The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Inland Wetlands Commission, 2002
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Inland Wetlands Commission, 2002 |
|
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:December 12 •December 3 •November 26 •November 13 •October 23 •October 9 •September 25
December 12, 2002
Members Present: Dorothy Hill, Charles La Muniere, Marguerite Purnell and Robert Weber.Members Absent: Helen Gray.Alternates Present: Mark Picton.Alternates Absent: Candace Korzenko.Staff Present: Michael Ajello, Katherine Moquin.Also Present: Dirk Sabin, Dr. and Mrs. Brown, Mark Daft, Reporter from Voices. Dorothy Hill called the meeting to order at 7:16 p.m., Thursday, December 12, 2002. Members seated were Dorothy Hill, Charles La Muniere, Marguerite Purnell, Robert Weber and Mark Picton for Helen Gray.II. Consideration of MinutesRegular Meeting - November 13, 2002 MOTION: To ACCEPT the minutes of the regular meeting on November13, 2002, as amended. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Weber and passed 5-0.The amended/corrected minutes (relevant pages) are attached to the end of these pages.
MOTION: To ADD the minutes of the regular meeting on November 26, 2002 to the Agenda, II. Consideration of Minutes. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Hill and passed 5-0.
III. Pending ApplicationsSheinfeld, IW-02-61 ATF, 112 Lower Church Hill Road, In-ground Pool, Modify Deed Restrictions. Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect, was present and noted the following submissions: 1. A letter, dated 12-10-02, from Robert Fisher, Esq. to Michael Zizka, Esq. 2. A draft of the Warranty Deed. 3. Two portions of the plan,"Site Analysis Plan, Map Prepared for Jay Sheinfeld, 112 Lower Church Hill Road, by T. Michael Alex, L.L.S., dated July1996." showing the proposed changes in the deed restricted areas and new pool equipment location. 4. A plant material list. Dirk Sabin explained the following: 1. Mr. Sheinfeld procured the plants and these will be planted as soon as the weather permits. 2. Atty. Fisher's letter summarizes what has gone on regarding this application. 3. The pool equipment was moved without a lot of excavation, but moving the compressor would cause a lot of disturbance to the hillside. The electric conduits connecting the compressor to the house are buried about four feet down and he does not see a benefit to moving the compressor. 4. The proposals in this application are an attempt, at this point in time, to balance the aims of conservation with mitigation planting
Sheinfeld con't:
and an increase in the conservation area. Mr. La Muniere pointed out the compressor / house connection could be closed and the cable left
underground and a new trench dug in another location. This solution would leave the ground undisturbed. He noted that ledge had been blasted to prepare the pool site. Mr. Picton explained that even after Mr. Sheinfeld was notified that he had located the pool in violation of his permit, he installed the pool equipment; so even if the pool was placed in the deed restricted area unknowingly, Mr. Sheinfeld placed the pool equipment willfully and in his opinion, this is the most egregious part of the violation. Mrs. Hill explained that she understands Atty. Zizka is recommending a Conservation Easement to be accepted by the Town, because the Commissions do not have jurisdiction to accept a Conservation Easement. She said there is a draft of a Conservation Easement in the records. Ms. Purnell said that the Town does have the legal power to accept a Conservation Easement. She explained that a very important condition of the original permit is that the applicant has the responsibility to file the Deed Restriction in the Land Records, therefore, in this particular, Mr. Sheinfeld has been in violation all of this time.
Rizzo/James, IW-02-69, 129 Bee Brook Road, Build Retaining Structure.
Mrs. Hill noted the application limit of 65 days is tomorrow, 12-13-02.
Mr. Ajello explained the following: 1. He spoke to Mrs. James by phone. She said Brian Neff told her the plans they submitted would suffice and she said they were still researching the price of gabions. 2. There is a description of the possible use of gabions in the file but not a map.
Mrs. Hill read the two letters, dated 10-8-02/10-23-02, describing plans to stabilize the bank.
Mr. Ajello will call Mrs. James to ask for a request to extend the application.
Cass/DePecol, IW-02-73, 46 June Road, Construct Dwelling & Driveway, Renovate Guest House.
The Commission received a report, dated 12-6-02, by Bob Oley and Chris Allen of Land Tech Consultants Inc. Mr. DePecol and his engineer, Mr. McMorrow are in the process of addressing this report.
Kirk, IW-02-74, 34 Sunset Lane, Install Footing Drain.
Ms. Purnell pointed out that Mr. Kirk addressed the Commission's requests from the 11-13-02 meeting during the 11-26-02 meeting but without any corresponding written submissions to the file. She said the file does not contain an accurate footprint of the house nor a description of the equipment, which will be used to install the footing drain nor the amount of disturbance expected nor the reasons the footing drain is directed to the wetlands, which counters the Inland Wetlands Commission's policy. Ms. Moquin will communicate this to Mr. Kirk.
Steep Rock Assoc., IW-02-75, RT.47, Bee Brook Road/Hidden Valley, Replace Culvert.
Mrs. Hill read a letter from Susan Branson, dated 12-11-02, containing the information requested by the Commission.
Mr. La Muniere pointed out the current condition of this crossing is dangerous and in his estimation the proposed plan is a reasonable way of proceeding.
Mr. Ajello said he advised them to bring in a bucket of gravel to put on top of the pipe, which is sitting in a depression. He said if the pipe is not covered properly, then the frost will heave it.
Ms. Purnell noted that all the information is here as requested.
MOTION: To APPROVE the application Steep Rock Association, IW-02-75, RT. 47, Bee Brook Road / Hidden Valley, Replace Culvert, as submitted and with the following condition: To bring gravel to the site and use to finish filling over the culvert as needed. By Mr. La Muniere, seconded by Mr. Picton
and passed 5-0.
Hayden, IW-02-76, 11 Loomarwick Road, Selective Removal of Trees & Bushes.
Mr. Ajello said about 50% of the trees are marked and trees along the intermittent stream will remain. He said no heavy equipment is to be used and the stumps will not be removed.
MOTION: To APPROVE the application Hayden, IW-02-76, 11 Loomarwick Road, Selective Removal of Trees and Bushes, as submitted and with the following condition: To adhere to the plan for no grubbing, no stump removing and no heavy equipment. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Hill and passed 5-0.
IV. Enforcement
a. Enforcement Officer's Report
Croasdaile IW-02-66
Mr. Ajello said he talked with the contractor, who wants to use a rubber tracked machine to reach in the detention basin, while the permit specifies the material be removed by hand.
Mrs. Hill told Mr. Ajello to make a note in the file.
Rising, 191 West Shore Road
Mr. Ajello explained the following: 1. The house site is outside the review area. 2. He told the contractor that the other side of the road is within the 100 foot review area and he did not have a permit to use it.
Woodruff, 3 West Shore Road
Mr. Ajello said the site is naturalizing on its own. The hemlocks are doing well and there is no activity.
b. Beck, IW-02-V1, 132 Calhoun Street, Cutting & Clearing in Wetlands
Mrs. Hill noted that Candace Korzenko drafted a possible motion.
Ms. Purnell thought this violation should be kept on the Land Record to alert new owners of the restoration in progress. She recommended the Commission take time to review Ms. Korzenko's draft and be prepared for the next meeting.
c. Brown, Longview Landing Inc., IW-02-V3, 96 Romford Road, Dam Failure.
Mr. Picton noted that plans had not been submitted for the permanent stabilization of the dam. He said the engineer needs to design a dam for a 50-100 year storm based on characteristics of the site's existing watershed.
Mr. La Muniere said he made a site visit on 11-26/27-02 and observed solid work done on the dam for a temporary solution and a very good spillway in place. Mr. Ajello concurred.
The Commission will communicate to Mr. Brown the following: 1. They appreciate the temporary measures done to stabilize the dam. 2. They expect permanent plans with specific calculations for their engineer to review, by January 17, 2003. 3. Point out that a lot of time has gone by and he remains in violation.
Mrs. Hill noted Dr. Brown is asking permission to clear trees damaged during an ice storm. Mr. Ajello will make a site visit and take photos.
d. Ross, IW-02-V4, 10 Sunny Ridge Road, Wetlands Restoration.
Mrs. Hill noted that Dudley Ashwood will for Mr. Ross at the 1-8-03 meeting.
II. Consideration of Minutes
Regular Meeting, November 26, 2002 MOTION: To ACCEPT the minutes of the regular meeting on November 26, 2002, as amended. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. La Muniere and passed 5-0. The amended/corrected minutes (relevant pages) are attached to the end of these pages.
Special Meeting, December 3, 2002 MOTION: To ACCEPT the minutes of the special meeting, re: S. M. R. Partners IW-02-72, on December 3, 2002, as amended. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Weber and passed 5-0. The amended/corrected minutes (relevant pages) are attached to the end of these pages.
Mrs. Hill announced Mrs. Korzenko's appointment as liaison between the Conservation Commission and the Inland Wetlands Commission.
The Commission briefly discussed the 2003 Calendar.
MOTION: To ADJOURN the meeting by Mr. Picton. All agreed at 10:16 p.m.Katherine Moquin, Land Use SecretaryDecember 23, 2002
December 3, 2002
Members Present: Dorothy Hill, Charles La Muniere Marguerite Purnell.Members Absent: Helen Gray, Robert Weber.Alternates Present: Candace Korzenko, Mark Picton.Staff Present: Michael Ajello, Katherine Moquin.Also Present: Joe Gitterman. Dorothy Hill called the Special Meeting, re: S.M.R. Partners IW-02-72, to order at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 3, 2002. Members seated were Dorothy Hill, Charles La Muniere, Marguerite Purnell, Candace Korzenko for Robert Weber and Mark Picton for Helen Gray.S.M.R. Partners, IW-02-72, 103 Baldwin Hill Road, Construct Dwelling. Joe Gitterman was present. Mrs. Hill noted a new plan, "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System, 103 Baldwin Hill Road by Brian E. Neff, L.E., dated 9-26-02 and revised 10-24-02," has been submitted, which shows all the culverts, including the most westerly culvert, located accurately where the existing shared driveway splits and shows the electric and telephone lines.Mrs. Hill had Mr.Gitterman add a notation to the plan about adding three feet of pipe to the 3rd culvert in from Baldwin Hill Road. Ms. Purnell explained the following: 1. In 1992, Mr. Minalgo dug a ditch on the north side of the driveway without a permit. The IWC approved an after the fact' application. The utility ditch, intended to be a drainage swale, is necessary. 2. The Commission's policy is to not direct drainage into the wetlands and noted that so much drainage on this property has already been diverted. 3. The reason for this special meeting now is to allow enough time for the foundation concrete to cure. 4. The house is being delivered and requires a wider crossing for the large trucks. However, re-grading the driveway can be discussed at a future date. The members can ask Mr. Gitterman, along with the co-owner of the driveway, to re-submit an application to improve the driveway and at that time submit specifications. Mrs. Hill pointed out there is adequate information about the footing drains, around the house, which extend out to within 10 feet of the wetlands. Ms. Purnell said the exit of those footing drains should be pulled back. Mr. Picton said the clearing should be limited, the drainage swale needs regular maintenance and a 12 foot wide driveway with a drainage swale is normal. Mr. Gitterman explained he did not intend to fill in the drainage swale, just put the exposed telephone cable back into the bank of the swale and cut the exposed dead electric cable, leaving the rest of it underground. IWC MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 2002 2 MOTION: To APPROVE the application S.M. R. Partners, IW-02-72, 103 Baldwin Hill Road, Construct Dwelling and with the following conditions: 1. Allow the addition of 3 feet of pipe to the north side of the 3rd culvert in from Baldwin Hill Road, at the driveway split shown on the plan, "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System, 103 Baldwin Hill Road by Brian E. Neff, L.E., dated 9-26-02 and revised 10-24-02." 2. The proposed tree line, as shown on the above mentioned plan, is to be the limit of clearing and cutting. 3. Allow filling in any driveway potholes to the surface level and DENY at this time, any additional re-grading of the existing shared driveway. 4. Work in and along the side of the swale, existing along the north side of the shared driveway, is to be limited to that which is required to safely embed the telephone cable into the bank of the swale. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Korzenko and passed 5-0. MOTION: To ADJOURN the meeting by Ms. Purnell. All agreed at 3:45 p.m.Katherine Moquin, Land Use SecretaryDecember 12, 2002
November 26, 2002
Members Present: Dorothy Hill, Charles La Muniere, Marguerite Purnell.Members Absent: Helen Gray, Robert Weber.Alternates Present: Candace Korzenko, Mark Picton.Alternates Absent: Mark McGowan.Staff Present: Michael Ajello, Katherine Moquin.Also Present: Joe Gitterman, Mark DePecol, Peter Kirk, Kevin Hayden, Sigrid Hildmann Dorothy Hill called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m., Wednesday, November 26, 2002. Members seated were Dorothy Hill, Charles La Muniere, Marguerite Purnell at 7:12 p.m., Candace Korzenko for Robert Weber and Mark Picton for Helen Gray.II. Consideration of Minutes Regular Meeting of 11-13-02 Members agreed to review these minutes at the next meeting. Site Inspections,Re: S.M.R. Partners IW-02-72 and Kirk IW-02-74. Mrs. Hill noted she was the only member at both meetings and she will write the minutes as soon as possible. Mr. La Muniere noted he made an individual site visit to the Kirk property.III. Pending ApplicationsSheinfeld, IW-02-61 ATF, 112 Lower Church Hill Road, In-ground Pool, Modify Deed Restrictions. Mr. Ajello said Mr.Jay Sheinfeld came to the Land Use office today and spoke with Janet Hill, Land Use Coordinator. He submitted the following: 1. A letter, dated 11-26-02, requesting an extension of 65 days for his application. 2. A letter, dated 11-26-02, regarding the Conservation Easement and the Warranty Deed. 3. A letter, dated 2-2-99, from Atty. Robert Fisher to Cecelia Shusdock, Former Chairman of Inland Wetlands and Conservation Commission. 4. Warranty Deed, Jay Sheinfeld, 112 Lower Church Hill Road, dated July 1996. 5. The unsigned draft of a Conservation Easement between the Town of Washington and Jay Sheinfeld, dated 1998. Mrs. Hill said she telephoned: 1. Dirk Sabin today and he is in the process of moving the pool equipment. 2. Atty. Michael Zizka today and said he talked to Atty. Robert Fisher. Janet Hill faxed to Atty. Zizka, copies of the Warranty Deed and the Conservation Easement brought in by Mr. Sheinfeld. Atty. Zizka thought a Conservation Easement, not a Deed Restriction, afforded a better format for enforcement and should be submitted to the Town of Washington with both Elaine Luckey, First Selectman and Dorothy Hill, Chairman of Inland Wetlands Commission signing this agreement and then recording it. Mrs. Hill explained this would occur only after the members approved the Conservation Easement and Atty. Zizka reviewed it. Ms. Purnell said there is nothing for the Commission to evaluate at this time, as they are waiting for confirmation from Atty. Zizka but they could vote to grant Mr.Sheinfeld a 65 day extension for his application, which would start on November 29, 2002. All agreed.
Sheinfeld con't: Mrs. Korzenko noted the compressor, sitting on the gravel pad, is connected to the house via a buried pipe containing a conduit. Mr. Picton recommended asking for all the equipment to be moved, including the compressor. All agreed.S.M.R. Partners, IW-02-72, 103 Baldwin Hill Road, Construct Dwelling. Joe Gitterman was present and he explained the following: 1. There is a viable telephone cable, installed years ago, which comes in from Baldwin Hill Road. This cable is exposed in a section of the drainage swale, which runs along the northern side of the driveway. There is also a C.L.& P. cable, dead with exposed wires sticking out in the swale. He proposes to cut the exposed portion of C.L.& P. cable and leave the rest buried. He plans to re-bury the telephone cable where it lies. He is not going to fill in the drainage swale. 2. There is also a new electric power conduit and a smaller C.L.& P. cable conduit in a trench, which runs down the center of the driveway. He knows the location of these new lines, because he happened to be driving by at the time of their installation. 3. All the cables, mentioned above, are connected into the same utility box. 4. The drainage swale along the driveway is banked well. Leaves and debris, which have not been cleaned out, are the cause of water on the drive. When he cleaned out the ditch, the puddles dried up. He proposes to grade the existing drive, when the house construction is done, using the gravel (plenty) pushed to the side. He does not plan to raise the grade of the drive. 5. He proposes to extend the culvert, that exists on the north side of the shared driveway, closest to his proposed new driveway. He will not dig up the existing culvert, just add three feet to it. 6. A soil scientist located the wetland boundary before he bought the property. 6. The plan, "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System, 103 Baldwin Hill Road by Brian E. Neff, L.E., dated 9-26-02 and revised 10-24-02: will be modified to a smaller septic, as the house is to be smaller, three bedrooms. 7. Timing is important for this project. The culvert needs to be extended and the driveway prepared for the house delivery scheduled on 12-19-02. The foundation needs to be constructed by 12-5-02, so there is enough time for the cement to cure. The Commission discussed the following: 1. All of the activity along the driveway is in the regulated 100 foot review area. The house site is high and dry and not in the regulated area. 2. Information about the conduit location, down the center of the shared driveway, is not shown on the plan. 3. There are three culverts shown on the plan. 4. Members are concerned with the existing direction of the drainage water into the wetlands, which was done by someone in the past, during the creation of the subdivision. And the proposed house footing drains discharge a few feet from the wetlands. 5. Members cannot vote at this Thanksgiving week, Tuesday meeting, because of a 14 day State Statute, but they can schedule a special meeting. The Commission requested Brian Neff print a plan depicting the new culvert and accurate locations of the other culverts and a notation about the location of the exposed and buried cables. Mrs. Hill said a special meeting will be held on December 3, 2002 at 3 p.m., if members can accomplish a quorum.
Cass / DePecol, IW-02-73, 46 June Road, Construct Dwelling, Renovate Guest House. Mark DePecol was present Mrs. Hill sent a letter, dated 11-25-02, to Robert Oley, Land Tech Consultants, Inc., requesting a review of this permit application, including review of drainage, grades, culvert spacing, sediment and erosion controls, accessibility to emergency vehicles, along with a copy of the plan,"Septic System Design Prepared for Mark DePecol, June Road by Berkshire Engineering & Surveying, L.L.C., dated 10-14-02" and the A-2 survey map,"Laurence J. & Helen G. Cass, June Road by Richard J. Adams, R.L.S., dated June 1979" and "Project Report Drainage Calculations, Mark DePecol, June Road by Berkshire Engineering & Survey, L.L.C., dated 11-22-02." The above mentioned drainage calculations were also submitted to the file. There has not been a response from Bob Oley to date. Ms. Purnell noted the members are waiting to hear from Mr. Oley before voting.Kirk, IW-02-74, 34 Sunset Lane, Install Footing Drain. Peter Kirk was present. Along with the members, he reviewed the plan,"Subsurface Sewage Disposal System, Design Plan, Profile, Notes & Details, Sunset Fields, Lot 2, 34 Sunset Lane, by Peter J. Tavino, Jr. P.E., P.C., dated 10-10-99, revised 6-26-02" and explained the following: 1. He consulted Mr. Tavino, Engineer for developing this property, and two builders about alternate ways to install the footing drains. One way would be to pump it with a buried sump pump - this is not recommended as the pump could burn out without the owner's awareness. Another way would be to build a dry well. Another option would be to dig a trench all the way to the town road, which is too costly. 2. He proposes to raise the foundation 3 feet, setting up a slope, down from the house, to the east. The footing drains will start at 9 feet below ground around the house and taper off to ground grade as it exits into the wetlands. It will be covered with brush where it is exposed. The purpose of the footing drains is to collect the ground water. 3. Creating a grade for drainage is important on this very flat lot, as there is a 4 foot grade deviation overall. Mrs. Hill and Mr. La Muniere noted they had visited the site individually. Ms. Purnell said the members are pleased Mr. Kirk submitted this application, but pointed out the original plan for the footing drain went in a different direction, at the time of the subdivision approval by the Commission. Mr. La Muniere noted the first floor elevation is proposed to be 952 feet.Hayden, IW-02-76, 11 Loomarwick Road, Selective Removal of Trees & Bushes. Kevin Hayden was present and submitted photos and a letter, dated 11-25-02, which explained the proposed activities. He explained the following: 1. There are 90-100 existing trees. About 30 trees are dead or badly damaged, other trees are too close together and not doing well, and a few trees are too large to afford a view. He will cut less than 50% of the trees. 2. He will drop and cut the trees, chip some and cut others for fire wood. 3. There exists a hedge, which holds up a steep slope and should never be cut. 4. There exists two streams, one 30 feet from the tree removal site, which flows to a culvert under West Shore Road on the east side and another stream 50-75 feet from the tree removal site on the west side, which flows south along Loomarwick Road. Lake Waramaug lies 80-100 feet north of the property.
Hayden con't: The Commission reviewed the A-2 survey,"Map Prepared for Mark Beckett & Christine Adams, West Shore Road by Robert W. Grossenbacher, R.L.S., dated 8-22-1996." Mr. Ajello said he did not see the trees flagged. He thought the quality of the forest is marginal and if the stumps are not removed, no grubbing is done, no large equipment is used on the site, and the edge of the watercourses are undesturbed, there wouldn't be an impact to the watercourses. The members will make individual Site Visits. V. EnforcementHildmann, IW-02-77 E, 34 Popple Swamp Road, Reclaim Pasture. Sigrid Hildmann was present and referring to the map,"2 Lot Subdivision, Prepared for Cecilia Carnicke Seidel and William J. Carnicke, Popple Swamp Road by Samuel P. Bertaccini, Jr. R.L.S., dated January 1987," she explained the following: 1. The areas colored in green represents regular soil and blue represents wetlands soil. The area east of the barn is very wet and will not be changed. The area, northeast of the barn and approximately 20 acres out of 50 acres, is proposed to be cleared and designed as rotating pastures. They do not plan to expand the pasture area, farther than this, in the future. 2. The work will be done on one area at a time. 3. North of the barn, along Popple Swamp Road, most of the trees are broken stumps or very damaged from storms. The large trees will remain, but most of the tree rings show a growth of 29 years. 4. Between the pastures, there will be a high fence and hedgerows to protect about 10 mares and foals (their plan is to breed horses.) They have not decided which type of fence to use. The fence will be 5 feet from the outside of the hedgerow on both sides. 5. The stumps will be taken off the property. A lot of trees will be chipped and pulled under to nourish the soil. Grass will be planted, grazed and mowed, but not harrowed to re-seed. The Commission discussed the following: 1. There is an existing watercourse east of the barn and an existing swale, coming in from the road, in the same area. 2. The limits of their regulation 4.1 A, which allows an exemption for agricultural use (as of right permitted use.) 3. The stipulations they would want in place along with an approval. 4. Before voting, the usefullness of making a site inspection and the judiciousness of having an expert decide which areas to return to pasture. 5. Noting that, at the time the commission approved the construction of the barn, Mr. and Mrs. Hildmann stated they did not plan to have a pasture. 6. Asked about the alternative of using the small parcels of non-wetlands near the house. Mrs. Hildmann said a bridge would be needed to get there. MOTION: To APPROVE the application Hildmann, IW-02-77 E, 34 Popple Swamp Road, Reclaim Pasture, as an exemption, allowed under 4.1 A of the Washington Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, as Agricultural Use and, in order to protect the remaining wetlands habitat, with the following stipulations:1. No clearing is to be done in watercourse areas, as defined in the Washington Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, or in defined drainage pathway areas.2. No additional areas will be cleared in excess of the areas proposed and shown and drawn on the map submitted, which is entitled "2 Lot Subdivision, Prepared for Cecilia Carnicke Seidel and William J. Carnicke, Popple Swamp Road by Samuel P. Bertaccini, Jr. R.L.S., dated January 1987,"
Hildmann con't:approximately 13 acres total (with the hedgerows included.)3. The soil surface will not be disturbed other than for stumping and leveling of stump holes; No more than 30% soil surface will be bared. * To this end, trees will be pulled or uprooted or cut individually, to avoid a continuous and widespread disturbance of soil.4. Hedgerows, which measure 30 feet wide (fences 30 feet apart with a 20 foot wide woody vegetation in the center,) will be maintained between pastures, as shown on the above mentioned map. 5. Large trees will remain per Mrs. Hildmann's statements.By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill and passed 4-1-0. Ms. Purnell voted nay, as: a. She didn't feel it qualified as an exemption. b. These decisions run with the land and future owners may not be as conscientious as the Hildmanns. c. There is a possible consequence of changing the character of water flow in that area. d. Looking at the greenways running through Washington, she sees this area, in the western corridor going toward Lake Waramaug, providing a connection for habitat activity. e. She does see the connection between producing hay and agriculture but she thinks the members need more information about the requirements of horses. The Commission will make individual Site Visits.III. Pending ApplicationsSteep Rock Assoc., IW-02-75, Rt.47, Bee Brook Road / Hidden Valley, Replace Culvert. Mr. La Muniere noted he had visited the site. Mrs. Hill noted nothing new had been submitted. The Commission will make individual Site Visits.Rizzo/James, IW-02-69, 129 Bee Brook Road, Build Retaining Structure. Mr. Ajello submitted photos, showing an example of a cellular containment system, which keeps stones from moving during wave action. Ms. Purnell pointed out a property on Walker Brook Road, where gabions failed along a stream with less water than the Shepaug River. Mr. Picton said he is not convinced a slope stabilization is the best approach and thought it important for them to consider an engineer's recommendations. He said the roof and driveway run-off, bringing sediment into the Shepaug River during a storm, had not been solved and overly aggressive landscaping on the bank could create a problem. Mr. La Muniere thought the present condition of the bank is not a threat to the Shepaug River. Mrs. Korzenko noted the applicants wanted to add soil to the edge of the bank to raise the lawn there and if the fine hairs on the roots of the Hemlocks, existing along the bank, are covered, the Hemlocks will die.
V. EnforcementFairbairn, IW-02-54, 206 Wykeham Road, Wetlands Crossing Mr. Ajello reported the following: 1. The crossing has been installed and is an excellent job, with good use of riprap and well mulched. 2. He looked for the excess soil previously deposited and it seemed to be gathered up in the process of building the crossing. 3. There are good erosion controls in place. 4. The easement document is in progress. Mr. Ajello submitted photos from his site inspection.
Fairbairn con't:
Ms. Purnell thought the material, previously deposited, was in the location of the original detention basin. She will make an individual Site Visit.Duchin, IW-02-68, 6 Church Street, Build Retaining Wall & Steps, Clearing, Construct Parking Pull-off. Mr. La Muniere and Mr. Ajello visited the site together and thought the clearing was well done, with a natural look and not too much removed.Rudin, IW-02-49, 328 Nettleton Hollow Road, Construction of EPDM Lined (60 foot diameter) Reflecting Pond. Mr. Ajello submitted photos from his site inspection.Beck, IW-02-V1, 132 Calhoun Street, Cutting & Clearing in Wetlands. Mrs. Korzenko, Ms. Purnell went on a site visit with Elizabeth Corrigan, Conservation Commission. A letter from Ms. Corrigan, dated 11-26-02, was submitted and included the following recommendations: 1. Allow the remaining vegetation to re-grow. Re-planting is not recommended. 2. Invasive plants must be removed by best management practices and monitored for 5 years under the direction of a qualified botanist. 3. No additional removal of native plant materials of any sort. Mrs. Korzenko pointed out the following: 1. There are nice trees still existing on the site. 2. Because there are so many rocks and roots and stumps, it would be difficult to re-plant. 3. She thought the restoration guidelines should be placed on the Land Records. 4. Perhaps there are more wetlands existing, which are not flagged on the survey map,"Data Accumulation Plan, Prepared for Julian Beck, 132 Calhoun Street, by Brautigam Land Surveyors, P.C., dated 9-26-96. Ms. Purnell concurred it did seem to cause more trouble to re-plant now but she is concerned about the canopy, which will take 30-35 years to be restored. She said the stream is pretty well shaded and she recommended drafting a letter, with restoration guidelines, for review at their next meeting. Mr. La Muniere concurred with putting the Commission's requirements for the restoration on the Land Records, so that future owners are informed. Mr. Picton pointed out there is no reference to a soil scientist on the survey map, so he is not comfortable accepting this survey as accurate with regard to the wetland location and he noted that no soil scientist's report accompanied the application.Brown, Longview Landing, Inc., IW-02-V3, Dam Failure. Mr. Ajello noted there is a written phone message, submitted by Janet Hill, dated 11-26-02, which said work had started on the dam and would be finished tomorrow. Mrs. Hill said she talked to Dr. Brown, on the phone, on 11-15-02 and was told the engineer, Mr. O'Sullivan suggested temporary measures might serve as permanent dam stability. She told Dr. Brown the Commission will ask it's own engineer to review permanent dam repair plans. Ms. Purnell said she is encouraged by the temporary repairs being done, but is still very concerned about protecting the wetlands and public safety issues. Mrs. Hill will write a letter to Dr. Brown telling him they are encouraged by the work being done and to please submit the information requested at past meetings. Ms. Moquin noted she gave Dr. Brown copies of the minutes referring to requests for information.Ross, IW-02-V4, 10 Sunny Ridge Road, Wetlands Restoration. Mr. Ajello submitted photos from his site inspection and reported the planting was done around the pond as directed in a condition of the permit # IW-01-24 ATF. Mrs. Hill said Mr. Ross told her Dirk Sabin had not given him a plan as yet and so Mr. Ross called Dudley Ashwood. Mr. Ashwood will look for a soil scientist first to work together with him on a plan. Mr. Ross faxed an authorization letter, dated 11-26-02, for either Mr. Sabin or Mr. Ashwood for tonight's meeting. MOTION: To ADJOURN the meeting by Mr. Picton. All agreed at 10:58 p.m.Katherine MoquinLand Use SecretaryDecember 9, 2002
November 13, 2002
Members Present: Dorothy Hill, Charles La Muniere, Marguerite Purnell, and Robert Weber.Members Absent: Helen Gray.Alternates Present: Candace Korzenko.Alternates Absent: Mark McGowan, Mark Picton.Staff Present: Michael Ajello, Katherine Moquin.Also Present: Mark DePecol, Susannah Croasdaile, Judy Auchincloss, Peter Kirk,Susan Branson, Dirk Sabin, Dorota Habib, Thomas Farmen, Mark Daft, Reporter from Voices. Dorothy Hill called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m., Wednesday, November 13, 2002. Members seated were Dorothy Hill, Charles La Muniere, Marguerite Purnell at 7:13 p.m., Robert Weber and Candace Korzenko for Helen Gray.MOTION: To ADD Washington Community Housing Trust, IW-02-67, 16 Church Street, Construct Apartments to the agenda under VI. Administration. By Mrs. Korzenko, seconded by Mr. Weber and passed 4-0.
II. Consideration of Minutes Regular Meeting, October 23, 2002. MOTION: To ACCEPT the minutes of the Regular Meeting, October 23, 2002, as amended. By Mrs. Korzenko, seconded by Ms. Purnell and passed 5-0. The amended/corrected minutes (relevant pages) are attached to the end of these pages.
Special Meeting, Site Inspection - Re: Cass/DePecol IW-02-65 E, October 29, 2002.
MOTION: To ACCEPT the minutes of the Special Meeting, Site Inspection, October 29, 2002, Re: Cass/DePecol IW-02-65 E, as amended. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. La Muniere and passed 5-0.
III. Pending ApplicationsCass/DePecol, IW-02-65 E, 46 June Road, Construct Dwelling.
Mark DePecol ,buyer under contract ,was present. Mrs. Hill noted the Commission's Site Inspection on 10-9-02, during which the members agreed to ask for a full application. Mrs. Hill said she called Mr. DePecol to inform him.
MOTION: To DENY the application Cass/DePecol, IW-02-65 E, 46 June Road, Construct Dwelling, because the Commission determined, based on their observations in the field, a full application is required. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Weber and passed 5-0.
IV. New Applications
Cass/DePecol, IW-02-73, 46 June Road, Construct Dwelling & Driveway, Renovate Guest House.
Mark DePecol, buyer under contract, was present. He explained the Zoning Commission needed an okay from the Inland Wetlands Commission to set a public hearing, ahead of the usual sequence, in order to facilitate his permit process.Mrs. Hill said the Zoning Commission, by State law, cannot make a decision before an IWC decision. Mrs. Korzenko pointed out the members are planning to co-ordinate with the Zoning Commission for a consultation with Land Tech Consultants, Inc. to address the following: 1. Drainage and erosion control. 2. The adequacy of the culvert spacing. 3. Limits of tree cutting and clearing. 4. The capacity of the riprap pads. Ms. Purnell said this is a procedural issue and pointed out that Zoning issues are not necessarily the same ones Inland Wetlands considers. Mrs. Hill will speak to the Zoning Enforcement Officer tomorrow. Mr. La Muniere and Mr. Ajello will make individual Site Visits. Mr. La Muniere explained the following: 1. There are two major issues, how many trees will be cut and how to control water run-off along the proposed driveway. 2. He thought that placing the culverts closer together, would result in a better distribution of water. 3. Disturbing the large quantity of existing topsoil, during construction, will have an impact. Ms. Purnell asked about the possibility of phasing the construction work, in order to stabilize one area before continuing to the next. Mr. DePecol agreed. Mr. DePecol explained the following: 1. All the natural soil cover will remain with no stumping, no grubbing and no seeding for a lawn in the view area. Only trees, in the view area, tall enough to block the view of the lake from the house, are planned to be cut. 2. The path to the pinnacle cuts off the whole watershed happening on this property. He would characterize the path an intermittent stream. With this observation in mind, he had thought it was not necessary to calculate the amount of descending water. 3. The distance, to the edge of the lake from the beginning of the driveway, is approximately 150 feet. Mr. DePecol asked if his engineers could fax explanatory comments about their plans to give to Land Tech Consultants, Inc. The members agreed. The Commission requested the following be submitted: 1. A perimeter survey map. 2. Two copies of the plans. 3. A written note, which specifies that all the under-story will remain and which trees will be cut. 4. A written description of the planned work phases. Croasdaile, IW-02-66, 67 River Road, Clear Detention Basin. Susannah Croasdaile was present. Mrs. Hill recused herself at 8:15 p.m. for this application, as she is a neighbor, and seated Mr. Weber as chairman. Mr. Ajello explained the following; 1. Mr. Carollo, Contractor, told him the material will be trucked to a station in the Town of Warren, to be mulched and burned. 2. The clearing needs to be done between rain periods, for the protection of the lawns and shrubs. 3. No heavy equipment will go into the detention basin. Mr. La Muniere noted the some header rocks needed to be replaced and the cracks filled in with mortar. Mrs. Korzenko pointed out: 1. There should be no further additions of brush and leaves into the detention basin. 2. During a site visit, she observed the stream running and thought the detention basin is functioning well as silt management.
Croasdaile con't: Ms. Purnell pointed out phragmites, an invasive species, is part of the vegetation which will be taken out of the detention basin. She asked Mrs. Croasdaile to check for any re-growth in the coming Spring time. MOTION: To APPROVE the application Croasdaile, IW-02-66, 67 River Road, Clear Detention Basin, with the following notation: Material is to be removed by hand and information added to the file regarding the proposal to take the cleared material to a station in the Town of Warren, where the material will be mulched and burned. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Weber and passed 4-0.
Mrs. Hill resumed the chair at 8:24 p.m.
IV. New ApplicationsS.M.R. Partners, IW-02-72, 103 Baldwin Hill Rd., Construct Dwelling. Judy Auchincloss, Real Estate Agent, was present without authorization to speak for Mr. Gitterman. She reviewed the following:1. There exists a long driveway, proposed to be re-graded. 2. The house is factory built, so there will be no piles of material on site. 3. Trees are planned to be planted in the Spring time. 4. Mr. Gitterman is requesting a permit as soon as possible, in order to finish the house in December 2002. The Commission requested the following be submitted: 1. Clarification of what is proposed to be done to the driveway(both the existing and the shared driveway,) including the type and quantity of material to be added and which areas of the driveway will be done. 2. How will the trucks access the site to bring in the house sections. The Commission will make a Site Visit on Friday, November 22, 2002 at 9:00 a.m.Kirk, IW-02-74, 34 Sunset Lane, Install Footing Drain. Peter Kirk was present. He reviewed the plan, "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Design Plan, Profile, Notes & Details, Sunset Fields Lot 2, 34 Sunset Lane, by Peter J. Tavino, Jr. P.E., P.C., dated Oct.10, 1999, revised June 26, 2002." He explained the following: 1. This 3.7 acre lot is very flat (varies 5 feet in elevation.) 2. In order to direct ground water away from the house, a slope will be created by raising the foundation. The house will sit at an elevation of 950 feet with the rest of the property at 946 feet. 3. The roof water will run out across the lawn and will not go down 9 feet to the trench around the foundation. 4. The work, to dig the trench and put in the footing drain pipe with a back hoe, will take a few hours. 5. The wetlands pocket is 102 feet from the corner of the house. Test holes showed good drainage soil. 6. The foundation will be dug in the Spring time. Ms. Purnell pointed out: 1. Any additional modifications or changes to the plans submitted, needs to come before the Commission. 2. The series of wetlands pockets on this property are connected to the high quality wetlands of Popple Swamp. She asked if there were any possible alternatives to the footing drain for directing water away from the foundation. 3. The trenching for the footing drain pipe is proposed to be done entirely in the upland review area. Mr. La Muniere noted the footing drain goes to a wetlands pocket and asked if there was a possible different direction to take the footing drain.
Kirk con't: The Commission requested the following be submitted: 1. A written description of the equipment, which will be used and the amount of disturbance estimated. 2. An accurate house foot print depicted on the plan. 3. Language about why the footing drain is proposed for this particular route and why the footing drain is not going in a different direction. The Commission will make a Site Visit on Friday, November 22 at 9:30 a.m. Mr. Kirk offered to re- stake the house site before the site visit, if Peter Talbot, Architect, adjusts the footprint. Steep Rock Association, IW-02-75, RT. 47, Bee Brook Road, Hidden Valley, Replace Culvert. Susan Branson, Executive Director, was present and explained the following: 1. The goal is to replace the existing culvert, which is a serious hazard now. The top of the crossing has collapsed in spots. 2. The trail is bare ground and heavily used by hikers, horses and bicycles. There is no vegetation there with all the walking. 3. The culvert extends across the trail and not up the slope. At this point, one side of the trail is very steep with plenty of water descending and the other side drops down to the river, where people venture to the edge. 4. The equipment can access the site by going on an existing roadway, over a small wooden bridge and through a bar gate. 5. A contractor had not been hired to date, but she has asked Nick Solley. 6. A plan for erosion controls had not been figured out, so far. The Commission requested the exact dimensions, of the existing pipe and proposed pipe, be submitted. The Commission will make individual Site Visits. III. Pending ApplicationsSheinfeld, IW-02-61 ATF, 112 Lower Church Hill Road, In-ground Pool, Modify Deed Restrictions. Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect, was present and he explained the following: 1. The map, "Site Analysis Plan, Jay Sheinfeld, 112 Lower Church Hill Road, by T. Michael Alex L.L.S., dated July 1996 and revised Slope Restoration Plan, dated 9-9-02" is revised to show the new location for the pool filter pad. The new location has a distinct difference in direction of water flow and is 100 feet from the regulated review area. Witch Hazel and Mountain Laurel were also added to the flat, westerly area off the southern end of the garage, as had been discussed. 2. The existing filter pad location will remain and the compressor, for the house air conditioning, will not be moved, as it will not impact the wetlands. There are no plants proposed for the area below this rock ledge but he will gladly plant there at the Commission's request. 3. He understood that Attny. Robert Fisher and Atty. Michael Zizka had both reviewed the original Deed Restriction. 4. He wanted to plant on the hill, adjacent to the pool, as soon as possible, in order to stabilize the slope before the upcoming weather. This is an excellent time to plant, otherwise it will have to wait for Spring time. For the same reason, he is asking for permission to move the pool equipment now. 5. He said Mr. Sheinfeld needs the CO for this house, in order to sell it and this is powerful motivation to comply with the Commission's directives. The Commission made the following points: 1. There exists, in the file, only drafts of the Deed Restriction, not a copy of the final Deed Restriction and Mr. Sheinfeld was informed that a copy of the Deed Restriction had not been submitted to the file. The members have nothing to review and they cannot approve a Deed Restriction unseen. They have not heard from Atty. Michael Zizka. 2. The members hesitate to approve anything without a Deed Restriction in place. Mr. Sheinfeld installed the pool equipment after the Commission told him to cease all work in the restricted area. Mrs. Korzenko pointed out that planting on the slope (adjacent to the pool) now, provided more protection for the wetlands.
Ms. Purnell made the following points: 1. She is thinking about the long term impacts. This pristine and rare wetlands resource will be impacted, on into the future, by the creation of this steeper bank and only for the purpose of placing a pool there. She would rather take the pool and pool equipment out of the deed restricted area, restore the original topography and thus honor the Deed Restiction. 2. There is no guarantee a new deed restriction will be settled in an amicable way and approving this current application, without a Deed restriction in place, is exactly how they arrived in this situation. 3. A very important consideration is precedent setting for future applicants. The Commission is setting itself up to explain why any other future deed restriction cannot also be amended and any lawyer, worth his salt, would be asking this question. 4. The area along the driveway, offered as substitution, is not a high quality area, with plowing gravel and salt during the winter and most of the area is already under Inland Wetlands jurisdiction. Mrs. Hill stated the consensus of the Commission is to allow, at this time, planting on the slope adjacent to the pool and moving the pool equipment to the newly proposed location. Ms. Purnell disagreed and thought the Commission should ask for assurance for a certain percentage of the planting to survive a certain quantity of years.Rumsey Hall School, IW-02-05 ATF, 201 Romford Road, Revision, Irrigation System, Storage Shed for Pump and Electric Panel. Thomas Farmen, Headmaster and Dorota Habib, Business Manager were present.Mr. Farmen apologized for this after the fact application. He explained the following: 1. A decision was made, during the dry summer season, to put in an irrigation system, for the playing field, while the permitted septic work was being done. 2. The shed serves as a rain shield for the electric panel and pump. There is little room for storing much else.3. The field ground water, which is high (there was a lot of fill put in for the septic,) provides the water supply. The pump collects the water from a dry well, which refills by gravity. Ms. Purnell pointed out the following: 1. All of this irrigation system is within the regulated area; 57 feet from the pond and 75 feet from the high water mark of the river. 2. The size of the septic system project qualifies the shed as a revision. And she thought this will have a minimum impact.The Commission requested a copy of the final plan be submitted to the file. MOTION: To APPROVE the ATF Revision to the application Rumsey Hall School, IW-02-05, 201 Romford Road, to add an Irrigation System / Storage Shed for Pump and Electric Panel. By Mr. Weber, seconded by Mrs. Hill and passed 5-0.
Brown, Longview Landing Inc., IW-02-V3, 96 Romford Road, Driveway Improvements. The Commission discussed the importance of having the dam stabilized as soon as possible and how many times they had communicated with Dr. Brown to accomplish this necessary dam stabilization to protect the citizens of this community. The Commission pointed out the following: 1. A note from Pamela Osborne, Land Use Secretary, recorded a phone message from Dr. Cameron Brown: His engineer is waiting for the water table to rise, to determine the flow rate, before the permanent measures to repair the dam are undertaken. These temporary repairs will be done before snowfall. 2. A letter from Denis O'Sullivan, Engineer, dated September 4, 2002, stating his recommended measures for temporary repair of the dam. 3. A letter to Dr. Brown from Mrs. Hill, dated September 22, 2002, directing him to accomplish Mr. O' Sullivan's temporary measures as soon as possible. 4. Requested information, about what existed on site before the driveway repairs and additional enlargement of the ponds, had not been submitted. The information in the file is not correct. 5. The proposed activity in this application is not what the Commission requested in their letter to Dr. Brown, dated August 5, 2002. 6. They could hire an engineer and a wetlands scientist, so the correct information can be reviewed. 7. They could invoke the General Statute 22-40, Penalty A, allowing them to ask for civil penalties and reasonable attorney fees. MOTION: To DENY the application Brown, Longview Landing Inc.,IW-02-V3, 96 Romford Road, Driveway Improvements, due to the lack of information necessary for the Commission to render a decision. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mrs. Korzenko and passed 4 -1-0. Mr. La Muniere voted nay, because he is unclear about the follow-up.V. EnforcementBrown, Longview Landing, Inc., IW-02-V3, 96 Romford Road, Dam Failure.
Note: Enforcement issues and the ATF application have been included in the same file to date and this will be remedied. Ms. Purnell pointed out the ground will freeze soon and said the Commission can call Attorney Michael Zizka to ask about:1. Health and human safety issues and the ongoing impact to wetlands and watercourses.2. A proper strategy for handling this situation: notifying Dr. Brown the Commission is going to take him to court and fine him forward from August 5, 2002. Mrs. Hill said that after the Commission has obtained answers from Atty. Zizka, they will send a certified letter to Dr. Brown informing him of their intentions.III. Pending ApplicationsRizzo/James, IW-02-69, 129 Bee Brook Road, Construct Shed, Build Retaining Structure. Mrs. Hill read a letter from Mrs. Rizzo/James, dated November 6, 2002, which included notification of the shed location being moved beyond the 100 feet Upland Review Area and taken off the application. She noted that nothing else was submitted to date.
V. EnforcementFairbairn, IW-02-54, 206 Wykeham Road, Wetlands Crossing, Notice of Violation. Ms. Purnell noted this is a violation of the approval/permit, with a condition to have an easement in place. Mr. Ajello explained the following: 1. He sent a notice of violation, dated 10-25-02, requesting a viable wetlands crossing before work continues and easement for Lot 1 access using the same crossing. 2. The crossing has now been constructed and good erosion controls are in place. 3. He talked with Geoff Fairbairn about the easement and Ronald Fairbairn said Attorney William Fairbairn is preparing the easement, which should be done in a few days.Beck, IW-02-V1, 132 Calhoun Street, Cutting & Clearing in Wetlands. A survey map, "Data Accumulation Plan, Prepared for Julian Beck, 132 Calhoun Street, by Brautigam Land Surveyors P.C., dated 11-1-02" and a letter, from Mr. Beck, dated 11-5-02, was submitted. Ms. Purnell made the following points: 1. This wetlands area is one acre. 2. She recommends a 3-5 year plan for scrutinizing invasive plants and amending the cease and restore order to reflect a monitoring schedule. It will take years to replace the lost canopy and taking away a canopy creates a ripe situation for invasives to seed. 3. The Commission can consult Elizabeth Corrigan, Conservation Commission, to obtain salient and prudent recommendations. And consult nurseries for available trees and sizes. Mr. La Muniere said both planting the Hickory, Maple and Ash trees, recommended by Cynthia Rabinowitz, Soil Scientist and checking on invasive plants, for a few years, can be done. Mr. Weber noted the Commission wants to re-establish the canopy and advised waiting for the information about reasonable sizes of trees, before directing Mr. Beck. Ms. Purnell will obtain the information from nurseries. Mrs. Korzenko will call Betsy Corrigan. Mrs. Hill will write to Mr. Beck to thank him for the survey map and request the additional $120.00 fee for the other acre, based on the accurate survey estimation of the wetlands size.Ross, IW-02-V4, 10 Sunny Ridge Road, Wetlands Restoration.
Mrs. Hill noted a plan, for the restoration, had not been submitted to date and she will call Mr. Ross.
Ms. Purnell said she wanted to see Mr. Ross follow Kathy Johnson, Restoration Biologist's recommendation to dig holes to find the base of the fill and take out the overburden and plant rye and completely restore the wetlands area to it's original condition.
Mr. Weber asked about consulting a soil scientist.
Mr. Ajello said the planting had been done around the pond, according to a condition of the wetlands crossing permit IW-01-24 ATF.
VI. AdministrationWashington Community Housing Trust, IW-02-67, 16 Church Street, New Plans Submitted. Mrs. Hill noted additional plans," 16 Church Street, Housing Proposal for The Washington Montessori School Site, by Peter Talbot A.I.A., dated 10-22-02 and revised
Washington Community Housing Trust con't:
by Arthur H. Howland, P.C., dated 11-12-02" were submitted, which shows a revised site plan. A photo taken in October 2002 is attached to the plan. Also submitted were two letters: One, dated 11-12-02, tells about the STEAP Grant, the Town of Washington obtained, to fund the securing of drainage from the westerly site. Therefore, no increase in storm water drainage is expected and states that finished engineering plans will be submitted. And one letter stating the existing site has approximately 3,000 square feet more impervious area than the proposed layout. The Commission reviewed the submitted plan. Ms. Purnell noted the catch basin will be diverted to storm water drainage. The Commission thanks the Washington Community Housing Trust for keeping them updated with these submissions.Michael Ajello's appointment: Mr. Ajello said he finished the three required courses and will receive certification from the state D.E.P.
Mrs. Hill noted the Commission may, according to 3 A and 3 C of the Commission's By-laws and Sections 8-7 and 8-14 of the Washington Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, may, at it's discretion, duly authorize it's Enforcement Officer, as our duly authorized agent to approve an activity outside the regulated area, that will not impact the wetlands or watercourses, with notification in writing within 24 hours to the Land Use office and the Commission at the next meeting.
MOTION: To DELEGATE powers, mentioned in 3A and 3C of the Commission's By-laws, and in 8-7 and 8-14 of the Washington Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, to Michael Ajello as a duly authorized agent, with the understanding he will be extremely cautious with exemptions. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mrs. Korzenko and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To ADJOURN the meeting by Mr. Weber. All agreed at 12:00 a.m.., November 14, 2002.
Katherine MoquinLand Use SecretaryNovember 22, 2002
October 23, 2002
Members Present: Dorothy Hill, Helen Gray, Charles La Muniere, Marguerite Purnell, and Robert Weber.
Alternates Present: Mark Picton.
Alternates Absent: Candace Korzenko, Mark McGowan.
Staff Present: Michael Ajello, Katherine Moquin.
Also Present: Darrell Cherniske, Christina James, Mark DePecol, Dennis McMorrow, Julian Beck.Dorothy Hill called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m., Wednesday, October 23, 2002. Members seated were Dorothy Hill, Helen Gray, Charles La Muniere, Marguerite Purnell, and Robert Weber.
MOTION: To ADD Croasdaile, 67 River Road, IW-02-66, Clear Detention Pond to the Agenda IV. New Applications and Bedini, 43 Dark Entry Road, IW-02-25, Pave Existing Driveway to VI. Administration. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Weber and passed 5-0.
II. Consideration of Minutes
Regular Meeting, October 9, 2002.
MOTION: To ACCEPT the minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 9, 2002, as amended. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Gray and passed 5-0.The corrected minutes (relevant pages) are attached to the end of these pages.
Special Meeting, Site Inspection, October 17, 2002, Re: Goutiere IW-02-60,Duchin IW-02-68 and Rizzo/James IW-02-69.
MOTION: To ACCEPT the minutes of the Special Meeting, Site Inspection - October 17, 2002, Re: Goutiere IW-02-60 and Duchin IW-02-68 and Rizzo/James IW-02-69 as amended. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. La Muniere and passed 4-0-1. Mrs. Hill abstained as she did not attend this meeting.
Special Meeting, Site Inspection, October 22, 2002, Re: Montessori School IW-01-08
MOTION: To ACCEPT the minutes of the Special Meeting, Site Inspection - October 22, 2002, Re: Montessori IW-01-08 as amended. By Mr. La Muniere, seconded by Mrs. Gray and passed 3-0-1. Mrs. Hill and Ms. Purnell abstained as they did not attend this meeting.
III. Pending Applications
Duchin, 6 Church Street, IW-02-68, Build Retaining Wall & Steps, Clearing,Construct Parking Pull-off.
Darrell Cherniske, Kent Greenhouse, was present and submitted a revised drawing,"# 6 Church Street, New Preston by Kent Designs, dated Aug.-02" with a color codeand key. He explained the following: 1. He did not have additional soils type information. 2. The trees, with a 5 inch diameter trunk or over, though not tagged will remain, in order to avoid mistakes. The smaller trees were tagged to remain. 3. Mr. Duchin is aware of Mr. Cannavaro's report on work to be done on the nearby bridge. 4. He obtained information about a biodegradable porch cleaner, which is not acid based and does not contain bleach.
Per the Commission's request, Mr. Cherniske added "Extending Back To The Montessori Parking Lot Property. DJC, 10-23-02" to the letter, "# 6 Church Street, New Preston, Ct., Brushclearing Parameters, dated 10-22-02" and added "Bank Planting Where Existing Bed Has Had Perennials Removed, * Existing Bed Has Adequate Planting Depth For Plant Material So No Major Filling Or Addition Of Material To Be Required" to the estimate, "Estimate, New Preston Property, dated 8-22-02, # 2160."
Mr. Charles La Muniere explained the following: The southern portion of the property, adjacent to the stone wall wall by the road, indicated for brush clearing, is a steep slope. There are 2 to 4 inch diameter hardwood saplings in this area. The existing heavy canopy will stop these saplings from leafing out. An existing cherry tree, with an odd angle, does not add support to this slope. There is not a large amount of erosion in this area.
The Commission requested the following: 1. Mr. Ajello to do a photo documentation and to work with Mr. Cherniske on the site, in the steep slope area indicated for clearing, to reduce the amount of proposed clearing.
MOTION: To APPROVE the application Duchin, #IW-02-68, Build Retaining Walls and Steps, Clearing, Construct Parking Pull-off at 6 Church Street per the plan, "Site Concepts, Duchin Residence, 6 Church Street, New Preston by Kent Designs, dated Aug.-02" and per the revised drawing, "# 6 Church Street, New Preston by Darrell Cherniske, dated 10-22-02" and with one condition: Mike Ajello, E.O. will make a site visit and work with the applicant's agent to reduce the amount, proposed to be cleared, on the steep slope area, at the southern edge of the property, which is adjacent to the stone wall by the road. By Mr. La Muniere, seconded by Mrs. Gray and passed 5-0.
Ms. Purnell noted the amount, of proposed clearing, is moderate.Rizzo/James, 129 Bee Brook Road, IW-02-69, Construct Shed, Build Retaining Structure.
Christina James was present and submitted a new proposal for the retaining structure,"To: the Wetlands Commission, From: Rizzo-James property at 129 Bee Brook Rd.,dated 10-23-02" and per the Commission's request, lawn terrace lines depicted on a survey map, "Harold J. Wellings, 129 Bee Brook Road by T. Michael Alex, dated March 1993." She explained the following: 1. The new proposal is to create a riprap wall with gabions (mesh wire holding rocks) and plant ivy in-between the rocks.2. She is meeting with Brian Neff, engineer and Mr. Nelson, Garden Paths tomorrow for a consultation. 3. Estimates from contractors to construct a stone wall were very costly.Mr. Ajello explained the following: 1. This new proposal is a closer match to his recommendations, which are in his report of 10-23-02, because stone provides a greater mass and longevity. Rooty spikes between boulders placed on top of crushed stone and designed by an engineer, would be an excellent alternative. 2. The stream did not appear to be causing erosion. The Rizzo/James' goal is to terrace the bank in order to be able to walk along the stream.
Ms. Purnell said using live willow roots between boulders is a novel, bio-engineering plan for bank stabilization and recommended the boulders be placed only at the top of the bank.
Mr. Picton explained the following: 1. He thought the stream bank and lawn were not a rapidly eroding situation. Leveling the lawn by adding fill is not a good idea and adding soil on top of the bank would not help to stop erosion. 2. Storm water run-off, from the driveway and roof, going across the lawn, seem to be the cause of erosion. This storm water run-off will still erode through the boulders and needs to be managed by directing the water, away from the bank, with terrain contouring, designed by an engineer and gravel in the driveway, instead of hard packed dirt, would help. 3. Natural boulders look better than gabion and is probably less expensive.
The Commission requested the following: 1. All work on the bank is to cease. 2. The footprint of the garden room and proposed deck depicted on the plan. 3. Put all the proposals on one plan. 4. Obtain a plan from Brian Neff, engineer for two main issues:1. Ameliorate the storm water run-off from the roof and driveway. 2. Stabilization of the stream bank.
IV. New Applications
Cass/DePecol, 46 June Road, IW-02-65 E, Construct Dwelling.
Mark DePecol and Dennis McMorrow, Engineer were present and submitted a revised plan,"Site Development Plan, Prepared for Mark DePecol, June Road by Berkshire Engineering & Surveying, LLC., dated 10-15-02."
Mr. DePecol explained the following: 1. There are no wetlands on the property.2. The new plan has one less driveway switchback and shows the extension of the driveway to the accessory cottage. Access to the cottage is required by Zoning regulation to come off the same driveway used for the main house. 3. He submitted a Zoning application today. 4. He did not want to build the main house in the area of the existing cottage. 5. Trees are proposed to be cut from an area, approximately 340 feet by 310 feet, located below the main house site, for the purpose of a view. The stumps and all of the undergrowth and any tree, not blocking the view, will remain. The trees to be cut are unknown at this time, pending the construction of the house. 6. The total size of the property is 23 acres. 7. He is planning to pave the driveway.
Mr. McMorrow explained the following: 1. The topography for approximately 7 acres, which accommodates the proposed driveway, had been done. 2. This driveway switchback design, with one less switchback and a longer distance running along the contour, is better because every switchback entails more cuts into the hill and more fill.3. Culverts are placed every 200 feet and shown on the plan and he added a plunge pool to each flat riprap pad. The goal is to prevent surface and Spring weep water from crossing the driveway by taking away the energy of the down flow and also preventing scouring. He did not add a plunge pool to the existing 15 inch pipe under the existingdriveway, which goes to the cottage. 4. Ten feet is the maximum cut, which is in the northeast section, at the base of swale side. 5. Seven feet of fill will be put down in the northwest section. 7. There is ledge but they dug deep holes which were 6-8 feet deep and then designed the layout to avoid ledge for the most part. Some blasting might have to be done.
Mr. Ajello, E.O. pointed out the following: 1. The new field topo plan is accurate, with two foot increments in the contour line. 2. There are no watercourses on site. The only stream of water, he observed, is coming down along the trail to the pinnacle. He expected only seasonal scouring to occur. 3. He did not think this site warranted a full application.Ms. Purnell pointed out the following: 1. The Town of Washington includes within its jurisdiction sites beyond the 100 foot review area having a steep slope or the expectation of a large degree of soil disturbance. There is a significant run-off down two existing driveways, under construction, on June Road. 2. Intermittent watercourses and seeps are sometimes overlooked without field observation. A soil science report is definitive. The soil survey map is very general and not exact.
Mr. La Muniere said he estimates a lot of water coming down this hill and wondered if the riprap pads offered enough protection.
Mr. Picton made the following points: 1. The new plan has two right and two left bends,with lengthened arms extending across more of the hill, instead of the three right and three left bends in the original plan. The original plan had the outlets lined up, creating more of a sluiceway. 2. It is important to develop temporary basins, while roughing in the driveway to catch silt from the construction site. He recommended these stipulations:a. Modify the plan so the riprap pads are installed in stages to stabilize one section before continuing to another section. b. Limit clear cutting to the depicted triangle area necessary for the driveway. c. The area below the house is to remain wooded. d. Temporary silt basins are to be created during construction. e. Getting the drainage, rough grading and conduit installed first.
Mr. Weber made the following points: 1. He thought the longer cut, along the contour, offers a bigger drainage problem than with multiple switchbacks, because the long arm is going to collect a lot of water. 2. During the winter the swales will seal up causing the water to ice over the driveway. And he asked how the water will be directed into the crossings and caught in the swales. Mr. McMorrow said the pipes are lowered to catch the water.
Mrs. Hill requested two copies of the site plan be submitted into the file.
The Commission will make a Site Visit on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 at 4:00 p.m.
Ms. Purnell and Mrs. Hill thought it appropriate to inform the Conservation Commission about this application and site visit.V. ENFORCEMENT
Beck, 132 Calhoun Street, IW-02-V1, Cutting & Clearing in Wetlands.
Julian Beck was present and submitted a report by Cynthia Rabinowitz, Soil Scientist,dated 10-17-02 and an attached drawing, "Wetlands LC, Approximate Wetland Limits,Area 1, Area 2, Area3, dated 10-22-03." Ms. Rabinowitz recommended planting deciduous saplings and noted the re-growth of the stumps and very little damage to the undergrowth.
Mr. Beck submitted a project agreement with Brautigam Land Surveyors, P.C. and said the survey is now planned to be done on 10-30-02 and asked why a survey is necessary.The Commission noted the reasons a survey is important: 1. All the small saplings and undergrowth were cleared out of an entire wetlands, which increased sediment reaching the watercourse and also increased the temperature of the water. 2. The goal is to officially flag the wetlands area on a map, so that when the flags disappear in the field, the Commission and the property owner can know precisely where the wetlands are located. 3. Wetlands are a crucial and important natural resource in need of future protection
The Commission will decide about the recommended planting after the survey is submitted and a following site inspection is done.Beck, 132 Calhoun Street, IW-02-31, Free-cut Lot Split, Construct Driveway w/ Wetlands Crossing.
Mr. Ajello reported the following: 1. There is a fabric filter installed under the crossing roadbed. 2. The added boulders, used as an anchor and for directing the water, were well placed. 3. The top of the wall does not blend well into the grade. 4. Driving over the crossing, the width felt comfortable. 5. He recommended leaving the 20 foot pipe in place.
Ms. Purnell pointed out the following: 1. The decision to have the pipe cut back to the approved 18 feet, is a short term verses a long term impact issue. 2. Every additional foot of culverted stream is consistently degrading the whole environmental picture of Washington. 3. This driveway was constructed for a potential house, not a house in the planning stage and sometimes a potential house never happens and then the culverted stream exists without purpose.
Mr. Weber and Mr. Picton pointed out the following: 1. 18 or 20 feet is relatively the same size. The standard size for a culvert pipe is 20 feet. 2. Any driveway on a side slope requires greater width. 3. Property owners have a right to access the back of their property, even if it's to bring hay to their horses.
MOTION: To ACCEPT the overage ( 11% excess length ) of the culvert from 18 feet to 20 feet for Beck #IW-02-31, Free-cut Lot Split, Construct Driveway w/ Wetlands Crossing at 132 Calhoun Street. By Mr. Weber, seconded by Mr. La Muniere and passed 4-1-0. Ms. Purnell voted nay because of the cumulative effects.
III. PENDING APPLICATIONS
Brown, Landview Landing, Inc., IW-02-V3, 96 Romford Road, Dam Reconstruction.
Mrs. Hill noted there is nothing new submitted to date and engineering plans for a permanently stable dam had been expected by tonight's meeting.
Goutiere, IW-02-60, 33 Wheaton Road, Clear Brush & Cut Cherry Tree in Pasture.The Commission noted the following: 1. During a site visit on 10-17-02 they observed two existing places for the horses to access the stream with no additional clearing necessary. 2. The bushes, trees, wildflowers and grasses provide protection for the stream.
Mrs. Gray noted the cherry tree can cause intense colic to horses.
MOTION: To APPROVE part of the application Goutiere, #IW-02-60, Clear Brush, Cut Tree in Pasture at 33 Wheaton Road as follows: Be allowed to cut down any remaining cherry trees but DENY any additional clearing. By Mrs. Gray, seconded by Ms. Purnell and passed 5-0.
Mr. Ajello will take photos of the site.Sheinfeld, IW-02-62 ATF, In-ground Pool, Modify Deed Restrictions.
Mrs. Hill noted there were no new submissions to date.IV. NEW APPLICATIONS
Croasdaile, IW-02-66, 67 River Road, Clean Detention Basin.
Mr. Ajello reported the following: 1. This is a man-made detention pond. 2. There is a minimal deposit of sediment and a lot of vegetation, which is tending to block the culvert. 3. The end of the culvert goes all the way down to the river. 4. A stone header makes a turn at the culvert and collects water from the hillside in the back of the property, which is well vegetated and stable, so little sediment is generated. 5. The emergency spillway goes west. 6. This is a dry basin for most of the summer. 6. The contractor will take the material out of the detention pond and put it on a truck and move it off-site. There is no other choice, because of the existing landscape.
Mr. Picton summed up the situation: The purpose of cleaning the basin is to keep the streambed, culvert and spillway clear ( culvert management.)
Ms. Purnell requested Andy Carollo, Contractor to specify taking the material off the site in the work description. She wondered if there were any invasive species, which should be destroyed before being dumped in another location.
V. ENFORCEMENT
Ensign, Jr., IW-02-71 D, 45 Upper Church Hill Road, Build Pole Barn.
Mr. Ajello reported the following: 1. This De Minimus application was approved by Janet Hill, Authorized Agent on 10-17-02. 2. The barn site is located where the old driveway existed (now grass,) between two wetlands areas, with a distance to one wetlands on the long side of 100 feet and a distance to the other wetlands 100 feet. 3. Access will be from the driveway. 4. There are no drains with a pole barn.
DePecol, Bee Brook Road.
Mr. Ajello said Mark DePecol informed him of the following: 1.He is going to dig deep hole tests on a 40 acre site. 2. He cannot use the Newman Bridge to cross over Bee Brook and the existing, old wood bridge is collapsing. He plans to take a truck flatbed and roll it back in position across the brook and then put down the ramps to provide a temporary crossing. Mr. Ajello asked for an advance notice for when this will happen. He said this sounds like a good plan and pointed out the stream banks are steep at this location.
Mr. Picton requested Mr. DePecol ask permission to use Old Duncan Road (old logging road) as access.
Bohan, IW-99-16, 72 Mygatt Road, Driveway Paving.
Mr. Ajello said good erosion controls are in place and he plans to re-visit the site.
Daly/Alldredge, IW-02-51, 300 West Shore Road.
Mr. Ajello said he prepared a letter, concerning the storage of gasoline and fuel on other sites on the property, which requests cooperation in protecting lake water quality.
Fairbairn, IW-02-54, 206 Wykeham Road, Wetlands Crossing.
Mr. Ajello reported the following: 1. There is no culvert installed or roadbed constructed to date. The crossing is a mire. 2. He called Brian Neff, Applicant's Agent to inform him of the situation.
Mrs. Hill noted the easement, requested by the Commission as a permit condition, had not been submitted to date.
The Commission will send a notice of violation pertaining to the permit and conditions of the permit.
VI. ADMINISTRATION
Montessori School, IW-01-08, 240 Litchfield Tnpk., Extension, Construct School.
Mrs. Hill noted the Commission's site inspection on 10-22-02.
The Commission agreed to extend the work period but with stipulations attached.
MOTION: To APPROVE the Extension of the work period, for the permit Montessori School, #IW-01-08 Construct School at 240 Litchfield Tnpk., for one year until Ocotber 23, 2003 and with stipulations: 1. Temporary measures be developed during construction, to direct storm water to sediment and erosion controls and to trap sediment. 2. Direct storm water run-off and road drainage into existing silt / detention ponds, wherever possible. 3. Permanent road drainage facilities and road gravel be installed as soon as possible (by the end of November '02.) By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Weber and passed 5-0.
Hartley/Schlosstein, IW-02-38, 97 Lower Church Hill Road, Construct Addition.
Mrs. Hill noted the Zoning Board of Appeals Commission turned down Hartley/Schlosstein's application.
V. ENFORCEMENT
Finch, Mt. Tom Road.
Mr. Ajello explained the following: 1. The wetlands crossing was installed last year. 2. The silt fences are still in place. 3. The service trench will be dug before the crossing is top dressed with gravel.
Fraley, 130 Popple Swamp Road.
Mr. Ajello explained the following: 1. The DEP officer was out looking for poachers and discovered a material deposited in wetlands' violation. 2. There are pallets set up as a fence at the site. 3. He will make a site visit with Janet Hill, calling Mr. Fraley first. There may also be obvious Zoning violations.
Newman, IW-02-45, 20 Painter Ridge Road, Porch & Fireplace Addition.
Mr. Ajello explained the following: 1. The Newmans did not pick up their IWC permit. They know an approval was granted, because they attended the IWC meeting. 2. The remodeling work continues with no risk to the wetlands.
Ross, IW-02-V4, 10 Sunny Ridge Road, Wetlands Restoration.
Mr. Ajello explained the following: 1. The culvert header was constructed as planned. 2. Construction debris had been removed. 3. Mr. Kincaid planted on the bank of the pond, not on the grassy area per the condition of the approval. The roots are well placed to stop erosion. Mr. Ross is willing to put in more plants and leave the bank planting in place.
Ms. Purnell will make an individual Site Visit.
Mrs. Hill noted the Commission expected the restoration plan to be submitted by tonight's meeting. Mrs. Hill will call Mr. Ross tomorrow.
Surnow/Kyte, IW-02-55, 170 Church Hill Road, Clean Pond.
Mr. Ajello said a start card had not been submitted and no activity is taking place.The Commission is concerned about pending weather conditions and asked Mr. Ajello to speak to Mr. Surnow and Mr. Kyte about cleaning the pond as soon as possible.
Brown, Landview Landing Inc., IW-02-V3, Dam Failure.
The Commission will send a letter to Dr. Brown regarding the engineering plans, which have not been submitted.
VI. ADMINISTRATION
Bedini, IW-02-25, 43 Dark Entry Road, Pave Existing Driveway.
Ms. Moquin said Mr. Bedini asked the Commission about the seeded conservation mix (a condition of the permit), which is not expected to come up until the middle of next summer.
Mr. Ajello said Mr. Bedini submitted a finish card and mulch had been put down and the area is stable.
Kirk, 34 Sunset Lane, Construct Dwelling.
Mr. Ajello explained the following: 1. The house is staked out. 2. He found a wetlands flag and the distance from the wetlands to the nearest two corners is 102 feet, using a tape measure. 3. There is a gentle slope with grass and hedgerow. 4. In order to supply a work area around the foundation, the construction will encroach into the 100 foot review area to a small degree.
Ms. Purnell noted Popple Swamp is nearby this site and thought a De Minimus application would be okay.
Mr. Ajello will ask Joanne and Peter Kirk to file a De Minimus application.
Hochberg, Iw-02-46, 15 Couch Road, Clean Silt from Pond & Spread in Non-wetlands Area.
Mrs. Hill noted a letter had been submitted from Mr. Hochberg, dated 10-10-02, in response to the Commission's decision to deny his application.
MOTION: To ADJOURN the meeting by Mrs. Gray. All agreed at 11:07 p.m.
Katherine Moquin
Land Use Secretary
November 1, 2002
October 9, 2002
Members Present: Dorothy Hill, Helen Gray, Charles La Muniere, Marguerite Purnell.
Members Absent: Robert Weber.
Alternates Present: Candace Korzenko, Mark Picton.
Alternates Absent: Mark McGowan.
Staff Present: Michael Ajello, Katherine Moquin.
Also Present: Dirk Sabin, Richard Rosiello, Darrell Cherniske.Dorothy Hill called the meeting to order at 7:14 p.m., Wednesday, October 9, 2002. Members seated were Dorothy Hill, Helen Gray, Charles La Muniere, Marguerite Purnell and Candace Korzenko for Robert Weber.
II. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES
Show Cause Hearing - August 14, 2002, Re: Brown #IW-02-V3.
MOTION: To ACCEPT the minutes of the Show Cause Hearing - August 14, 2002, Re: Brown, 96 Romford Road, Landview Landing, Inc., #IW-02-V3, Dam Failure, as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mrs. Korzenko and passed 5-0.
Regular Meeting - September 25, 2002.
The amended minutes (relevant pages) are attached to the end of these pages.
MOTION: To ACCEPT the minutes of the Regular Meeting - September 25, 2002, as amended. By Mrs. Korzenko, seconded by Ms. Purnell and passed 4-0-1. Mr. La Muniere abstained as he did not attend this meeting.
Special Meeting - Site Inspection, September 30, 2002, Re: Sheinfeld IW-02-61 ATF
MOTION: To ACCEPT the minutes of the Special Meeting, Site Inspection - September 30, 2002, Re: Sheinfeld, 112 Lower Church Hill Road, #IW-02-61 ATF, In-ground Pool, Modify Deed Restrictions, as written. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. La Muniere and passed 5-0.
III. PENDING APPLICATIONS
Sheinfeld, 112 Lower Church Hill Road, #IW-02-61 ATF, In-ground Pool, Modify Deed Restrictions.
Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect, was present. He reviewed the plan, Site Analysis Plan,
Jay Sheinfeld, 112 Lower Church Hill Road, by T. Michael Alex L.L.S., dated July, 1996 and revised Slope Restoration Plan, dated 9-9-02, and the revision to add the westerly area, off the south end of the garage, to the deed restricted area, which increases the buffer zone and possibly planting more shrubs (five Mountain Laurel and one witch hazel) on the flat area.
Mr. Sabin read language for a new deed restriction, to increase the level of enforcement, which he had drafted for review.
The Commission discussed the issues involved, including the following: 1. A deed restriction needed to be worded properly by a lawyer and checked by the Commissions lawyer. 2. Accepting a new deed restriction in place of a standing deed restriction, opens the possibility for negotiating every future deed restriction. 3. The decision before the Commission is to enforce the standing deed restriction and order the restoration of the land back to its indigenous character or to accept the offsets offered in this application and have a new deed restriction put in place with stronger enforcement language. 4. There are the impacts to the wetlands to consider, including the following: a. The short term impact during removal of the pool with machines. b. The long term impact of potential degradation of a pristine and rare wetland resource by the creation of the steeper bank for the purpose of a level area for a pool (installed without a permit.) c. Especially troubling is the long term impact from the pool equipment, which was installed on the edge of the steep slope, without a silt fence and after the Commission notified Mr. Sheinfeld of the deed restriction violation. Some of the drain water will go down to the wetlands and the stored chemicals pose a greater danger. Members already observed a carelessly stored bucket of chlorine with a loose top and could foresee the possibility of the bucket rolling down the steep bank by being bumped or blown during a storm.
The Commission requested more information: 1. A deed restriction drawn up by a lawyer. 2. Proposals to remove and relocate the pool mechanicals.
Rudin, 328 Nettleton Hollow Road, #IW-02-62 ATF, Fence.
Richard Rosiello, Kent Greenhouse, was present and submitted a redrawing of the fence, dated 10-9-02, showing the two 8 foot sections of fence to be moved a few feet back from the roadside town land. He said these two sections are within wetlands and the rest of the fence is within the100 foot regulated review area. He explained the following: 1. The fence is elevated 4-6 inches off the ground, which will allow small migrating animals access. 2. The volume of concrete for each post will be yard ( bag.)
Mr. Ajello recommended the work commence immediately to take advantage of the end of the dry season.
MOTION: To APPROVE the application Rudin, 328 Nettleton Hollow Road, #IW-02-61 ATF, Fence, with the revisions proposed tonight to move two 8 foot fence panels back from Nettleton Hollow Road, per the order of the Board of Selectmen, shown on the map, "3 Lot Subdivision Prepared for Robert Stephen Cohen, Nettleton Hollow Road, dated March 25, 1988 and revised 10-9-02 by Richard Rosiello." By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Gray and passed 4-0-1. Mr. La Muniere abstained as he did not know the issues regarding this application.
Mrs. Hill said this project will have a minimal impact to the wetlands and she agreed with the recommendation to start work immediately.
IV. NEW APPLICATIONS
Duchin, 6 Church Street, #IW-02-68, Clearing, Planting, Construct Parking Pull-off.
Darrell Cherniske, Kent Greenhouse, was present and reviewed the plan, "Site Concepts, Duchin Residence, 6 Church Street by Darrell Cherniske, dated Aug-02" and explained the following: 1. Ray Boas is in the process of moving out. 2. Everything on this plan is within the 100 foot regulated review area. 3. Some things included in the plan are in the design stage. 4. The rear deck is the major entrance, which is 4 feet below road grade. Propose to create two tiers by building two 2 foot retaining walls with stone steps in between. Mortar will be used in the walls but the walls will appear as drywall. The material excavated will be used to level the rest of the terrace area and topsoil added. A silt fence and hay bales will be properly placed. This is the main focus for now. 5. The area along the road is proposed to be leveled, so water will be directed away from the property. The stone wall proposed close to the road will be 2 foot high on the road side and flush with the middle terrace on the inner side. 6. The existing lawns (established turf) will not be disturbed. 7. If the perennials are removed, then evergreens (depicted in magenta) with 2-2 root balls will be planted there by hand. 8. All the work, proposed in this application, is planned to be done this Autumn season. 9. The existing deck will need to be repaired (replace boards and shore-up with timber) and pressure washed. 10. There is an existing bluestone terrace. 11. The green outline shows the area proposed for clearing, to remove dead material and undergrowth in order to see the tree trunks. 12. The driveway exists as a right of way for Montessori parking and another house. Propose to enlarge the area by removing six trees, to create space for overflow parking.
Mr. Cherniske submitted photos.
The Commission requested the following: 1.The type of wetlands soils, which exist along the river, where there is an irregular gorge. 2. Depict on the plan what now exists on the site. 3. A key for the color coding on the plan. 4. More details about the planting. 5. A construction sequence and a time frame. 6. Ask Mr. Canavero, Town Foreman, about putting hay bales up top along the road.
Mr. Ajello pointed out that the road drainage goes around the property and dumps the water off the bridge. He said these proposed plans will provide a substantial improvement in buffering the area.
The Commission will make a Site Visit on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 at 4:00 p.m.
III. PENDING APPLICATIONS
Hochberg, 15 Couch Road, #IW-02-46, Clean Silt from Pond and Spread in Non-wetlands Area.
Mrs. Hill noted the 65 day time period for an application ended on 9-27-02 and the Commission does not have sufficient information to render a decision.
MOTION: To DENY without prejudice the application Hochberg, 15 Couch Road, #IW-02-46, Clean Silt from Pond and Spread in Non-wetlands Area due to the lack of information. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Hill and passed 5-0.
Neuhaus, 147 Kinney Hill Road, #IW-02-52, Construct Dwelling.
Mrs. Hill noted that Maureen Morrill had withdrawn this application in writing, dated 9-9-02.
Brown, Landview Landing Inc., 96 Romford Road, #IW-02-V3, Dam Re-construction.
Mrs. Hill noted there were no new submissions from Dr. Brown and engineered plans for a permanently stable dam were expected to be submitted by the next meeting on October 23, 2002.
Ms. Purnell submitted aerial photos of this property, taken in the year 2000, during a previous ownership and aerial photos, taken in the year 2001, during Dr. Brown's ownership. She obtained these photos from the U.S.D.A. Agricultural Agency in Torrington, CT. and said aerial photos, taken this year, 2002, will be coming out soon and that it is possible to obtain 8x10 enlargements.
Goutiere, 33 Wheaton Road, #IW-02-60, Clear Brush and Cut Tree in Pasture.
Mrs. Gray visited the site and viewed the pasture from her car.
The Commission does not have enough information to vote.
The Commission will make a Site Visit on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 at 4:45 p.m.
Eaton, 284 West Shore Road, #IW-02-63, Demolish Deck, Extend Porch.
Mr. Picton pointed out that this proposal: 1. Eliminated the slightly pervious area of the deck and replaced it with the impervious area of the porch. 2. Increased the distance to the lake, except for the steps, which will be one foot closer to the lake than the existing deck. 3. The site grade is flat.
Ms. Purnell said there were no long term impacts to the lake with this project, only short term impacts during construction.
Mrs. Gray requested the sona tube holes be dug by hand.
MOTION: To APPROVE the application Eaton, 284 West Shore Road, #IW-02-63, Demolish Deck, Extend Porch as submitted and with one condition: The sona tubes are to be dug by hand. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mrs. Korzenko and passed 5-0.
IV. NEW APPLICATIONS
Rizzo-James, 129 Bee Brook Road, #IW-02-69, Construct Shed, Build Retaining Wall.
Mrs. Hill read a letter from Mrs. James, dated 9-9-02, stating the reasons she and her husband could not attend this meeting.
Mr. Picton read the construction sequence.
The Commission requested the plan be shown on a survey map.
The Commission will make a Site Visit on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 at 3:15 p.m.
V. ENFORCEMENT
a. Enforcement Officer's Report / Actions Taken:
Mitchell, 77 Old Litchfield Road, #IW-02-58 D, In-ground Pool.
This application was approved as a De Minimus by Janet Hill, Authorized Agent, on 9-17-02.
Madoff, 241 West Shore Road, #IW-02-42, Rebuild Stone Wall, Steps.
Mr. Ajello said there is no activity and he doesn't know the reason. The site is stable.
McGorty, South Street / Nichols Hill Road, Subdivision.
Mr. Ajello said directions are being followed.
b. Beck, 132 Calhoun Street, #IW-02-V1, Cutting and Clearing in Wetlands.
A letter was submitted from Mr. Beck, dated 10-9-02, in response to a letter from the Commission, dated 9-30-02. Mr. Beck explained he was unable, thus far, to find a surveyor and Ms. Rabinowitz will make a final evaluation on 9-14-02.
The Commission will send a letter to Mr. Beck extending more time but reminding him that this violation remains on the Land Records.
Mr. Ajello reported on his site inspection today: 1. He recommended the road bed be filled with processed gravel. 2. The wetlands crossing pipe is well placed, but is 20 feet long, when an approval condition called for an 18 foot pipe. 3. The headwalls of the crossing do not blend into the grade at this point. Large boulders were added. 4. Two large trees had not been removed and the stones were placed around the trees. 5. Large stones were placed at the entry of the culvert, which worked well to direct the water. 6. Filter fabric had not been used. Filter fabric prevents gravel from being pressed below and lost in unstable areas.
Mr. Picton said he would not fuss about fabric filter in the driveway because the inland wetlands issue is keeping the organic layer intact and the 20 foot wetlands crossing pipe is a standard size, allowing access to large trucks and is not a problem in his opinion. He said it is necessary to deal with the real world, in order to get work done.
Mrs. Korzenko said the 20 foot pipe is okay but the approval requirements were not followed. She said sometimes property owners were at the mercy of contractors.
Ms. Purnell made the following points: 1. An 18 foot pipe would minimize the impact to the stream. 2. The Commission wastes time spelling out protective requirements, if the applicant ignores this guidance. 3. Communities needed to think about the accumulative impacts to water quality.
Mr. Ajello will call Mr. Beck to tell him the deviations observed and direct him to follow the approval conditions.
Fairbairn, 206 Wykeham Road, #IW-02-54, Construct Wetlands Crossing.
Mr. Ajello made a site inspection today and observed two silt fences set 40-50 feet apart with a mud bed between showing tire ruts and signs that logs skidded across.
He expected the first activity to be pipe installed, a crossing built and a road bed built and then the trees to be cut and brought across.
Mr. Picton noted the easement needs to be drawn up first, per the approval condition.
Mr. Ajello will call Ronald Fairbairn to discuss this situation.
Ross, 10 Sunny Ridge Road, #IW-02-V4, Wetlands Restoration.
Plans were expected to be submitted by the next meeting.
VI. ADMINISTRATION
a. Montessori School, 240 Litchfield Tnpk., #IW-02-08, Extension.
Mr. Ajello said the two detention basins were in place and excellent, stabilizing the lower slope and the grass was seeded. He said the extension was necessary for this very big project.
Ms. Purnell said the Commission should make a site visit, per due diligence, to check on the two vernal pools further up the slope and to see if anything needed to be addressed a.s.a.p.
The Commission will make a Site Visit on Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 9:00 a.m.
b. Pullaro, 23 Calhoun Street, #IW-02-48, Addition, Expansion 3rd Floor.
Mr. Picton made a site inspection on 9-26-02. He pointed out the Commission did not ask for a survey, more measurements or more alternatives and he regretted voting for this structure to be built so close to Canoe Brook.
Mrs. Korzenko said the Commission should write to Mr. Lasar, L.L.S., to tell him the Commission depends on accurate maps.
c. Santoleri, 240 West Shore Road, #IW-02-29, Extension.
Mrs. Hill said she called Mrs. Santoleri to tell her okay.
MOTION: To ADD the application Washington Primary School, Shepaug Greenway, #IW-02-70 E, Planting to the Agenda under VI.Administration. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mrs. Korzenko and passed 4-0-1. Ms. Purnell abstained as she opposed a procedural issue.
d. Washington Primary School, Shepaug Greenway, #IW-02-70 E, Planting.
Mrs. Hill said Bob Williams proposed planting twelve bushes along the drive and adjacent to the play area. She thought this qualified as an exemption based on IW Regulations, Sec. 226, permitted as of right uses.
The Commission agrees there will not be any impact to wetlands or watercourses.
MOTION: To APPROVE the application Washington Primary School, Shepaug Greenway, #IW-02-70 E, Planting as an Exemption. BY Mrs. Hill, Seconded by Mrs. Korzenko and passed 4-1-0. Ms. Purnell voted nay Because she opposed a procedural issue.
MOTION: To ADJOURN the meeting by Mr. La Muniere. All agreed at 10:55 p.m.
Katherine Moquin
Land Use Secretary
October 18, 2002
September 25, 2002
Members Present: Dorothy Hill, Helen Gray, Marguerite Purnell at 7:17 pm, and Robert Weber.
Members Absent: Charles La Muniere.
Alternatives Present: Mark Picton.
Alternatives Absent: Candace Korzenko, Mark McGowan.
Staff Present: Michael Ajello, Katherine Moquin.
Also Present: Leah Pullaro, Stephen Lasar, Mrs. Brown, Dr. Cameron Brown, Jorge Criollo, Richard Rosiello, Joel Johnson, William Ross and Dirk Sabin.Mrs. Hill called the meeting to order at 7:07 pm, Wednesday, September 25, 2002.
Members seated were Dorothy Hill, Helen Gray, Robert Weber, Mark Picton for Charles La Muniere and Marguerite Purnell at 7:17 pm.
IV. PENDING APPLICATIONS
Pullaro, 23 calhoun Street, #IW-02-48, Addition, Expansion 3rd Floor, Expansion Septic System.
Leah Pullaro and Stephen Lasar, Architect, were present.
Mrs. Hill said Suzanne Von Holt, Sanitarian, submitted a note, dated 9-11-02, explaining that the Health Code required a viable septic reserve area, to be specified and approved, for less than a 50% increase in bedrooms but did not require the installation of this septic reserve, which would be available for future use if it became necessary. The Health Code requires the reserve septic to be installed when the number of bedrooms doubles.
Mr. Ajello explained the following: 1. This B 100 A Health Code was legislated 5 years ago. 2. In order to add onto any heated living space, a homeowner needs to prove a viable septic reserve capable of handling 50% of the load. 3. The existing Pullaro septic system is oversized according to Suzanne Von Holt. 4. The requirement for 4-5 bedrooms is a 1200 gal. tank. 5. An engineer designed the original Pullaro septic but the reserve area does not require an engineered design because it is not the primary area.
Mr. Lasar submitted a sketch showing the reserve septic area, 30 linear feet, with the distances to the existing system and the stream marked as requested. Mr. Lasar pointed out that the reserve area is farther away from the stream than the existing septic and basically level and within the 50 foot State setback requirement.
Mrs. Hill seated Marguerite Purnell at 7:17 pm.
Mrs. Hill asked for the alternatives to the building addition, requested by the Commission and considered by the Pullaros.
Mr. Lasar submitted a plan, "Alternate Location for Addition & Future Septic (If Required,) Pullaro Residence by Stephen Lasar, AIA, dated 9-23-02," showing one alternative for the proposed addition. He explained the following: 1. This map was taken from an A2 survey by Michael Alex. 2. This alternative would require excavation by machine for piers or a foundation, because it is higher at this point on the property. 3. A retaining wall would have to be built at the toe of the slope.
Mrs. Pullaro explained that this alternative (dubbed Alternative B') created a long narrow space, which would be the same square footage as the original proposal but with less of the space necessary for her child with leg braces to manoeuvre around furniture. She said there would also be a loss of one bedroom upstairs, because the original proposal knocked out one wall of a 6 x 27 foot bedroom to create two bedrooms, also giving better access for her child.
The Commission raised the following issues: 1. The southern corner of the deck is only 10-15 feet from Canoe Brook. Storms erode the banks of streams, so there is the possibility that this distance will shorten. 2. Machine excavation carries a temporary impact for the brook but increasing the impervious area close to the brook carries a long term impact. The existing deck allows for some rain water to infiltrate the ground before reaching the brook. Any work on the house could potentially impact the brook at this short distance. 3. A flood situation. 4. The concerns of a child and best interest of this family weighed against the enlarged structure under new ownership. 5. The need for the Commission to be consistent. 6. Possibly using the garage as an alternate site.
Mrs. Pullaro explained that this property was removed from the FEMA maps and is no longer in the flood plain. She said a retaining wall was built below the deck after the 1955 flood and during her experience with storms, the retaining wall worked well and the field across the brook flooded.
Mr. Lasar said the garage is 40 feet from the house and suggested another alternative: To cut off coverage by new construction of the southern corner of the deck at a 45 degree angle and also direct the gutter drains farther away from the brook.
Mr. Picton noted that the deck width is 10 feet, so the angle cut would significantly ease the distance to the brook at this point.
Mr. Weber asked about the pitch of the extended roof and where the roof naturally drains.
Mr. Lasar said the extended roof will have less pitch and will be a hip roof .
Mr. Picton said the gutter spouts could go into a dry well or into a spreader or some method to prevent erosion, including erosion of the stream bank
MOTION: To APPROVE the application Pullaro, #IW-02-48, Addition, Expansion 3rd Floor at 23 Calhoun Street per the plan, "Alternate Location for Addition & Future Septic (If Required,) Pullaro Residence by Stephen Lasar, AIA., dated 9-23-02 and revised "Proposal C' Angled Corner by Stephen Lasar, dated 9-25-'02," which shows the southern corner of the addition to be angled 45 degrees toward the west, northwest from the existing southwest corner of the house and 8-10 feet farther from Canoe Brook than the original proposal. No new building shall occur on the stream side of the 45 degree angled line, drawn 9-25-02 by Stephen Lasar on Alternate B' plan and labeled "Proposal C.' The motion contains one condition: The gutter spouts are to be located farther from the brook and managed to allow the water to infiltrate the ground before entering the brook and prevent erosion By Mr. Weber, seconded by Mrs. Gray and passed 4-1-0. Ms. Purnell voted nay, stating the Commission's history of not allowing any structure to be built closer than 25 feet to a stream and its commitment to protect watercourses from long term impacts and also noting that other alternative locations for the addition exist and would have offered more protection for Canoe Brook.
Brown, Landview Landing, Inc., 96 Romford Road, #IW-02-V3, Dam Reconstruction.
Dr. and Mrs. Cameron Brown were present.
Mrs. Hill asked to have the following included in this application: 1. Digging in the ponds. 2. Deposition of 2 inches of topsoil and plantings around the pond. 3. Regrading and reseeding around the pond. She also asked for the ATF fees to be submitted.
Ms. Purnell asked Dr. Brown to describe the conditions on the property existing prior to his activities and to describe his activities on the property. She said the Commission is trying to understand the following: 1. How a large amount of material was deposited into the wetlands. 2. How much of clearing was done on the hillside and in other areas. 3. How the smaller pond was excavated and linked to the other pond. 4. What the blue color drawn on the survey map, " 1366, Roze," dated 7-28-1997, represented.
Dr. Brown explained the following: 1. They moved into this house in December 2000, and that year the snow fall was very high and continued until April. 2.The snow plow almost fell into the pond and the pipe between the ponds collapsed. They had to park their cars on Romford Road. 3. In February work was done to repair the pipe and add material to increase the height of the portion of the driveway between the ponds. 4. They drove all the way around the south side of the southernmost pond to get to the house while this work was being done. 5. In the Spring of 2002, they added topsoil and seed and plants to fix up the area and the dam partially collapsed while removing a stump in order to plant a tree. 6. The aerial photos were not clear and there was no information obtainable as to what existed on this property in the past. 7. The driveway was not functioning and there were wetlands in the whole area. 8. The area north of the driveway remains exactly the same. 9. The blue outline on the survey map shows the existing shoreline. He did not make the ponds. Mr. Roze, the previous owner, had his IWC application denied but went ahead and dug the ponds. He only worked on the driveway.
The Commission requested Dr. Brown to: 1. Submit a written narrative of tonight's presentation, a history and description of his activities on the property. 2. Implement, as soon as possible, Engineer Denis O'Sullivan's, recommendations to temporarily stabilize the dam and create a spillway. 3. Submit a new application to re-build the dam in a sound manner, using an engineered design for permanent stability. Plans must be drawn to scale and all specs of the plans are to be submitted with this new application. 4. Maps showing the property before and after the activities undertaken to date must be included.
The Commission will have its engineer review the plans submitted for permanent dam stabilization.
V. NEW APPLICATIONS
Kilbrith, 30 Tinker Hill Road, #IW-02-36, Revision, Build Retaining Wall and Stone Steps.
Jorge Criollo, Contractor, was present. He submitted: 1. The $25.00 fee for a revision. 2. A letter by Jorge Criollo, dated 9-19-02, requesting a revision to expand the approved project to include replacement of the wooden steps and walkway in front of the house with stone and working in the same fashion used in the completed work in the back of the residence. 3. A map / drawing, "Tinker Hill Road, dated 9-19-02," which includes the location of the silt fences and hay bales. Mr. Criollo explained the following: 1. The mulch put down for the present job hasn't moved during the rain. 2. The pressure treated wood will be taken to the dump. 3. The work and bringing the stones to the site will be done by hand. 4. No major regrading will be done, just leveling to settle the stones. 5. Gravel will be placed under the stone. 6. The steps will be sloped for traction. 6. This location is outside the regulated 100 foot review area. 7. No handrails are proposed, only rebuilding the walks back to their original form.
Mrs. Hill noted that the difference is that the wooden walkway is elevated and the stones will go into the ground. Mr. Criollo said the wooden walkway is elevated because there is all ledge on this site.
The consensus of the Commission is that this is a minor revision and does not require a new application.
MOTION: To APPROVE the revision for the application Kilbrith, #IW-02-36, Build Retaining Walls and Steps at 30 Tinker Hill Road with one condition: The work is to be done with the same methods used in the existing work. By Mr. Weber, seconded by Mr. Picton and passed 5-0.
Rudin, 328 Nettleton Hollow Road, #IW-02-62 ATF, Fence.
Richard Rosiello, Contractor, was present. He submitted a photo of the unfinished fence, which remains to be flat-topped. This fence is 4 inches off the ground.
Mrs. Hill noted that the Zoning Commission had not approved this fence to date. She asked how the fence would be removed if Zoning requests this. Mr. Rosiello explained the following: 1. The posts will be cut flush with the ground and the concrete in which they are embedded will be top dressed with soil. 2. The fence is made with pine wood and the posts with cedar wood and none of the wood is pressure treated 3. The architect is discussing the possibility of staining the wood with a latex stain. 4. Two panels of fence measuring 16 feet are located within wetlands and the rest of the fence is located within the regulated review area.
The Commission asked Mr. Rosiello to let them know about the Zoning Commission's decision.
Eaton, 284 West Shore Road, #IW-02-63, Demolish Deck, Extend Porch.
Joel Johnson, Contractor, was present. He explained the following: 1. There is a screen porch with a deck coming off the porch. 2. The distance between the deck and Lake Waramaug is 35 feet 6 inches. 3. Propose to eliminate the deck, which is half the length of the porch, and extend the screen porch 3 feet, thereby increasing the distance to the lake by 3 feet. 4. There will be 8 foot wide stairs off the porch and a flagstone patio off the stairs. 5. The new distance between the Lake and the stairs will be 34.6 feet. 6. The porch will remain one story with a more shallow pitch to the roof. 7. The pier holes would be dug by hand or with a small backhoe. 8. A silt fence would be installed from the driveway all the way around to the front. There would be nothing placed between the silt fence and the Lake. 9. Any left over material would be spread under the porch. No material would be brought in. 10. The basic reason for this change is that the 9 foot porch is not large enough for a table and chairs to sit down for dinner. 11. The covered porch would be wood. The existing deck is wood. 12. The applicant will to go to the ZBA Commission for a change in a footprint which is within 50 feet of the Lake.
Mr. Weber requested the piers to be hand dug.
Ross, 10 Sunny Ridge Road, #IW-01-24, Revision, East Crossover.
William Ross was present and submitted a letter, dated 9-24-02 and photos taken from a plane. The letter requests a revision to relocate the headwall and stabilize the stream with riprap. He explained the following: 1.When the excavation was ongoing, they discovered the pipe existed in a different location 10 feet over. The pipe doesn't go straight and bypasses the original stream. 2. 38 feet of the pipe was exposed. 3. The upper headwall was done. 4. Vegetation was cleaned out of the stream bed. 5. Proposing to put rocks along the bank of the stream to stabilize it, because it is so deep, 6 feet below grade.
The Commission noted the following: 1. Cleaning out vegetation from a stream bed is not allowed because this increases the velocity of the water flow and causes erosion. 2. The best solution is to let the channel of water find its own way and re-vegetate. The stream bed, below where the pipe was dug up, does not need riprap, as there are enough rocks there already. 3. Vegetation will grow up through the riprap, which replaces the pipe, as long as it is not mortared. 4. The stream bank below the pipe. Which was removed, does not need to be built up.
Mr. Ajello, Enforcement Officer, noted the pipe was cut lower than the stream and created its own channel. He requested the three large stumps, observed on the site, be left in place.
MOTION: To APPROVE the revision for the application Ross, #IW-01-24, East Crossover at 10 Sunny Ridge Road to Relocate the Headwalls northerly to the actual location of the pipe, which is about 12-15 feet from the edge of the crossover travel way above the bend in the pipe, and at the upper end of the excavation as shown on photos A and B submitted tonight, and to use large flat stones or riprap to prevent bank or channel erosion. And to DENY stabilization of the bank and putting riprap in the portion of the stream located downstream of the excavated pipe. By Mr. Picton, seconded Mrs. Gray and passed 5-0
Ross, 10 Sunny Ridge Road, #IW-01-26, Revision, Pool and Pool Palisade.
William Ross was present and submitted a plan, "10 Sunny Ridge Road, dated 9-25'02 and signed by William Ross." He explained the following: 1. Grading and sodding around the pond was done. 2. Mr. Kincaid is ready to plant. 3. Proposing a revision in the planting to shorten the width of the planting for the 360 linear feet required in the previous approval and then to plant the remaining plants along the farther bank of the pond and along the wetlands for another 360 linear feet. This new location will provide a better use for these plants than in the grass area.
The Commission made the following points: 1. The approved planting served the purpose of mitigation for the elimination of an intermittent stream. 2. The planting provided a buffer zone between the grass and the pond, thereby preventing material, nitrogen or fertilizers from reaching the pond. At least a 10 foot wide buffer of planting was needed to accomplish this. 3. They could agree with a reduction in the width of the plant buffer.
MOTION: To APPROVE the revision for the application Ross, #IW-01-26, Pool and Pool Palisade at 10 Sunny Ridge Road per the plan "10 Sunny Ridge Road, dated Sept. 25, 2002" showing a portion of the property and signed by William Ross to Reduce the Planting by 10 feet in depth, to a planted width of 10 feet for 360 linear feet around the northwest and southwest sides of the pond, which is depicted in yellow, and Plant 10 feet in depth for 360 linear feet on the south and southeast side of the pond and running up around the driveway, which is depicted in blue and measure the 10 feet of depth of planting starting at the top of the steep bank nearest to the pond ( which is about 5 feet back from the current edge of the water.) By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Hill and passed 5-0.
VI. ENFORCEMENT
Ross, 10 Sunny Ridge Road, #IW-02-V4, Wetlands Restoration.
William Ross was present and submitted a letter which asked for an extension in the schedule laid out for the restoration. He explained that the engineer needed more time to complete the plans.
The Commission asked if the plans could be submitted for approval by the second meeting in October, the 23rd '02 and if it was possible to do the work by the end of November '02. Mr. Ross agreed to this new schedule.
MOTION: To GRANT an Extension for the application Ross, #IW-02-V4, Wetlands Restoration at 10 Sunny Ridge Road to Submit an engineered plan for Removal of the Overburden out of the wetlands by October 23, 2002 and To Have the Overburden removed out of the wetlands by the end of November 2002. By Mrs. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Gray and passed 5-0.
Enforcement Report
Rudin, 328 Nettleton Hollow Road, #IW-02-11, Dredge Pond
Mr. Ajello explained the following: 1. This pond was not deep. 2. When the workers pumped down, they scraped bottom hitting ledge and hardpan. 3. They were not able to make it any deeper. 4. All the fish were killed during the process of dredging.
Mr. Ajello laid out some methods of dredging, which could be used to save fish and other creatures. Mrs. Hill asked Mr. Ajello to put these rescue' methods of dredging in writing.
NEW APPLICATIONS
Sheinfeld, 112 Lower Church Hill Road, #IW-02-61 ATF, In-ground Pool, Modify Deed Restrictions.
Mr. Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect, was present and submitted a project summary, dated 9-9'02 and a "Slope Restoration Planting Plan" by Dirk W. Sabin, dated 9-9-02, added to an A2 Survey Map, "Site Analysis Plan, Jay Sheinfeld, 112 Lower Church Hill Road" by T.Michael Alex L.L.S., dated July 1996. This map shows the deed restricted area (limit of disturbance proposed,) which comes around the edge of the pool and goes to the knoll and includes a linear corridor along the driveway. Mr. Sabin made the following points: 1. There is 1178 square feet ( .02 acres) taken from the original limit of disturbance with the corner of the pool. 2. The filled in area will likely return to a natural condition within 3-4 years of growing seasons. 3. All the labor would be done by hand. 4. He did not think removing the pool was prudent. 5. The pool filter pad was installed and a fence needed to be installed around the pool, as a Building Code requirement.
Mrs. Hill requested an authorization letter and a $60.00 after the fact fee.
The Commission made the following points: 1. The main concern is protecting the large wetland area in the back, which is adjoining a pristine head water area on the next property. 2. The activities approved for this property have expanded considerably without permission and has resulted in a continually increasing impact on the wetlands. 3. There existed a pristine vernal pool, which was possibly destroyed during the construction of an unauthorized driveway and the addition of fill. 4. The language used in drafting a deed restriction needed to include some type of legally effective enforcement power, which would not accept monetary damages and only accept full restoration of the area to its original condition. 5. The decision of the Commission would be a negotiated solution, not a preferred solution. 6. There remains the option to dismantle this illegal pool.
The Commission will make a Site Visit on Monday, September 30, 2002 at 9:00 am.
PENDING APPLICATIONS
Hochberg, 15 Couch Road, #IW-02-46, Clean Silt from Pond and Spread in Non-Wetlands Area.
A Letter from Mr. Hochberg, dated 9-11'02 was submitted.
The Commission will send a letter to Mr. Hochberg explaining the following: 1. The DEP, with current information, now considers creating a pond in wetlands to be of serious concern and is now cognizant of the importance of having a diversity of wetlands types. 2. He would need to make a compelling argument for creating a pond in that location. 3. This serious undertaking did indeed require an engineer and a soil scientist. 4. Prior approvals given a great many years ago have expired and are no longer taken into account.
Mrs. Hill noted the 65 day application expiration date compels the Commission to act on this application at the next meeting.
Neuhaus, 147 Kinney Hill Road, #IW-02-52, Construct Dwelling.
The Commission noted there was nothing new submitted into the file to date.
Nassar / Uruburu / Schneider, 121 West Church Hill Road, #IW-02-57, Subdivision Review.
Mrs. Hill noted that she sent a letter, dated 9-23'02, to Attorney William Fairbairn, stating this application is out of the Inland Wetlands jurisdiction. Mr. Ajello had confirmed, during his 9-18'02 site inspection, that there were noapparent wetlands or watercourses present on this property.
NEW APPLICATIONS
Goutiere, 33 Wheaton Road, #IW-02-60, Clear Brush and Cut Tree in Pasture.
Mr. Ajello noted that brush clearing along the stream bed would expose the stream to more sunlight and he thought limited clearing at a few access points would be safe. He said the grade is level with the stone wall and then goes down to the stream.
The Commission noted the following: 1. The black cherry tree, proposed to be cut down, is toxic to horses. 2. Flagging the items to be cut down would be wise. 3. Need to clarify that the roots will remain. 4. A 20 foot vegetated buffer along the stream, except for a couple of access points, might be a possibility.
The Commission will make individual Site Visits.
ENFORCEMENT
Schwartz, 173 West Shore Road, #IW-02-58 D, Install Removable Deck.
Janet Hill, Certified Enforcement Officer, signed off this application as De-Minimus
Mitchell, 77 Old Litchfield Road, #IW-02-59 D, In-ground Pool.
Mr. Ajello noted the pool's location is proposed for 65 feet from the wetlands. The grade is flat for these 65 feet, then drops 75 feet down to the wetlands.
Ms. Purnell noted this wetlands borders a perennial watercourse with a dam and waterfall and the very steep drop makes this an upland review area, requiring a permit.
Beck, 132 Calhoun Street, #IW-02-V1, Cutting and Clearing in Wetlands.
Mrs. Hill noted the Commission sent an Enforcement Order on 8-2'02 but this order did not include a time table. The Commission will send a letter to request a restoration plan be submitted.
DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR
Santoleri, 240 West Shore Road, #IW-00-29, Extension.
Mrs. Santoleri has requested an extension to renew work not completed on stone walls previously permitted. The start card was submitted on 9-27'00. Mrs. Santoleri is also asking to install a drain.
The Commission noted the one year limit, given with a permit, prevented an extended period of erosion and requested a plan, to install a drain, be submitted.
Mrs. Hill will call Mrs. Santoleri.
Montessori School, 240 Litchfield Tnpk., #IW-01-08, Construct School.
Montessori School is asking for an extension to complete the permitted work, started one year ago.
The Commission noted that a written request needs to be submitted.
Daly / Alldredge, 300 West Shore Road, #IW-02-51, Remove & Install Oil Tank
Mrs. Hill asked Mr. Ajello to send a letter about the shoreline.
Mrs. Gray excused herself from the meeting at 12:00 am.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES
Changes made in the minutes of the Regular Meeting, September 10, 2002, are indicated with a double asterisk ( **________**) at the beginning and end of each change. A copy of the pertinent pages are attached to the end of these minutes.
MOTION: To ACCEPT the minutes of the Regular Meeting, September 10, 2002 as amended. By Mr. Weber, seconded by Ms. Purnell and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To ADJOURN by Mrs. Hill. All agreed at 12:34 am, September 26, 2002.
Respectfully submitted, filed subject to approval,
Katherine Moquin, Land Use Secretary, October 7, 2002