Seal: Washington, Connecticut; Founded 1779 www.WashingtonCT.org
The Town of Washington, Connecticut

Minutes: Inland Wetlands Commission
Home
Search
Notify me every time this web page is updated

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 the Town Clerk. Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.


General information about the Inland Wetlands Commission

Jump down to: March 12 • February 26 • February 14 • January 22 • January 8 •

Previous years: 2012 • 2012 • 2010 • 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002


Posted: March 22, 2014

March 12, 2014


7:00 p.m. Upper Level Meeting Room

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. LaMuniere
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Davis, Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Rosiello, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Duggan, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Neff, Mr. Zekas

Mr. Bedini called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Papsin, and Wadelton and Alternates Davis and Martino for Members LaMuniere and Cheney.

MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the Agenda:
V. New Applications:
C. The Gunnery, Inc./100 Green Hill Road/#IW-14-12/Install Artificial Turf Field and Relocate Septic Pipes,
D. Metzger/23 Cook Street/#IW-14-13/Pool, Fence, Stonewalls, and Landscaping,
E. Bol Reiss/24 Rabbit Hill Road/#IW-14-14/Deck Addition and landscaping.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.


Pending Applications
Laverge/228 Bee Brook Road/#IW-14-02/Bridge and Driveway:
Due to the snow cover over the winter, it had not been possible to stake the driveway route or to conduct a site inspection. Mr. Ajello reported that the driveway would be staked by the end of next week and a site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, March 25, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. Mr. Ajello noted the 3/11/14 letter to the Commission from Atty. Fisher, which granted an extension to 3/26/14.

Rumsey Hall School/201 Romford Rd./#IW-14-07/Expand Septic System:
It was noted there had been no new information submitted since the last meeting, the proposed activity was for the expansion of the exiting septic system in a level area in the upland review area, and the applicant had been told it was not necessary to attend this meeting.

MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-14-07 submitted by Rumsey Hall School to expand the septic system at 201 Romford Road per "New Dorm Replacement," sheets L-1, L-2, by Buck and Buck, LLC., dated 2/20/14, revised to 2/26/14 and "Topographic Survey, New Dorm," by Smith and Company, dated 1/31/14; the permit shall be valid for 2 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1) that the land use office shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2) that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3) that any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Mr. Martino, passed 5-0.


New Application
Lake Waramaug Country Club/22 Golf Links Road/#IW-14-10/ Reclamation Project:
Mr. Duggan, golf course superintendent, represented the applicant. Using an aerial view and photos of the site, he detailed the proposed work to restore an 8000 sq. ft. stormwater collection area along West Shore Road. Overgrown vegetation and damaged trees had already been removed. Mr. Duggan proposed reviewed the revised narrative, dated 3/11/14, which described the proposed phases of work; Phase I: preparation and stabilization of the roadside area slope at the earliest possible date, Phase II: eradication of invasive species with application of herbicides, and Phase III: plant and seed with native species. Grubbing of excess material in the drainage basin was discussed. This debris will be removed to a compost pile elsewhere on the property. Installation of a vegetated bio filtration basin to carry stormwater to the outflow pipe was also discussed. Mr. Davis asked if the conduit emptied into the lake and whether the herbicide used would reach the lake. Mr. Duggan responded that the phragmites was not near the conduit and that the herbicide to be used had a short half life, was safe for aquatic use, and would be used in such a small area, 60' X 10', that it would not impact the lake. He also stated the herbicide would not be applied if rain were forecast immediately before or after the planned treatment date. Mr. Ajello noted that Mr. Duggan was certified to apply the proposed chemicals. Mr. Ajello asked if soil tests had been done. Mr. Duggan said no, but he had gotten the soils information from a map in the land use office, which showed this area as disturbed soils. Although probably not wetlands, Mr. Ajello said the Commission had jurisdiction because the site was both close to and drains to the lake. Mr. Papsin asked if soil tests should be done, but the consensus of the other commissioners was that this was not necessary. Mr. Duggan said he wanted to do the work this spring and would withdraw the request to treat the phragmites if a soil test would be required. Mr. Papsin thought the plan was a good one, but questioned the use of Rodeo so close to the lake. Mr. Ajello said the outflow pipe could be plugged during the application of the herbicide. Mr. Duggan noted that although the original narrative proposed rip rap along the channel leading to the conduit, he thought vegetated sides would allow more filtration and would be easier to maintain. Mr. Ajello asked if the trees removed would be replaced. Mr. Duggan said they would and read a list of possible species that would restore shade to the lower basin. Mr. Papsin asked that a planting plan be submitted: type, size, number of plants and where they would be planted. It was the consensus that a site plan would not be required because the aerial view was adequate. It was noted the $60 state tax and the state reporting form were still due.


Pending Applications
Morris Electric, LLC./132 Lower Church Hill Road/#IW-14-08/Utility Conduits:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, and Mr. Rosiello, landscape designer, represented the applicant. Mr. Szymanski presented the revised plans, "Proposed Improvement Location Plan (Utils & Patio," by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 3/12/14 and letter to Mr. Bedini dated 3/12/14, in response to Mrs. Hill's application review and comments made at the last meeting.
The revisions included:
1) naming the person responsible for inspecting the erosion control measures,
2) approval from Steep Rock Assn. for all of the proposed activities within the conservation easement area except for the boardwalks,
3) a note that the existing drainage pipe will be abandoned, 4)addition of a note re: footings for the concrete headwall,
5) a note regarding the placement of a hay filter,
6) additional silt fencing between the house and garage and on the downhill side of the existing house,
7) a note that the new propane tank will be underground, and
8) notes re: the extension of the driveway.
Mr. Szymanski showed photos of the existing patio at the west end of the house and explained how a frost wall would be excavated for supports for a roof over the patio. The excavated material will be taken off site. In response to questions from the commissioners, Mr. Szymanski stated the existing propane tank would be removed, the aerator control would be relocated, and the rusted pipe at the outlet of the swale would be replaced and covered with approx. one foot of fill.

MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-14-08 submitted by
Morris Electric, LLC. for utility conduits at 132 Lower Church Hill Road in accordance with "Proposed Improvement Location Plan (Utils & Patio,)" sheets SD.1 and SES.1, by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 2/21/14 and revised to 3/12/14; the permit shall be valid for 2 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1) that the land use office shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2) that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3) that any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, passed 5-0.

Morris Electric, LLC./132 Lower Church Hill Road/#IW-14-09/Meadow and Tree Planting, Trails and Boardwalks:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, and Mr. Rosiello, landscape designer, represented the applicant. Mr. Szymanski said that he had incorporated comments from the last meeting and responses to issues raised by Mrs. Hill in the plans, "Overall Proposed Improvement Location Plan (Landscaping,) by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 3/12/14. He noted information from the Lewis planting plan was now included on the revised site plan. He noted, too, that Steep Rock Assn. had prohibited the installation of boardwalks in the conservation easement area and so these sections were now proposed as maintained paths through the forest. Mr. Szymanski brought in a small container of liquid to illustrate the amount of herbicide that would be applied per 1000 sq. ft. by a licensed applicator. Literature from UConn and the DEEP regarding the herbicide to be used was submitted and Mr. Rosiello read that it has a low toxicity for humans and animals and does not bio accumulate. Mr. Szymanski detailed the changes that had been made on the revised plan. He also described the method to be used for the installation of the boardwalk. This would require no machinery in the wetlands. A site inspection was scheduled for Tues., March 25th at 5:30 p.m.


New Applications
Morris Electric, LLC./132 Lower Church Hill Road/#IW-14-11/ Relocate Pool and Septic System, Build Stonewalls, Regrade Driveway:
The site plan, "Overall Proposed Improvement Location Plan," by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 3/12/14 was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski, engineer, said the following activities were proposed:
1) change the grade in front of the house to slope away from the house; an approximate 6 inch change,
2) replace the existing walk,
3) install a dry stacked stonewall along the edge of the existing driveway,
4) install a new brick walk with steps, 5) abandon the existing pool; it will be filled with material excavated from the new pool location, and
5) abandon the existing septic system and build a new one 50 feet downhill from the current location.
The new pool and septic system and all their required grading were as far from the wetlands as possible and out of the regulated area. The location of the pool equipment was still undecided, but Mr. Szymanski said that if it was moved, it would be farther from the wetlands. Mr. Szymanski responded to questions raised in Mrs. Hill's application review in a letter to Mr. Bedini dated 3/12/14. It was noted the locations of the proposed activities had been staked on the property.

The Gunnery, Inc./100 Green Hill Road/#IW-14-12/Install Artifical Turf Field, Relocate Septic System Pipes:
Mr. Zekas, Business Manager, represented the applicant. The plan, "Reconstruction of Football/Ball Field, The Gunnery," by Milone and MacBroom, dated 3/12/14 was reviewed. Mr. Zekas briefly described the proposed work, noting that engineers from Milone and MacBroom would attend the next meeting to provide more details and to answer questions. The work is proposed on three quarters of an acre in the upland review area. The location of the brook and the 100 ft. setback from the stream were noted. Mr. Ajello reviewed the erosion control plan and the construction specifications for the synthetic field.

Metzger/23 Cook Street/#IW-14-13/Pool, Stonewalls, Landscaping:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, presented the 3/11/14 letter of authorization from Mr. Metzger. A landscaping plan, "Preliminary Site Plan," by Mr. Sabin, no date, was reviewed and the location of an intermittent stream was noted. Mr. Sabin said for the next meeting he would have a map showing the location of the wetlands. He stated site A had been chosen for the pool because it was a little farther from the stream than the alternate site considered and he said management of invasives would be included in the landscaping plan. Mr. Sabin noted he had received Mrs. Hill's application review and would submit the information requested at the next meeting. Mr. Ajello asked about the location of the pool equipment and Mr. Sabin responded that it was 50 feet from the stream. Mr. Sabin said the pool would have a cartridge filter with no backwash. The proposed pool location will be staked. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, March 25, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.

Bol Reiss/24 Rabbit Hill Road/#IW-14-14/Deck and Landscaping:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, presented his plan, "Site Plan," dated 3/11/14. He pointed out the portion of the deck and the landscaping proposed within the 100 foot setback. The landscaping plan included minor regrading and "plant refinement." Mr. Sabin noted that all of the proposed work was in areas that had previously been disturbed. Mr. Ajello noted a tree house on the property within 100 feet of the stream did not have a wetlands permit. Although the commissioners did not think a site inspection was necessary, Mr. Sabin said they could drive to the property and inspect it on their own at their convenience.


Other Business
Coleman/31 South Fenn Hill Road/Revision of Permit #IW-13-41/ Reconfigure House and Garage:
Mr. Neff, engineer, pointed out minor changes to the configuration of the house and garage, all outside the regulated area, on the plan, "Proposed Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 3/3/13. This was compared to the original dated 12/5/13. Mrs. Hill noted that Atty. Olson had advised the Commission that because the Regulations did not differentiate between applications and requests for revisions, revision requests should be treated as applications. Mr. Wadelton disagreed, saying there was nothing to prohibit a vote tonight on the request and the other commissioners agreed.

MOTION:
To approve the modification of Permit #IW-13-41 issued to Ms. Coleman, 31 Fenn Hill Road, in accordance with the site plan, "Proposed Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 3/3/14; all original conditions apply.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.


Enforcement
In addition to the matters reported in Mr. Ajello's 3/12/14 enforcement report, the following issues were discussed:
Town of Washington/16 Titus Road/#IW-09-V02/Unauthorized Stockpiling in the Floodplain:
Although it was noted the Town has a plan for removing the tailings stored on this site, it was the consensus to leave this matter on the enforcement list until the violation has been completely corrected.

Woodruff/3 West Shore Road/Citation:
Mr. Wadelton reported that Mr. Woodruff had requested a hearing to appeal his citation and the Board of Selectmen said it would schedule the hearing.

Hochberg/15 Couch Road/Unauthorized Excavation of Pond, Deposition of Material:
It was noted Mr. Hochberg's appeal of his citation had been pending for a much longer time than Mr. Woodruff's. The Board of Selectmen will be asked again to schedule a hearing for this appeal.

Complaint re: Town of Washington/Application of Herbicide on Knotweed Along the Shepaug River:
The Commission had not obtained any information about the application of the herbicide or whether it had been effective. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Ajello to inspect the site and to report back to the Commission.

Smith/35 East Shore Road/Unauthorized Excavation, Deposition, Reconstruction Near River Bank:
Mr. Wadelton asked Mr. Ajello if he had required remediation of the site. Mr. Ajello said he had not.


MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Martino.

Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator



Posted: March 4, 2014

February 26, 2014


7:00 p.m. Upper Level Meeting Room

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Papsin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Davis, Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Farmen, Ms. Scodari, Mr. Aston, Mr. Foss, Mr. Rosiello

Mr. Bedini called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, and Papsin. It was noted there was no subsequent business to add to the agenda.

Consideration of the Minutes
The 2/12/14 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: The correct meeting date is February 12, 2014.
Page 1: The motion to approve the minutes was by Mr. LaMuniere, not Mr. Charles.
Page 2, line #13: "Flood prone" should be added so the sentence is, "…be installed at the flood prone confluence of the two rivers."
Page 6, line #6: Change "was" to "as."
Page 7, last paragraph: It was thought that CACIWC had not been spelled correctly, but subsequently, upon looking it up, it was found to be correct.

MOTION:
To accept the 2/12/14 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 3-0.


Pending Applications
Laverge/228 Bee Brook Road/#IW-14-02/Driveway and Bridge:
Mr. Ajello reported that although the proposed driveway route was being staked today, there was still too much snow to conduct a site inspection. Further discussion was tabled to the next meeting, at which time the Commission must act unless the applicant requests an extension.

Cowles/210 West Shore Road/#IW-14-06/Well and Trench:
Mr. Foss, contractor, was present. It was noted that proof the Town of Warren had been notified of the application by certified mail had been submitted and that all the questions raised at the last meeting had been addressed.

MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-14-06 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Cowles, 210 West Shore Road for a well and trench per the map with handwritten clarifications, "210 West Shore Road," dated 2/26/14; the duration of the permit shall be two years and it is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the land use office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Papsin, passed 3-0.


New Applications
Rumsey Hall School/210 Romford Road/#IW-14-07/Expand Septic System:
For orientation purposes, Mr. Farmen presented the map, "Campus Master Plan, 2000," to show the location of the dorm to be demolished and rebuilt and septic system to be expanded and he circulated photos of the existing building. He explained that increasing the number of bedrooms in the reconstructed dorms requires an extension of the existing septic system, 216 sq. ft. of which would be in a regulated area within 100 feet of the 100 year flood plain. Mr. Aston presented the site plan, "New Dorm Replacement, by Buck and Buck, LLC., revised to 2/26/14. Mr. Bedini noted that only the expansion of the septic system was under the Commission's jurisdiction. Mr. Aston explained the septic system would be installed under the existing grass athletic field where there would be very little chance of erosion into the Bantam River. On sheet L-3, dated 2/20/14, he pointed out the cross section of the existing and proposed septic systems and the groundwater level. Mr. LaMuniere asked what the elevation of the basement floor would be. Mr. Aston said there would be a full basement 8 ft. 8 inches below the finished floor, which would reach approximately 5 ft. below ground level but was above the observed groundwater level. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the material excavated for the basements would be stockpiled on site. Mr. Aston answered that it would be loaded into trucks and taken off site, but showed a stockpile area surrounded with silt fence where top soil that would later be reused for landscaping would be placed. He also pointed out the location of the proposed erosion control measures and the construction barrier to keep equipment off the field and to protect nearby trees. Mr. Aston noted per the sequence of construction that excavated material for the installation of the septic system would be placed in small earth moving equipment so it could easily be reused on site and it would cause less disturbance. He noted he had clarified on the plan that the contract limit line was the limit of disturbance line. Drainage plans for the dorms were briefly discussed and Mr. Aston noted runoff would not increase. The commissioners had no additional questions or concerns and advised the applicant it would not be necessary to attend the next meeting.

Morris Electric, LLC./132 Lower Church Hill Road/#IW-14-08/ Utility Trench:
Mr. Rosiello, landscaper designer, represented the applicant. He noted the application included a conduit down along the existing driveway, a conduit box and 3 inch conduit behind the garage, moving a propane tank 15 feet to the south behind the existing garage, and the replacement of a failing culvert under the driveway. He said the new culvert would be covered with processed stone and gravel. Mr. LaMuniere asked that silt fence be installed around any area where the old conduit was dug out. Mr. Ajello noted the area behind the garage was a regulated area and so if the owners decided to bury the propane tank that would require a permit. The map, "Proposed Improvement Location Plan," sheet SD.1, by Arthur H. Howland and Associates, dated 2/21/14 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello asked what the note, "existing drain to be moved" referred to and where it drains to. Mr. Rosiello will find out for the next meeting. Mr. Papsin asked why so many cedars would be removed. Mr. Rosiello said they were failing and that the canopy would be replaced with either maples or oaks. Mr. Ajello asked why the corrugated culvert replacement proposed the use of hay bales on one side and sand bags on the other and suggested a hay filter be installed rather than the hay bales. Mr. Rosiello said written approval was expected from the holder of the conservation easement, Steep Rock Assn. A site inspection will be conducted when the site is staked and the snow cover is gone.

Morris Electric, LLC./132 Lower Church Hill Road/#IW-14-09/Meadow and Tree Planting:
Mr. Rosiello, landscape designer, presented the plan, "Planting Layout Plan, Driveway Allee and Birch Grove," sheets L-1.3.01 0 L-1.03.02, by Ms. Lewis, dated 2/21/14 and her six page "Meadow Planting Project," dated 2/21/14. Mrs. Hill noted that Ms. Lewis's plans did not label the wetlands and so asked that a copy of the Howland "Proposed Improvement Location Plan," dated 2/21/14 be submitted for this application. Mr. LaMuniere agreed the Howland map was more complete. He also asked that the trees to be removed be indicated on the master plan rather than only on the plan, "Record Map," by Arthur H. Howland and Associates, dated 1/15/14. Mr. Rosiello agreed to both requests. It was noted per Mrs. Hill's 2/26/14 review, that extensive paths and boardwalks were proposed through the wetlands and regulated areas, but had not been included in the application. Mr. Rosiello said the 42 inch wide boardwalks would be elevated and constructed with a pin system. Piles would be screwed into the ground and there would be no equipment used in the wetlands. He stated the paths would be mowed. He said he would revise the plans accordingly. Mr. LaMuniere asked that the specific location(s) where the birches would be planted be shown on the master plan. Mr. Rosiello said the applicant proposed to remediate the meadows. Mr. LaMuniere voiced his concern that a lot of herbicide would be used directly in the wetlands. Mr. Rosiello said he would provide credentials and more specific information at the next meeting and also suggested that organic herbicides could be used. Information regarding the type(s) of herbicide, amount to be used for each application, the impact it will have, how long it will stay in the soil, whether it would significantly impact the wetland function, etc. was requested. Mr. LaMuniere asked if instead of three or four applications of herbicide, the removal of the top soil, screening, and replacement had been considered. Mr. Rosiello said there was 30,000 sq. ft. of meadow, but that he would compare the impact to the wetlands vs. multiple applications of Rodeo. Mr. Papsin thought it would be best not to disturb the soil. It was noted Mr. Rosiello must justify the method he decides to use. Mr. Ajello reviewed the plant list for each meadow and said the Commission's normal policy was not to approve non native plants. He recommended the Commission establish a policy regarding whether it would require native plants in wetlands and in the upland review area. There was a discussion regarding what a native plant is and where it should be native to; must it be native to CT or to New England. Mr. Papsin asked whether the Commission had the jurisdiction to require that only native species be planted in wetlands. It was noted that legal advice might be necessary on this point. Mr. Papsin asked that the plants on the plant list be labeled as to whether they are native or non native. He also asked if a maintenance plan had been submitted and Mr. Rosiello said it had. The planting sequence and maintenance plans were reviewed in detail. Mr. Rosiello noted that some of the planting sequence had been omitted on the plans, but was included in the sheets, "Meadow Planting Project." The commissioners asked that the sq. footage of each meadow area be clarified. Discussion continued regarding whether CT native or New England native plants should be required. Mr. Rosiello thought Ct only was too restrictive and referred to the book, Preliminary Checklist of the Vascular Flora of Ct., by J. Donovan, 1779 for information. It was the consensus that all plants to be planted in the wetlands should be native to New England. The commissioners noted it might be necessary to bring in a consultant to review the impact of the use of so much herbicide on the wetlands and whether the character of the wetlands would be changed. It was noted that the broad spraying of herbicides could also adversely impact the wetland animals living in the wet meadows. Mr. Rosiello said he would amend the plans and submit additional information based on the Commission's questions and comments regarding the application. Mr. Papsin asked if any trees would be planted directly in the wetlands. Mr. Rosiello will find out. It was noted the Commission will schedule a site inspection when the site conditions improve.


Enforcement Report
In addition to the properties addressed in Mr. Ajello's 2/25/14 report, the following issue was discussed.
Randall/74 West Morris Road/Unauthorized Clearcutting and Deposition of Debris:
Mr. Papsin asked if any progress had been made. Mr. Ajello said he would soon send a letter to Mr. Randall asking him to complete the required clean up.


Other Business
Revision of the Regulations:
Mr. Papsin, Mr. LaMuniere, and Mr. Bedini agreed to serve on the subcommittee to review and recommend revisions to the Regulations. Mr. Ajello recommended that policies regarding use of herbicides in wetlands and use of native plants in wetlands be considered. Mr. LaMuniere noted the fee schedule had been a problem in the past and should be reviewed. Changes mandated by the DEEP will be incorporated and Mr. Bedini will contact the DEEP to learn what these are. Mr. LaMuniere said he also had information from Atty. Brooks that the subcommittee should review.


MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting.
By Mr. LaMuniere.

Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 8:44 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted
Janet M. Hill, LU Administrator



Posted: February 25, 2014

February 14, 2014


7:00 p.m. Upper Level Meeting Room

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Ms. Cheney
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Davis, Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sabin, Mr. Tavino, Mrs. Lloyd, Mr.Foss, Mr. Neff, Mr. Gillespie, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Luntz, Mr. Charles

Mr. Bedini called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, Papsin, and Wadelton. It was noted there was no subsequent business to add to the agenda.

Consideration of the Minutes
The 1/22/14 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 5, middle of the first paragraph re: Bitar: Mr. LaMuniere asked that "obligate" be inserted so the sentence is now, "Mr. LaMuniere recommended no cutting within 100 feet of the pool due to the habitat needed for the survival of several obligate vernal pool species."
Page 6, 7th line under #4: It was noted that although it had been stated at the meeting that the applicant had seven more years to decide whether to build the temporary bridge, that was incorrect. He actually has five years.

MOTION:
To accept the 1/22/14 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 4-0.


Pending Applications
Laverge/228 Bee Brook Road/#IW-14-02/Driveway and Bridge:
It was noted the Commission is waiting for the driveway route to be staked before scheduling a site inspection. Nothing new had been submitted and so further discussion was tabled to the next meeting.

Lloyd/149 Whittlesey Road/#IW-14-03/Reconstruct House:
Mr. Sabin briefly reviewed the presentation he made at the last meeting. Reconstruction of the house had previously been approved, but since a different house is now planned with a similar footprint, volume, biofilters, and landscaping, a new application was submitted. Mr. Ajello reported that the original permit, #IW-06-29, would not expire until 8/9/16. The Commission discussed whether to handle this as a revision of an existing permit or as an application for a new permit and since there was not much difference in procedure and the application had already been submitted, it was the consensus to consider the application. Mr. LaMuniere asked for details about the foundation, which would be installed at the confluence of two rivers. Mr. Luntz, architect, stated the foundation would allow the first floor to be raised above the FEMA flood elevation and it would have flood vents, which would allow flood waters to flow freely through the ground floor areas. He said he did not know yet how deep into the soil the foundation would go, but that it would be a slab installed at as shallow a depth as possible. Mr. Sabin noted the finished floor would be at elevation 618, whereas the FEMA flood elevation is 617. Mr. Sabin said an advantage of this house design compared to what had been originally approved is that this one is modular, which would reduce the length of time the site would be disturbed. It was noted the house would be built on existing lawn, there would be very few trees cut, and the limit of disturbance, well, and septic areas would be the same as originally approved. Mr. Sabin stated that a solid construction barrier would be set up to protect trees and existing vegetation and that the cranes used to move the modular pieces into place would not impact the tree canopy. Mr. LaMuniere asked about the water table and whether the foundation would have to be pumped when the slab is poured. Mr. Sabin said it fluctuates, but the groundwater is approximately at river level, or 3.5 feet deep. It was not known at this time whether the foundation would have to be dewatered. Mr. LaMuniere thought this should be mentioned in the construction sequence. Mr. Sabin noted he had a ZBA hearing scheduled for 2/20 and hoped to have the Inland Wetlands approval by that date. It was the consensus that a site inspection was not necessary.

MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-14-03 submitted by
Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd to reconstruct the house at 149 Whittlesey Road per the detailed plan, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 1/13/14 and revised to 1/16/14 and per the plan prepared by Mr. Sabin dated 1/16/14; the permit shall be valid for 5 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Papsin, passed 4-0.

Smith/16 Steeples Road/#IW-14-04/Single Family Dwelling, Septic System, Landscaping: Mr. Tavino, contractor, listed the changes made on his plan revised to 1/25/14. The main revision was a note that the 32 truckloads of hardpan to be excavated for the foundation would be taken off site. He pointed out stockpile areas where he said that any excavated loam would be stored until it could be used near the septic system. Mr. Tavino also noted he had added a note that the land use office would be notified two business days prior to the start of construction so that the erosion control measures could be inspected. Mr. Papsin asked what the patio surface would be. Mr. Tavino said there would be a 12 inch stone border around the pool, but the patio would be grass. He also noted the revised plans showed the location of the pool equipment and buried power line. Mr. Tavino said the footing drains and leaders were indicated on the plans and were 130 feet from the wetlands. Construction using the prefab units was briefly discussed.

MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-14-04 submitted by Mr. Smith for a single family dwelling and septic system at 16 Steeples Road per plans by Mr. Tavino, revised to 1/25/14; the permit shall be valid for 5 years and is subject to the following onditions;
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval
. By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 4-0.

Bitar/36 Carmel Hill Road/#IW-14-05/Timber Harvest:
Mr. Gillespie, forester, presented the enlarged map that had been requested at the last meeting and two photos of the vernal pool area were circulated; one that indicated the trees to be cut. He noted that he and Mr. Ajello had inspected the property since the last meeting. Mr. Gillespie stated that the seven trees proposed to be harvested within 100 feet of the vernal pool were declining trees, that only one tree was proposed to be cut within 50 feet of the pool, and there would still be trees remaining around the vernal pool once these seven were removed. Mr. Ajello passed out a brochure by the DEEP re: vernal pools and stated the existing tree canopy did not vary in height and the only understory was mountain laurel. Mr. Gillespie noted the locations of the landing area with anti tracking pad and trails to be used for the timber cutting operation. He said the tops would be chipped to be used by greenhouses for energy. The land will remain classified as forest under PA490 and the forest floor will not be converted to lawn. Mr. Gillespie said he hoped to harvest the trees this winter. The method of removing the trees was discussed. Mr. LaMuniere said it was important there be no drag line and Mr. Gillespie responded that low impact equipment would be used. It was noted that the first timber harvest application had been withdrawn and that a second application fee would not be required.

MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-14-05 submitted by Mr. Bitar for a timber harvest at 36 Carmel Hill Road per the map, "Topographic Survey," by Smith and Company, revised to 12/31/13 and with hand written additions by Mr. Gillespie, dated 2/10/14 and the photo, "Exhibit A," dated 2/12/14; the permit shall be valid for two years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, passed 4-0.


New Applications
Cowles/210 West Shore Road/#IW-14-06/Well and Trench:
Mr. Foss, contractor, noted the proposed well would not be installed within the regulated area, but the trench would be, and the existing dwelling was located between the lake and the work area. The map, "Map Showing Property of Dorothy and Bernard Riess," by Mr. Marsh, dated April 1950 with handwritten information regarding the well, trench, and erosion controls was reviewed. Mrs. Hill's 2/12/14 email to Mr. Foss regarding information still needed to complete the application was reviewed and it was noted that the applicant must provide proof that the Town of Warren was notified of the application by certified mail. It was the consensus there was no need for a site inspection.

Lake Waramaug Country Club/22 Golf Links Road:
It was noted this had not been submitted and that the application would focus on how to treat runoff before it reaches the lake.


Enforcement Report
In addition to what Mr. Ajello included in his 2/12/14 report, the following matters were discussed:
Berg/22 Foulois Road/Activity Exceeding Approved Permit:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented the plan, "Pond Remediation Plan," dated 2/11/14 that the landscape architect and the Bergs had worked on. Planting along a 60 ft. section of the pond and the eradication of knotweed elsewhere on the property was proposed to mitigate the unauthorized installation of a curtain drain in the wetlands. Mr. Szymanski explained that the drain had been set too high and so was not effective. He noted the knotweed would be removed per DEEP guidelines over a three year period. The proposed species to be planted were noted. Mr. Ajello thought they were well chosen. Mr. LaMuniere noted that Mr. Allan, Commission consultant, had previously advised the Commission that groundwater rebounds within 25 feet downslope of a curtain drain. Therefore, Mr. LaMuniere thought the curtain drain had not greatly impacted the wetlands. Mr. Ajello asked if the canopy over the pond could be increased. Mr. Szymanski said he would look into it. Mr. LaMuniere recommended that an additional 20 feet along the shoreline be planted. It was the consensus that an application to correct a violation had been requested and that an application should be submitted.


Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Bedini noted the Commission does not usually have Privilege of the Floor, but Mr. Charles said he had a question regarding Straw Man's original conditions of approval. Because the recent decision to approve a revision to one of the original conditions of approval had been appealed, neither Mr. Ajello nor the commissioners thought this matter should be discussed. Mr. Charles noted that condition #7 requires the applicant to come back for further Inland Wetlands review was plans are developed and asked if the Commission would use the same engineer to review them as it had for the original application. Mr. Bedini said the Commission did not know at this time. Mr. Charles said he would submit his question in writing. He said he must have a way to ask questions of the Commission even though there is an appeal. Mr. Bedini advised him to ask the staff.


Enforcement
Issavi/19 Tinker Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing:
Mr. Ajello noted the previous property owners were Chatfield and Shellerer. He asked how he should go about releasing the notice of violation from the land records, noting the Commission had asked for a restoration plan and this had been submitted. Mr. Bedini said an application to correct a violation would be appropriate. The commissioners thought the plan submitted was too vague and requested the following information: a sketch plan, a narrative, how many and what size plants were proposed, how densely they would be planted, what will be done with any disturbed dirt, and where and how many stepping stones would be installed.

Rumsey Hall School/201 Romford Road/Reconstruction of Dorm:
Mr. Ajello noted a section of the school grounds had been raised above the flood elevation when the septic system was installed and so it would be difficult to determine the distance between wetlands soils and the proposed work. Mr. Bedini said the Commission would expect a report from a soil scientist.

Hayden/11 Loomarwick Road/Unauthorized Construction and Soil Disturbance:
Mr. Ajello noted plans to correct the violation had been approved. It was the consensus this matter should remain on the enforcement list until the work approved was properly completed.

Silverman/341 Nettleton Hollow Road/Violation of Permit #IW-13-19:
Mr. Ajello noted that since a revision of the permit had been approved, this should no longer be listed under Enforcement.

Hochberg/15 Couch Road/Unauthorized Excavation of Pond and Deposition of Materials:
Mr. Bedini reported that he had spoken with the First Selectman again about scheduling a hearing regarding the disputed fine and would continue to remind him.


Administrative Business
Mr. Bedini stated the Commission would soon begin work to amend its regulations. Some necessary revisions such as definitions for "upland review area" and "vernal pool" had been specified in recent issues of The Habitat.


Communications
Mrs. Hill reported the DEEP had sent the following DVDs: "The Functions and Values of Wetlands and Watercourses," "Introduction: Connecticut's Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act," and "An Introduction to Map Reading and Site Plan Review," but that according to its 2/6/12 letter, the DVDs do not replace the current DEEP Municipal Inland Wetlands Agency Comprehensive Training Program online course. These DVDs are available for interested commissioners to borrow.

A letter regarding the Commission's concern about the use of herbicides around Lake Waramaug by the state will be sent to CACIWC for that organization's review.

Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION:
To accept the 1/15/14 Coleman site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded By Mr. Papsin, and passed 4-0.


MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Papsin.

Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 8:53 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator



Posted: February 11, 2014

January 22, 2014


7:00 p.m. Upper Level Meeting Room

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Ms. Cheney
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Davis, Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Fisher, Mrs. Laverge, Mr. Tavino, Ms. Levesque, Mr. Neff, Mr. D. Sabin, Mr. S. Sabin, Mr. Gillespie, Atty. Ebersol, Mr. Charles

Mr. Bedini called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, Papsin, and Wadelton and Alternate Davis for Ms. Cheney.
He noted there was no subsequent business to add to the agenda.

Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION:
To accept the 1/8/14 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.

The 1/15/14 Coleman site inspection minutes will be considered at the next meeting.


Pending Applications
Coleman/31 South Fenn Hill Road/#IW-13-41/Single Family Dwelling, Driveway, Septic System, etc.:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his plan, "Proposed Site Plan," revised to 1/20/14, which, he said, showed the garage would be located closer to the house, still outside the regulated area. Except for this one change, the plans were the same as those reviewed at the site inspection. Mr. Bedini noted that no issues had been raised during the site inspection.

MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-13-41 submitted by Ms. Coleman, 31 South Fenn Hill Road for a single family dwelling, driveway, septic system, etc. per the plan, "Proposed Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 12/5/13 and revised to 1/20/14; the duration of the permit shall be 2 years subject to the following conditions:
1. that the land use office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.

Dobson/24 Wilbur Road/#IW-14-01/Construct Barn:
Plans for the proposed barn; "Site Plan," by Altermatt Engineering, LLC. with handwritten revisions dated 1/8/14 were briefly reviewed and it was noted the barn would be 53 feet from the wetlands. It was also noted that no additional information had been submitted and the commissioners had had no questions or concerns at the last meeting.

MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-14-01 submitted by Mr. Dobson to construct a barn at 24 Wilbur Road per "Site Plan," by Altermatt Engineering, LLC., dated 12/24/13 with handwritten revisions to 1/8/14 regarding the stockpile area added to the plan; the permit shall be valid for 2 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the land use office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Mr. Davis, passed 5-0.

Laverge/228 Bee Brook Road/#IW-14-02/Driveway and Bridge:
Atty. Fisher and Ms. Levesque, engineer, represented the applicant. The plan, "Driveway Plan," by CCA, LLC, revised to 1/22/14 was presented. Ms. Levesque noted the plans had been revised to address the concerns about management of stormwater runoff, which were raised at the last meeting. Revisions included shortening the straight section of driveway to 300 feet by adding curves, adding a catch basin to connect with the underdrain, adding curtain drains, and including a cross section to indicate swales and curtain drains along the edges of the driveway. Ms. Levesque said temporary silt check dams would be installed during construction. Mr. LaMuniere asked if drainage from the rip rapped sections would discharge directly into the wetlands. Ms. Levesque said the discharge would be next to the wetlands where it would eventually slow down before flowing into the wetlands. It was noted there was a profile on the plan of the proposed swale with perforated pipe installed below it. Mr. LaMuniere thought the revision to eliminate the straight 800 foot, no cross culvert section of driveway was a good one. Ms. Levesque noted that most of the runoff should be absorbed in the swale. She noted, too, that the sections of driveway with grades over 10% would be paved. She pointed out the temporary access that would be used during construction, said the construction sequence had been previously submitted, and said not all of the work would be done at once. Mr. Ajello said the phasing of work was not included in the construction sequence. Mr. Papsin asked how many trees would be cut. Ms. Levesque said tree cutting would be limited to the width of the proposed grading within the areas of construction. She noted the driveway route might be altered if too much ledge was found in certain spots. It was noted the entire length of the proposed driveway is approximately 1300 ft. A site inspection will be scheduled after the driveway route is flagged.

Lloyd/149 Whittlesey Road/#IW-14-03/Reconstruct House:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, presented his plan, " Residence Reconstruction," dated 1/16/14. He noted that in 2006 the IWC had approved the reconstruction of the dwelling, but the work had not been done before the permit expired. He said the general house location would not change and the biofiltration system and landscaping approved previously would not change. Mr. Neff, engineer, reviewed his plan, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," revised to 1/16/14. This compared the original location and footprint of the house to those proposed. Mr. Neff stated the existing well and septic system would be preserved, but a new pipe to the septic would be installed. Roof runoff will be directed to an underground chamber at the west end of the house. A cross section of the drainage system, sequence of construction, and erosion and sedimentation control plan were submitted. The stockpile area was noted. Mr. Sabin noted the previously approved streambank armouring had been completed and works well. He also noted that the landscaping plan called for planting some of the existing lawn to provide a vegetated buffer along the river. He said there would be no clearing along the river banks. Flood elevations were noted. The first floor of the house is proposed at 618 feet, one foot above the 100 year flood elevation. Mr. LaMuniere asked what kind of foundation would be installed. Mr. Neff did not yet have all the details, but said it would probably be reinforced concrete with breakaway walls. Mr. Sabin noted the narration submitted provided comparison figures for the existing and proposed house. Mr. Neff said that silt fence would be installed around the construction site fairly close to the house to limit the area of disturbance as much as possible. A site inspection will be conducted after the proposed house site is staked.

Smith/16 Steeples Road/#IW-14-04/Single Family Dwelling, Septic System, Landscaping:
Mr. Tavino, agent, reviewed his plan, "16 Steeples Road, Washington, Ct. 06793," dated 1/21/14. It was noted there are wetlands at the rear of the property and that part of the proposed septic system would be within the regulated area. Mr. Tavino noted the septic system would have stone trenches and he described their installation. A geothermal heating system will be installed. A crane will be set in place and then the holes will be bored. He said this would not impact the wetlands. Next Mr. Tavino noted a proposed garden area outside the upland review area, proposed landscaping plants, and the area along the lawn and wetland buffer where they would be planted. Mr. LaMuniere asked if there would be power to the pool equipment shed. Mr. Tavino said he had not indicated underground power on the plan, but said it would not impact the wetlands. He pointed out the location of the silt fencing and said he would add a note to the plan that the Land Use Office would be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so that the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures. Mr. Papsin asked what kind of patio would surround the pool. Mr. Tavino said he would get this information for the next meeting. Mr. LaMuniere asked what kind of foundation the house would have. Mr. Tavino said there would be a full poured foundation under modular sections A, B, and C and a crawl space under D. He said the excavated material would either be used for backfill or would be trucked off site and he was asked to specify this in writing. Soil stockpile areas were noted. It was the consensus that the proposed activities would not impact the wetlands and so a site inspection would not be conducted. However, Mr. Tavino was asked to revise his plans to reflect items mentioned in tonight's discussion.

Bitar/36 Carmel Hill Road/#IW-14-05/Timber Harvest:
Mr. Gillespie, certified forester, noted this was labeled as a timber harvest, but actually, there was an arborist working with the harvester. The map, "Topographic Survey," by Smith and Company, dated 10/31/13, with handwritten additions to show the landing area, skid trails, and harvest area was reviewed. He pointed out the area where trees would be taken down to allow more sunlight into the yard. He said the work would be done in three phases: 1) directly around the house, 2) further out from the house, and 3) within 50 to 100 feet of the vernal pool. He said all stumps would remain in place and most of the debris would be chipped. He stated that many trees would be left standing and those to be cut would be selected tree by tree. He noted the black dots on the map were trees flagged by a landscape architect and would probably all remain. It was noted phases 1 and 2 were not under the Commission's jurisdiction.

Mr. LaMuniere noted the importance of the canopy over vernal pools and said that for the previous submittal Mr. Gillespie had stated there would be no trees cut within 50 feet of the vernal pool. Mr. Gillespie confirmed no trees would be cut within 50 feet of the vernal pool or its outlet. Mr. LaMuniere recommended no cutting within 100 feet of the pool due to the habitat needed for the survival of several vernal pool species. Mr. Gillespie said he had planned to cut approximately 50% of the trees 50 to 100 feet from the pool. Mr. LaMuniere noted that leaf mulch and canopy are crucial for vernal pools and again recommended no cutting within 100 feet. Mr. Wadelton agreed. Mr. Gillespie said he would review DEEP publications on vernal pools to look for recommended setbacks. He noted that as trees are cut, new growth will come up. The commissioners asked Mr. Gillespie to submit two full sized maps for the file. Mr. Gillespie said his goal was to complete all work this winter.

After a discussion about whether cutting would be approved within 100 feet of the vernal pool, it was agreed that Mr. Gillespie would mark diseased and hazardous trees in this area and then inspect them with Mr. Ajello, at which time Mr. Gillespie said, he would try to justify cutting in this area.


Other Business
Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road/Request to Revise Condition of Approval for Permit #IW-09-44/Extension of Time for Bridge Related Work:
Mr. Wadelton recused himself and left the table. Alternate Martino was seated.

Mr. Bedini noted the commissioners had had an opportunity to review a draft motion prior to the meeting. This motion had also been reviewed by the Commission's counsel. Mr. Bedini asked the commissioners to keep in mind when discussing the motion that the revision requested was only for an extension of time for the temporary bridge and not to revise the entire permit. Since a few drafts of the motion had been circulated, it was noted that it was the triple spaced draft that would now be discussed. A lengthy discussion followed and the following revisions to the draft motion were agreed to:

1) Mr. Martino pointed out that throughout the motion, whenever September 30 was referred to, it should state September 30, 2014.

2) In line #2, Mr. Martino said "temporary" should be inserted before "bridge related activities." Mr. Ajello thought "bridge related activities" was too vague so said there should be a list of all the activities that this would include. But having considered this suggestion, the commissioners agreed because it would be difficult to make a complete list, because this condition would pertain only to the extension of time requested, and because all previous conditions of permit approval would apply, "temporary bridge related activities" would be kept.

3) Condition #1: In the second line, Mr. LaMuniere asked why work could not commence until February 10, 2014. Mrs. Hill said she had been asked to use a date after the appeal period for the action to be taken tonight. Mr. LaMuniere thought it should state the work could begin immediately, and it was the consensus to change "February 10, 2014" to "immediately." Mr. Ajello asked why the word, "initiated" had been substituted for "removed" from a prior draft. Mr. LaMuniere explained that he had recommended this change to provide additional days, until October 7,, 2014, to clean up and stabilize the site. Mr. Papsin agreed this was a good idea. Mr. Ajello disagreed, saying the applicant had known in advance that 9/30/14 was the removal date and so should be required to plan for it. The commissioners agreed to keep the word, "initiated."

4) Condition #2: Three versions of this condition were considered. Mr. Bedini noted the seepage envelope was not next to or connected to the permanent bridge and so asked if the temporary bridge had to be removed, did that necessarily mean that the seepage envelope also had to be removed. A very lengthy discussion ensued. Several points were brought up during this discussion; that the applicant has 7 more years to decide whether to build the temporary bridge or not (actually, a 9 year permit was approved in April 2010,) if the temporary bridge was taken down and another is needed, the applicant must apply for another revision of the permit, work may be done for the duration of the permit as long as it is confined to the specified time periods, and once the foundation for the permanent bridge is installed, the provisions of the original permit go into effect and neither the driveway nor the seepage envelope would have to be taken out. Mr. Bedini asked if there would be any harm to the wetlands if the seepage envelope was left in. He questioned whether it made sense to require the seepage envelope to be taken out in Sept. 2014, if it was going to be reinstalled at a later date for the permanent bridge. Mr. Ajello pointed out that once the temporary bridge is removed, it would be difficult to remove the seepage envelope and said that several hundred sq. ft. of gravel in the wetlands would have an impact. The commissioners were polled and it was determined that the seepage envelope would have to be removed and that Condition #2B was the one to be used in the motion.

5) Condition #3: The commissioners questioned what the term, "restoration" meant at the end of line #3 and all agreed it did not mean the restoration of the temporary bridge. Mr. Martino was concerned about conflicting language throughout the motion and recommended language used in Condition #2 be used in #3 as well. Mr. Bedini noted the $20,000 bond would be used by the Town if the work was left undone, to restore the disturbed areas to their preconstruction condition if necesary, and to maintain the erosion control measures if necessary. It was agreed to change the first sentence of Condition #3 to: "The applicant has posted a $20,000 construction bond for Permit #IW-09-44, which bond shall also be applicable to and shall be amended to reflect that it additionally secures the restoration of the site to preconstruction conditions and the maintenance of erosion and sedimentation controls approved by this amendment to the existing permit."

6) Condition #4: There were no changes made to this condition.

7) Condition #5: "Plans as submitted" was changed to "permitted activities."

MOTION:
To approve the application submitted by Straw Man, LLC. to revise a condition of approval for Permit #IW-09-44 by extending the time for the temporary bridge related activities at 135 Bee Brook Road per the 11/08/13 and 11/22/13 letters to the Washington Inland Wetlands Commission by Atty. Ebersol, plans by Towne and Aurell, Inc. received 11/12/13 with undated attachment entitled, "Sequence of Construction Events for the Fall of 2013," the 10/23/13 and 11/6/13 letters to Mr. Bedini from Mr. Trinkaus, PE., and all additional plans and documentation originally approved for Permit #IW-09-44 on April 14, 2010 subject to the following conditions:
1. The work on the temporary bridge specified in this application for permit revision may commence immediately and said temporary bridge may be used and may remain in place until September 30, 2014, on which date removal of the entire temporary bridge must be initiated.
2. Before the temporary bridge is removed, whether on September 30, 2014 or before, all disturbed areas within wetlands and the upland review areas on the west side of Chaple Brook must be restored to their preconstruction condition; this restoration as well as restoration and erosion and sedimentation control measures on the east side of Chaple Brook must be completed to the satisfaction of the WEO no later than October 7, 2014.
3. The applicant has posted a $20,000 construction bond for Permit #IW-09-44, which bond shall also be applicable to and shall be amended to reflect that it additionally secures the restoration of the site to preconstruction conditions and the maintenance of the erosion and sedimentation controls approved by this amendment to the existing Permit. In the event that the Town uses any portion of the bond to correct malperformance, conditions caused by neglect, improper restoration of disturbed areas, etc. relating to the temporary bridge work authorized by this amendment to the Permit, the applicant must, within 15 calendar days, replenish the bond to the original $20,000 before any construction activities at the site may continue.
4. All other previous conditions of approval for Permit #IW-09-44 remain in effect.
5. There shall be no change to the permitted activities without further Commission approval.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.


Enforcement
Mr. Ajello briefly reviewed his 1/22/14 enforcement report.
Smith/135 East Shore Road:
Noting she was concerned about handling violations in a consistent manner, Mrs. Hill said that Mrs. Smith had knowingly done work near the river without a permit and asked why she had not been fined. Mr. Ajello stated that the Zoning Commission had already alienated Mrs. Smith by filing a notice on the Town Land Records for zoning violations on her property. He noted that no one from the Commission witnessed the work while it was being done and that the Commission allows driveway repairs. Mrs. Hill replied that driveway repairs within the regulated area must be applied for prior to doing the work. Mr. Ajello said he thought Mrs. Smith would be unresponsive in the future if she was fined now and that he felt it was more important for the Commission to develop a relationship with her. A discussion followed regarding the goal of fair and consistent handling of enforcement matters. Mr. Bedini pointed out that while the Commission does not tell the Enforcement Officer how to do his job, it does suggest consistent treatment for enforcement matters. Mr. Ajello asked the Commission whether he should fine Mr. Woodruff, too, for clean up work on his property, which was ordered, but not completed. The commissioners asked Mr. Ajello to talk to both Mrs. Smith and to Mr. Woodruff to explain the Regulations must be applied consistently and to fine both.

Hochberg/15 Couch Road/Unauthorized Excavation of Pond and Deposition of Material:
Mr. Wadelton reminded the Commission that Mr. Hochberg had been fined for this violation, but had requested a hearing, which the First Selectman never scheduled in spite of several reminders from the Commission. Mr. Bedini will speak again with Mr. Lyon.


Administrative Business
It was noted revisions to the Inland Wetlands Regulations were needed; some updates per the state statutes and some to clarify policies and procedures already in place.

MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Martino.

Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 10:23 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator



Posted: January 16, 2014

January 8, 2014


Public Hearing - Regular Meeting
7:00 p.m. Upper Level Meeting Room

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Wadelton (recused for Public Hearing, did not attend the meeting)
MEMBER ABSENT: Ms. Cheney
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Davis, Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Olson, Atty. Fisher, Atty. Ebersol, Mr. Towne, Mr. Charles, Mr./Mrs. Condon, Mr. Neff, Mrs. Laverge, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Ross, Residents, Press

PUBLIC HEARING
Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road/Request to Revise Condition of Approval for Permit #IW-09-44/Extension of Time for Bridge Related Work
Mr. Bedini called the public hearing to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, and Papsin and Alternates Davis for Ms. Wadelton,, who had recused himself and left the table and Martino for Ms. Cheney.

Atty. Ebersol noted Straw Man, LLC. was requesting a revision to one of the conditions of approval for Permit #IW-09-44. He cited the documents that had been submitted in support of the request; both the original motion of approval and documents from 2010 and the more detailed sequence of construction, additional information, and endorsements pertaining to the current request from Mr. Towne, contractor, and Mr. Trinkaus, engineer. He emphasized that the Commission had already approved a permit for both a temporary and a permanent bridge, but this revision, if approved, would extend the season in which the bridge related work could be done and would allow use of the temporary bridge from approval until the end of September 2014. He noted that at a previous meeting Atty. Fisher had questioned the right of Straw Man, LLC. to construct the driveway and bridge in the right of way owned by the condo associations. In response Atty. Ebersol submitted three deeds; Warranty Deed filed by the Town Clerk on 5/24/83, Vol. 94, PP. 1167-1174, Warranty Deed filed by the Town Clerk on 12/5/02, Vol. 164, PP. 0704-07-5, and Warranty Deed, filed with the Town Clerk on 5/18/99, Vol. 145, PP.49-51, which, he said, proved Straw Man, LLC. has broad and extensive rights to pass and repass across Juniper Meadow Road for ingress and egress for the purpose of development and construction on his client's property and to construct a "spur" to use for road construction and to extend Juniper Meadow Road to access his client's property. He read the language in one of the deeds. He noted the 11/8/13 letter he sent to the Commission was part of the record.

Mr. Bedini stated ownership of the property and the language in the deeds were not issues concerning the Inland Wetlands Commission.

Mr. Towne reviewed the proposed construction sequence, which he had submitted previously for the temporary bridge. Very briefly this was to inspect the erosion and sedimentation control measures and repair them or add more if there are problems, install the abutments, set the poles across and then the decking, install sections of the road bed, which would be narrower than the permanent driveway, but at the elevation of the permanent road bed, install the seepage envelope, which would also be narrower than for the permanent bridge, use the temporary bridge for testing purposes, use the temporary bridge for the construction of the permanent bridge per the original approval. He explained the heaviest piece of equipment crossing the temporary bridge would be 10,000 lbs, which would not be likely to sink or to make ruts.

Atty. Ebersol submitted photos of the proposed crossing site and of larger crossing work currently under construction in Washington at the Silverman property and on Walker Brook Road.

Atty. Ebersol asked Mr. Towne if his company normally works during this time of year. Mr. Towne responded that it does and that the proposed work was not complex.

Atty. Ebersol asked Mr. Towne if there would be impacts to the wetlands if the work was done during this time of year. Mr. Towne said the work would cause no problems and installation of blocks as had been discussed at previous meetings, would protect the banks.

Mr. Trinkaus, engineer, could not be present and so Atty. Ebersol read his 11/6/13 letter, which stated the installation of the temporary bridge would have no adverse impacts to Chaple Brook, and referred to his 11/26/13 letter, which responded to previous questions by commissioners.

Atty. Ebersol described the small size of this project; an 8 foot wide brook with a pronounced channel where the water level has not risen over the top of its banks for years and no vehicles or equipment would work directly in the stream. He compared this with other permits recently approved by the Commission where there was bulldozing and dredging in larger streams in autumn and winter months. Atty. Olson advised the Commission there was no precedent based on the decisions for other applications.

Atty. Ebersol thanked the Commission for its thorough review, and again noted the revision requested would not impact the wetlands and the temporary bridge would not remain in place after September 30, 2014.

Representing several of the Bee Brook Crossing condo associations that own the land where the right of way is located, Atty. Fisher said the Commission had not discussed the temporary bridge when the application was considered and approved in 2010 and that there was no engineering information on it in 2010 because it was to be up for only 2 or 3 weeks. He cited the following problems with the current revision request: minimal engineering had been provided, no measurements for the length of the bridge had been given, the brook was only 8 feet wide, but the entire span was approximately 35 feet, the span would be sloped as one bank was 4 feet lower than the other, a better construction plan would be for a level bridge, the bottom of the proposed span would be fairly close to the surface of the water, the applicant had said the brook did not overflow its banks, but in 1994 this did happen causing considerable erosion, and while a temporary bridge for 2 weeks at the right time of year had no risk, a temporary bridge up for several seasons could be risky and could be damaged. Atty. Fisher had no engineering report, but said he had spoken with Mr. Jarvis from Milone and MacBroom, who had provided him with this summary of concerns.

Atty. Ebersol objected to this second hand information from Atty. Fisher.

Atty. Fisher asked for the following documentation: calculations stamped by an engineer to show the temporary bridge will support 10,000 lbs, plans showing a bridge with a level span over the brook that maximizes the distance between the bottom of the bridge and the water level of the brook, requirement for concrete block abutments at both ends of the bridge, and that the deck be attached to the concrete blocks so it will not float away in high water, the dimensions of the bank to bank span, and the requirement that if bank stabilization is needed, an erosion control blanket must be installed. He said he hoped these points would lead to more analysis so that Chaple Brook would be protected. Also, regarding the deeds, Atty. Fisher said the applicant does have a right of way, but that the Regulations require the owner to sign the application, which had not been done for the original application or for the request for this revision.

Mr. Bedini responded that Mr. Sanford of Milone and MacBroom had reviewed both the plans for the temporary bridge and the permanent bridge for the original application and so it was strange that an engineer from the same company had another list of concerns at this time. Atty. Fisher said the temporary bridge had not been analyzed because it was temporary, but now that it would be up for a longer period of time and its use would change, there would be more risk. Mr. Bedini noted the bridge was still temporary and its location and construction had been included in the original plans. He added that its ability to withstand 10,000 lbs. had never been an issue and he asked if it made any difference whether the temporary bridge would be used for 10 trips or 100 trips. Regarding the matter of the owner's signature on the original application, Mr. Bedini noted there had been a 15 day period in which to challenge the approval, but the decision had not been appealed.

Mr. LaMuniere stated the specifications submitted by Mr. Towne had addressed the Commission's concerns. He also stated that telephone poles are a standard 45 feet long, so the Commission did have that information. He noted the temporary bridge would be taken down upon construction of the permanent bridge and he said that if both bridges and the seepage envelope were constructed according to the plans submitted, there would be no impacts to the wetlands. He noted the Commission's concerns regarding the restoration of the banks had been addressed and that ownership issues were not under the jurisdiction of the Inland Wetlands Commission.

Mr. Bedini noted the Commission had considered both the temporary and permanent bridges and had determined neither would impact the wetlands. He noted the issue now being considered was whether extending the time the temporary bridge would be up would impact the wetlands.

Atty. Fisher said his goal was to make the Commission aware of additional information it should ask for before making its decision.

Atty. Ebersol noted that Atty. Fisher did not have an engineering degree. He then pointed out that included in the narrative submitted by Mr. Towne was the length of the poles to be used; 40 to 45 feet. He also noted that building a level bridge would require filling in the area where the Commission wants no disturbance and that building the bridge as Atty. Fisher proposed would double the work and the potential to damage the wetlands.

Mr. Towne noted the major storm in 1994 that Atty. Fisher had referred to had occurred in August in the supposed dry period during which the Commission had limited the bridge work related activities.

Atty. Ebersol stated the application clearly noted the ownership of the property on both sides of the bridge, his client does have a legal right of way, and that in the 3/11/2010 IWC minutes, Mr. Meyer, now president of one of the condo associations, had offered to allow a temporary crossing on condo property.

No one from the public had any questions or comments.

Mr. Bedini asked the commissioners if they were satisfied they had all the information they needed to render a decision. They all said they did.

Mr. Martino noted that although he had not attended all of the meetings when this request was discussed, he had read the entire record and was qualified to vote.

Mr. Bedini closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m.

This public hearing was recorded and the audio is available from the Land Use Office.


REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:55 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, and Papsin and Alternate Davis for Ms. Cheney and Mr. Martino for Mr. Wadelton.
He noted there was no subsequent business to add to the agenda.

MOTION:
To amend the order of the agenda to consider Straw Man, LLC. first to accommodate those present.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Martino, and passed 5-0.

Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road/Request to Revise Condition of Approval for Permit #IW-09-44/Extension of Time for Bridge Related Work:
Mr. Bedini asked the commissioners if they had enough information to make a decision tonight. Mr. LaMuniere stated the bank on the far side of the brook was fairly solid according to Mr. Trinkaus and would provide a solid base for that end of the temporary bridge. Mr. Davis thought the time extension requested might increase the potential risk of impact to the wetlands, but noted extreme weather events had not happened recently and if some damage did occur, a bond had been posted. He asked if $20,000 was a reasonable amount for repairs. Mr. Bedini thought it was more than enough. Mr. LaMuniere referred to a weather graph by Mr. Sonders, which showed the water level in the brook does not rise much, said he had made inspections to the site recently and had seen that the water had not risen much after storms, and noted the erosion in the area is due to a pre existing swale. Mr. Martino noted the proposal had been thoroughly discussed and the Commission's questions had been answered. Mr. Bedini asked if there were conditions of approval that should be considered. Mr. Papsin recommended the applicant note weather forecasts and stop work if heavy rains are predicted. Mr. Bedini stated the bridge must be removed in its entirety by the end of Sept. 2014. Mr. Papsin noted a restoration plan was included in the proposal. Atty. Olson noted the bond would cover restoration to preconstruction conditions. Mr. LaMuniere said the plans required the bank to be restored to its original condition and he thought removal of the temporary bridge and restoration should not begin on Sept. 30, but should be completed by that date. He added that if the permanent bridge was not built, the seepage envelope and driveway would also have to be removed. Atty. Olson agreed the Commission had the right to impose this condition if the permanent bridge was not constructed. Mr. Bedini noted that when the permit was originally approved, the Commission had had no discussion regarding what should happen if the permanent bridge did not get built. Atty. Olson said the Commission had the right to decide on any conditions it thought appropriate for the temporary bridge and the access to it. Mr. Bedini suggested that if the permanent bridge was not built, any driveway leading to it within the regulated area shall be restored to the original preconstruction condition. It was noted the original permit is valid for 9 years. Mr. Martino asked if the temporary bridge was removed at the end of Sept. 2014 but the permanent bridge had not yet been built, could the applicant construct a second temporary bridge. Atty. Olson said this would be a revision of the original permit and the Commission would have to approve it. Mr. Ajello asked if she was saying the permit would expire on September 30, 2014. Atty. Olson said, no, it would not expire. Mr. Martino noted the Commission was concerned that the temporary bridge would become permanent, and asked what would happen if at the end of Sept. 2014 the applicant needed the temporary bridge for 2 more weeks. Atty. Olson noted Sept. 30, 2014 was a deadline the applicant had self imposed, but said the Commission would have to approve a revision of the permit in order for the bridge to remain after Sept. 2014. It was the consensus that Mr. Bedini should draft a motion of approval with conditions and refer it to Atty. Olson and to the commissioners for review before the next meeting. Atty. Olson cautioned the commissioners not to discuss the motion outside the meeting. Mr. Bedini asked the commissioners to send Mrs. Hill any comments they might have. Atty. Olson said these would become part of the record. Mr. Ajello said the bond language in the original approval had been simplistic and asked if this should now be reviewed and improved. He read the original bond condition. Mrs. Hill asked if it made any difference that the $20,000 bond had already been posted under the original approval. Atty. Olson advised the Commission it could require a different bond for this work, the more specific the language for the bond the better, and it did concern her that the posted bond was tied to the original permit. Mr. Ajello noted that in the original motion of approval the Commission had not specified what it had meant by "temporary," and so he recommended a definition be drafted now. Atty. Olson did not think this was necessary because the approval would state the temporary bridge must be removed by Sept. 30, 2014. She also stated it would be difficult to draft a definition for "temporary" for all situations and applications. Mr. Bedini thought the term should be defined as each future application was considered.


Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION:
To accept the 12/11/13 Regular Meeting minutes as written
. By Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To accept the 1/7/14 Brick School Road, LLC. site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Laird, passed 5-0.


Pending Applications
Brick School Road, LLC./181 West Shore Road/#IW-13-40/Construct Single Family Dwelling, Driveway, Septic System, Well, Shoreline Work, etc.:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, submitted the revised plan, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 1/7/14, which added the trees to be cut. Plans for the recharger and the overflow discharge into the wetlands with a rain garden and level spreader were briefly described. Mr. Szymanski added stockpile locations to the site plan. Mr. Davis asked if it was necessary to cut all of the trees indicated on the plan. Mr. Szymanski said it was because they were all within the limit of disturbance. Mr. LaMuniere noted that stone stairs would be more protective of the environment, but Mr. Szymanski responded that stone stairs were not permitted in the Zoning Regulations.

MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-13-40 submitted by Brick School Road, LLC. for a single family dwelling, driveway, septic system, shoreline work, etc. at 181 West Shore Road per the plan, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 11/12/13, revised to 1/7/14, and with handwritten revisions dated 1/8/14; the permit shall be valid for 5 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.

Coleman/31 South Fenn Hill Road/#IW-13-41/Single Family Dwelling, Driveway, Septic System, etc.:
Mr. Neff, engineer, noted that at the last meeting the commissioners had asked about the possibility of moving proposed activities out of the regulated area and reducing the amount of clearing. In response he had moved the house north out of the regulated area and moved the tree line closer to the house. His map, "Proposed Site Plan, revised to 1/2/14 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello informed the Commission that Mr. Law from Steep Rock Assn. would soon sign off on the revised plan. Mr. Neff said he had removed the footing drain piping on the west side of the site and the pipes were now within the building envelope. Mr. Papsin asked about loss of the canopy. Mr. Neff answered there would be no trees cut within 50 feet of wetlands. The location of the wetlands on the property was noted. Mr. Neff said the inground pool was not part of the application, but had been shown on the map for planning purposes. He explained the cleared areas would be replanted with bluestem grass, which would provide a unique habitat and expand nesting areas. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2014 at 3:00 p.m.

Bitar/36 Carmel Hill Road/#IW-14-01/Timber Harvest:
This application was withdrawn per email from Mr. Gillespie dated 1/7/14.


New Applications
Dobson/24 Wilbur Road/#IW-14-01/Construct Barn:
Mr. Ross, agent, submitted information in response to Mrs. Hill's review and the map, "Site Plan," by Altermatt Engineering, LLC., dated 12/24/13 was reviewed. A 26' X 40' pole barn to be used for storage on a slab with no plumbing was proposed. The barn would be 53 feet at its closest point to the wetlands. Mr. Ross stated that only two trees would have to be cut and the driveway would be extended only 10 feet. He said there would be no disturbance to the wetlands. Minimal excavation will be needed because precast forms will be used for the piers. A small stockpile area was noted and Mr. Ross drew it on the map. Mr. Ross stated there would be no trenching for utilities and no gutter drains. He noted runoff would drain to the existing detention area. It was the consensus that a site inspection was not necessary.

Laverge/228 Bee Brook Road/#IW-14-02/Bridge and Driveway:
Atty. Fisher noted that in 1994 the Commission had approved the driveway with three wetlands crossings. Mr. Ajello explained it had been reapproved in 2003, but the permit had since expired. Atty. Fisher said Mrs. Laverge was now applying for an improved plan with less disturbance and only two crossings. The plan, "Driveway Plan," by CCA, LLC., dated 12/4/13 was reviewed. Engineering specifications had been submitted this afternoon and so there had not been time to review them. Mr. LaMuniere noted his concern about the closeness to wetlands and the steep slopes on the property. He thought drainage could be a problem due to the construction on the steep slopes and the large amount of runoff. Mrs. Laverge said swale and rip rap specifications had been submitted and she pointed out proposed culvert locations. Mr. LaMuniere thought the culverts might be placed too far apart and that additional drainage measures such as cross culverts might be needed. Mr. Ajello said he would review the application prior to the next meeting. Mr. Bedini said the Commission would wait for his review before scheduling a site inspection.


Enforcement
In addition to the items reported about in his 1-8-14 report, Mr. Ajello made the following comments:
Ingrassia/143 East Shore Road:
The erosion controls have been reinforced for the winter.

Lake Waramaug Country Club/22 Golf Links Road:
Mr. Ajello described a potential opportunity to treat runoff and he circulated photos of a drainage basin taken in 2010 and 2012, where he would like to see the canopy restored. An application is expected.

Straw Man, LLC/135 Bee Brook Road/Request to Revise Condition of Approval for Permit #IW-09-44/Extension of Time for Bridge Related Work:
Mr. Bedini said that he would work with Mr. Ajello on drafting a motion and he asked Mr. Ajello to look up the language used for previous bonds. Once completed, Mrs. Hill will review the motion and then it will be referred to Atty. Olson. A vote is expected at the next meeting.


Administrative Business
Mr. Bedini noted the Regulations should be reviewed and revised. Matters such as definitions and incorporation of updated state statutes need to be addressed.

MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Davis.

Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 9:48 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator



Meetings in 2013