The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Inland Wetlands Commission
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Inland Wetlands Commission |
|
Disclaimer: While we have attempted to reproduce them accurately, the electronic documents you see here are not the official public documents. Official copies may be obtained on paper from theTown Clerk . Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.
Jump down to: General information about the Inland Wetlands Commission
December 10 •November 25 •November 12 •November 5 •October 29 •October 22 •October 9 •October 8 •September 18 •September 10 •September 9 •August 13 •August 1 •July 23 •July 9 •June 11 •May 28 •May 14 •April 23 •April 9 •March 26 •March 12 •February 27 •January 23 •January 9 Previous years: 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: December 21, 2008 December 10, 2008
Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m. Selectmen’s Office and Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. LaMuniere
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: At Meeting only: Atty. Strub, Mrs. Cheney, Mr. Szymanski, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Neff
PUBLIC HEARING
Revision of the Regulations/Con’t.Mr. Bedini reconvened the Public Hearing at 7:06 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, and Thomson and Alternate Wadelton. There was no one from the public present.
It was noted a lengthy review dated 12/10/08 had been received from Atty. Zizka. Whether to close the hearing now and to work on incorporating Atty. Zizka’s recommendations later was discussed briefly. It was decided to continue the hearing so that if any of Atty. Zizka’s comments were significant, the public would have the opportunity to comment on them.
Mr. Picton arrived at this point.
Each of Atty. Zizka’s recommendations was discussed until it was time to begin the Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. The commissioners all agreed to each of the following revisions unless otherwise noted.
1.02: Change “on” to “affecting.”
Section 2: Add a definition of “Commission” to match that of “Agency.”
2.06: Revised definition for “bog.”
2.07: 1) Retain reference to 2” and larger trees. 2) After some debate it was decided to use “50%” rather than “majority.” 3) The last phrase will be deleted so that the sentence ends with “4.5 feet.” That phrase to be moved to 2.08.
2.08: 1) Will reference “vegetation” and delete specific examples. 2) Add phrase from 2.07, “…in a manner that significantly alters the natural or indigenous character of the regulated area.”
2.12: Although Atty. Zizka recommended to delete the entire section, it was agreed to delete only “and/or upland review areas.”
2.17: Change: “wetlands” to “watercourses.”
2.18: Delete: “partial or complete.”
2.20: Delete: “soil.”
2.21: Atty. Zizka recommended this section be deleted. The Commissioners wanted to retain it and decided to ask him specifically about it.
2.22: Substitute: “a watercourse: for “one” in the first line.
2.23: Reword as follows: “…means plants that have the ability to become established and abundant in areas to which they are not native and which can thereby damage existing ecosystems or displace native species.”
2.25: Will change “permit” to “license” throughout, but only in those sections where appropriate.
2.26: Change: “watercourses” to “land areas.” 2.28: In the last line, change: “an applicant’s” to “a license’s.”
2.38: There was no consensus. Because the DEP model regs refer only to wetlands and watercourses, Atty. Zizka will be consulted about whether to include “upland review areas.”
2.42: Change the beginning of the definition to: “…means a perceptible change in physical, biological, or chemical characteristics of a wetland or watercourse that may reduce or alter any of the desirable functions of the wetland or watercourse. Activities that may cause a significant impact include, but are not limited to….”
2.45: Change: “Watercourses” to “land areas.” 2.48: Add as a last sentence: “Furthermore, the Agency may rule that activities on any land area where conditions such as steep slopes (12% grade or more) may cause a physical impact on a wetland or watercourse are subject to review.” Raising the grade to 15% was considered, but a decision to do so was not agreed upon.
2.49: Retain this definition. Change: “seasonal or permanent watercourse” to “seasonal, generally shallow body or water.”
3.01: Change: the first line and a half through the word, “Connecticut” to “The Inventory Map.” Insert for the second sentence: “However, areas designated as wetlands or watercourses on the Inventory Map shall be presumed to be wetlands and watercourses, respectively, unless the Agency makes a contrary finding based on the evidence it receives.”
3.03: Change: “map” to “Inventory Map.”The Public Hearing was continued to 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 in the Land Use Meeting Room. The subcommittee will meet before then to consider the rest of Atty. Zizka’s recommendations.
The Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, and Thomson and Alternates Bohan for Mr. LaMuniere and Wadelton for Mr. Picton.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: Other Business: Approval of 2009 Calendar. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 11/25/08 minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: 1) Add to Also Present: Mr. Baker, Mr. Lassard, Mr. Diller, and Mr. Klein. 2) First line, last paragraph: Insert: “at the start of the Public Hearing” before “…and he had….”
Page 7: 4th line from the end of the Buell paragraph: 1) Insert: “to the application” after “revisions.” 2) Change: “made in the office” to “required by the Enforcement Officer.”
Page 10: 4th line from end of 1st paragraph: Insert: “it is better when” after “noting.”
Page 11: Under Sen: All references to the “pool” should be to the “pool patio.”
Page 12: In the Reinhardt motion: Insert: “refundable” before “portion.”MOTION: To accept the 11/25/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 11/25/08 Washington Partners, LLC. site inspection as submitted. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
The Reinhardt site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. The departure time should be 4:45 p.m. not 3:45.
MOTION: To accept the 11/25/08 Reinhardt-Cremona site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Conlon/6 Valley Road/#IW-08-53/Reconstruct Dwelling, Alteration of Garage, Addition to Barn, Install Septic System, Etc.:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, submitted the roof runoff calculations and noted the roof infiltration systems had been sized for 100 year storms and their capacities were more than was needed. The map, “Proposed B-100a Sanitary Disposal System Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 12/10/08 was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski pointed out the locations of the proposed buffers and circulated photos of the existing conditions. He proposed to abandon the existing well per the State Health Code, remove the existing shed, and then maintain this area as natural buffer. The distance from the well to the river would increase by 15 ft. and from the house to the river by 5 ft. Also, he noted he had moved the location of the barn slightly and a buffer would be added on its north side. He said that the sheet flow conditions from the driveway would be improved because the southern section of the drive would be removed and a buffer added on the north side. He briefly discussed the reasons there were no feasible and prudent alternatives. He proposed that the natural buffer areas to the north of the structures would not be mowed at all and the buffer to the east of the proposed structure would be weed whacked once per year. The development was kept to .4 acres, the buffers increased to .5 acre, and the amount of impervious surfaces decreased. Mr. Szymanski also noted there would be no concentrated runoff flowing towards the river. Mrs. D. Hill said she thought the porch on the barn would be removed. Mr. Szymanski said although this had been discussed, it had been decided to keep it because it was 29 ft. from the river, would not adversely impact the watercourse, and the buffer had been added. Construction was briefly discussed. Mr. Szymanski agreed to add a row of staked hay bales on the downhill side of the construction.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-53 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Conlon to reconstruct the dwelling, add to the barn, alter the garage, and install a septic system at 6 Valley Road subject to the following conditions: 1. the buffer area north of the proposed barn shall never be disturbed, 2. the buffer area to the east shall be weed whacked only once a year, and 3. a row of silt fence shall be added next to the hay bales shown. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Washington Partners, LLC./108 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-08-57/9 Lot Affordable Subdivision:
Atty. Strub said that his client had reviewed the proposal from Milone and MacBroom and said the $5000 maximum charge was reasonable. It was noted the Commission requires the bond posted to be 1.5 times the estimate; $7500 for this review. Mr. Bedini said that Milone and MacBroom would be asked to start its review as soon as possible and the results would be given to the applicant as soon as they were received.New Applications
223 Litchfield Turnpike, LLC./223 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-08-61/ Septic Repair, Site Improvements:
Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Talbot, architect, represented the applicant. The map, “Septic System Repair Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 11/25/08 was reviewed. The “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff dated 12/1/08, including the sequence of construction, was also submitted. Mr. Neff proposed a new septic tank and leaching fields and said pump chambers would be installed to pump effluent to the southwest corner of the site where there is a high dry spot. He noted there were a lot of wetlands throughout the property. The following activities were also proposed: 1) remove old fire escape and entry deck, 2) install new front entry way, 3) resurface parking area, and 4) relocate shed. Mr. Neff said the building had previously been used as a restaurant with an apartment above. The plans are to use it again as a restaurant, but to remove the apartment and use that area as office space and storage. Mr. Neff explained that the areas to be disturbed were fairly level. Mr. Bedini asked where the asphalt parking area runoff would flow. Mr. Neff responded there would be sheet flow around the edges, just as there had been in the past. He did not think there would be much difference between the amount of runoff from the existing gravel and proposed paved areas. Mr. Talbot noted asphalt was preferred so that the parking spaces could be delineated. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Neff noted that the septic installation would require that some trees be cut. Mrs. D. Hill said she was concerned about contaminants and asked if drainage facilities could be installed. Mr. Neff said the configuration of the parking area would not change and it would be difficult to install a catch basin because the land did not slope. Mr. Ajello agreed there was no vertical room in which to install a drainage system and suggested instead that high grass be planted between the parking lot and the wetlands. Mr. Neff added that an infiltration system could not be installed because the ground water level was too high and the ground saturated. Mr. Bohan asked why the proposed 15” pipe was needed. Mr. Neff noted there was a ditch on both sides of the entrance and this would allow the water to flow through east to west. Mr. Talbot said there used to be a pond on the property, but Mr. Neff wasn’t sure that digging a pond to handle the runoff would be a good idea because it would be stagnant. It was noted that the soil scientist’s sketch map had not been submitted. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Ajello to review the erosion control plan.Other Business
Preliminary Discussion/First Washington Capital/89 Lower Church Hill Road:
Atty. Fisher noted that the cliff on this property overlooks Steep Rock. He presented a map of a portion of the property, by architects McGiver-Morgan, dated 12/2/08, on which he noted the location of the proposed house and guest house. He said they would be modestly sized, set back from the cliff, and blend in with the landscape. Atty. Fisher reported that Mr. Temple, soil scientist, had determined that the closest wetlands were 300 feet away, but noted that when Mr. Matthew’s previous proposal had been reviewed, seeps had been found on the hillside. He said he did not think these could be considered intermittent streams by definition, said that a consulting geologist had advised him that the proposed work would not impact the seeps or have any impact on the water system below, noted the stream at the bottom of the slope was at least 600 feet, measured horizontally, from the area of excavation, and asked the Commission if there would be any wetlands issues. Mr. Bedini asked how far the house would be from the cliff. Mr. Ajello said it would be 100 to 150 feet away. Atty. Fisher assumed there would be blasting done to keep the house low so it would be less visible. Mr. Bedini suggested that the right kind of consultant would be needed to look at the seeps and slopes and make the determination whether the proposed work would be under the Commission’s jurisdiction. He added that if it was determined to be under Inland Wetlands’ jurisdiction, a public hearing would be held due to the public interest in this matter. Atty. Fisher questioned the Commission’s jurisdiction, saying that seeps are not watercourses and the proposed work did not require the Commission’s review. Mr. Bedini said it was not known whether the blasting would affect the seeps and if it would, the project would most likely be under the Commission’s jurisdiction. He also noted that the Conservation Commission was concerned about the project so it was proper for the Inland Wetlands Commission to investigate. Mrs. D. Hill and Mr. Thomson said they considered seeps to be regulated. Mr. Bedini asked Atty. Fisher for the following information that would be forwarded to a consultant: 1) extent of the blasting in all three areas where proposed, 2) the distance between the proposed structures and the cliff, 3) what changes to the existing drainage patterns were anticipated, and 4) amount of material to be excavated. Atty. Fisher stated the proposed work would not change the drainage patterns. Mr. Picton asked him for documentation. Mr. Ajello will contact Atty. Zizka to see if there are geologists he would recommend to the Commission for this review. Mr. Bedini instructed staff that all communications, including emails and conversations, must be documented for the file and that this should be the standard practice for all files.Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road:
Atty. Fisher reported that Mr. Andersson was comfortable with the proposed settlement agreement, and he had sent it to the intervener’s attorney four weeks ago, but there still had been no response. He asked the Commission to give the intervener a deadline by which she must decide whether she will support it. Both Mr. Andersson and the Commission were eager to settle this matter. Atty. Fisher suggested that a pretrial conference could be requested if the intervener would not agree to the settlement. Mr. Picton said it should be understood that the Commission still had to review the document and map to make sure it, too, was satisfied. Atty. Fisher said that Mr. Alex had not yet drawn the map that would accompany the agreement; that he wanted to wait until all parties had agreed before doing so. It was the consensus that Atty. Fisher would contact Atty. Zizka to tell him the Commission would like a response from Ms. Martin within two weeks and if it is not received, would like a pretrial conference.Kessler/Mountian Road:
Mr. Ajello said that Mr. Kessler has complained about the cost of the required long term monitoring.Liljequist/Tinker Hill Road:
The citation has been paid.Lodsin/Litchfield Turnpike:
There has been no progress on this matter.McCullers/Plumb Hill Road:
The entire amount of the bond will be returned.Rosen/Nettleton Hollow Road:
Forensic work will be scheduled by the Army Corps of Engineers.Rubler/Wykeham Road:
Mr. Ajello will write to the Rublers to inform them that if they plan to keep the temporary pool access drive, they will have to apply for it. This is under the Commission’s jurisdiction because there are wetlands within 100 feet on the adjoining property. Mr. Picton did not think the bond should be released until this matter is resolved.Thorne/West Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello said he would inspect this site once a week while work is in progress.Moore/Litchfield Turnpike:
Mr. Ajello will inspect the restoration area in the spring and it won’t be determined until then whether the remaining bond will be released.Wright/Scofield Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello noted the vegetation is filling in and he probably could sign off, although he had not made any recent inspections.DiBennedetto/Calhoun Street:
Mr. Ajello said the vegetation had been planted and there had been no recent mowing or pruning. Hopefully, there will be a new round of planting in the spring. A partial bond is still being held.Brown/West Shore Road:
This matter is in court. Mr. Picton reported that the judge had told the owner to try to resolve the matter with the Commission. Mr. Ajello said he would email Atty. Olson.Slaymaker/Sunset Lane:
There is a bond in place to cover the restoration of the areas disturbed by unauthorized work. This item will remain on the agenda.Howard/West Shore Road:
This matter is in court. Ross/Litchfield Turnpike:
Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the site and that Mr. Ross had aggressively tried to remove the Japanese knotweed.Administrative Business
Revision of the Regulations:
This work is still progressing.Consultant’s Report:
This report will be discussed at a meeting with Mr. Connor and the Board of Selectmen on 12/11/08. All commissioners were urged to attend.It was noted this was Mr. Picton’s last meeting. He briefly addressed the Commission.
There was no reason to go into Executive Session.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. D. Hill.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
TOWN of WASHINGTON
Bryan Memorial Town Hall
Post Office Box 383
Washington Depot, CT 06794
INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
SITE INSPECTION REPORTI. APPLICATION #: INSPECTION DATE: 25 November 2008
TIME: 4:00pmII. NAME: Reinhardt-Cremona
III. PROPERTY ADDRESS: Perkins Road
IV. REASON FOR APPLICATION: Execution of Restoration Plan
V. MEMBERS PRESENT: Roger Bohan, Steve Wadelton, Tony Bedini
STAFF PRESENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: NoneVI. REFERENCES: None
VII. OBSERVATIONS: The Commissioners arrived on site at 4:00pm and drove up and parked on Perkins Road. Standing on Perkins Road we observed the rather dense revegetation that has taken place on the Reinhardt and Cremona properties. It appeared to us from our point of observation that the restoration plan is working and the site is well stabilized.
The commissioners left the site at approximately 3:45pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Bedini
TOWN of WASHINGTON
Bryan Memorial Town Hall
Post Office Box 383
Washington Depot, CT 06794
INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
SITE INSPECTION REPORTI. APPLICATION #: IW-08-57 INSPECTION DATE: 25 November 2008
TIME: 3:00pmII. NAME: Washington Partners, LLC
III. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 108 New Milford Turnpike (Route 202)
IV. REASON FOR APPLICATION: 9 Lot Affordable Subdivision
V. MEMBERS PRESENT: Roger Bohan, Steve Wadelton, Tony Bedini
STAFF PRESENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Lord, Environmental Engineer; Mr. Ron George, CCA; Mr. Chris Charles, Washington resident.VI. REFERENCES: Pond View Estates at Washington, An Affordable Housing Project (9 pages)
VII. OBSERVATIONS: The Commissioners arrived on site at 3:00pm and were met by Mr. Lord and Mr. George and joined by Mr. Chris Charles. We parked just off Route 202 in a grass roadway that was quite wet. Following the proposed roadway, we walked the entire site and viewed each of the nine house sites and their proximity to the roadway. We walked to the edge of the wetlands and observed the conditions there. Although all of the proposed house sites lie outside the 100 foot URA, because of the steep slopes in several locations, and portions of the proposed roadway within the 100 foot URA, the plan will require a review by our consultant.
The commissioners left the site at approximately 3:45pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Bedini
Posted: December 9, 2008 November 25, 2008
Public Hearing / Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. LaMuniere
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Szymanski, Atty. Strub, Mr. Charles, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Klauer, Ms. Zinick
PUBLIC HEARING
Revision of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations for the Town of Washington
Mr. Bedini called the Public Hearing to order at 6:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, Picton, and Thomson and Alternate Wadelton for Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Bedini noted that a subcommittee had worked on the proposed revisions for over a year. He explained that the state DEP drafted model regulations based on the current state legislation and that the individual towns could tailor these to meet their needs as long as they stayed within the state guidelines. He said the subcommittee had spent a lot of time to clarify the definitions of the terms used throughout the text. He explained that the proposed revisions were so extensive and complicated that they could not be noted page by page; that if a comparison with the old regulations was needed, the two documents would have to be reviewed side by side.
Mrs. D. Hill noted the draft regulations had been referred to both the DEP and to Atty. Zizka for review. The DEP responded that it did not have the staff to conduct a review and Atty. Zizka was still working on his report.
It was noted that since the last meeting Sections 7.01 and 7.05 had been revised to strongly encourage preliminary discussions and to authorize the Commission to charge applicants for technical reviews of their preliminary proposals.
Mr. Szymanski was the only member of the public present and he had the following questions and comments:
1) There were a number of definitions in the revised regs for words that weren’t used in the text. Mrs. D. Hill explained that the definitions are for words used both in the text and in the Commission’s deliberations.
2) “Understory” was not defined. Mr. Szymanski said this term is used on the Town website and it is clear that that cutting the understory can be a regulated activity, so he thought a definition should be added for clarity. Mr. Picton thought it was a good idea to be more specific and to add this term. Mrs. D. Hill said it was covered under the definition of clearing, but agreed it would be clearer if it was included in the definition of regulated activity as well.
3) Mr. Szymanski noted there was a new definition of upland review area, which stated that slopes greater than 12% may be included. He said he wanted to know up front whether all slopes over 12% were included, thought this might have left too much to subjective interpretation, and asked why 12% was used and not 15%, for example. Mr. Picton explained that much depended on the scope and the nature of the proposed activity. Mr. Szymanski noted that the majority of slopes in Washington are greater than 12%, so he asked the Commission to reconsider. He also asked for greater clarity.
4) Under Inventory, Mr. Szymanski did not know how many of the listed criteria can be used to prove a wetland or watercourse. He noted that typically a soil scientist makes the determination. Mrs. D. Hill noted that elsewhere in that section soil scientists are referred to and she said the proposed language was taken directly from the model regs. Mr. Szymanski stated that aerial maps could not be solely relied on. Mr. Picton suggested “mapping by a certified soil scientist” be added.
5) In Section 7.02 Mr. Szymanski recommended a specific reference to the Inland Wetlands Commission secretary, not the land use secretary as currently written. He also asked if 3 days was enough notice. It will be clarified that this is 3 business days.
6) In 8.05d Mr. Szymanski recommended 2 ft. contours. Mr. Picton agreed that the Commission should be able to require more accurate details.
7) 8.06b refers to land contours, but not to contour intervals.
8) In 8.05g Mr. Szymanski asked if the Commission could make the paragraph on alternatives more detailed.
9) He noted that the language in 8.05g and 8.06f did not match.
10) The mandatory conservation easement form should be added to the list of requirements in Section 8.05.
11) Mr. Szymanski recommended that in lieu of the sketch map by the soil scientist, the Commission could accept the soil scientist’s statement that he has reviewed the survey map and the wetlands were accurately shown. He said that would bring down the cost for applicants.
12) Mr. Szymanski asked that a maximum number of copies of the application material be specified. The Commission declined to do so.
13) In 8.09 Mr. Szymanski thought there should be a time limit for submitting renewal or amendment requests. Mr. Picton suggested that it say the renewal request must be submitted 3 months prior to the permit’s expiration date, but that consequences should this fail to be done need not be included. Atty. Strub noted he has worked with the Inland Wetlands Commissions in many other towns who approve 30 day permit extensions, which works well.
14) Regarding 10.01, Mr. Szymanski asked what the word, “reside,” meant.
15) In 10.02 “(s)” should be changed to “(2).”
16) In 10.03 Mr. Szymanski noted that the notice requirement in many other towns is for properties within 500 ft., not 200 ft. as proposed.
17) Mr. Szymanski asked if the references to 35 day time periods were accurate in Section 12.02. He was told they were.
18) Mr. Szymanski suggested the Commission add the statement in 20.07 that if an application is denied because it is incomplete, the fee will not be waived upon resubmission.
19) Mr. Szymanski recommended that sample mandatory conservation easement and owner authorization forms be included at the end of the Regulations.Mr. Picton asked why “herbaceous plants” was deleted from section 2.45. He noted that not all of the species listed were wetlands plants and he recommended either leave this term in or just refer to wetlands plants.
In the first line of 2.42 Mr. Picton asked if there was a better word that could be used instead of “major.” Mrs. D. Hill said this language had been taken from the DEP model. Mr. Picton suggested, “may adversely affect” or “may have an adverse affect.” Mr. Bedini said this matter would be considered later by the subcommittee.
Mr. Bedini noted the hearing would be continued in order to receive Atty. Zizka’s review and that all of the comments made tonight would be reviewed before the next meeting.
MOTION: To continue the Public Hearing to consider the revision of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Regulations of the Town of Washington, Ct. to December 10, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
At 6:48 p.m. Mr. Bedini continued the Public Hearing.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Bedini called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, Picton, and Thomson and Alternate Wadelton for Mr. LaMuniere.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: Consideration of the 11/5/08 Special Meeting minutes. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 10/22/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 2: Mrs. Hill abstained from the vote on the 10/9/08 Public Hearing minutes because she had not read them.
Page 5: 2nd full parargraph: 12th line: Add: “for erosion control” after “ongoing construction.” 20th line: Add “in places” after “from the wetlands.” 32nd line: Insert: “entirely” before “relied on.”
Page 6: End of 2nd paragraph: Add: “and would draft a motion to deny” to the end of the last sentence.
Page 7: 1st line: Should be Mrs. J. Hill. Reger motion: 7th line: Change: “required” to “investigated.”
Page 9: Under Buell: Next to the last sentence: Insert: “prudent” before “alternatives.
Page 11: Under LU Consultant: Should be Mrs. J. Hill.MOTION: To accept the 10/22/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
The 11/12/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 3: 10th line from bottom: Insert after “footings:” “for the kitchen addition.” 9th line from bottom: Insert: “larger” before “addition.”
Page 6: 3rd sentence from bottom: Reword to read: “…grading closest to wetlands was well away from structures….”MOTION: To accept the 11/12/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 11/19/08 Sen site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Picton abstained because he had not attended the site inspection.
MOTION: To accept the 11/19/08 Town of Washington site inspection minutes was written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Picton abstained because he had not attended.
MOTION: To accept the 11/19/08 Moore site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 3-0-2. Mr. Thomson and Mr. Picton abstained because they had not attended.
MOTION: To accept the 11/19/08 Beckett site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Picton abstained because he had not attended.
The 10/29/08 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 3: First full paragraph: End of first sentence: After “implemented and completed” insert: “without unnecessary risk to wetlands and watercourses.”
Page 7: 3rd paragraph: Should be Mrs. D. Hill. 3rd paragraph, 3rd line: Change to: “…if changes to the development in the area of the septic system are proposed.”
Page 11: 2nd paragraph, 7th line: Change: “three engineers” to “two engineers.”MOTION: To accept the 10/29/08 Special Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 11/5/08 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0. Other Business
Federer Appeal of #IW-08-31 Pursuant to CGS Section 47-42(d)(c):
Mr. Bedini noted that Atty. Zizka had recommended in his 11/25/08 letter that the Commission decline to make a finding as requested in the appeal and also decline to reverse its decision to approve the application at this time. Mr. Picton agreed that these were legal issues that should be determined by the court. MOTION: Regarding the Federer appeal of the Wykeham Rise, LLC./#IW-08-31 approval; to follow the advice of the Commission’s attorney to take no action until/unless directed to do so by the court. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Conlon/6 Valley Road/#IW-08-53:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented the map, “Proposed B-100a Sanitary Disposal System Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc, revised to 11/25/08, and said it was a better alternative than the previous plan. He explained that the garage had been shifted south to move it closer to the house and increase its distance from the Shepaug River by 10 to 15 feet. He said it would be in an area away from the well where minimum grading would be required. He also noted the infiltration of all roof leaders and said the limit of disturbance line at the top of the slope would provide a reasonable work area. He said the owners did not want to move the garage farther north because they wanted it near the house and the northern location would have required filling. Mr. Picton suggested attaching the garage to the house or rotating it. Mr. Szymanski said the owners wanted a separate garage and said the alternate location discussed would require an expensive 6 ft. high retaining wall with drainage, which per the Health Code, could not be located within 25 feet of the well, so the existing well would have to be abandoned and a new one drilled. Mr. Picton was concerned that a structure would be located only 28 feet from the river. Mr. Szymanski said this was not significant because between them was a scrub area that provides for sheet flow and treatment of runoff. Mr. Picton objected to the enlargement of a building so close to the river. Mr. Szymanski stated it could not be located to the south of the house because if it was, it could not accommodate a studio. Mr. Picton suggested the studio could be located in the attic or the basement of the house or foregone if there was no room. Mr. Szymanski noted the proposed house footprint was smaller than the existing footprint and an infiltration system had been added. He said the applicant was trying to find a balance between protecting the environment and using the property reasonably. Mr. Picton noted that property owners used to try to stay away from wetlands resources, but now they instead try to justify doing what they want. Mr. Szymanski said in this case, with both Zoning and Inland Wetlands setbacks to consider, there is about an 80 ft. square unrestricted area to work in. The previous plan dated 11/3/08 was compared to the current plan. Mrs. D. Hill asked if the porch could be deleted to keep the building farther from the river. Mr. Thomson thought the size constraints shown and the addition of the infiltration system made this a sensible plan. Mr. Szymanski noted that with the removal of the porch there could be a 25 ft. wide undisturbed buffer the entire length of the river and he drew it in on the map. He also proposed to increase the width of the buffer north of the proposed garage. Both buffer areas would be seeded with a meadow mix and mowed once a year. Mrs. D. Hill said there should be no mowing along the river’s edge. Mr. Szymanski said the half nearest to the river would not be mowed and offered to add this note to the plan if the owners agreed. Mr. Picton thought there had been an inadequate effort made to locate the structures as far from the river as possible and to provide a standard width riparian buffer.Buell/3 Findley Road/#IW-08-54/Addition, Enclose Porch, Deck, Spa, Pool:
Ms. Zinick, agent, and Mrs. Buell were present. Ms. Zinick noted that at the last meeting the Commission had asked for specific information and she submitted a written statement that addressed those concerns. She noted that the recreational activities had been eliminated from the application and would be applied for separately in the future. She pointed out that erosion controls and a stockpile area had been added to the site plan. Photos of the property were circulated. She noted there would be 32 cubic yards of excavated material that would be used on site for the frost wall of the foundation and that a proposed septic system layout had been submitted. Mr. Bedini asked Ms. Zinick to label the silt fence and limit of disturbance line on the site plan and to delete the references to the recreational activities from the application form. Ms. Zinick made the revisions, dated, and initialed them. Mr. Picton noted that these revisions should have been made in the office prior to the meeting. Ms. Zinick submitted her letter of authorization. It was noted the DEP form had been corrected and the mandatory conservation easement form had been submitted.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-54 submitted by Mrs. Buell to construct an addition on the south side of the house, enclose the porch off the kitchen, and install a septic system per the revisions to the application and site plan dated 11/12/08 with the stipulation that the only activities approved are those referenced above. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
Moore/127 Blackville Road/#IW-08-55/Well:
Ms. Zinick, agent, and Mr. Moore were present. The map, “Proposed Sanitary Disposal System Plan & B-100a Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., revised to 10/31/08 was reviewed. It showed the proposed house location was just over the 100 ft. upland review line, but the well was approximately 80 feet from the wetlands. It was noted that both the septic system and stockpile area would be outside the upland review area. Mrs. D. Hill thought the meadow should be left to grow naturally and that mowing along the wetlands should be limited. Mr. Moore said he did not mow the wet corner. Mr. Bedini noted the silt fence line was also the limit of disturbance. No other issues had been raised on the site inspection.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-55 submitted by Mr. Moore to install a well at 127 Blackville Road subject to the condition that the wetlands soils remain undisturbed and there is no mowing past the wetlands flags. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Picton abstained because he had not attended the site inspection.
From this point on, Mr. Bohan was seated for Mr. Picton.
Beckett/23 Loomarwick Road/#IW-08-56/Reconstruct Dwelling, Install Septic System:
Mr. Baker and Mr. Lassard from Civil 1, Mr. Diller, architect, Mr. Klein, environmentalist, and Atty. Strub were present. They submitted the map, “Proposed Subsurface Sewage Disposal System,” by Civil 1, revised to 11/20/08 to show which trees would be removed. Atty. Strub noted the entire property is located within the review area and the goal is to rebuild in a reasonable way. In doing so, the distance between the house and the wetlands will be increased to 26 ft., a stonewall will be installed to delineate the wetlands and prevent further development from creeping towards them, a rain garden will be installed to treat and renovate stormwater runoff, a new septic system will be installed, and landscaping will be done. He submitted the Health Dept. approval for the septic system. Mr. Bedini noted the site was constrained, but that the proposed house location was an improvement and there was no other viable location for the septic system. There was a discrepancy in the two wetlands flaggings and it was noted that this was likely because it is difficult to use an auger on rocky sloped sites. Mr. Baker pointed out the limit of disturbance line. He also noted the drainage pipe that outlets to the road drainage system and the pipe from the footing drain to the rain garden. Mr. Bedini noted that Mrs. Frank, Conservation Commission, noted the Town culvert on Tinker Hill Road dumps water on the property. Mr. Baker said this water feeds the wetlands area and is manageable. Mr. Klein agreed, saying it was a common situation and there would be no need to divert it from its traditional path. Mr. Baker pointed out an area on the property where there has been some dumping and where dense shrubs will be planted to prevent this from happening again in the future. Mr. Klein said the prepared plant list would be supplemented with native species and that he would be willing to meet in the field with the EO to discuss where they should be planted. Mr. Picton stated that the proposed footprint had not increased much over the existing and that the plan tried to observe the optimum setbacks and enhance the wetlands buffers. Mr. Bedini said he did not see any alternatives that would improve the plan. Mrs. D. Hill stated the current plan was an improvement over previously submitted plans.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-56 submitted by Mrs. Beckett to reconstruct the house, install a septic system, remove a shed, and landscape at 23 Loomarwick Road per the map, “Proposed Subsurface Sewage Disposal System,” by Civil 1 dated 11/0/08, revised to 11/20/08. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Washington Partners, LLC./108 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-08-57/ Affordable Housing Subdivision:
Atty. Strub represented the applicant. Mr. Bedini noted that a site inspection had been conducted earlier, but the minutes had not yet been written. Hiring a consultant was discussed. Mr. Bedini stated that over time he would like the Commission to use three different consulting firms, Land Tech, Fuss and O’Neill, and Milone and McBroom, to get a broader outlook and determine whether any one of them has a proficiency in a particular area. Atty. Strub said that all were very qualified, but that based on cost, his applicant’s first choice would be Land Tech and then Milone and McBroom over Fuss and O’Neill. Mr. Picton stated that due to the wetlands resources on site, the Commission would favor an ecologically driven review. Mr. Bedini said he had talked with Milone and McBroom who would review the application for compliance with the Regulations, review the engineering for stormwater management, and report on the environmental aspects of the application. He said all communications with the consulting firm would be in writing and should go through the land use office. Atty. Strub asked that the Commission be flexible and allow phone calls when doing so would save time and money. Mr. Bedini agreed as long as a written report on what transpired was submitted for the file. Mr. Bedini noted a public hearing had been scheduled to consider this application because there was a likelihood of significant impact to the wetlands due to the steep slopes on site and due to public interest. Mr. Picton hoped that in the interest of improving the review process the Commission’s environmental concerns would be incorporated in the plan, resulting in a better outcome for all parties. He thought that ideally there should have been a preliminary review before the final plans had been drafted and that this would have allowed an opportunity for creative site planning. He thought perhaps instead of a conventional subdivision layout, massing the proposed structures in area suitable for development might better address ecological concerns. Mr. Bedini agreed that good communications were needed and the applicant should understand the Wetlands Commission’s concerns. Mr. Strub said he agreed in theory. Mr. Picton hoped a good environmental analyst would recommend site planning to address environmental concerns and said the applicant could benefit from an alternate plan as well. Atty. Strub briefly described the review process in Southbury, noting the planning aspects of the review were addressed in the beginning of the process, not in stage II. It was not known whether Milone and McBroom would have its review ready for the December meeting.Town of Washington/112 Walker Brook Road/#IW-08-58/Road Drainage Improvements:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented the map, “Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., dated 9/22/08. It was noted that a site inspection had been held to review the work proposed in the Town right of way. As discussed previously, the work would remediate the erosion on the uphill side of the road. The slopes would be reinforced with filter fabric with field stone on top and in areas where steep slopes have eroded, a field stone boulder retaining wall would be constructed. Mr. Coleman, adjoining property owner, is willing to pay for this work and will be responsible per agreement filed on the Town Land Records for its maintenance in perpetuity.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-58 submitted by the Town of Washington for road drainage improvements at 112 Walker Brook Road as drawn on the 9/22/08 site development plan. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, passed 5-0.
Sen/116 Shearer Road/#IW-08-59/Addition, Renovations, Septic, Driveway, Pool:
The map, “Proposed B-100a Sanitary Disposal System Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., dated 10/9/08 was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski, engineer, noted the greatest concerns expressed at the site inspection were the potential impacts 1) north of the barn where grading was proposed, 2) in the area where the pool will be installed, 3) in the area where the septic system will be installed, 4) south of the pool where fill is proposed to level this area, and 5) the relocation of the springhouse to the kennel site. He pointed out two areas where natural meadow to be mowed only once a year were proposed. The limit of disturbance and location of staked hay bales were noted. Mrs. J. Hill questioned the need to relocate the springhouse. Mr. Szymanski said the owners could not now see it from the house. Mr. Bedini thought most of the proposed activities were under control. His one concern was the grading for the septic system near the regulated area. Mr. Szymanski read his notation concerning the natural buffer.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-59 submitted by Mr. Sen to construct an addition, demolish and rebuild barn, install pool and septic system, relocate driveway and springhouse at 116 Shearer Road per the plans dated 10/9/08 by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Town of Washington/101 School Street/Removal of Invasives:
Mr. Thomson noted the location of the property, of the wetlands on the property, and the areas totaling .7 acres where he proposed to remove invasives, all of which were within 10 to 20 feet of the wetlands. The plants to be treated and removed were mainly phragmites and Japanese knotweed. In response to a question from Mrs. J. Hill at a previous meeting, he said there was no way to eradicate the knotweed in Canoe Brook near the Senior Center. He explained the process to remove the plants would be to cut them back in June, bag the stalks, and carry them off site and to apply herbicide in late August, early September. Mr. Thomson was not optimistic about getting the funds to accomplish this work. He said if the application was approved tonight, it had to be submitted to the state and 25% of the funds raised by 12/8/08. The application is sponsored by the Park and Rec Commission with approval of the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Thomson noted that maintenance would be required in the second year and care will be taken not to convert the denuded areas to lawn.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-60 submitted by the Town of Washington to remove invasives at 101 School Street. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Reinhardt/Perkins Road/Execution of Approved Restoration Plan/ Request for Release of Bond:
Mr. Picton said he inspected the site today, thought it looked OK, and recommended the bond be released. He thought any other action would not be consistent with the agreement. Mr. Bedini agreed, saying it looked like a good root system had been established. Mrs. D. Hill also recommended release of the bond.MOTION: To return to Mrs. Reinhardt the portion of the bond that remains according to the Commission’s agreement with her. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Thomson, passed 5-0.
Geurts/46 June Road/Request for Revision of Permit #IW-08-46: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, noted that site plan improvements had been made and submitted the map, “Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., revised to 11/18/08. The revisions included: 1) the proposed house and workshop were moved farther from the upland review area, 2) rechargers were added to infiltrate roof runoff from the barn and from the house, and 3) retaining walls were added between the house and the barn, at the NW corner of the house, north of the house, and east of the house to minimize slopes. The slopes were originally 10-12% but 5-6% slopes are now proposed. The underground infiltration system was briefly discussed. The commissioners had no problem with the proposed revisions.
MOTION: To approve the request by Mr. Geurts/46 June Road to revise Permit #IW-08-46 per the 11/18/08 plan by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc. to revised the house footprint, construct retaining walls in six areas, and make minor changes to the overall site grades. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, passed 5-0.
McCullers/18 Plumb Hill Road/Request for Release of Bond:
It was noted that Mr. Ajello reported the disturbed area had been restored to its original condition.MOTION: To return the $5000 bond to Mr. McCullers/18 Plumb Hill Road because the restoration requirements have been met as documented by the WEO. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road: The Commission is waiting for the finalized agreement.DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory: It was noted this property would be monitored for a while.
Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-07-V12/Unauthorized Excavation: Mr. Bedini read the 11/25/08 EO Report. It was the consensus to wait until a report from the Army Corps of Engineers is received before referring this matter to Atty. Zizka.
Administrative Business
Incomplete Applications: Mr. Bedini noted that applications such as Buell should be completed in the land use office prior to the meeting. Mr. Thomson suggested that incomplete applications be denied without prejudice.General Questions and Procedures: There was a lengthy discussion regarding general wetlands issues. These included: 1) importance of buffers, 2) desire to have consultants examine alternatives that will better serve the environment, 3) requiring applicants to show feasible and prudent alternatives, especially when the property has steep slopes, 4) shortcomings of the EO review for Wykeham Rise, LLC., 5) concern that mitigation is often proposed as a feasible and prudent alternative, 6) what is meant by likelihood of adverse impact, 7) balancing the need to get information from the Commission’s consultant as early in the process as possible and the need to keep costs down for the applicant, 8) the importance of commissioners reviewing materials on their own and using their experience and judgment to make decisions, 9) possibility of having a seminar at a native plant nursery in Woodbury, and 10) the need to have frequent discussions like this one to air Commission problems and concerns, consider new ideas, get answers to questions, etc.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Bedini. Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
- SITE VISIT MINUTES -
SITE INSPECTION REPORT
I. APPLICATION #: IW-08-56
INSPECTION DATE: 19 November 2008
TIME: 3:25 to 3:45pmII. NAME: Beckett
III. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 23 Loomarwick Road
IV. REASON FOR APPLICATION: Reconstruct Dwelling, Install Septic System
V. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dorothy Hill, Steve Wadelton, Tony Bedini
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Ajello
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Eric Diller, Architect; Mr. Brian Becker, Eng.; Mr. Zackary Lessard, Eng.; Mr. Jim Cowen, Environmental Scientist, Ms. Linda Frank, Conservation Commission.VI. REFERENCES: Site Plan, Grading Plan, Erosion Control Plan by Civil One, Co. (2 pages) dated 03 Nov 08.
VII. OBSERVATIONS: The Commissioners arrived on site at 3:25 pm and were met by the above mentioned people (in “others present”). The existing house, porch and chimney are leaning at a precarious angle in the northerly downhill direction. The structure is literally falling apart. It is proposed to demolish the existing structure and a shed south of the structure. The site is extremely constricted by the property lines (a total area of 0.804 acres), the wetlands to the west side, Loomarwick Road on the east side and Tinker Hill Road to the south, and Zoning restrictions. The only available area for the new pumped septic system is south and uphill of the proposed house. The proposed three bedroom house has a smaller footprint than the existing structure. The driveway and turn-around is of minimal size. The house has been located in the best orientation possible given the constraints and as far from wetlands as possible. Given all those issues, the majority of the house footprint is in the 50 foot wetland setback line, the closest point of the house is 26.5 feet from the flagged wetland boundary.
Several very large trees will be cut flush with the ground and stumps left in place. Some of the trees are Ash and of those, some are dead. An area of about 10 to 15 feet wide will be graded around the house and a 2’ x 2’ x 60’ long stone wall will be erected between the wetlands and the edge of the graded area on the west side. Proposed is a 150’ long wetland planting buffer along the west side, between the building and the wetland, and extending past the building in both directions. The north end of the buffer ends at the proposed rain garden used to process all the runoff water from the building.
Ms. Frank is concerned about water that is being directed onto the property at the south end from a culvert on Tinker Road. This only occurs during storm events, but can be a substantial quantity of water. Mr. Cowen noted that this water runs along some small intermittent streams, but they show no signs of scouring so he does not believe it poses a significant problem. Not dumping the water onto the property would best for all concerned. We might mention this to Mr. Kevin Smith, our town engineer.
The documentation is very well done with considerable detail showing or listing the following items:
Water quality volume sizing of the rain garden.
Invert elevations.
Earthwork quantity in 100’ regulated area.
Earthwork quantity in 50’ wetland setback area.
R-3 Zoning summary.
Double Arc Biodiffuser detail.
Pump chamber & pump installation details.
Construction sequence.
Planting details.
MLSS Calculations.
Curtain drain detail.
Rain garden detail.
Soil testing results by Civil One and others.
General septic notes.
Inspections.
Fill requirements.The Commissioners left the site at 3:45pm.
Respectfully submitted, Tony Bedini
SITE INSPECTION REPORT
I. APPLICATION #: IW-08-60
INSPECTION DATE: 19 Nov. 2008
TIME: 1:35 to 2:05pmII. NAME: Reemah Sen
III. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 115 Shearer Road
IV. REASON FOR APPLICATION: Addition, Renovations, Septic, Driveway
V. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dorothy Hill, Steve Wadelton, Tony Bedini
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Ajello, WEO
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Paul Szymanski, P.E., representing the applicant.VI. REFERENCES: Map and layout titled; Proposal B-100A Sanitary Disposal System Plan, SDS.1, dated October 9, 2008, and Proposed Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan, dated October 14 2008
VI. OBSERVATIONS: We pulled into the driveway and parked in front of the existing barn. The barn and attached structure appear to be recently built and are in new condition. The structure is to be removed and replaced by a pool house and garage. The pool house will have the garage beneath the first floor and access is from the back, or west end, at ground level. A proposed pool and associated patio is located directly behind, and 50 feet to the west of the pool house. Another proposed garage is to be attached to the west of the existing main house. At the south end of the property it is proposed to move the existing spring house to an existing kennel area; a move of about 45 feet north of the present site. To the south and east of the buildings and along the property line, lies a wetland area. A 50 foot buffer is proposed along the length of the wetland that will only be mowed annually. At the northwest corner of the property starting at Shearer Road, another wetland area extends along the northerly property line. This too is proposed to have a buffer area that will only be mowed annually.
All of the construction activity is well outside the 100 foot regulated line from the wetlands. Some grading activity from the septic and a small portion (<300 sq.ft.) of the driveway on the south side of the property will just break into the 100 foot regulated area. The proposed driveway on the north side of the house and garage will cut through a portion of the 100 foot regulated area. It will be no closer than 60 feet from the edge of the flagged wetlands. We detected no apparent wetlands impact from the proposed activities.
All the maps and plans are well documented. The erosion and sedimentation control details are complete. Limits of disturbance, 100 foot upland review area, contour lines, and septic system are all well described and indicated on the plans.
We left the site at 2:05pm.
Respectfully submitted, Tony Bedini
SITE INSPECTION REPORT
I. APPLICATION #: IW-08-56
II. NAME: Town of Washington
III. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 112 Walker Brook Rd
IV. REASON FOR APPLLICATION: Drainage improvements
V. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tony Bedini, Dorothy Hill, Steve Wadelton,
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Ajello
OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Szymanski, EngineerVI. OBSERVATIONS: References: Site Development Plan (1 page) dated: Sept 22, 2008
The site visit team traveled south along Walker Brook road and observed several areas where serious erosion is taking place on the east side of the road, bordering the Coleman property which consists mostly of steep banks. The west side of the road falls off sharply to Walker Brook. There are several existing drainage pipes running under the road that carry the water from two existing watercourses and all the runoff from the banks to the brook.
The proposed plan is to clean an existing drainage swale to eliminate pooling. Additionally bank stabilization will be provided by “boulder packing” in three locations and several field stone drainage channels will be provided to channel the runoff to the existing drainage pipes. All of the work will be carried out on the east side of the road, away from Walker brook.
The team departed the site at approximately 2:20 PM, November 19, 2008
Stephen L. Wadelton
November 22, 2008
SITE INSPECTION REPORT
I. APPLICATION #: IW-08-58
II. NAME: Moore, Daniel & Sandra
III. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 127 Blackville Rd
IV. REASON FOR APPLLICATION: Construct house & driveway, install well and septic
V. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tony Bedini, Dorothy Hill, Steve Wadelton,
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Ajello
OTHERS PRESENT: Sandrq Moore, Tammy ZinickVI. OBSERVATIONS The Moores plan to build a second larger house on their property to accommodate their growing family. The new house and new septic system will be a few feet out of the commissions 100’ review area, as will the extended driveway. The new well will be +/-20’within the review area.
The land where construction is proposed is the flatter portion of the property which slopes down to Mallory Brook. Natural vegetation is allowed to grow as a buffer for the brook; perhaps this buffer should be allowed on the wetlands adjacent to the brook.
A flat tire caused Ms Zinick’s late arrival at the site but shwe did arrive in time to confirm that the commission had observed and noted was necessary ( with Mrs Moore’s help)
Dorothy G. Hill 11/24/08
Posted: November 21, 2008 November 12, 2008
Regular Meeting
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. LaMuniere
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Atty. Strub, Mr. Szymanski, Ms. Zinick, Atty. Kelly, Mr. George, Mr. Diller, Mrs. Beckett, Mr. Lassard, Mrs. Federer
Mr. Picton called the Meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, Picton, and Thomson and Alternate Wadelton for Mr. LaMuniere. Mr. Picton announced that he would resign as Chairman tonight and would resign from the Commission after the next meeting.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: New Application D. Town of Washington/112 Walker Brook Road South/#IW-08-58/Road Drainage Improvements; Other Business: Election of Officers. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The following corrections to the 10/22/08 Minutes were noted.
P. 2: Mrs. Hill abstained from the vote on the 10/9/08 Public Hearing minutes because she had not yet read them.
P. 5: 2nd full paragraph: 12th line: Add “for erosion control” after “ongoing construction.” 20th line: Add “in places” after “from the wetlands.” 32nd line: Insert “entirely” before “relied on.”
P. 6: End of 2nd paragraph: Add “and would draft a motion to deny” to the end of the last sentence.
P. 7: Reger motion: 7th line: Change “required” to “investigated.”
It was the consensus to wait until the next Meeting to vote on the Minutes because not everyone had had time to read them.MOTION: To add the following subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: New Application E. Sen/116 Shearer Road/#IW-08-59/Addition to Dwelling, Renovations, Septic System, Driveway. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
The 10/28/08 Conlon site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. Insert after “driveway” to read, “…another possible route for the driveway and for the location of the garage should be explored.”
MOTION: To accept the 10/28/08 Conlon site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. D. Hill advised the commissioners not to circulate site inspection minutes for comments prior to the Meeting unless they are marked “Draft.”
MOTION: To accept the 10/28/08 Buell site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Conlon/6 Valley Road/#IW-08-53/Reconstruct Dwelling, Alteration of Garage, Addition to Barn, Septic System:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented the map, “Proposed B-100a Sanitary Disposal System Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 11/12/08. He said that after the site inspection he had consider moving the garage to the south side of the house. He noted, however, that the Conlons had given their word to the adjoining property owners that the garage would be kept in its original location. Mr. Szymanski discussed the measures proposed to minimize the potential impacts. He noted that currently the roof runoff is untreated. He proposed to redirect runoff from both the house and garage to rechargers sized for a 100 year storm event. He proposed to remove a portion of the existing driveway and noted the renovations proposed for the garage would bring it approximately 4 ft. farther from the river. Mr. Szymanski stated that all construction would be done from the uphill side of the property and that as proposed, a minimal amount of regrading would be necessary. Mr. Ajello asked if plantings were proposed along the river. Mr. Szymanski responded that except for the area north of the well to be abandoned, he would have no problem with a requirement that the meadow be left natural and mowed only once a year. Mrs. Hill asked why the garage had to be so deep. She did not favor bringing it towards the river. Mr. Picton suggested an alternate location for the garage would be in the southwest corner next to the house where it would better conform to both the zoning and wetlands setbacks and result in a more compact development footprint. Mr. Szymanski said if it was built in that location, a retaining wall and approximately 500 sq. ft. of impervious surfaces would have to be added. Mr. Picton thought the structures should be sited to create the highest likelihood of wetlands protection. Mrs. Hill suggested moving the garage to the south. Mr. Szymanski thought this was a good idea because it would increase the separation distance to the river with only a minimal increase in impervious surface. Mr. Picton said a second alternative would be to attach the garage to the house. Mr. Bedini noted that would require less digging into the bank. Mr. Szymanski will consult with the owners and possibly return with a revised plan. Mrs. Hill highly recommended pre application advice for this type of discussion.Buell/3 Findley Road/#IW-08-54/Addition, Enclose Porch, Deck, Spa, Above Ground Pool:
Ms. Zinick, agent, circulated photos of the property for those who had not attended the site inspection. She pointed out on the portion of the survey map, #1155, filed on the Land Records, the location of the 16’ X 20’ barn foundation where the hot tub with surrounding deck was proposed. She said the foundation would not be disturbed, the hot tub would be placed on the gravel area, and 2’ X 8’ framing would be built around it. She submitted a sketch and diagram. Mr. Picton asked why the hot tub was proposed only 25 ft. from the river and said alternate sites had to be discussed. He suggested that a patio be installed on the foundation and the hot tub be installed further away. Mrs. Hill agreed. Ms. Zinick said the land becomes wet and spongy as you go further north and that years ago there was a spring house and iron pipe in that area. Mrs. Hill said she found this area to be firm. Mr. Picton noted all of the other proposed activities were at least 50 feet from wetlands and encouraged the applicant to move the tub back, too. The additions to the dwelling were briefly discussed. Ms. Zinick noted the footings would be hand dug and the addition built on a slab. Mr. Picton noted the particulars of the site; the area to be disturbed is almost flat and is existing lawn so there was not much concern about erosion resulting from the work on the addition or enclosed porch. It was noted the following information was missing from the plans: 1) site conditions, 2) dimensions, 3) erosion controls, 4) limit of disturbance line. Mr. Picton asked that the floor plan be labeled and the dimensions be written on the site plan. Ms. Zinick drew in the limit of disturbance line approximately 20 ft. from the house. Mr. Ajello noted the DEP form was incomplete. Mr. Picton questioned why the applicant had not been advised of the missing information prior to the meeting. Ms. Zinick said she would submit a description of the complete list of activities being applied for and would provide the other information requested at the next Meeting. She said she would delete the activities other than the house additions, so that the Commission could act on them at the next meeting.
New Applications
Moore/127 Blackville Road/#IW-08-55/Well:
Ms. Zinick, agent, presented the map, “Proposed Sanitary Disposal System Plan & B-100a Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 10/31/08. She noted the only activity proposed within the regulated area was the drilling of the well, said the land was gently sloping except for the steep slopes near the existing house, and pointed out the locations of the proposed house, driveway, and septic system just outside the regulated area. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. Ms. Zinick noted the house site was staked.Beckett/23 Loomarwick Road/#IW-08-56/Reconstruct Dwelling, Install Septic System:
Atty. Strub, Mr. Diller, architect, and Mr. Lassard, engineer, represented the applicant. Atty. Strub submitted the mandatory conservation easement form. He noted the current proposal was a different plan than the one the Commission reviewed several years ago, saying it had decreased in scope and attempted to respect and reconcile both the wetlands and zoning setbacks. A variance must still be granted by the ZBA, however. He said the existing structure was only 1.6 feet from the wetlands, but by rotating it, the proposed rebuilt structure would be 26.5 feet away. He noted Mr. Klein, soil scientist, had flagged the wetlands and had prepared a planting plan, which included a stonewall to separate the planting area and to provide a tangible separation from the wetlands. Mr. Picton said this was a good idea because it allowed a 14 ft. wide buffer area. Mrs. Hill asked that both the soil scientist’s report and his sketch map be submitted. The map, “Proposed Subsurface Sewage Disposal System,” by Civil 1, dated 11/3/08 was reviewed. It was noted the wetlands had been flagged twice and there were two wetlands lines on the map. Mr. Lassard noted the site conditions and activities proposed. He said the property was 8/10 of an acre, the brook flowed south to north through the property, a dwelling similar in size to the existing structure was proposed, but it would placed farther from the wetlands, a rain garden and an infiltration trench on the north side of the driveway were proposed to handle the driveway runoff, the existing shed would be removed and the area replanted, and he pointed out the limit of disturbance line. He said he had considered putting the septic system where the house is proposed, but said the soils were not suitable. He also noted a new well is proposed. Mr. Diller compared the existing and proposed lot coverage and house size. These figures are provided on the site plan. He stated that the area of the lot not in the wetland and zoning setbacks was extremely small and there was no viable option for rebuilding the house on the existing footprint. Tree cutting was discussed. Mr. Diller said the lot was not heavily wooded and the spruce and hemlocks would remain. Mr. Lassard said only dead trees would be cut in the wetlands and the stumps would be left. Mr. Picton noted that Mr. Ajello should be consulted about any proposed clearing within the regulated area. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 3:30 p.m.Washington Partners, LLC./108 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-08-57/9 Lot Affordable Subdivision:
Atty. Strub and Mr. George, engineer, represented the applicant. Mr. George presented the plans, “Pond View Estates at Washington,” 10 sheets, by CCA, LLC., revised to 8/28/08 and passed out copies of the project report, also by CCA, LLC., dated 10/23/08. Mr. Picton asked for a brief overview. Mr. George said the application was for a 9 lot affordable housing subdivision with a new road less than 1000 ft. long. He noted the 30+ acre property on the north side of Rt. 202 has an existing curb cut and also abuts Flirtation Avenue. There is a 9.6 acre wetland on the east side. He said the wetlands had been flagged and an environmental impact study had been done. Mr. George said the existing access would be widened and an open bottomed arched culvert, which would be more like a bridge than a culvert, would be installed. He noted there was both grading and filling for the road proposed within the regulated area and stated that the wetlands on the state property at the entrance would be impacted. He described the road as 20 ft. wide with vegetated swales along its side. The catch basins along the road will collect all runoff from the impervious surfaces and this will be directed to a sediment pond. He pointed out other proposed activities; installation of some driveways and grading, also within the regulated area. Rain gardens for the management of roof runoff were proposed for six of the nine proposed houses. It was noted that the Health Department had approved the application. It was the consensus that the application should be referred to an environmental consultant/engineer because there are significant wetland resources on the site. Mr. Picton recommended either Milone and McBroom or Fuss and O’Neill. Mr. Picton also thought that if an environmental planning consultant was used he could also incorporate planning issues for the subdivision review process. The commissioners authorized Mr. Picton and Mr. Bedini to select a consulting firm before the next meeting. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Picton asked that the road and the houses and driveways closest to the wetlands be staked.
MOTION: To hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall to consider Application #IW-08-57 submitted by Washington Partners, LLC. for a 9 lot affordable subdivision at 108 New Milford Turnpike. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.Town of Washington/112 Walker Brook Road/#IW-08-58/Roadway Drainage Improvements:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented the map, “Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 9/22/08. He explained there is an existing, ongoing erosion problem along Walker Brook Road and that Mr. Coleman, adjoining property owner, had offered to pay for and maintain the work to stabilize the disturbed areas. A large amount of sediment now flows into Walker Brook. Boulder retaining walls are proposed along the uphill side of the road. They will be constructed of field stone to preserve the character of the road. A field stone lined drainage swale is also proposed along the uphill side of the road. Mr. Ajello said he had received a letter containing stipulations about the project from Mr. Smith of the Highway Dept. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, 11/19/08 at 2:30 p.m.Sen/116 Shearer Road/#IW-08-59/Addition to Dwelling, Renovations, Septic System, Driveway:
The map, “Proposed B-100a Sanitary Disposal System Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 10/9/08 was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski, engineer, listed the proposed activities; 1) a garage addition to the existing house, 2) demolition of the barn, 3) construction of a garage/pool house, 4) installation of an inground pool, 5) removal and seeding of the existing driveway, 6) installation of a new driveway, 6) installation of a septic system, and 7)relocation of the spring house. He stated there was existing lawn abutting the wetlands to the north and to the south. He proposed to let these areas grow back and mow them only once a year so they would serve as wetland buffers. Mr. Picton noted that the required grading was well away from the structures closest to the wetlands. Mr. Szymanski said there were two proposed play areas that would also require regrading. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, 11/19/08 at 1:45 p.m.
Other Business
Appeal of Wykeham Rise, LLC. Approval:
Mrs. Federer said she wanted to know how the Commission would deal with this appeal. It was the consensus that this was not yet pending litigation so holding an executive session to discuss it was not necessary. It was noted that on behalf of the Federers, Atty. Hill had appealed the approval back to the Commission based on the applicant’s failure to comply with CGS 47-42a and 47-42d. Mrs. Federer said she did not receive notice 65 days prior to the submission of the application as required by state statute. She read the statute, which states that if the holder of the easement is not properly notified, the agency shall reverse the approval. Mr. Picton asked whether it stated the decision “shall” or “may” be reversed. It was noted the statute said, “shall.” She also noted that the Town’s mandatory conservation easement form had not been included with the application at the time it was submitted. Mr. Ajello said that the letter from Atty. Hill and a response from Atty. Fisher on behalf of the applicant had been forwarded to Atty. Zizka for review. Mr. Picton said the Commission would wait for advice from its attorney before taking any action. Mrs. Federer said she was asking for a reversal of the decision prior to publication of the legal notice. Mr. Picton again said the Commission would wait to hear from Atty. Zizka and said the notice would be published in the meantime.
Enforcement
Reinhardt-Cremona/Perkins Road/Execution of Approved Restoration Plan: Mr. Ajello noted that last month the report from Mr. Childs had been circulated and it had been decided at that time that a site inspection should be scheduled after the leaves had fallen, and after it had been conducted the Commission would decide whether to release all or part of the bond. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, 11/25/08 at 2:15 p.m. Atty. Kelly represented Mrs. Reinhardt. He said the Commission did not have the right to inspect the property and that it had to release the bond. He noted that Mrs. Reinhardt no longer owned the property, so he did not have the authority to let the Commission on site. He said the consultant’s report said the required work was completed, so he asked the Commission to follow the terms of its consent order. He said the bond was supposed to be reduced a year ago and he noted he had sent a letter dated 10/22/08 about this matter. Mr. Ajello noted that most of the work to be inspected could be seen from the Cavallaro property and the commissioners decided they would conduct the inspection as scheduled before deciding whether to release the bond.Other Business
State Grant for Removal of Invasives:
Mr. Thomson noted that the Commission had been looking for proactive activities and the DEP was offering a 25% matching grant to fight invasives. He said he had submitted an application to remove invasives around the athletic fields at the Primary School. They would be mowed or cut down in June or July and sprayed with a chemical in August. He did not know at this time which chemical would be used. Mrs. J. Hill noted there is a patch of invasives located just upstream by the Legion Hall. She asked if there was a chance that seeds from this upper patch would reinfect the downstream area if these plants weren’t removed at the same time. Mr. Thomson did not know, but said he would include the upper patch in the application if it was possible. Mr. Ajello requested a brief written description of how the plant material would be disposed of and about the chemical application. Mr. Thomson noted his application for the state grant was due by 12/8/08 and said the Commission’s approval of the application was needed before then. It was the consensus that an application was required for the proposed work because it involves clearcutting and use of chemicals in the regulated area.Enforcement Report
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road:
It was noted the Commission is still waiting for the survey map. Mr. Ajello said the Commission would have an opportunity to review the map and the language of the proposed agreement before it is sent to the intervener.Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-07-V12:
The Army Corps of Engineers is scheduled to inspect this site on 11/13/08.McCullers/Plumb Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the property and found that the temporary driveway had been removed, the gravel taken off site, and the disturbed area seeded and mulched.Peloquin/1 New Preston Hill Road:
Mr. Picton asked if at least 50% of the terrace/garden area was permeable. Mr. Ajello said it was.Brown/127 West Shore Road
Howard/99 West Shore Road:
Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to notify the Commission when court action is scheduled for these two violations.Liljequist/22 Tinker Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello said he had issued a citation last month and was waiting for an application.
Administrative Business Revision of the Regulations:
Mr. Bedini said the subcommittee had considered all of the additional revisions that had been recommended and had incorporated eight of them. He thought the Commission should encourage applicants to come in for preliminary reviews early in the application process. He said that other Towns have included a statement in their Regulations to encourage this and that applicants could be charged a small fee so the Commission could send their preliminary plans to the Commission’s consultant for review. Mr. Picton thought it made sense for the Commission to have input in the design stage of an application. Mr. Bedini thought that once plans had been fully engineered, applicants were reluctant to make changes, so a review by the Commission before plans were finalized was a good idea. He recommended the addition of Section 7.07 to strongly encourage preliminary reviews and to give the Commission the authority to charge the applicant for the consultant’s review of preliminary plans. Mr. Picton asked if preliminary reviews could be made mandatory. Mrs. Hill said they could not. Mr. Ajello said that preliminary reviews would add to the length of meetings. Mr. Picton said they would, but noted they would save the Commission time when reviewing the application later on. Mr. Thomson agreed that preliminary reviews were a good idea. It was noted that the DEP had written to the Commission to say that it had no time or staff to review the proposed revisions to the Inland Wetlands Regulations. The Commission has not yet heard from Atty. Zizka.Land Use Consultant:
Mr. Connor is still gathering information and will meet with the Board of Selectmen on Friday, 11/14/08.Election of Officers:
Mr. Picton officially resigned as Commission chairman.
MOTION: To nominate Mr. Bedini as Chairman. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To nominate Mr. Wadelton as Vice Chairman. By Mr. Thomson and Mr. Bohan, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.Mr. Ajello said the Commission would miss Mr. Picton’s leadership and advised him to submit his resignation in writing. Mr. Bedini recommended that before the Board of Selectmen makes appointments to the Inland Wetlands Commission, it should 1) require prospective commissioners to attend two meetings and 2) interview them to determine whether they are ready to commit to the required training, site inspections, etc.
It was noted the annual Town-Rotary Club reception for Town volunteers would be held on Friday, 11/21/08 in the Main Hall from 5:00 – 7:00 p.m.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:54 p.m.FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION SITE INSPECTION REPORT I. APPLICATION #: IW-08-53
INSPECTION DATE: 28 October 2008
TIME: 4:36pmII. NAME: Mark & Linda Conlon
III. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 6 Valley Road
IV. REASON FOR APPLICATION: Reconstruct Dwelling, Additions to Barn and Garage
V. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dorothy Hill, Mark Picton, Tony Bedini
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Ajello, WEOOTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Paul Szymanski, PE representing the applicant
VI. DOCUMENTS: Proposed B-100a Sanitary Disposal System Plan for Mark and Linda Conlon, dated May 1, 2008, SDS.1; Proposed Sedimentation & Erosion Control Plan for Mark & Linda Conlon, dated May 30, 2008; Property Survey & Partial Topographic Map for Mark and Linda Conlon, dated March 30, 2008.
V. OBSERVATIONS: The commission members arrived on the site at 4:36pm and parked on the edge of Valley Road. We were met by Mike Ajello and Mr. Szymanski. Using the maps sited above we proceeded to walk the property in a southerly direction and inspected the existing barn. The existing barn will be rebuilt with a proposed porch added in the westerly direction towards the Shepaug River. The closest corner of the porch will be 18’6” from the river’s edge. To the south and attached to the barn is proposed a garage measuring 26.0 by 28.0 feet. This is more than twice the size of the existing shed. Approximately halfway between the existing barn and existing house is a dug well that will be abandoned. The existing house will be a total tear down. A new basement will be built with a new 3 bedroom in place of the old house. The size of the new house is approximately twice the size of the old house. The new house will be 63.6 feet from the river at its closest point. A small, old shed near the river will be removed and discarded. About half of the length of the driveway will be abandoned. Alternatives were discussed briefly and apparently two exist. A reduction in scope, and another possible route for the driveway should be explored.
The site is difficult and constricted. It consists of a 1.37 acre of land wedged between Valley Road and the Shepaug River and there is little flexibility in the placing of the necessary components. The documents are complete with critical distances noted, limits of disturbance, setbacks, and elements identified. The sedimentation and erosion control plans are complete and well detailed. The Commissioners left the site at 4:47pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Bedini
INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION SITE INSPECTION REPORT I. APPLICATION #: IW-08-54
INSPECTION DATE: 28 October 2008
TIME: 5:00 pmII. NAME: Buell
III. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 3 Findley Rd. Marble Dale
IV. REASON FOR APPLICATION: Addition to House, conversion of deck to living space
V. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dorothy Hill, Mark Picton, Tony Bedini
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Ajello, WEOOTHERS PRESENT: Tammy Zinick, Karen Buell
VI. OBSERVATIONS: Members noted the level area at the rear of the house where a 25’ x 32’ addition is proposed; it will be 70’ from the East Aspetuck Riverat its closest point and will be constructed on a slab. The existing small deck (9’9” x 8’1”) will be enclosed to enlarge the small (10’4” x 9’11”) kitchen: it is 59’ from the river. Also on a fairly level area is the existing stone foundation on which the Buells propose to build a deck to hold a hot tub. On the side of the foundation away bfrom the river an above ground pool ids proposed. The foundation is only 25’ from the river. File materials include a plan for a new septic system to the rear of the proposed addition; this is not included in the application. Members resisted Mrs. Buell’s offer of pie and coffee and left the site at about 5:30.
Respectfully submitted,
Dorothy G. Hill
Posted: November 16, 2008 November 5, 2008
Special Meeting
November 5, 2008
10:00 a.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Bohan
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Szymanski, Mr./Mrs. Federer, Mr. Rogness, Mrs. Hardee, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Brinton, Mrs. Solomon, Mr. Caroe, Mr. Charles, Mrs. Wildman, Residents, Press
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-31/Site Development for Inn
Mr. Picton called the Special Meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson. He stated the purpose of the Meeting was to discuss draft motions and to act on the application. To be thorough, he asked that both motions, one to approve with conditions and one to deny, be read into the record before either was made.
Mr. Picton stated that he had a six page motion to deny and an introductory statement to read.
Mrs. Hill said she assumed the draft motion of approval with conditions was the same motion she had reviewed last week. Mr. Ajello said it was not because both Land Tech and Atty. Zizka had reviewed it and had required changes. Mr. Picton asked if there were substantive changes. Mr. Ajello said there were none and that he had attached the Hydro Technology’s letter regarding the procedure for water quality testing.
Mrs. Hill read the 11/3/08 draft motion of approval.
Mr. Picton read an introductory statement to his motion of denial. He voiced his concern that the Commission was not acting in a consistent manner in its review of this application and he feared that this would undermine its effectiveness in the future. He then made the following motion.
MOTION: To deny Application #IW-08-31 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. for site development for an inn at 101 Wykeham Road for the following reasons:
Procedural:
1. Successive changes including late submissions up to the day before the hearing concluded did not allow for adequate review of the project in its entirety. Lack of sufficient information provided in a timely manner.
2. The timing of changes and the information processing during the application review put other interested parties at an unfair disadvantage to the applicant for the purposes for which a public hearing is provided. Failure of due process.
3. The required meaningful consideration of feasible alternatives to the final proposal was not provided or made possible by the applicant, and therefore not conducted in a meaningful way by the commission. Given the types of feasible alternatives which are available, discussed later, the commission is not allowed to approve the application under this one condition.
1. There is a likelihood of Adverse Impact on Wetlands and Watercourses:
Numerous construction activities which are “regulated activities” under definition 2.34 of our regulations, due to their potential for adverse impact, are proposed to be concentrated within the “regulated area” defined by section 2.35 of the regulations, on land within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Additionally, many of the other construction and earthwork activities outside of the 100 foot review area are also regulated activities under the second paragraph of Section 2.34 of the Regulations, due to significant grades and the large area of disturbance, and the scope and duration of construction.
The likelihood and degree of particular risks for regulated activities depends on factors which include but are not limited to:
The nature and scope of each activity, the physical characteristics of the site including slope, soil, hydrology, and vegetative cover of the land, the suitability and completeness of design in relation to site conditions; and the likelihood of success in implementing protective measures , restabilization, and long term maintenance according to the plan.
The plan calls for up to 5 acres of exposed soil at a time, in each of three main construction phases. Significant slopes and drainage conditions requiring intensive management prevail on the entire lower construction site. This increases the likelihood of adverse impacts to wetlands and watercourses in comparison to construction sites of smaller size which we have evaluated on less significant slopes.
For example, on and surrounding the locations of 2 bedroom cottages 1 and 2, and duplexes 1, 2, and 3, both pre and post construction grades of 25% to 35 % prevail. Post construction grades up slope from cottage unit 1 approach 40% at one location immediately below the area to be massively regraded at the main parking and main building facilities. The 5 dwelling units mentioned are sited closest of all the units to wetlands; 4 of them are on the 50 foot zoning setback line. Below these new units the remaining undisturbed buffer to wetlands is anywhere from zero to 40 feet wide, depending on the nature and extent of construction activities which may be required to carry out the plan in this area. Quads 1, 2, and 3 also have similar site planning characteristics, with steeper slopes immediately adjacent and within the construction envelope, with 20% to 30% slopes prevailing.
There is no indication of concerted planning to design a wetland buffer of width and functionality suitable to the terrain and the proposal, only the clear indication that units were located to conform to the zoning minimum 50 foot setback line and the site was then engineered according to that objective. The configuration and condition of buffer areas affect the physical characteristics of wetlands and watercourses by influencing surface and ground water conditions, thermal and light conditions and other physical properties related to the character and function of wetlands and watercourses. Buffers of a given width are less effective for many of these purposes as the slope of the land increases. The conditions of this site plan call for a degree of care beyond that which is evidenced, not limited to engineering for runoff but including the design of fully functional buffers, siting structures and earthworks conservatively for wetland protection, and investigating alternative site designs which would pose less potential for adverse impact on wetlands and watercourses.
2. Failure to demonstrate convincingly that the project will be carried out and maintained without adverse impact, both short and long term, to wetlands and watercourses.
The ultimate unqualified success of engineered solutions as the primary response to risks generated by the plan is dependant on a host of human and natural contingencies which can be unpredictable and unmanageable, based on studies in the record and the experience of the wetlands commission.
Uncertainty about the standards used, completeness, adequacy, execution, and consequences of the engineered solutions to wetlands protection:
Successful implementation of a properly engineered design is acknowledged by all the engineers submitting information to the file to be critical to the protection of the resources for this site plan. The commission’s engineering consultant specifically stated what we already know from our regulations; that it is up to the commission to decide whether the plan was likely to be accomplished successfully and safely, and whether there were feasible and prudent alternatives that were more likely to protect wetlands and watercourses, and whether the feasible and prudent alternative analysis had been conducted properly.
There are questions raised by the intervener’s engineer at the public hearing as to which standards and methods should apply in order for this to be a fail-safe design, the adequacy of the facilities proposed, and the underlying premises of the design, and the completeness to which the site and development conditions have been addressed in the design. In cases where there are no more conservative alternatives to accomplish either the proposed use or an alternative reasonable use of the property, the wetlands commission may be in the position of relying entirely on one or the other engineered solution to protect the resources. But the risks inherent in reliance on a debatable engineered solution, as raised at the hearing, are unacceptable when an inherently less risky approach to site planning and development is available on which to base the engineered protection. See the discussion of feasible and prudent alternatives.
Uncertainty about the effects of the development on wetland and watercourse biological character and function:
The commission’s wetland consultant and the intervener’s engineer raised concerns about the completeness, relevance, and usefulness of the applicant’s environmental report .
The response by the applicant and their environmental consultant was that the developer’s timetable did not allow for a more complete study, but the consultant concluded that, even assuming the conditions in the wetland and watercourse systems were of the highest quality, then based on the development design, there would be no adverse impact. This creates uncertainty about how would anyone be able to make use of the limited environmental data provided using this starting assumption.
Without detailed ecological assessment for the range of biological and physical parameters of the wetlands as well as watercourses, how will changes in plant and animal populations and other physical properties within wetlands and watercourses post development even be recognized, so that the contributing factors might be dealt with after the fact, if we had failed to evaluate those conditions and factors before development due to the insufficient data presented? If the stream after development no longer supports fish, perhaps due to thermal and chemical impacts from the development, there will be no data on which to base a solution, much less a preventive measure which could have been imposed at the time at which the commission must decide on the application.
The applicant’s environmental consultant was asked how animals which move from wetland to wetland will be affected by such changes as a 14 foot deep detention basin located between and in close proximity to two wetland areas, and what impact such changes might have on wetlands character. The consultant deferred the question to the project engineer, who responded that as a legal matter this was outside of the wetland commission’s jurisdiction. On questioning, the environmental consultant did acknowledge that the population of both plants and animals, including transient animals, does affect the character of wetlands and watercourses, and that the presence of silt fences (and presumably other impediments such as deep basins) in and near wetlands could change the population numbers and diversity of animals in wetlands, thus affecting wetland composition and character. But an answer to the question on this impact was still not provided, and the consultant still concluded that there would be no impact.
We are not only lacking sufficient data on environmental impact, we are presented with findings which would tend to mislead us into thinking they were sufficient and conclusive, when they are not.
Uncertainty about the effects of construction and excavation and stormwater management on the supply and quality of surface and ground water to wetlands and watercourses.
Concerns raised by commissioners and the intervener’s engineer about these issues have not been fully addressed.
It has not been determined how the water which warms up in the detention basins and is then flushed out during a heavy runoff event will affect the habitat conditions in the stream, and how this flush of warm water may contribute to habitat stress all the way downstream.
No answer was provided as to whether the excavation of a 14 foot deep basin within about 15 feet of a wetland would change the groundwater level in the wetland, by changing the groundwater gradient and drawing subsurface water toward the basin and lowering the water level in the wetland. The side slopes of the basins are a point of contention between engineers; there is no confirming data on whether the steeper excavated basin slopes proposed adjacent to wetlands will slump and destabilize wetland soils, and whether basins will have to be redesigned accordingly.
Water will be diverted from its presently dispersed flow over significant areas of relatively undisturbed and naturally vegetated portions of the watershed. It was asked but not well established how runoff will be renovated in an manner equivalent to the natural condition, after traversing development surfaces and structures and reworked areas, by the reworked soil and plantings of the necessarily smaller surface area of engineered stormwater management facilities. It was not determined how these facilities will perform this function in the winter, when the ground is frozen and the plants are dormant, in comparison to more natural watershed conditions on undisturbed soil, which exist now and would exist in more substantial wetland buffers if they were designed for this purpose in a way which reflected site conditions.
It was not clear how effectively infiltration will occur through permeable paving on sloping surfaces into subsoil compacted by construction equipment in its upper foot or 18 inches.
These are only a sampling of questions raised by the commission and the public about the heavy reliance on this suite of engineering measures to protect wetlands and watercourses.
Uncertainty about the likelihood of satisfactory execution and compliance: adequacy of proposed means of monitoring and enforcing the conditions of the plan:
The record includes the results of a study on compliance with provisions for buffer protection, which reflects the commission’s own experience in Washington: Regulations and various kinds of written constraints on land use and stated objectives for wetlands protection are commonly violated. Written documents are not equivalent to effectively implemented, long term compliance program, which is subject over time to many natural, human, and economic variables beyond the ability of the town land use department to control.
If the site development were planned for a lower level of risk and immediacy for wetland impacts, the likelihood of success in this area would be greater. As presented, the site plan is crowded with development criteria alongside provisions for wetland protection in such close proximity to the wetlands that the protective measures themselves present some of the most proximate risks to wetland protection. The plans are, accordingly, almost indecipherable in places. This will present in the hands of a large and various collection of construction and site development workers a more likely plan for failure than success with this crucial aspect of the project. Providing more separation to wetlands would increase the likelihood of success.
Future activities associated with or reasonably related to the proposed activities which are made inevitable by the proposed activity and which may have an impact on wetlands and watercourses:
Additional necessary regulated activities were added to the plan throughout the review and public hearing process, up to very near the end of the public hearing, as the need became apparent to the applicant, and because there are a number of open questions about the details of the plan, the changes are likely to continue.
Requirements for water storage facilities were added to the regulated area late in the public hearing after the interveners brought to light the water company’s requirements for storage and the planning for these facilities has not been developed in detail, according to comments by the intervener’s engineer. The uncertainty about the need for a septic reserve area was brought to light by the intervener’s research on the existing septic design. A plan which the intervener’s attorney stated for the record came from the DEP files shows a reserve area designated to remain free of development changes. The site plan shows fill and road construction in this area. Final design may require a reconfiguration, but the site plan has already has been designed with no extra space the area of the septic system, the road, and several guest units sited on or above steep slopes close to wetlands.
Other changes are considered likely by the intervener’s engineer for access, parking, and sightlines. Landscaping and the accompanying use of chemicals and fertilizers as the project evolves will have an effect of on wetlands and watercourses which is undeterminable at this point.
Changes during the evolution of a project can sometimes be accommodated if the development fits comfortably on the site with room for options as they became necessary. This site, by contrast, was planned for maximum development from the beginning. There is little room for necessary modifications after approval, which would almost certainly involve new regulated activities, depriving the public and the commission of the chance to fully evaluate and comment on the entire proposal and its impacts.
3. Inadequacy of proposed mitigation:
The thesis that the proposed development is an improvement on existing conditions as far as wetland protection is concerned because old structures are to be removed does not serve as mitigation for the new risks created with the proposed development.
The existing conditions are essentially stable with the primary notable exception of an eroding pipe outlet, which could easily be corrected voluntarily or as an enforcement item. The removal of nonconforming facilities which were built more than 50 years ago is itself a regulated activity, and the restoration of those sites to meet current wetland protection standards might serve as mitigation for the new disturbance of the site they currently occupy if the entirety of the new site disturbance conformed to our current standards and practices for wetland protection
However, even the claimed mitigation is questionable. For example, the site where the tennis court will be removed will be fully utilized by new development; a temporary sediment basin closer than 50 feet to wetlands, (this is not a water feature but a stormwater facility) two cottages within 100 feet of wetlands where none existed before, septic tanks and pump chambers crowding the 50 foot setback line, and septic lines along with two rain gardens within the 50 foot zoning setback. The next building up is to be removed from its location partly within the 100 foot regulated area line, only to put a line of new cottages even closer to wetlands, at the 50 foot setback line, along with site disturbance closer than 50 feet to wetlands. The old gravel parking area near wetlands will be removed only to be replaced with a deep detention basin which is not considered an ecological asset. The removal of the eastern main buildings downslope of wetlands will provide less benefit to the upslope wetlands than the offsetting loss of protection to wetlands downslope of new facilities on steeper slopes elsewhere. In other words, remediating old conditions which compromised wetland environments only to use gain that as a credit toward multiple new risks and compromises is not in the nature of mitigation for wetland impact risks.
4. Failure of the applicant to explore and present feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed site plan which create less likelihood of adverse impact on wetlands and watercourses, and the clear availability of such alternatives:
In the case of an application for which a public hearing is held, section 8.13(a) of the regulations states that a permit shall not be issued unless the commission finds on the basis of the record that a feasible and prudent alternative does not exist.
Alternative development site designs which would be more likely to succeed in preventing damage to wetlands and watercourses were not explored by the applicant for the public hearing record, although they were requested during the hearing by the commission’s environmental consultant, commission members, and the engineer consulting for the intervenor. The alternatives offered by the applicant included leaving the site as it is, and taking the buildings down and planting field grass. It was obvious that neither of these ideas present reasonable, or feasible and prudent, alternative development options from the perspective of the applicant, and that they were not offering these for serious consideration. If they did, the commission may well have preferred either to the proposal submitted, from a wetland protection standpoint.
The applicant was asked early in the public hearing to present alternatives which would keep all activities at the least out of the regulated area which includes the 100 foot upland review area adjacent to wetlands and watercourses. In the beginning of the application process, the portion of the site which is unrestricted by hard regulatory setbacks was almost entirely proposed to be occupied by the construction activities and construction envelope. The applicant stated that it had to be that way in order to accomplish his objectives, and that there were no viable alternative site designs. The feasible and prudent alternative then offered was to leave the site in its present condition, with decaying structures and outdated site facilities. The applicant rejected this alternative as not viable for their purposes, and no other alternative was submitted.
During the review and hearing, the applicant reduced the scope of the project and altered the layout so the lot coverage decreased from 17% to under 10%. Moving from an early plan which does not meet Zoning coverage requirements to one that does, according to the applicant’s calculations, does not provide a feasible and prudent alternative to the final plan for which the Wetlands Commission must make this determination. Areas of land do exist on the site which appear more suitable for lower risk development than the areas proposed for development on steeper slopes closest to wetlands. These areas were proven as building sites in the earlier version of the plan. But when the coverage was reduced, buildings were removed from lower risk sites and the buildings on higher risk areas were left in place, which is at odds with the objective of considering alternative site plans which pose less risk to wetlands and watercourses.
The last change which related to opportunities for consideration of feasible and prudent alternatives was submitted a day before the last session of the public hearing, which did not allow enough time for considered analysis. Nonetheless, at that session, the applicant was again asked and given the opportunity to discuss alternatives, and specifically the use of those lower risk areas which were becoming more available throughout the redesign process up to the last day. The applicant merely reiterated that there were no alternatives other than the previously stated ones that the owner was not entertaining.
The types of alternatives which do exist on the site for this and other economically feasible uses, which would be less likely to create adverse impacts on wetlands and watercourses, include:
Keeping all development activities more than 100 feet from wetlands and watercourses and removed and separated from steep slopes leading to wetlands and watercourses. This could be done by:
Reducing the scope of the inn and resort development. Changing both the number and size of the residential units and facilities is still an available design option. For example, the size of two -bedroom guest units with a ground footprint of apparently about 1800 to 2400 square feet could be reconsidered. Other facilities are included which may not be needed for the success of a viable inn of some design on the site.
Using more compact siting of buildings and improvements; a closer village-type arrangement in the areas that are most suitable for development without unnecessary risk to wetlands and watercourses.
Relocating units which are currently sited on and near slopes of 20 to 35% within 100 feet of wetlands. These units might be moved to the land made available late in the process by the deletion of the east driveway and the deletion of the units which were formerly located below the main existing parking lot. The use of this general area for guest units was demonstrated by the plans to be feasible at one point during the review. Some units might be relocated to the upper site which is farther removed from wetlands, on more moderate slopes, and with fewer drainage challenges.
Alternative development uses for the land include cluster or large lot type residential development which is oriented around ecological planning for protection and enhancement of wetland and watercourses and their integral natural systems.
This is not a comprehensive list of the wetland issues which are categorized and summarized here. These issues are more fully detailed in submissions to the public hearing record by commissioners, the public, and the intervener, notably in the submissions by the intervener’s engineer.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini.
The motion to deny was discussed.
Mr. Bedini did not think that the consideration of feasible and prudent alternatives had been adequately covered. He stated that the changes to the application were due to Zoning and ZBA issues, and had not been done in consideration of lesser impacts to the wetlands. He read from the 11/5/08 letter from Atty. Zizka to substantiate his point.
Mr. Picton noted the Commission could not approve the application unless it had considered the feasible and prudent alternatives.
Mr. LaMuniere said that while he appreciated the motion of denial, many of the points raised in it were speculative and the courts look for specific evidence of negative impact to wetlands. He agreed that building was proposed in a difficult location where carrying out the approved plan would be very difficult, but he disagreed that doing so would change the character and function of the wetlands. He said that three engineers had advised the Commission that if properly safeguarded, the project would not result in an adverse impact on the physical quality of the wetlands.
Mr. Picton thought there were arguments for both views, saying the Commission did not have to base its decision on such low standards.
Mr. LaMuniere thought the Commission should work for a compromise between economic development and wetlands protection.
Mr. Bedini noted the plans call for the demolition and removal of 7 to 8 buildings and asked the commissioners if they were satisfied that wetlands protection during this phase of the project had been adequately addressed. He thought the Commission had concentrated on the proposed construction only and had not reviewed a work sequence for the demolition.
Mrs. Hill read Atty. Zizka’s 11/5/08 letter to the Commission. She did not think it supported Mr. Picton’s position because in it he stated there had to be a non speculative finding that there was a reasonable likelihood of adverse impacts to wetlands. Mr. LaMuniere said he could cite several court cases, such as Toll Brothers, Inc. vs the Inland Wetlands Commission where Commission denials were overturned due to the speculative nature of the adverse impacts. Mr. Picton said the specifics of this application, no other, should be the basis of the Commission’s decision.
Mr. Thomson reminded the public that the commissioners are all volunteers. He read a brief statement, which said he respected Mr. Picton for his knowledge and diligence and so it was difficult to be on opposite sides of such a complicated application. Mr. Thomson then said the Commission had hired consultants who had “admirably” served it and said he would rely on their expert opinion that the project would not have a negative impact on the wetlands and watercourses.
Regarding feasible and prudent alternatives, Mr. Bedini read from pages 63 and 66 of Atty. Zizka’s, What’s Legally Required, which, he said, was endorsed by the Ct. DEP. He referred to the section addressing CGS 22a-41(a). Mr. Picton agreed this section was relevant.
Mrs. Hill noted that the proposal was the applicant’s plan and in her mind the applicant should be able to do what he wants while being required to protect the wetlands and watercourses. Mr. Picton agreed, but said when there were other ways to accomplish the same purpose, the feasible and prudent alternative should be required. Mrs. Hill responded that the Commission should not design for the applicant.
Vote: 2-3. Mr. Picton and Mr. Bedini voted for the motion to deny, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, and Mr. Thomson voted against.
Mrs. Hill made the draft motion of approval and Mr. LaMuniere seconded it. A lengthy discussion regarding conditions ensued.
Mr. Bedini said the $30,000 bond required in condition #1 seemed inadequate because as much as 5 acres at a time would be disturbed. He also noted that in the past, the Commission had differentiated between the performance bond and the consultant’s bond and said he thought the $5,000 proposed for the consultant’s bond was adequate.
Mrs. Hill questioned the proposed bonding procedure, noting that the Town had not done it this way previously. Mr. Ajello said he had consulted both the Treasurer and the Selectmen’s Office. Mr. Bedini asked that the language addressing the required bonds be clarified.
Mr. Bedini objected to the consultant’s proposed inspection schedule in condition #2. He did not think inspections twice a month during construction phases and when earth was disturbed was often enough. Mrs. Hill agreed. Mr. Bedini recommended that the consultant inspect the site not less than every other day when the construction area was not stabilized and once a week when construction was halted or delayed and the site stabilized. He also recommended that the consultant be given more specific direction and that he be required to submit a short precise report to the Commission after each inspection. He asked who would determine whether additional site requirements were necessary and on what basis. He thought it would be confusing to have several people inspecting and to have both the EO and the consultant responsible for determining whether on site improvements were needed. Also regarding the reports, he asked what would happen to them, who would interpret them, and who would be the authority who could require work to stop.
Mr. Bedini commented that the language of condition #6 made him think that “things” could be changed in the field like hay bales to silt fence, but he was concerned that the use of the word, “augment” would result in more major changes being made in the field without Commission approval. He thought that any changes thought of in the field other than minor ones should be submitted to and approved by the Commission in the form of a request for modification of the approved plans.
Mr. Bedini asked if commissioners would have the right to inspect the site.
Mr. Bedini noted the large amount of demolition proposed, asked who and how this would be monitored, and whether Land Tech had approved it. Mrs. Hill said this was an “excellent” point. Mr. Ajello said the demolition was considered part of construction and would be discussed at the pre construction meeting. Mr. Bedini asked for more specific language.
In response to previous questions raised by Mr. Bedini, Mr. Ajello said the proposed inspection schedule had been reviewed and approved by Land Tech and that the water tests would be submitted to the Land Use Office and then turned over to Land Tech.
Mr. Picton also had a list of inadequacies in the motion. These included 1) a $30,000 bond was insufficient, 2) the language was too vague regarding poor performance, long term seasonal inspections, the use of best management practices, and post construction conditions, 3) the proposed inspection schedule was insufficient for effective monitoring, 4) the pre construction meeting process was too vague, 5) there was no provision for requiring as-built plans at the completion of each phase, 6) the EO may have too much authority to recraft details; all site plan changes should come to the Commission for review and approval, 7) a more thorough documentation of existing wetlands conditions should be required prior to the commencement of work, and 8) clearing limits had not been discussed. He also questioned under what conditions and how work could be stopped.
Mr. Ajello said he had drafted the motion according to the directions he had received last week. Mrs. Hill agreed, but said changes were necessary.
Condition #1 was discussed and it was unanimously agreed to increase the amount of the bond to $50,000 and to insert the word, “demolition,” in the second line to read, “…prior to the onset of demolition and construction….”
Mr. Thomson pointed out that Mr. Picton had previously refused to participate in the drafting of the motion of approval, to which Mr. Picton replied that he did not think a complicated motion should be crafted on “guess work.”
The monitoring schedule in condition #2 was discussed. Mrs. Hill agreed with Mr. Bedini that twice a month was not often enough. After a brief discussion, it was agreed to change the inspection requirement during construction phases and periods involving earth disturbance or drainage work to 3 times per week. Also after a brief discussion the inspection schedule was revised to require inspections 2 times per month during general construction phases and periods. Mr. LaMuniere agreed that careful monitoring had to be required.
Mrs. Hill noted that 5 acres was a large area to have disturbed and so recommended a condition of approval that a 3 acre maximum area of site disturbance be allowed at any one time. Mr. LaMuniere agreed that 5 acres was too large an area. The 3 acre limit was added as condition #8.
Mr. Picton recommended that vague language regarding unstabilized, unvegetated site disturbance be clarified. Mr. LaMuniere said that rewriting of the construction sequence would be required. It was generally thought this could be handled at the pre construction meeting.
It was noted that condition #7 had previously been revised to include Mr. LaMuniere’s request that any substantial changes to the plans such as changes to the septic system that might be required by the DEP shall be approved by the Commission prior to implementation.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-31 submitted by WYKEHAM RISE, LLC. for site development for an inn AT 101 WYKEHAM RD, PER DOCUMENTS AND REVISIONS SUBMITTED THROUGH OCTOBER 9, 2008 subject to THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A cash performance bond of $50,000 shall be submitted by the applicant prior to the onset of demolition & construction, to be held by the Town of Washington throughout the construction and subsequent monitoring periods. These monies may be used by the Town to secure the site in the event that mal-performance or neglect by the applicants or their agents creates a risk of adverse impact on inland wetlands or watercourses. If the Town uses any bond funds pursuant to this condition, the applicants must, within 15 calendar days, replenish or restore the bond to the full $50,000 amount before construction may continue.
2. Land Tech Consultants (“Land-Tech”) shall, on behalf of the Commission, monitor job site conditions for any unanticipated erosion and sedimentation risks and to confirm compliance with application details and the use of best management practices. The applicant shall be responsible for all of Land-Tech’s fees for these services, and shall, no later than the date of commencement of construction, submit to the Commission a cash bond, which shall be held by the Town and which must be maintained in the amount of $5,000 throughout all phases of construction and monitoring. The Town shall pay Land-Tech’s fees from the bond, and the applicants shall, within 15 calendar days, replenish the bond to the full $5,000 amount. Land-Tech will issue a report to the Land Use Office, with a copy to the applicants, after each site inspection generally according to the following guidelines:
Consultant’s Inspection Schedule
* 3 Times per Week – During construction phases and periods involving earth disturbance or drainage work * Twice per Month – During general construction phases and periods
* Seasonally – Post-Construction and throughout the monitoring period
* At any time – At the request of the Land Use Enforcement Officer or because of mal-performance, neglect, or serious weather situations
Nothing in these conditions shall be deemed to prohibit the Commission from choosing a consultant other than Land-Tech to perform the services specified above. In such event, the term “Land-Tech,” as used herein, shall be deemed to refer to such other consultant.3. The site shall be monitored according to schedule for two (2) full years after the end of construction, and until the disturbed areas of the site are fully stabilized, whichever is later. The site shall not be deemed to be fully stabilized unless the Commission makes a specific finding to that effect. Long term maintenance of the stormwater management system shall comply with the maintenance schedule provided by the applicants as described on sheet SES.1 of the site development plans. A log of maintenance activities shall be submitted annually to the Land Use Office in December. All wetland mitigation plantings, buffer plantings, and stormwater pond plantings shall be monitored for three (3) growing seasons. Dead plants are to be replaced by the applicant as needed during the monitoring period.
4. The applicants shall conduct water testing and shall submit the results thereof to the Land Use Office according to the schedule proposed by Hydro Technologies Inc. and as described in its letter of September 24, 2008.
5. Weekly reports by the erosion control professional noted in the Construction Sequences shall be submitted to the Land Use Office throughout all construction phases. A rain gauge shall be installed on site and rainfall amounts recorded in the weekly Erosion Control Reports.
6. At the time of the pre construction meeting, construction managers shall deliver detailed and specific construction sequences to the Enforcement Officer and the Commission’s Consultant. These sequences should adhere to the approved sequences in the file and be augmented by more specific description and timing.
7. Any proposed change in the approved plans and/or the supporting documents must be reviewed by the Enforcement Officer prior to implementation. The Enforcement Officer may authorize minor changes or reductions in the scope of regulated activities, provided that any such changes shall be reported to the Commission immediately, and further provided that the Commission may require a permit modification for such changes if it finds that they may have a previously unanticipated impact on wetlands or watercourses. Any substantial changes, such as changes in location, enlargements, modifications to septic due to DEP review, or changes that may in any way impact wetlands and/or watercourses must be approved by the Commission prior to implementation.
8. During the demolition and construction unstabilized or unvegetated site disturbance shall be limited to 3 acres at any one time.By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 3-2.
Mr. Picton voted No for the reasons specified in his motion to deny above. He said the motion to approve was not adequately drafted to verify protection of the wetlands and watercourse. Mr. Bedini voted No mainly because there are feasible and prudent alternatives that weren’t explored to the extent required by law.
Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Picton noted they had to leave at this point due to other appointments.
Mr. Thomson read his statement dated 11/5/08, which stated his reasons for approval. The most significant of these was that after evaluation of engineering and environmental reports he had concluded there would be no negative impact on wetlands and watercourses, in fact, the project would improve on site conditions.
Mrs. Hill noted she had given her reasons for approval at the last meeting and said Atty. Zizka’s 11/5/08 letter confirmed her position concerning feasible and prudent alternatives.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: November 12, 2008 October 29, 2008
Special Meeting
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Wildman, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Carey, Mr./Mrs. Federer. Mrs. Solomon, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Charles, Mr. Rogness, Ms. Giampietro, Mrs. Rickart, Residents, Press
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-31/Site Development for Inn
Mr. Picton called the Special Meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson. Mr. Picton acknowledged Atty. Fisher’s third letter calling for his recusal, but he said he had consulted with the Commission’s attorney and would not step down. He briefly referred to Atty. Zizka’s letter dated 10/29/08.
It was noted that two documents to approve with conditions and one to deny the application had been circulated, but not discussed, prior to the meeting.
Mr. Thomson suggested that his motion of approval be made and seconded and used as the basis for discussion. He thought the vote would be a simple matter as he had weighed the consultants’ assessments. He read his motion of approval, which included the following conditions: 1) posting of a $30,000 performance bond prior to the start of work, 2) inspection of the ongoing work by a qualified engineering firm at least once a week and the weekly submission of the inspection report to the WEO, 3) giving the WEO the authority to determine whether additional erosion controls or corrective measures are required by the Commission in response to the engineer’s report, 4) installation of a rain gauge to be checked daily by the contractor on site and if it is found there has been half an inch of rain in the last 24 hours, the contractor shall call the monitoring engineer to inspect the site to ensure that all of the erosion control measures are functioning properly, and 5) implementation of both temporary and long term erosion and sedimentation control measures and maintenance of the drainage structures as documented in exhibit A to be submitted later.
Mr. LaMuniere seconded the motion.
Mr. Picton noted that several of these conditions were included in the plans submitted, so he questioned whether it was necessary to make them conditions of approval.
Mr. Bedini asked for clarification of the proposed monitoring process. Mr. Thomson said it would be modeled after the Kessler approval; the monitoring engineer would have the authority to order corrections if he deemed them necessary. Mr. Bedini asked if the engineer would have the authority to stop work. Mr. Thomson said the engineer would make ad hoc recommendations and send his report to the WEO, who would decide whether they were matters that had to come before the Commission. Discussion of the process continued. Mr. Picton wanted all significant changes to come to the Commission for review. Mr. LaMuniere thought minor changes and corrections could be ordered by the EO, but that serious problems should go to the Commission.
Mr. LaMuniere recommended a condition of approval that reporting continue for two years after the completion of work and he noted the applicant had agreed to a water quality monitoring system. Mrs. D. Hill noted he had agreed, but said since this was not included in the plans submitted, it should be made a condition of approval. Mr. LaMuniere agreed, saying it must be coordinated with long term, broad ranged monitoring.
Mr. Picton thought there should also be long term conformance evaluation.
Mr. LaMuniere recommended the stormwater management system be monitored for three years after the project is completed to make sure it functions properly. Mrs. Hill agreed, noting that Land Tech had recommended that a third party monitor the system for three years.
Mr. LaMuniere complained that the construction sequences submitted were too general and that more precise sequences should be required for the seven buildings to be constructed 50 feet from the wetlands. Mr. Picton was not sure how this could be crafted and evaluated after the close of the public hearing. Mr. LaMuniere said it could be a condition of approval. Mr. Ajello suggested the specific construction sequence be drafted at the time the construction manager is hired. Mr. Picton objected, saying sufficient detail was needed now; it could not be drafted on the fly.
Mr. Thomson noted that in the application process, when reasonable best management practices had been recommended to this applicant, he had agreed to implement them. Therefore, he thought approval could be contingent upon the condition that the monitoring engineer would have the authority to request improvements on an ad hoc basis, and the applicant would be required to implement them. Mr. Bedini said the Commission could not change the plans once it had approved them. He also stressed that there must be a specific mechanism in place to resolve problems on site without costly delays for the applicant.
Mr. Picton did not think it was likely that, as designed, the project could be successfully implemented and completed. He noted that Mr. LaMuniere did not think the plan as submitted had enough details for the Commission’s monitoring engineer. He said it would take time to craft a detailed motion of approval. Mr. LaMuniere agreed that since there would be 5 acres of disturbance at any one time, the construction sequence had to be more detailed in the areas of high risk so that there would be a more precise implementation protocol than the one submitted. Mr. Picton and Mr. LaMuniere thought the Commission’s consultant could draft the more detailed provisions.
Mr. Bedini objected because the Commission would then be engineering the project, which it had never done in the past. He said the Commission had to act on what the applicant had submitted.
Mr. Thomson proposed an additional conference at which the monitoring engineer and applicant would meet to further refine the construction sequences. It was noted the plans already included a preconstruction conference. Mr. Thomson said this was different because the preconstruction conference assumed a pre agreed set of conditions.
After further discussion, Mr. Picton asked if the plans as submitted were sufficient in all ways to carry out the project without adverse impacts. If yes, the Commission should approve the application, if not, Mr. LaMuniere and others could write conditions to bring the specifications up to sufficient standards, or if there was concern that the plans were not sufficient for the success of the project, the application could be denied.
Mr. Bedini pointed out that if a motion of approval has so many conditions that it becomes unwieldy, the Commission would be better off to deny it without prejudice and let the applicant address all concerns when he resubmits the application. He thought conditions to cover bonding and monitoring made sense, but he did not think it was appropriate, nor was the Commission qualified, to craft specific engineering details. Mr. LaMuniere agreed this was not for the Commission to do, and recommended the Commission’s consultant do it. Mr. Bedini again stated the Commission could not vote to approve the application and then work to make substantial changes. Mr. Picton agreed with Mr. Bedini.
Mr. Thomson noted that everyone had had the opportunity for input during the application process and that the Commission’s consultant had signed off on the application. Therefore, he thought with his proposed additional conference the project could proceed with relative certainty of success. He again explained this mechanism in detail.
Bonding was discussed. It was noted the performance bond would be separate from the consultant’s bond. Mr. Thomson suggested a $30,000 bond.
Mrs. Hill said a condition of approval should be that the Commission would hire a consultant for monitoring and the applicant would pay for his services. Mr. Picton said the Commission would have to define his schedule of work, addressing issues such as how the engineer would carry out his work on behalf of the Commission and what the procedure would be when deficiencies were found and improvements required. There was disagreement among the commissioners about whether these details had to be specified in the motion or could be worked out later. Mr. Bedini thought that if the details were not included in the motion, then there should be no ad hoc work on site; that only what was approved should be carried out.
Mr. Picton said he did not object to the scope of the project, he objected to its design. Mr. Thomson stated that he had addressed Mr. Picton’s concerns by adding safeguards in his motion of approval, read it again, and explained it again
There was a lengthy discussion concerning the ad hoc work that could or could not be ordered by the monitoring engineer and the commissioners were in disagreement. Mr. Picton noted there was a motion on the table and said the Commission should either vote or take the time to craft more complete language concerning protective measures to make the approval more viable.
Mr. Thomson followed with a lengthy statement regarding the approval process, Land Tech’s 9/25/08 review of the application, and his assessment that based on the judgments of all consultants involved, the application could be approved now. He said that the consultants found the project would cause no significant impacts to the wetlands and noted that the plans called for a reduction in impervious surfaces.
Ms. Chase’s report, her assumption that the water quality of Kirby Brook was the highest quality, and the difficulty of testing for impacts to the brook based on that assumption were discussed. Mr. Thomson stated that Ms. Chase had found the project would have no significant impacts on Kirby Brook. Mr. Bedini read from Land Tech’s 9/25 report, which stated it was up to the Commission to decide whether there would be significant impacts and whether there were feasible and prudent alternatives.
Mr. Picton noted that feasible and prudent alternatives had not yet been discussed. He said it had already been noted that he and Mr. LaMuniere had concerns about the risk to wetlands and that if risks exist, then a thorough analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives was required. He said this had not been done according to the standards in the Regulations.
Mr. Thomson disagreed, saying the applicant had provided a list.
Mr. Picton did not think the list was suitable. He noted that when the applicant had deleted the section of driveway (in the northeast section of the property) it was then possible to move buildings to that location. He said it was the applicant’s job to consider whether this was a feasible and prudent alternative for the buildings proposed on the steep slopes elsewhere on site.
Mr. Thomson objected, saying the Regulations talk about the need for balance between the need to protect wetlands and the need for economic development. He said the applicant had the right to spread out his resort and the layout proposed by Mr. Picton would be counter intuitive to the purposes of the spa.
Mr. Bedini stated that the consideration of feasible and prudent alternatives was the biggest problem with the application and was an important aspect the Commission had to consider. He asked the Commission to compare how it had considered feasible and prudent alternatives in previous applications. He said he would have liked to have seen other configurations that were better for the wetlands; and asked what the impact to the plans would have been if all of the buildings had been placed at least 100 feet from the wetlands. He said the possible siting of those buildings away from the steep slopes had not been discussed as required by the Regulations.
Mr. Thomson disagreed. He said the applicant had responded to the Commission’s pleas for consideration of feasible and prudent alternatives throughout the process and a list had been provided. He did not think it was fair to “blindside” the applicant with a cluster development proposal at the eleventh hour.
Mrs. Hill said it is the Commission’s responsibility to suggest possible feasible and prudent alternatives to the applicant.
Mr. Picton read sections 9.2 and 9.4 of the Regulations and Mr. Bedini cited section 8. Mr. Picton said when he suggested the location of the buildings in the former driveway area, he was attempting to address the requirement that Mrs. Hill referred to. He cited section 8.1.3, which states that when a public hearing is held, the Commission may not approve the application unless a feasible and prudent alternative does not exist. He said he had suggested a different location away from steep slopes, a decrease in density, a change in layout, or clustering as alternatives to comply with this section of the Regulations.
Mr. Thomson said again, that all of Mr. Picton’s concerns had been addressed in his proposed motion and that the Commission could approve it. He added, though, that if the commissioners wanted more time to review all of the consultants’ advice, he would withdraw his motion.
Ms. Chase’s report and its findings were again debated.
Mrs. Hill noted that this site had long been used commercially and that any purchaser would want to develop it to meet the needs of his business. She said that in the process, this developer was restoring all of the impacted wetlands and allowing the site to regrow naturally. She noted that much of the proposed work was on steep slopes and in the upland review area, but agreed with Mr. Thomson that Land Tech had said it was OK. She said she had no engineering expertise and so would rely on Land Tech. She liked the proposed vegetated buffers, thought the proposal was an improvement over what now existed on site, and was generally in favor of the application.
Mr. LaMuniere thought the project was “doable” if the plan was followed and sufficient contingency measures were implemented below the buildings where he and Mr. Picton had identified areas of risk. He stated that the applicant proposed significant improvements to the site, which included installing the drainage system, planting vegetative cover, and reducing impervious surfaces. He did not think these proposed improvements were exactly a consideration of feasible and prudent alternatives as would apply to the relocation of buildings to assess whether doing so would result in less potential impact. He said it was not clear whether the relocation of the more intrusive buildings to the eastern part of the property would be significant in terms of wetland protection. While he thought it would have been better to remove those buildings close to the wetlands setback, he did not think their construction would pose either a long term or short term impact if the work was done properly and better erosion controls were installed.
Mr. Bedini asked Mrs. Hill if she thought that feasible and prudent alternatives had been considered according to the Regulations. Mrs. Hill said that was a matter of judgment and that the applicants had submitted a list of alternatives that they had or would change. She said this was a different way of looking at it. She said the Commission had to give the applicant leeway to do what he wants and that she did not think there would be adverse impacts because the Commission’s consultant had said there would be none if the work was done carefully.
Mr. Picton noted it appeared a motion to deny would fail, but suggested more work was needed on a motion to approve. He recommended that if the Commission had determined 1) there would be no adverse impacts, 2) there would be no short term or long term impacts, 3) there were realistic mechanisms for monitoring and verifying the work, 4) there was a likelihood the project would be satisfactorily completed, 5) the proposed mitigation was adequate, and 6) the applicant’s analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives was sufficient to meet the requirements of the Regulations, then these findings should be included in the motion to approve. He suggested that once crafted, it be sent to Atty. Zizka for review, and that a Special Meeting be scheduled to act on the motion at a later date.
Mr. LaMuniere agreed the motion should be rewritten.
Mrs. Hill, Mr. Picton, and Mr. Bedini thought Atty. Zizka should review the motion to make sure it addresses the Regulations and would hold up in court. Mrs. Hill thought if the motion would be sent out for a legal review, it should be written tonight. It was the consensus to send the motion to Atty. Zizka prior to taking action.
Mr. LaMuniere recommended several conditions of approval. 1) The applicant should return to the Commission for review and approval if development on the septic site is proposed. 2) A pre construction meeting to be attended by the Commission’s representative should be held to define more clearly the work to be done around and down gradient of the buildings in the high risk area. 3) The Commission should define more precisely what its monitoring engineer will be hired to do and what the role of the WEO should be. 4) The kind of monitoring reports to be required should be specified. Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Ajello thought the Kessler monitoring requirements, the settlement document by Atty. Zizka and Atty. Kelly, and the reporting system used by Mr. Neff would be helpful to review. Mr. LaMuniere said he was not prepared at this time to draft specific conditions.
Mr. Thomson suggested his original motion of approval be amended to include these conditions of approval and he read the changes he had included to address the concerns raised. Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Picton thought a more thorough draft should be done. Mr. Ajello suggested that the commissioners decide now what conditions they would want included in a motion of approval, and that he would then draft it and send it to Atty. Zizka for review.
The following conditions were recommended: 1) a $30,000 bond be posted, 2) if there was any change from the approved plans, the applicant is required to return to the Commission for review and approval, 3) monitoring of the applicant’s plan would be required as agreed to at a pre construction meeting, and 4) water quality testing as outlined in the report by Hydro Technologies be required.
Mr. Ajello stated that at the pre construction meeting the construction sequence would be expanded to include details regarding the work to be done around the wetlands.
The Commission’s choice for monitoring engineer was discussed. Mr. LaMuniere recommended Mr. Neff, who had worked with the Commission previously on the Kessler project. Mr. Ajello recommended Mr. Szymanski, the applicant’s engineer. Mr. Picton and Mrs. Hill stressed that the consultant should be an independent third party and it was the consensus to hire Land Tech. It was noted the work of the monitoring engineer would be independent of the erosion control specialist, and that the work of the monitoring engineer, erosion control specialist, and water quality tester would have to be coordinated.
Mr. Thomson withdrew his motion for reconsideration in a revised form at the next meeting.
A Special Meeting was scheduled for Monday, 11/3/08 at 4:00 p.m.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Picton adjourned the Meeting at 9:40 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: November 3, 2008 October 22, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Hill, Mr. Carey, Mr. Rickart, Mr. Neff, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Treadway, Mr. Federer, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Clark, Mr. Sabin, Ms. Zinick, Mr. Liljequist, Press
REGULAR MEETING Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: Pending Applications: F. Conlon/6 Valley Road/ #IW-08-53/Single Family Dwelling, Addition to Barn and Garage and Other Business: A. State Grant for Removing Invasives. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add consideration of the three 10/16/08 site inspection minutes to the agenda. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 10/8/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 4: Under Treadway:
1) end of 12th line: Add: “free” to state, “one foot of free board….”
2) 3 lines from bottom: Add after “meadow,” “and that the temporary stockpiles are to be located outside the wet meadow.”
MOTION: To accept the 10/8/08 Regular Meeting minutes as amended. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.The 10/9/08 Public Hearing minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 6: 2nd paragraph from bottom: Change: The first sentence should be, “Mr. Picton referred to p. 3 of Land Tech’s 9/25/08 report and asked several questions, including what would happen if water was diverted from flowing over a buffer with a natural function, which protects wetlands, what would be the ratio of the surface area from which runoff is redirected to the surface area of the proposed treatment structures, how would the surfaces designed for stormwater renovation work in the winter, if you divert a large watershed into a small vegetated facility and it works in the summer, will it also work in the winter, and what is the ratio of reengineered flow paths to the contributing watershed area?
P. 8: 2nd paragraph: 3rd line from bottom: Insert: “characteristics” after “soil.”
P. 9: 23rd line: Insert a colon after “lawn areas”
P. 11: 13th line from the bottom: After “signed” insert sentence: Atty. Hill said it came from the state DEP office file.
P. 12: End of 13th line: Add sentence: She answered, yes.
MOTION: To accept the 10/9/08 Public Hearing minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1. Mrs. Hill abstained because she had not attended.The BEC Holdings, LLC. site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 2: Bottom of 1st paragraph: Should state: one half of the total acreage.
MOTION: To accept the BEC Holdings, LLC. site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1.
Mrs. Hill abstained because she had not attended.MOTION: To accept the Treadway site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1. Mrs. Hill abstained because she had not attended.
MOTION: To accept the Reger site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 3-0-2. Mr. Picton and Mrs. Hill abstained because they had not attended.
Pending Applications Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-31/Site Improvements for Inn:
Mr. Picton thought the Commission needed an “orientation discussion” to organize, analyze, and condense all the materials submitted so that they could be used in the decision making process. He read a statement, which he said was based on the information from the public hearing, his own experience, and his experience as an Inland Wetlands commissioner. He noted that data from experts had been submitted, but he encouraged the commissioners to speak up, express their concerns, and think for themselves. He said if the application were approved, a carefully worded motion should be drafted to include conditions addressing issues such as bonding, monitoring, testing, stabilization, and verification of compliance and if it were to be denied, a carefully drafted motion should include the reasons the application fails to meet the Commission’s Regulations. In either case, he thought the motions should be drafted in advance for discussion. Other points he made included 1) positive proof of impact is not required, 2) the burden of proof is on the applicant to show there will be no adverse impacts, and 3) if there is a finding that there is a likelihood of adverse impact and if there is a feasible and prudent alternative with less impact, the Commission may not approve the application.Mr. Thomson suggested that a motion be made and discussed. Mr. Picton, Mr. LaMuniere, and Mrs. Hill wanted time to study the file before discussing a motion.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the applicant could comment at this time in the application process. Mr. Picton said he could not; that the Commission could consult with its consultant and that he would find out whether it could also consult with the applicant’s consultant if technical questions were raised.
Mr. Bedini suggested that the proposed construction sequence could be used as one basis of discussion. Mr. Picton agreed, adding it would have to be evaluated to determine whether it would be adequate to protect the wetlands.
Mr. Thomson noted that a requirement for the monitoring of the four construction phases was missing from the plan. He thought the applicant should be required to hire an engineer to report on a weekly basis regarding the completion of the work phases. He said he thought the proposed sequence was a good one, but that the Commission needed guarantees that it would be carried out, and that frequent monitoring would provide the assurance needed. Mr. Bedini noted the proposed construction sequence specified that an erosion control professional would inspect the work site once a week and after significant rain events. Mr. Thomson thought an engineer should be required to oversee the entire project, to make sure all phases were successfully completed, and that the erosion control plan was properly implemented. He also suggested a $30,000 performance bond. It was generally agreed that if approved, independent monitoring would be required.
Mr. LaMuniere recommended that before there was further discussion, the Commission should decide whether there would be negative impacts.
Mrs. D. Hill suggested that the commissioners use Sections 8.4, 8.13, and 9 of the Regulations as guidelines when reviewing the application.
Mr. Bedini thought the Commission’s counsel should attend the meeting at which the motion would be crafted and Mr. Picton suggested the draft motion could be sent to him for review.
Mr. Thomson said that based on the thorough, experienced, and trustworthy work by Mr. Szymanski and Land Tech and based on the two site inspections conducted on site, he thought there would be no significant impact to the wetlands and so there would be no need for the Commission to go over every detail of the application again. Mr. LaMuniere understood his point, but said it was the Commission’s job to review all of the data in the file and then to make a decision based on that data. Mr. Picton agreed. Mr. Thomson said he had no engineering background and so would rely on the consultants’ judgments.
Mr. Picton thought those for and against the application should draft motions according to the sections cited above by Mrs. Hill. He noted he had inspected the site earlier in the day and presented a copy of the site plan, sheet OSD.1, on which he had highlighted the location of the proposed activities in relation to the wetlands and upland review areas. He noted the plans had been continually revised throughout the process, and so he was not sure if the consulting reports were complete comprehensive reviews. Mr. Picton did not think the applicant had provided a comprehensive analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives. He noted that as the plan evolved and its scope was reduced, new areas had opened up where feasible and prudent alternatives could have been considered. Of note was the east section of the property where the driveway had been eliminated.
Mrs. Chase’s review was briefly discussed. Mr. Picton pointed out that if the Commission uses her assessment that assumes the brook is the highest quality, it would have no data to determine whether the construction has impacted the brook and whether remedial action is necessary.
Mr. Picton said he was concerned about the chances for the successful implementation of protective measures and he indicated on the site plan several areas where there were significant risks to wetlands. He noted the Commission has always considered slopes and the site conditions between the proposed activity and the wetlands and said he could not remember a time when it had approved the siting of a structure within 100 ft. of wetlands when there was an alternate viable location for it. He pointed out the locations of the structures proposed 50 ft. and within 100 ft. from wetlands and where they were proposed in the vicinity of slopes of up to 35% where it would be difficult to manage the ongoing construction. He also noted that the steep grades of some of the slopes would increase post development. Mr. Picton briefly discussed the function of vegetated buffers, noting that their ability to renovate stormwater decreases as slopes increase above 10% and that some of the buffers below the buildings to be located 50 ft. from wetlands would be on 20%-35% slopes. He said the applicant did not propose wetland buffers that take into account buffer science. He noted the limit of disturbance line extends to within an average of 20 ft. from the wetlands. Although not the responsibility of the Commission, he said he had looked for alternate sites with less potential impact than for the buildings currently proposed in the areas of greatest risk. He used an overlay sheet to illustrate how they could be located in an alternate area below the existing complex of main buildings where there is a flatter section down slope to use as a functioning buffer and how quads #1-#3 could be moved to the upper site. He stated that without decreasing the scope of the development or the number of cottages, the siting could be changed so that everything was out of the 100 ft. upland review area and on more moderate slopes. He thought the likelihood of adverse impacts increased when engineering was relied on instead of the conservative siting of the proposed activities.
Mr. LaMuniere said the plan had been well designed to provide adequate protection, noting it would not be reasonable to deny the application based on worst case scenarios. He did not think the proposal would cause further damage to the physical quality of the wetlands or the stream. He also thought economic issues should be considered when addressing feasible and prudent alternatives.
Mr. Bedini questioned why Land Tech had not brought up all the points raised by Mr. Picton and asked if Mr. Allan could be brought back to clarify them. Mr. Picton noted the Land Tech report concluded there were issues the Commission would have to decide for itself such as whether the erosion controls could be successfully implemented and whether there were feasible and prudent alternatives.
A Special Meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, October 29, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Thomson offered to work on a motion of approval and encouraged everyone to contribute, although he noted that under FOI if anyone met with him, it would require notice as a special meeting. Mr. Picton said he would put his remarks in writing.
Feasible and prudent alternatives were again briefly discussed. Mr. Picton said this was not a new issue and Mr. Bedini noted that the Commission has always discussed alternatives in the past.
Reger/65 Gunn Hill Road/#IW-08-49/2 Lot Resubdivision Feasibility:
Mrs. Hill recused herself and Mr. Wadelton was seated.
Mr. Clark, engineer, represented the applicant. The map, “Site Development Plan,” by Mr. Clark, revised to 9/16/08 was reviewed. Mr. Picton noted that the commissioners had conducted a site walk and had determined that although the property has steep slopes, the lot development could be accomplished without adverse impacts to the wetlands. Mr. Clark stated the slopes were 20%-25% near the proposed house site, which was in the upland review area, and 85 ft. from the intermittent watercourse associated with the spring. He also noted it was 60 ft. from the lower limit of the proposed grading to the same watercourse. Mr. Bedini stated that the proposed plan was conceptual and the Commission’s concern was that changes that might impact wetlands could be made at the time of actual construction. Mr. Picton suggested a condition of approval that the complete construction plans be brought to the Commission for review and approval prior to the commencement of work. Mr. Thomson said there were downhill catch basins that would be impacted by the proposed driveway. Mr. Picton said there appeared to be other possible points of access for the driveway just below pole #3081 and below pole #3082. These points were off sections of the road that weren’t so steep and so would be easier to manage and cause fewer stormwater runoff issues. Mr. Clark advised the Commission that the driveway location had been selected because the Town closes off part of Gunn Hill Road in the winter. The commissioners thought this was backward planning and that it would make more sense to open the road. The alternate driveway locations were discussed in more detail and Mr. Clark asked if USGS data could be used to map them. Mr. Picton said that would be acceptable for Wetlands purposes. Mrs. Hill will notify the Planning Commission about the driveway recommendations. MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-49 submitted by Mrs. Reger for 2 Lot Resubdivision feasibility at 65 Gunn Hill Road with the recommendation to the Planning Commission that an alternate driveway route requiring a lesser cut into the bank and resulting in fewer runoff issues be required and with the condition that before any work is begun, the final site plan be reviewed and approved by the Inland Wetlands Commission. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0. Mr. Wadelton was seated for Mrs. Hill who had recused herself.Mrs. Hill was reseated. Mr. Bohan left the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Steep Rock Assn./120 Bee Brook Road/#IW-08-50/Trail Repair:
Photos of the trail area were circulated. It was noted that no concerns had been raised at the last meeting.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-50 submitted by Steep Rock Assn. for trail repair on the bank of the Shepaug River at 120 Bee Brook Road. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
BEC Holdings, LLC./204 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-51/2 Lot Subdivision Feasibility:
Mr. Neff represented the applicant. The map, “Proposed Site Development Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 10/7/08 was reviewed. He noted a separate 6+ acre parcel was proposed as a conservation area and that no activities were proposed within the regulated areas on either of the proposed lots. The proposed house sites were at least 500 feet from wetlands. Mr. Picton asked if protection of the vernal pool had been addressed. Mr. Neff stated the vernal pool was located in the conservation easement area. It was noted that it was not known at this time specifically what road improvements to Clark Road would be required within 100 feet of wetlands, although Mr. Neff said it would have to be upgraded. Mr. Ajello thought a cross culvert would be installed on the west side of the road. Mr. Picton said a detailed plan for these improvements by the Town would have to be reviewed by the Commission before work begins. It was also noted that the soil scientist’s report had been submitted, but not his corresponding sketch plan. The Commission asked for confirmation in writing from the soil scientist that the soils shown on the survey map are those he identified on site.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-51 submitted by BEC Holdings, LLC. for 2 lot subdivision feasibility at 204 Wykeham Road subject to the following conditions:
1) that the applicant submit written confirmation that all wetlands on the property have been indicated on the site plan and
2) that detailed plans for the road improvements within the regulated area shall be reviewed and approved by the Commission prior to the start of work.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Treadway/20 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-52/Pond Maintenance:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, represented the applicant. The revised map, “Site Analysis Plan,” (on the 9/08 “Property/Boundary Survey,” by Mr. Alex) by Mr. Sabin, revised to 10/20/08 was reviewed. Mr. Sabin stated that the wet meadow upslope of the pond would be protected and there would be a 6 ft. minimum buffer between it and the spoils area. Also, to dewater the pond, the water will be pumped to a small natural sump behind a row of pines to the north of the pond and will discharge through staked hay bales to the stream. It was noted that none of the excavated material will be trucked off site. The area for the spoils will be stripped of top soil, a temporary berm put in, the soils spread when they are dry, and then the top soil respread and seeded. Regarding the dam repair, Mr. Sabin said it would meet the same geometry, but would be built of native stone; the design would not change. Mr. Picton noted the limit of disturbance along the east side of the pond would be for access only. Mr. Sabin said the duration of work would be about a week.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-52 submitted by Mr. Treadway for pond dredging and maintenance at 20 Nettleton Hollow Road subject to the following conditions:
1) all excavation, deposition, regrading, and stabilization shall be completed within 2 weeks of the start of work and
2) only clear water may be pumped from the pond basin.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
Conlon/6 Valley Road/#IW-08-53/Reconstruct Dwelling, Alteration of Garage, Addition to Barn:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, represented the applicant. The map, “Proposed B100a Sanitary Disposal System Plan,” revised to 10/22/08 showing a smaller proposed footprint for the dwelling was compared with the original map reviewed at the last meeting. Mr. Szymanski noted the property is within 500 feet of both Warren and Litchfield and that he had notified both towns of the application. He explained the lot has an existing house and a septic system only 10 – 12 ft. from the river. A new septic system is proposed 50 feet from the river. The location of wells on neighboring properties limits the possible area for its installation. He pointed out the location of the existing driveway and said 40% of its existing impervious surface would be removed. Revisions since the last meeting included reductions 1) of the size of the garage by 3 ft., 2) of one dimension of the house by 10 feet, and 3) of the size of the porch off the barn. Mr. Szymanski pointed out the limit of disturbance line, the location of staked hay bales, and the access for equipment. It was noted the reconstructed house would be no closer to the Shepaug River than the existing house. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, 10/28/08 at 4:30 p.m.
MOTION: To add Buell/3 Findley Road/Additions to Existing Dwelling to the agenda. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.
Buell/3 Findley Road/#IW-08-54/Addition, Enclosing of Porch, Deck, Spa, Above Ground Pool:
Ms. Zinick, agent, explained the owners proposed to construct an addition to the rear of the house, enclose the open porch and convert it to a kitchen, add a deck with spa, and install an above the ground pool. She pointed out the East Aspetuck River, which is approximately 78 feet from the house and an intermittent stream on the property. She said the area where the 25’ X 32’ addition is proposed is fairly level and the pool location is about 80 feet from the intermittent stream. She noted there is an old Town drainage easement on the property, that the Highway Dept. says that ditch is now closed off, and the owners would like to fill it. Ms. Zinick presented an aerial photo with soil boundaries from the NRCS shown and asked if a soil scientist would be required. Mr. Picton noted the site was already developed, but said the Commission would inspect it before making that determination. He also asked the applicant to investigate feasible and alternatives for the proposed addition. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 5:15 p.m.
Enforcement
Liljequist/22 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Stairway:
Mr. Ajello compared photos taken of the site several years ago with recent ones of the cleared area and new stairway. It was noted that an erodable path had been replaced with the stairway. Mr. Liljequist stated that he had not clear cut; he had only taken out dead hemlocks and then had added $2000 worth of plantings, and he objected to the notice of violation, which he called unfair. Mr. Ajello said he had concerns about the extent of the clearing done. Mr. Picton noted the goal was to establish a stable, vegetated slope with no soil disturbance. It was agreed Mr. Liljequist should submit an application to correct a violation and would be fined for a first time offense. It was noted the stairway had been constructed of pressure treated wood. Mr. Liljequist complained that trenching work by the Town had caused erosion, which had filled the area around his dock with sediment. He asked if the Town had to have a permit for this kind of work. Mr. Picton asked him to document the problem and that when this had been done the Commission would consult with Mr. Smith of the Highway Dept.
Other Business
State Grant for Removal of Invasives:
Mr. Thomson briefly described the state program for funding the removal of invasives on public lands. He thought this would be an opportunity for the Commission to be proactive and offered to work with Mrs. Corrigan and Mrs. Payne of the Conservation Commission to apply for the grant. It was noted grants of up to $50,000 would be awarded and that the Town would have to pay 25% of the cost.
MOTION: To authorize Mr. Thomson to research and work on an application for a state grant for the removal of invasive species on public land. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-1. Mr. Bedini voted No due to the current state deficit.
Enforcement Report
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road:
This will be discussed in executive session at the next meeting.Hochberg/Couch Road:
The stream level is low, so the proposed work can proceed.Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike:
It was hoped the Army Corps of Engineers would inspect the property on 10/28/08. If the Corps takes no action, the Commission will resume enforcement proceedings.Reinhardt/Perkins Road:
Mr. Childs submitted a report. A site inspection will be scheduled in November.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road:
Mr. Ajello noted the photos in the file clearly provided a comparison of the stream before the work was done and after. Areas of new fill were noted. Mr. Thomson read an undated letter from Mr. Schoellkopf to Mr. Rosen, which stated that 6 or 7 years ago the Commission had required the previous owner to make “adjustments” to the channel. It was not known whether this was true or if it was, whether the current activities related in any way to the past work. Mr. Picton said the Commission would investigate. Mr. Thomson thought Mr. Rosen should be sent another letter and that he be required to hire a professional to assess the work done and its impact on the watercourse and on Sprain Brook. Mr. Picton thought Milone and McBroom should be hired to deal with the stream hydrology and to recommend the restoration of the natural streambeds and riparian corridor and Atty. Zizka should be consulted about how the Commission could recover the cost. It was noted that the Army Corps would also inspect this site.Mr. Bedini left the meeting at 9:53. Mr. Wadelton was seated.
Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane:
Mr. Picton asked that Mr. Ajello make sure that the approved plans are followed.
Administrative Business
Revision of the Regulations:
Mr. Picton submitted his final comments. Mrs. D. Hill pointed out that although Mr. Picton was not satisfied with some of the revisions, such as the definition of agriculture, the language proposed was per the DEP draft. Mr. LaMuniere briefly discussed the distinction between regulations and procedures, noting that Atty. Zizka had advised that binding procedures should be referenced in the Regs. It was noted that the subcommittee had evaluated all comments it had received. Further input will be discussed in detail at the public hearing on 11/25/08. Land Use Consultant: Mr. Connor has begun the interview process. Mrs. Hill was asked to contact him to make sure all of the Inland Wetlands commissioners were consulted.MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 10:11 p.m.FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: October 27, 2008
SITE VISIT REPORT
Application no.: IW-08-V2
Inspection Date: 10/20/08
Time: 5:00-6:15 p.m.
Owner: James Rosen
Address: 304 Nettleton Hollow Road
Reason for visit: Unauthorized Stream Work, Clearing, Filling in Wetlands
Members Present: Tony Bedini, Mark Picton, Steve Wadelton, Charles LaMuniere
Staff Present: Mike Ajello
Others Present: Mr. and Mrs. James Rosen
Observations:
As there is no map or drawing of the work recently done on the banks and bed of the intermittent stream that runs in an east-west direction through Mr. Rosen’s property, a map prepared for Mr. Rosen in 2005 as part of an IWC application for the construction of a tennis court was used as the primary reference document during the site visit. The map, prepared by T. Michael Alex, L.L.S., is entitled “Property/Boundary Survey, Map Prepared for James Rosen and Et Al, 304 Nettleton Hallow Road, Washington, Connecticut, April, 2005". Wetland flags (WL) identified on the map provide some of the reference points used in the preparation of this report.IWC participants met Mr.and Mrs.Rosen at the entrance to their property on Nettleton Hollow Road. Some walked while others were driven up by Mr. Rosen to the area where work on the bank and bed of the stream appears to have started, i.e., approximately 370 feet to the east of the large reinforced concrete culvert running under the gravel driveway that leads to the several buildings located uphill on the property. The culvert conveys the intermittent stream to the westernmost portion of the property.
The intermittent stream on both sides of the culvert has been impacted in various ways by work carried out on its original banks and bed. The review of this work on the eastern side of the culvert began approximately at WL 55, where an 18- inch metal pipe, covered by a large, badly eroded cement slab, protrudes from the stream bed. It was noted that most of the water now flows around the southern side of the cement slab, not through the pipe, and was eroding the bank as well as depositing a large amount of gravel and small stones along its path. There was evidence of considerable natural erosion along the stream bed, east and uphill of the cement slab especially at each bend of the stream: bank undercutting, exposition of tree and shrub roots, deep soil erosion around large stones, etc., indicating that the stream carries a large volume of water and sediment during significant rain events or storms.
No work appears to have been done on the stream’s north bank for some 100 feet downstream of the cement slab. On the left bank of that stretch, however, two elongated sedimentation or retention basins intercept the flow of water. It is impossible to tell whether they existed previously or in what form as they are not marked on the map, but their southern extremities show evidence of recent work: torn roots protrude from the sides of the first or easternmost basin indicating excavating and deepening; the western one shows that some stone banking followed by earth filling and seeding has taken place on its western and south sides.
That second basin serves as the intake point for a four-inch pipe that carries water eastward along a slight incline for approximately 120 feet to the lip of an eight-foot drop where it escapes as a waterfall. The pipe sits on a base that may have been elevated from the original stream bed to achieve the waterfall effect. It is, however, difficult to estimate the original steepness of the slope along which the stream flowed from the map as the contour lines indicated thereon do not extend to the stream. The contour lines do, however, provide an indication that the slope was very pronounced and could have dropped as much as 18 feet over a 100-foot course.
A stone spillway has been built on top of the pipe-bearing base to carry the excess water that cannot be handled by the four-inch pipe during significant rain events. The spillway is approximately three feet wide and is enclosed by 18-inch high vertical stone walls. The right side of the spillway, which abuts the property’s northern boundary, has been filled with earth and seeded.
A stone footpath has been built along the south side of the spillway. It starts around WL 50 and extends some 20 feet beyond the end of the spillway. An18-inch high stone wall defines its south side and has been banked with earth and seeded. Judging from the map, it is apparent that a strip of wetlands of varying widths has been filled to accommodate the construction of the spillway and stone path. Considerable clearing of natural vegetation cover must also have taken place at the same time.
At the western outlet of the four-inch pipe, the water falls into a basin enclosed on all sides by stone walls. The basin is lined with an impermeable rubber or plastic sheet which stops the water from infiltrating into the ground and causes it to cascade into a succession of five additional basins of different widths. The last widest and largest of these basins abuts the culvert that runs under the driveway. A plank wedged against the culvert holds some of the water in the basin and restricts its flow through the culvert. Mr. Rosen informed that a thick cover of invasives, mostly multiflora rosa, was cleared between these basins and the northern property line.
To the west of the road culvert, a similar wider basin, enclosed by four-feet high stone walls has been constructed. The basin narrows into a stone-enclosed channel approximately three feet deep and four feet wide that runs west for about 220 feet. The lower portion of that channel has not been completed. Below that point the lowest part of the channel abutting Sprain Brook has been left untouched and provides an indication of what the intermittent stream bed was like before its channeling was undertaken.
It was noted that the stone channel has blocked the entrance approximately 50 feet west of the cement culvert of a secondary intermittent stream that flowed through a meadow in a northwestern direction. No traces of the bed of that intermittent stream, which is clearly indicated on the map, remain. New lawn is present in parts of this area.
It also appears that considerable areas of wetlands on the south and north banks of the stone channel have been filled, graded and grassed. Some of this work has taken place after the Notice of Violation and the IWC’s follow up Enforcement Order were issued, as evidenced by photographs in the file.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles LaMuniere
10/27/08
Posted: October 22, 2008
PLEASE NOTE:
This posting consists of three site visit reports
1. IW-08-51, BEC Holdings, LLC, 204 Wykeham Road: Two-Lot Subdivision Feasibility
2. IW-08-52, Treadway, 20 Nettleton Hollow Road: Dredging of Pond and Repair of Pond Perimeter
3. IW-08-49/2, Reger, 65 Gunn Hill Road: Lot Re-subdivision
INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
SITE INSPECTION REPORTApplication: IW-08-51
Inspection Date: 10/16/08
Time: 4:45 p.m.Applicant: BEC Holdings, LLC
Address: 204 Wykeham Road
Reason for Application: Two-Lot Subdivision Feasibility
Members Present: Tony Bedini, David Thomson, Charles LaMuniere
Staff Present: None
Others Present: Bryan Neff, Engineer; Bruce Carusillo, Owner
Observations:
Reference: Proposed Site Development Plan, Sheet 1 of 1; Two-Lot Subdivision: Wykeham Road and Clark Road; Washington, Connecticut; Drawn by B.E. Neff; Date: 10/7/08.Commissioners entered the property through Clark Road, an unmaintained largely grassed-over town road that branches off Wykeham Road on the southern boundary of the property. Driving some 600 feet north on Clark Road, they met Messrs. Neff and Carusillo at the entrance of the proposed driveway to the house site proposed for Lot 1 of the subdivision, on the east side of the property. Approximately 60 cubic yards of fill, which Mr. Carusillo said would be used during the construction of the house, have been dumped along the eastern side of that stretch of Clark Road.
The first 180 feet of Clark Road from its start off Wykeham Road lie within the 100 foot setback of a large wetland pocket located to its east. A culvert approximately 70 feet into Clark Road allows an intermittent stream flowing in an easterly direction to discharge water into these wetlands.
The subdivision plan includes a proposed open space conservation easement that is to run along the entire length of Lot 1's eastern boundary. The conservation easement is to be roughly 240 feet wide by 300 feet long at its widest southern end, giving protection to the above-mentioned wetlands and their 100-foot setback. It gradually narrows down to an approximately 80-foot-wide strip that runs along the central boundary of Lot 1 before widening again into an averaged 240-foot wide by 300-foot long area wherein lies a vernal pool slightly west of its center. It was noted that the proposed conservation easement (6.03 acres) represents slightly more than half of the total acreage of Lot 1 (11.65 acres).
The proposed house site for Lot 1 was viewed . It is located to the north of Clark Road on the nearly flat part of a large open field with land sloping down and away from it to its north as well as to its east towards the proposed conservation easement. The septic field is located to the south of the house site between Clark Road and the proposed conservation easement but more than 150 feet away from the wetlands.
Participants then walked west and north along Clark Road to the proposed house site for Lot 2 (11.426 acres) on the western side of the property. Both the proposed house and its septic field are to be located east of Clark Road in an area covered by a dense, relatively young forest with sparse understory. The septic field lies to the south of the house site on an almost flat area; the house site is on a steeper sloped area (8% to 10% grade) with more than 400 feet separating the house’s site proposed limit of construction from a strip of wetlands to its north which is part of a wetland belt that borders the entire length of the site’s northern boundary.
Participants left the site at approximately 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles LaMuniere
10/21/08
INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
SITE INSPECTION REPORTI. APPLICATION #: IW-08-52
INSPECTION DATE: 16 October 2008
TIME: 5:35pmII. NAME: Charles T. Treadway
III. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 20 Nettleton Hollow Road
IV. REASON FOR APPLICATION: Dredging of Pond and Repair of Pond Perimeter
V. MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles LaMuniere, David Thomson, Tony Bedini
STAFF PRESENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles T. Treadway, owner; Mr. Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect
VI. OBSERVATIONS:
Reference: Site Analysis Plan, Property Boundary Survey, dated September 2008, scale 1”=40’.We arrived on site at 5:35 pm and parked on the east side of the property off of Sunny Ridge Road. We met with Mr. Treadway and Mr. Sabin who explained the proposed activities. The property is a 5.05 acre parcel of which 3.37 acres is under a conversation easement in favor of Steep Rock Association.
The pond referred to is approximately 120 feet long by 40 feet wide, half of which is bordered by an earth berm mostly on the western side. Through the berm is a high water overflow channel, also on the western side, that is in need of repair. It is estimated that approximately 533 cubic yards of material will be dredged from the pond. Maximum depth of dredging is 6 feet. Pond side slopes will be maintained at a 3:1 slope. The dredged material will be placed on the easterly side (Sunny Ridge Road side) of the pond for dewatering. Machine access will be from Sunny Ridge Road on ground that is high and dry. There will be no hauling or trucking in or out of the site.
On the east side of the pond a mowed lawn area is rather flat and then rises to Sunny Ridge Road. Change in elevation is approximately (738 to 760) 22 feet in a distance of 160 feet. Two large Red Pines are located in that area and are diseased (blight). It is proposed to remove the two Pines and then strip the top soil and spread the dried pond spoils from the edge of the lawn to an elevation of 750. It will be tapered and blended into the existing landscape on all sides. The top soil will then be spread on top of the spoils and planted with a wet meadow mix and mulched with hay. The top and side edges of this activity are the limit of disturbance. Erosion controls are detailed on the plan. On the west side of the pond towards Nettleton Hollow Road, the berm height will be increased about a foot to gain greater freeboard. Finished elevation of the berm is 739.34. The high level overflow channel will be renovated as it is now in disrepair. The channel will be stabilized and lined with 6” field stone on the bottom and sides. The walkway across the channel will be replaced by 3” x 12” Oak timber and supported by cement blocks set in the ground. No railings are proposed or required. The overflow from the pond spills into a small brook (name unknown) that runs along Nettleton Hollow Road. Silt fence and other erosion controls are detailed on the plan. There is also a fallen Pine tree across the berm and the berm will be repaired with a layer of Bentonite.
Prior to dredging, the pond will be pumped out and into the brook with a submersible pump.
The plan and map are well detailed; a sequence of construction is included, as are details of the overflow channel, location of trees, berm details, elevations etc.
We left the site at approximately 6:00pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Bedini
INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
SITE INSPECTION REPORTI. APPLICATION: IW-08-49/2
II. NAME: Holly Reger
III. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 65 Gunn Hill Road
IV. REASON FOR APPLLICATION: Lot Re-subdivision
V. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tony Bedini, Charles LaMuniere, David Thomson
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Ajello
OTHERS PRESENT: Bart Clark
VI. OBSERVATIONS:
References: Site Development Plan (3 pages) dated: August 9, 2008The site visit team entered the property from Gunn Hill Road and walked to the "conceptual" house, septic and driveways as indicated on the maps. The principle characteristic of the proposed lot is its sloping nature. There are two wetland/watercourse features related to the proposed subdivision, a stoned in spring approximately 85 feet downgrade from the nearest corner of the "conceptual house," and an intermittent water course. The conceptual driveway will have to cross the intermittent watercourse. An 18 inch culvert is proposed. A number of trees will have to be removed to accommodate the planned driveway as well as the proposed house location.
This is a difficult site due to the amount of slope in excess of 25%. Portions of the house, septic and driveway are located within the sloping topography. Mr. Clark's detailed maps and extensive construction sequence plans address these issues, indicating that in spite of the difficulties it may be feasible to place a house, septic system and driveway on the proposed lot without major impact on wetlands and watercourses.
Another potential problem is the runoff from the site and the driveway into down grade catch basins along the road.
David Thomson
October 21, 2008
Posted: October 16, 2008 October 9, 2008
Public Hearing
October 9, 2008
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Bohan
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Federer, Mrs. Clark, Atty. Hill, Atty. Strub, Mr. Allan, Atty. Olson, Mr. Klauer, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Szymanski, Mrs. Peacocke, Mr. Caroe, Ms. Giampietro, Mr. Goodin, Mr. Rickert, Mrs. Solomon, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARING
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Application #IW-08-31/Site Development for Inn/Con’t.
Mr. Picton reconvened the Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson. He noted the list of documents submitted at the last session of the hearing and since the last session.
Mr. Picton read a statement regarding how the Inland Wetlands Commission fulfills its responsibilities and what factors it considers, such as impacts, feasible and prudent alternatives, specific site conditions, and measures for wetlands protection when reviewing an application. He noted in this application there were many proposed activities that require careful review due to the sloping site and proximity to wetlands and he advised the public that the Commission would give each due consideration and would use the same standards in this case as it uses to judge all other applications.
Due to very recent revisions by the applicant, the following options for processing this application were considered: 1) ask the intervener and other interested parties if they need more time to review the latest material, and if they do, continue the hearing now and reconvene at a later date, 2) have the Commission consider whether the process was flawed because a final, complete application was not available at any point during the process, and 3) continue with the public hearing now.
Atty. Hill, representing the intervener, said he would not request an extension and that Mr. Goodin, intervener’s engineer, was present to respond to the latest plans. However, he added that a development of this intensity does not meet the Regulations, that Mrs. Chase’s environmental review applied to the first submission, but not to the subsequent revisions, and that under Section 7.11 of the Regulations, the Commission should vote to close the public hearing and then vote to deny the application without prejudice, which would leave the applicant the option of returning with a complete application when he is ready.
For the applicant, Atty. Fisher stated the latest revisions were not major, dealt with traffic flow, and had been made to address comments by Land Tech and the Zoning Commission.
Atty. Hill responded that this was not a minor change; that an entrance had been eliminated and that enlargement of the remaining entrance would require work near Kirby Brook. He said this was further evidence that the plan had not been well thought out and the application should be resubmitted.
Atty. Strub represented the Ewings, adjoining property owners. He said that each revision of the plan had been major, for example, the change in lot coverage from 17% to 10%, and had resulted in significant changes so that the Commission was now essentially considering a new application. He did not think interested parties had enough time to review the revisions and noted that at the 8/13 session of the hearing, the Commission’s counsel, Atty. Zizka, had said it was late in the process for changes, but even so, further revisions had been submitted on 9/9 and 10/8. He submitted a letter to the Commission dated 10/9/08.
Mr. Picton noted that all of the revisions impacted the feasible and prudent alternatives, which the Commission still had to analyze.
Mr. Federer, intervener, noted that the Commission had asked that all documents be submitted by 9/25 so that there would be time for analysis before the 10/9 session of the hearing and said it was frustrating that last minute submissions had been made throughout the process.
The map, “Overall Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 10/8/08 was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski, engineer, said five basic changes had been made since the last meeting in response to Land Tech’s 10/1/08 letter. 1) A revised landscaping plan had been submitted to address concerns about the removal of invasive plants along the streambank. 2) Silt fence will be installed instead of the originally proposed hay bales. 3 and 4) Meadow grasses will be planted between duplex #3 and the downgrade woodland and down hill of and between quads #2 and #3. 5) Water sampling will be done and will be modeled after the process used for the Montessori School application. There was also the addition of a temporary sediment trap with a grass lined swale at catch basin #62. Mr. Szymanski noted that the access to the property had existed for over 100 years and that although he did not think it was unsafe, he had eliminated the upper access to appease the neighbors. He said the remaining existing access would be used and the banks rip rapped, with no impact to Kirby Brook. Regarding feasible and prudent alternatives, he said the upper access pavement would be taken up and the area restored, not a significant change, but an improvement in his opinion.
Atty. Hill responded that the entrance had, indeed, been used for 100 years, but not for a development of this size. He also said that installing rip rap would impact the brook.
Mr. Goodin said he would make a short presentation to list his concerns about the latest revisions and had a longer presentation to make if the hearing would not be continued as he had not had an opportunity to address the revisions submitted during the last two months. He presented the map, “Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 9/18/08, which he had colored and written notes on. The points he raised included several zoning concerns. His relevant wetlands issues included the following: 1) The excavation proposed to improve the sight lines along Wykeham Road would be done near a catch basin that empties into Kirby Brook, but no erosion controls were proposed. Mr. Picton said he had specified that those details were to be included in the plan. 2) The existing driveway width at the remaining access was not wide enough to adequately handle two way traffic and widening it would require tree cutting and work along the streambank in the regulated area. 3) Mr. Goodin said that applicants are required to submit a “complete, best” site plan and then show feasible and prudent alternatives with less or no impact, but that Wykeham Rise, LLC. had not done this. He explained the feasible and prudent alternatives must be discussed so that the Commission can determine whether there is a better design. Mr. Picton agreed that feasible and prudent alternatives would be discussed during the hearing.
Mr. Picton asked the commissioners for their opinions about the three options for handling the hearing and application. Mr. Bedini did not think discussion should be cut off without all parties having had a chance to speak, but he also stressed that final plans were needed in time for the intervener to review and rebut and for the Commission to get answers to all questions.
Mr. LaMuniere noted that the Commission had given a 9/25 deadline for the submission of new material, but since the applicant had not complied and had submitted significant changes, the public had to have the opportunity to respond. He suggested a new time limit be set.
Mr. Thomson asked, if the hearing were closed tonight, would the Commission have the right to ask Land Tech to “boil down” technical issues and report back at the next meeting. Atty. Olson said analysis of documents submitted and issues already raised would be OK, but no new independent opinions could be submitted. She also urged that since Mr. Allan of Land Tech was present, the Commission should try to get his technical responses on the record now. Mr. Picton feared that determining the difference between the interpretation of existing information and the development of new information could be a problem.
Mrs. D. Hill thought everyone should have the opportunity to speak tonight. She asked Mr. Picton if he thought alternatives for the Commission to consider had already been submitted.
Mr. Picton thought the alternatives should be presented and the hearing closed tonight. He noted that Land Tech’s job was to advise the Commission about whether the applicant had met its Regulations, and the Commission’s job was to determine whether the project could be carried out successfully.
Mr. Szymanski reviewed Mr. Goodin’s map and made the following points. 1) Mr. Goodin had not shown the entire length of driveway to be removed. The elimination of this driveway section would reduce the impervious asphalt by 2100 sq. ft. 2) Mr. Goodin’s recommendation that the discharge from pond #2 be directed into the existing wetlands system did not take into account that there is little cover in that system now and the velocity of the outflow would result in erosion into the wetlands and into Kirby Brook. 3) Mr. Szymanski noted that the pipe currently discharging directly into Kirby Brook is causing erosion and the plans to stabilize this section would be an improvement and would not increase the potential for erosion in this area. 4) Mr. Szymanski stated that the proposed driveway is close to wetlands, but there are already impacts from the existing driveway. He said the plans called for increasing the buffer along the brook, installing grass lined swales, and using porous asphalt to improve, although not eliminate, the impacts.
Mr. Szymanski said the applicant had already submitted a plan for feasible and prudent alternatives on Sheet EC.2. He said that leaving the site as it exists would be a feasible and prudent alternative and that if the applicant did so, the project would not be under the Wetlands Commission’s jurisdiction.
Mrs. Peacocke, adjoining property owner, read her letter dated 10/8/08 in which she stated that feasible and prudent alternatives to lessen the scope of the activity must be considered. She said the applicant had rejected the idea of designing the facility so it would be located outside the 100 ft. upland review area and that the applicant had said it could open using the existing structures without Wetlands jurisdiction. She said this was incorrect because there is no grandfathering provision for adverse impacts and no vested right to continue a regulated activity on a protected wetland. She cited several court cases. She also raised the question of baseline data, saying the site had been empty for 8 years and so comparing proposed impacts to the previous school’s impacts was not relevant. She said the applicant had failed to provide the base line data that was needed for the Commission to analyze the precise impacts proposed and then to compare them with those resulting from the feasible and prudent alternatives. She noted that Mr. Szymanski spoke often of mitigation, but said avoidance of impacts was always the better plan.
Mr. Goodin circulated copies of technical data on bioretention facilities, sensitive watercourses, energy dissipators, and design criteria for stormwater ponds, the 9/19/08 letter to Mr. Szymanski from Mr. Black of Water System Solutions & Design, Inc., and his 9/25/08 report and 10/9/08 letter, which contained sixteen items he said the applicant had not addressed. 1) He stated the only feasible and prudent alternative that had been submitted was to use the existing plan and that this was not adequate. He thought the use of the portion of the existing driveway farthest from the wetlands should be considered as a feasible and prudent alternative, for example, because this area was already cleared and would require less grading and other disturbance. He also maintained that a number of the facilities proposed, such as the driveway width at the remaining entrance, are inadequate for the proposed use and so will need to be expanded in the future, resulting in more impacts to the wetlands. He reviewed several feasible and prudent alternatives that he thought should be considered. 2) Regarding sight line improvements for Wykeham Road, he stated that no plans for that work had been submitted, no erosion controls were proposed, and the grading would go over the catch basin that empties into the wetlands. 3) The items listed in the Judea Water Company’s 9/19/08 letter had not been detailed on the plans. He also thought plans for a new, larger water line to accommodate the sprinkler system would be needed, but had not been provided. 4) He said the proposed outlet pipe to Kirby Brook with rip rapped pad on a 10% slope was not designed per DEP guidelines, would fail, and was reason enough to deny the application. He discussed alternative discharge plans. 5) Mr. Goodin objected to the Ideal methodology used for the design criteria of the detention ponds and urged that the state method be used so that it could be determined whether or not the proposed basins are adequate. 6) Mr. Goodin expressed his concern that the plans did not adequately address thermal impacts to Kirby Brook. 7) He complained the applicant did not provide a maintenance access around the entire detention pond, aquatic bench, safety bench, and pond drain per the DEP Manual. 8) Mr. Goodin argued that the applicant had not properly designed the rain gardens per the DEP Stormwater Quality Manual, nor had he proven they would function properly. 9) The applicant did not provide a site specific lawn maintenance program. He gave examples specific provisions that he said should be included. 10) Mr. Goodin said that design criteria for the septic system have not been submitted. 11) The applicant did not provide a detailed list of each proposed activity that would impact the wetlands. 12) Mr. Goodin stated that because the application had been revised so many times, a revised environmental impact statement by Mrs. Chase should be required. 13) Mr. Goodin stated DEP guidelines call for 100 ft. buffers along brooks, but the plans propose significant development within 100 ft. of the brook. 14) He stated that Mrs. Chase had not checked to determine whether the detention ponds had been designed per DEP guidelines before she concluded that there would be no adverse impact on water quality. 15) Mr. Goodin recommended that the application be withdrawn and resubmitted so that the revised wetlands crossing could be fully reviewed. 16) He complained the public had not had adequate time to review and respond to the revised plans.
Mr. LaMuniere noted that in his 9/25/08 letter, Mr. Goodin stated that buildings were proposed in the septic reserve area. He asked him to point out this area. Mr. Goodin said the 1991-1992 state approval for the Swiss Hospitality septic system showed the exact location of the reserve fields and the nitrogen dilution area, which were no build zones, and he would submit it for the record if the Commission wanted it. Mr. Picton said the Commission would review this plan.
Mr. Picton referred to p. 3 of Land Tech’s 9/25/08 report and asked several questions, including what would happen if water was diverted from a buffer that was designed with a natural function to protect the wetland, what would the ratio be of the redirected water to the renovated surface, how would the renovated surfaces work in the winter, if you divert a large watershed into a small vegetated facility and it works in the summer, will it also work in the winter, and what is the ratio of reengineered flow paths? Mr. Szymanski said it was difficult to provide such detailed information when it was not asked for ahead of time. He said all of the points in the Land Tech letter had to be reviewed as a whole because the stormwater management system was comprised of many parts functioning as a whole. Mr. Picton agreed, but said the Commission must also review each component.
Mr. Picton asked about the installation of the porous pavement on compacted sub layers. Would the runoff filter through the top, but not the bottom layers? Mr. Szymanski responded that although the permeability of the top layer of soil may be affected, at 8 to 12 inches below, the permeability is still in tact, even if large vehicles have driven over it. He briefly explained the installation process.
Mr. LaMuniere said the Commission would review the plans both as a whole and point by point. He asked for comments by Mrs. Chase about Dr. Klemens’ points on wetlands dependent species.
Regarding slope analysis, Mr. Picton asked what the actual slopes would be around the proposed development within 100 ft. of wetlands on steep slopes and how much steeply sloped land would surround each regulated activity. Mr. Szymanski said he had provided the information the Commission had requested. Mr. Picton said then he would measure it on his own.
Mr. Picton asked if the installation of detention pond #1 would affect the water table of the immediately adjacent wetlands. Mr. Szymanski stated that the water from the wetlands would not flow laterally and the cut for the pond would only be about 6 ft. into the water table. Mr. Allan said it would depend on the elevation of the wetlands in comparison to the outlet control structure. Mr. Picton thought the difference was 10 ft. and noted that he had asked this question previously, but it had not been addressed.
Mrs. Chase stated that her comments to Dr. Klemens were included in Mr. Szymanski’s 9/26/08 letter. Mr. LaMuniere noted that Dr. Klemens had raised specific questions and the Commission would have appreciated specific responses to his criticisms.
Mr. Picton noted that one question Mrs. Chase had not responded to was the impact of plants and animals on the physical character of the wetlands and said she had not responded because Mr. Szymanski said this issue was outside the Commission’s jurisdiction. He countered that Atty. Zizka had not eliminated the Commission’s jurisdiction in this matter. Mrs. Chase voiced her concern that the Commission was over stepping its legal jurisdiction. She stated that her report was based on her field work in mid May and early June and that whenever she did not have baseline data, she assumed there were good quality habitats and good water quality present. She said her main concern was the preservation of the water quality and hydrology of the wetlands. She said the installation of silt fence, especially if it was staggered, would not eliminate wildlife, but could reduce its numbers and the diversity of species. Mr. Picton asked if she thought the presence of wildlife has an impact on the physical function and character of the wetlands. She said the chemical character of the wetlands would be impacted and that without the component of functioning as a wildlife habitat, the wetlands would not be the same.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if Mrs. Chase had concluded that the proposed work would not negatively impact the wetlands and wetlands dependent species. He also clarified that just because she had not seen fish when she was on site, it did not mean there were no fish there. Mrs. Chase said she had observed the brook to be a good quality habitat, although she did not see any fish. She stated that the project would not alter the physical character, function, or integrity of the wetlands found on site today and that they would be maintained, not altered.
Mr. Picton thought it would be helpful if the Commission had been provided with more detailed data regarding the pre construction baseline water quality of the stream for post construction comparisons. He said the comparisons could be used to determine if any changes had occurred and if so, adjustments to correct the impacts could be made. He said data such as the diversity and extent of the wildlife population and the soil and water levels in the wetlands would be helpful. Mr. Szymanski said he would provide this information.
Atty. Strub pointed out that Mrs. Chase could have inspected the site several times since May-June so that she could have provided a more accurate report. Mrs. Chase responded that since she had highly rated the quality of the wetlands system, additional visits could only have confirmed this or lowered the rating.
Ms. Giampietro, who lives across the street from the site, said she observed fish in the brook in May and June.
Mrs. Ewing, an adjoining property owner, also saw fish there.
Mr. Szymanski briefly addressed the 16 points raised by Mr. Goodin. 1) He stated that there were would be impacts to the wetlands whether the site was used as it is now or developed as proposed. Mr. Picton pointed out, however, that the site was now stable, but would not be during construction. Mr. Goodin said there was likely to be a significant potential for much larger impacts than those occurring now if the proposed development was not done properly. Mr. Szymanski asked whether the applicant would have had to come to the Commission for approval if he proposed to use the site as it exists today. Mr. Ajello responded that activities within 100 ft. of wetlands and watercourses are regulated. Mr. Szymanski asked the Commission to observe the pipe between wetlands flags #13-#15 and tell him that removing this point discharge would not be an improvement. Mr. Picton said this sounded like an enforcement matter that could be addressed without developing the property. Mr. Szymanski said the Commission could not ignore the existing impacts and said his 9/28/08 letter looked at those impacts and alternatives. These impacts included the following: Kirby Brook buffer: This is as narrow as 5 ft. in some areas and the plans call for an increase to 50 ft. wide. Tennis court: When the retaining wall fails, the soil will impact the wetlands. The applicant proposes to remove the court and restore the area to its natural grade. Drainage system discharge at flag #14: The pipe will be completely removed. Gravel parking area: The access is 10 ft. from the wetlands and the parking area is partly in wetlands. Mr. Szymanski said the area would be restored and replanted and utilized for the detention pond “with minimum disturbance by humans.” Retaining wall and lawn: The wall near flag #37 is within 10 ft. of the wetlands and the lawn at flags #36-#38 is currently being mowed. The plans call for the removal of the dorm, restoration of the area, and the planting of a meadow grass buffer. NE corner of the septic system: Based on the Ct. health code there can’t be a cut less than 50 ft. downhill of a septic system. For this site, the cut is proposed in the only place that can be used to access the upper portion of the property, although it is slightly closer to the wetlands. Development in the forested area: Mr. Szymanski said the applicant had tried to minimize the development of forested areas by reducing the number of proposed buildings, moving the development a greater distance up hill from the wetlands, providing rain gardens for infiltration, and will restore temporary site disturbances with meadow grass. Existing meadow and lawn areas. He said that currently there is unimpeded stormwater flowing over the field, but that the increased buffer will allow more infiltration. Wetlands pocket: This pocket, flags #48-#52, has invasive species, which will be removed and the area restored. East of the proposed main building: This area is now lawn and paved path and has a propane tank in the wetlands. These will be removed and the area restored. Existing service access to Bell Hill Road: This will be eliminated and the area restored. Downhill wetlands: In the area of wetlands flags #64-#66 the existing pavement will be removed and the area restored. Decrease in density: Mr. Szymanski stated a decrease in the proposed density of the development would not decrease the impacts to the wetlands. He agreed there was a potential for impacts during construction, but said the plans ensure there will be no likely impact. He referred to the construction sequence and said an independent inspector would be hired to monitor the site on a weekly basis and after storms with more than 1 inch of rainfall to protect against short term impacts. Mr. Picton asked that it be made clear to all contractors that all of the protective measures must be correctly installed and maintained. 2) Mr. Szymanski stated the work to be done to improve the sight lines along Wykeham Road was not on the applicant’s property, but said he would meet to discuss it with the Board of Selectmen on 10/16. He said this plan was submitted on sheet #SL-1.
Mrs. Peacocke noted that Mr. Szymanski had reviewed the benefits of the project, but asked him to address feasible and prudent alternatives. Mr. Szymanski said he could propose to do nothing or remove the existing buildings and replace them with a hayfield. Mr. Picton said this would not be suitable from the owner’s perspective and suggested the buildings could be moved so they would not be located on such steep slopes. Mr. Szymanski responded that the period of construction was the main concern and there would be little potential for long term impacts once the disturbed areas were stabilized. He said that a plan with no development within 100 ft. of the wetlands would limit the potential for development on the site and he pointed out on the Site Development Plan the location of the unregulated areas. He said the applicant had considered locating the main building on the southern portion of the property, but since the neighbors would have objected on aesthetic grounds, only smaller buildings had been proposed there. He also noted that because sprawl was a concern, the number of buildings had been reduced to fifteen. Mr. Picton asked why the buildings closest to the wetlands hadn’t been the ones eliminated. Mr. Szymanski said that the applicant could consider removing them, but the key was maintaining a 50 ft. wide vegetative buffer.
Mr. Allan said he had reviewed the plans and had determined that from an erosion and sedimentation control standpoint the applicant had done a good job protecting against short term impacts close to wetlands. He added that the proposed buffers, stormwater management system, and rain gardens would provide effective treatment of runoff to protect the resources in the long term. Mr. Picton worried that if the erosion controls were not executed and maintained properly there would be adverse impacts.
Mr. Allan briefly discussed the ratio of watershed to buffer and said the majority of runoff would infiltrate. He also noted there was “redundancy” built into the stormwater management plans to address any problems that might arise.
Mr. Ajello noted that Mr. Allan had not had an opportunity to review the latest revisions, but asked if he had any comments. Mr. Allan said the amount of roadway had been reduced and there was no increase in potential impacts.
Mr. Szymanski continued to address Mr. Goodin’s concerns. 3) He submitted the map, Proposed Underground Water Tank Location Map,” dated 10/9/08 showing the locations of the pumping station north of pond #1 and the underground storage tanks. He also noted that the existing 6” water line would be adequate because so much water would be stored on site. 4) Mr. Szymanski noted the rip rap apron for pond #1 is on a 35% slope, and said he would consider recommendations by Land Tech such as shortening the pipe or moving it up the hill. 5) He stated the plans go a step above the DEP guidelines and that the calculations had been provided to prove the detention ponds would work. 6) Mr. Szymanski responded that the impervious surfaces on site had been reduced by 30% and the runoff from them would infiltrate and be cooled underground before reaching the brook. Mr. Goodin argued that the issue was not about runoff, but about the water in the ponds heating up. He called for a redesign of the detention ponds and for plantings around them. Mr. Szymanski said there was existing vegetation and that the plans had to be reviewed as a whole and the entire impact considered, not just the impact of one component. A brief discussion regarding baseline data followed. Atty. Hill argued that the property could be used today for a single family dwelling or for a use under a prior Special Permit. Any other use, he said, would require a Special Permit, which would require improvements to the infrastructure. 7) Mr. Szymanski said that per its 9/9/08 letter, Land Tech found the proposed aquatic bench was adequate. 8) Regarding the rain gardens, he noted that he had never taken any credit for them in the drainage calculations; they were redundant facilities. He also said they would work in the winter. 9) Mr. Szymanski was willing to add the specific items recommended by Mr. Goodin to the lawn maintenance program. He said the fertilizer used would be based on the actual soils on site. Pre, during, and post construction water quality monitoring will be done and a log will be maintained. 10) Mr. Szymanski noted that he had requested that Ms. Von Holt, local sanitarian, be included in the meetings with the DEP and that she had confirmed that the applicant is proceeding in the proper manner with the septic plans. Mr. Picton noted there is no design on record at this point. Mr. Szymanski noted the 1991 plan approved for the Swiss Hospitality Inst. is the plan of record. Mr. Goodin submitted a copy of that plan and pointed out that the proposed development encroached on the reserve area as it had been approved in 1991. Mr. Szymanski thought there were other reserve areas available. Atty. Olson noted that the authenticity of the map had not been established; it was not certified or signed. Mr. LaMuniere asked what would happen if the DEP prohibited building in the septic reserve area. Atty. Olson responded that the applicant would have to modify the plans. 11) Mr. Szymanski stated that a list of each proposed wetlands disturbance had been provided in the list of feasible and prudent alternatives on pp. 23-27 of his 9/8/08 letter. 12) Mrs. Chase said she did not need to write another report to address the revised plans as there would be no different impacts as a result of the changes. Mr. Goodin pointed out an area where it was proposed to rip rap directly into the brook and said this would be a direct impact. Mr. Szymanski said he had discussed this stabilization measure with Mrs. Chase who could supervise the work if the Commission thought it necessary. 13) Mr. Szymanski agreed that development was proposed within 100 ft. of the brook, but said it was a reduction when compared with what now exists within 100 ft. of the brook. 14) Mr. Szymanski said he reviewed the plans with Mrs. Chase who was “comfortable” with the design of the detention basins. He said water quality protection was provided and it was not necessary for Mrs. Chase to respond to all of Mr. Goodin’s concerns. Mr. Szymanski concluded that the plans provide both short and long term protection of the wetlands and watercourse.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the two way driveway crossing should be widened as Mr. Goodin recommended.
Mr. Thomson asked Mrs. Chase if she had concluded there would be no significant impact to the wetlands or watercourse.
Atty. Fisher noted that Mr. Picton’s concerns about the proper installation and monitoring of the erosion controls and adherence to the approved construction plans were valid. He suggested the Commission could approve the application with detailed conditions like it had done for the Montessori School and said the applicant would file the approved plan with conditions on the Land Records. He noted that monitoring would be up to the Commission, but said that ongoing water quality testing would be done, and that the applicant would abide by all of the legal mechanisms in place. Mr. Picton recalled that even with detailed conditions, the Montessori School construction had not been carried out properly and damage to the wetlands had resulted.
Mr. LaMuniere said the Commission would likely require a “full time monitor” to oversee the project for at least two full years.
Mrs. Solomon asked if the property was sold if future owners would be required to adhere to the same approved plan and conditions. Mr. Picton said they would and that the approval and conditions would be part of the Town’s permanent record and recorded on the Town Land Records if that is a condition of approval.
Mrs. Solomon asked about short term impacts. Mr. Szymanski explained that four construction phases were proposed and that each would be stabilized before work on the next phase would begin. He said the construction would take two years. Mrs. Chase said her conclusions about water quality had been based on the proposed erosion control plan, not on the duration of construction.
Mr. Picton noted that the Commission would discuss both whether the erosion controls proposed were adequate to accomplish their required task and possible conditions of approval after the close of the public hearing.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider Application #IW-08-31 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. for site development for an inn at 101 Wykeham Road. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton closed the public hearing at 11:21 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: October 15, 2008 October 8, 2008
Regular Meeting
October 8, 2008
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. LaMuniere
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Dyer, Mrs. Branson, Mr. Clark, Mr. Neff, Mr. Wilson
Mr. Picton called the Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, Picton, and Thomson and Alternate Bohan for Mr. LaMuniere.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda:
New Applications:
D. Conlon/6 Valley Road/#IW-08-53/Single Family Dwelling,Other Business:
B. Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-07-61/Open Space Configuration,
C. Agent Review/Allard/ 156 Wykeham Road/Construct Studio and Septic System.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.Consideration of the Minutes
The 9/24/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P.1: Under Consideration of the Minutes: first line: Add: “for Mr. Bohan” after “seated.”
P.4: 6th line: Change: “shorted” to “shorter.”
P.5: 4th line from bottom: Add: “and greater” after “slopes.”
P.6: 8th line: Add: “about” after “jurisdiction.”
MOTION: To accept the 9/24/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-31/Inn:
Mr. Ajello reported that revised plans had been submitted today and that he had referred them to Land Tech for review. The main revision was a change in the access to make the main entry near Golf Course Road a two way driveway. The upper access on Wykeham Road would be eliminated.
Mr. Picton asked if the wetlands crossing would be widened. Mr. Ajello said it would not.
Mr. Ajello also noted that a revised landscaping plan had also been submitted today.
Melahn/67 River Road/#IW-08-47/Construct Front Dormer, Rear Roof Overhang, Shed:
Mrs. Hill recused herself because she is an adjoining property owner and Mr. Wadelton was seated.
Mr. Picton asked if Mr. Ajello had inspected the site and whether he had any concerns.
Mr. Ajello said he had made an inspection, there was no excavation proposed, and he had no concerns.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-47 submitted by Ms. Melahn to construct a front dormer, rear roof overhang, and shed at 67 River Road as submitted. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 5-0.Mrs. Hill was reseated.
Brown/127 West Shore Road/#IW-08-47/Driveway and Conduit Installation:
Mr. Picton asked if the drainage would be redirected or concentrated.
Mr. Wilson, engineer, said it would not. Mr. Wilson pointed out on the map, “Site Plan,” by Mr. Wilson, revised to 10/6/08 the changes he made to the plan since the last meeting. He moved the power to the east side of the driveway and showed that the power and water would be brought to the corner of the landscaped bed on the opposite side of the road. He said a trench a few feet deep would be dug by hand for the conduits and noted the reason for the conduits was to provide the picnic area with power.
Mr. Picton noted the trench would be 25 ft. from the lake and run along the lower edge of West Shore Road.
Mr. Wilson noted that a sediment barrier would be installed and maintained until vegetation is established. It was noted that the required conservation easement form had not been submitted and that the permit should not be issued until it is received.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-48 submitted by Mr. Brown for installation of a driveway and conduits trenches at 127 West Shore Road per the site plan by Mr. Wilson, dated 9/15/08 and revised to 10/6/08. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Reger/65 Gunn Hill Road/#IW-08-49/2 Lot Subdivision Feasibility:
Mrs. Hill recused herself and Mr. Wadelton was seated.
The map, “Site Development Plan,” by Oakwood Environmental Associates, revised to 9/16/08 was reviewed. Mr. Clark, engineer, noted the wetlands had been flagged by a soil scientist and he pointed out the locations of several intermittent watercourses, a small wetland, and a spring. He said the site was steep with a lot of ledge and that 40% of the property had slopes greater than 25%.
Mr. Picton asked if an effort had been made to stay 100 ft. away from wetlands and out of the standard upland review area.
Mr. Clark said the primary and reserve septic systems were more than 100 ft. away, the house site was more than 50 feet away, but approval of a driveway crossing was required.
Mr. Picton asked about the driveway grade.
Mr. Clark said the first 100 ft. was 9.5% and it was 2-4% beyond that.
Mr. Picton recommended a site inspection due to the steep slopes and the drainage issues above the watercourse.
A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.
Mr. Picton asked if the driveway could be located further up the hill to avoid the stream crossing.
Mr. Clark responded that the Selectmen wanted the driveway cut below the point where the road is blocked off in the winter. Mr. Picton thought it might be possible to block off the road in a different location.
Mr. Picton asked if sufficient details for the culvert crossing had been submitted.
Mr. Ajello will consult with Mr. Clark.
Mrs. Hill was reseated.
New Applications
Steep Rock Assn./120 Bee Brook Road/#IW-08-50/Trail Repair:
It was noted that the south side of the Shepaug River streambank near the Hidden Valley parking lot was eroding. Photos of the existing conditions were viewed.
Mrs. Dyer, Steep Rock representative, proposed to use staked logs backfilled with stone to stabilize the trail. She said there would not be much soil disturbance.
Mr. Ajello said it would not be known until the work was completed whether runoff from the parking lot would erode the stairs.
Mrs. Hill noted the required conservation form had not been submitted.
Mr. Picton thought because no concerns had been raised, that action could be taken at the next meeting.
BEC Holdings, LLC./204 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-51/2 Lot Subdivision Feasibility:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his map, “Proposed Site Development Plan,” dated 10/7/08. He explained that 2 lots were proposed; one 11+ acres and the other 6+ acres and also a 6+ acre parcel to be designated as open space. He said the wetlands had been delineated and the proposed house sites were located away from the wetlands and watercourses.
Mr. Picton asked for the soil scientist’s report and sketch map for the file.
Mr. Neff said the proposed open space included some wetlands and a vernal pool.
Mr. Picton noted that although the vernal pool was located only 60 ft. from the open space boundary, there was no development proposed within 400 ft. It was not known at this time what organization would hold the open space. The configuration of the open space was briefly discussed. Mr. Picton favored including wetlands in open space as an added layer of protection. It was noted that the Conservation Commission did not always agree, preferring to set aside lands not already protected. A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 4:45 p.m.
Other Business
McCullers/18 Plumb Hill Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-07-21 to keep temporary driveway:
Mr. Ajello reported that the owner would withdraw the request to amend the permit, take out the temporary driveway, and restore the area to its original condition. It was noted a written letter of withdrawal had not been received.
New Application
Treadway/20 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-52/Pond Maintenance:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, presented a certified mailing receipt to show that Steep Rock had been notified of the application and a corrected DEP reporting form. The map, “Site Analysis Plan, Property/Boundary Survey” by Mr. Alex, dated September 2008 with handwritten notes by Mr. Sabin was reviewed. Mr. Sabin explained that the berm will be repaired and the pond dredged to a depth of 6 ft. at its center with 3:1 slopes to allow for emergent vegetation. The spoils will be dewatered on upland soils adjacent to the wetlands, then regraded on the hillside and reseeded with a wetland meadow mix. He noted the regrading will result in a marginal increase in the sheetflow to the pond. One foot of board will be added to the berm and clay will be packed to repair the leak.
Mrs. D. Hill asked if plantings were proposed around the pond.
Mr. Sabin said they were not.
Mr. Picton expressed some concern about the staging area in the wet meadow.
Mr. Sabin said the selection of a work area was limited due to the steeper grade in other areas and the locations of an intermittent stream and the conservation easement area.
Mr. Picton asked that the equipment make only one track through the wet meadow.
Mr. Sabin said he would meet with the contractor to discuss the access. A site inspection was scheduled on Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 5:15 p.m.
Conlon/6 Valley Road/#IW-08-53/Single Family Dwelling:
The map, “Proposed B-100a Sanitary Disposal System Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 10/3/08 was reviewed. It was noted the property borders Warren, a variance from the ZBA had been applied for, and the required conservation easement form had not been submitted. In addition to demolishing and reconstructing a house, the map showed additions to the garage and the barn.
Other Business
Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-07-61 to Reconfigure Open Space:
The map that was approved by the Inland Wetlands Commission, “Property/Boundary Survey,” by Mr. Alex, dated June 2006 was compared to the map revised to 1/2/08, which was approved by the Planning Commission.
Mrs. J. Hill explained that the first showed two separate open space areas, while the revised plan reconfigured the open space into one continuous area. She noted the site development was proposed closer to the road and the change in the open space did not affect any activities within the Wetland Commission’s jurisdiction.
MOTION: To approve the request by Mr. Bowles to amend Permit #IW-07-61 to reflect a change in the open space configuration at 52 Carmel Hill Road subject to the condition that Mr. Ajello has no objections when he reviews the plans. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Allard/156 Wykeham Road/Agent Approval/Studio and Septic System:
The map, “Septic System Design,” by Berkshire Engineering, dated 9/25/08 was reviewed.
Mr. Ajello said a soil scientist had flagged the wetlands and the proposed septic system had been located 100 ft. away, although the required regrading would extend 20 ft. into the upland review area. He noted the land sloped about 5% in this area and said he had asked that a row of hay bales be staked behind the proposed silt fence.
Mr. Picton asked if the application qualified for agent approval because work would be done in the upland review area.
Mrs. D. Hill said it did and explained that the Agent could not act on proposed activities in the wetlands.
Mr. Ajello said he had already approved the application. It was noted the applicant was required to publish a legal notice for the approval.
After a brief discussion it was the consensus that there were no issues.
Enforcement Report
Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike:
There has been no contact from Mr. Lodsin or the Army Corps of Engineers.
Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-V2/Unauthorized Stream Work, Clearing:
Mr. Rosen has not contacted the Commission since the Show Cause Hearing. The enforcement order and citation sent to him by certified mail were returned, but Mr. Ajello hand delivered copies to the Nettleton Hollow Road address. The cease and desist order was recorded on the Town Land Records. This matter will be discussed in Executive Session as Mr. Rosen was uncooperative and left the hearing in a threatening manner. It is hoped that the Army Corps of Engineers will advise the owner what must be done to restore the site.Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane:
Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to make sure the work area has not expanded beyond what was approved by the Commission and that there is no new fill being graded up to the new house.Howard/99 West Shore Road:
There was nothing to report on this matter.Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike:
Mr. Moore was supposed to have seeded the restored wetlands some time ago.Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road:
Mr. Bedini asked why this matter had not been resolved.
Mr. Ajello said the vegetation planted on the hillside had not yet spread to sufficiently stabilize the area.Reinhardt and Cremona/Perkins Road:
Mr. Ajello received a letter from Atty. Kelly with a copy to the Town Treasurer and to Mr. Childs requesting information on when the bond will be returned. Mr. Ajello has tried to contact Mr. Childs to find out how much work remains to be done and what the amount of the bill will be, but has gotten no response.DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street:
Mr. Ajello said the new plantings are growing nicely.
Administrative Business
Revision of the Regulations:
The final draft has been circulated among the commissioners who have been asked for comments.
The relevance of court cases was briefly discussed. When a court case is cited, Mr. Picton thought the Commission should ask why it is relevant to the specific application that is being considered.
Land Use Consultant:
Mr. Connor will begin interviews on Friday, 9/10/08.
Mr. Bedini said he is supposed to talk to all commissioners, all staff, and representatives of the public.
Communications
A CACIWC seminar will be held on 11/8/08 and those who are interested in attending were asked to sign up as soon as possible.MOTION: To enter Executive Session at 8:50 p.m. to discuss pending litigation. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end Executive Session. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Executive Session was concluded at 9:30 p.m.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
The commissioners thanked Mrs. Bohan for her delicious brownies.
Mr. Picton adjourned the Meeting at 9:30 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: October 2, 2008 September 24, 2008
Regular Meeting
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. LaMuniere
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Fisher, Mr. Cegal, Ms. Melahn, Mr. Owen, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Neff, Atty. Kelly
Mr. Picton called the Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Picton, and Thomson and Alternates Bohan and Wadelton for Members Hill and LaMuniere.
Consideration of the Minutes
Mrs. D. Hill arrived and was seated.
MOTION: To accept the 9/9/08 Public Hearing Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
The 9/10/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 3: 2nd line from top: Add: “…seemed likely” that it would have been approved.
Page 4: Under McCullers: 2nd line from bottom: Change: “diverse” to “dispersed.”
Page 6: First line: Insert: “new or” before “existing house” and “except what is shown on the plan” after “existing house.”
Page 8: Last line under Public Hearing Procedures: Insert: “new” before “report.”MOTION: To accept the 9/10/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 9/16/08 McCullers site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda:
Consideration of the Minutes: D. Show Cause Hearing/9/18/08,
New Applications:
B. Brown/127 West Shore Road/#IW-08-48/ Reinstallation of Driveway,
C. Reger/65 Gunn Hill Road/#IW-08-49/2 Lot Resubdivision.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0MOTION: To accept the 9/18/08 Show Cause Hearing minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-31/Site Development for Inn:
It was noted that although the Commission had asked the applicant to submit all responses and new information by 9/25, so there would be time to review it and comment before the continued hearing on 10/9, nothing new had been received to date.
New Applications
Melahn/67 River Road/#IW-08-47/Construct Front Dormer, Rear Roof Overhang, Shed:
Mrs. D. Hill recused herself because she is a neighbor and Mr. Bohan was seated.The map, “Property Survey,” by Mr. Osborne, dated 8/25/06 and a portion of that map with the location of the proposed activities drawn in by hand were reviewed.
Mr. Ajello stated that the proposed work would –not cause soil disturbance The 10’ X 12’ storage shed would be 43 feet from the watercourse, would be brought in from the adjoining property so there would be no need to cross the watercourse, and there would be no clearing required. The addition of the rear overhang would not bring the footprint of the existing house closer to any wetlands or to the watercourse and the construction on the house would not require any ground work within the regulated area. It was the consensus there was no need for a site inspection and that based on Mr. Ajello’s review, the Commission could act at the next meeting.
Mrs. Hill was reseated.
Brown/127 West Shore Road/#IW-08-47/Reinstallation of Driveway:
The application check list form was circulated and Mrs. J. Hill noted the required conservation easement form had not been submitted as required for every land use application. The map, “Site Plan, Driveway & Utility Improvements,” by Mr. Wilson, dated 9/15/08 was reviewed.Mr. Wilson, engineer, stated the driveway would be narrowed to 11 ft., a snow melting system would be installed for both the driveway and parking area, and power would be installed. He noted this would not increase the lot coverage and that the state had granted permission for boring under the road to bring in the utility lines. He pointed out the upland review area and the row of silt fencing along the 100 ft. setback line.
Mr. Picton asked if any activities were proposed outside the driveway route, if the stockpiles could be moved farther from the lake, and if the drainage would be concentrated.
Mr. Wilson said the utility trench was the only activity proposed outside the driveway and the drainage would not be concentrated. He said the driveway would be crowned and paved with a trench drain running across the bottom. He said the snow would melt as it hit the driveway, so the runoff would be gradual.
Mr. Picton asked if the utility line would be brought down to the dock. Mr. Wilson said he did not know.
Mr. Picton noted the site could be seen by driving by the property and a site inspection was not necessary.
Reger/65 Gunn Hill Road/#IW-08-49/2 Lot Resubdivision:
Mrs. Hill recused herself because she is related to the property owner. Mr. Bohan was seated.Mr. Picton noted that a conservation easement form had not been submitted. The map, “Holly Reger, Resubdivision, 65 Gunn Hill Road,” by Oakwood Environmental Associates, revised to 9/16/08 was briefly reviewed.
Mr. Ajello will make sure the application is complete and check for wetlands on adjoining properties before the next meeting.
Mrs. Hill was reseated.
Other Business
McCullers/18 Plumb Hill Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-07-21/ Keep Temporary Driveway:
Atty. Fisher and Mr. Neff, engineer, represented the property owner.Mr. Neff reviewed his plans, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” revised to 9/23/08 to which he added the existing garage, studio, and driveway as the Commission had requested at the last meeting. He said the proposed plans for the driveway and seepage envelope had not changed. The 8” PVC pipe would be taken out and a modified rip rap pad with filter fabric would be installed to allow a more natural flow.
Mr. Picton briefly reviewed the history of the application; there had been unauthorized excavation and a temporary driveway had been approved after-the-fact with the condition that it was to be taken out and the area restored. He said at the time of the application an alternate driveway route not so close to the wetlands at the south end of the leaching fields had been noted. This alternate had been observed during the Commission’s recent site inspection.
Atty. Fisher said that although this was a shorted, more direct route, it would require cutting down more trees. Atty. Fisher explained a service access was needed for the studio because the hose on the fuel truck was not long enough to reach the tank. Mr. Picton noted the tank had been installed in the farthest end of the studio and said plans for the driveway shouldn’t have been left until the end of the planning process.
Mr. Picton and Mr. Bedini discussed other routes that would involve cutting trees.
Atty. Fisher said Mr. McCullers wanted to do the right thing and offered to have another site inspection to look at alternate routes. There was a discussion regarding whether spreading a thin layer of top soil over the existing temporary driveway and then planting grass would be an adequate surface. Several of the commissioners thought this would not work when wet or during January thaw weather. The alternate route at the south end of the septic fields was considered. It was noted this would require a 2 to 3 ft. cut into the bank for 10 to 20 ft.
Mr. Bedini thought this route should be hardened, not dressed with top soil, to make it more useable throughout the year.
Mr. Picton thought this auxiliary access could also provide additional parking for the house on the terraced area above the wetlands.
Atty. Fisher did not think that Mr. Neff’s current proposal would harm the wetlands.
Mr. Picton said he did not know that it wouldn’t and pointed out that the current driveway was over a watercourse. He thought the route at the south end of the septic fields would not slope down to the western wetlands.
Atty. Fisher said he would discuss the alternate route with the property owner before the next meeting and Mr. Neff said he would look into how many trees would have to be cut.
Draft Conservation Easement Template:
The draft document had been circulated for the commissioners to review prior to the meeting.
Mr. Picton said that he had commented to Mr. Boling, but that none of his comments related to wetlands issues. He noted that septic systems and driveways were not prohibited within conservation easements and he thought this could be problematic. He asked the commissioners to submit any comments they have to Mrs. J. Hill or to Mr. Boling.Referral from Kent/Hoyenski/33 Camp Road, Kent/Application for House, Septic, and Driveway:
Mr. Ajello reported that this application was insignificant, not near the Town boundary, and was no threat to wetlands.
Enforcement
Rubler/240 Wykeham Road/Unauthorized Clearing/#IW-08-V1:
Attty. Kelly represented Mr. Rubler. The map, “Site Analysis Plan,” by Mr. Alex, revised to 9/10/08 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello pointed out the location of wetlands, the steepest slopes, and the approximate location of the trees that were cut on the south side of Wykeham Road. It was noted that one of the wetlands shown is classified as a vernal pool in the Natural Resource Inventory.Mr. Ajello said the cutting was within 60 ft. of the wetlands.
Atty. Kelly said this measurement was not accurate because it had not been done by a surveyor. He provided the following information. The surveyor had determined that nine trees had been cut in two clusters. The first group was 150 – 185 ft. from the 2500 sq. ft. vernal pool and 150 – 200 ft. from the 200 sq. ft. wetland pocket. The second group of trees was not directly up hill of either the vernal pool or the wetland pocket. These trees were at least 200 ft. from the vernal pool, and were 380 ft. and 340 ft. from the wetland pocket and Sprain Brook respectively. He submitted a “call out” section of the map with the stumps located by the surveyor.
The Commission asked that this information and the 2 ft. contours be added to the “Site Analysis Plan” for future reference. It was noted that trees had been cleared on both sides of the road on steep slopes that feed down to the wetlands and eventually to Sprain Brook.
Mr. Picton said the Commission had no additional concerns about the property above the road if there was no more clearing, destabilization, or rerouting of stormwater there.
Mr. Ajello noted that each road culvert has an intermittent stream below it defined by definite channels and evidence of scouring, but Atty. Kelly said that Mr. McNamara, soil scientist, had determined they were not intermittent streams.
Mr. Picton said that in either case, if there were destabilizing activities proposed on the slopes it could be a Wetlands Commission concern.
Mr. Ajello said the activity was not limited to tree cutting as the trees fell towards the wetlands and vernal pool and would be difficult to remove due to the steep slopes.
After a brief discussion it was the consensus that the trees should be left where they fell.
Atty. Kelly asked the Commission to delineate the regulated area so that his client will know in the future when he must apply for permits.
Mr. Picton stated that 20% slopes are predominant below Wykeham Road and so the Commission wanted oversight over cutting and ground disturbance in this area.
Mr. Bedini pointed out that the property to the north of the road is also very steep and previous clearing and disturbances had caused sediment to wash down. He noted this area should not be altered in ways that would affect the downhill slopes.
Mr. Picton agreed because the runoff from the slopes flows through the cross culverts and then towards Sprain Brook.
Mr. Ajello recommended that a soil scientist look at the soil filling the culverts to determine whether it is road sand or soil from a disturbance above.
Mr. Picton stated that due to the steep slopes, the Commission also has jurisdiction 100 ft. from the road on the uphill side of Wykeham Road even if this area is farther than 100 ft. from wetlands.
Regarding Mr. Rubler’s 2007 permit, Atty. Kelly asked if the file had been closed and the bond returned.
Mr. Ajello noted that Mr. Rubler had already been notified in writing about what he was required to do so that his bond could be released.
MOTION: To go into Executive Session at 8:20 p.m. to discuss pending litigation and to invite Atty. Fisher to join the discussion. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end Executive Session. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Wykeham Rise, LLC/101 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-31/Inn:
Mr. Ajello reported that work on the side of Wykeham Road opposite Kirby Brook was proposed to improve sight lines. He said that this normal Town roadside maintenance could be done without oversight.
Mr. Picton noted that even though the proposed work is off the property, it would be part of the public hearing record.
Hiring of Consultant:
It was noted that Marty Connor had been hired and that he would begin work soon to review the organization of the land use offices.
Revision of the Regulations:
Copies of the draft regulations will soon be available for everyone to review. Copies will be sent to Atty. Zizka and to the DEP. A public hearing was scheduled for the second meeting in November at 6:00 p.m.MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Thomson.
Mr. Picton adjourned the Meeting at 8:48 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: September 24, 2008 September 18, 2008
Show Cause Hearing
5:00 p.m. Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town HallMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Bohan
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. and Mrs. Rosen and Mother, Mr. Charles
Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-V2/Unauthorized Clearing, Grading, Stream Work
Mr. Picton called the Show Cause Hearing to order at 5:07 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson. He explained the reason for the hearing was to provide the property owner the opportunity to show cause why the 9/11/08 enforcement order should not remain in effect. He said the Commission would decide whether the order had been issued properly for work that was regulated and not to be conducted without a permit.
Mr. Ajello reported that a notice of violation had been issued on 9/4/08, but said that the work had not stopped at that time.
Mr. Picton noted the work should have stopped. He then read the 9/11/08 cease and restore order.
Mr. Ajello noted that a map of the property showing the wetlands boundaries was on file, that many of the commissioners were familiar with the property as a site inspection had been conducted there in 2005, and said he had taken many photos to document the unauthorized work done. Using the map, “Property/Boundary Survey,” by Mr. Alex, dated April 2005, which Mr. Rosen had submitted for an application to construct a tennis court, Mr. Ajello pointed out the areas that had been disturbed.
Mr. Rosen said he had not received the enforcement order until the night before, he had not cleared land, excavated, or changed a watercourse, he had photos to prove that he had done none of these activities, and said the matter was “ridiculous,” and a “tempest in a teapot.” He said he did move stones in the stream, but did not think he had done anything wrong. He submitted photos taken one to two years ago and compared them with recent photos he took of the work done. He said he had neither widened nor narrowed the stream; he had only given orders to clean it up and he had made it “neat.” He also claimed that the watercourse was man-made; not natural.
Mr. Picton numbered the photos submitted by Mr. Rosen and described each.
Mr. Rosen said he had not changed any grades and that in all his years as a real estate developer, no one had ever told him that a permit was needed to move stones around.
Mr. Picton noted for the record that Mr. Rosen had known at the time he submitted the tennis court application that he had needed a permit for work near wetlands, but that he did not know now that a permit was required for work actually in wetlands.
Mr. Rosen responded the work done was beautification and landscaping.
Mrs. Rosen presented before and after photos, which she said showed that the stream was now in the same course and had only been neatened.
Mr. Picton reviewed the same photos and pointed out evidence of work on the streambanks and the construction of two terrace levels and new stonewalls.
Mrs. Rosen stated that no regrading had been done and that stones had been replaced in the existing channel. She also stated the growth in the area had not been changed.
Photos #8, #9, #10, and #11 were studied and their locations pointed out on the map. Mr. Picton pointed out new waterfalls in photo #11. Mrs. Rosen said there was a new stonewall in the streambed where the water falls over the stones.
Mr. Rosen said he had taken out permits for the tennis court and for work on a building, but had not known the stream work also required a permit. He apologized if he had done anything wrong, noting he was attending this hearing in good faith under difficult family circumstances.
Mr. Ajello read the landscape architect’s written description of the vegetation in the two 30 to 50 ft. wide wetland corridors from the report, which had been submitted for the 2005 tennis court application, and noted other references in past files to the maintenance of the long grasses in the wet meadow.
Mr. Thomson noted that a condition of the tennis court approval had been that the wet meadow be preserved and mowed only once or twice per year.
Mr. Ajello also noted that in previous files Mr. Kearney, WEO, had recommended a riparian buffer zone, and Mr. Neff, engineer, had said the wet meadow would be mowed only once a year. Mr. Ajello read the 6/29/05 letter to Mr. Rosen from Mrs. Hill, which included the motion and conditions of approval for the tennis court; the third condition being, “no filling, excavation, or regrading is permitted within 50 feet of wetlands and watercourses.” Yet Mr. Ajello stated that when he first inspected the site early in September, there had been a backhoe digging in the stream. He pointed out this area on the map and presented a photo he took of the backhoe.
Mr. Rosen countered that the photo did not show the backhoe in the stream. He said he would answer questions from the commissioners and invited them to inspect the site with him.
Mr. LaMuniere agreed that a site inspection should be conducted. From the photos he said it appeared the stream had been “canaled” with stone sides.
Mr. Rosen said he had changed no grades.
Mr. Picton summarized the information presented to this point; that there had been excavation in the stream channel, recent regrading and mulching, and the construction of new stonewalls with filling behind them.
Mr. Rosen again stated he had not changed any grades. Mr. Rosen said there was two days work left to spread the last of the top soil and to mulch.
Mr. Picton asked if there was an additional area of disturbance that hadn’t been discussed yet.
Mr. Ajello presented four photos of the area behind the house where there was a lot of “rubble.”
Mr. Picton asked what immediate stabilization measures were recommended.
Mr. Ajello said there was enough rubble so there was not an immediate erosion hazard.
Mr. Picton asked that there be no further regrading, spreading, filling, or excavating and that hay mulch be put on the disturbed soils at the edge of the stream as soon as possible.
Mr. Rosen asked instead to rake the stones and spread top soil by hand and then seed and mulch.
Mr. Picton said no more top soil could be spread at this time and that Mr. Ajello would advise him on how to stabilize the area without additional soil.
Mr. Ajello said the area should be covered with hay, but Mr. Rosen said he would not put hay over bare stone.
Mr. Picton noted the enforcement order called for the posting of a $10,000 bond. Mr. Ajello thought this was a fair amount for professional consulting fees.
Mr. Ajello pointed out an area that had been filled in.
Having attended the 2005 site inspection, Mrs. D. Hill remembered all the shrubs on the north side of the stream near the access to the house. She said she was concerned that there had been clearing as well as stream work done.
Mr. Rosen said he had taken out the prickers and left the ferns.
The commissioners briefly discussed whether to modify the enforcement order. It was generally thought that if a different bond amount was needed or a different course of enforcement was necessary, the order could be amended later. It was the consensus to keep the order as issued.
MOTION: To keep the 9/11/08 Enforcement Order issued to Mr. Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road in effect as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Rosen said he would not post the $10,000 bond and Mrs. Rosen reminded the Commission they had come to the hearing in good faith.
Mrs. D. Hill said that was appreciated, but the Commission had enforcement procedures to follow.
Mr. Rosen said he did not own the property and so advised the Commission to consult with its attorney.
Mr. Picton said this matter would be on the agenda of the next regularly scheduled meeting and he suggested that a site inspection be conducted on Tuesday, 9/24, before the meeting.
Mr. Rosen said that due to the recent death in his family and religious observances, he could not attend on this date and he would not grant permission for the commissioners to inspect the property on their own.
Mr. Thomson explained that minutes of the site inspection would be filed so that Mr. Rosen would know what had transpired, but Mr. Rosen said that would not be satisfactory. He said he would be available for an inspection sometime after 9/24.
Mr. Picton said the hiring of the consultant would be discussed at the next meeting.
Mr. Rosen objected. First, he thought it did not make sense to make the determination that a consultant was needed without first having inspected the site and second, he said he would not pay consulting fees.
MOTION: To close the Show Cause Hearing to consider whether the 9/11/08 Enforcement Order issued to Mr. Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road should remain in effect. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton adjourned the hearing at 6:15 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: September 23, 2008 September 10, 2008
Regular Meeting
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bedini
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Boling, Mr. Guerts, Mr. McCullers, Mr. Charles
Mr. Picton called the Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson and Alternate Wadelton for Mr. Bedini.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business not already posted on the agenda:
Other Business:
Camp Windguage, LLC./24 Old North Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-08-39
Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane, and Tavino/26 and 32 Flirtation Avenue.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.Consideration of the Minutes
The 8/13/08 Public Hearing – Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 5: 3rd line: #5: Add: “Regarding” before “the proposed two…”
P. 5: 3rd line from end of 1st paragraph: Delete “the” before “of wetlands.”
P. 13: Slaymaker motion: #2: should state $5000 bond, #3: change “inside” to “outside” the footprint….
P. 14: 5th line from end of paragraph: Change: “in tact” to “intact.”
MOTION: To accept the 8/13/08 Public Hearing/Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. D. Hill, and passed 5-0.MOTION: To accept the Guerts/8/21/08 site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-31/Site Development for Inn:
It was noted discussion had been tabled until the next session of the Public Hearing.
Mr. Picton asked if the outdated maps were included in the file because he wanted to compare the plans and understand the latest changes.
Mr. Ajello said they were.
Mr. Picton asked that questions and comments from the commissioners be submitted to Land Tech as soon as possible.Walker/154 South Street/#IW-08-43/Install Swale:
It was noted that the purpose of the proposed swale was to divert driveway runoff before it reached a neighbor’s property. The application had been discussed at the last meeting and Mr. Picton stated that all of the issues had been addressed.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-43 submitted by Mrs. Walker to install a swale at 154 South Street per the hand drawn map and description and to be conducted under the guidance of the Enforcement Officer. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.Hochberg/15 Couch Road/#IW-08-41/Dredge Pond:
Mr. Szymanski presented the map, “Pond Dredging Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., dated 6/30/08. It was noted the pond would be dredged without deepening or enlarging it and the underwater slopes would be 3:1 or less. Mr. Szymanski stated the excavated organics would be stockpiled on site and the coarse material would be trucked off site. He said the work would be done during the dry season, would be a week in duration, and would be completed by November 15th. Conditions of approval were discussed.
MOTION: To approve as submitted Application #IW-08-41 submitted by Mr. Hochberg to dredge the pond at 15 Couch Road subject to the following conditions:
1. the work is to be done during a period of low stream flow
2. the work shall be completed within one week of the start date with only one day of work in the basin; all work to be completed by 11/15/08
3. only clear water is to be pumped from the pond
4. the engineer, enforcement officer, and contractor shall meet on site prior to the commencement of work. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 5-0.Marquis/104 Blackville Road/#IW-08-44ATF/Deck:
Mr. Picton noted that at the last meeting the Commission had determined that it would have approved the deck if it had been applied for prior to its construction. He also noted the property owner had had to pay a fine.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-44ATF for a deck submitted by Ms. Marquis to correct the violation at 104 Blackville Road per the conclusionary review by the Commission. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Pullaro/23/Calhoun Street/#IW-08-45/Repair Septic System:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented the map, “Septic System Repair Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 7/18/08. He pointed out the location of the existing septic system and noted the concrete galleries for the proposed system would be located as far from the brook and as close to the road as possible. He said a pumped system was proposed.
Mr. Ajello noted that the Commission had asked him to check whether the property owner had maintained the buffering that had been a condition of approval for a previous application and he reported this had been done.
Mr. Picton noted that this was the proper order of review for this application; first the Inland Wetlands Commission should review and approve septic repairs and then the Health Department.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-45 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Pullaro to repair the septic system at 23 Calhoun Street per the map, “Septic System Repair Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 7/18/08. By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.Guerts/46 June Road/#IW-08-46/Construct Dwelling, Workshop, Barn:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, noted a site inspection had been conducted since the last meeting. The map, “Site Development Plan,” by Arthur Howland & Assoc., revised to 9/9/08 was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski said he had located areas of exposed ledge and specimen trees on the map as had been requested by the Commission. He explained that the previous design had the driveway located “tighter into the hillside,” but it had been moved to save one of the specimen trees. Other revisions were:
1) the addition of a 2 to 4 ft. high retaining wall to minimize the amount of clearing and regrading required
2) the addition of rechargers to accommodate a 100 year storm for the roof runoff for both the house and the barn
3) the addition of a 4 ft. high retaining wall along the back side of the barn to slow the runoff
4) the use of a conservation seed mix for quick revegetation and restabilization of the dry 3:1 slopes
5) the relocation of the workshop farther from the wetlands.
Mrs. D. Hill asked if there were intermittent streams in the area, and Mr. Szymanski pointed them out.
Mr. Picton noted the nearest excavation to the watercourse was 30 feet away and would be unlikely to have an adverse impact because it would be slightly below the watercourse. He also noted that the closest the driveway would be to the watercourse was 40 feet and that the construction site appeared to be manageable. Mr. Picton asked that a natural buffer be maintained within 40 feet of the wetlands and watercourse and that the limit of disturbance and limit of clearing lines be added to the map.
Mr. Guerts agreed to maintain the natural buffer as requested. Mr. Szymanski explained that although the proposed workshop would be a temporary building, it had been designed for perpetuity.
Mr. LaMuniere expressed his concern about the disturbance of the steep slopes.
Mr. Szymanski said the slopes would be immediately revegetated and Mr. Guerts stated that the root systems of the shrubs on the disturbed slopes should be OK.
It was the consensus that a bond was not necessary because it was unlikely the work would impact the wetlands. When Mr. Ajello heard that work would begin as soon as possible, he asked that the electrical conduits be installed first so that the disturbed area could be stabilized before winter. Mr. Szymanski agreed to do so.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-46 as submitted by Mr. Guerts to construct a single family dwelling, workshop, and barn at 46 June Road subject to the following conditions:
1. that that area between the driveway and the watercourse be maintained in its natural forested
2. the limit of disturbance shall be staked on site so it is clearly visible
3. the conduits for the electrical service be installed first so that the disturbed area can be stabilized before winter. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.Other Business
McCullers/18 Plumb Hill Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-07-21/ Change Temporary Driveway to Permanent:
Mr. Neff, engineer, proposed to deposit a layer of top soil over the driveway so that it would grass over and to install a rock seepage envelope to handle the natural flow that crosses the driveway area. He said this would allow for a more diverse flow under the driveway than a culvert would.
Mr. Picton noted the Commission had approved the driveway within 12 ft. of wetlands because it was temporary and would be taken out after construction was completed. He said there was another location at least 50 ft. from the wetlands that could have been used.
Mr. Thomson agreed and pointed out that the temporary driveway application had been after-the-fact.
Mr. McCullers said the driveway would be used only for oil delivery, septic tank pumping, emergency vehicles, and service vehicles.
Mr. Picton noted that once permitted, the Commission would have no control over how often it was used.
The map, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 5/17/07 was reviewed.
Mr. McCullers pointed out why the driveway could not be located elsewhere to serve the existing buildings on site; mainly that the oil tank was located in the cellar of the barn and that a 200 ft. hose would be required to fill it from the temporary drive.
Mr. Picton asked Mr. McCullers to find an alternate location that was not so close to wetlands. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Thomson asked Mr. McCullers to put all of the existing facilities and structures, such as the barn, on the map because the full layout was needed for the Commission to make a complete review.Camp Windguage, LLC/24 Old North Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-08-39/Driveway Location:
Mr. Boling and Mr. Charles, agents, were present. The map, “Plan of Development,” by Arthur Howland & Assoc., revised to 9/9/08 was reviewed. They presented the plan for a possible lot line revision with a neighbor that would allow access to the proposed interior lot from an existing right of way, would eliminate the need to run the driveway through the field, and would stay 110 feet from the wetlands.
Mr. Charles noted the proposed additional segment of driveway would be outside the regulated area. He pointed out the gentle grade in the area and the location of the proposed erosion and sedimentation controls. He also noted that the existing stonewalls would be maintained.
Mr. Picton noted there were no wetlands issues and the new segment would minimize travel across the slope upslope of the wetlands.
MOTION: To approve the request by Camp Windguage, LLC. to revise Permit #IW-08-39 to change the proposed driveway location at 24 Old North Road per the map, “Plan of Development,” by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., revised to 9/9/08. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/#IW-08-38/Reconstruct Dwelling:
Mrs. D. Hill asked that the amount of the bond, $5000, be included in the motion. It was also noted that the third condition of approval was incorrect. The correct wording was that there should be no filling or drainage outside the footprint of the existing house, and that all excess material shall be taken off site. The applicant will be notified of the corrected motion.Tavino/26 and 32 Flirtation Avenue/#IW-06-54:
Mrs. Hill asked if Mr. Tavino, the new property owner, had requested the permit be transferred to his name, and if so, she asked if a second fee had been collected. She noted he should have applied for the transfer of the permit before he submitted his request to revise it.
Mr. Picton thought the two could be considered as one in this case as the Commission had already acted on the request.
Mrs. Hill asked that more attention be paid to permit transfers in the future. She then asked if Mr. Ajello had checked on the adjacent property owner’s concerns about runoff as the Commission had requested.
Mr. Ajello said he had talked to him after the most recent storm and had learned that the erosion controls had held up well.Enforcement Report
Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Excavation/#IW-07-V12:
Mr. Ajello said that Mr. Lodsin had not responded to the last letter that was sent to him. The Commission asked him to refer this matter to the Army Corps of Engineers.Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clearcutting:
It was the consensus that this restoration must be properly completed.
Mr. Ajello said he would check to be certain all disturbed areas had revegetated.
Mr. Picton noted that Mr. Moore still owes $750 for the third citation issued.
Mr. Ajello thought it was $500 and will look into it.Reinhardt and Cremona/Perkins Road/Execution of Approved Restoration Plan:
Mr. Ajello reported that Mr. Childs had planted more trees, but more remained to be planted. He said he requested that the planting be completed by the end of the year so that the unused portion of the bond could be returned.
Mr. LaMuniere recommended that the Commission schedule a site inspection once the leaves are off the trees.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/Unauthorized Stream Work/#IW-08-V2
Mr. Rosen disturbed 600 feet of the watercourse, which flows through his property. Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the work that had been done without a permit.
Mrs. J. Hill noted she had been by the property late this afternoon and workers were still working in the streambed.
Mr. Thomson said in addition to working in the stream over the entire length of the property, the area specified to remain as a wet meadow had been disturbed. It had been converted to lawn.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if a notice of violation had been placed on the Land Records.
Mr. Ajello said he had issued a notice of violation, but had not filed it on the Land Records. Mr. Ajello said that over 5,000 sq. feet had been disturbed, so suggested that the Army Corps of Engineers be contacted.
Mr. Picton asked that an enforcement order be issued as soon as possible.
Mr. Ajello said the order would include requests to stop all work, to file an application to correct the violation, and to post a $10,000 bond to cover the cost of the Commission’s consultant, monitoring, and enforcement.
Mr. LaMuniere asked that the order also state that due to the severity of the violation and the destruction of the natural streambed, the violation will be forwarded to the Army Corps of Engineers.
Mrs. D. Hill thought that because the wetlands boundaries were known due to a previous application by Mr. Rosen, a cease and desist order should have been issued immediately and the Show Cause Hearing should have been conducted this evening.
Mr. Picton stated that an immediate cooperative response was needed from Mr. Rosen and corrective measures had to be made as soon as possible. He asked Mr. Ajello to contact the Army Corps, but said the Commission would continue with enforcement proceedings until it was known whether the Army Corps would take over. Mr. Picton said that the work on site should have been stopped within an hour after the violation was reported and that if it had continued, the police should have been called.
Mr. Thomson agreed with Mrs. D. Hill that a cease and desist order should have been issued already and asked that it be filed on the Land Records as soon as it is issued.
Mr. Picton asked that in the future for violations of this magnitude that the WEO order all work to stop immediately and then proceed to issue the strongest enforcement measures possible.
Mr. Ajello said he had consulted with Mr. Bedini about the appropriate action to take in this case.
Mr. Thomson also reported that there was a dam in Sprain Brook at the base of the property and said he had reviewed the map and there clearly had been no dam there previously.
A Show Cause hearing was scheduled for Thursday, 9/18/08 at 5:00 p.m. in the Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.Rubler/240 Wykeham Road/Unauthorized Clearing/#IW-08-V1:
Mr. Ajello said a soils report had been submitted and that a map would be ready for the next meeting.Administrative Business
Revision of the Regulations: This work is pending.
Hiring of Consultant:
Mr. Picton noted the Board of Selectmen were interviewing three candidates and hoped he and Mr. Bedini would be notified so they could attend the interviews. It was generally hoped that a candidate with experience in Planning and land use would be selected.Public Hearing Procedures:
Mr. Thomson thought the Commission could have benefited from having a Land Tech professional attend the Wykeham Rise, LLC. hearing and expressed his concern that new information could not be received after the close of the hearing. He said that as a lay person he could not judge which engineer’s statements should be believed and wanted to be sure the Commission’s engineer would address all issues of conflict. He asked that Land Tech’s review include identification of all conflicts and a recommendation for the resolution of each.
Mr. Picton thought this was a good idea and also asked Mr. Ajello to contact Land Tech to ask that one of its professionals attend the next session of the hearing.
Mr. LaMuniere pointed out that once all of the information is received, the commissioners must study the file and make up their own minds about whether the application complies with the Regulations.
Mr. Thomson noted that Ms. Chase had not responded to Dr. Klemens review as she had been asked.
Mr. Picton noted that if she did not respond, during its deliberations the Commission could determine there was insufficient information upon which to act. Mr. Picton asked if Land Tech had been given the instruction to address all environmental as well as engineering concerns.
Mr. Ajello said it had not.
Mr. Thomson noted it had been clear at the 8/13/08 hearing that Land Tech was to do both.
Mr. Picton said he would write to Land Tech to ask for a thorough review of all points and aspects raised.
Mr. Thomson again noted that all information should be submitted by 9/25 and said he was disappointed that Land Tech had not yet submitted a report on the application to date.MOTION: To enter Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Executive Session commenced at 9:13 p.m.
MOTION: To exit Executive Session. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Executive Session ended at 9:30 p.m.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Picton adjourned the Meeting at 9:31 p.m.FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: September 21, 2008 September 9, 2008
Public Hearing
7:00 p.m.
Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town HallMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill, Atty. Olson
ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Federer, Dr. Ewing, Mr. Klauer, Atty. Hill, Mr. Parker, Mr./Mrs. Solomon, Mr./Mrs. Rickert, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Owen, Mr. Goodin, Mr. Carey, Mrs. Minor, Mr. Solley, Mrs. Carter, Ms. Giampietro, Mrs. Talbot, Mr. Charles, Ms. Eldridge, Residents, Press
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-31/Site Development for Inn
Mr. Picton reconvened the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson.
He noted there was a long list of new documents submitted since the last meeting and urged everyone to review the file. He noted the 9/8/08 letter from Atty. Fisher, which asked that Mr. Picton recuse himself. Mr. Picton stated that he had discussed this matter with the Commission’s counsel, he would not recuse himself, and he would not discuss the matter further on the advice of counsel.
In order that everyone have an opportunity to be heard, Mr. Picton suggested that first the applicant make a 15 minute presentation, then the commissioners ask questions for 15 minutes, and finally public comments be taken for 15 minutes. After that there would be further rounds. He urged everyone to be brief.Atty. Fisher stated that the applicant would need a least a half hour to rebut the points raised by Mr. Goodin at the last meeting.
Mr. Picton asked for an outline of the new plan first. He asked what changes had been made to the plan.
Atty. Hill objected. He said the public had not had an opportunity to review the revised plans and so could not comment on them as they had just been filed this afternoon.
Atty. Fisher said he was prepared to request an extension of the Public Hearing and Mr. Szymanski said he had already done so in a letter of transmittal.
Atty. Hill asked the Commission to recognize his client, Mrs. Federer, as an intervener.
Mr. Picton responded that the Commission was aware that Mrs. Federer had filed a petition for intervener status.
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, noted that the revisions reduced lot coverage and impervious surfaces. He listed other significant changes to the plans, which included:
1) reduction in the number of rooms from 54 to 44,
2) removal of six buildings total including the two quad buildings in the SW portion of the site, the two quad buildings to the north, and the buildings to the west of the lobby and to the ESE of the spa,
3) connection of the restaurant and spa buildings and the location of guest rooms in the new portion of building,
4) reduction of all driveway grades to below 10%,
5) relocation of the outflow pipe for detention pond #2,
6) catch basin at the NE corner of the property will discharge to a grass lined swale for added treatment to the runoff before it reaches the wet pond,
7) addition of rip rap to the outlet at Kirby Brook,
8) reduction in disturbance to the eastern part of the property, and
9) increase in the area to be left with natural vegetation near the spa and to the west of the lobby.Mr. Picton asked for a written list of the changes.
Mr. Szymanski said they were all discussed in the narrative he had just submitted.
Mr. Picton said that although there had been many revisions, he did not think a new application was required because they all resulted in a reduction in the scope of the project.
Mr. LaMuniere noted that he had not had an opportunity to study the new material, but asked several questions.
1) Regarding the area where the buildings would be removed in the east and west portions of the site, how much would this diminish the activity required within the wetland setback? Mr. Szymanski said he would address this later.
2) Did the applicant submit the DEP septic permit transfer letter as he said would be done? Mr. Szymanski said he had the transfer certificate, but still had to apply to DEP. He said the DEP would not review the plans prior to local approval.
3) Mr. LaMuniere noted that Dr. Klemens had raised valid points about the removal of invasive plants on 10% slopes. He asked what technique would be used to remove invasives from the slopes above the streams.
Mr. Szymanski said the Didona planting plan provided guidelines for the method of removal for each type of invasive plant. He added that the plan also specified how each native plant would be planted and provided for on site monitoring by the landscape architect.
Mr. LaMuniere noted it was important for bank stabilization that the root systems remain in place.
Mr. Szymanski said they would.
4) Mr. LaMuniere asked how the pervious pavement would function in the winter and during thaws and where the runoff would go. Mr. Szymanski referred to the information packet on porous asphalt that he had already submitted. He said tests by UNH had shown that porous asphalt needs less sand and salt and that runoff would first run into the pavement because the matrix would not freeze and then eventually would infiltrate into the ground.
5) Mr. LaMuniere noted that Dr. Klemens had raised questions concerning Ms. Chase’s environmental report, but Ms. Chase had not responded. Mr. Szymanski said she would respond now that the revised plans were complete.
Mr. Picton noted that since the last meeting he had submitted six pages of questions and comments for Land Tech to address in its review of the application and information pertaining to wetlands buffers and how they relate to wetlands functions. Also, he had highlighted one copy of the revised map to show the 50 and 100 foot setback lines and the limit of construction. He encouraged the commissioners to review it to see which activities were proposed in the regulated and upland review areas. He said he had also reviewed the slope analysis map and had drawn the 100 ft. setback line on it. He noted slopes were an important consideration because they affect the land’s ability to accomplish wetland related functions and relate to impacts from construction and runoff.
Mrs. D. Hill asked if the Land Tech review had been received.
Mr. Ajello said, no, the review would include the new documents just submitted today.
Atty. Hill asked if Land Tech had been asked for input on the latest plans.
Mr. Ajello responded that Land Tech would receive the revised plans soon and would have its report ready in two weeks.
Mr. Picton noted that the Commission expects an environmental review from Land Tech as well as an engineering review.
Mr. Ajello said this was clear to Land Tech and that Mr. Picton’s questions had already been sent.
Mr. LaMuniere said the Commission expects Land Tech to comment also on both the Klemens and Goodin reports.
Mr. Picton said he expects Land Tech to respond to the applicant’s plans and concerns and to questions raised by the public, the Commission, and all experts.
Atty. Hill expressed his dissatisfaction with the late submission of the revised plans so that the public had no opportunity to review them before the hearing. He said this was a new application and recommended the “old” one be denied and the applicant be made to reapply and begin the process again.
In the interest of giving everyone enough time to review new materials before the next session of the hearing, Mr. Picton asked for all new information to be submitted by 9/25, two weeks prior to the anticipated date of the continued hearing.
Atty. Hill argued that Section 47-42d of the CGS requires the Commission to deny the application. He submitted the following documents:
1) 8/13/08 letter to the commissioners re: Sections 47-42d of the CGS
2) Sections 47-42a of the CGS
3) Section 47-42d of the CGS portion of the map
4) portions of the map, “Property Survey Map with Topography,” by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., dated 4/16/08
5) “Conveyance and Assignment,” Vol. 184, P. 0123, received by the Town Clerk on 2/2/05
6) “Declaration of Beneficial Ownership,” and Exhibits A and B, Vol. 205, PP. 0714-0717, received by the Town Clerk on 7/28/08
7) Deed. Vol. 114, PP. 593-595, received by Town Clerk on 5/14/90
8) portion of map, “Overall Site Development Plan,” OSD.1, by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., revised to 7/16/08 with restricted area indicated.
He argued that per the definition in the state statutes, a conservation easement exists on the property and so the applicant was required to notify the holder of the easement of the activities proposed within the restricted area 60 days prior to the submission of the application. He said because the applicant had not complied with this requirement, the Commission should deny the application. Atty. Hill stated that the current septic approval is for a proposed use by the previous property owner, and not for the proposed inn. He said the applicant had not supplied any evidence that the proposed septic system was approvable by the DEP.Mr. Goodin, engineer, submitted his letter dated 9/9/08, which concluded the plans were incomplete. He said he had not reviewed the revised plans. He briefly raised several points including:
1) the soil testing pits and data were not provided on the plans
2) the septic plans as submitted could not be approved by the DEP because they are incomplete
3) the proposed driveway was now closer to the wetlands
4) there was no design for the proposed water system.Atty. Fisher said the plans had been revised in an environmentally sound way and should not be considered a new application because the potential impacts to wetlands had been decreased. He countered Atty. Hill’s statements regarding the conservation easement and Section 47-42d of the CGS and said that ultimately the court would decide this matter.
Atty. Olson advised the Commission it could proceed with consideration of the application, it was not necessary to decide the issue of the conservation easement tonight, and that she would advise the Commission later in the process about the importance of this state statute.
Mr. Szymanski said he had provided slope analysis information for pre and post construction on the property. Mr. Szymanski responded to many of the points raised by Mr. Goodin in his 8/13/08 report. He stated there would be minor activities associated with the wetlands in the eroding area north of flag #14. The existing pipe would be removed and restoration work conducted per Land Tech’s recommendations. Also, the gravel parking lot on the west side of the property and the walkway in front of the main building would be removed and the areas restored, and 1,000’s of sq. ft. of lawn would be restored to natural vegetation. He noted that additional mapping of soils had been addressed by the soil scientist.
Mr. Picton noted the steepest slopes were concentrated around the construction sites within 100 feet of the wetlands.
Mr. Szymanski stated the northern two thirds of the site is within the upland review area and so the majority of the activities proposed were located there. He said, however, that a phased construction sequence was proposed to ensure there would be no short term adverse impacts from the proposed grading and that all the 2:1 slopes would be seeded and reinforced with erosion control blankets for long term stability.
Mr. Picton said that half the post construction slopes within 100 feet of the wetlands would be greater than 20% and the challenge would be to manage the construction next to the wetlands so that the impacts were controlled.
Mr. Szymanski asked if the Commission had ever requested a water quality analysis from any other applicant as he wanted Wykeham Rise, LLC. to be treated fairly and consistently. He said the Mayflower Inn and Spa have three times the area of impervious surfaces than does the proposed inn, yet an analysis had not been required for the spa application.
Mr. Picton stated a detailed analysis had been required for the Montessori School, both pre and post construction.
Mr. Szymanski agreed, then, to submit a water quality analysis.
Continuing with his response to Mr. Goodin’s concerns, Mr. Szymanski stated that the state guidelines were for reference only and urged the commissioners to read the preface of each state manual. He said both advise that sites should be judged on their own merits. He detailed the “ideal” method he used to determine whether there would be impacts to Kirby Brook, explaining that this is based on total removal of suspended solids and other pollutants and takes into consideration 10 years of rainfall data as well as on site conditions. He found that detention pond #1 would remove 93% of suspended solids and detention pond #2 would remove 89% and that an average of one cubic yard of material would leave each pond each year. He agreed to submit the test pit and soil data, depth to the water table, and other information requested by Mr. Goodin.
Regarding the proposed aquatic plantings, Mr. Szymanski stated the plans were by a certified landscape architect who determined that aquatic benches were not necessary. Mr. Szymanski explained that the proposed stormwater discharge into Kirby Brook would not be warmer than the current discharge due to the increased shade that would be provided and the mixing of the runoff with the cooler high groundwater in the detention ponds. He noted information on the snow melt and the use of salt and sand had already been provided. Mr. Goodin had suggested that hydrodynamic separators be provided for the catch basins at the entrance and exit, but Mr. Szymanski said this was not a feasible and prudent alternative and so he had provided deep sump catch basins instead.
Mr. Szymanski addressed the issue of the proposed rain gardens. He said it was reasonable to design them to accommodate the first inch of rainfall and that their infiltration rates would be two times the existing rate on site. He noted they would be constructed last so there would be no chance that construction machinery would run over them. He did not think pretreatment was necessary because the rain gardens would primarily handle roof runoff.Mr. Picton asked if the proposed permeable pavement would function the same in the field as in the lab.
Mr. Szymanski said he was confident it would, but Mr. Picton noted there were different slopes and weather conditions at this site than at UNH where the surface had been tested.
Also in response to Mr. Goodin, Mr. Szymanski said he would move the discharge pipe downhill so that it would exit more in the direction of Kirby Brook, he had added additional dewatering details, he had modified the check lists to include the inspection of the detention ponds during the first year and once a year thereafter, and he added long term maintenance and fertilizing plans and temporary sediment basins in the area of cottage duplex #2 and elsewhere.
Mr. Szymanski said he had met with the DEP regarding the septic system and said there would be less septic flow from the proposed inn than there had been for the previous use on site. He said the DEP would not approve the septic plans if there were downhill impacts on wetlands and adjoining properties and if there were any revisions required by the DEP, the plans would have to be reviewed again by the Inland Wetlands Commission.
Feasible and prudent alternatives were discussed. Mr. Szymanski stated that if there was no development proposed within 100 feet of wetlands, it would not be possible to access the site so that alternative had not been explored. He explained he had studied each portion of the property and had tried to keep activities in each as far from the wetlands as possible and had tried to ensure there would be a significant decrease in adverse impacts to all resources. He suggested the minor clearing needed to improve the access was “fair” since so much of the property would be restored to natural conditions. He pointed out these areas on the site development plan.
Another feasible and prudent alternative, but one with more impact, he said, was to renovate the existing buildings. Instead, he said the applicant was trying to remedy the existing bad conditions by converting the parking lot to a pond, removing buildings near wetlands, removing the access to Bell Hill Road, providing for sheet flows to Kirby Brook rather than piping discharges directly to the brook, providing streamside buffers, and replacing lawn and disturbed areas with natural vegetation. He said all of these changes were to protect the wetlands and would be an improvement over the current conditions.
Mr. Szymanski stated he would prepare a written response to Mr. Picton’s written concerns and would have Ms. Chase address Dr. Klemens’ and Mr. Goodin’s concerns.Mrs. D. Hill noted that at the previous session of the hearing the applicant had said it would draft deed restrictions regarding the use of chemicals and fertilizers on site.
Mr. Szymanski stated that instead, he had submitted a chemical and fertilizer management plan.
Mr. Federer, adjoining property owner, noted regarding whether the proposed porous asphalt would work well on site, that the New Hampshire seacoast where it was tested is a more temperate climate than the climate here in Washington.
Ms. Eldridge noted there had been little discussion regarding migratory water fowl and asked if data had been submitted on disrupted and displaced bird life.
Mr. Szymanski said it was not the Commission’s jurisdiction to consider wildlife outside the wetlands unless it is a wetlands dependent species.
Ms. Eldridge asked if the inn would promote fishing in the ponds or in Kirby Brook.
Mr. Picton noted the stormwater management plans were not designed for fishing.
Mr. Szymanski said that fishing had not been considered.
Because the revisions had been submitted earlier in the day and no one had had an opportunity to review them or to respond, Mr. Picton recommended that the hearing be continued to Thursday, October 9, 2008.
Mr. Picton asked that all comments be in by Sept. 25 so that everyone would have time to review and comment on them by 10/9. He said the objective was to complete the hearing and to close it on 10/9.
Mr. Ajello noted with a full extension it could be continued to 10/31.
Mr. Picton listed some of the issues/topics the Commission would consider in its deliberations: direct impacts to wetlands, functions of the wetlands and related characteristics, function of the riparian buffer, evaluation of the long and short term impacts of the project, management of the construction process and adequacy of erosion controls, and feasible and prudent alternatives. He suggested it would be such a daunting job to determine whether the application meets all of the criteria of the Regulations that both Land Tech and Dr. Klemens should be hired for follow up evaluations.
Mrs. D. Hill thought it was the Commission’s job to evaluate its own applications.
Mr. LaMuniere agreed with Mrs. Hill, but said Land Tech’s review and Ms. Chase’s response to Dr. Klemens and Mr. Goodin were needed because the Commission could not evaluate the application until all of the information was in.
Mr. Picton said the Commission would not give up its responsibility for the decision, but needed technical input to help it evaluate the application.
Mr. Thomson thought the review by Land Tech and the response from Ms. Chase would be adequate.
Mr. LaMuniere reviewed the motion made at the last meeting that Land Tech review and report on both Goodin’s 8/13/08 report and the relevant sections of Klemens’8/11/08 report, and 8/12/08 letter and email and that Ms. Chase respond to the Klemens’ documents.
Mr. Picton noted the majority thought a final review by Land Tech would be adequate and no further report from Dr. Klemens was necessary.
Mrs. Federer asked if Land Tech would respond to all of the information submitted at both the last session of the hearing and at this session and to all of the comments made in response to the information just submitted today.
Mr. Picton said, yes, this was the objective. He again asked that all comments be submitted by September 25 so that Land Tech could get its report to the Commission by October 9.
Mrs. D. Hill asked if the Commission could receive information from its consultant after the close of the hearing as long as it was not regarding a new topic.
Atty. Olson said it could.
Mr. Picton asked that all of the material submitted in the past, including the review by Ms. Chase, be forwarded to Land Tech.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider Application #IW-08-31 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. for site development for an inn at 101 Wykeham Road to 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 9, 2008. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
At 9:14 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the public hearing to October 9, 2008.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: August 26, 2008 August 13, 2008
Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
5:00 p.m. Main Hall and Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill, Atty. Zizka
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Strub, Mrs. Federer, Atty. Hill, Mr. Goodin, Mr. Carey, Mr. Boling, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Charles, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Klauer, Mrs. Canning, Mrs. Minor, Mr. Szymanski, Mrs. Carter, Mrs. Cooper, Mrs. Solomon, Mr. Parker, Ms. Eldridge, Ms. Giampietro, Mr. Neff, Mrs. Walker, Mr. Forese, Mr. Klein, Mr. Charles, Ms. Barbieri, Atty. Herbst, Mrs. Auchincloss, Mrs. Coffee, Ms. Marquis, Mr. O’Neill, Mr. McNamara, Mr. Slaymaker, Mr. Wilson, Mrs. Bradley, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Tavino, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARING
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-31/Site Development for Inn/Con’t.
Mr. Picton reconvened the Public Hearing at 5:06 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson. He reviewed the list of documents submitted to the file since the 7/23/08 hearing and urged everyone to review the file.
Mr. Picton reported that the 8/11/08 review by Dr. Klemens and two follow-up letters had been received. He said this report pointed out 1) where additional or more complete data was needed, 2) concerns about development in this proximity to wetlands, 3) questions that need to be addressed, and 4) further work to be done by both the Commission and the applicant.
Mr. Thomson asked if Ms. Chase, the applicant’s environmental consultant, had had an opportunity to review and respond to the report. Mr. Picton said the report had been forwarded to the applicant’s engineer as soon as it had been received.
Mr. Bedini thought the report was well done and that the Commission should follow Dr. Klemens’ advice.
Mr. LaMuniere agreed that Dr. Klemens had raised points that should be clarified, but thought Ms. Chase should have an opportunity to respond.
Mr. Picton noted the Commission had routinely asked applicants not to develop within the 100 ft. upland review area and had been successful unless there were no alternatives or no risks to the wetlands. He said two reasons for this objective were 1) science and experience had shown that natural buffer areas contribute to the function and ecological stability of the wetlands and watercourses and 2) construction disturbances in the upland review area increase the chance of adverse impacts to wetlands. He pointed out all of the proposed construction activities within 100 ft. and within 50 ft. of the wetlands and watercourse on this property, noting there were 20 structures and facilities that would require soil disturbance and regrading, including 9 buildings, proposed within 100 ft. of wetlands and half of these within 50 ft. of wetlands. He asked the commissioners to keep the objectives of the Commission in mind when reviewing the proposed layout. He submitted a list of the activities proposed within 100 ft. of wetlands and said he favored a careful review of the application in light of these activities.
Mrs. D. Hill asked if the applicant had submitted information since the last meeting. She noted the Commission had asked for a copy of the septic certification from the DEP, for any conditions associated with it, and for a plan for the use and restriction of chemicals and fertilizers on site.
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, stated that the above two points made by Mr. Picton were too broad because the specific activities and the measures to protect the resources proposed in each application should be judged on their own merits. He also said that although activities were proposed within 50 and 100 ft. of wetlands, the existing conditions on the property should be taken into consideration. He listed several structures such as the Boyd dorm, tennis courts, and west parking area that are in or near wetlands and that would be either demolished or moved farther from wetlands. He added that improvements to the stormwater management system would be made if the application was approved. He said he would provide a copy of the approved transfer of the DEP septic certificate and said the applicant had submitted calculations to the DEP to show that the proposed use was within the parameters of the former operation. He also said he would draft deed restrictions regarding the use of chemicals and fertilizers.
Regarding Dr. Klemens’ report, Mr. Szymanski said he had not received it in time to have prepared his written response and so asked that the Public Hearing be continued so that he would have the opportunity to do so. Points he made in response to Dr. Klemen’s report included the following:
1) Many of the concerns raised by Dr. Klemens are not under the jurisdiction of the Inland Wetlands Commission. 2) Ms. Chase was a competent professional who would submit her own response to the criticism of her environmental report.
3) The small vernal pool pocket in the SW portion of the property was not important to the Commission’s review of the overall project.
4) The property is over a mile away from any threatened or endangered species.
5) Both the developed area and the amount of impervious surfaces within 50 feet of wetlands and watercourses would significantly decrease under the proposed plans.
6) The natural woodland acreage on site would significantly increase from 5.04 acres to 7.43 acres.
7) He did not think Dr. Klemens had reviewed all of the information the applicant had submitted on porous pavements.
8) Mr. Szymanski said he had done conservative drainage calculations, which did not take a lot of credit for the proposed pervious surfaces.
9) Per the landscaping plan by Didona, the invasives would be removed by hand and so their removal would likely have little impact on the wetlands and watercourses.
10) The proposed development within 50 ft. of the wetlands and watercourses would impact them, but the key consideration should be whether the proposed activities would make adverse impacts more likely than under the existing conditions.
11) The specific stormwater management plans for the site provide zero increase in peak runoff for all storm events.
12) The applicant did not have to offer mitigation, but did so in a good faith effort. Examples given were providing a buffer of vegetation along Kirby Brook and installing rain gardens.
13) The activity proposed in the vicinity of wetlands flags #39 and #40 would not improve the wetlands, but could not be moved farther away because there were required setbacks from the septic area. The driveway would be within 25 to 30 feet of the wetlands, but extra protective measures would be implemented.
14) Other improvements to compensate for activity within 50 ft. of the wetlands included moving some of the walkways now within 5 ft. of wetlands to 40 ft. away, taking up a service driveway and replanting the area, and removing two pipes, which are now causing erosion into the brook.
15) Overall the amount of impervious surfaces would increase on the property, but would decrease within 100 feet of wetlands. 16) Land Tech had only one outstanding issue and the applicant would soon address it.Mr. Picton read the 8/12/08 letter from Land Tech.
Mr. Szymanski said that in considering alternatives, the proposal was an alternative to the existing site conditions and was an improvement over the existing conditions.
Mr. Szymanski did not think the applicant should have to address concerns other than those required per state statute. Mr. LaMuniere noted the Commission is responsible for analyzing the impacts on wetland dependent species. Mr. Picton noted the Commission would consult with its attorney regarding its jurisdiction.
Mr. Szymanski said he would study Dr. Klemens’ report more closely and then respond further.
Atty. Fisher cautioned the Commission that
1) it could not regulate activities within 100 feet of wetlands unless there is a strong likelihood of adverse impact and
2) Dr. Klemens’ report focused on impacts to wildlife, which is not a standard by which the application should be evaluated or judged.Mr. Picton asked Atty. Zizka to explain the Commission’s jurisdiction regarding animals in and near wetlands. Atty. Zizka said that when the Commission considers wetlands, it may consider all life in the wetlands, but not outside the wetlands, but that if it can be shown that a biological community in the wetlands will be impacted by an activity in the upland review area, that may be considered. He said it was fair for Dr. Klemens to ask if wetland plants would be impacted by sedimentation or erosion, but for plants in the upland review area, unless the nature of the plant itself could impact the wetlands (spreading roots vs. stalk as opposed to native vs. non native) it was not under the Commission’s jurisdiction. He also stated that an animal that comes and goes in the wetlands is not a criteria that may be used to judge applications.
Mrs. D. Hill noted that the applicant had referred to the 50 ft. setback for structures and she stated that this is a zoning, not a wetlands, setback requirement.
Mrs. Cooper said it did not make sense to her that species that come and go in wetlands could not be considered. She gave the example of birds that bring in essential pollen for wetlands plant species.
Mr. Goodin, engineer, had been hired by the Federers, adjoining property owners, to do a peer review of the site development plans. He noted that approximately 15 acres near wetlands and Kirby Brook would be disturbed and so considered this a significant project. In his review he said he used the Town regulations, the 2002 CT. DEP Erosion and Sedimentation Guidelines, and the 2004 Ct. Stormwater Quality Manual. In short he found the applicant’s plans were
1) incomplete,
2) did not meet the Town regulations, and
3) did not meet the sound engineering practices detailed in the 2002 DEP Guidelines and the 2004 Manual referenced above.The points he made included;
1) Ms. Chase was wrong in her report when she stated the proposed activities would have no direct impacts to wetlands. Two examples given were the proposed removal of the gravel parking lot and grading near wetlands flag #14.
2) Section 7.5.A.1 of the Wetlands Regulations require the wetlands to be delineated every 50 ft. in the field, but said this had not been done as there had been no flagging done along Kirby Brook.
3) A soil scientist had not signed the plans.
4) Per Section 7.5 a written description of the current water quality of the brook was not provided.
5) The proposed 2 detention ponds and 26 rain gardens, the measures to be implemented for pollution and water quality control, do no meet the design standards for pollution renovations. For example, Mr. Goodin stated the 2 detention ponds were not deep enough to allow the fines to effectively settle; a depth of 6 feet is required. He referred to Sheets D5 and NG3 of the site development plans. He also stated that no testing had been done in the vicinity of the proposed detention ponds to determine the existing water table, and that this could affect the growth the of wetlands plants proposed by Ms. Chase. He noted no aquatic benches had been proposed to ensure their survival.Mr. Picton asked Mr. Goodin to address the proposed excavation of the basin proposed within 14 feet of wetlands. Mr. Goodin said the applicant had not provided water table information and so it could not be determined whether water would bleed out of the hillside and cause downhill impacts. He said the basin was not designed properly and that due to “overdeveloping” the 2002 DEP Guidelines could not be met.
Other points raised by Mr. Goodin included:
6) The discrepancy between the water quality volumes and what is shown on the plans must be resolved.
7) There are fish in Kirby Brook that Ms. Chase did not analyze and which could be impacted by the thermal effect of the water proposed to be directed into the brook.
8) He noted the effectiveness of the water quality protection measures were linked to the maintenance of the basins and he did not think the recommendations for maintenance and inspection in the 2004 state Manual had been followed. He said long term maintenance plans were essential, but had not been adequately provided per the 2002 Guidelines.
9) He stated that the rain gardens had been improperly designed and that a soil permeability test should be done for each.Mr. Picton asked the public for questions and comments.
Ms. Giampietro said that she had observed trout in Kirby Brook. She noted that Dr. Klemens had questions about the proposed detention pond location between two wetlands and asked the Commission to look into this matter. She said that Mrs. Cooper had had to leave, but wanted to know how the proposed pervious surfaces would function in the winter when the ground was frozen. She noted that the 11.3% coverage proposed would cause more impacts to the wetlands than would the 10% permitted coverage and noted both salt and fertilizers would run off into the wetlands.
Ms. Eldridge noted that some of the letters in support of the application were multiples from the same household and asked if this was permitted. Mr. Picton responded that all of the letters received were in the file, everyone was encouraged to read them, and not all of them related to wetlands issues.
Ms. Drubner stated the Wykeham Road community was against commercial development on a residential road and opposed to the Zoning Commission’s consideration of the application. Mr. Picton advised her that the Inland Wetlands Commission could only consider comments concerning the wetlands.
Mr. Goodin resumed his review of the rain gardens and detentions ponds, specifying throughout where the plans were incomplete and where additional calculations and testing were required.
10) He noted the area where Dr. Klemens asked if there was a vernal pool and said that all of the water now flowing there would be intercepted by the driveway. He said that no analysis had been provided regarding whether this would negatively impact the wetlands.
11) He thought the proposed outlet to the brook could be improved by increasing the length of rip rap and changing the angle of the pipe emptying into the brook.
12) Provisions for detwatering during the construction of the detention basins had not been provided.
13) Mr. Goodin found the proposed erosion control measures to be inadequate because there were no design calculations, site specific phasing was not included, the rain gardens had not been protected during construction, and additional sediment basins may be required.
14) He noted that the DEP had not yet approved the septic system and could not because the plans were only generic. He also stated that the state standards had been increased since the existing septic system had been installed in 1991. He said the apparatus to get to the septic system, connections, grease traps, pipe sizes, flow lines, etc. had not yet been designed.
15) He listed questions that the Commission should ask the applicant about volume calculations for the detention basin sumps, whether all of the proposed buildings were included in the stormwater calculations, and was there a specific fertilizer plan.
16) He stated that feasible and prudent alternatives had not been addressed and that the requirements of Section 9.2 of the Wetlands Regs had not been met. He advised the Commission that feasible and prudent alternatives plans should incorporate best management practices, include a plan where all proposed activity is outside the 100 ft. regulated area and there is no disturbance to the wetlands, include a plan where all activities are farther than 50 ft. from the wetlands and watercourses, provide for the relocation of detention pond #1 so that it is not near the vernal pool, and provide elevations so that the water and sewer line plans can be adequately reviewed. He passed out copies of his report, “Review of Wykeham Rise, 101 Wykeham Road, Washington, Ct., Wetlands Application,” by Meehan & Goodin, dated 8/13/08 and noted that because there were so many outstanding issues and it was so late in the process, it would be difficult for all the parties concerned to review and respond within the statutory time requirements.Mr. Ajello noted that the 35 days in which to complete the public hearing would end on August 27, so a 13 day extension would be needed if the hearing was to be continued to the next Regular Meeting on September 10.
Mr. Picton said he had many questions that he wanted the Commission’s consultant to address and so asked Atty. Zizka if the commissioners could submit their written questions for the file between sessions of the public hearing. Atty. Zizka responded that per the Freedom of Information Act discourse between members, even a series of conversations not involving a quorum, was not permitted, but individuals could submit written questions as long as no dialogue between them took place.
Mr. Picton asked Atty. Zizka if the Commission could consider the application to be a new activity since all of the existing structures would be removed and new ones built, or whether what exists on the site now has to be used as the Commission’s point of reference. Atty. Zizka responded that both the demolition of the existing structures and the construction of the new, as well as any site disturbances within regulated areas were defined as regulated activities and the Commission was entitled to consider their potential impacts as part of the overall application. He said the existing site conditions would be used as the baseline and that since the removal activities would not happen in the absence of the new, the application should be judged in its entirety. He noted that would include any mitigation proposed as compensation.
Mr. Picton said the Commission would discuss feasible and prudent alternatives and advised the applicant to work on these plans. He also noted the Commission had asked for a slope analysis and that this had not yet been submitted. He said the Commission wanted to know what the slopes were in relation to the wetlands and its buffers. He asked that it include a statistical analysis of the slopes, the risk of unforeseen events, all activities within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses, and the extent of the upland review area due to the steep slopes. Mr. Szymanski said the Commission’s consultant had said this data was “worthless.” Mr. Picton again stated that the slope analysis and soil character information that had been requested would be reviewed in relation to the construction practices proposed.
Mr. LaMuniere asked Atty. Zizka whether activities proposed within 100 feet of wetlands could be approved if it was demonstrated that they would not negatively impact the wetlands. Atty. Zizka explained the courts do not consider the upland review area to be a zone of prohibition and so the Commission would have to prove there was a likelihood of impact to the wetlands to deny an application.
Mr. LaMuniere said he thought Ms. Chase should be given the opportunity to respond to the criticisms raised about her report concerning 1) the physical impacts of the project on the two main wetlands and 2) the species present depending on the wetland habitat.
Mr. Picton asked if a consultant should be hired to continue the review and conduct an on site inspection, and if yes, should it be Land Tech, Dr. Klemens, or another firm. He noted that Dr. Klemens had referenced Mr. Goodin’s preliminary questions and said the commission was now overwhelmed with technical data that it was not qualified to review.
Mr. Bedini said that only legal wetlands issues should be reviewed. Mr. Picton said the Commission’s consultant could consult with Atty. Zizka to make sure the review stays within the legal jurisdiction.
Mr. Picton favored hiring Dr. Klemens to continue the review. Mr. Ajello thought the latest documents should be sent to Land Tech.
Mr. Thomson stated that the Commission should verify that there are trout in Kirby Brook, that Ms. Chase should be given an opportunity to respond to Dr. Klemens’ review, and that he did not think Dr. Klemens would have much more to contribute.
Mr. Picton pointed out that Dr. Klemens had asked pertinent questions, identified the scope of review needed for an ecological study of the site, and had found that Ms. Chase’s report had not met the minimum standards required.
Mr. Thomson said he was not prepared to move forward until Ms. Chase’s response was received and would agree to hire Dr. Klemens for the review only if the Commission paid for it. Mr. Picton disagreed, saying the applicant should pay for the review.
Mrs. D. Hill agreed with Mr. Thomson. She noted there were many questions, but said a lot of information had been presented and the commissioners had years of experience to use in reviewing it. Mr. Picton was not sure that kind of review would hold up in court, but Mrs. Hill thought it would.
Atty. Zizka noted that all the questions raised by the Commission and consultants had been asked in good faith for the proper evaluation of the application. He asked the Commission to consider what its Regulations require the applicant to provide and to determine whether the applicant provided it all. He noted it was getting late in the process to ask the applicant for additional information so advised the Commission to consider these questions:
1) To what extent is the need for additional information based on the applicant’s failure to provide information required by the Regulations?
2) To what extent is the need for more information generated from the lack of response of the applicant to previous questions/requests?
He also noted that Dr. Klemens and Mr. Goodin had raised some questions within the Commission’s jurisdiction. He said it would be reasonable for the Commission to request information on these issues and on previously requested information and information required in the Regs, to have the Commission’s consultant review it, and to have the applicant pay for the review. If the information had not been previously requested or was not required in the Regs, it would be more difficult to justify payment by the applicant. He noted that although he was not in a position to evaluate how many questions had been raised in relation to specific regulation requirements, it did appear that many of Mr. Goodin’s questions fell under Land Tech’s background, and not Dr. Klemens’. He asked the commissioners if they thought Land Tech would be more capable to handle the broader range of questions asked by Mr. Goodin.Mr. Picton asked how the question of the adequacy of the environmental review by the applicant would be handled. Atty. Zizka asked what the Regulations require for biological issues. If they require certain types of data and this was not submitted, he said Dr. Klemens might then be the best consultant to hire.
MOTION: To hire Dr. Klemens to continue his review of the application from an ecological perspective as it is related to wetlands, to get an estimate for the cost of his services, and to submit it to the applicant for advance payment. By Mr. Picton. There was no second.
MOTION: Regarding Wykeham Rise, LLC/101 Wykeham Road/ #IW-08-31/Site Development for Inn, to ask Land Tech to review and report on both the 8/13/08 Meehan and Goodin engineering report and the relevant engineering sections of the Klemens’ 8/11/08 report, 8/12/08 letter, and 8/12/08 email and to ask Ms. Chase to review and report on all of the Klemens’ documents. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-1.
Mr. Picton voted No because he proposed a review by Dr. Klemens, not Land Tech.Mr. LaMuniere made it clear that the Commission expected the applicant to respond in writing to the relevant points raised by Dr. Klemens as well as those raised by Mr. Goodin.
Mr. Thomson noted that the incomplete septic plans had been brought up a few times and that Mr. Goodin had recommended the Commission not proceed with its review until there was a “concrete” approval from the DEP. He asked if this missing documentation should, indeed, prevent the Commission from moving forward. Atty. Zizka cautioned the Commission against making a condition of approval that the DEP must approve the septic plans first.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if when the commissioners write their individual questions to be addressed by Land Tech, if they can send copies to all of the other commissioners. Atty. Zizka stated they should be submitted individually to the file and not circulated to the other members.
Atty. Fisher submitted a written request to continue the Public Hearing to September 10, 2008.
MOTION: To continue the Public Hearing to consider Application #IW-08-31 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Site Development for Inn to 5:00 p.m. on 9/10/08 in the Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.At 8:24 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the hearing to 9/10/08 at 5:00 p.m.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Picton called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:45 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: New Application: Geurts/46 June Road/#IW-08-46/Construct Single Family Dwelling. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Due to the late hour, the commissioners decided to take up Consideration of the Minutes at the end of the Meeting.
Pending Applications
Donovan/53 Kinney Hill Road/#IW-08-37/Single Family Dwelling:
Mr. Neff, engineer, noted the footprint of the proposed dwelling had been slightly modified and he presented his revised plans, “Subsurface Sewage Disposal System,” revised to 8/9/08. He also noted since the last meeting the Health Dept. had approved the septic plans and an erosion and sedimentation plan had been submitted. Mr. O’Neill briefly recapped the proposal to construct the house on a platform supported by columns resting on piers, which would result in minimum impact to the site. He said preconstructed components would be delivered to the site so that construction time would be kept to a minimum. He showed photos of the debris to be removed from the property. Mr. O’Neill stated that only the garage would have a slab on grade. Mr. Picton asked if the grade and existing drainage patterns would be undisturbed. Mr. O’Neill stated there would be excavation by the road for the installation of the septic system, but on the north side of the garage there would be no disturbance to the natural runoff. Mr. Ajello asked where the crane would park. Mr. O’Neill said it would operate near the road from a level area north of the house. He noted that the garage foundation might not be installed until after the components had been delivered. Mr. Picton noted the 100 ft. setback line was not indicated on the map, but pointed out that earthwork and building was limited to the land farthest from the wetlands. It was noted the distance from the wetlands to the north end of the house was 57 feet. Mr. Picton asked how much natural vegetation would be left as a buffer around the wetlands. Mr. Neff said that 20 to 25 feet would remain, although after the work had been completed, the disturbed area could revegetate. Mr. Picton briefly discussed the alternative of moving the house back from the wetlands, and said if it was not moved back, for mitigation the buffer should be restored from the wetlands to as close to the house as possible. Mr. LaMuniere noted that due to the conditions on the property, the lot would not have been allowed today and he asked that as little activity as possible take place within 50 feet of the wetlands. Mr. Neff said the limit of clearing and limit of disturbance line would be 20 feet from the house. Mr. Picton noted that the natural buffer would limit long term impacts and the moderate slope nearer to the wetland and the fact that a full basement would not be put in would limit the short term impacts. He thought the nature of the house offset the impacts and noted a thorough construction sequence had been submitted.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-37 submitted by Mr. Donovan to construct a single family dwelling at 53 Kinney Hill Road per the plans, “Subsurface Sewage Disposal System,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 8/9/08 subject to the following conditions:
1. there shall be no clearing of the woodland buffer outside the limit of work area,
2. the work area within 50 feet of the wetlands shall be reestablished with native herbaceous vegetation (not lawn) to create a woodland transition buffer to enhance the function of the wetlands.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/#IW-08-38/Reconstruct Dwelling:
The map, “B100a Sketch,” by Berkshire Engineering, revised to 7/24/08 was reviewed. Mr. Picton noted he had inspected the property on his own. Atty. Herbst noted the property is within 500 feet of the New Milford town line and so submitted a copy of the 7/3/08 letter with proof of certified mailing sent to the N. Milford Inland Wetlands Commission to inform it of the application. He noted that since the last meeting the roof drain location and outlet detail for the roof drain had been added to the map, a construction sequence including the demolition of the existing house had been submitted, and the limit of the lawn had been staked prior to the site inspection. Mr. Picton asked why the proposed house could not be located on the existing site so there would be less disturbance. Ms. Barbieri, landscape architect, explained that Mr. Slaymaker will live in the existing house until the new one has been completed. Atty. Herbst said this would require the driveway to be moved closer to the wetlands. Mr. Picton asked why the house could not be moved to the driveway side of the existing house. Ms. Barbieri said that was where the existing well was located and it was needed to serve the existing house while Mr. Slaymaker lived there. Atty. Herbst also noted there were 25 feet setbacks required by the Health Dept. for both wells and septic systems and a 50 ft. setback from the watercourse. Mr. Picton thought a different configuration would place the house on part of the site that had been previously disturbed. He also noted the proposed house was larger than the existing house. Ms. Barbieri said the area around the existing house had been graded and had been lawn for 60 years. Mr. Klein, soil scientist, stated that the south end of the street had already been significantly altered and so building the new house on the footprint of the old or in the proposed location would have no appreciable long term impacts. He said, too, that the proposed erosion control measures were adequate for short term protection. Ms. Barbieri noted the application includes: 1) a restoration plan, a new septic system outside the wetlands, 3) a new well, and 4) a new house location moved forward to keep it close to the road. She said markers had been placed every 40 ft on site to mark where the property is to be restored and maintained as natural area and that as proposed, the impacted areas would decrease 32%. Mrs. D. Hill said she did not like to see any activity in wetlands, but thought the owner had the right to rebuild the house and that the proposal was an improvement. Mr. LaMuniere noted the Commission had specifically asked for information on the construction of the cellar since it would be built into the watertable. Ms. Barbieri said there was no dewatering information in the construction sequence. Mrs. D. Hill agreed with Mr. LaMuniere, noting that the site inspection minutes referenced the request for this information and she asked that it be added to the construction sequence. Ms. Barbieri agreed to do so. Mr. Ajello suggested that the line that drains the curtain drain had already been installed and this could be tied into. Mr. Picton asked where the water would be pumped to. Ms. Barbieri said a temporary basin would be dug and from there the water would be pumped into a pile of wood chips. Mr. Bedini said he was not at all pleased with the proposed location of the house in wetlands, but thought the Commission should have advised the applicant against this long ago. Mr. Picton asked when the existing house would be demolished. Mr. Slaymaker said it could not be demolished until he moves out. Mr. Ajello said a C of O would not be issued until the old house was gone. Mr. LaMuniere advised the applicant that the reforestation must be completed before the Finish card is submitted. Mr. Picton stated the revegetation/reforestation should be done early in the project. Ms. Barbieri said she would start with the restoration of the wetland meadow and would work on the woody plants when the house has been demolished.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-38 submitted by Mr. Slaymaker to reconstruct the dwelling at 17 Sunset Lane subject to the following conditions:
1. there shall be no filling or change of grade other than what is shown on the plans revised to 7/24/08,
2. a bond shall be posted for the wetlands restoration plan before the permit is issued,
3. there shall be no filling or drainage within the footprint of the existing house, and all excess material shall be taken off site,
4. the existing house shall be removed, and
5. when the existing house is removed, the site shall be restored to a permeable, vegetated, natural grade surrounded by natural grade.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.Camp Windguage, LLC./24 Old North Road/#IW-08-39/2 Lot Subdivision and Wetlands Crossing:
Mr. Boling and Mr. Charles, agents, noted the 8/5/08 environmental report by Mrs. Corrigan, which compared the possible driveway routes and found the western route was preferable. The map, “Plan of Development,” by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., dated 6/24/08 was reviewed. Mr. Charles said this map would be revised to reflect Mrs. Corrigan’s comments and any Commission feedback. The two possible driveway routes were discussed and compared. Mr. LaMuniere favored the eastern route, which he thought would require cutting fewer trees, noting they have an important drainage function. Mr. Boling noted, however, that the eastern route would go through a botanically diverse area of wet meadow and impact what might be a vernal pool. Mr. Charles thought it was important to stay downstream of a valuable wetland rather than install the driveway upslope of it. He also noted there could be a social benefit in preserving the farm field for future use. Mr. LaMuniere pointed out another possible upslope driveway location that he thought would require less tree cutting. Mr. Boling noted the owners’ goal is to preserve the existing Rossiter house and its surrounding historic agricultural landscape and said it was currently hayed by the Solley farm. Mr. Ajello agreed with Mr. LaMuniere that the proposed crossing could be avoided and recommended the Commission refer the application to a consultant to review and determine the best driveway location. Mr. Picton noted that Mrs. Corrigan, a qualified biologist, favored the wetlands crossing. Mr. Boling briefly reviewed her report, which found there was little water, not much bio diversity, and not much potential for amphibians in the western route. Mr. Szymanski, engineer, reviewed the plans for the proposed box culvert at the western crossing. It was sized to accommodate more than a 100 year storm and would be buried one foot in the ground with wetland material to provide a streambed base. He noted the construction details were provided in the construction sequence. Mr. Picton said he did not think the impact of the proposed crossing would be substantial enough to warrant the disturbance of a natural agricultural area with a wet meadow. He noted the woodland and fields relate to each other and he hoped they would remain in tact. Mr. Boling stated that the property owner was working on a conservation easement to preserve the field. Mr. Bedini agreed the proposed crossing was the better alternative because it did not bisect the field or require unnecessary woodland cutting.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-39 submitted by Camp Windguage, LLC. for a two lot subdivision with driveway crossing as proposed with the objective of keeping the varied and natural landscape in tact in an area of fields and wetlands that surrounds the original house. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Brown/115 Shearer Road/#IW-08-40/Driveway Crossing:
Mr. Wilson, engineer, reviewed his plan, “Driveway Wetland Crossing,” 2 sheets, revised to 7/9/08. Mr. Picton noted there was no other way to access the back of the property without a more complicated wetlands crossing. He explained the width of the travel way would be 10 feet with 2 ft. shoulders in the conservation easement area and 12 feet wide with 2 ft. shoulders elsewhere. He pointed out the proposed silt fencing below the fill lines and “up road” of the disturbed areas. Mr. Picton asked about erosion controls along side of the wetlands. Mr. Wilson responded that he normally does not install silt fence in wetlands and he would do all of the filling on the other side. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello if he was comfortable with the plans for the crossing on flat ground with no significant amount of fill. Mr. Ajello said he was. He said there was not enough flow on site to cause a problem and there would be hay bales available on site. Mr. Wilson noted a detailed construction sequence had been submitted. Mr. Picton asked if the side slopes would be stabilized as they were graded. Mr. Wilson said they would be.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-40 submitted by Mr. Brown for a driveway crossing at 115 Shearer Road. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Hochberg/15 Couch Road/#IW-08-41/Dredge Pond:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, represented the applicant. The map, “Pond Dredging Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., dated 6/30/08 was reviewed. The previously approved drainage improvements along Couch Road were noted. Mr. Szymanski briefly explained the work to be done; dewatering of the pond, stockpiling of dredged material, and hauling it off site. He said the dewatering could be done in a day and the excavation of 450 cubic yrds. in two to three days. Mr. Ajello asked if the sediment basin would be permanent. Mr. Szymanski he could leave it there, but since there was a good flow there, the current would eventually take it out. Mr. Picton asked that only accumulated sediment be removed and the pond not be deepened or enlarged. Mr. Szymanski agreed to remove only accumulated sediment, noting the side slopes would be 3:1 and would be left to revegetate naturally in the calm areas. Mr. Picton also advised Mr. Szymanski that only clean water should be pumped from the pond. Mr. Szymanski said this was specified in the construction sequence.Bradley/188 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-08-42E/Dredge Ponds:
Mrs. Bradley said she was requesting an agricultural exemption to remove vegetation from her two existing farm ponds. Mr. Forese, contractor, said he planned to remove plants and accumulated sediment and would not enlarge or deepen the ponds. The 30 to 40 c. yrds. of dredged material would be spread elsewhere on the property. Mr. Picton asked that the water level of the pond on the stream be lowered enough before work starts so that water would not flow downstream until the sediments had settled. Mr. Forese pointed out on an aerial photo the locations from which he would operate the excavator. It was the consensus that this was a farm operation. Conditions of approval were discussed.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-42E submitted by Mrs. Bradley to dredge two ponds at 188 Sabbaday Lane as an agricultural exemption subject to the following conditions:
1. the existing underwater side slopes of the ponds shall not be changed,
2. the ponds shall not be deepened or enlarged,
3. only vegetation within 6 feet of the shorelines shall be removed,
4. before excavation begins the water level of the pond shall be lowered enough so that the water will not overflow until the fines settle and the clarity of the water is restored. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.Walker/154 South Street/#IW-08-43/Install Swale:
Mr. Ajello circulated his 8/13/08 Report. The map, “Resubdivision Map Prepared for Graham Wagensil,” by Mr. Burnham, dated May 1983 and the sketch plan, “Richard Walker,” no signature, no date, were reviewed. To solve the problem of runoff onto a neighbor’s driveway, Mr. Swanson, contractor, proposed to deposit fill to create a berm where the runoff now flows and to install a grass lined swale to direct it through the woods to the stream. He said the swale would handle only driveway runoff and one roof gutter; runoff from the entire property would not be directed to it. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the swale would be rip rapped at its end to slow the velocity of the water before the sharp drop to the stream. Mr. Swanson said it would. Mr. Picton asked if the swale was shortened, would the runoff flow towards the stream. Mr. Swanson said, no, it would still flow towards the neighbor’s driveway. Mr. Ajello said he thought the proposed swale was the only solution and recommended that rip rap be installed. It was the consensus that the bottom of the swale should be spread with hay until it is stabilized. It was determined that a site inspection was not necessary, but commissioners could inspect the property on their own prior to the next meeting.Marquis/104 Blackville Road/#IW-08-44/Deck:
Mr. Picton noted this was an after-the-fact application. Ms. Marquis submitted photos of the property and a portion of a survey map showing the location and size of the deck. It was noted the deck had been built on sono tubes over a stable, level area of the yard and was approximately 25 feet from the brook. Mr. Picton noted the deck did not extend to the drop off to the brook. Mr. LaMuniere thought the installation of sono tubes would not have impacted the drainage on site and Mr. Picton said the streambank had not been disturbed nor had the wetlands habitat been impacted. Mr. Picton asked if the Commission would have approved the deck if it had been applied for and he thought the answer was, yes, because an adverse impact could not be found. Mr. LaMuniere said there was no need to remove the deck because it had caused no impact. There was a brief discussion regarding whether this should be considered an “after-the-fact” or a “to correct a violation” application and it was agreed it should be to correct a violation. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to issue the lowest level of citation for a violation with no impact. The Commission will act on the application at the next meeting.Geurts/46 June Road/#IW-08-46/Single Family Dwelling and Workshop:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented the map, “Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., dated 6/18/08. It was noted a previous plan for a house and septic system had been approved for the property. The revised plan was for a larger house slightly below the ridgeline and for a workshop building. Mr. Szymanski noted the location of an intermittent watercourse on the south side of the site and noted the limit of disturbance would be kept 25 to 30 feet from it. Mr. Picton asked the applicant to consider how to ensure that a forested buffer will remain along the watercourse and whether it was necessary to erect a building within 100 feet of wetlands. He noted wetlands buffers help to maintain healthy ecosystems. A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 2:00 p.m.Other Business
Tavino/26 and 32 Flirtation Avenue/Request To Revise Permit #IW-06-54:
Mr. Tavino, property owner, stated the 2006 permit was for a first cut and site development feasibility, but he proposed changes to the driveway and house sites. The map, “Site Development Plan and Details,” by Mr. Tavino, dated 8/5/08 was reviewed. He proposed to shorten the driveway from 900 to 600 feet, change its route, install an underdrain, and move the driveway cut to the opposite side of the property. He said the proposed route would take the driveway farther from the intermittent stream on site. He also proposed to cut trees for a view. Mr. Picton asked if there were wetlands issues. Mr. Ajello said he was more concerned about possible erosion and sedimentation. Mr. Picton asked if the wetland buffer would be retained and if there were enough cross drains proposed so that the driveway runoff would not accumulate. Mr. Tavion pointed out that in a 500 ft. section of the driveway, there were six “bleedoffs” proposed. It was noted that an adjoining property owner had written a letter dated 8/13/08 expressing concerns about drainage being directed towards his property. Mr. Tavion stated his proposed changes would take runoff away from the O’Keefe property.MOTION: To approve the request by Mr. Tavino to revise Permit #IW-06-54 for a first cut at 26 and 32 Flirtation Avenue per the plans, “Site Development Plan and Details,” by Mr. Tavino, dated 8/5/08 subject to the WEO working out the details to protect the adjacent property owner. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Ajello asked the commissioners if they were OK with the proposed limit of clearing. He said he was concerned about impacts to the upland review area. Mr. Picton asked him to look into the proposed clearing as well as the neighbor’s drainage concerns.
Mr. LaMuniere left the Meeting and Mr. Bohan was seated.
Pullaro/23 Calhoun Street/#IW-08-45/Septic Repair:
The map, “Septic System Repair Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 7/18/08 was reviewed. It was noted the new galleries would be installed close to Rt. 109 and 79 feet from Canoe Brook. Mr. Thomson asked if there were any feasible and prudent alternatives. Mr. Ajello said there were none. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to make sure the property was in conformance with the buffering required for the last permit approved for this site and that the plans submitted were complete. Action will be taken at the next meeting.Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road: There was nothing new to report.
Rubler/240 Wykeham Road: Mr. Rubler will submit the required mapping and soils report.
Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Ajello sent a letter of instruction as requested by the Commission.
Gruson/62 Frisbie Road: Mrs. D. Hill asked if the pond had been dredged. Mr. Ajello said he had not received a Start card.
Other Business
Revision of the Regulations: Drafts are being circulated for review. Mrs. D. Hill noted that a definition of “regulated area” was needed. Mr. Bedini said the fine ordinance would be included for convenience with the Regulations. Mr. Picton noted that he did not want to lose the detail provided in the current Regs.
Hiring of Consultant: The Selectmen’s Office is continuing to work on this matter.
Grant Application: Mr. Thomson reported that upon further research, the invasive species project suggested by the Commission did not meet the criteria for the grant.
Election of Officers for 2008-2009:
MOTION: To elect Mark Picton as Commission chairman. By Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0. Mr. Bohan was seated for Mr. LaMuniere.
MOTION: To elect Mr. Bedini as Commission vice chairman. By Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mrs. Hill and passed 5-0. Mr. Bohan was seated for Mr. LaMuniere.
Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation:
It was decided not to go into Executive Session to discuss Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road. Atty. Zizka will continue to confer with Atty. Fisher and Mr. Ajello and two commissioners will meet with Atty. Fisher on site to determine the limits of the restoration area. Mr. Bedini noted the Commission had previously agreed that the area within 50 feet of the stream should be restored. Mr. Thomson did not think the EO should be put in the position of both working on a resolution and then policing it. There will be no final agreement on the restoration requirements until the 9/10 meeting. Mr. Ajello noted that the interveners would also have to approve the agreement.Mr. Bohan left the Meeting at 11:25 p.m.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 7/9/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
The spelling of “Szymanski” was corrected throughout.
Page 2: Town of Washington motion: Add: Application #IW-08-36.
Page 2: Under Wykeham Rise, LLC: 9th line: Change “debt” to “depth.”
Page 2: The spellings of Chris Allan and Milone and McBroom were corrected.
Page 4: Under Slaymaker: 6th line: Change to: “…moved further out of the wetlands nearer the road….”
Page 4: Under Slaymaker: 8th line from bottom: Change: “proposed” to “proposal” and after “proposal” add: “to move and restore the leach field….”
Page 5: Under Fowler: The spelling of remediation was corrected.
Page 5: Under Lodsin: 3rd line: Change: “packet” to “communication.”
Page 5: Under DiBenedetto: 2nd line: Change to: Mr. Picton asked for confirmation that no further cutting had been done.
Page 5: 5th line from bottom of page: Heading should be: Revision of the Regulations Subcommittee.MOTION: To accept the 7/9/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To accept the 7/23/08 Public Hearing – Special Meeting minutes as submitted. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To accept the following site inspection minutes as written:
Donovan-7/15/08,
Slaymaker-7/15/08,
Rubler-240 Wykeham Road,
Andersson-7/22/08, Brown-7/22/08, and Camp Windguage, LLC.-7/22/08.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4-0.The 8/1/08 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: 8th line: Add: “if.” He said if this was done….
Page 3: Mr. LaMuniere’s reasons at the end of the motion: Change: the last word, “them” to “overall site drainage.”MOTION: To accept the 8/1/08 Special Meeting minutes as amended. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To try to reschedule the continuation of the Wykeham Rise, LLC./#IW-08-31 public hearing to a date other than the Regular Meeting date; either 9/17/08 or 9/9/08. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Thomson.
Mr. Picton adjourned the Meeting at 11:40 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: August 8, 2008 August 1, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Fisher, Mr. Klauer, Residents
Wykehan Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-31/Site Development for Inn
Mr. Picton called the Special Meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Picton and Alternate Wadelton for Mr. Thomson. He stated the purpose of the Special Meeting was to discuss whether the Commission would hire Dr. Klemens to help the Commission develop its review of the application and come up with all of the relevant questions and issues that the commissioners themselves may not have the background to come up with. He said this was done, Commission funds would be used. He noted he had received an email from Atty. Zizka regarding the procedure the Commission should follow in this matter. He explained he did not want to wait until the August 13th Meeting to resume the discussion begun on July 23rd because there was a 35 day time frame in which the Public Hearing had to be concluded unless the applicant requested an extension. He thought the Commission needed input from the consultant to ensure an orderly decision making process and that this would be in the best interests of both the applicant and the Commission.
Janet M. Hill Land Use Coordinator
Mr. Picton said he had communicated with Dr. Klemens regarding his availability and Dr. Klemens had indicated his interest in working on the review. Mr. Picton stated that at this point the Commission did not know whether or not the application was deficient. He thought professional assistance was needed to identify issues, make sure all the necessary questions were raised, and to properly frame any questions. He recommended that the Commission hire Dr. Klemens for a first phase, limited review that would focus only on determining the issues to be addressed. He said Dr. Klemens would not do any independent verification, conduct field work, attend the Public Hearing, or write a comprehensive report for this limited review. Once the Commission had a list of all of the relevant wetlands issues, it could then decide whether to have Land Tech or Dr. Klemens review the application.
Mr. LaMuniere thought Dr. Klemens would raise issues that were not under the Inland Wetlands Commission’s jurisdiction. Mr. Picton responded that the Commission could specify that only ecological issues related to the quality and character of the wetlands and watercourses could be considered.
Mr. LaMuniere said he thought Land Tech was capable of doing this type of review. Mr. Picton thought that Land Tech was qualified by resume, but so far had not offered this type of analysis or any analysis but a review of the proposed stormwater management system. He said that Land Tech had written that it could investigate further if it received questions from the Commission, but he was concerned about this approach because the commissioners are lay persons without the ecological background to know what specific questions should be asked.
Mr. Bedini noted that the Commission also has trouble framing questions so that they lead to complete answers rather than to more questions. Mr. Picton agreed that the questions had to be asked in the right way so that complete, comprehensive information was the result.
Mr. Bedini thought Mr. Picton’s recommendation for the limited work by Dr. Klemens before deciding which consultant would do the application review was a good one.
Mr. LaMuniere agreed there were additional questions that should be asked and referred to Mr. Goodin’s 7/23/08 letter for examples. He said again, however, that he was concerned about the scope of Dr. Klemens’ work. He also noted Atty. Zizka had recently advised the Commission that an applicant has only to prove that the proposed activity will cause no additional harm to the wetlands. Mr. LaMuniere said he thought the proposal would improve the wetlands on site
. Mr. Picton also thought the Commission needed guidance to ensure a proper inquiry regarding feasible and prudent alternatives.
Mr. LaMuniere said the Commission should carefully consider whether to spend $2000 of Town funds and cautioned that it could set a precedent. Mr. Picton said he could check with the Town Attorney to find out whether the $2000 could be charged to the applicant. He also said he thought $2000 was cheaper than paying for a consultant to attend all of the Commission meetings.
Mrs. D. Hill thought that as chairman, Mr. Picton was entitled to consult with Dr. Klemens and to make strong recommendations. Noting that the Commission must progress with its review of the application, she said she would agree with his recommendation.
Mr. LaMuniere noted the Commission had worked with Dr. Klemens in the past and had found his input to be valuable, but said in this case he did not think it was necessary because he did not see any threat to the existing wetlands.
MOTION: To approve the engagement of Dr. Klemens for development of the method of inquiry and identification of issues and questions to guide the Inland Wetlands Commission’s review and deliberation and decision making process for Application #IW-08-31 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. to construct an inn at 101 Wykeham Road at an expense to the Town from the Commission’s consulting budget not to exceed $2000. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-1. Mr. LaMuniere voted No because he thought the senior partners of Land Tech were capable of this kind of review, he did not understand the rationale for this broad inquiry as the Commission’s jurisdiction is only wetlands and watercourses, and he said that the applicant had only to prove there would be no additional harm to the wetlands and watercourses and he thought not only would there be no additional harm, but the proposal would, in fact, improve them.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Picton.
The Meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Posted: July 31, 2008 July 23, 2008
Special Meeting – Public Hearing
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Klauer, Mr. Szymanski, Atty. Fisher, Mr./Mrs. Federer, Mr. Carey, Ms. Connolly, Mr. Caroe, Mrs. Branson, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Solley, Mrs. Addicks, Mrs. Wildman, Mrs. Condon, Atty. Kelly, Ms. Eldridge, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Peacocke, Mrs. Clark, Mrs. Freeman, Atty. Maresca, Atty. McTaggart, Mr. Ben, Mr. Templeton, Mr. Solomon, Mr. Charles, Residents, Press
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-31/Site Development for Inn
Mr. Picton called the Public Hearing to order at 7:02 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson. Mr. Bedini read the legal notice published in Voices on 7/9 and 7/20/08. Mr. Picton noted the list of documents in the file and reported on the number of communications, for and against, sent in by the public. He explained the Commission would restrict its consideration and review to matters that affect wetlands and watercourses and asked the public to save unrelated comments for other commissions.
Atty. Fisher introduced Mr. Szymanski, applicant’s engineer.
Mr. Szymanski gave a brief summary of the project proposed on the 26.9 acre property, which was previously used as a school. He noted the location of the seven existing buildings, tennis courts, driveways, parking areas, and stormwater management system. He said that the existing stormwater management system had been installed prior to the adoption of the inland wetlands statutes and currently pipes surface flows without treatment directly to Kirby Brook. Using Map EC.2 by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., dated 7/15/08, he reviewed the plans for a 54 room inn consisting of two main buildings, cottages, a restaurant, lobby, spa and fitness area, and “associated housing.” Mr. Szymanski stated that all of the existing buildings would be demolished and the one at the east corner of the site rebuilt as a poolhouse at the other end of the property. The existing stormwater system and all existing pavement would be removed and replaced. The tennis courts, which are now only 5 ft. from wetlands would be removed. Cottages would be constructed in that general area, but would be a minimum of 40 ft. from the wetlands.
Mr. Szymanski described the proposed stormwater management system in detail. It would consist of multi stormwater treatment devices to provide many opportunities for treatment prior to the discharge of the runoff into Kirby Brook. For example, the roof leaders and pavement runoff would flow to a rain garden designed to handle the first 1 inch of rainfall. The overflow would be directed to a grass lined swale with check dams to slow the velocity and allow the suspended solids to settle. The swale would empty into the wet bottomed detention pond where more solids would settle and wetlands vegetation would be planted for nutrient uptake. From there stormwater would leave the basin by a rip rapped apron and swale and flow into Kirby Brook. Mr. Szymanski explained the proposed system would ensure there would be no increase in the peak flow of runoff, which was important because an increase in peak flow could lead to downstream erosion and capacity problems.
Mr. Szymanski stated the new driveways installed would be surfaced with porous asphalt. He noted, however, that to be conservative, the use of this surface had not been considered in the drainage calculations. He described the benefits of using this material on the driveways noting it would act as an infiltration basin, store stormwater and allow it to slowly infiltrate, allow suspended solids to settle, and remove heavy lead from the runoff. He detailed additional environmental benefits and noted that 30 pages of stormwater runoff information and calculations had been provided with the application.
Mr. Szymanski cited what he termed, two “key” development calculations. First, impervious surfaces would be reduced 20% within 50 feet of wetlands. Currently 41% of those surfaces are within 100 feet of wetlands. Second, development within 50 feet of wetlands would be reduced by 50% and would be reduced by 80% within 100 feet of wetlands. He stated that the sensitive environmental development proposed would provide both short and long term protection for the property. He noted a significant planting plan was proposed and that some of the existing lawn area would be replaced with buffers planted along the wetlands to provide for greater infiltration of stormwater and removal of nutrients. He also stated that the Bell Hill Road access would be removed.
Mr. Szymanski noted revised plans had been submitted to Land Tech and he asked for a continuation of the public hearing so the applicant would have time to respond to Land Tech’s anticipated review.
Mr. Picton noted Mr. Szymanski’s calculations confirmed that the proposed development would occupy all unrestricted areas and said that was an issue because there was no additional land for reconfiguring alternate layouts. He said the proposal included a 67% increase in building footprints, a 9% increase in impervious surfaces, and a 13% increase in the size of the development envelope. He said although he respected the Commission’s engineering consultant, he thought it was important to solicit advice from an environmental/wetlands ecology consultant such as Mr. Klemens. He said the applicant had presented little data on the ecology of the wetlands and so he had recommended at the last meeting that Mr. Klemens be hired.
Public comments were taken.
Ms. Eldridge asked how much lawn was proposed. She noted the existing lawns are close to the wetlands and she asked whether the fertilizers and chemicals used to maintain them would reach the wetlands through stormwater runoff. Mr. Szymanski noted there was a large amount of existing lawn and that some of it closest to the wetlands would be removed and a buffer planted. He said both the buffer and the proposed stormwater manangement system would treat any fertilizers used on site.
Mr. Picton asked for the total post development lawn area. Mr. Szymanski referred to page 4 of his 7/17/08 letter, which stated the existing lawn area is 10.45 acres and the proposed lawn and buffer area is 11.2 acres. He said he would provide figures for lawn area only.
Mr. Picton stated the Commission must be assured that the buffer would function adequately throughout the year to handle all lawn chemicals.
Mr. Ewing noted the complexity of the proposed stormwater management system and asked what maintenance it would require and how the Town would be assured the required maintenance would be done, especially if there was a change in ownership. Mr. Szymanski stated that Sheet SES.1 included a maintenance plan for each stormwater management measure. He explained that so many measures were proposed to act as backups in case any one part of the system failed. He noted in the maintenance schedule that a maintenance and monitoring report would be submitted to the Town on the condition of all parts of the system, stabilization of the area, need for cleaning of the sumps and for sediment removal, function of all parts of the system, etc. Mr. Ewing asked if this could be required by deed restriction. Mr. Szymanski said it was usually required as a condition of Inland Wetlands approval, but said a deed restriction could be considered.
In response to a question by Mr. Peacocke regarding the phasing of the project, Mr. Szymanski said that limiting the disturbed area during construction to only 2 acres at any one time would affect the function of the construction process and would increase the duration of construction to three years. He said that 5 acres of disturbed area was needed for an efficient construction operation and he proposed additional erosion and sedimentation control measures to compensate for the increase. He detailed these measures to be implemented on the downhill side on Sheet SES.1. Mr. Szymanski noted that in addition to Inland Wetlands approval, the Ct. DEP would review the specifications and the phasing of the general construction and would discuss other possible stabilization methods. He said the DEP would not issue its permit until it was fully satisfied there would be no wetlands impact due to the construction process. He also noted that the DEP would send inspectors to the site.
Mr. Picton noted the DEP reviews all projects having over 1 acre of disturbed area.
Mrs. Clark asked about the existing septic system. Mr. Szymanski pointed out the location of the septic system at the south end of the property. He explained which portions of the system would be replaced and noted the applicant had already received a transfer of the DEP septic permit.
Ms. Connolly noted the applicant had stated the property would be better off ecologically once the project was completed, but she wondered how this could be true, given the enormity of the increase in the footprints of the buildings and the increase in intensity in the use of the land.
Mr. Picton noted the ecological analysis should not be limited to stormwater management. He asked for the acreage of natural area that would be lost, especially upgrade of wetlands.
Mr. Szymanski said septic use had to be considered. Previously the culinary school had a large amount of waste and nutrients, but the proposed restaurant would be on a smaller scale. He said that calculations for the inn’s waste water had to show that it would meet drinking water standards for phosphates and nitrogen. He also noted the septic system would be sized so that it has a built in safety factor.
Mrs. Freeland asked where the septic reserve area was and whether there would be adverse impacts to neighboring properties. Mr. Szymanski explained the DEP would have to sign off on the septic system and reserve area and that its use would be overseen by multiple agencies who would ensure its proper design and function.
On behalf of the Federers, Atty. Maresca summarized the 7/23/08 letter from Mr. Goodin, engineer, who had only the opportunity to review the original submissions and not the revisions, and so asked that the hearing be continued. He raised the following questions/issues at this time: 1) Was adequate information submitted regarding the feasibility of using the existing septic system and 2) Since the stormwater management system was highly dependent on soil conditions, he recommended appropriate soil testing and analysis. Mr. Ajello said he would submit these issues to Land Tech for review.
Atty. McTaggart represented the Ewings. She asked if the DEP had transferred the septic certificate and whether it had any conditions. Mr. Szymanski said he would submit a copy for the file. Atty. McTaggart then noted that the engineered plans called for joining the roof, driveway, and pavement drainage at one point and she asked whether keeping them separate to prevent them from mixing with cleaner water had been considered. Mr. Szymanski noted the roof runoff would be directed to a rain garden and would be joined with the separate road runoff later. They both then flow into the swale for additional treatment time. Atty. McTaggart asked if restrictions on the use of fertilizers and lawn chemicals had been considered throughout the site; not just next to the wetlands. Mr. Szymanski agreed to put together a plan to address this concern. Mr. Picton thought the plan was a good idea, but asked how it could be enforced in perpetuity. Atty. McTaggart suggested a deed restriction. Atty. McTaggart then asked what materials would be taken on and off the site. Mr. Szymanski stated that by design, nothing would be taken off the site so that Wykeham Road traffic and pavement conditions would not be impacted. Crushed stone would be trucked on site as well as top soil, if needed. He said that the applicant would ensure that no invasives were brought in with the top soil.
Ms. Eldridge asked how much of the property was wetlands. Mr. Szymanski pointed out the wetlands on the 40 scale site development map and said there were 2.8 acres of wetlands covering 10.5% of the site. He reviewed the existing watershed and the existing vs. proposed infiltration capabilities of the property. Ms. Eldridge worried the proposed detention pond would attract mosquitoes and that the pesticides used to control them as well as the fertilizers and chemicals used for lawn maintenance would impact both the environment and the neighbors. Mr. Szymanski explained that until six years ago the existing lawns had been maintained and that lawn runoff plus all the runoff from impervious surfaces had flowed and now flows directly into Kirby Brook impacting it on a daily basis and causing downstream erosion. He said the proposed stormwater management system would improve the existing situation.
Ms. Eldridge noted there would be more people using the property and more development. She asked if the Town could accept this drastic change to the imprint of the land. Mr. Picton said the Commission’s consultant would address these issues.
Mr. Szymanski spoke briefly about the state’s NEMO program and referred the public to the state website to learn more about the impact to water quality as the percentage of impervious surfaces increases. He said approximately 12% coverage by impervious surfaces was proposed here with multi treatment measures to keep the impacts down. He said the proposal was a large scale one for Washington, but it would not be so in other towns, which allow up to 40% impervious surface coverage.
Mrs. Ewing noted the “horrific” amount of coverage by buildings proposed, which, she said, was not in keeping with the scale of Washington. Mr. Szymanski assured her that many Town commissions would be reviewing the proposal.
Ms. Connolly asked how the porous asphalt proposed in this project works and if it would impact the surrounding roads. Mr. Szymanski noted the porous surfaced driveways would be separated from the Town roads by Kirby Brook and said it would have no impacts to either Town roads or to neighbors. Mr. Picton asked about porous asphalt when used on sloped surfaces. Mr. Szymanski said that stormwater on the uphill side could bleed out on the down slope. He noted he had worked with UNH on this problem and so had proposed checks down the hillsides to slow the flow and allow for more infiltration.
Mr. Federer asked what the chemical composition of porous asphalt was compared to the asphalt normally used and how would it degrade. Mr. Szymanski noted he had submitted specifications for the file. He explained that with the exception that it had no fines, it had the same composition and broke down in the same way as regular asphalt.
Atty. McTaggart noted the regulated area for the original application had been 9 acres. She asked for the size of the proposed area to be disturbed under the revised plans. Mr. Picton said the development envelope was 4.10 acres and Mr. Szymanski said he would review the application to confirm that figure.
Mr. Ben said he had researched septic system issues and voiced his concern about whether the local hydrology could accommodate a 54 room hotel with spa and restaurant using 12,000 gallons of water a day. He noted the contaminants from the septic system for this commercial use could pollute the neighborhood. He thought a public septic facility might be required to properly protect the public. Mr. Picton advised Mr. Ben that the supply of water from wells and community water systems was not within the Commission’s jurisdiction, but the flow of nutrients into the wetlands was. Mr. Szymanski explained that one DEP requirement is that all waste is properly treated and he again stated the DEP would carefully review the septic system, which it had previously approved for heavy commercial kitchen use of 10,500 gallons per day.
Mr. Ben asked if the proposed porous pavement would allow the growth of weeds, which would require the use of herbicides to control. Mr. Szymanski said it would not.
Ms. Eldridge asked if any market research had been done to determine whether this community could support a spa-restaurant-hotel of this size. Mr. Picton noted this was not a wetlands issue except for the maintenance of the facility if it were abandoned. He asked how the Commission could be assured of perpetual maintenance and suggested a bond might be considered. Atty. Fisher noted that approval would go with the property, not the owners, and that any conditions of approval would bind all future owners unless a change in the permit was applied for and granted by the Commission.
Mr. Ben asked how Washington’s standards differ from those in other towns. Mr. Szymanski stated that Washington had no specific drainage requirements, but that to be conservative, the applicant provided a stormwater management system designed to accommodate a 100 year storm event. He said there would be no increase in the peak flow for a 25 year storm.
Mr. Templeton suggested that instead of a substantial bond the developer might grant the Town executory interest so that if a future owner failed, the Town could take over the property. Although the owner could not be required to do so, he thought if the owner offered it, this would give many residents piece of mind.
Mr. Picton said he would consult with the Commission’s attorney about the possibility of a bond.
Atty. McTaggart noted that the DEP’s 2004 Ct. Stormwater Manual provides towns with guidelines for best management practices and that those proposed by the applicant are typical of those proposed in other towns. Mr. Szymanski noted all of the devices proposed were detailed in both the 2004 Stormwater Manual and the 2002 State Guidelines for Erosion and Sedimentation Control, although in the application they are site specific.
Mr. Ben noted there are significant slopes on the property and asked what the required cuts and fills would be and what type of fill material would be brought in from off site. Mr. Szymanski said the detention pond would be dug 10 to 12 ft. deep and the maximum cut into the existing grade between the two major buildings would be 12 feet. Materials to be trucked on site would include rip rap and processed gravel, filter fabric, and crushed stone. Mr. Picton asked for an analysis of the slope in the development envelope so that the Commission could better understand the erosion risks. He asked that this include the slopes to be stabilized. Mr. Szymanski agreed to provide this information, although he said it would be labor intensive.
Mr. Picton asked if there were questions or comments from the commissioners.
Mrs. D. Hill said she was concerned about the demolition of the existing buildings. Mr. Szymanski said this was covered in the construction sequence on Sheets SEQ.1-4 and RM.1.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the access road on the east side of the property would be removed. Mr. Szymanski said it would be removed and replanted and that he would place a note on the plans that it would not be used during construction.
Mrs. D. Hill asked if the wetlands lines had been revised on the new plans. Mr. Szymanski said they had.
Mr. Picton noted he had questions that he would send in writing to the Commission’s consultants.
Mr. Picton noted he had previously explained why he thought an additional consultant was needed to more broadly address the ecological concerns raised. He suggested Mr. Klemens, a highly qualified professional, be hired to do a biological function report with the goal of coming up with a plan to maintain the ecological integrity of the site as it relates to wetlands. He proposed that the applicant post a $10,000 bond, which the Commission would hold to cover the estimated cost of this review. Atty. Fisher asked if the Commission had determined that Land Tech, the Commission’s usual consultant, was not qualified to conduct this review. Mr. Picton responded that Land Tech’s review was a good engineering review, but did not include adequate ecological comments such as addressing the ill effects of sprawl. Atty. Fisher noted that Mr. Allan of Land Tech is an environmental scientist and said he did not want the applicant to pay for duplicate efforts. While he said he was not critical of the engineering review, Mr. Picton said it was his strong opinion that a qualified biological review was also needed. A very lengthy discussion ensued regarding whether Land Tech or Mr. Klemens should be hired for the ecological review. Mrs. D. Hill and Mr. LaMuniere disagreed with Mr. Picton. Mrs. D. Hill said the site had already been developed and so the review did not require Klemens’ level of expertise. Mr. LaMuniere noted that at the last meeting he had voiced his opinion that Land Tech should conduct the review. He noted he wanted a study of the incomplete Chase report to be included in this review and that he wanted cooperation between the applicant’s engineer and the Commission’s consultants. Mr. Picton called for an independent review. Mr. Bedini thought a thorough biological review by Mr. Klemens was a good idea. Mr. Thomson noted that the Chase report did not answer all of the Commission’s questions so in that respect he supported the hiring of an additional consultant. However, he said he did not fully understand the process for hiring the consultant and noted this discussion was taking place in a public hearing, the purpose of which was to receive public comment. Therefore, he said he would abstain. Mr. Picton noted that if the Commission could not come to an agreement now about whether to hire Mr. Klemens, the discussion would have to be continued next month at the next session of the hearing. He asked the commissioners to review the file before the next meeting.
Mr. Solomon asked what the down side would be if another consultant was hired. For a project worth tens of millions of dollars he did not understand why the cost of hiring Mr. Klemens was being debated. He thought the outstanding issues were important and should be addressed.
A woman in the audience agreed, saying it would be to everyone’s benefit to have additional ecological information.
Mr. Federer stated the hiring of a consultant is at the discretion of the Commission and he applauded the selection of Mr. Klemens.
Mr. Charles challenged the applicant to accept Mr. Klemens, saying if the proposal was as innovative as purported, his review should be welcomed.
Atty. Fisher again argued that Land Tech should be asked whether it has the expertise to conduct an ecological review and whether this review could be produced for less than it would cost for Mr. Klemens to do it.
Mr. Picton noted that in order for Land Tech to complete such a review, the Commission would have to generate all of the questions it wanted answered. He did not think the Commission had the background to know all of the questions that should be asked.
Mr. Klauer asked that the process be competitive to ensure a well qualified professional would be hired at a competitive rate.
Mr. Thomson said he would change his vote and support the hiring of Klemens.
There were no other comments from the commissioners or from the public.
MOTION: To continue the Public Hearing to consider Application #IW-08-31 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. to construct an inn at 101 Wykeham Road to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
At 9:25 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the Public Hearing to 5:00 p.m. on August 13, 2008.This Public Hearing was recorded on tape, which is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct..
Special Meeting
Rubler/240 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-V1/Unauthorized Clearing
Mr. Picton called the Special Meeting to order at 9:35 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMunere, Picton, and Thomson.
Atty. Kelly recorded the discussion for Mr. Rubler.
Mr. Ajello, WEO, reported on the situation to date. He had sent a notice of violation for unauthorized clearing to Mr. Rubler to an incorrect mailing address, but had subsequently spoken to Mr. Rubler and mailed the notice out a second time. He said he would not go forward with enforcement proceedings until the Commission had the opportunity to comment. He noted Mr. Rubler had a previous violation for clearing and drainage problems, for which the Commission was still holding a bond. He said the clearing had recently been extended to the other side of Wykeham Road. Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the site and had found wetlands issues down slope of the clearing and drainage issues at the roadside. He had contacted the Selectmen’s Office to inform it of these drainage issues. Also, he said he had checked the Natural Resource Inventory Map and had determined there was a vernal pool in or near the area cleared.
Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello if he had asked Mr. Rubler for a map of the regulated resources. Mr. Ajello said he had not. Mr. Picton noted this was an additional area of activity beyond what had been previously reviewed by the Commission and so specific information was needed on both where the resources were located and where the clearing was in relation to those resources.
Mr. LaMuniere noted that trees had been cut on a very steep slope on the south side of Wykeham Road and that at least two were felled in the general area of the vernal pool.
Mr. Ajello suggested that the Commission examine whether the upland clearing on the steep slopes above the culvert affected the flow of stormwater.
Mr. Lyon, First Selectman, said the Town drainage had been impacted, and he noted this had caused new erosion. He said, too, that trees had been cut in the Town right of way.
Mr. Picton said he had observed eroded road gravel at the base of the hill on land that most likely develops into wetlands.
Mrs. D. Hill noted that the Assessor’s Map shows a brook in this area.
Mr. Picton said it appeared likely there could be an adverse impact to wetlands and that Mr. Ajello had been justified in ordering the work to stop. Mr. Ajello reported that Mr. Rubler had stopped when he had been asked to do so. In addition to the mapping already requested, Mr. Picton asked for plans to restore the disturbed slope so that the wetlands would not continue to be impacted. Mr. Ajello asked that Mr. Rubler not pull out any stumps.
Mr. Ajello noted the damage that had been done by the “loggers.” Mr. Picton was dismayed that they had removed the stumps to put in silt fencing on the steep slopes, noting it was preferable to have the stumps hold the hillside. Mr. Bedini did not think a silt fence and mulch would be adequate stabilization. He suggested that filter fabric also be installed. Mr. LaMuniere recommended that stabilization measures be implemented as soon as possible because rains were expected.
Mr. Picton advised Atty. Kelly that an application to correct a violation was required and that this would include a bond for a consultant to conduct a review. Mr. Ajello said the Commission was already holding a bond, but Mrs. D. Hill and Mr. Bedini noted that it was being held to ensure that other specific work was properly completed. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to contact Mr. Rubler to find out if he would be willing to post a second bond to ensure the correction this violation. If not, he asked Mr. Ajello to consult with Atty. Zizka to find out if the other bond could be used for this matter. He noted, however, that when Mr. Rubler makes his application to correct the violation, the Commission may collect consultant fees.
It was the consensus that the application should be submitted, a consultant hired, and the slopes stabilized as soon as possible.
Atty. Kelly asked for copies of all of the documents sent to Mr. Rubler. He advised the Commission that although Mr. Rubler did not agree that he had cut in a regulated area, he had scaled back his plans for clearing. He also noted that this was not a commercial logging operation because not enough board feet had been cut to qualify. Atty. Kelly stated the Commission had not yet determined that a violation had occurred and that it had not stated what the exact activity was or how many feet it was from a wetlands or watercourse. He said he had advised Mr. Rubler to hire a soil scientist and that these findings would be submitted to the Commission as soon as possible. He said the property owner would cooperate and that when the mapping had been completed Mr. Rubler would discuss with the Commission the issue of what is a regulated activity and what is not. Mr. Picton asked that the soil scientist investigate the soil types at the base of the steep slope and whether there were wetlands off the property that were likely to be affected by the work done.
Mr. Ajello briefly discussed with Atty. Kelly a new driveway that Mr. Rubler had installed off Nova Scotia Hill Road and a third access to the property across from Tompkins Hill Road.
Mr. Charles informed the Commission that the work done by Mr. Rubler had undermined the structural integrity along the side of Wykeham Road.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Bedini.
Mr. Picton adjourned the Meeting at 10:15 p.m.FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: July 23, 2008 July 9, 2008
Members Present: Mr. Bedini, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Thomson
Alternates Present: Mr. Wadelton
Alternates Absent: Mr. Bohan
Staff Present:Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Osborne
Staff on Vacation: Mrs. J. Hill
Also Present: Paul Symanski, Devin O’Neil, Brian Neff, Gene McNamara, Peter Herbst Esq., Michael Klein, Kim Barbieri, Kelly Boling, Chris Charles, David Wilson,Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:00pm, he seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, Hill, himself and alternate Wadelton for Mr. Thomson.
MOTION: to add the following subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: New Applications: Donovan/53 Kinney Hill Road/Construct Dwelling, Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/Reconstruct Dwelling, Brown/115 Shearer Road/Construct Driveway w/crossing, Camp Windguage LLP/24 Old North Road/Construct Driveway w/crossing Other Business: Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road/Request to file release on Land Records, Aragi/Wilbur Road/ Request for return of Consultant’s bond Enforcement: Rubler/240 Wykeham Road/Unauthorized clear cutting. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, passed 5-0.
Consideration of the minutes:
The following amendments were made to the minutes of the June 11, 2008 Regular Meeting:
Page 6: line 21 replace verses with versus
Page 9: line 14 to read increases in developed coverage that would be permitted per the
Page 9: line 44 to read affects the temperature of surface water which supplies wetlands. Mr. Ajello thought that
Page 10: line 15 replace contractor with owner
Page 10: line 26 to read shoreline if steps did not go down to the high-water or wave line. It was noted that a revision to the original permit
Page 12: line 18 and 25/26 replace Mrs. Hill with Mrs. J. Hill.
MOTION: to accept the minutes of the June 11, 2008 Regular Meeting as amended. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, passed 5-0.
Not all members had read the minutes from the June 17, 2008 site inspection for the Town of Washington, so Mr. Picton read them into the record.
MOTION: to accept the minutes of the June 17, 2008 site inspection for the Town of Washington. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Picton, passed 5-0.Pending Application:
Peloquin/1 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-08-30/Correct Violation, Planting.
Mr. Ajello stated that a missing application page has been obtained and the file was now complete. Members talked about the patio being situated within an old foundation and a condition of no more than 50% impervious surfaces upon completion of the proposed.
MOTION: to approve Application #IW-08-30 submitted by Mr. Peloquin, 1 New Preston Hill Road, Correct Violation, Planting as per application and planting plan by Metro Community Builders dated April 18, 2008 on file subject to the condition that there is no more that 50% impervious surface. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere passed 4-1 with Mrs. Hill abstaining.Wykeham Rise, LLC/101 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-31/Site Development for Inn.
A Public Hearing is scheduled for Wednesday July 23, 2008 at 7:00pm in the Land Use Meeting Room new information continues to be accepted for the public hearing. Paul Symanski was present stating that a soil scientist report has been submitted and he is working on addressing issues from both Land Tech Consultants Inc. and concerns from Inland Wetlands Commission members on this project. Mr. Symanski expects to submit a revised plan next week. Mr. Picton asked that Mr. Symanski include any proposed grading changes in his information. Mr. Picton asked members about having an independent environmental consultant look at this proposal, for a more indebt review, perhaps a wetlands ecologist/environmentalist. Mr. Symanski questioned this because Chris Allen assisted with the Land Tech review. Mr. Picton stated that he would like a second opinion to address the substance of Jodie Chase’s work and requested suggestions from other members. Mr. Picton read an email (submitted to the file) that he sent to Margie Purnell, Susan Payne and Betsy Corrigan asking about a second opinion and requesting feedback. Mr. LaMuniere suggested asking for further information from Land Tech. It was decided that Mark Picton will contact Malone & McBroom for an estimate. Mr. Symanski asked that the commission find a process that works, he felt that in the past experts hired by the Town don’t always agree, which is not fair to either the Town or the applicant. Mr. LaMuniere felt that Land Tech and the commission members have the capacity to handle/formulate questions that need answering. There was brief further discussion on this subject.Halfon-Albert/40 Plumb Hill Road/#IW-08-32/Renovations, Addition to Dwelling.
Mr. Ajello stated that a soil scientist report was missing from this application, which has since been submitted and the information added to the map.
MOTION: to approve Application #IW-08-32 submitted by Mr. Halfon/Ms. Alpert, 40 Plumb Hill Road, for renovation, addition to dwelling as per property/boundary survey, dated 5/28/2008 by T. Michael Alex submitted. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.
Town of Washington/2 Bryan Paza/#IW-08-36/Remove Invasives, Plant Native Plants.
Mr. Picton noted that this was a thorough plan and there was an obvious need for the invasive eradication.
MOTION: to approve Application #IW-08-36 submitted by the Town of Washington, 2 Bryan Plaza, to remove invasives and plant native plants as per Phase I, Restoration Planting Plan dated April 2008 by Earth Tones Native Plant Nursery & Landscapes submitted. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Picton, passed 5-0.New applications:
Donovan/53 Kinney Hill Road/#IW-08-37/Construct House. Devin O’Neil from Steven Harris Architects, Brian Neff, Engineer, Mark Donovan, owner, Gene McNamara, Environmental Consultant from EMS Assoc. Inc. were present to present this application. Mr. O’Neil began by presenting plans for the proposed house. He pointed out two wetland areas on the map a man-made pond and larger wetlands area. Mr. O’Neil stated that to minimize impact to the land the house will be built on a platform on piers, with footings at grade, so as not to disturb the runoff. The house will be 3700sqft interior, a one story. He noted the unusual shape of the site, stated that there would be no cellar and they would not disrupt the woods leaving it a natural area. Mr. Picton asked about wetland setbacks. Mr. O’Neil answered that 1/3 of the site was wetlands and they would remain untouched. Brian Neff presented a map and outlined proposed work to a culvert drain and catch basin. Mr. Neff stated that the 100’ wetlands setback covers the entire site. Gene McNamara presented an Inland Wetland Investigation Environmental Impact Assessment for the site. Mr. McNamara described the site as a forested site with an intermittent water course and man-made pond, there is bulky waste/debris dumped on site. He went on to say the soils are tight; a lot of run off because of lack of infiltration, and he feels that the proposed house on piers will not disturb what exists. Mr. LaMuniere asked that Mr. McNamara submit a sketch map of the various soils. Mr. O’Neil explained that the house platform will be built first and pre-engineered pieces will be placed on the platform, house installation should take about 4-6 weeks. Mr. Neff referenced the proposed sequence of construction explaining the all steel construction. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday July 15, 2008 @ 5:00pm.
At 8:05pm Dave Thomson arrived and remained unseated.
At this time Mark Picton congratulated regular members Tony Bedini and Charles LaMuniere on being reinstated by the Board of Selectmen for another three year term.
Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/Reconstruction Dwelling.
Peter Herbst Esq., Robert Slaymaker, owner, Dennis McMorrow, Civil Engineer of Berkshire Engineering & Surveying LLC, Michael Klein, Wetlands/Soil Scientist of Environmental Planning Services, Kim Barbieri, Landscape Architect were present to represent this application. Atty. Herbst began stating that they have tried to address/identify concerns with the septic system and wetlands area. They have moved out of the wetlands near the road and abandoned two wells. He went on to say it is a larger house closer to the road with an overall proposed total increase of impervious cover of 3%. The area of development is reduced by 32%. Michael Klein submitted a 6 page document to the file which contained area photos and information. Mr. Klein identified the wetland perimeters, stating that it was a very large wetland area on a hilltop. He explained they had moved the leaching fields and house to the front of the lot and restored the wetlands. Kim Barbieri explained that by moving the development forward they were able to restore the wetlands. Ms. Barbieri referenced her Wetland Mitigation Plan in explaining the multi layer restoration plan, she submitted a Summary of Impacts Existing and Proposed which showed a decrease of 32% in area of development and an increase of 3% in total area of impervious cover. The proposed plan will clear invasives and restore with native species. Mr. Bedini asked about the old septic tank and curtain drain. Mr. Klein and Ms. Barbieri answered that they will be left as is, the curtain drain is ineffective and the tank will be pumped and crushed, fields left as is. Roof run off will be handled by a splash pad or pipe. Mr. LaMuniere commented that the proposed is a significant improvement. Mr. Bedini asked that the demolition of the old house be added to the construction sequence and the roof drains be added to the plan. The proposed house is a two-story 22’x30’ structure. A site visit was scheduled for Tuesday July 15, 2008 @ 5:30pm. Mark Picton stated that this was a unique situation, the wetlands mitigation plans look good but it is hard to maintain, permanent markers should be established to define the edge. Ms. Hill asked about the need for a full basement, it was stated that the mechanics/utilities would be housed in the basement and added that there is no proposed garage.
Camp Windguage LLP/24 Old North Road/Construct Driveway w/crossing.
Kelly Boling and Chris Charles of Open Space Equity were present to represent this application. Mr. Boling began by describing the site as a 31 acre parcel that the applicants want to create a 5.3+ acre building lot from. They are proposing a crossing with culvert for access. The proposed culvert is 28’ with a seepage envelope. Mr. Bedini asked for alternatives to the wetlands crossing. Mr. Boling stated that the applicants want to maintain the open agricultural lands. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday July 22, 2008 @ 5:30pm.
Brown/115 Shearer Road/Construct Driveway w/crossing. David Wilson was present to represent this application. Mr. Wilson stated that access is proposed by right-of-way over the narrowest area of wetlands, the crossing will use two existing stone abutments and be a timber bridge, this will leave the existing critter path untouched. He went on to state that the proposed is laid out to miss important trees. The bridge will measure 16’x12’ and will bridge the stream bed. A site visits was scheduled for July 22, 2008 @ 5:00pm.OTHER BUSINESS:
Fowler/138 Nichols HillRoad/#IW-05-58/Remidistion per Order.
Mr. Ajello and Mr. LaMuniere have done an inspection, the job is complete, violation is corrected and a release should be filed on the land records. Mr. Ajello and Ms. Osborne will look into the release on the land records.
Aragi/Wilbur Road/ Request for return of Consultant’s Bond. Mr. Aragi has withdrawn his plans, the full fund should be intact, all members agreed on return of the bond.
Motion: to approve the return of Consultant’s bond to Mr. Aragi, Wilbur Road. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, passed 5-0.ENFORCEMENT:
Mr. Ajello submitted a WEO Report dated thru July 7, 2008.
DeBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of understory. Mr. Ajello stated that the site looks good, 70 herbaceous plants have be installed. Mr. Picton confirmed that no cutting/digging has been done. Mr. Ajello answered that they have continued to trim invasives.
Lodsin/ 78 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Excavation. Mr. Ajello stated that a letter has been sent from the Army Corps of Engineers stating that they expect restoration of the site; he is waiting for this packet. Mr. Picton felt that an expert needs to be hired. Mr. Ajello said that a bond needs to be obtained to develop a restoration plan. Mr. Ajello will issue a letter.
Rubler/240 Wykeham Road/Unauthorized clear cutting. Mr. Ajello sent a Notice of Violation with attachments (including a letter from the First Selectman and Town Road Forman) to Mr. Rubler discussing the roadside damage, location of vernal pool and stream. A site visit was scheduled for Tuesday July 15, 2008 @ 6:00pm. Mark Picton had a conversation with Betsy Corrigan about the stream being inhabited by the wood turtle.
Peloquin and Fowler will be removed from the Enforcement list.Administrative Business:
Revision of the Regulations. Will meet on July 17, 2008.
Hiring of a Consultant. Mr. Bedini and Mr. Picton will approach the selectmen about the hiring of a consultant.
Update on Funding Application to River Alliance. Dave Thomson reports this is moving forward.COMMUNICATION:
6/20/08 Letter to All Washington Residents, Unsigned. Members did not feel this correspondence should be addressed now; it will be filed in the Wykeham Rise LLC file with other correspondence. Some members felt that because it was unsigned it shouldn’t be addressed.
CACIWC Membership. All members were in agreement to continue membership, Ms. Osborne will forward to the Selectmen’s Office.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if Mr. Ajello has sent letters to the DEP about the commission’s denial for treating the two ponds at the last meeting. Mr. Ajello has not yet submitted these letters. Mr. LaMuniere felt it needed to be done ASAP.MOTION: to enter into executive session at 9:50pm to discuss pending litigation. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, passed 5-0.
MOTION: to exit out of executive session at 10:05pm. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, passed 5-0.
A site visit was scheduled for Tuesday July 15, 2008 @ 4:15pm for Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/ Unauthorized Clearing, Trenching in Wetlands. Mr. Ajello will contact Mr. Andersson attorney of this scheduled site visit.
Meeting adjourned at 10:10pm
Submitted subject to approval,
Pamela L. Osborne, Acting Secretary
Posted: June 21, 2008 June 11, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bedini
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J..Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Cooper, Mrs. Solomon, Atty. Strub, Mr. Klauer, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Neff, Mr. Talbot, Mr./Mrs. Evans, Mr. Lyon
Mr. Picton called the Meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson and Alternate Bohan for Mr. Bedini.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: New Application: A. Town of Washington/ 2 Bryan Plaza/#IW-08-36/Remove Invasives, Plant Native Plants and Enforcement: O. Evans/ 10 Church Hill Road/#IW-07-V19/Soil Disturbance Threatening Canoe Brook. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 5/28/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Throughout: Mr. Tittman is the correct spelling.
Page 2: 2nd line from bottom: Change: "goad" to "goal."
Page 12: Mrs. D. Hill noted that the commissioners should refer to the citation ordinance, not the fine ordinance.
MOTION: To accept the 5/28/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 6/3/08 Thorn site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
The Town of Washington 6/3/08 site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. "Scoop" should be "scour" throughout.
MOTION: To accept the 6/3/08 Town of Washington site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 6/5/08 Wykeham Rise, LLC. site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Regarding the five pending aquatic weed control applications, Mr. Ajello reported that Mr. Gambino was not present and had not contacted him since the last meeting. A brief discussion followed. It was the consensus that the Commission did not favor chemical applications across the board and although it thought it should sometimes challenge DEP approvals, it noted it had tried to do so unsuccessfully in the past. Mr. Picton noted that in the future, specific concerns must be raised to the DEP. Mr. LaMuniere thought it was too late to contact the DEP with any concerns about the five pending applications since the DEP had already approved them, but urged the Commission to implement the procedures discussed at the last meeting and to contact the DEP with specific concerns about future applications in the spring. Mr. Picton noted that in his report, Mr. Ajello had made recommendations about a few of the pending applications. The problem with the Mnuchin application, Mr. Ajello said, was that the Commission could not be sure the Jefferson salamanders and box turtles would not be in the pond area when the chemicals were applied. He noted, too, that other species and insects would be affected by the chemicals. He said there was not enough control over the chemical application process to trust it entirely. At the last meeting Mr. Gambino had stated that the chemicals to be used could kill other species so Mr. Picton said it was important that the pond not overflow during the active life of the chemicals. He pointed out that the chemicals poison the habitat that supports life. Mr. Thomson agreed with Mr. LaMuniere that the Commission should take immediate action as soon as it receives notice of a pending DEP application, but also thought that even though it was late this year, the Commission should go on record with its concerns and ask the DEP to cancel any permits that might cause significant problems.
Douglas/69 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-08-19/Aquatic Weed Control: Mr. Picton said he was not concerned about the flow through the pond in this case. Mr. Ajello said he had not noticed an outflow when he was on site. Mr. Picton said the pond was well contained and that the list of recommended alternate management methods would be sent to the property owner.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-19 submitted by Mr. Douglas to chemically treat his pond to control aquatic weeds at 69 Painter Ridge Road subject to the following conditions: 1. the chemical(s) shall not be applied unless it is certain that the pond will not overflow for a period one and a half times the length of the period of chemical toxicity and 2. the application will be reviewed again next year in terms of the alternate management methods recommended by the Commission to the owner. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 5-0
Gootrad/187 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-20/Aquatic Weed Control: Mr. Ajello thought this was a small pond that could be easily deepened and that it would be easy to contain the water during treatment. Mr. Picton did not want to recommend dredging and deepening ponds, which would change the nature of the pond, unless the material to be dredged was accumulated organic matter. Mr. Ajello said algae was the problem in this pond and it could be managed with barley straw. Mr. LaMuniere thought the pond was too shallow for the effective use of barley straw.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-20 submitted by Mr. Gootrad to chemically treat his pond to control aquatic weeds at 187 Wykeham Road subject to the following conditions: 1. the chemical(s) shall not be applied unless it is certain that the pond will not overflow for a period one and a half times the length of the period of chemical toxicity and 2. the application will be reviewed again next year in terms of the alternate management methods recommended by the Commission to the owner. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0
Newman/266 Bee Brook Road/#IW-08-21/Aquatic Weed Control: Mr. Ajello said that both the inflow and the outflow could be controlled in this pond. Mr. Picton noted that in this case the Commission did not know whether chemical treatment was warranted.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-21 submitted by Mr. Newman to chemically treat his pond to control aquatic weeds at 266 Bee Brook Road subject to the following conditions: 1. the chemical(s) shall not be applied unless it is certain that the pond will not overflow for a period one and a half times the length of the period of chemical toxicity and 2. the application will be reviewed again next year in terms of the alternate management methods recommended by the Commission to the owner. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0
Mnuchin/218 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-22/Aquatic Weed Control: Mr. Picton said this was an example of a pond where alternate methods of management should be used instead of chemicals. Mr. Ajello asked if there should be a review by an environmental expert since there were species of special concern here and the area was unspoiled. Mr. Picton asked if Mr. Gambino had drawn up a complete list of alternate management methods for this pond and Mr. Ajello responded that he had submitted only the standard sheet. Mr. LaMuniere said that although they are in the area, salamanders do not breed in ponds. Mr. Thomson said he had spoken with one consultant who had advised him that the species of special concern were elsewhere on the property. Mr. Ajello pointed out that at a seminar Dr. Klemens had stressed the importance of linked vernal pool complexes and had stated that the 750 feet immediately surrounding a vernal pool was critical to the species that live there. The commissioners were uncomfortable with the DEP approval of this permit, especially because there were alternate management methods that could be used.
MOTION: To deny Application #IW-08-22 submitted by Mr. Mnuchin to chemically treat his pond to control aquatic weeds at 218 Nettleton Hollow Road because according to the expert who filed the application, there are alternate management methods that could be used and there are species of special concern in the area. By Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
(Motion approved, Application denied)
Mr. LaMuniere asked that notification of the Commission's denial be sent immediately to the DEP. Mr. Picton asked that the list of alternate management methods be sent to both the property owner and to the DEP.
Canal/142 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-08-23/Aquatic Weed Control: Mr. Picton noted that Mr. Gambino had not developed specific information on how to control the outflow from this pond. Mr. Ajello stated the pond had an underwater valve at the base of the dam, but that when open, as much sediment as water flows through it. He said downstream property owners had complained last year when the valve was opened. Mr. Picton was concerned about the applicant's ability to control the outflow because the chemicals could have downstream impacts. He noted that in addition to information on how the valve would be controlled, information on feasible and prudent alternative management methods was required.
MOTION: To deny Application #IW-08-23 submitted by Mr. Canal to chemically treat his pond to control aquatic weeds at 142 Sabbaday Lane because there are alternate management methods that may be used, the Commission has general concerns about the condition of the pond, there does not appear to be weed growth in the pond now, and the Commission is concerned due to complaints from downstream property owners last year when the pond valve was opened. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0. (Motion approved, Application denied)
Mr. Picton asked that both the owner and the DEP be notified and sent a list of alternate management methods to consider.
Peloquin/1 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-08-30/Correct Violation, Planting: Mr. Ajello reported that the application was still incomplete. Mr. Picton suggested that if the disturbed areas were now vegetated and stable, this item could be taken off the agenda.
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-31/Site Development for Inn: Mr. Picton said he would draft a list of additional information needed and concerns, both engineering and environmental, for the commission's consultant to address. Mr. Szymanski, engineer, submitted the consultant form and the $5000 consultant's fee. Revised plans, "Site Development Plan for Wykeham Rise," by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., 19 pp., revised to 6/11/08 were submitted. Mr. Szymanski said the plans now incorporated drainage details and associated reports, plans and profiles for each driveway, an erosion and sedimentation control plan that includes temporary and permanent maintenance schedules, and details on the detention ponds including designs, outlet structures, berms, and cross sections. He noted the ponds would permanently hold 3 to 4 feet of water. He said he would stake the limit of disturbance line in the vicinity of wetlands flags #49 and #50 and take photos of this area, that the ecology report by Ms. Chase would be in by Friday, and the invasive plant management plan to supplement the landscaping plan would also be in by the end of the week. He noted that although at the last meeting it had been stated that all of the existing buildings would be demolished, there was a possibility that one along Bell Hill Road would remain. The proposed contours were discussed. Mr. Szymanski said there would be excavation to the back lines of the buildings and they would act as retaining walls. Mr. LaMuniere noted significant excavation was proposed. Mr. Picton asked the applicant for summary data including acreage of the property and the percentage of the property proposed for development versus left undisturbed, existing versus proposed area to be covered by structures, and the existing versus proposed amount of traveled surfaces. Mr. Szymanski said the property is 26.9 acres and 11 would be disturbed and that the other information requested was included in the drainage reports. The proposed pervious surfaced driveways were discussed. Mr. Szymanski noted that 70% to 80% of the proposed driveways would be pervious surfaced and that for the drainage calculations he was considering it conservatively and using TR55 methodology. Mr. Picton asked for figures comparing the perviousness of the pervious pavement verses that of natural vegetated areas. Mr. LaMuniere agreed this was important data for the Commission to consider. Mr. Picton also asked for the acreage of woodland to be removed versus woodland to be restored and the percentage of each. Mr. Picton briefly presented the list of concerns he had begun to draft for the consultants, which included an overlay map that showed "discretionary areas" that were proposed to be left undeveloped. He said he had found that only 4/10 of an acre was not proposed for development of all the acres that could have been developed. Therefore, he thought the plans required careful analysis. A public hearing was scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall to give Land Tech enough time to review the plans and the applicant time to respond to the initial review. Mr. Ajello advised the applicant that he may have to request an extension of the 65 day time period for commencing the hearing and said he would check into this.
Halfon-Alpert/40 Plumb Hill Road/#IW-08-32/Renovation, Addition to Dwelling: Mr. Ajello explained that the work area would encroach into the 100 foot setback, but there were no steep slopes to the wetlands or other concerns. The site plan, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated March 2008 was reviewed. Mrs. D. Hill asked if the soil scientist's report had been submitted as the Commission had requested at the last meeting. Mr. Ajello said that no new information had been submitted. Mrs. Hill also noted that the minutes stated the applicant had been asked to place all relevant information on the map. Mr. Ajello suggested the application could be approved with conditions. Mr. LaMuniere made a motion to approve because he had inspected the site and had no concerns. There was no second.
MOTION: To table consideration of Application #IW-08-32 submitted by Halfon and Alpert for renovations and additions to the existing dwelling at 40 Plumb Hill Road. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4-1. Mr. LaMuniere voted No because he thought the application was ready to be acted on.
Thorn/228 West Shore Road/#IW-08-33/Addition to Dwelling: Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Talbot, architect were present. The map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 6/6/08 to show an updated house footprint was reviewed. It was noted there would be no excavation required for the renovations on the north side of the house. On the south side where the addition was proposed, Mr. Talbot reported that the excavation would decrease because only a partial basement would be put in due to Health Dept. concerns. He advised the Commission that a variance would be required for the 4 foot addition proposed on the east and south side of the house. Mr. Ajello asked if the evergreens to be removed would be replaced. Mr. Talbot did not know, but said he thought the owners would want some kind of screening from the road. Mr. Picton thought the proposed limit of clearing and disturbance was adequate and that a durable barrier should be erected and maintained for the duration of the project. Mr. Neff said it was not likely that equipment would go beyond this line because the land begins to slope at that point. Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Thomson thought the plan was well thought out.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-33 submitted by Mr. Thorn for the renovation of and an addition to the existing house at 228 West Shore Road per the map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 6/6/08 subject to the condition that a limit of disturbance barrier shall be put in at the beginning and maintained throughout the project to prevent the expansion of the work area beyond that limit. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Lancaster/244 West Shore Road/#IW-08-34/Construct Patio, Abandon Cess Pool: The map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/24/08 was reviewed. It was noted that the Commission had raised no concerns at the last meeting.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-34 submitted by Mr. Lancaster to install a patio and abandon the cess pool at 244 West Shore Road per the map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/24/08. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
Town of Washington/15 Couch Road/#IW-08-35/Drainage Improvements: Mr. Lyon, First Selectman, presented the map, "Drainage Improvement Plan," by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., revised to 5/16/08. He proposed to divert the runoff from Route 202 into a new catch basin, which would run to a scour hole. It was noted that currently the runoff flows into the wetlands, whereas, after the catch basin and culvert are installed, it will run into the rip rapped lined scour hole where the sediment will settle. Mr. Picton asked if the scour hole could be cleaned out with a backhoe. Mr. Lyon said it could. Mr. Picton suggested it be made 12" deeper to facilitate its cleanout. Mr. Lyon drew in a "leak off" area that would drain into the scour area and signed and dated the revision.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-35 submitted by the Town of Washington for drainage improvements at 15 Couch Road per the map, "Drainage Improvement Plan," by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 3/12/08 and as revised by hand by Mr. Lyon at the 6/11/08 meeting with the recommendation that the scour hole be made deep enough to trap sediment and to be cleaned out with a backhoe without disturbing the rip rap. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Town of Washington/2 Bryan Plaza/#IW-08-36/Remove Invasives, Plant Native Plants: The maps, "Phase I and Phase II, Restoration Planting Plan," by Earth Tones, dated April 2008 were reviewed. Mr. Lyon, First Selectman, said the invasives choking the area behind the Town Hall would be removed by hand. Mr. Ajello read the proposed phasing of the project. Mrs. D. Hill noted that two copies of the plans were required, but only one had been received. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Lyon will ask Mrs. Corrigan to attend.
Other Business
Petition to Amend Zoning Regulations Re: Lot Coverage and Pervious Surfaces: Mr. Picton noted that he had already sent his personal opinions to the Zoning Commission, but asked the commissioners if they had any comments they wanted to make from the Inland Wetlands Commission. A discussion followed. The questions and concerns raised included: could too much infiltration impact the wetlands, how does infiltration on the installed pervious surface compare with that on natural undisturbed land, and how could it be guaranteed that the pervious surface would be properly installed and maintained to preserve its pervious quality forever. Mr. Picton noted a common statistic that when impervious surfaces exceed 10%, water quality begins to be impacted, but he did not know whether that applied to every situation or whether the increases in impervious surfaces that would be permitted per the proposed revisions would have any impact on water quality in sensitive areas. Mr. LaMuniere asked how pervious surface was defined. Mr. Picton responded that it was a new technology with definite specifications. Mrs. D. Hill was concerned that oil and gas from vehicles would infiltrate as well as runoff and that the proposed language was too general. Mr. Ajello responded that hydrocarbons break down faster in pervious surfaces because more air can get in. Mr. Szymanski explained there were industry construction specifications. It was also noted there could be unintended consequences such as the infiltrated runoff affecting the function of septic systems on small lots. Mr. Picton thought the infiltration of runoff could be a big improvement in many cases, but that there were still uncertainties regarding the effects of increased lot coverage and equivalency of pervious surfaces and undisturbed land. Mr. LaMuniere did not think there was enough known at this point for the Zoning Commission to act on the petition. Mrs. Cooper said the Zoning Commission would have to define which pervious products would be pervious forever, specify how they were to be maintained, and require that they never be paved over. She did not think the Town could control these kinds of requirements. Mrs. D. Hill noted these issues had already been discussed by the Zoning Commission. Mrs. Cooper asked if there were other issues like habitat that should be considered. Mrs. D. Hill thought there were too many outstanding questions at this point and so favored keeping all traveled surfaces included in the lot coverage calculation. Mr. Picton again noted his interest in finding out how the pervious surfaces compare with undisturbed land because vegetation has an impact on the function of wetlands. He said, for example, that vegetation affects the temperature of wetlands. Mr. Ajello thought that pervious surfaces could work well on pedestrian walkways. Mr. Picton said that, in general, reducing impervious surfaces was good as long as there was no corresponding increase in the developed area.
Enforcement
Evans/10 Church Hill Road/#IW-07-V19/Soil Disturbance Threatening Canoe Brook: Mr. Ajello said that he had issued a notice of violation because erosion control measures had not been installed, not even after he asked the contractor to put hay bales across the driveway. He said the severe storms experienced lately made it likely that sediment would reach the catch basin and flow into the brook. Mr. Evans said the situation was now under control because he had installed hay bales himself. Mr. Picton said a fine should be discussed. Mr. Ajello said he thought the contractor should be fined. Because it was not known whether the revised citation schedule was in effect, the contractor will be fined under the old schedule. Photos of the disturbed area were circulated. Mr. Ajello stated the problem was now under control.
Enforcement Report
Lewinter/86 Roxbury Road: It was noted the shed had been moved farther from the wetlands.
Hackney-Holiman/125 West Shore Road: The owners are considering replacing the existing wooden stairs with granite steps. All work would be within 10 feet of the shoreline and done by hand except the stones would be placed by a machine operated from the grassy bank. Mr. Picton did not consider this to be hardening of the shoreline. It was noted that a revision to the original permit would have to be approved.
Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike: It was not known whether Mr. Lodsin had responded to the letter from the Army Corps of Engineers.
Mnuchin/218 Nettleton Hollow Road: It was the consensus that it would be irresponsible for the Commission to grant a routine approval for the chemical treatment of this pond.
Reinhart-Cremona/Perkins Road: Mr. Ajello reported that by the end of the summer it would be known whether the invasives had been controlled on the property and five more spruce would be planted. Mr. LaMuniere asked for a status report from Mr. Childs at the end of the summer. Mr. Picton said he would like the planting completed as soon as possible.
Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane: Mr. Ajello said an application would be submitted for the July meeting. It was noted that when/if a new septic system was installed it would be a good example of positive results when the Health Department and Inland Wetlands Commission cooperate.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Ajello will check the plantings and make sure the disturbed areas are stabilized.
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road: Mr. Ajello will make sure the hillside is stable before this matter is taken off the enforcement list.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street: It was noted the work had stopped. Mr. Ajello will ask Mr. DiBenedetto what his plans are for the summer. Mr. LaMuniere asked if plans had been submitted for removal of the phragmites. Mr. Ajello said they had not, but he thought the owner was considering repeated mowing. Mr. Picton noted this would be for the phragmites only, not for the entire forest. Mr. Thomson noted there was no report from Land Tech on either recommendations for the removal of the phragmites or its last site inspection. He asked that these reports be submitted for the record. There was a brief discussion on reforestation practices. Mr. Picton had a problem with cutting down the ash trees before they looked sick because they contribute to the forest and stabilize the soils. Mr. Thomson hoped the "re engineering" of the forest would result in healthier growth, more canopy, and greater diversity.
Baker/42 Wykeham Road: Mr. Ajello reported that he had issued an agent approval for reconfiguration of the existing parking area.
Jackson-Karger/69 Wykeham Road: Mrs. D. Hill asked if the conditions of approval had been followed. Mr. Ajello noted that a revised map had been submitted, but he did not know whether the soil scientist's report had been. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to review the map to make sure that all the requested information had been added to it and that the soil scientist's report was in.
Other Business
Revision of the Regulations: The commissioners were asked to complete their reviews of the first draft as soon as possible so that work could continue.
Hiring of a Consultant: The Selectmen will determine whether there are funds available in the 2007-08 budget or whether the hiring of the consultant will have to wait until after July 1. Mr. LaMuniere urged the Commission to follow up with the Selectmen on this request.
Communications
5/19/08 Letter from Rivers Alliance: This letter noted there was possible funding available for projects to preserve the Shepaug River and its watershed and requested specific ideas. Mr. Picton suggested controlling invasive plants and maintaining and enhancing the riparian buffer. Mr. Thomson thought these were good ideas and said the eradication of invasives could be used as a means to improve public relations. He proposed a "give back to the public" project whereby property owners could apply to the Commission for no fee and in return, the Commission would send a consultant to the property, again, no charge, to identify the invasives and offer advice regarding how they should be removed. Mrs. Hill was asked to contact Rivers Alliance to find out whether there was still time to apply for such a grant. Mr. Thomson volunteered to draft the specific proposal. He thought it would be a good idea to implement it whether or not the grant was approved. It would benefit the Shepaug and its watershed, educate the public, and improve the Commission's public relations.
Washington Times Article: Mr. Picton suggested a brief article on the revised citation schedule and after a brief discussion Mrs. Hill was asked to write it.
MOTION: To enter executive session at 9:32 p.m. to discuss pending litigation. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To exit executive session at 9:42 p.m. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Picton.
Mr. Picton adjourned the Meeting at 9:41 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: June 5, 2008 May 28, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Gambino, Mr. Neff, Mrs. Peckerman, Mrs. Osborne, Mr. Charles, Mrs. Sabin, Mr. Cassari, Mr. Kistela, Mr. Dunlap, Mr. Titman, Mrs. Federer, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Szymanski, Residents
Mr. Picton called the Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson.
MOTION: To include the following subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: New Applications: D. Thorn/228 West Shore Road/House Addition and Renovation, E. Lancaster/244 West Shore Road/Patio, Abandon Cess Pool, F. Town of Washington/Couch Road/Road Drainage Improvements, Communications: 5/20/08 letter from Woodbury Inland Wetlands Agency. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0
Consideration of the Minutes
The 5/14/08 Regular Meeting Minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 2: Under Lancaster: 7th line: should be: "dock nor float..."
Under Pinover: 9th line: insert after "adjacent property:" "also owned by Mrs. Pinover."
Page 3: At end of top paragraph: insert after "herbicide:" ", pesticide, or fungicide...."
Under Douglas: 10th line: insert after "irrigation:" "use...."
Page 8: Under Gray-Dunlap: 14th line: change: "will be" to "was."
18th line: insert after "filled:" "beyond the driveway shoulders."
MOTION: To accept the 5/14/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
The 5/21/08 Jackson-Karger site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. In the third line in the second paragraph, "patio area" should be inserted after "hot tub."
MOTION: To accept the 5/21/08 Jackson-Karger site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Douglas/69 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-08-19/Aquatic Weed Control: Photos of the pond were circulated. Mr. Gambino, agent, prepared a program for pond management without chemicals with an appendix options checklist and an information form for property owners, which outlined alternatives to chemical treatment as the Commission had asked him to do at the last meeting. The alternatives included dredging, harvesting, manipulating the water level, providing shade, biological controls, and watershed management. He said he would check off on the checklist those items that would apply for each specific application. He advised the Commission that the DEP sends a booklet on the management of nuisance aquatic vegetation to all applicants and submitted a copy for the file. As the applicant, Mr. Gambino said he reviews all options with each property owner, taking into account both the site and his experience. Mr. Picton noted the Commission prefers pond management rather than chemical application to control aquatic weeds, but asked whether it would receive applications in time to review them and to recommend alternate methods before the DEP issues its permit. Mr. LaMuniere asked if after receiving input from the Commission, Mr. Gambino would present the Commission's views to each property owner and return with an amended application. Mr. Gambino responded that 1) he was probably the only applicator in Ct. who was presenting alternatives to property owners, 2) the local Inland Wetland Commission has no authority to change a chemical permit granted by the DEP, and 3) he was discussing options with the property owners only as a courtesy to the Commission. He also stated that it would be the Commission, not him, who would decide whether to ask for an alternate management method. Mr. Picton noted that if each property owner was presented with Mr. Gambino's comments and a review and recommendations from Mr. Ajello, the Commission would have accomplished its goad to educate property owners even if it has no authority to override the DEP. Mr. Bedini asked for the comparative cost of dredging a pond vs. applying chemicals to it. Mr. Gambino thought it would be approximately $10,000 for a dredging and under $500 for a chemical application. Mr. Thomson said he thought it should be the Commission's responsibility, not Mr. Gambino's, to advise the property owners of alternate management methods. Mr. Picton suggested that the Commission send the results of the analysis to the property owner. Mr. Gambino recommended the process used by Roxbury; if the Commission has a problem with the permit approved by the DEP, the WEO sends a letter to the property owner detailing alternatives. Mr. Picton thanked Mr. Gambino for his efforts to cooperate with the Commission. He outlined the procedure that would be used; Mr. Gambino would prepare his alternative report for the Commission, Mr. Ajello would meet with Mr. Gambino to discuss it and then prepare his own review, and both the Gambino and Ajello reviews would be sent to the property owner and copies placed in each file for future reference.
Mnuchin/218 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-22/Aquatic Weed Control: Mr. Gambino noted this pond is located in wetlands. Mr. LaMuniere said the application was troublesome due to the species of special concern on the property. Mr. Gambino stated that the Jefferson salamander and box turtle were not in the area where he would apply the chemicals and so the DEP had approved the application. Mr. Thomson agreed, saying that these two species do not breed in ponds with ingresses and egresses so it was not an issue. Mr. Picton said the main issue, then, was to treat the pond when it was not flowing into other bodies of water. Mr. Gambino advised the Commission that the first thing it should have done was to register its concern with the DEP. Mr. Picton thought the Commission should first have something in writing for the record regarding how the treatment would be done so that the Commission would have something on which to base its comments. Mr. Gambino said this was not possible because all of his contact with the DEP is by phone. Mr. Picton said notes from these phone conversations could be submitted. Mr. Gambino urged the Commission to state its concerns to the DEP because it had told him that it had never been contacted by Washington with specific concerns about a chemical aquatic weed control application. Mr. Picton noted that the Commission had sent the DEP letters to express its concern and to inform it that local permits were also required. Mr. Gambino said that was not adequate; the Commission had to comment on the specific treatment proposed for a specific pond and ask the DEP to deny the application. Mrs. D. Hill asked how this would be possible when the Commission does not hear about the DEP applications until after they have been approved. Mr. Picton asked that all of the material requested by the Commission be submitted for the file.
Canal/142 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-08-23/Aquatic Weed Control: Mr. Picton noted this pond is located in the course of a stream and asked if the outflow could be controlled during the proposed chemical application. Mr. Ajello said there was a problem because the outflow was filled with sediment, which had accumulated over the years due to the chemically treated vegetation. Mr. Gambino said he would argue vehemently against the position that aquatic weed control had contributed to the depth of the muck in the pond. He said the Commission's concern must be about plant or animal life, so if the pond level was low so there was no flow from the outlet and the forecast was for dry weather, it would be OK for the proposed chemical application. Mr. Picton asked that all the material requested by the Commission be submitted for the file. Regarding the application process, Mrs. D. Hill asked Mr. Gambino if he would talk to the owner first, then submit the proposal for the Commission's review and comment, and then apply to the DEP. Mr. Gambino explained that the state did not require him to notify the Commission until application was made to the DEP, at which time he would send a copy of the application to the Commission. Mrs. D. Hill said the Commission does not learn of the applications to the DEP until after they are approved. But Mr. Gambino said that according to the state procedures he had given the Commission in April, he sends in a copy of the DEP application form so that the Commission sees it before DEP approves it. Mr. Ajello said this was so, and that he would then send a letter to the property owner to tell him a local permit is also required, but that usually there was no response by the time the DEP permit had been approved, which gave the Commission no opportunity to comment. Mr. Gambino advised the Commission to authorize the WEO to contact the DEP with concerns as soon as the copy of the DEP application is received. Mr. Picton pointed out that upon receipt of the copy, neither the EO nor the Commission has all of the pertinent information about the pond. Therefore, he thought the process discussed earlier under Douglas should be implemented instead. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to write to the DEP noting the Commission's concern about the chemical treatment for this pond. Mr. Gambino warned that the suitable time period for treating the pond would soon end. Mr. Gambino asked if he would have to come before the Commission for each pond every year. Mr. Picton noted that his analysis from the previous year would already be in the file and the Commission would ask for a report on the results from the previous year. Mr. Gambino again asked that Mr. Ajello be granted authorization to approve aquatic weed control applications. Mr. Gambino noted the pending application for maintenance of the upstream Peckerman pond and his concern that the Commission would allow it to be pumped out and the sediment filled water would then flow into the Canal pond. Mr. Picton advised him that the Commission routinely stipulates that cloudy water may not be pumped. Mr. Picton again thanked Mr. Gambino for his work and cooperation and asked him to provide further written information about the application process for the next meeting.
Peckerman/162 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-08-24/Pond Maintenance: Mr. Neff, engineer, noted that the sequence of construction states that only clear water shall be pumped from the pond. The map, "Pond Maintenance Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/6/08 was reviewed. He briefly explained that the sediment basin would be cleaned out from the inlet side and the 150 c. yrds. of material spread to the east of the pond. He noted the water level of the pond was already low due to the leak in the standpipe so that no pumping would be required for its replacement. It was noted the silt basin would be dredged to a depth of 4 ft. and that the depth of the pond was 12 feet. Mr. Picton noted that at the last meeting the Commission had encouraged buffering around the pond.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-24 submitted by Mrs. Peckerman for pond maintenance at 162 Sabbaday Lane per the plan, "Pond Mainteance Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/6/08 subject to the following conditions: 1. if pumping is required only clear water shall be discharged, and 2. if the stream flow will be altered in any way, the Canals must be notified. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Bol/44 Slaughterhouse Road/#IW-08-25/Addition to House, Relocate Driveway and Garage: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his map, "Proposed Site Plan," revised to 5/3/08 and explained that demolition of the existing garage and construction of a new garage and stonewalls was proposed. He stated that the work zone and limit of disturbance had been kept as compact as possible. Mr. Picton noted that Mr. Ajello had been concerned about wetlands on the opposite side of the road, but Mr. Ajello said he had reinspected the site and found that the stream was not that close to the road. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to monitor the work site often to make sure the plan is adhered to because the work area was so tight. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the construction sequence was specific enough to address the constraints on the property. After reviewing it on the "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/5/08 it was determined that it was OK.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-25 submitted by Ms. Bol to relocate the driveway and garage and construct an addition to the dwelling at 44 Slaughterhouse Road per the 5/5/08 construction sequence and the plans, "Proposed Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/3/08. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Jackson-Karger/69 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-26/Patio, Deck, Terrace, Hot Tub: Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Cassari, landscape architect, were present. The map, "Rear Landscape Development," by Hoffman Landscapes, revised to 4/29/08 was reviewed. Mrs. D. Hill noted there were two different scales on the map, the map was marked "preliminary," and the latest soil scientist information had not been included on it. Mr. Cassari said the same soil scientist who had done the original flagging had reflagged the wetlands just prior to the survey date. Mrs. Hill asked for the latest soils report. Mr. Cassari also stated the map was marked "preliminary" because it was subject to approval. Drainage from the patio was discussed. It was the consensus that the Commission need not be concerned about chemically treated splash water from the hot tub infiltrating into the wetlands. Mr. Picton thought the existing swale to the west of the terrace should be used rather than regrading and cutting trees for a new swale. Mr. Cassari said that if the existing swale was used to direct runoff away from the terrace, it would slow down the flow, which would be better for the wetlands. Mrs. D. Hill noted that the proposed silt fence ran across the equipment access. Mr. Picton pointed out alternate silt fence locations that could be used. It was thought that work to the east of the upper terrace should be kept to a minimum. Mr. Picton noted that the main structural work was uphill from the house, while the landscaping proposed was minor, although closer to the wetlands.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-26 submitted by Mr. Jackson and Mr. Karger for a patio, deck, terrace, and hot tub at 69 Wykeham Road per the plan, "Rear Landscape Development," by Hoffman Landscapes, revised to 4/29/08 subject to the following conditions: 1. the Commission recommends that the existing swale to the west of the terrace be utilized instead of regrading for a new swale, 2. there shall be minimum regrading on the east side of the terrace site, and 3. a corrected plan showing the correct scale and providing information by the soil scientist for his most recent work shall be filed with the application. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.
Osborne/191 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-27/Deck and Addition to Dwelling: The map, "Addition and Deck, Osborne Residence," by Mr. Worcester, dated 11/27/07 was reviewed. Mr. Picton noted that at the last meeting the Commission had not identified any potential adverse impacts that would result from the construction and that there was a flat lawn area between the construction site and the stream. Mr. Picton asked that a healthy vegetated buffer be maintained between the work area and the stream and that all construction equipment be kept at least 20 feet from the stream. Mr. Ajello reviewed the project narrative, noting that all the work would be done by hand.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-27 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Osborne for a deck and an addition to the existing dwelling at 191 Nettleton Hollow Road with the stipulation that all construction equipment must stay at least 20 feet from the stream. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Kistela/73 Dark Entry Road/#IW-08-28/Single Family Dwelling: Mr. Neff, engineer, said there had been no revisions to the plan since the last meeting. The map, "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/8/08 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the site and had no concerns. Mr. Picton noted that almost all of the proposed activities were more than 100 feet from the wetlands. Mr. Kistela said the smaller house and new driveway location would cause less disturbance than the plan previously approved by the Commission five years ago.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-28 submitted by Mr. Kistela to construct a single family dwelling at 73 Dark Entry Road per the map, "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/8/08. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 5-0
Gray-Dunlap/26 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-08-29/Correct Violation, Planting: Mr. Sabin noted that no outstanding issues had been raised at the last meeting. Mr. Picton stated that the Commission had decided that no bond would be required.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-29 submitted by Ms. Gray and Mr. Dunlap to correct the violation and for additional planting at 26 Painter Ridge Road per the plan, "Proposed Landscape Restoration and Improvements," by Mr. Sabin, dated 5/13/08. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Peloquin/1 New Preston Hill Road/Correct Violation: Mr. Ajello noted there were no representatives present and that the application was incomplete.
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-31/Inn: Atty. Fisher gave a brief introduction. Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented the map, "Site Development Plan for Wykeham Rise," by Arthur H. Howland and Associates, dated 5/7/08, revised to 5/28/08 for the proposed "low profile" inn-bar-restaurant complex. He pointed out the wetlands that had been flagged on the property and noted the existing service road from Bell Hill Road, which is located in wetlands, would be removed. He said the existing driveways would be used, although they would be narrowed and pervious surfaces installed. The service driveway in the rear of the existing classroom building would be removed and the area restored as a wet meadow. Throughout the property the drainage pipes emptying directly into the brook would be removed and replaced with infiltration systems, rain gardens designed to handle the first one inch of roof runoff from all of the proposed buildings, and grass lined swales leading to detention basins where suspended solids would fall out before reaching the stream. Mitigation was also proposed. The grassed area east of the entry would be restored to its original condition and function and the invasives there removed. He noted that currently there is only a 10 ft. wide buffer along Kirby Brook, but that this would be increased to 50 ft. and that the existing tennis courts at the edge of the wetlands would be removed and that area also restored and a buffer provided. The existing gravel parking lot would also be removed and the area used for stormwater management. All of the existing buildings would be demolished and the new buildings erected farther from the wetlands. Mr. Szymanski pointed out the proposed driveway to the upper section of the property, noting that it would be within 100 feet of wetlands due to the location of the existing septic system. He said the septic system had been approved by the DEP, but the piping would be replaced. He also noted the inn would tie in with the Judea Water Company. Mr. Picton thought the plans called for intense development on a hillside above wetlands. It was the consensus that a public hearing should be held.
MOTION: To hold a Public Hearing to consider Application #IW-08-31 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. for an inn at 101 Wykeham Road because the proposed activities appear to be significant. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton advised the applicant that the Commission would expect calculations for the existing versus proposed impervious surface areas and distances from all proposed activities to the wetlands and watercourses. He also asked that the 100 ft. line from the wetlands be more clearly indicated on the map. It was noted the application will be sent to the Commission's consultants for review and that the Commission would like the review completed before the start of the public hearing if possible. The date for the hearing will be set at the next meeting. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. (This was later changed to Thursday, June 5 at 4:00 p.m.)
Halfon/Alpert/40 Plumb Hill Road/#IW-08-32/Renovations, Addition to Dwelling: Mr. Titman, contractor, presented the map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated March 2008. He noted the limit of disturbance line was marked on the map, that a silt fence would be installed to mark it on site, and that all construction would be outside the wetlands setbacks. Mr. Ajello said the work area would encroach only 10 feet into the upland review area. Mr. Titman noted the wetlands had recently been flagged and that the property was level between the building and the wetlands. He stated that no clearing was proposed. Mrs. D. Hill noted that neither the soil scientist's report nor his sketch map had been submitted with the application. Mr. Picton stated that while there did not appear to be any wetlands concerns, the proposal would be treated as a regulated activity as there might be activity within the upland review area. He asked that all relevant information be put on the map for the next meeting.
Thorn/228 West Shore Road/Renovations, Addition to Existing Dwelling: Mr. Neff, engineer, pointed out on his map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," dated 5/22/08 which section of the existing house would be renovated, which section would be rebuilt, and where the addition was proposed on the southeast corner of the house, the corner farthest from the lake. He noted that Lake Waramaug wraps around the property and that the existing house is 50 ft. from the lake, 30 ft. at its closest point. He said a new foundation would be installed under the section to be rebuilt. Mr. Picton said it looked like the construction area had been contained as much as possible. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.
Lancaster/244 West Shore Road/Construct Patio, Abandon Cess Pool: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his map, ""Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," dated 5/24/08. He noted the location of the proposed patio and the cess pool. He said a new septic system had been installed outside the regulated area and the cess pool would be pumped out, crushed, filled, and graded over. The proposed patio would be stone set in a stone dust base at grade level against the house. No additional fill would be required. Mr. Picton said there did not appear to be any wetlands concerns and that the Commission had recently inspected the property so another site inspection would not be necessary.
Town of Washington/Couch Road/Drainage Improvements, Install Culvert: Mr. Ajello noted the sediment problem on the Hochberg property was due in part to the runoff from the state and town roads. To help alleviate the problem, the Town now proposed to install a cross culvert and sediment basin that would be easily accessible for clean out. The proposed location for the culvert was the only place in the area where it could be kept out of the wetlands. The map, "Drainage Improvement Map," by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated March 12, 2007 was reviewed. Mr. Picton asked if the drainage along the east side of the road would be changed. Mr. Ajello said it would not. Mr. Ajello noted that Mr. Hochberg would apply for a permit to clean out his pond when this drainage work was completed. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 4:30 p.m.
Other Business
Petition to Amend the Washington Zoning Regulations re: Pervious Surfaces, Lot Coverage: Mrs. J. Hill provided copies of the proposed revisions and the 3/24 and 5/19/08 Zoning Commission minutes for the commissioners to review. She noted Zoning's public hearing had been continued to June 23rd so there would be time for Inland Wetlands to comment if it wanted to.
Enforcement
Carron/Gunn Hill Road: Mr. Ajello reported that the spoils had been deposited in the approved designated area.
DiBenedetto/Calhoun Street: Mr. Picton asked if the ongoing work was being done within Land Tech's guidelines. Mr. Ajello responded that the planting was done and all work had stopped. Mr. Allan of Land Tech is considering recommendations for eradication of the phragmites on site. Mr. Ajello said that Mr. DiBenedetto did not want to use chemicals, but it might be necessary.
Howard/99 West Shore Road: Mr. Howard left a message that he will soon come in to review his file.
Aquatic Weed Control Applications: Mr. Ajello stated that he has received notification from Mr. Gambino regarding applications made to the DEP and that in response he sent letters to the property owners and to Mr. Gambino that a local permit is also required. Mr. Thomson thought the alternative method checklist should be mailed to each property owner at the same time and Mr. LaMuniere suggested that the owner be told that he must respond within a specific time period. Mr. Bedini noted that the DEP is a major problem because it requires a specific response from the Commission before the Commission has had enough time to get all the facts to determine whether a specific response to DEP is warranted. Mr. Picton advised Mr. Ajello to look at each notification as quickly as possible to come to an opinion regarding whether comment to the DEP is needed. Mr. Thomson volunteered to be one of a subcommittee to work on these reviews. Mr. Picton said the goal was to get recommendations regarding alternate management methods to the owner and to the DEP whether or not the Commission has any authority to override a permit.
Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike: The 5/12/08 letter to Mr. Lodsin from the Army Corps of Engineers was reviewed. It was noted that Mr. Lodsin was given thirty days to respond and that he had begun to remove some of the old vehicles from the property.
Gray-Dunlap/26 Painter Ridge Road: This matter will be taken off the enforcement list, although Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to make follow up inspections.
Slaymaker/Sunset Lane: Atty. Herbst is preparing an application for the June meeting.
Kessler/West Mountain Road: Mr. Thomson asked if the monitoring reports were written and submitted for the file. Mr. Ajello said they were and gave a brief update of the project.
Administrative Business
Revision of the Regulations: Most of the commissioners had not yet completed their reviews of the proposed draft. Written comments should be submitted to Mr. Bedini.
Fine Ordinance: Mr. Picton reported that the proposed increase in fines had been unanimously approved at the May Town Meeting.
Consultant: Mr. Bedini will again contact the First Selectman about funding a consultant.
Communications
The 5/19/08 letter from Rivers Alliance to the Selectmen was noted. It asked for recommendations for projects to improve the welfare of the Shepaug River and its watershed. Mr. Picton thought that riparian buffer projects would be worthwhile. He also questioned whether the Depot Study's pedestrian footbridge over the river might be a project that could receive funding.
It was noted that a notice had been received from the Woodbury Inland Wetlands Agency to notify Washington of revisions to its Inland Wetlands Regulations per state statute.
MOTION: To go into Executive Session at 10:10 p.m. to discuss pending litigation. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end Executive Session at 10:29 p.m. By Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Picton.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 10:31 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: May 22, 2008 May 14, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, Mr. Rosiello, Mr. Gambino, Mrs. Peckerman, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Kistela, Mr. Dunlap
Mr. Picton called the Meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: V. New Applications: J. Kistela/ 73 Dark Entry Road/#IW-08-28/Single Family Dwelling, K. Gray-Dunlap/26 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-08-29/Correct Violation, Planting. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 4/23/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: 2 lines from bottom: Add: "on the haul road" after "remain in place."
Page 3: Under Redstone: in motion: insert a comma after the first "that" and delete the second "that."
Page 3: Under Lancaster: 5th line: insert: "additional" before "enforcement action."
MOTION: To accept the 4/23/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. D. Hill asked if John Dorr Nature Lab had paid the required $25 fee for the revision to its permit that had been approved at the last meeting. It was the consensus the fee was required. Mr. Ajello will check on this.
Pending Applications
Lancaster/244 West Shore Road/#IW-08-17/Replace Floating Dock: Mr. Neff, engineer, noted on his map, "Floating Dock Replacement Plan," revised to 5/7/08, the revision that had been made since the last meeting. The length of the catwalk was increased from 14 ft. to 22.5 ft., but the total area was still under the 360 sq. ft. maximum allowed under the Zoning Regulations. He noted neither the size of the dock or the float had changed and the location of the anchorage was the same. He briefly reviewed the list of materials to be used and the sequence of construction, which, he noted, included the removal of the existing concrete pier.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-17 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Lancaster to replace a floating dock at 244 West Shore Road per the plan, "Floating Dock Replacement Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/7/08. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Pinover/12 Senff Road/#IW-08-18/Retaining Walls, Landscaping: Mr. Rosiello, contractor, stated that since the last meeting he had met with Mr. Ajello on site. The site plan, "Retaining Fieldstone Walls and Planting on the Pinover Residence," by Rosiello Designs, LLC., dated April 2008 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello stated that he had not observed wetlands other than those already indicated on the plan and that the brook had no wetlands associated with it. Mr. Rosiello noted the pond was set back approximately 350 ft. from the road on the adjacent property. Mr. Rosiello proposed to bring in the building materials from the adjoining property over an existing driveway to avoid having to maneuver over the steepest part of the property. He also pointed out an area by the large oak where he proposed to remove some of the invasives and replace them with native shrubs. It was the consensus the proposed work would not impact the wetlands.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-18 submitted by Mrs. Pinover for retaining walls and landscaping at 12 Senff Road per the plan by Rosiello Designs, LLC. dated April 2008. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, passed 5-0.
New Applications
Mr. Picton noted there were five aquatic weed control applications. He said the Commission would consider these ponds in relation to other wetlands and watercourses and would consider whether they would overflow during the active life of the herbicide applied.
Douglas/68 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-08-19/Aquatic Weed Control: Mr. Gambino, contractor, represented the property owner. Mr. Ajello submitted two photos of the Douglas ponds. Mr. Picton asked if the ponds were in the course of a flowing stream. Mr. Gambino stated there were adjacent wetlands and that the outflow usually flows. Mr. Picton asked how long the chemical to be applied would remain active. Mr. Gambino stated that would depend on what Mr. Douglas wanted to remove from the pond, but if Diquat was used, it would last one week to ten days, during which time fishing and irrigation would not be permitted. He said he would wait to apply the chemical until the pond level dropped below the outlet level and the forecast was for dry weather so there would be no outflow while the chemical was active. He noted the DEP had already approved this application. Mr. Gambino added that since he had treated this pond last year, he did not expect to see any growth now, but had filed the paperwork so he would be prepared if another chemical application was needed this year. Mr. Picton noted that not all weeds in ponds are bad; that some contribute to the habitat and ecology of the pond. Mr. Gambino stated that he makes a distinction and treats only the plants to be removed. He detailed several different kinds of chemical treatments. Mr. Picton proposed that before any chemical application in a pond, that Mr. Gambino ensure the pond will not overflow for 1.5 times the length of the chemical's active life. He said this would protect downstream property owners. Mr. LaMuniere asked if it was possible to block the outflow while a pond was being treated. Mr. Gambino said he could either stop the inflow or block the outflow. He said, too, that he always considers the forecast for rain in the coming week, adding that in the case of a sudden thunderstorm, the outflow from the pond would be diluted. Mr. Ajello asked if the flow from the Douglas pond could be stopped for a suitable period. Mr. Gambino stated that the larger Douglas pond flows into the smaller one, which he does not treat. Mrs. D. Hill asked for more information regarding how this area is connected to Sprain Brook. Mr. Gambino said the chemicals would have dissipated by the time any runoff reached the brook. Mr. Picton asked that the watercourse and its direction of flow be indicated on the map. It was noted the application included a letter of authorization from Mr. Douglas.
Gootrad/187 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-20/Aquatic Weed Control: Mr. Ajello presented a photo of the pond and said it was very shallow and thinly buffered. He thought other methods of maintenance for this pond would be a better idea. Mr. Picton stated the Commission prefers to see ponds with a robust ecology and a variety of native aquatic vegetation; conditions that yearly dredging and chemical applications do not promote. Mr. Gambino, contractor, stated that he treats each pond individually. He said there were carp in this pond and he would not treat it unless the carp did not do their job and the pond became overgrown. He noted he had applied for Diquat, Sonar, and copper sulphate, but said it was unlikely that he would apply all three. Mr. Thomson asked if barley straw could be used. Mr. Gambino said this can work on certain ponds, is fish friendly, and he had used it in the past. Mr. Picton said the Commission would like to see a program for pond maintenance that lessens the need for chemicals, lists alternatives for chemical application, and resorts to the use of chemicals only when the other alternatives don't work. Examples of alternatives, he said, were less mowing, use of less fertilizers, establishment of buffers, etc. Mr. Gambino agreed to write up such a program for each Washington application. Mr. Picton said the same condition specified for the Douglas application would made for this one; that before any chemical application is made, that Mr. Gambino ensure the pond will not outflow for 1.5 times the length of the chemical's active life.
Newman/266 Bee Brook Road/#IW-08-21/Aquatic Weed Control: Mr. Gambino, contractor, showed photos of the pond. He noted there was particulate matter in this pond, but he proposed an application of copper sulphate in case it was determined there was plankton present as well. He also noted that both the inflow and outflow of the pond were well done and could be controlled. Mr. Picton asked him to write up recommendations for non chemical maintenance and to identify what conditions contribute to the condition of the pond and how they could be ameliorated without chemicals. Mr. Gambino asked if a property owner followed the recommendations, but still had a problem, would the Commission then grant the permit for chemical application. Mr. Picton said, yes.
Mnuchin/218 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-22/Aquatic Weed Control: Mr. Gambino, contractor, presented photos of the pond before and after treatment two years ago. Mr. Ajello noted there are now more plants around the pond and that it has an outflow that was running at 4 gallons per minute earlier in the day. Mr. Gambino advised the Commission that this area is one of special concern on the DEP Natural Resources Data Base because there is a wood turtle and Jefferson salamander complex in the vicinity of the pond. Mr. Picton asked if the chemical spray would kill the animals. Mr. Gambino replied that he could not say, no, but it had never killed anything he knew of except fish. Mr. Picton stated in this case non chemical management techniques were very important and again asked that the chemical not be applied until/unless Mr. Gambini could ensure that the pond would not overflow for 1.5 times the length of the chemical's active life. He also asked that Mr. Gambino discuss the non chemical management recommendations with the property owner. Mr. Gambino said he dealt only with the property managers and did not know if this would be possible. Mrs. D. Hill asked for a live signature on the application form.
Canal/142 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-08-23/Aquatic Weed Control: Mr. Picton noted this pond is in a stream and asked if it could be treated without overflow during the time period 1.5 times the active life of the chemical. Mr. Gambino said it could and showed photos of the pond. He said he had investigated upstream, but could find nothing that could contribute to the condition of this pond. Mr. Ajello noted that last year neighbors had complained the brook was running black, said it appeared that improper management over many years by the property owner had contributed to the accumulation of muck on the pond bottom, and asked if the black water could have been caused by muck flowing over the drain. Mr. Gambino said that Mr. Canal had opened the outlet too far last year, which had caused the problem. He explained the pond had to be treated early because Mr. Canal uses it for irrigation later in the season. Mrs. D. Hill noted the other pond on the property could be used for irrigation, while this one was being treated. Mr. Picton asked for a comprehensive strategy for dredging part of the pond and for how it would be treated without overflowing. Mr. Gambino said he could try opening the outflow very slowly to lower the pond level. Mr. Thomson thought that the situation in the Canal pond differed from the other ponds discussed and so recommended that both short term and long term alternatives to chemical treatment be considered. The commissioners will inspect this site individually before the next meeting.
Peckerman/162 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-08-24/Pond Maintenance: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented photos of the pond dated 4/23/08. The plan, "Pond Maintenance Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/6/08 was reviewed. He proposed to 1) clean out the existing silt basin, which is working well and full of sediment and 2) replace the failed stand pipe outlet. He explained that in mid summer when it was dry the pond would be pumped down so that first the basin could be cleaned and then the stand pipe replaced. He noted a detailed sequence of construction and erosion control plans were included. Mr. Neff said the horizontal pipe was in good condition and so the berm would not have to be removed. Mr. Picton noted the proposed work was routine and the sediment basin appeared to be functioning well. Mr. Ajello noted the buffering around the pond could be improved. Mrs. Peckerman explained that she continued to maintain the area around the pond as had been done years ago when it was a cattle pond. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to review the application for completeness before the next meeting.
Bol/44 Slaughterhouse Road/#IW-08-25/Addition to Dwelling, Relocate Driveway and Garage: Mr. Neff explained the owners proposed to demolish the garage, construct a new attached garage closer to the road, and renovate the house, which would include a new deck on the east side. Also, new stonewalls were proposed. On the map, "Proposed Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/3/08 he pointed out there were a lot of wetlands on the property. He noted the limit of disturbance and soil stockpile area and said a sequence of construction and project narrative had been submitted. Mr. Picton noted a compact limit of disturbance had been proposed. Mr. Ajello said he was concerned about protecting the wetlands on the opposite side of Slaughterhouse Road from construction vehicles and asked that it be fenced off. Mr. Picton recommended that the commissioners drive by the site on their own before the next meeting.
Jackson-Karger/69 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-26/Patio, Deck, Terrace, Hot Tub: Mr. Neff presented the map, "Property and Topographic Survey," by CCA, dated 8/9/07 and the area enlargement, "Rear Landscape Development," by Hoffman Landscapes, revised to 4/29/08. He noted that although the house site was dry, there were a lot of wetlands on the property and almost all of the proposed work was in the regulated area. In addition to the wetlands on one side of the house and the watercourse on the other, he pointed out a swale located behind it. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.
Osborne/191 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-27/Addition and Deck: Mr. Osborne presented the site plan, "Addition and Deck," by Mr. Worcester, dated 11/27/07 and the soils report dated 5/9/08 and sketch map dated 5/11/08 by Mr. Temple. Mr. Ajello showed a photo taken of the rear of the property, which clearly showed the watercourse along the rear property line. He read the soil description from Mr. Temple's report. Mr. Osborne advised the Commission the proposed addition would be 12 ft wide and just 30 ft. from the boundary line. Mr. Picton noted that the Commission usually tries to keep construction out of the upland review area, but in this case, the area was already lawn, it was relatively level, and there was an existing house. Mr. Osborne said he did not have many options because the lot was only 1 acre and the addition was to enlarge the kitchen, which is located on that side of the house. He also noted there was a specimen tree he did not want to disturb on the opposite side. He said there would be no foundation; the addition would be on piers so there would be little ground disturbance. Mr. Picton said he could see no negative impacts and it was the consensus that a study of feasible and prudent alternatives was not needed. The application will be discussed again at the next meeting.
Kistela/73 Dark Entry Road/#IW-08-28/Single Family Dwelling: Mr. Kistela explained he was reapplying for a smaller house than had been originally approved five years ago and said the changes proposed would not in any way affect the wetlands. He presented the map, "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/8/08. Mr. Neff, engineer, said the driveway had been moved out of the regulated area. Mr. Kistela explained that there would not be a full basement under the rear three season sunroom and said a truck would pump the cement for the slab rather than drive down to that area. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello if he had inspected the site for additional pockets of wetlands. Mr. Ajello said he had no concerns. Mr. Picton pointed out that a compact limit of disturbance was proposed. Mr. Kistela responded that he would limit the size of the lawn area. Mr. Neff advised the Commission that he had notified the Town of Bethlehem of the application as required.
Enforcement Report
Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to routinely inspect ongoing work and to include these inspections in his report.
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Trenching in Wetlands: Atty. Fisher will finalize a proposal for the next meeting.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Forest and Understory: Mr. Picton noted that an area of phragmites had been turned over by hand, but that this work did not comply with Land Tech's recommendations. Mr. Ajello said he had observed the work two weeks ago and had asked that silt fencing be installed. Mr. Picton noted that part of Land Tech's program was not to disturb soils in the wetlands and asked Mr. Ajello to stop all unauthorized activities that were not part of the program. It was noted that replanting had begun and that there were a few snags remaining and a few brush piles. Mrs. D. Hill requested that more than one snag per acre remain.
Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Drainage and Excavation Work/#IW-07-V14: Mr. Ajello had not met with Mr. Slaymaker since the last meeting. He said he would begin enforcement action on this matter.
New Application
Gray-Dunlap/26 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-08-29/Correct Violation, Planting: Mr. Dunlap and Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, were present. Mr. Sabin described the front of the property as a wooded wetland corridor with upland islands between intermittent streams. He acknowledged there had been thinning in the wetlands last fall; mostly thinning of the understory and of invasives. Since that time, he said, the herbaceous plants were coming up nicely. He noted his plan for the restoration of the area included a project summary. Ornamental landscaping within the regulated area by the house and mitigation to reintroduce trees and wetlands vegetation in the wetlands back from the edge of the driveway were proposed. Six to seven stumps will be removed, 26 c. yards of stone will be used for the stonewall, and 60 to 70 c. yards of top soil will be spread within 8 ft along each side of the driveway. The site plan, "Proposed Landscape Restoration Improvements," by Mr. Sabin, dated 5/13/08 was reviewed. Mr. Picton noted that the driveway width looked reasonable and said he did not think that additional wetlands had been filled. The commissioners will individually inspect the site before the next meeting. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus that a bond was not needed. It was also the consensus that to be consistent, a citation should be issued.
Enforcement
Reinhardt and Cremona/Perkins Road/Execution of Approved Restoration Plan: Mr. Ajello noted that five or more spruce still had to be planted and said he was waiting for a response from Mr. Childs before inspecting the site.
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-05-58/Remediation Per Order: Mr. Picton said that Mrs. Corrigan had asked if the ditch could be filled in from the east side, not the west, and that he had responded that the original instructions should be followed.
Peloquin/1 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-07-V13/Unauthorized Clearcutting, Excavation, Stonework: A restoration plan has not yet been received.
Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/#IW-07-V14/Unauthorized Drainage and Excavation Work: Mr. Bedini noted that a violation had taken place and asked if a citation had been issued. Mr. Ajello said an application was being prepared, but if it was not received, he would issue an enforcement order for replanting. Mr. Picton asked him to send a letter that a restoration plan is required due to the violation that occurred. He added that if an application is not submitted by the next meeting, a formal enforcement order should be issued.
Administrative Business
Revision of the Regulations: Mr. Bedini noted that all commissioners had received the draft regulations to review before the next meeting.
Revision of the Fine Ordinance: Mr. Picton advised the Commission that he had asked Mrs. J. Hill to send his proposed revisions to the Selectmen for their review, but the Selectmen had then expressed continued concern about what they considered to be an excessively high first time fine; an increase from $120 to $250. After a lengthy discussion the commissioners agreed to amend their proposal to the following: $150, $350, $500, $750, and $1000. The complete revised proposed ordinance is attached.
Revision of Upland Review Area Definition: Mr. Bedini noted that this is addressed in the revised regulations under the definitions and regulated activity. Mr. Picton asked if it now incorporated the concept that it is extended in areas with steep slopes. Mrs. D. Hill said it did.
Consultant: Mr. Bedini noted that the Commission's 2008-09 Budget was a significant increase over this year's budget, but that the Board of Selectmen had stated that the consultant requested by the Commission would be from the Selectmen's budget, not the Commission's. It was the consensus that the Inland Wetlands Commission needs a consultant to review wetlands issues and organization. Mr. Bedini will talk to the First Selectman again.
Communications
The 4/29/08 letter from Ms. McCarthy, DEP Commissioner and the 1/23/08 memo from Mr. Robinson about aquatic pesticides permit applications were circulated. Mrs. D. Hill asked what would happen if the DEP approved an application, but the Commission denied it. Mr. Picton said the applicant could apply the chemical. It was thought, however, that the discussion with Mr. Gambino had been productive and that the Commission should continue to promote its policy of recommending alternate methods of pond maintenance.
Mr. Picton noted that he had received notification from the Dept of Health of its approval of Rumsey Hall's discharge into the groundwater.
Assigned Task Sheet: Mr. Picton asked Mrs. J. Hill if she continued to maintain this list. She said she did and that it was posted on the board in the Land Use Office.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 10:32 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: May 3, 2008 April 23, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, Mr. Wilson
Mr. Picton called the Meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: New Application: Pinover/12 Senff Road/Stonework and Landscaping and Other Business: Discussion Re: Land Use Administration. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 4/9/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 10: 4th line under Ebner: Insert: "wide" after "50 ft."
Page 10: 1st line: Change "not" to "no."
MOTION: To accept the 4/9/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Picton abstained.
Pending Applications
Gruson/62 Frisbie Road/#IW-08-10/Pond Maintenance: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented a revised plan, "Pond Maintenance Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 4/18/08, which included a deposit area on the west side of old Frisbie Road in a more gently sloping area than where it had originally been proposed. Mr. Neff explained that the top soil would be stripped, the excavated material spread, and then the top soil would be respread. Mr. Picton asked if the top soil could remain in place. Mr. Neff responded that it would be too compressed if not removed. He noted the work would be done quickly during the driest time of year so that the area would be unstable for only a brief time. A second revision was a note that red maples would be planted to provide shade around the northeast third of the pond. Mr. Neff stated that this would be in addition to the 1:4 side slopes at the north end of the pond to support emergent plant growth. Details on the repair of the dam were modified in the sequence of construction to include a 6 ft. reinforced concrete extension of the dam into the bank on the east side where the erosion was occurring. Mr. LaMuniere noted the drain would not be opened to flush out the pond, but asked if it would remain. Mr. Neff said the notes on the plan indicated it would remain because it is sealed now and if disturbed there would be the potential that a lot of sediment could wash downstream. In response to Mr. Picton's suggestion made at the last meeting, Mr. Neff stated that the pond was not large enough to attempt to save some of the wildlife by doing the work in sections. He noted, too, that even if the work was done in sections, there was no way to ensure the wildlife would move to safety on its own. He said the fish would be netted and taken to another pond. Mr. Picton noted for the record that the plans state that the drain would not be opened and there would be no increase in the size of the pond.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-10 submitted by Mr. Gruson for pond maintenance at 62 Frisbie Road as proposed on the map, "Pond Maintenance Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 4/18/08. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Hock-Fiedorowicz/49 Mt. Tom Road/#IW-08-15/Driveway Crossing: Mr. Wilson, engineer, submitted his revised map, "Driveway Wetland Crossing," revised to 4/21/08. He said it now showed the limit of clearing and grading. He explained the proposed culvert would be covered with a minimum of 24 inches of material; 18 inches of which would be the coarse base. Mr. Picton asked if this could be reduced to 12 inches. Mr. Wilson said, no, because a minimum of 18 inches was required to spread the weight over the culvert so it would not be crushed by heavy vehicles. He also said that 24 inches would accommodate utility lines in the future. He noted the size of the new culvert was double the capacity of the existing culvert, which would increase the speed of the runoff and so require the rip rapped outlet. Mr. LaMuniere asked if a second culvert would be necessary. Mr. Wilson said the area Mr. LaMuniere was concerned about was a forebay for the pond to take road runoff and he would prefer to leave it as is so it could be used for infiltration. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the soils were porous enough to enable the runoff to infiltrate. Mr. Wilson said, yes, it was gravel. Mr. Wilson explained the silt fence had been placed along the contour below the limit of grading, but above the wetlands. The area immediately adjacent to the driveway, about 8 feet on each side, would not have silt fence, but was very rocky and would be seeded and mulched as soon as possible. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to go out to the site to inspect during construction and to require improvements if necessary. Mr. LaMuniere asked what would be done with the stone from the cuts. Mr. Wilson said it would be used elsewhere on site. After a brief discussion, it was determined that no bond would be required. However, Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to look into a system for the routine requirement of bonds to ensure the successful completion of Inland Wetlands permitted projects.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-15 submitted by Ms. Hock and Mr. Fiedorowicz for a driveway crossing at 49 Mt. Tom Road per the map, "Driveway Wetland Crossing," by Mr. Wilson, revised to 4/21/08. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 5-0.
Redstone/83 West Morris Road/#IW-08-16/Inground Pool: It was noted there was no new information and there had been no questions raised at the last meeting. Mr. Picton stated that the applicant had been asked to move the silt fence half way between the pool and the wetlands. Mr. Ajello said this would not be a problem because the area was lawn with heavy grass close to the wetlands.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-16 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Redstone for an inground pool at 83 West Morris Road with the conditions that in order to create an undisturbed natural area at least 35 ft. wide along the wetlands, that the silt fence be the limit of disturbance and that it be installed no less than 35 feet from the wetlands. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Lancaster/244 West Shore Road/#IW-08-17/Floating Dock Replacement: Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted the map, "Floating Dock Replacement Plan," dated 4/21/08. Mr. Picton noted that the Commission had concluded that the clearing that had previously been done on this property had not caused so much damage that enforcement action had to be taken. Photos of the shoreline were circulated and Mr. Neff explained that the dock would be tucked into the inlet. He said this was a flat area that was terraced out with existing walls and he proposed a 2 ft. deep concrete anchor block at the edge of the shoreline. This would be higher than the elevation of the old concrete dock. Mr. Neff said the anchor would be set flush with the grade and the slope. He reviewed the detailed sequence of construction. Mr. Picton did not think a site inspection would be necessary. Mr. Neff noted this was a very visible location if individual members wanted to see it before the next meeting.
Pinover/12 Senff Road/#IW-08-18/Retaining walls, Landscaping: The 4/22/08 letter from Mr. Rosiello, contractor, to the Commission and his plans, Stone Retaining Wall, Cross Section Detail," undated and "Retaining Fieldstone Walls and Planting, Pinover Residence," dated April 2008 were reviewed. It appeared the closest the proposed work would come to the stream would be 35 ft. Mr. Ajello said he had not recently inspected the site and Mr. Picton asked that he do so before the next meeting. Mr. LaMuniere thought the Commission should conduct a site inspection because the property is so steep. The Commission decided to wait to do so until it learned whether Mr. Ajello had any concerns.
Other Business
John Dorr Nature Lab/220 Nettleton Hollow Road/Permit #IW-07-11/ Reduction in Scope of Project: The Commission compared the latest plan, "Utility Plan," by Arthur Howland & Assoc., dated 3/18/08 with a previous map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Arthur Howland Assoc., revised to 4/11/07 and reviewed the 4/17/08 letter from Mr. Szymanski, which detailed the six revisions to the original approved plan. Mr. Ajello noted that two of the more significant revisions were that a bunkhouse had been moved from its location 20 feet from a stream to over 100 feet away and a building footprint was reduced by 700 sq. ft. The commissioners considered whether to ask Mr. Ajello to study the revisions before the next meeting to determine whether there was any increase in scope in relation to the wetlands on the property or whether it could act tonight. Mr. Ajello noted that many of the proposed activities were approximately 300 ft. from the wetlands and said he had informed the applicant that a formal request to revise the permit was not required because the proposal was a clear reduction in scope. Mrs. D. Hill disagreed, saying that all revisions require approval by the Commission and that a $25 revision fee was due. After a brief review, it was the consensus that the revisions were a net improvement and that the stormwater management plan had been thoroughly reviewed when the application was first submitted.
MOTION: To approve revisions to Permit #IW-07-11 issued to the John Dorr Nature Lab/220 Nettleton Hollow Road, which reduce the scope of the project as detailed in Mr. Szymanski's 4/17/08 letter and his map, U-1, revised to 3/18/08. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Discussion Re: Dock Augers: Mr. Ajello advised the Commission about a new kind of dock anchor; an auger that screws into the bottom of the lake and may be removed seasonally. Mr. Picton said he was not concerned if the auger only went down 1 ft. into the lake bottom, was less than 6 inches in diameter, did not stir up much silt, and was temporary. Mr. LaMuniere, however, was concerned because the installation would stir up an unknown amount of sediment and it was not known how wave action would affect the augers. Mr. Picton noted that the Zoning Commission had not asked the Inland Wetlands Commission for input on anchoring systems for floating docks. Mr. Bedini thought the Zoning Commission should be concerned about who owns the lake bottom before granting permission for the use of these augers.
Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road: Mr. Ajello reported that Mr. Andersson proposed to plant a buffer in the upland review area to screen his property from the adjoining property.
Brown/127 West Shore Road: Mr. Ajello noted he had received a draft "injunction," which he would review for Atty. Olson before it was issued. Mr. Picton asked to review Mr. Ajello's analysis before it was sent to Atty. Olson. Mr. LaMuniere pointed out that the area to be restored was the 33 ft. section of wall to the east of the dock.
Carron/58 Gunn Hill Road: Mr. Ajello will inspect the ongoing work.
DiBenedetto/214 Calhoun Street: Mr. Picton noted it was the Commission's goal to make sure the forestry work being done was consistent with Land Tech's restoration plan. He said Land Tech's latest report discussed substantial changes in the trees marked to be cut on the DiBenedetto property, found the project was progressing in a manner consistent with its recommendations, and noted the planting of a lot of plant material was imminent. Mr. Thomson thought that Land Tech's plan was in keeping with best management practices and that Mr. DiBenedetto had demonstrated his willingness to work within Land Tech's well designed program, and so there would be no point in delaying the resumption of work. He did recommend, however, that Mr. Ajello reinspect the site and confirm that only the trees still marked would be cut. He admitted there previously had been problems with cutting done by the workers, but said now there were flags posted on site and the workers were being more closely managed. Mr. LaMuniere agreed with this approach. He did not think the Commission should monitor the newly planted material for two years before allowing the remainder of the trees to be cut. Mr. Picton and Mrs. D. Hill thought there should be another formal inspection before the cutting resumed to see that some of the replanting had actually been done, to make sure the trees to be cut were correctly marked, and to ensure there would be no cutting on the steep slopes. They noted this would cause only a two week delay in which time a great deal of vegetation could be planted. Mr. Bedini offered a compromise that the cutting be allowed to resume with a site inspection scheduled prior to the next meeting, and if it was found during the site inspection that the work was not progressing as promised, they would be immediately ordered to stop.
MOTION: To schedule a site inspection of the DiBenedetto property at 212-214 Calhoun Street before the next meeting to check on the replanting and the marking of the trees to be cut and at the next meeting to consider the findings of the site inspection and to take any action needed regarding this project at that time. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill.
A lengthy discussion followed. The points raised included: Planting could be continued in sections 1, 2, and 3 but this could interfere with the removal of the trees still to be cut in the interior sections 4 and 5. The Commission was paying Land Tech from the $10,000 bond posted by Mr. DiBenedetto, which was to be used partly for the consultants' fees and partly to ensure the work was properly completed. Mr. Picton said he wanted to make sure that some of the restoration planting was in place before more trees were cut as the entire bond would not be available to ensure replanting. Mr. Thomson thought it was important that the owner know that the Commission was pleased with the progress made to date. Mr. Ajello advised the Commission that Mr. DiBenedetto was anxious to start cutting again, especially now while there was dry weather. Mr. LaMuniere recommended that the Commission continue to monitor the denuded area, to schedule a reinspection as soon as possible, and to meet on site with Land Tech to learn more about the restoration/reforestation process. Ms. Turoczi's 4/22/08 "Sketch," planting plan was noted. Mr. Picton revised his motion as follows:
MOTION: To schedule a site inspection of the DiBenedetto property at 212-214 Calhoun Street as soon as possible and if the Commission is satisfied with the planting in sections 1, 2, and 3 and with the cutting of trees in the back, the project can proceed as marked on the sketch plan by Ms. Turoczi. By Mr. Picton.
Mr. Thomson then made the motion below and Mr. Picton withdrew both of his motions.
MOTION: To allow Mr. DiBenedetto to proceed with the cutting of trees and replanting of the forest as planned by Land Tech and Ms. Turoczi, noting that in addition to the reforestation project, the removal of invasives is a primary concern, which is a separate issue and which also must be addressed by Mr. DiBenedetto. By Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Thomson thought if the Commission was not willing to accept Land Tech's opinion, it should hire a different consultant. He also felt that Mr. DiBenedetto's most recent actions were evidence of his cooperation and that it appeared he had complied with Land Tech's plan. Mr. Bedini said he would vote, yes, because when a site inspection was conducted, if the work was not according to plan, he could be ordered to stop.
Vote: 3-2. Mr. Picton and Mrs. D. Hill voted, No, because they wanted verification that the ongoing work to date satisfactorily complied with the plans by Land Tech before granting permission for the work to proceed.
Mr. Thomson noted it was the responsibility of the Enforcement Officer to inspect the site regularly to ensure compliance with the Land Tech plan. He asked Mr. Ajello to make frequent inspections. Mr. Picton and Mr. LaMuniere said the commissioners should also monitor the site.
Ebner/18A Mt. Tom Road: Mr. Ajello said he would soon send Mr. Ebner a letter with the Commission's instructions as had been requested at the last meeting.
Gray-Dunlap/26 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-07-V18: It was noted that no one attended the scheduled site inspection. Mr. Picton said he had asked Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, for specific information on the depth of the soil, where the watercourse would be rerouted, and a restoration plan. He noted it looked like the clearing had been done without any changes in grade. Mr. Picton recommended that the natural biological wetlands system be restored to within 8 ft. of both sides of the driveway. In response to a question from Mr. Ajello, he said a wood chip path and a narrow footbridge would not bother him. Mr. Ajello noted he had sent a notice of violation, not an enforcement order.
Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-07-V12: Mr. Ajello said he had contacted the Army Corps of Engineers and would soon send it a copy of the file. Mr. LaMuniere stated that he estimated that between 8,000 and 10,000 sq. ft. had been disturbed; the threshold for Army Corps involvement is 5000 sq. ft.
Peloquin/1 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-07-V13: Mr. Ajello said Mr. Peloquin had submitted a landscaping plan, "Planting Plan," dated 4/18/08 and he read the 4/21/08 letter from Ms. Ashbaugh, landscape architect. He asked if from the Commission's point of view the proposed 35 ft. X 30 ft. stone patio with 2 to 3 inches of grass growing between the stones would be considered an impervious surface. He noted considering the proposed garden areas, the landscaping was 50% permeable. It was the consensus that would be OK, but that an application to correct a violation was required.
Rumsey Hall School/184 Romford Road: Mr. Ajello said the site was in good condition.
Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane: Mr. Ajello said the owner would soon submit a revised application. Mr. Bedini asked the other commissioners if they had considered moving the septic system to the front yard to be mitigation for a larger house footprint. Mr. Picton said he did not. He said the back yard had to be restored and the front yard septic location was a feasible and prudent alternative that had to be considered. The commissioners reviewed their opinions expressed at the last meeting regarding whether such a large expansion of a house located entirely in wetlands should be approved. Both Mr. Bedini and Mr. LaMuniere referred to the DEP statement read at the last meeting that degradation of a site does not justify further degradation. Most of the commissioners supported a second story addition over the existing house rather than an expansion of the footprint.
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road: Mr. Ajello is waiting for Mr. Wright to plant the hillside.
Rubler/240 Wykeham Road: Mr. Ajello reported new upland clearing on flat areas and selective clearing along the road. He will monitor the property for erosion problems and noted the Commission is still holding a bond.
Janco/11 June Road/#IW-07-V9: Mr. Ajello is waiting for further action regarding the removal of the stairs and platform.
Howard/99 West Shore Road: This enforcement matter has been sent to Atty. Zizka.
Mrs. D. Hill questioned why Reinhardt and Rubler were not included in the EO report. Mr. Picton asked that all enforcement actions be included in the report.
Other Business
Revision of the Regulations: Work on the revisions continues.
Administrative Business: Mr. Picton reported that he had talked to the First Selectman regarding hiring a consultant to review how the Commission and staff conduct their business and what improvements could be made. Because Mr. Lyon had not yet responded, Mr. Bedini will contact him again.
Legal Matters: All of the pending enforcement issues that had been forwarded to Atty. Zizka were noted. The commissioners thought that Atty. Zizka had discussed some constructive approaches when he met with the Commission in executive session on April 16.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Bedini.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: April 19, 2008 April 9, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Bohan
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Fleishmann, Atty. Malley, Mr. Nadeau, Nr. Neff, Mr. McMorrow, Mr./Mrs. Redstone, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Guliano, Mr. Dunlap, Ms. Gray
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: Enforcement: Gray-Dunlap/26 Painter Ridge Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Soil Disturbance. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 3/26/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Add: Mrs. Lancaster and Mrs. Pollock to those present.
Page 1: 2nd line from bottom: "hat" should be "had."
Page 6: Under Hock-Fiedorowicz: 5 lines from bottom: After "proposed" insert: "to be affected by road drainage...."
Page 6: At the end of the same line: After "major" add: "stormwater" issues....
Page 11: Last line: Change: "hearing" to "meeting."
MOTION: To accept the 3/26/08 Regular Meeting minutes as amended. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Regarding the 3/12/08 Regular Meeting minutes, Mrs. D. Hill said regarding DiBenedetto that she had seen bluebirds, but did not say they were actually nesting on site and regarding Slaymaker that she did, indeed, consider the proposed construction of the addition in wetlands to be a significant activity.
The 4/1/08 Gruson/62 Frisbie Road site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. In the third paragraph it should refer to: "the old Frisbie Road."
MOTION: To accept the 4/1/08 Gruson site inspection minutes as amended. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 4/1/08 Hock-Fiedorowicz site inspection minutes as submitted. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 4/1/08 Ebner site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 4/1/08 Lancaster site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Fleishmann/219 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-05/Construct House and Barn, Remove Shed, Relocate Caboose: The maps, "Excavation and Drainage Plan," by Mr. Riordan, revised to 4/9/08 and "Inland Wetland Application," revised to 4/9/08 and the 4/9/08 report by Mr. Temple were reviewed. Mr. Temple found that 1) the seepage along Rt. 199 was not a wetland and 2) the man made pond was not a vernal pool because it has a permanent outlet. Mr. Fleishmann pointed out the proposed areas of regrading and filling and the location of silt fencing, which, he said was also the limit of disturbance. Mr. Picton asked him to add a notation that the silt fence was the limit of disturbance line and Mr. Fleishmann did so. He also added a notation to the map that there would be no filling outside the proposed excavation area. Mr. Picton also asked for the addition of a note to state that the limit of disturbance line was also the limit of clearing line. The commissioners reviewed the list of information that Mr. Fleishmann had been asked to provide to make sure it had all been submitted. It was noted that the intermittent watercourse flowing in and out of the pond was not shown on either map and that information about who had done the original wetlands flagging had not been provided. Mr. LaMuniere said that although the maps were not as precise as those usually submitted to the Commission, the added notations provided the necessary specificity. Mr. Picton noted that the Commission had not identified any immediate wetlands concerns. Mrs. D. Hill noted it was understood that the caboose was not to traverse the wetlands when it was moved.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-05 submitted by Mr. Fleishmann to construct a house and barn, remove a shed, and relocate the caboose at 219 Roxbury Road per the map with handwritten notations dated 4/9/08. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Gruson/62 Frisbie Road/#IW-08-10/Pond Maintenance: Mr. Neff, engineer, said the breach on the east side of the dam had grown from 6 to 8 inches wide to 3 feet wide. He said he would submit revised plans to extend the dam 5 to 6 feet into the bank to more safely hold it. The map, "Pond Maintenance Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 2/20/08 was reviewed. In response to the concerns raised by the Commission at the last meeting, he suggested that the deposition area could be moved across the road to a 100 ft. by 300 ft. area, where the excavated material would be spread to a depth of 6 inches. Mr. Bedini noted the construction sequence called for stripping the top soil, spreading the excavated material, and then putting the top soil back. He asked if this would be stable in case of a heavy rain. Mr. Neff stated that the work would be done during the dry time of year, the material would be spread along the contour line, and that time of year was good for germination. In contrast, Mr. Picton pointed out that the originally proposed location could be unstable for over a month on a 20% to 25% slope. Mr. Picton asked if it was the best solution to create basin sides all around the pond. Mr. Neff said that he did not propose to alter the existing sides, would not over excavate in terms of depth, and would excavate approximately 500 yards of material. The most appropriate location for the deposition of this material was again considered. Mr. Neff noted that the grades were better on the other side of Frisbie Road, but it was farther to truck the material there. Mrs. D. Hill asked if the seeps near the originally proposed area were significant. Mr. Picton said that due to the location of these seeps and evidence of scouring in this area, he was not comfortable with using it as the deposition area. Mr. Bedini said a temporary gravel access would be needed for equipment to reach the deposition site on the other side of Frisbie Road, but Mr. Ajello said this would not be needed if a track excavator was used. It was agreed that if the field originally proposed for the spoils was to be used, the wetlands would have to be flagged. Mr. Neff stated that the owner was hesitant to provide a "full blown planting plan" because his application was only for pond maintenance and repair of the dam. Mrs. D. Hill thought that Mr. Gruson should agree to plant some plants without necessarily submitting a complete planting plan. Mr. Picton proposed an emergent area at the north inlet with one third of the underwater slopes at 4:1 so they would be shallow enough to support a variety of aquatic plants to help maintain the ecology of the pond and an area around one third of the perimeter of the pond where native shrubs would be planted to provide shade. He noted this was an opportunity to enhance the wetlands environment and to mitigate the accumulated affects of one dimensional landscaping. Mr. Neff said he would discuss this with Mr. Gruson. Mr. Picton asked for more information on how the pond would be flushed. Mr. Neff referred to the sequence of construction and said the drain would not be opened. Mr. Picton asked that this specifically be stated on the plan. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Neff to try to come up with a plan for pumping out the pond that would leave an undisturbed basi