many different complexities to it. I mean, the markers out there and they're supposed to be with the state, but then nobody takes possession of them and then it just keeps doing what it's doing. It just continues. It just happens, right? You know, it's just human nature. Uh, you know, there's some that are I see go out there and I know why they're there and my father used to drive through them just just so you know. And then when he was getting older, couldn't really see. I was a little worried. I kept watching the steering wheel, but he he he did drive through them. So, they can become, you know, while they're hazards, they're also hazard in another way. So,

066I would just say just, you know, as we as you think about this and stuff, there are just lots of pieces, you know, to tweak that you asked for. >> Yeah. We're not addressing changing markers. I get the questions becoming they're just popping up all over the place and therefore figuring out who's going to do the enforcement action on. I was changing changing 50 ft to 40 ft too, right? You are changing 50 ft to 40 ft. You're going to get the one guy that comes in and goes, >> I had those four out there at 50 ft. I'm grandfathered then. You can't tell me I got to move those swim. >> Oh, was it? >> Because there's not there's not any really >> I don't know of any marker markers that are out there.

067People will take and put a booby out which goes out and you're not supposed to swing farther than 50 feet or past the coral boundaries. So people will sometimes take a you you'll see like a floaty thing >> like a >> well they're putting them in line, >> huh? >> They're they're putting their buoys in line in front of their property. So >> Well, yeah. Some people those did pop up recently. >> There's like three or four in front of each house. >> We did we did the boat. >> I've been seeing them more and more. >> There was a lot of them. >> Yeah. But for you know for most of the summer was I thought it was pretty good. Oh, it was it just started happening last like month. >> They've definitely multiplied

068>> like somebody went around and told everybody to put a movie out. >> I I'd be happy to take any direction on how you'd like to deal with them. Uh, as we can see, grab them, take them, and then >> I offered that as a solution to wetlands. They kind of moved right past that. >> Well, I'll put the police boat in a gaff and just grab the lines and drive. You can take them. I think it'd be good to know what what the enforcement action what the legal enforcement action is that should be taken. Who's responsible for that? Is it a D thing? Do they have to come up here and patrol and and deal with it? It is becoming a little too much at this point. You know, a few people did it

069a few years ago and now it's becoming everybody's, you know, they're trying to keep the particularly the wakeboard votes further out. And, you know, to your point, we don't want to make it any more narrow than it already is. You know, if you were out there yesterday, it was, you know, I 84 at rush hour trying to find a place where you could even be with your vote. And if we narrow this down, it's going to get more and more challenging. Certainly. So, um, I just want to know what the enforcement >> So, did I requirements are >> we'll do a little research into it, see if there's something we can do or if we can invite the state down. >> Yeah, I was going to think we should maybe invite deep in um, and

070see what we can come up with because it sounds like it's becoming a problem. Um, and let's It sounds like it's already a problem. Actually, it's not becoming. It sounds like it's already a problem. >> It was It was okay when it was a few. Now, >> I would bet if you call deep in this is not the first lake >> that a town has called them about that's run into this problem. Yeah. >> Whether it be Wararmmog or Candlewood or BAM or I'm I'm sure they've run into this before. >> Good luck. >> Kendy, did you want to comment on 380-9? >> I do. So, I'm handing something out from uh Shirley All's house. I've given you something from her before. Um again, for people that may be tuning in for the first time

071or whatnot, Shirley was one of the early helpers with these ordinances. So, she knows the ordinance inside and out, as do some of the rest of us that have been uh dealing with these ordinances for a long time. I don't who who wrote this section? >> I physically typed on the keyboard based on your I was asked to come up with some language. >> Okay. So, she does not sorry but we she and I and we're pretty sure that you can't you cannot shuffle off a requirement for uh a board a statute for a board off to whoever the local traffic authority is. We don't know who they are. >> Do we have one? >> Yes. So by uh ordinance and by charter, it's actually me and my design is the chief of police. >>

072So okay. So she believes that this proposal be a violation of Connecticut general statutes. uh IWWC is not like other municipal commissions in that it is the authorized municipal arm of the wetlands and water courses under deep as set forth in the statues of chapter 440 wetlands and water courses section 22A to 38 definitions and she listed out it's a means of municipal board of commission pursuant to and acting under section 22A-42 derives its authority this uh IWWC directly from the statutes to the municipal IWWC to carry out purposes and policies of the statutes and the most important is it it relates to the new language proposals for the purpose of it the border commission authorized by the municipality district as the case may be shall serve as a sole agent for the licensing of

073regulated activities so her her thing is that IWWC can't advocate that as a sole authority and give it to somebody else uh the statute requires training to carry out authority under the statutes uh which they have kind of like other our other boards. Uh local or law enforcement is not given the authority over war water courses in so far as making policy on latoral issues which is what a lot of this uh doc and moring is about. It's only authorized to enforce existing regulations. It contradicts previous language requiring a public hearing prior to granting or denying a waiver. and uh she thinks that it the inclusion of it is a successful appeal to superior court if you were if we were to put it in there. So I know there was a the we started

074at the end of last meeting about creating some sort of waiver for for these for the ordinances and I think IWWC does whatever it is they they make their decisions on that they've kind of managed that a little bit over time. So I don't um Shirley doesn't believe and I don't believe that this section belongs in here nor do I think it is nor do we think it uh correct to be there and I don't think I mean I don't want to start going down more reasons but at least leave it there for now. >> So the language that you wrote in this is reflective of what other towns have done successfully. Uh, so I worked previously in a municipality that had a lake and had something similar to this, not quite to this extent.

075When I was putting it together, I thought that it should have some strict criteria. Um, that one did not. Um, that was an ordinance. I'm trying to remember how that was set up. That ordinance had to do with lural bounds. did not I don't think I don't know if it gave the inland wetlands and water courses agency in that town jurisdiction over regulating that piece of the town ordinance. >> Um they I mean IWWA has jurisdiction over 22A4-42 in the statutes. This is a local ordinance. So I think it works a little bit differently than than their jurisdiction over um over the statutory provisions and I'd need to look into that a little bit further to be honest with you. And as I understand ordinances, the charter clearly states that the board of selectmen ultimately

076has the final choice on ordinances and the language therefore and whether or not an ordinance exists or not. >> I'm not going to weigh in on that. I'll look to your town manager for that piece of it. >> Oh, thank you. Appreciate that. >> I'm a land use guy. >> I I would say that yes, the board of selectman can create the ordinance. >> They can't create the ordinances. I I you know, I'll use home run rule. Yes, board assignment do do ultimately create the ordinances. Wondering if home run rule you can't run a follow to a state statue. I am not familiar with 22A-42 or 38 um or 45. I'm looking at all the statues list. So I want to familiarize myself with those statues of what it's giving the IWWC in terms of

077power before I really weigh. And those are all statutes I you can't remember them all. you can't read them all all the time. So, I I'm not familiar with those at all. So, I want to read with those. >> So, I would be I would think we'd want to have the town attorney weigh in on these statutes and this language to determine whether this is a violation of um of these statutes. >> Well, I mean, I don't I was just stopping there because I don't believe it's correct and I don't believe putting a waiver in is necessary or appropriate. So, you don't think that >> we have an ordinance out there that offers no relief for any of the things that are written in it under any circumstances >> like we do with our zoning

078regulations or anything. >> Give me one example because I've been trying to think of one. >> Well, actually, it's funny you say that because I've had the words out that we're looking at this now and people have actually approached me recently and a couple comments I thought were really interesting. So um this goes back the current ordinances were written when 2002 was one of the years I see on the website >> 2015 it was updated >> was updated in 15 but written back in 2002 right >> so yeah so what what's the example what do you want to change what's not right >> well one question that's come up with a few different people approached me is is you know in in the in the 90s and maybe early 2000s the average boat size on

079that lake was probably more in the 16 to 18 for a motorboat and the amount of pontoons weren't even a quarter of what they are today. And pontoons, as we know, can go up to is it 30 feet or 28 feet? What do we allow on the pontoon? >> 30. So now you've got docks that are 40t long with 30 foot boats. And people are going, "Well, where do I swim?" And wherever the 40 foot language came from in 2002, I don't know. was an arbitrary number or was it half of what the average boat was in in in in 2002, right? Boats have gotten bigger the the you know in in the last 20 years that's happened up there. So people are trying to stretch this amount of space they have to have swimming

080area as well as places to mo their boats. Is it time to make the 4050? I don't know the answer to that question because that's the that would be half of what the average vote might be today and maybe that was what the 40 feet was 20 years ago. I don't know. But the re to to say that we're going to create an ordinance, we're going to create a rule and nobody but nobody can get any relief from it in anything that we do, I don't think is appropriate. >> Right. I I know you said that, but I also think that if we're going to I think 50 feet would be a huge mistake because we don't have shallow water. We have a lot of deep water where people can park their boats right at

081the shore. They they don't need to have the depth of water that's out at 40 feet. And then if you're going to make docks longer, you're taking more lake away from everyone, people that come up to use the lake. All residents now are giving up that community use of water, right? So we have use of water in the way that the ordinance was written. It seems to me that 40 foot docks I don't I mean when you put a boat alongside a dock and most people have boat lifts and if you're going to make swim areas then people that have large waterfronts pay extra money in taxes to have that privilege of a long waterfront. If you have a short waterfront and a small waterfront, you're not going to be able to get everything in

082there. And and so I I I don't think it's in the public interest. It may be in the person's interest to shoot a dock out 50 feet. I know you want to move your dock from 40 to 50, I think, at at some point. And that might be just to get away from or equal with your neighbors next to you because >> you have a lot of docks that are that are way longer than 40 ft. I'm going to tell you the majority of the docks are way longer than 40 feet because everything's grandfathered from a 100 years ago and you put out anything you wanted. So the reality is, yeah, I have a problem with my doc, but I'm not the only person that has it, and I won't be the only person that's

083going to have it in the next 100 years because there are plenty of people who go, you know, I have hazards. So I have a personal hazard. No question about it. I have an a navigational hazard that's dangerous because my neighbor's dock is six inches off the property line and it goes out 50 feet, right? >> And putting my boat in the front is is a dangerous op operation. So, I am one of the people that that that that would be interested in having the opportunity to go before the LTA and say, "Hey, here's my hazard. What do you guys think?" At least have that option. >> You you want to lock it down so that it's 40T no matter what happens. >> And if you get killed pulling your boat in, say, "Vave, >>

084but it's not locked down right now." See, that's the thing. It's not locked down. The commission >> commission cannot do it. >> Well, there's been other things that have happened. The Inland Wetlands Commission cannot if they wanted to unanimously, they cannot grant a waiver on the 40 ft, >> right? And and in some ca I you know when we look at everything like I hope that if you're going to make a safety issue that I can ask for a dock to be shortened and that I can ask for a dock or a swim float not to go in a certain area. Right? We grandfather everything in and we don't require people that have 50, 60, 70 foot docks unless they do a full reconstruction and then we require them to bring it into code. But

085if they don't do a full reconstruction, they replace three boards every year until they've rebuilt the thing. It gets to stay at its 50, 60, 70 ft. The reality is there are going to be cases in the lake, I'm not the only one, where people have issues that a reasonable board or person should be able to look at and go, "Yes, that should be different than it is." And and to say that why don't we get rid of ZBA then and we'll lock in our our our zoning rags so that no one can ever get a variance or a special. >> Some people some lawyers are actually out there saying that. Well, we don't do that because we know that wouldn't be fair, particularly at the lake where you zoned everybody out and made them

086all non-conforming properties. So, that's why ZBA is so busy. But the reality is >> I think there's things that happen at the lake, Paul, that are due to the water quality and what's happening to everybody's investments there. I think when you become too crowded, your investments will fall. When you have too many everythings, your property is not going to be as valuable anymore because it may not be there. We're not there yet, right? We're we're not there yet. But to take a local traffic authority with someone that does not have any background in it and barely right now barely understands navigational rules with the courses that were taken this year. So, I don't think that the LTA or whoever that is, if you're going to give a waiver authority, it should be given to the

087Inland Wetlands Commission to to make an adjustment if they deem something necessary because they have training, they have experience. It shouldn't go to some people that don't even understand it because I'm going to ask for all those boot, all those markers out on the lake because it's unsafe for people coming by my dock. I want a waiver for a marker. I want a waiver for I want to expand my dock over to the neighbors line instead of the 10- foot lural boundary because I don't think it's safe because their boat sometimes comes in and it gets in my little swim area and I'm afraid as an older elderly lady that I'm going to get hit by their boat. So I I would like waivers and they may be waivers that don't even that affect my

088neighbors affect everybody that's on that waterfront. It's not just you know one person getting what they need. It's whatever is around you and it's whatever whoever goes whoever goes fishing, whoever goes uh boating, whoever goes skiing, everybody's getting shoved to the middle and it's been that way for a long time. And it's we don't have enough police boats to control the the numbers. The boats are bigger and deeper and they're just bigger and deeper. There are people that will talk about how the the the waves are too big now, right? And I mean it's going on in a lot of states and a lot of a lot of cities right now. and um you know so so when I look at things like this again we were tweaking the number of boat lifts right and

089I'm trying to decide well should we or shouldn't we because somebody that already has two or more are there does that mean that somebody pushes it and takes three now or or everybody's going to be there do you have more canopies what do you have in the coes um so I I think there's a lot of things that when you start opening up too much for something that seems to be working for most people. I I I think that that you'll go down roads that were not um will not be good for even the general public says they can't even use the lake anymore. They they think we all the all the rich New Yorkers or rich people have it all the time and they they how many they can't get to the lake, right?

090So I I look at all that and I think they came in with tweaking that they wanted and we kind of fixed those and now this other piece is just is that can of worms. >> I'm not advocating for 70ft docks or even 50 foot docks. That question came up with people who who have approached me now that they know this is uh on the table for adjustments. But I think any ordinance or regulation we have in town, whether it's docks or when it's whether it's any other thing that we have, has to have at least some type of relief valve for the occasional situation. In this case, the language says, by the way, valid safety concern, right? If there's a valid safety concern that a reasonable fix can eliminate, and what's reasonable? not taking

091a dock from 40 to 70 because that's the safety issue. But is there an adjustment that can be made that makes it safer and you want to not allow for any type of adjustments? I think we should have it in any ordinance or any regulation that we have. There's got to be a relief valve. >> Well, this language is not the relief valve that we're looking for. This authority is not the right place for it to be. >> Well, my understanding is that was mirrored after another town that you worked in. >> It was just a concept. Correct. Correct. >> So, what what adjustment would you make to it then, Candy? >> What adjustment would I make to it? >> I mean, you could put something in there that the IWWC has a uh discretion

092on safety issues perhaps. >> So, you could change the language from LTA to the Inland Wetlands Commission, >> right? But I don't know that I would put all this language in there. I mean, I don't know. I mean, I'd have to go back and and look at it, but I would say that if it goes this way, it has to go the other way as well. >> What does that mean? >> That I as a neighbor can petition or can ask for it not to be allowed to be that long or for nobody to come on within the 10-ft lural boundary. That's what the public hearings are going to be for is on a ltoal boundary because if if if people are going to come with it to my latoral boundary with their dock or

093with their uh boat lift, >> I I as a neighbor don't want that to happen. I I don't want that crowding. I mean, you can go through some of the coes right now and Oh, yeah. And and it is that way. >> So, it could be it could be inland wetlands with a public hearing. I mean that wouldn't be unreasonable. >> That's already in there in this change that they've asked us to make for wetlands to talk about lal boundaries >> only latoral boundaries. They can't do any other adjustments. What I'm talking about is other adjustments. >> Oh well I mean like did inland wetlands talk about these waiverss? >> Uh we haven't had a meeting since then. >> Yeah we haven't had since this update. Um but correct they will only entertain a way

094referral referral boundary right now based on the regulations >> right >> perhaps maybe not this language but some other language could be added to that section >> to you know shall have a public hearing if can't meet or if a safety concern we would have language >> my understanding is when this was written that the latoral boundary issue was taken under consideration so that they had the authority to do that. Inland wetlands has no other authority to change anything in these ordinances other than latoral boundary. That's the only waiver they can grant. I'm suggesting to you that they they at the very least if it's not going to be the LTA, then inland wetlands should be granted the power in this ordinance to give a waiver when necessary for a valid safety concern. And if

095public hearing needs to be part of it, I'm not I don't think that's unreasonable, >> right? I would say that that would would have to be there. And then I would say that if the wetlands authority was giving a lot of waiverss, then I would be really worried about about the pop the area at the lake. And I I could, you know, the thing I worry about is the pressure from people to get that waiver, the pressure that people apply to do things to to to get that. It's no different than going before a ZBA or planning and zoning for a special uh permit. >> It's no different. >> If my neighbor gets it now, you're off. Well, he got it now. I want it. >> Happens all. It happens with any one of these

096things. Same thing with a with a variance that he got a variance. Why can't I get the same variance? I mean, it's all part of what this what this is. Well, you know, I've watched it all and been around that lake a million times in my life, right? And Shirley's been around and we've all been around and >> I got 54 years there myself, Kenny. >> Yeah. So, we're not, you know, giving this up to some local traffic authority who doesn't have a background in it. >> I think that's completely not right. >> What background would you be looking for? Well, like the inland wetlands people that >> What do they have specifically that you're referring to? >> I don't know. Some of them have been sitting there for years looking at sketches of docks

097for all that time. They must have seen how many applications come through. I mean, we probably find it in the data here. I think we could probably look and see how many uh >> that was that was strictly properties in ZBA. Although there is a list I see how many doc require or requests they've had. >> Yeah, it's right in there. So uh you know >> when you say training specifically what what what what are you what are you thinking about >> because you said wetlands has very specific training. >> Well they know about the impact of water quality and the and the rules around the limits and stuff and they're also over time uh the chairman's been sitting there for a long time and he knows lal boundaries. Anybody that's been sitting there for

098a long time would know lural boundaries. They would understand the cove method to how you figure out your latoral boundary. They would understand uh that they've given permits when a rock gets in the way. Now we blast rocks in the water as long as it stays in the water. Um they would know that they would know the different parts of the lake because they probably been out there to look at things when a permit is before them. So they would have a lot of experience with the lake with each area with configurations of docks uh etc. So they understand where the swim floats are, the size of swim floats. They understand the raft. They understand like you have the little yellow raft out there. You have your little black raft out there. You have one

099with a ladder on it. You have the trampolines. Uh you have a little sphere down in one cove. I mean, they they would know all that. Whereas, I'm sorry, Paul, but >> please say it cuz >> you know the town manager is a local traffic authority or whoever that includes hasn't been out there hasn't seen all these applications and hasn't seen all that. So, I think what I would suggest we do then is we first of all look into these specific statutes and then potentially look at the wording on this to be changed to um rather than LTA, Inland Wetlands Commission um with a public hearing. I suppose Jeremy and I were talking a little bit on the side here. Uh if it were going to go that way, it's probably more appropriate to just

100add to 380-7 new structures or objects. That's where the waiver provision for latoral boundaries already appears and we could we can add or propose to add another section for your review there 380-9 docs if it's doc specific. >> Yeah. >> Just as long as it's not mixed in with latoral boundaries and only applies in >> a whole separate >> right. Yeah. >> And and I think valid safety concern is really just the language that you need. >> Um it's just a matter of who's going to grant the waiver and what the requirements are. And I think that the neighbors should absolutely have an opportunity to potentially weigh in on it. >> A public hearing. Um, Inland Wetlands is the 20th, >> 21st. Is it? Is that Thursday? Okay. >> Um, >> yeah. Thursday. Yeah. >>

101And public hearings are public hearings won't just be the neighbor. Public hearings will be any resident of the town of Winchester. >> Like any inland wetlands public hearing they have right now. Yes. I'm just I'm just looking at a calendar. Our next meeting is obviously going to be the 18th. Uh >> I mean because I I know of people that there are lawsuits about somebody wants to reduce the latoral boundaries. So there's actual you know people having to hire lawyers for it because the neighbor wants to expand and the other neighbor does not want the expansion. Again, that happens in zoning regs. That happens in a lot of things. We're just simply adding one thing that allows for the possibility through public hearings and the things that we've talked about in the appropriate time to

102be able to grant that waiver. So, let's take a look at that language. >> Does the whole board agree to that? >> Yeah, I think there should be some type of relief. you know, everything else is. >> Do you want a motion for that? Is that what you're saying? >> No, I just would like to know what other people think. >> No, there's >> Cuz you and I have been, you know, going back and forth for a little while. >> Not that we ever do that. >> No, we never ever do that. >> Wait till later, Paul. >> I mean, I've been on a last couple years and I was my entire life. So, I'm a little lost on a lot of this stuff. But there is some relief when I have to think, you

103know, water and sewer that, you know, there's there's things around things, you know, had had to deal with one myself recently and kind of told the guy, well, let's just put it back where it was. And he didn't really like that, but eventually it went back where it was. So, you know, it's a little bit different, you know, when something's been in the ground for a hundred something years. >> There's no grandfather. I'll leave it up to your expertise because I'm just one of the forgotten few in Winchester Center. So, the lake doesn't really >> Well, I mean, it it does apply to you. It applies to everybody because it is your major tax revenue, right? You know, it's major tax revenue. Um, and you know, it's one of those we're enjoying a nice run

104right now. the water's been clear because we haven't had any runoff and um and people seem to, you know, most people are, you know, good with what they have. And um so tweak, like I said from the beginning, tweaking is one thing. You know, big huge uh openings of other things are a whole other thing. The only feedback I can give you is is the old-timers I do talk to up in the center won't won't really go and fish there anymore because they said you can't fish it because you're trying to sit in your little 12oot rowboat and the boat's just doing this and >> so it is a busy lake. It's it's not a fishing lake anymore. It's >> you got to go five o'clock in the morning and it's a fishing lake. >>

105No, they're out there at a second bay. >> You know, I don't know. There's no way that you can control the size of a boat on that lake. >> We do limit it. >> You do. >> There's a limitation of 30 feet on uh the pontoons and 22 feet. >> Is that monitored? >> Well, see, that's an interesting question because the state runs the launch. So, there's no one there from there to >> But the state won't enforce that. Our >> And we can't for it. >> Well, our police officers can ticket for that. Our police officers can enforce that. We can enforce it from the shore and we can enforce it in the water. >> I have really that would be news because I >> Well, because it's an ordinance. It's a town ordinance

106that our town policeman can enforce it. And the way you enforce it is you say, "Can I see your registration?" And then you look at the length of the boat. >> That'd be interesting. >> Well, we've talked about this for a thousand years, too. And and there was a boat up on the lake that somebody to somebody emailed me about that was they said it was a 26ft boat. There are boats up there right now that are not 22 feet >> because they don't make it like that anymore. I mean they don't the boat that's out there that they make if you go to the cataloges and you look at the specs or you go to a boat show. We saw a beautiful pontoon boat when we were out on the boat parade that had

107triple triple Yamaha 350s on the back. It's like >> Yeah, but you know what? >> No, there there was a triple we saw, did we not? >> But you know those pontoon boats >> over,000 horsepower. >> Those pontoon boats are not getting in the way of the fisherman. They're not breaking your dock, right? Those I mean I'd rather I'd rather see a a fast boat than than a pup pup boat, a big pup boat because the the waves are different, right? you know, so that votes like >> we can enforce that. That would be a good idea. >> Well, that's a you know, I haven't said much about it and we we're not saying that much about it because you're talking about people that have those boats. I was up at the Bandom Ski Show

108yesterday and there was one of those boats out there because BANM has, you know, limited where certain boats go up there. I haven't said anything about it because, you know, we're we're all trying to figure it out, you know, and and but the boat manufacturers, how are they going to make more money? They're only going to make more money if they go and make these, you know, more amenities on a boat. I mean, when we got our boat in 2005, made our other boat look small and I thought, "Wow, this is wicked big." And now I'm like minuscule. I will tell you though, it's interesting you talk about it. I mean, I was extremely careful to buy a size that I knew was legal for our lake, >> right? >> Well, that's nice of you.

109>> And people and if you didn't do that, then oops. >> No, that's that's well Well, that's what you say is oops. But >> there are examples. >> I don't know how many resident ones are too big. But anyway, that's another thing to >> I was just going to ask that question. I'm not asking anyone to tell on their neighbors or their residents, but does anyone feel that there's boats that are parked up there that are above the >> Oh, we'll just leave that question. >> Okay, we'll leave that one. Okay, but it's >> We should just go back to Doc and Warren and little tweaks. I'm telling you, little tweaks. >> I understand Cand's point. I do have concerns with anything being absolute, but I do um agree that we shouldn't make big wholesale

110changes. Um maybe just, you know, a couple of sentences in that 380-7 to a qualified person and not a land lover to make discussions. >> Well, it could be a land that's been on there. >> You're being insulted left and right. >> It could be land. >> It could be a land lover that's been on the board for, you know, five, six years and understands the whole thing. I mean that would be okay but the S have >> I think if we limit it to valid safety concerns right not just convenience or I want to I want it but >> hardship >> yeah much the way we do variances right valid safety concerns >> so you and I could debate what is safety >> well I guess that's up to the people that sit on

111inland wetlands to determine what safety >> well yes it would be if we put this third >> correct Then you'd have a lot of opinions on what safety, not just one or two, >> right? Because >> because I'd love to debate safety with you for a few hours tonight, but we could keep going. It would be a lot of fun. >> I think we >> I think if we're going to debate, Paul, I think I think we should go and charge ticket prices. And I think we could have a really fun and we could raise money for some important cause in town. >> Fire department. We should do it during a special meeting. The fire >> you guys argue, we'll sell tickets. early in the day though. >> Yeah. >> Well, we'll do a Saturday

112afternoon at noon. High noon tonight. >> It's gonna be a lot of beer air because it's gonna >> like, you know, like that those western shows where, you know, was it high noon? You know, high noon. >> Yeah, we'll do the high noon thing and we could we'll debate safety issues. >> May I try and uh >> Rain us back in a little bit. Sorry, Mr. Mayor, but I So, there seems and and I'm just looking for direction. There seems to be uh two items being discussed. We have the original document um which came with some short revisions and then we have this uh 380-9. Um may I ask the board the shorter or the longer document but the you know uh redline version of just the simpler corrections. Is there any additional work that

113needs to be done on that? I would just say with the with the boat with the boat lifts I think that's a um I think I'm trying to get opinions from people on that because I'm not personally settled on that and that but it came from IWWC. It was a request >> from them. So, I'm not at this point. The language I think is fine with how you changed it with the the jet ski and stuff like that, but um but people are starting to weigh in on that and I think people should have the opportunity to do that. >> So, and that's where I was I was going with it is do we I'm if the board so chooses I I do want to separate the two documents, right? Do we take this leaving

114the last page off? Do we take this document and officially start the legal notices which gives the opportunity for people to start weighing in on the three meetings or >> I think that that little waiver addendum sentence he has to work on that. >> I was going to leave this off. >> No. I'd be perfectly fine if you left that off, but I think Paul wants to insert >> I think we should um get the language changed and have a complete document that we can start putting out. >> Okay, before we start, uh so and I would really and my my choice too is that I would really like Inland Wetlands and they're meeting after our next meeting. So, we probably will not see this on the next uh meeting that we meet on the

11518th because I want Inland Wetlands to weigh in as well. Um, so this way >> the first meeting in September. >> So it'll be the first meeting in September, which is probably going to be the day after Labor Day because the way it's going to fall. >> Well, the good news is that this doesn't have to rush. >> The season's almost over. >> Well, because the draw is in the permits are going to be in before even if you started it today, you'd have to go all the way to the middle of September. The draw down starts on October 1st. So any major work would have already been scheduled so far. So I don't All right, >> we have a bunch of >> We do. I need a copy of of >> the document that

116got handed out at some point. >> You have extra mine. >> Thank you, >> Jeremy. You're here Thursday, so you we can Yeah, I want to because I don't know these statues at all. >> I don't want to miss the beginning of this. >> Should we take a two minute? >> Meeting is in recess for two minutes. It was cash only today. The silver machine. >> I mean, it's good. >> At least when I tried, we had a conversation. >> Yeah. So, now we know >> cash like $10. >> I'm typing that up. I'm going blind. >> Forgot to bring something in to drink. What do you have? Three dates in here. Just two weeks. >> No. Say practicing for the fireman's carnival. We are back from recess. Moving on to item number 10, new

117business meeting analysis reports. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Mayor, so as you remember several months ago, uh this was an item on our agenda. Um the board had asked for more information, more data. One of the informations or one of the questions was, well, can we get Washington's uh who was the first town in connect, excuse me, first town in Connecticut that actually put these speed cameras in? Um which at the time obviously there wasn't much information available. working through um uh uh the company that we uh had come out uh and and look at uh Sightstream. Thank you uh Paul for thinking of their name. Uh Sightream actually said we can actually put cameras out there free of charge and get your actually real data that what's going on in your town. So, attached

118in the packet uh that you got with your with with your whole uh board of selectman uh packet were three different uh areas that uh we had cameras put up. Um the first one I'm going to review is on Winchester Route 44 at Dry Dam Road. Uh these cameras were up from April 17th through April 24th. um recorded there was a a total of 33,31 vehicles which 25,33 of those vehicles were speeding. A staggering 75.9% of the cars that went through it were speeding. Um I heard the well it gets even worse. Um the average speed registered across all vehicles was 53 miles an hour. The maximum speed recorded was an alarming 148 miles an hour. >> That was a motorcycle. >> Probably a motorcycle. Um but uh traffic uh was assessed in 5minute intervals

119detailing weekday versus weekend. Um and weekday traffic ex exhibited different patterns compared to weekend traffic. Weekday traffic uh was a little bit slower than weekend traffic. Obviously more people are out on the roads. Um, and then the highest speeds were recorded during late night and early morning hours, suggesting the need for surveillance during these times. That's the first one that we did on um, Dry Dam Road. The second one we did was Route 44 northbound. Uh, these uh, cameras were installed March 31st to April 6th. Um, total vehicles was 43,049 vehicles. speeding incidences were 29,868 uh speeders that were there. So roughly about 70% the maximum speed uh in this was 98 m an hour. Um and uh you you could tell that again 69 I 69% of the vehicles I said 70 I apologize

12069% of the vehicles that went through this trap were uh were speeders. I will note if the board does decide and the town ultimately decides to move in the direction, the vehicle uh driver was not identified or they weren't uh told that this was a speed trap area. State law actually does state that we have to identify they're entering a speed camera zone and now exiting a speed camera zone. So, these numbers possibly are inflated because uh the uh vehicle driver did not know that they were entering these particular areas where we were just looking at their speeds. Um and last but not least, >> real quick question. Route 44. This one, what was the location of that one again? >> That was northbound. Let me pull that one real quick. Didn't put that in

121my summary sheet. minute lovely when when the report comes back as uh study GPS location unknown. Um I will uh I will get the exact location um of where that actual uh camera was posted. We have it for the next one too which is which says route 44 southbound or is it the same? >> It's going to be now going in the opposite direction as southbound. So we we obviously want to see traffic coming and then traffic going obviously. >> My question about that then is what's the difference between approaching and receding? >> So when the the camera is going to read better if you're approaching it, right? But they do they do record receding traffic as well, >> but we wanted to get both sides. It would be going the other way. >> So

122would that just be the southbound? It would be the southbound, but remember the camera's going to pick it up both ways. But we wanted to test it going each each particular way. >> Um, >> so once they got past the camera, they seem to speed more than when they approaching the camera. Yeah. >> Well, it's obviously not going to it won't be this, but >> were these cameras on like stands on the side of the road where they were very visible or where were they? you you asked the question that I I and I will answer that they were actually in uh vehicles that were just parked off on the side of the road. Um they were they were and and we will discuss obviously it's a lot different when we have to obviously advertise

123that you know you'll you'll you'll see the camera but these were definite definitely hidden cameras um in that we could get the true test of the data. So it was actually mounted in the back of a car that was recording the data. So they people weren't putting it on ways and notified. >> No, they nobody knew that this test was actually being performed. >> Paul, is there a state mandate regarding notification? Because I went to the Washington one this weekend. >> Yep. >> And a mile before you get to it, there's signs both sides of the road. >> Yes. >> Radar enforce camera. Radar cameras and use. And then quarter mile after that, quarter mile after that, quarter mile after that. And then you actually see the cameras up with the signs. >> Yes. Um,

124so you had plenty of notice I mean before you get to the camera that >> it's going to hit you, >> which I said the numbers are high because there was no identifying marker that said that they were going to go through this trap area. Um, last but not least and and and you have the information, but I'll go through it and then I and then I want to talk about what it could mean, what it what this actually meant was going southbound on Route 44, 55,751 vehicles, 38,589 uh were speeders. 113 miles an hour was the top speed. Uh weekend versus weekday traffic once again was noted as the behavior was different. Weekend obviously uh more speeding as well. Um so in essence if you take all of that number uh over a very

125short period of time there were 92 roughly and it's a little bit more than 92,000 speeders that went through these quote unquote traps >> in five days. in five days. If you take the data and as state law says that if it's their first offense, they get charged a $50 fine. Second offense within 30 days, they get a $75 fine. If Sightream was the company that we uh if the board and the town ultimately went in the direction, Sightream uh would install all of these free of charge, all of the signs, everything like that, help us work through all of the ordinances going to the state of Connecticut. Um, Psych Stream would take $20 of the $50 uh fine. So, if you do 92,000 speeders times 30, $2.8 million. I had to do the math

126twice. >> We can paid >> because well, >> you can't go faster. Then we can get more tickets. >> We can get more tickets. So yeah, state statute does say that it can only be used in policing and to uh for for uh traffic enforcement. Obviously you can employ officers, cruisers, things of that nature. You can't fund education right there. >> Couple police officers. You could supplement obviously the uh the budget for the police department um which then frees up funds to do other things. But keep in mind as people get smarter and smarter, it's not a guaranteed revenue. So, so I would caution the board exactly of, you know, what they were not going to do with >> clearly they're not going to get >> and clearly once it's posted this number is going

127to drop. >> So, >> we did just have a question. >> Okay. >> Route 44 runs east and west. >> Yeah. >> Are we going to northbound southbound? >> Well, they >> they thought it was Route 8. Who knows? >> Yeah, they probably thought it was Interesting is the the >> they were back then off the side of the road. >> That could be >> the speed limit in the area where we had 113 miles an hour was 30. >> Correct. >> Right. >> I mean the first the first stats were in a 50 mph speed limit. This is 30 and we had 114. >> Those are motorc into town. That's when it changes. >> Yeah. Um I'll note uh and and it was uh Andrew uh has been in this business for 20 years.

128Uh he's the president and CEO of Sitstream, but he's also the inventor. Um I talked to him earlier on the phone today. Um this is his not only 20th anniversary uh with his wife, but his 20th year uh in putting out uh these type of devices. Obviously, their start was over in Europe. Um and now they're, you know, obviously coming over into the states. Uh this gentleman uh provides his cell phone um and he wants to engage with communities. Um so we have all of the answers. There was a question that came up uh and I forgot which select person had asked it was well how good are the uh mechanisms in terms of collection rates. He finds that right now uh we're roughly at 70% uh of collection rates but the state of Connecticut

129has now changed um with the new statute that um people cannot register their cars if they have this particular violation against them. It does not go into uh the DMV uh in terms of points on your license and it does not get uh reported to your insurance company as well. >> Oh yeah, they can withhold your registration. >> They can withhold the registration. I was shocked when uh Andrew said that to me on the phone. I missed that uh that was proof, but I was absolutely shocked when he had said that. >> That was one of the questions we had last time because last time we talked about this there was there was an enforcement problem, >> but now you're saying it's 90%. Now I'm saying, well, it's it's 70% right off the get-go. Um,

130and then we and then they do employ because they don't get paid unless we get paid. Um, so, you know, they're obviously uh you can go online, you can make payments. No payments are permitted uh in town hall. Um, they can go online. So, in order for them to get their $20, um, we need to get the $50. Um, and then they write us a check. So they actually employ a collections company as well um because obviously they have to recoup all of this you know uh infrastructure and all of the work that they've done to you know put this in uh the community. Um, any additional questions on the report? Because I just I think it's important that I I refresh the board on the process. So, you can think about is if something

131you want to continue going down the process or not, keeping in mind this is something that the DOT does need to ultimately approve. Um, yes, we need to, you know, have public hearings. This board needs to approve it, but ultimately state DOT has either the blessing or the non- blessing on if this is actually going to work. in the process. I know everybody was $2.8 million where I know we there was a report in Middletown. They got $600,000 in the first 30 days that they put their cameras up. Um that it's going to take anywhere from 8 to 12 months to see the first camera actually in the town. Um so I don't want anybody to think that this is, you know, a 30-day uh turnaround. Um and also that the first 30 days that

132these cameras go up, the only thing that can be issued is a warning. So um the first 30 days there's no income stream whatsoever and that everybody that speeds 92 I mean think about that postage alone but um you know site stream takes care of it all but 92,000 people if not more because we only did it for a twoe period would have gotten a warning in the mail >> but we have to pay don't we have to pay extra dollars per warning issued the first 30 days >> no that was with the original company that I sat with sight stream which sitream will take it all the costs uh on them and then in 30 days then we can um yeah I I again >> when they see these numbers they're like hell this

133bank >> yeah I I you know you there's uh four or five towns in some of Greenwich uh Washington obviously Middletown there's two more >> West Harford >> West Harpford is going through the process of it that there's there's five towns in Connecticut right now that actually have cameras that are operational. Um, and there's a lot of towns that are out there, you know, starting the process. Um, the good news is is that the DMV or, excuse me, the DOT has 60 calendar days once we submit our application for approval or rejection. So, it can't be held up, you know, red tape of, okay, we're waiting for the DOT. Per the statute, DOT has 60 calendar days. We are a little bit ahead of the game. Um because if the board ultimately wanted to move

134forward with these cameras, we have our data. If the board wanted to pick other locations, we'd have to go get the data and proved at the DOT. Um that uh you know, this is why we need the cameras here. But um we have to develop a plan. Uh Sideream would come in. Um they would help us, you know, prepare this plan. the local approval proit uh process and I'm just going to read blankly the plan requires approval from the town legislative body i.e. the board of selectmen or town meeting vote before the commission. We do need to hold a public hearing to gather community input uh on the proposed locations. We need to submit to the CT co CT do for review installation and launch and then post operation reporting and renewal. Once the camera

135is installed it's there for 18 months. After 18 months, we can reapply to the DOT if we want to keep it there or apply and have it moved somewhere else. And that's the process. So, Paul, hopefully these two locations that have a 30 mph speed limit are going to turn out to be somewhere here on Main Street because I think one of the big initiatives we had in looking at this was to slow the traffic down in our walkable downtown. >> Um, and I'm presuming where 30 mph speed limit is going to be out in in the main area. So, >> um I mean just curious to know where those locations were specifically. >> I'll get them out to you guys first. >> First and foremost, we want to slow down traffic on Main Street.

136And secondly, obviously, no one's going to complain if the revenue uh source um came in and and that gave us the ability to do some other things in town, but um we want to slow people down first and foremost. >> And after going through Washington this weekend, if you get a ticket by one of those cameras, you absolutely 100% deserve it because there's at least Washington. There's more than enough, like I said, multiple multiple signs saying, you know, radar radar enforcement speed radar enforcement. >> I got two more. We're still doing 70. Well, then >> it's high, you have to highly identify the fact that it's going to cost you that much money to go through that. >> Two quick questions. One, is there a is there a number that you can go over before

137you get a ticket? >> So, that's an excellent question. Um, it's 10 miles an hour. Okay. >> Yeah. 10 miles an hour or above is where you get the ticket and that's by state statute. Great question. >> Secondly, can we put it on back roads? >> You can. Um, but remember the DOT does need to approve it. The other thing is Sightstream needs to agree to it as well. Um, obviously it's a revenue source for them. >> Why would the DOT need to approve a town road? >> It's per statute. They have to Yeah, they have to approve. >> Say we pave Highland Lake >> and all a sudden everybody's doing 100 miles an hour around High Lake. We can put them out there. Yeah, >> we talked about that this afternoon. Could you put

138it at the lake? Right. We we've talked about speed bumps and all this other stuff to try to slow the traffic down. Could you put it there? And the answer is maybe down the road a piece. >> Maybe down the road. And again, I mean, talking with Andrew, uh, who owns the Sideream company, obviously there's a big investment on their part. They're obviously, you know, say it. They're in it to make money. Um, obviously, so um, you know, they're obviously going to want to have to have some say in where you put the cameras. Five cars a day isn't going to cut the, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars. There's a lot of more than five cars >> and I think the posted speed limit is 25 and >> you'd have a tough time

139finding someone doing 25. >> Y >> um >> so so Route 44 uh Norfolk Road by Dry Dam and just east of the ambulance barn around Railway Cafe with a with a spot. So that's even near the current sign now that >> the flashing sign. >> Yeah, she did nothing. >> Got it down to 114. >> So I have a couple of uh questions about this actually concerns right now. If you get pulled over, I think it's 83 85. You get points on your license. I have a problem with somebody going 148 miles an hour. They should lose their license. Um, that is a great question. Unfortunately, state statute, they would be fined, don't, everyone's looking at me. They would be fined the exact amount of money of somebody that went 10 miles an hour

140over and they went 10, 15 miles an hour over the posted speed limit, they would only be fined $50. And that's the way the statute was written. So, we can't charge them anymore. We can't put points on their license. Obviously, if an officer clocked that speed, whole different ballgame. But the way the statue >> a whole bunch of other issues if an offic that's 99% a motorcycle because not many cars do 148 miles >> and chances are you're not going to chase a motorcycle. >> Well, yeah, they will. >> No, they won't. >> Oh, yes. Well, maybe not now they won't. They used to. They won't. >> But anyway, so and that's reckless driving. So, if that person ever did get caught uh doing that, they're going to lose their license anyway. So, >> but

141the camera would not be able to be the mechanism. >> The camera. >> Well, it's not fair. >> And listen, all your motorcycles three weeks after those up, those go up. They're going to know, okay, we got to do 30 miles an hour till we get 300 yards away from the speed limit sign. And then we can just crack the thing open. >> Let it rip. >> Well, that's where we can park an officer. >> Well, that's that's what I was waiting for in Washington. And I'm like, "Oh go." And I figure mile down the road to the right or half mile down the right there's going to be a cruiser there because >> I watch the cars in front of me go through the camera and their tail lights disappear. >> Next question. An

142officer still >> reviews these before they get sent out. >> So an officer can review it or somebody that's designated to review it. Uh staff and and they have the power that the the chief of police says you can review. >> but somebody here. Yeah, it's somebody here that either says uh I forgot the exact termin deny or issue citation. They used fancier language than that, but you do have somebody that's looking at each particular one and clicking either send the citation. They do have the option to send a warning or deny it completely and do and take no action. >> Paul, you had a question? >> No. something. No, >> I I think it's important, you know, to also put out there publicly is, you know, there's been a lot of uh uh uh

143people commenting in other towns because I've been looking at other towns is it's big brother looking at you. It's it's you know, I'm being watched. You know, I just happened to come back from Maine and I was on the Mass Pike. Um and I can't tell you how many times my license plate was photoed because of Easy Pass. Um the phone I mean you know with geot tracking you know you walk into a store people are buying the information that you walked into a store. So, you know, there's been tolls that have been in existence, you know, the the new technology for several years in other states that, you know, are literally sending people uh uh their toll bill um for, you know, 60 cents um because they didn't buy an easy pass and their

144license plates being photographed and they're sending out. >> There's cameras everywhere taking pictures of everything. So, >> yep. I mean, and you drive on any of the major highways, 91, 95, and in fact, you can actually go on to the CT do's website and you can yourself look at all of the highways and look at the cars speed and yeah, there's cameras there. So, >> I I agree, Paul. I'd like to know where where we're thinking of putting them because all the way up the dam >> does us no good. They're past it, you know? I mean, it got to be it's a main street problem. >> Well, 30 miles hour had to be at the bottom. >> Well, how did these locations get selected originally. >> Chief of police uh sat with Andrew um

145originally cop that up by dam on that cut through that's where that major accident happened. >> Yeah. Double fatal accident >> just that. >> Yeah. So if we're if we you know Yeah. We want not to get hit when we walk but there are other things that happen in a stretch like that. And to your roads as well. I mean back roads. >> They put them in Northwork on every back road. >> School zones. I I know secondwoman Perez and I had a brief conversation. School zones is another one where you know where and and a question came up in my head on that. Is you know you know I have to even check our school zones and I and and is it 25 all the time or is it 25 only when when kids

146are present? So can these be adjusted? The technology is phenomenal on these things. But um >> does it sound like I should be engaging Andrew more, coming up with a plan, coming up with potentially 10 locations and then I'm not suggesting by any means we launch 10. I think we really need to get our feet wet. And again, that's still a year from now, but at least give you even more data other than the facts that, you know, two weeks just gave us. But to you know >> so bottom line ultimately is this decision going to be ours? Are we going to put this out to the public? And >> we have to have a public hearing. Um and and and >> so is it going to be a referendum? Does the public vote on

147whether we put these in or we just ultimately >> you guys are the legislative body in this town. So ultimately it's the board of selectman's decision but I would think based on a public hearing you are the voice of you know the residents. >> We could also send it to >> you could send you don't have to. Yep. You have that mechanism. Do we have uh do we have to bid this? >> We would need to bid it. Yes. >> So it's not an automatic >> it's not an automatic site stream. No, we would need to we would need to actually I apologize. We because there's no cost. >> We would not. >> Yeah. But it should be >> we Well, >> you've looked at two companies already, right? >> We looked at two companies.

148Yes. >> At least RFP RFQ. I mean, I think we should uh clearly continue on down the the road of looking into where the best locations are. I mean, um you know, I can't visualize in my head. I'd have to look at a map to see exactly where these locations were, but again, focusing on trying to slow down some of what's going on out here. If we don't have a look, if that location was not that's up by a little red barn wasn't going to solve a problem down here, then we may need another location down here. agreed. I um I have to go one step back of the RFQ RFP process. I've interviewed or or spoke with two companies. Is there a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh? And what do they offer? I

149don't know the answer to that. So I think before we go down selecting that the RPRFQ could Andrew if you're watching and I know you are because you said you were um great guy but is there your competitor that may be able to offer >> different well he Andrew will put in as many cameras as we want that's but what else do you know >> can can the town own cameras >> they're they can't very pricey >> and then you got all the administrative work to issue all the citations and by the time you >> did you hear what he said he said was $2 million >> 2.8 >> on the re I know but then if it's reoccurring right some of it not all >> so I mean there's always you know that piece

150too I don't know if people >> we'd have to learn more about it because >> software people sell you the software you know you have a traffic officer, a traffic person that you would hire that would know how to do all that. >> And if we issue the citations, if we own the cameras and issue the citations, does it change the rules or is it >> No, we would still have to follow the state statute. It's still $50.75 for the second, no points, any of that. Um, >> and I will say I if if you do get a citation, um, it is marked that it does look like it's coming from the time. It has our seal, everything like that. It does look like an official, you know, citation from the town. Just sight stream

151would be >> they have an they have an entire collections department that goes after this money when it's not paid. So that's a whole >> we'd have to be prepared. I guess the bottom line is could we do it for less than $20 per citation by the time you bring it in house? That'd be the question to know. >> Well, it's just kind of like what we did with this the wetland fees. We asked for a chart. What's happening and where? I mean, that's what we want to know. So this company costs this, this one cost this, this one cost that. This is what happens happens happens. >> So we can always add them, but I think we need to just try to on Main Street first. See >> see what happens with them as

152far as put them on the back roads and all that. I mean, >> there's people that would vote for one. >> There was street as well. There was a show I watched about a county in Texas that went crazy on these things and and in the county they have like 197 of these things and they're actually using it as 100% revenue stream and there's a lot of road you can't go on where where you're going to get nailed. Um I I I don't think anybody wants to go that route but we have a problem main street. Let's >> start there reprogrammed. Everybody's in a big hurry now where you go. I mean, our cars are also different. Our cars are more powerful. They're comfortable. >> Well, and there's less. >> You can't tell that you're

153doing that. >> There's less respect for the rules. I mean, we've had accidents on Newfield. The fire department can tell you where where we've had kids crash at well over 100 miles an hour on Newfield Road. They've hit trees. >> All right. It's a 25 mph road. >> Wrap this up. We still got executive. >> Yeah, we do. >> Um, so really quick. So, um, if I heard the board correctly, it sounds like The ultimate way we should move is RFP RFQ. Let's go out. Let's see what other companies are available. Get that information back. But it doesn't sound like anybody dislikes the idea and we should at least begin a process of looking at and at any time remember you know you all control the power and you can you can definitely or decide

154to go to referendum with >> exact locations of where they were Paul and exact locations of where we're thinking of putting them. >> Yeah. So, you know, we'll I I'll see quickly we can turn around an RF RFQ and I may be silent on it. You can always ask me where we're at, but and then I'll come back with some more. >> Maybe you can email us a map with the locations of these. >> We'll get I'll call Andrew Dear. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. >> Thank you. Um you sounded like I was when I first got the information, like, wow. Then I did the math. >> Well, I saw some of the numbers and I'm like, that's why I asked you, are these accurate or a typo? >> Yeah, I was shocked. All right, moving

155on to item 11, citizens comments. Board of Slackman welcomes public comments. >> Glad I stayed. >> Just uh make sure you hit that mic. Thank you. >> Okay. I'm glad I stayed because I I'm happy that I listened to the conversation about potential change to the wetlands. I guess it's the Dr. Moing ordinance ultimately on this relief issue. Um so the discussion focused mostly on potential safety issues um as it relates to requests for variances. Um so I guess my question I have a few questions. One is what would be the official definition of a safety issue? And would we then require a licensed water safety officer to visit the site, assess the situation, and supply a report? And I ask that because when people come for a variance, let's say for ZBA, we typically

156require them or the situation I should say, typically requires that they hire a licensed engineer to come in and assess the situation and provide evidence of hardship. So, I think those are really important questions for this board to consider. um wetlands the commissioners I know this since I was on wetlands and am now again uh selecting Perez is right we do get training once a year we go to trainings um they focus largely on environmental uh related issues water quality related issues which the uh regulations and the ordinance both have an effect on. Um we also get training on uh legal support for the regulations as written and every year we're supplied various different um examples of case law. But we don't get trained on water safety. Uh like those are water safety officers are

157trained and licensed people who understand the details around navigational deserts. Bless you. And that relates to like the size of the engine that's driving, the space, the turn radius, the depth of the keel. Like there are a lot of details around this. And the reason I know a little bit about this is because during the course of my career, I've had to hire water safety officers for various different things that I've done professionally. So, I think this is a much bigger discussion than just adding potential safety issues into whatever section that was, Jeremy. Um, I I think and I do think it needs to go to the public and I loved your survey. I have to tell you, the survey was awesome and I think it might be worth considering doing a survey on this

158particular issue as it relates to the people who use not just the people who live on the lake, the people who use the lake. You know, I think it would be worthwhile to come up some really cogent questions for the community to consider and to respond to. And I don't think I mean Paul correct me if I'm wrong, but that was just a Google form with a QR code that sent people to it. So it's not like a big expense. It's more of a time thing. >> Was all free, >> right? And so maybe it since you mentioned this is going to go to wetlands, Jeffrey, for discussion. Perhaps the wetlands commission could help weigh in on a series of questions to bring to you and you guys can all think about them and amend

159them as you see fit. And perhaps we do bring it to the public because I think it is a really big change and I think it needs to be like I I would think we need to doubleclick on the definition of safety issues in in a real way. Um, and then the last point is in and among all of this thinking, it is incumbent, I think, upon this board and you, Paul, to consider what position you're putting the wetlands commissioners in where it relates to exposing the town to possible legal action. Um because I have been on wetlands before when neighbors have brought up safety navigational issues and the wetlands commissioners actually deferred it to uh attorney Nelligan. So that's a big responsibility to give volunteers in in the commission like making a decision about

160what may or may not affect someone's safety. What if we approve something because we've determined maybe without enough training or information could be a safety issue and then it causes something to happen on a neighboring property and they say, "Well, if the town hadn't actually approved that change, my kid wouldn't have gotten hurt." So, I think this is a bit of a can of worms. Not to say it isn't a can of worms that should be looked at. I just think it requires some real drilling down on. So that's my two cents. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Moving on to item 12, executive session. Discussions regarding the selection of a site or the lease, sale, or purchase of real estate by Connecticut General Statutes 1-26D. Bringing with us the town manager, Paul Harrington,

161Brian McCann, Jeff Green, and Jeremy Darly. >> For the record, Mr. Mayor, Brian McCann is the uh is is an attorney. >> Attorney Brian McCann. >> Do I have a motion? >> Motion Todd said happens. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? Uh it is 9:05. >> I'll uh I'll note for our residents at home and and in attendance here, I I do not feel that we're going to come out of executive session and need to take any action. So if you wanted to hang out, by all means, but I don't believe there'll be any action. Oh yeah, we go. Oh yeah, you executive session. I'm sorry. We go across the Yes. I'm sorry. >> I'm like like I'm looking at you like what what we're going on here like where you going? Where's everybody?

162>> I just don't know. Jesus. Sometimes I do. Sometimes >> I'll get her Follow me. >> No problem. And this doesn't say this works. Have a good night. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Nice. You take care. Thank you. Pass my mid. >> Lot of yakers tonight. >> Good night, Mike. Glad you all got an opportunity to spend time with Jeremy. Um, as you can see, he's a phenomenal individual. So, Good evening. It's 10:15. We are back from executive session. We have no action to take on executive session. Moving on to item number 13, selectman's comments and reports. Anyone have anything? So on August 15th, Friday night at the Gilbert School, there is the flag football. >> It's a benefit flag football game for Friends of Park and Recreation. >> And it is between 6:00 p.m.

163and 900 p.m. >> No, I meant between town staff and >> Oh, it's it's going to be between the Gilbert uh the Gilbert football team and different municipal employees, contractors. There's going to be food. We're looking for volunteers and players still >> covering the legal >> we have a certificate of insurance because the young football players against older people >> medics on standby. >> Gilbert did ask that question to >> watch, you know, do the basketball games in school and kids get run. I I've informed all the municipal employees that you think you're in good shape till you go up against a 17 18 year old football player been practicing all summer. >> Good thing it's flag football. >> Well, I played flag football for 20 years from way back. >> Good luck to whoever's

164on the other side. >> Other comments? Uh between now and our next meeting, a certain person at this desk that sits to my right has birthday coming up. We won't mention any names because we don't want to do any embarrassment things. But with that, do we have a motion? >> Motion. >> Second. >> Good night. See you in two weeks. Good night, everybody. >> So, happy birthday between now and 50. >> 50. >> Yeah. So when you're in LA, >> when when you say um 55 and older at the moment and there's not kids, listen, I'm going to be 55 in 2 years. You have to be in school. Okay? So just you can't say that cuz I started late. Listen, my my buddy came to me at 51 and said, "Guess what?" I said,

165"Why?" Because my girlfriend's pregnant. So speaking about you, Linda. It took me a few years to get out of >> said you've done you've done the math. You know what you're going to be when he graduates. >> It's actually a great meeting. I mean