The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Inland Wetlands Commission, 2005
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Inland Wetlands Commission, 2005 |
|
Disclaimer: While we have attempted to reproduce them accurately, the electronic documents you see here are not the official public documents. Official copies may be obtained on paper from theTown Clerk . Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.
Jump down to: General information about the Inland Wetlands Commission
December 14 •November 30 •November 16 •November 9 •October 26 •October 12 •September 28 •September 14 •August 10 •July 27 •June 22 •June 8 •May 25 •May 11 •April 27 •April 13 •March 23 •March 9 •February 25 •February 23 •February 9 •January 26 •January 12 •Meetings in 2004 •Meetings in 2003 •Meetings in 2002
December 14, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. PurnellMEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bedini
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Thomson
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Jontos, Mr. Owens, Mr. Neff, Mr. Brighenti, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Boling
The Special Meeting scheduled for 5:30 p.m. to meet with Atty. Zizka to discuss pending litigation was cancelled.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Coe for Mr. Bedini.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: Other Business: C. Depot Study, D. Administrative-Staff Procedures, E. Myfield, LLC.-List of Requirements, Consideration of the Minutes: D. Special Meeting/Brighenti/12/6/05, E. Special Meeting, Kessler/12/6/05, F. Special Meeting/Spring Hill Farms, LLC./12/7/05. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 11/30/05 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Add Mr. Boling to the list of those present.
Page 3: 20th line: Change "on" to along the limit of disturbance...
Page 4: 1st line: The name of the river should be East Aspetuck.
Page 5: 5th line under Lewinter: Change "soils" to topography.
11th line under Brighenti: Change "to" to toward the septic area.
Page 6: 6th line under Carron: Insert "new" before 5' X 7'.
MOTION: To accept the 11/30/05 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 12/6/05 Brighenti Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Coe, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 12/6/05 Kessler Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 12/6/05 Lewinter Special Meeting minutes as written. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 12/7/05 Upper Church Hill, LLC. Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Ms. Coe, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 12/7/05 Spring Hill Farms, LLC. Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Janowicz/51 Rabbit Hill Road/#IW-05-61/Driveway: Mr. Ross, contractor, contacted the Land Use Office to report the new maps were not ready.
Pasatieri/77 Findley Road/#IW-05-68ATF: It was noted the Health Dept. had not referred the property owner to the Inland Wetlands Commission for the septic repair work, which was under the Commission's jurisdiction. Mr. Ajello said that no new information had been submitted. He was asked to work with the property owner, not the contractor, to get a complete application. Prior to the next meeting Mr. Ajello will send a letter to the owner with a copy to the contractor.
Lewinter/84-86 Roxbury Road/#IW-05-69/Barn: The map, "Map Prepared for Helen Hunt," by Mr. Burnham, dated January 1982 with the location of the barn and intermittent watercourse drawn in by hand was reviewed. Mr. Nicholas, contractor, represented the property owner. Mr. Ajello noted since the last meeting it had been established the distance from the watercourse to the proposed barn was 30 feet and the quad map had been placed in the file. Mr. Picton observed that neither the wetland pocket nor the intermittent watercourse were accurately located on the map. He noted the new structure was proposed within 50 feet of the watercourse and would require regrading and filling on three sides and so asked the applicant to consider alternatives that would have less impact. Mr. Nicholas explained the barn would have no foundation, had been proposed on a nearly level plateau, and would only require a 3 ft. cut at the rear of the building. He said the land rises steeply east of the proposed site. Ms. Purnell asked if the barn could be placed nearer to the residence and existing accessory buildings. Mr. Nicholas said the applicant had considered enlarging the existing garage, but that would require an 8' to 10' cut and would undercut the driveway and a new building in the area Ms. Purnell proposed would take up the only lawn on the property. Mr. Picton explained the applicant would be required to submit plans with accurately mapped wetlands if he wanted to continue with the application for the proposed site. He recommended, however, the applicant relocate the barn outside the review area as it was not necessary to construct a new building within 50 feet of wetlands on this property.
Kessler/103-105 West Mountain Road/#IW-05-70/Demolish and Rebuild Existing Dwelling, Build New Dwelling, Construct Bridge, Install Driveway, Etc: Mr. Ajello noted new information would be submitted tonight and Mr. Picton asked, then, that the presentation be brief since Mr. Ajello had not had an opportunity to review it prior to the meeting. It was noted the application included more activities than the "house and driveway construction" specified on the application form and Mr. Picton advised the applicant to amend the form. Ms. Purnell asked if a conservation easement was proposed. Mr. Owens, architect, said yes, it was detailed in the letter accompanying the application, adding that the right to build a tennis court in the easement area was reserved. Mr. Owen presented the updated plans and maps by Halper Owens Architects; "Site Plan, A-001," revised 12/14/05, "Partial Site Plan," revised to 12/14/05 and "Building Plans," dated 11/30/05. He explained he had tried to make the proposed development more compact, altered the angle of the proposed structures and pulled them back at least 50 feet from wetlands and watercourses, removed the existing dwelling's lower terrace, and altered the approach to the garage so there would be less disturbance in this area. Mr. Picton asked that the extent of proposed regrading be shown on a larger scale map. Mr. Owens stated the reconstructed dwelling would have a slightly smaller footprint and would not result in an increase in impervious surfaces. Ms. Purnell asked that his computations be submitted. Mr. Picton asked for a comparison of the proposed hard landscaping vs. what exists now on the site and said the Commission wanted to make sure the proposed activities would not increase the impact on the wetlands over what there is already. If there is an impact, he explained, mitigation would be needed to offset it and to protect the natural communities around the wetlands. Mr. Picton asked that the applicant's consultant address what will happen to the rest of the knoll that slopes down to the wetlands. Although Mr. Owens said there were no plans for this area, the Commissioners agreed there should be some specifications to guide future property owners. Mr. Owens said there would be a 30 ft. wide buffer and a wall at the point beyond which there should be no disturbance. The proposal to reconstruct the bridge was briefly discussed. Mr. Owens noted the new bridge would be in the same location as the old one. Mr. Neff's plans, "Proposed Driveway Bridge Installation," dated 12/11/05 and "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," revised to 12/12/05 were reviewed. Mr. Neff noted sheet #2 of the latter contained the project narrative and construction sequence. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Neff to highlight the 100 ft. review area. Mr. Neff did so and noted the proposed driveway route was between two wetland areas. Regarding the construction of the new dwelling, Mr. Picton asked the applicant to minimize extensive soil disturbance on steep slopes. To that end, Ms. Purnell asked why the proposed house could not be moved to the SE as the Commission makes every effort to site new construction outside of the 100 ft. review area. Mr. Owens responded moving the house to the SE would crowd the conservation easement area, to which Mr. Picton suggested the easement boundary line be moved, also. Mr. Owens noted the applicant had received legal advice to locate the easement as proposed. Mr. Picton noted the proposed house location would require grading within 25 ft. of the wetlands, but stated if the dwelling were moved just 30 ft. to the south, all but the garage would be out of the review area and there would not be much concern about impact to the wetlands. Mrs. D. Hill noted, too, then it wouldn't be necessary to cut off the knoll. Mr. Owens said the current plan would cause no adverse impact to the wetlands and moving the house would cause other problems. Ms. Purnell noted, however, these would be engineering, not wetlands, problems. Ms. Purnell asked the applicant to provide a detailed analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives and an evaluation of why the current proposal was selected. Mr. Picton again urged the applicant to get all work away from the steep slopes and out of the 100 ft. review area. Mr. Owens stated there would be no grading beyond the wall, which would be 35 ft. from wetlands. Ms. Purnell asked whether the Commissioners thought this was a potentially significant activity for which a public hearing should be held. Mr. Picton recommended the Commission's consultant review the application before it is decided whether to conduct a hearing and most Commissioners agreed. Mr. Neff discussed the bridge reconstruction in greater detail. Ms. Purnell did not think there would be long term impacts from this proposed construction as long as the erosion and sedimentation control measures were adequate. Mr. Jontos, consultant, reviewed the "Wetland Mitigation Plan," 2 sheets, by Land Tech Consultants, dated 11/21/05, revised to 12/14/05 and submitted a letter to Mr. Ajello dated 12/12/05, a follow up to the Environmental Evaluation and Impact Assessment Report and the document, "Sizing Criteria for Bioretention Structure," undated, unsigned. He explained two activities were proposed in the regulated area; replacement of the existing crossing, and removal of accumulated sediment south of the proposed crossing and said all other activities would be in the upland review area. He pointed out the limit of disturbance line, all proposed grading, discussed the types of wetlands soils on site, gave an overview of wetlands functions, and discussed flood storage capacity, wildlife habitat, and groundwater recharge. He presented details of the proposed mitigation plan. Driveway drainage would be directed to the center island to a 24" X 24" drain, and then to the bioretention system that would capture road sand and other sediments. He noted this would be installed last so it would not be impacted by the construction and he included a list of the material to be planted, a construction sequence, and a long term management plan. Ms. Purnell asked if it would pick up runoff from the bridge. Mr. Jontos said it would not. Ms. Purnell asked why it was necessary to excavate the sediment and noted the proposed landscaping could impact the pond. Mr. Jontos responded that each acre of natural woods produces 4 tons of sediment per year and said the applicant would keep the nutrient level in the pond as low as possible. Mr. Jontos noted the proposal would enhance the wetlands, not adversely impact them. The Commissioners briefly discussed whether a public hearing should be held. It was the consensus to refer the application to a consultant before making this decision.
Brighenti/49 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-71/Tennis Court: The map, "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System," by Mr. Neff, revised to 3/27/05 with the court drawn in by hand and the sketch plan, "Revision," by Mr. Brighenti, undated, were reviewed. Mr. Brighenti noted he had made an effort to move the proposed court 15 feet further from the wetlands, which, he said, would reduce the amount of fill needed by 4 ft. He said the court would be 163 ft. from the wetlands and the drainage outlet 238 ft. from the stream. The 11/16/05 letter from M&M Tennis Courts to Mr. Ajello regarding the specifications for the drainage system was read. Mr. Picton noted the site plan submitted was not stamped and did not conform to site plan standards and so requested a more accurate map locating the wetlands and watercourse and showing the actual distances between them and the court. Mrs. D. Hill noted wetlands measurements are taken horizontally, not down slope, and wondered if measured horizontally, would the court be as close as 100 ft. to the wetlands. Mr. Picton asked if there were wetlands associated with the stream and noted there had been no report by a soil scientist. Ms. Purnell asked if an engineer had reviewed the proposed drainage plan. Mr. Brighenti said the tennis court company had done it, adding that it was excessive because the court is pitched away from the wetlands. Mr. Picton stated the Commission would refer the application to the Town engineer who would determine whether adequate information had been submitted for a proper evaluation. Mr. Brighenti said he wanted to put the court in now while the ground was solid so there would be as little impact to the wetlands as possible. Ms. Purnell noted the Commission prefers that work be done June through September, the driest time of the year. Mr. Picton noted the engineering review would be at the applicant's expense.
Upper Church Hill Road, LLC./72 Upper Church Hill Road/#IW-05-73/3 Lot Subdivision: The map, "Proposed Overall Site Development Plan," by Mr. Szymanski, dated 10/28/05 was reviewed and Mr. Szymanski, engineer, noted there had been no revisions since the last meeting. Mrs. D. Hill asked for the soil scientist's sketch map, but Mr. Szymanski stated it was accurately reflected on the current map. He read a portion of the 11/29/05 letter from Mr. Myles, soil scientist, which stated this was true. The proposed conservation easement was discussed. Ms. Purnell recommended it be reviewed by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Szymanski said it would contain the same language as the Myfield easement and noted it would include the right for Lot #2 to erect a barn that is in keeping with the character of the existing barn on the property. He also said he thought the easement language was a Planning Commission issue, but Ms. Purnell pointed out that there could be potential impacts to the wetlands from structures and the access to those structures in the easement area. Mr. Szymanski also noted the holder of the easement would be determined during the subdivision review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Picton said a deed restriction for conservation purposes was proposed; it was not a conservation easement. Ms. Purnell warned that deed restrictions were not perpetual. She recommended the Conservation Commission be consulted to determine whether the proposed restricted area would fit into a meaningful ecological network and to foster cooperation between the land use commissions. Mrs. D. Hill thought the applicant should submit site specific language before the Commission votes. It was noted that Mr. Cannavaro, road foreman, had advised the applicant to move the existing drainage swale back from the Town road and to make it a foot deeper. Mr. Picton noted that as a condition of approval the Commission could limit it to no more than 2 ft. wide and 1 ft. deep and said if this was done there would be no wetlands impact. The Commission will wait for a response from the Conservation Commission before acting on the application.
Spring Hill Farms. LLC./79 Whittlesey Road/#IW-05-74/Reconstruct, Move, Enlarge Dwelling: The map, "Site Plan," by Halper Owens Architects, revised to 12/14/05 was reviewed. Mr. Picton noted as a result of the site inspection the Commission had asked the soil scientist to add the wetlands to the north of the house to the map. There was a brief discussion about whether that wetlands was a wet meadow or a watercourse and Mr. Ajello noted if it was not a watercourse it met the state definition for an intermittent watercourse. Ms. Purnell advised the applicant that a commentary on the function and value of the wetlands on the property would help the Commission render its decision. Mr. Thomson noted the application was not to renovate the existing dwelling, but to move and construct an entirely new one. Ms. Coe noted a basement would be added. Mr. Picton asked for a comparison of the specs for the new house compared to the existing so that the Commission could be sure the scope of development was not increasing. He asked that the driveway and hardened landscape be included in this analysis. Mr. Owens stated there was more surface proposed than now exists. Mr. Picton noted the proposed house site is surrounded by wetlands; less than 30 ft. to the watercourse, 60 ft. to the ditch, and 45 ft. to the pond. He stated his initial reaction was to allow no increase in the impact to the site, especially since the applicant would not be working with the existing structure, and to recommend a revised application for renovations on the existing footprint or a small addition to the side of the house away from the wetlands. Mr. Owens noted the house would be moved further from the wetlands and so would impact them less and said he hoped the Commission would not deny the proposal. Ms. Purnell pointed out the house would be moved closer to the upgrade wetlands and that there are other considerations besides distance, such as the quality of the wetlands, which contribute to decisions about impervious surfaces near wetlands. Mr. Thomson thought consideration of the application was moot as the new dwelling would not meet the 50 ft. setback from wetlands and watercourses required by the Zoning Regulations. Ms. Purnell agreed the Inland Wetlands Commission has tried to comply with Zoning's 50 ft. setback requirement for new construction. She stated because the proposed structure would be so close to wetlands there would be both short term and long term impacts. Ms. Coe also pointed out the use of the building would increase from a summer "shack" to a year round residence. Mr. Owens replied that it would be used a lot for the first few years, but it would not be a primary residence. Mr. Picton noted the Commission could not count on that. Ms. Purnell asked since the building would be torn down, if there was an alternate location where it could be rebuilt. Mr. Owens said there was not because the property was restricted by state conservation easements. Mr. LaMuniere thought the applicant should work within the existing footprint as the house is located in an area where it would not be permitted if applied for today. Mr. Picton asked for a mitigation plan. Mr. Owens asked what he thought about the existing edge of the pond and Mr. Picton responded that a natural vegetative buffer was a good thing. Mr. Thomson asked for details about the proposed driveway. Mr. Owens said the driveway surface would change and two parking spaces would be added. Mr. Picton advised him to make sure the change in driveway surface was included in the calculations asked for earlier. Mr. Owens asked if he should consult with Mr. Jontos of Land Tech, but Mr. Picton said Land Tech is the Commission's consultant. Mrs. D. Hill requested the soil scientist's sketch map be submitted. It was the consensus the current plans were incomplete and deficient.
Berry/72 New Miford Turnpike/#IW-05-75/Installation of Dry Hydrant: Mr. Ajello reported he had checked the land between the pond and the road and had found no apparent wetlands. Mr. Picton noted the impact from the proposed installation would be temporary and recommended the Commission make a condition of approval that the disturbed surface be restored to its original condition.
MOTION: Based on the recommendation of the WEO, to approve Application #IW-05-75 submitted by Mr. Berry to install a dry hydrant at 72 New Milford Turnpike per the 11/27/05 letter from Mr. Woodruff with the condition that after installation any disturbed surface shall be restored to its previous condition. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Ms. Coe, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-04-V5: Atty. Kelly represented the property owner. For discussion purposes he presented the 1971 subdivision map, which depicted the Fowler property as Parcel M, the A-2 survey for a recent lot line revision, a survey map showing soil types, and a sketch map drawn by the well driller. He noted the existing house and garage are located entirely within wetlands soils as shown on the USDA map and pointed out Section 22a-40(4) of the state statutes states landscaping of residential property is permitted by right in an area equal to or smaller than the largest minimum lot size permitted in the municipality. He said he wanted to come to an agreement with the Commission about 1) how much land the Commission believes it can regulate versus how much Mr. Fowler can landscape and 2) the definition of landscaping. Mr. Picton said landscaping with no adverse impact to the wetlands was allowed, but Atty. Kelly disagreed and read the portion of 22a-40(4), which states incidental uses permitted by right include landscaping, but not the removal or deposition of significant amounts of material from or into a wetlands or watercourse. Atty. Kelly asked if the Commission believes that Mr. Fowler is not permitted to mow to the edge of the stream and asked for clarification of the enforcement order, which, he said, was only a cease and desist order and did not order remediation. Mr. Picton asked that a soil scientist accurately map the wetlands and that Atty. Kelly put all his questions in writing so that the two could be referred to the Commission's counsel for an opinion. Atty. Kelly asked again whether the Commission intended to unconditionally regulate all activities within 100 ft. of wetlands. Ms. Purnell noted for the purposes of the Town of Washington, application of the state statute was interesting due to soil based zoning and the question of whether the largest minimum lot size could even be calculated. She suggested instead, the Commission "default" to 2 acres and noted what Mr. Fowler was seeking was an exemption from the Town's regulations. The Commissioners agreed the unauthorized trench work done by Mr. Fowler was a significant activity. Atty. Kelly said Mr. Fowler was willing to repair the trench, but needed to replace all the footing drains around the house. Mr. Picton advised him an accurate site plan would be required and Atty. Kelly responded he would not submit a map with flagged wetlands. Atty. Kelly again asked what is the largest minimum lot size where landscaping is permitted by right and what is the definition of landscaping that would be permitted by right. Mr. LaMuniere stated Mr. Fowler should fill the trench, otherwise the out flow would continue to impact the wetlands. Atty. Kelly said the trench had always been there and Mr. Fowler had just widened and deepened it. He noted at the request of the Commission Mr. Fowler had consulted experts who said sediment had already refilled the trench, vegetation was growing in the areas that had been disturbed, and there was no reason to disturb the upslope again. Ms. Purnell pointed out that the consultants were biologists who were concerned only with the vegetation and the short term impacts and who did not consider the hydrology of the area. Atty. Kelly said he wanted to balance the rights of the Commission and the property owner and again asked for a definition of exactly what is exempt. Ms. Purnell stated there is no blanket exemption; a property owner must apply for an exemption. It was the consensus that Mr. Fowler could refill the trench by hand with the material that had been taken out of it and that a planting plan was required. Atty. Kelly said his client was willing to do this, but would reserve his right to apply for other activities at a later date. Ms. Purnell noted a report from a soil scientist would be required at that time. Mrs. D. Hill noted, however, that the installation of footing drains would not necessarily be exempted. Atty. Kelly asked for a refund of the application fee. The Commission would not refund the fee as the application process had entailed a significant amount of work, but noted it could waive a future application fee.
Carter/141 Shinar Mt. Road/#IW-05-V8/Repair Retaining Wall: The 12/13/05 letter to the Commission from Mr. Neff regarding whether the bank stabilization work conformed to the approved design specifications was discussed. Mr. Neff, engineer, explained the construction, although not per his original plan, was stable and effective in his assessment. The plan, "Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 9/9/00 was reviewed. Ms. Purnell noted the plans called for large blocks to be stepped back from the channel, but with the vertical wall constructed, the capacity for emergency overflow had been decreased, the natural flow impacted, and there was a possibility that material would be deposited downstream in the stream itself. Mr. Picton thought the existing vertical wall differed significantly from the approved plans. Mr. Neff thought the upstream culvert installation by the Town had impacted the natural stream flow and had cause the erosion that necessitated the streambank repair. He stated whether the wall was vertical or stepped back, it was a very wide channel and so he did not think it would make a difference. Ms. Purnell pointed out Mr. Neff's letter did not address potential downstream impacts. Mr. Picton noted the Commission had the following options: 1) order the wall torn down and rebuilt according to the approved plan, 2) require a bond be posted for downstream repairs and restoration if needed, 3) refer the matter to Commission counsel for review, or 4) accept the report as adequate. It was the consensus of the Commission that the structural stability of the wall and the potential downstream impacts were separate issues and that the possibility of downstream impacts resulting from the work should be investigated. Mr. Picton said he would consult with Atty. Zizka regarding this matter.
MOTION: To accept the 12/13/05 report by Mr. Neff, engineer, that the Carter/141 Shinar Mountain Road streambank stabilization work was done sufficiently well to sustain erosion pressures from the stream, and to consider further the possible effects of riverine and fluvial geomorphology of the solid vertical wall as built, compared to the stepped back design approved, and follow up with enforcement and remediation if necessary. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-1. Mr. Picton voted No because he did not think this was a complete solution. Ms. Purnell stated she accepted only the analysis of the structural stability of what had been constructed.
Other Business
Depot Study: Mrs. Roberts, Planning Commission Chairman, briefly reviewed that Commission's 12/12/05 referral letter to all of the land use commissions. She noted each commission would receive three copies of the report (in addition to the copy already given to each chairman) and asked that the commissioners review them and submit comments and suggestions to the Planning Commission by February. She pointed out that the Wetlands Commission would have a unique point of view and so Planning would like its feedback on its vision for the future of the Depot, what it considered to be priorities, how it thought the land use commissions should move forward, etc. and stressed the need for all Town boards to work together. Mr. Picton thought the study contained many exciting ideas. Ms. Purnell will have additional copies of the study printed so that each member will have his own copy.
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-54/Revision of Conservation Easement: Mr. Boling reported that when he consulted with the Town Sanitarian, she had advised him that staging in the septic area was not permitted. Therefore, he submitted further revised language to reflect this restriction. Ms. Purnell stated she had reviewed the revisions submitted at the last meeting and they were written as the Commission had agreed except for two misspellings. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello and Mrs. Hill to prepare a comprehensive list of all the required documentation and preparations that must be completed before any work may begin on this project. Ms. Purnell recommended that in the future these be specifically described in the motion rather than just including references to reports.
MOTION: To approve revisions to the Myfield, LLC. conservation easement per the 12/14/05 draft with two spelling corrections. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement Report
Feola/Carmel Hill Road/Unauthorized Excavation: Mr. Ajello recommended that due to a technical procedural error, the show cause hearing be held a second time. He said he would send a second order out 10 days prior to the January 11, 2006 meeting. The hearing was set for 5:45 p.m. on 1/11/06 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Gatto/155 Woodbury Road: Mr. Ajello noted Mr. Gatto had denied Mr. Picton and him permission to enter the property to make an inspection. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to file the enforcement order on the Land Records.
The Gunnery School, Inc./22 South Street: Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello if he had checked to make sure what was constructed was identical to the approved plans. Mr. Ajello said it was.
Private Mortgage Fund, LLC./59 South Fenn Hill Road: Mr. Picton asked if the work to date conformed to the approved site plan. Mrs. D. Hill noted the driveway had been moved, and so asked why the change had not been submitted to the Commission for review. Mr. LaMuniere said the Conservation Commission was concerned about increased drainage. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to write the owner to advise him he must submit the revisions to the approved plan to the Commission for review.
Taylor/11 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Excavation in Wetlands: No further work had been done on site and no documentation as requested by the Commission had been submitted.
Mello/Woodbury Road: The hillside had been clearcut and there had been excavation in preparation of the construction of a retaining wall. Mr. Ajello had contacted the owners and an application will be submitted for the January meeting.
Other Business
Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Release of Bond: Ms. Purnell reported there was no new information.
Administrative Procedures: Mrs. D. Hill noted that the Enforcement Officer can not make a determination that there are or are no wetlands on a property because he is not a soil scientist. She cautioned the Commission to use the phrase that there are no apparent wetlands.
It was noted the Commission would conduct an executive session with Atty. Zizka to discuss matters under pending litigation on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. Mrs. Hill was asked to confirm the meeting with Atty. Zizka a few days prior to the meeting date.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Ms. Purnell.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 11:26 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
November 30, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. PictonMEMBER ABSENT: Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Thomson
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sabin, Mr. Ross, Mr. Neff, Mr. Owens,
Mr. Woodward, Mr. Brighenti, Mr. Nicholas
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and seated
Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Picton and Alternate Coe for Ms. Purnell. He welcomed new Alternate, David Thomson.
MOTION: To add the following items to the agenda:
New Applications: B. Lewinter/84-86
Roxbury Road/#IW-05-69/Barn, C. Kessler/
103-105 West Mountain Road/#IW-05-70/New
Dwelling and Driveway, D. Brighenti/49
Calhoun Street/#IW-05-71/Tennis Court,
E. Carron/58 Gunn Hill Road/#IW-05-72/
Generator, Fence, F. Upper Church Hill, LLC/
72 Upper Church Hill Road/#IW-05-73/ 3 Lot
Subdivision, G. Spring Hill Farms, LLC/
79 Whittlesey Road/#IW-05-74/Reconstruct,
Enlarge Dwelling; Other Business: D.
Administrative, Enforcement Officer Guide-
lines, and Caucus for Election of Vice
Chairman. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr.
Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 11/9/05 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 2: 2nd line: Change Mr. Allan to Mr. Oley.
3rd paragraph from bottom: 2nd line: After "eliminated" insert: for several of the buildings.
Page 3: Under Correction of the Minutes, Page 2, 29th line: Change "after to before.
Page 4: 1st Paragraph below motions: Change "there" to they.
2nd line under Myfield: Should state Mrs. J. Hill.
Page 6: 2nd line in 2nd condition of motion: Insert after "around:" and throughout.
4th line from bottom: Should state Mr. Sabin.
Page 9: Under Feola: 2nd line: Change "reissue the citation" to issue a second citation.
Under Citation Procedure: 4th line: Change "citations" to enforcement orders.
Under Commission Organization: 3rd line from bottom: It should state Mrs. J. Hill.
MOTION: To accept the 11/9/05 Public Hearing -
Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By
Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and
passed 5-0.
The 11/16/05 Special Meeting minutes were briefly discussed and corrected. Mr. LaMuniere did not think the approved plans were defined clearly enough in the Myfield motion, but Mr. Ajello said the final documents as listed and the conditions in the motion were the approved plan. It was the consensus the approval letters should be revised to refer to the plans as approved, not approved plans.
Page 4: #8 in the motion: Correct spelling is Mehrhoff.
6th line below motion: Insert after "stormwater:" from outside the development area.
MOTION: To accept the 11/16/05 Special Meeting
minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill,
seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Janowicz/51 Rabbit Hill Road/#IW-05-61/Driveway: Mr. Ross, contractor, said he had contacted Mr. Howland, engineer, who is working on the complete plans requested by the Commission.
Greenfield/12 Ives Road/#IW-05-65/Reconstruct Garage, Remove Invasives, Plant Buffer: Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, presented the site analysis plan on which he had drawn the "Barn Renovation and Wetland Buffer Management Plan," by Mr. Sabin, dated 10/10/05 and revised to 11/29/05. The revised map included the existing location of the septic system, removal of the silt fence from the wetlands, a line to depict the edge of the existing lawn, three temporary stockpile locations, and a limit of disturbance line for the foundation construction. Mr. Sabin stated a 10+/- ft. wide border of wetlands plants and native shrubs would be planted along the wetlands border. Plans to renovate the barn to include a dwelling unit were reviewed. Mr. Picton noted new construction within 44.6 ft. of the wetlands was proposed and said a variance would be required. Mr. Ross said if the ZBA did not grant the variance, the renovation work would be at least 50 ft. from the wetlands. Mr. Picton noted again how close the new construction would be to the wetlands and said the Commission could either act according to the zoning setbacks or deal with each proposal on an individual basis. In this case, he said the area between the building and the wetlands was already lawn and was fairly level. Mr. LaMuniere did not think the new construction would impact the wetlands as long as the work area of the construction equipment was controlled. He noted the applicant had addressed the Commission's concerns by adding the limit of disturbance line to the map, but stressed this line must also be marked on site. Mr. Sabin added, initialed, and dated a note on the plan that a temporary orange fence would be erected on the limit of disturbance line. Mr. Picton noted the Commission usually would not permit a new building within 100 ft. of wetlands, but Mr. Ajello explained in this case there was a parking courtyard on the other side of the barn and moving the barn into this area would affect the maneuvering of the vehicles using it. Ms. Coe noted the use of the building was increasing from barn to barn and dwelling unit so the impact to the wetlands would increase, also. Other points raised in the discussion included; 1) the management plan called for the wet meadow to be mowed once every two years, 2) the plans included sufficient language to ensure the wetland would remain in its natural condition, and 3) a larger scale drawing to show the details should have been submitted.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-65 submitted
by Mr. Greenfield to reconstruct the barn,
remove invasives, and plant a buffer at
12 Ives Road per the "Barn Renovation and
Wetland Buffer Management Plan," by Mr.
Sabin, dated 10/10/05 and revised by Mr.
Sabin to 11/29/05 and further revised at
the meeting to 11/30/05. By Mr. LaMuniere,
seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Henning/1 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-05-67/Propane Tank, Deck, Stairs, Fence: Mr. Woodward, contractor, noted he had submitted a letter of authorization from the owner. Mr. Picton noted the proposed buried propane tank would be 60 ft. and the deck 84 ft. from the Aspetuck River and the land in this area was fairly level. Considering the appropriateness of a new structure (deck) within 100 ft. of the river, Mr. LaMuniere noted it would not be covered, would not be living area, and would be constructed on sono tubes. Mr. Picton thought there would be no impact to the river as long as the silt fence was maintained and there was no machinery below the silt fence. Mr. Woodward agreed to leave the silt fence up until the disturbed areas had revegetated.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-67 submiited
by Ms. Henning to install an underground
propane tank, and construct a deck, stairs,
and fence at 1 New Preston Hill Road per the
drawing revised to 11/30/05 by Mr. Woodward
subject to the following conditions:
1. that the silt fence be maintained until
the disturbed areas are revegetated and
2. that there be no machine work on the river
side of the silt fence.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and
passed 5-0.
New Applications
Pasatieri/57 Findley Road/#IW-05-68ATF/Repair Septic System: Mr. Picton noted the application was incomplete. Mr. Ajello said he had called the contractor to remind him to get the missing information in.
Kessler/103-105 West Mountain Road/#IW-05-70/New Single Family Dwelling and Driveway: Mr. Owens, architect, submitted the following maps and plans: 1) "Road Abandonment Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated August 2004, 2) "Soil Erosion and Sedmiment Control Plan," 2 sheets, by Mr. Neff, dated 11/22/05, 3) "Lot Line Revision," by Mr. Alex, dated August 2004, 4) "Wetland Mitigation Plan," 2 sheets, by Land Tech Consultants, Inc., dated 11/21/05, 5) "Site Plan, A-001" "Partial Site Plan, A-002," and "Building Plans, A-003," by Halper Owens Architects, dated 11/30/05, and two quad maps. Mr. Owens proposed to 1) construct a new single family dwelling, 2) convert the existing dwelling to a guest house, and 3) construct a new driveway, and submitted a letter dated 11/30/05 with details. He noted the plans submitted contained contours, erosion control measures, locations of proposed structures, limit of disturbance line, mitigation plan, and construction sequence. In addition he noted there were no plans for activities near Sprain Brook, and bridgework was proposed. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the new house could be moved farther from the wetlands. Mr. Owens stated the applicant did not want to because he wanted room for a pool and tennis court and a view of the pond from the house. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, December 6, 2005 at 3:30 p.m.
Lewinter/84-86 Roxbury Road/#IW-05-69/Construct Barn: Mr. Nicholas, contractor, represented the applicant. It was noted the application did not include a quad map. Mr. Picton said quad maps were required for complete applications as they provide information on soils and the general location of properties. An untitled, undated sketch map and the map, "Map Prepared for Helen Hunt," by Mr. Burnham, dated January 1982 with the location of the proposed barn drawn in by hand were reviewed. Mr. Nicholas noted the A-2 survey map was outdated. Mrs. J. Hill advised him to get a copy of the revised map if it had been filed on the Land Records. Mr. Nicholas pointed out the proposed barn location was only 30 feet from an intermittent watercourse and said the application included a proposal to manage roof drainage. Mr. Picton asked if there was an erosion control plan. Mr. Ajello stated the construction would have no direct impact on the watercourse because there was no downhill grade to the stream. Mr. Picton requested a more accurate map with exact distances noted. Mr. Bedini asked that it include the exact location and width of the stream. Mr. Nicholas noted the proposed pole barn had no foundation or frost walls. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, December 6, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.
Brighenti/49 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-71/Tennis Court: The maps, "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System," Sheet 1 of 2, by Mr. Neff, dated 5/17/99, revised to 3/27/00 with tennis court details drawn in by hand and "Lot Line Revision," by Mr. Alex, dated October 1988 were reviewed. Mr. Picton noted the tennis court was proposed next to the septic fields above a steep slope above Canoe Brook and said the application was required due to the steep slope and to address erosion concerns. Mr. Brighenti stated at its closest point the court would be 138 ft. away from the stream bank and it would require 8 feet of fill. He said he had pushed it as close as possible to the septic area and the stone wall to minimize any impact on the watercourse. He noted the proposed drain would empty 200 ft. from the stream. Details of the drainage system were reviewed. Mr. LaMuniere recommended a level spreader with rip rap at the drainage outlet because the slope was so steep at the outlet. Mr. Picton asked if the Commission should require the wetlands be mapped, but Mr. Ajello said this would not be necessary because all the wetlands were associated with the stream and were quite a distance from the court. Mr. Picton asked for a topo map and a soils map to provide general information. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, December 6, 2005 at 2:45 p.m.
Carron/58 Gunn Hill Road/#IW-05-72/Generator and Fence: Mr. Picton recused himself and Mrs. D. Hill chaired this portion of the meeting. Mr. Ajello explained the original permit had been approved a year ago and the generator had been deleted from the plan at that time. The current proposal called for the generator to be installed 50 ft. from wetlands on a 5' X 7' concrete pad near an existing shed. Underground lines to the house were also proposed. The sketch plan by Mr. Picton dated 11/05 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello suggested the application could instead be handled as a revision to the original application and the Commission agreed. It was noted it was level near the shed where the work would take place, but that the terrain dropped off past the shed. It was the consensus a silt fence should be erected and the $25 revision fee be submitted. Mr. Picton submitted the $25.
MOTION: To approve a revision of Permit #IW-04-55
for a generator and fence on the Carron
property at 58 Gunn Hill Road subject to
the following conditions:
1. a silt fence be installed between the
generator location and the wetlands
during construction
2. the $25 revision fee be submitted.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and
passed 4-0.
Mr. Picton resumed the chair.
Upper Church Hill, LLC./72 Upper Church Hill Road/#IW-05-73/3 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, represented the applicant. He noted the 30 acre parcel was located at the intersection of Popple Swamp and Upper Church Hill Roads. The set of survey maps, 4 sheets, by Mr. Howland, dated 10/28/05 was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski noted there were wetlands on the east side of the property and in the southwest corner. He said he had met with Mr. Cannavaro, road foreman, who required culverts under the driveways and cleaning of the swale along Popple Swamp Road to help direct runoff and said minor regrading to direct the runoff toward the catch basins would be needed. Hay bales were proposed along the entire downhill side of the proposed activities and wells on both proposed lots. Proposed driveway grades were approximately 3/4%. He noted a soil scientist had flagged the wetlands and Mrs. D. Hill requested his sketch map. Mr. Ajello asked if there was a long term maintenance plan for the wetlands. Mr. Szymanski stated they would most likely be hayed. Mr. Picton asked the reason for the configuration of the conservation easement area and if the applicant would consider including all of the wetlands in it. Mr. Szymanski said its purpose was to provide privacy for the proposed lots. Mr. Picton said he would like to see more restrictive easement language and more of the wetlands included. Mr. LaMuniere expressed his concern that if the wet meadows did not continue to be used for agriculture, they would revegetate. Mr. Szymanski said this would most likely be up to the future property owner. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, December 7, 2005 at 2:30 p.m.
Spring Hill Farm, LLC./79 Whittlesey Road/#IW-05-74/Reconstruct Dwelling: Mr. Owen submitted the map, "Ingrassia Pond House," by Halper Owens Assoc, LLC. dated 11/29/05 and pointed out the location of the property and the wetlands and watercourses on site. He proposed to rebuild and move the existing cabin slightly farther from the pond, noting there was a limit to how far away it could be moved due to the conservation easement on the property. The building would be increased in size to include a porch, larger "big" room, an additional bedroom, and storage area and would be considered the primary structure on the property. All activity would be within 100 feet of wetlands. Mr. Owens noted a soil scientist had flagged the wetlands, pointed out the location of a drainage ditch that runs through the property, and noted the septic system would have to be pumped around the pond to an area with good soils. Another copy of the map was requested. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, December 7, 2005 at 3:15 p.m.
Berry/72 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-05-75/Installation of Dry Hydrant: Mr. Ajello explained a standard dry hydrant was proposed at the corner of Flirtation Avenue and New Milford Turnpike. Mr. Ajello will inspect the site to determine whether there are any wetlands between the pond and the proposed hydrant site, will check the application for completeness, and will make sure the work description contains sufficient detail.
Enforcement
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road/#IW-04-V8/Repair Retaining Wall: Mr. Neff reported he called Carter's property manager to ask for authorization to inspect the retaining wall. Mr. Picton stated a second citation would be issued if there was no progress by the next meeting.
Feola/Carmel Hill Road/Excavation in Wetlands: Mr. Ajello said he had sent a letter to Mr. Feola on 10/18/05 with clear instructions, but had not yet received a response. He was asked to send a second letter and if there is no response, a second citation will be issued.
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-04-V5/Excavation in Wetlands: The enforcement order has been filed on the Town Land Records.
The Gunnery, Inc./22 South Street/Construction of Driveway: Mr. Picton asked if the construction was proceeding according to the approved plan. Mr. Ajello will inspect the site to ensure it is.
Marcucio/Dark Entry Road/Installation of Swale: The swale has been installed and Mr. Bedini reported it is working well.
9 Main Street Assoc., LLC./East Shore Road/Construction of Stone Wall and Clearing: Mr. Picton noted the letter sent to the Ingrassias had not mentioned the 50 ft. buffer requirement and so asked Mr. Ajello to inspect the site to assess how wide a buffer the Commission should require. Mr. Ajello noted the property owner could not be required to plant in the state right of way. Mr. Picton said this matter would be discussed again when maps are submitted.
Ingrassia/Bee Brook Road: Mrs. D. Hill asked if the property owner had a Timber Harvest permit. Mr. Ajello responded two sections of the property are being cleared for vineyards, which is an agricultural use. He also noted there were no wetlands in the vicinity of the clearing.
Beck/132 Calhoun Street/#IW-02-V1/Clearing in Wetlands: There was nothing new to report on this matter.
Private Mortgage Fund, LLC./59 South Fenn Hill Road/Single Family Dwelling and Driveway: Mrs. J. Hill noted a complaint about the driveway work had recently been received and asked if it were found that this work differed from the approved plan, even if it was not within 100 feet of a wetlands or watercourse, would the Commission require a request for a revision. It was the consensus it would especially because there was a steep slope down to the wetlands on this property.
Reinhardt-Cremona/10 and 8 Perkins Road/Unauthorized Clear Cutting: Mr. Picton briefly reviewed the violation and the status of the appeal. Mr. Ajello offered to walk the site with Mr. Thomson to familiarize him with the violation.
Schoellkoph/300 Nettleton Hollow Road/Deer Fence: Mr. Ajello expected an application will be submitted soon.
Other Business
Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Project Completion-Release of Bond: Ms. Purnell had reported to Mr. Picton that efforts by the school to comply with all conditions of approval were progressing.
Myfield, LLC/7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-54/Revision of Conservation Easement: Mr. Boling submitted minor revisions to the conservation easement, 11/20/05 draft, which included reserving rights for staging during construction on the areas north of the proposed driveway. He said disturbed areas would be restored to their original condition upon completion of the work. Mr. Ajello recommended the applicant have the Health Department approve the staging areas as Health does not like compacted soils in the septic areas. Mr. Picton hoped Ms. Purnell would be able to review the proposed language prior to the next meeting.
2006 Calendar:
MOTION: To approve the 2006 Calendar as amended.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and
passed 5-0.
Commission Organization/Administrative Procedures:
Checklist: Mr. Bedini said he and Ms. Purnell had begun work on the checklist, but from an applicant's viewpoint he questioned its necessity. He thought if the application form was complete, it would be less confusing if the applicants had only one document to deal with instead of two. Ms. Coe noted from her experience as a teacher, checklists were very helpful. Mr. Picton suggested a checklist on the last page of the application form and Mrs. J. Hill suggested a check off box in front of each number on the application form. Mr. LaMuniere noted the checklist would vary depending on the activity proposed and its complexity. Mrs. D. Hill suggested at the top of the application form the applicant be asked to check off and submit any and all of the following that apply to the proposed activity. Mr. Picton hoped the checklist process would not become too complicated. Administrative Organization: Mr. Picton noted the Administrative Guidelines were an attempt to organize the EO's duties and time so that he would spend more time out in the field. He said the priorities for the EO were 1) enforcement - both violations and ensuring permitted work was completed according to the approved plans and 2) helping the Commission to make good decisions. Mr. Ajello asked if the Commission thought the enforcement report was important. Mr. Picton asked if it could be prepared earlier so that it could be sent out in advance of each meeting. Mr. Ajello said this would be difficult for weeks when the Zoning Commission also met. In general, Mr. Ajello said he had no objection to any one item in the Guidelines, but thought the record keeping requirements were too burdensome. It was the consensus of the Commission that additional clerical help was needed to enable Mr. Ajello to spend more time out on site for the enforcement and monitoring that he currently has no time for. It was thought the EO should limit his office availability, hand out more printed material for general information, and advise the public to hire consultants to handle more complicated matters. Mr. Picton said he would send a copy of the Guidelines to Mr. Sears and explain the Commission's objectives to him. Commission organization: With the resignation of Mrs. Korzenko, a vice chairman was needed. Mr. Picton recommended Mrs. D. Hill because she had experience and was willing to serve in this capacity. MOTION: To elect Mrs. D. Hill Vice Chairman. By
Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and
passed 5-0.
MOTION: To go into Executive Session at 10:07 p.m.
to discuss pending litigation. By Mrs.
Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To come out of Executive Session at 10:30 p.m.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and
passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
November 16, 2005
Special MeetingMEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Bedini
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Thomson, Mr. Boling, Mr. Worcester, Mrs. Condon, Mr. Brigham, Atty. Ebersol, Mr. CharlesMr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Bedini. He noted that all Commissioners present had either attended all sessions of the public hearing or had listened to the tapes. Mr. Picton stated the Commission had asked the staff to prepare a draft motion of approval, he had not asked for a motion of denial because that would be easier to draft, and that either motion would be entertained.
The map, "Proposed Site Plan," by Mr. Worcester dated 8/22/05 and revised to 10/18/05 as drawn on the "Property/Boundary Survey" by Mr. Alex, dated January 2005 was reviewed.
Possible conditions of approval were discussed. These included requiring a stabilized swale from the outlet of the detention basin to the stone wall, consideration of the thermal impacts when determining how this swale is to be stabilized, requiring the detention basin and stormwater management systems to be constructed prior to the commencement of site work for the construction of any buildings, requiring the conservation easement to be filed on the Town Land Records prior to the start of work, procedure for any future amendments to the conservation easement, marking the boundary of the conservation easement area with permanent markers, marking the limit of disturbance line with a substantial fence prior to the start of work, and inclusion of language in the homeowner's document regarding long term maintenance of the stormwater management system.
Numerous organizational revisions such as numbering and lettering and changing the order of the conditions were also discussed.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-54 submitted by Myfield, LLC. to construct 10 dwelling units at 7 Mygatt Road per:
A) the plan, "Proposed Site Plan, by Mr. Worcester, dated 8/22/05 and revised to 10/18/05 as drawn on the "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated January 2005,
B) the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 7/18/05 and revised to 10/15/05,
C) the "Stormwater Management Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 8/8/05 and revised to 11/2/05,
D) the document, "Proposed Planting and Invasive Species Management Plan," revised to 10/25/05, and
E) the "Proposed Voluntary Conservation Restriction," 11/9/05 draft;
all above documents as modified to conform to the recommendations in the reports from Land Tech Consultants dated 9/16/05 and 10/26/05, which shall be implemented according to further input from Land Tech Consultants taking into account thermal impacts; and all plans shall be updated to conform to Land Tech Consultants' specifications prior to construction;
approval to be subject to the following conditions:
1) The detention basin and stormwater management systems shall be constructed and functioning prior to the commencement of site work for any building sites. Subsequently, the area of disturbance shall encompass the area of no more than two buildings at a time. Upon completion of the first two buildings, the exposed ground shall be stabilized to the satisfaction of the WEO with either vegetation or robust mulch or other stabilizing cover prior to breaking ground on the next two construction sites per the 8/24/05 letter to the Commission from Mr. Neff.
2) The applicant shall post a $15,000 cash performance bond prior to the start of work. At any point up to the final approval of the completed project and its satisfactory one year performance evaluation period after completion, the bond may be used by the Town to correct any damage to the wetlands, watercourses, and drainage areas resulting from failures of the stormwater management system or any other activity carried out in connection with the execution of the project. In the event a portion of the bond is used for corrective work by the Town, the bond shall be restored by the applicant to $15,000 prior to continuation of work on the project. All but $5000 of the bond balance shall be released upon completion of the project when it has been determined by the Commission and/or its agent that all work done and actions taken are in compliance with the permit requirements and all conditions of approval and the site is fully stabilized and vegetated. The $5000 balance shall be returned one year after final completion of work and the signing off on the Finish Card by the WEO if the site conditions have remained stable.
3) If altered by the Zoning Commission, the Conservation Restriction 11/09/05 draft must come back for approval by the Inland Wetlands Commission (per letter from Mr. Boling dated 11/09/05.) The Conservation Restriction Section 15 Limitation on Amendment shall be altered to omit the following passage, ", if involving an area or activity subject to the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Commission," thus, it will read, "and shall, prior to execution, be approved by the Wetlands Commission." Proof that the conservation easement as approved by the Inland Wetlands Commission has been recorded on the Town Land Records shall be submitted to the Land Use Office prior to the start of work. Any amendment subsequent to filing shall also be subject to IWC approval.
4) A substantial fence shall be erected on site on the limit of disturbance line prior to the start of work.
5) The conservation easement boundary line between the development site and the conservation easement area shall be visibly marked on site in a manner acceptable to the Commission prior to the start of work. Permanent conservation easement area boundary markers shall be installed around its entire perimeter prior to the start of work. Conservation easement markers of an approved style, color, and size shall be spaced at 40 foot intervals along all property boundary lines and also along the entire barrier fence between the dwellings and the southern conservation easement area.
6) The applicant shall pay for the Commission's consultant to inspect and evaluate the stormwater management systems and the driveway upon their completion and as required by the WEO or the Commission during any phase of the construction and the permit. A written report shall be submitted by the consultant to the Commission certifying that those systems and the driveway are in compliance with the approved design standards and the permit issued.
7) A long term stormwater management plan shall be submitted for approval to the Commission's consultant and shall be incorporated into the homeowner's document prior to the start of construction per comment #3 of Land Tech's 8/5/05 letter.
8) "Invasive species" should be defined to include any species included on the Non Native Invasive and Potentially Invasive Vascular Plants in Connecticut list (Mahrhoff, Metzler, and Corrigan, 2003) as amended.
9) Any change to the approved plans shall be submitted to the Commission for review and approval.
Mr. Picton explained that although he did not like the proposed 750 ft. line of development at the crest of the hill, which slopes down to the wetlands, and he did not think the proposal was an ideal development pattern for the Town, there was only a small watershed to deal with and stormwater would not cross the area to be developed. He noted the applicant had moved the proposed buildings back at the request of the Commission and that almost all the development was now off the steep slope. He noted, too, that the soils in the area were unusually well drained Paxton soils. He stated the proposed conservation easement would provide significant mitigation from the adverse impacts from non point source pollution from intensive development. For all these reasons he thought the application could be approved with the conditions included in the motion because the impact to the wetlands would be neutral.
Mrs. D. Hill agreed with these reasons.
Ms. Purnell submitted written comments (attached.) She commended the applicant for making revisions that improved the plan from the viewpoint of impacts to the wetlands and watercourses. She said she was disappointed there had not been a reduction in the number of units, but did note that the impervious surface proposed was below 9% and the conservation easement restrictions would minimize the long and short term impacts on the wetlands and watercourse if the management plan was carried out.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Ms. Purnell.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
November 9, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. PurnellALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Ms. Coe
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Worcester, Mr. Charles, Mr. Boling, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Fowlkes, Atty. Ebersol, Mr. Papsin, Ms. Mathews, Mr. Jontos, Mr. Sears,Mr. Ross, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Money, Mr. Woodward, Press
PUBLIC HEARING
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-54/10 Dwelling Units/Con't.
Mr. Picton reconvened the public hearing at 6:06 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Bedini for the vacant seat. Mr. Picton noted the documents submitted since the 10/26/05 session of the hearing: 1) 11/9/05 letter to the Commission from Open Space Equity re: the proposed conservation easement, 2) page from Graphic Standards, 10th ed. re: turning radii, 3) 11/4/05 letter to Land Tech from Mr. Neff re: soil test results, 4) 10/27/05 letter to Ms. Mathews from the state DPH in response to questions she raised about the proposed septic system, 5) 10/1/05 letter to the state DPH from Ms. Mathews re: Proposed Myfield septic system, 6) 10/28/05 email to Mr. Ajello from Mr. Charles re: Myfield Infiltration Systems, and 7) 2 copies of the "Stormwater Management Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 11/2/05.
Atty. Ebersol reported the additional soil tests indicated there was no ledge or hard pan within 7 ft. of the surface in the area proposed for the infiltration systems and so said they would function properly. He said that revisions had been made to the proposed conservation easement language based on the Commission's input.
Mr. Jontos, consultant, referred to Land Tech's 10/26/05 letter to the Commission. He stated: 1) The soil test data confirmed the infiltration systems would operate properly as long as those areas were protected from over compaction during construction. 2) To ensure against erosion of the hillside, he recommended a permanently stabilized swale be extended from the detention basin outlet pipe to the existing stone wall. 3) He assumed the detention basin routing analysis was acceptable since Mr. Allan had not contacted him to say it wasn't. 4) Typical specifications like details of the grass lined emergency overflow and the depth of the process aggregate for the driveway should be added to the plans. 5) The construction sequence on 10/15/05 "Soil and Erosion Control Plan" should be amended to state a) wood chips would be saved for use for erosion control and b) the excavation of the stormwater detention pond should be done first so that it could serve as a silt trap during construction. 6) The applicant should be allowed leeway to use alternate erosion control measures such as straw rice wattles and silt soxx filled with compost. He thought it was good that no more than two buildings would be constructed at one time so the area of disturbance would be limited.
Mr. Picton asked Mr. Jontos to recommend a bond amount to cover the repair of the critical features of the erosion control measures and any emergency work required. Mr. Picton noted this might be too large a project for the WEO to inspect and asked Mr. Jontos if the applicant could be required to pay for a consultant to make timely inspections and submit written reports to the Commission.
Mr. Hayden of NWCD said that he agreed with Mr. Jontos's recommendations and that the proposed stormwater management system was adequate.
Mr. Tagley thanked the Commission for its diligent consideration of the application and said he thought protecting the ecology of the area was the main issue.
Mr. Picton asked if the applicant had any objections to the Land Tech reports. Mr. Neff, engineer, stated many of the Land Tech comments had already been incorporated on page 2 of the Stormwater Management Plan. He said he was willing to revise this plan to include the installation of a stabilized channel from the outlet of the detention basin to the stonewall and to revise the construction sequence to require the detention basin be constructed first.
Mr. Picton noted there was now an undisturbed buffer within 82 feet of the wetlands, the walk out basements had been eliminated, and almost all the proposed disturbance was above the slope. He said the applicants had done a thorough job and thanked them for their efforts.
Ms. Purnell noted the project narrative called for inspections after every heavy rainfall and asked if "heavy" was a known quantity. Mr. Jontos said it was typically a half inch rainfall or greater.
Mr. Picton asked if the conservation easement area would be permanently marked. Mr. Boling said this would be done.
The amount of the bond was discussed. Ms. Purnell noted the Commission had required $25,000 for other large scale permits, but said this project had a smaller envelope, only one detention basin, and a shorter driveway.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider Application #IW-05-54 submitted by Myfield, LLC. to construct 10 dwelling units at 7 Mygatt Road. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded By Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton closed the public hearing at 6:35 p.m.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Bedini.
MOTION: To add Henning/1 New Preston Hill Road/ #IW-05-67/Propane Tank, Deck, Stairs, and Fence to the agenda. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 10/26/05 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Add to Also Present: Mr. Branson and Mr. Money
Page 2: 24th line: Change "emergent" to emergency.
29th line: Insert after "8 ft. wide:" 16 ft. long, by...
10th line from bottom: Insert after "figures:" including patios and other impervious surfaces.
Page 4: 11th line: Change "no" to limited
6th paragraph: 7th line: Insert after "maintenance:" /enforcement.
Page 6: 4th line: Insert after "system:" and the wetland crossing.
8th line: Insert after "herbaceous:" plants and.
10th line: Insert after "well:" near the house.
Page 7: 2nd line: Change "cycles" to cycling.
8th line: Add to the end of the sentence: ; Mr. Rosiello clarified the drawing and initialed the changes.
Page 8: The vote on Bennett/#IW-05-55 was 4-1 in favor, not 4-0. Under Herrmann/#IW-05-62 add: It was noted none of the Members had attended the site inspection.
Page 13: Under Creation of data base: 3rd line: Change "software" to hardware and "Access" to MS Access.
MOTION: To accept the 10/26/05 Public Hearing- Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 11/2/05 site inspection minutes for Murgio/#IW-05-63 as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 11/2/05 site inspection minutes for Greenfield/#IW-05-65 as written. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton noted the minutes stated the wetlands were flagged, but he had not seen any flags when he had been on site. Mr. Ajello noted possibly there were in the brush or had been taken down.
Pending Applications
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-54/10 Dwelling Units: Mr. Picton asked if the Commissioners were ready to act on the application or if they would like Mr. Ajello and Mrs. Hill to work on a draft motion and act at the next meeting. Ms. Purnell stated she was not prepared to vote at this time because she wanted to first analyze the application according to the criteria in Section 8.4 and then determine what conditions would be necessary. Mr. LaMuniere thought it was difficult to draft a comprehensive motion at a meeting and so thought staff should draft language for consideration at the next meeting. Mr. Bedini said Land Tech's recommendation that the discharge from the detention basin be conveyed to the stone wall should be included as a condition of approval. Mr. Picton noted the Commission could stipulate that Land Tech's reports be followed. Ms. Purnell noted it was important to make sure the correct document revision dates were referenced in the motion. Mr. Picton asked that conditions covering posting of a bond, enforcement, monitoring of the work site and erosion controls, reporting to the Commission, and marking the easement boundaries in the field be included and that the conservation easement be filed on the Town Land Records before the start of construction. Ms. Purnell suggested $15,000 would be an adequate bond. Mr. Boling noted the applicant had hoped to submit a complete application, which included Inland Wetlands approval, to the Zoning Commission at its 11/28/05 meeting. Mr. Picton asked the Commissioners to submit recommendations for the motion to the Land Use Office by Monday, 11/14 so that a draft motion could be prepared for consideration at a Special Meeting on 11/16.
MOTION: To schedule a Special Meeting on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct. to consider Application #IW-05-54 submitted by Myfield, LLC. to construct 10 dwelling units at 7 Mygatt Road. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Janowicz/51 Rabbit Hill Road/#IW-05-61/Driveway: It was noted none of the information the Commission had requested had been submitted to date and that the applicant would have to ask for an extension if he wanted the application to be considered at the next meeting. Mr. Ross, contractor, said he would submit a written request for an extension prior to 11/18.
Herrmann/92 East Street/#IW-05-62/Dredge Pond: Mr. Neff, engineer, was present. It was noted the application had been fully discussed at the last meeting and that Ms. Purnell had inspected the site. When considering a condition of approval that the sides of the pond not be excavated, Mr. Neff said this was not necessary because the plans indicated the bottom only would be excavated and the side slopes would not.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-62 submitted by Mr. Herrmann to dredge the pond at 92 East Street per the 9/15/05 "Pond Cleanout Plan," by Mr. Neff. By Ms. Purnell, seconded By Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Murgio/21 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-05-63/First Cut and Driveway:
It was noted that during the site inspection two alternate driveway routes were noted, but that the current proposal had the safest entrance. Mr. Charles, agent, presented a revised survey map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, revised to 10/26/05 showing the proposed boundary lines. He noted there had been no revisions to the site development plan. Mr. Picton noted the driveway would hug the stonewall to stay away from the wetland area and asked if any more fill would be needed on the lower side. Mr. Neff, engineer, replied a limited amount of fill would be required for the installation of the culvert pipe, which would allow the natural flow in the area to continue. Mr. Picton noted the culvert outlet was only 10 to 15 feet from the wetlands. Mr. LaMuniere asked the applicant to consider mitigation. Mr. Picton asked that the lawn surrounding the wetlands be restored to native species as specified in the motion below. It was noted the application was for the creation of the lot and driveway feasibility only; a separate application would be required for the actual driveway construction, site clearing, and house construction.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-63 submitted by Mrs. Murgio for a first cut and driveway location only at 21 New Preston Hill Road per the map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, revised to 10/26/05, the map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 10/6/05 and the "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 10/8/05 subject to the following conditions:
1. there shall be no fill deposited within10 feet of the northern most wetlands,
2. a 10 ft. wide buffer of native plant species shall be planted all the way around the northern most wetlands.
By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Picton, and
passed 5-0.
Greenfield/12 Ives Road/#IW-05-65/Reconstruct Garage, Remove Invasives, Enrich Buffer: Mr. Ross, contractor, and Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, were present. The map, "Barn Renovation and Wetland Buffer Management Plan," by Mr. Sabin dated 10/10/05 drawn on the "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated December 2004 was reviewed and it was noted the wetlands flags shown on the map had not been seen on the site inspection. Mr. Sabin proposed to take out the multiflora rose and to plant an herbaceous buffer along the edge of the wetlands. It was noted the proposed installation of the septic tank for the barn renovation would be within 100 feet of the wetlands. Mr. Sabin was asked to amend the application form to include all proposed activities. He added the removal of invasives and enrichment of the buffer to the form. Mr. Picton noted a complete mapping of the site conditions was needed and asked that the location of the existing septic system and the 100 ft. setback line be added to the map. He asked if a stockpile location was shown and Mr. agreed to add one to the map. Mr. Ross explained the garage would be enlarged and converted to an accessory apartment. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to carefully review the application to make sure it is complete and consistent with the narrative submitted. Ms. Purnell asked that the limit of disturbance be indicated on the map and Mr. Ajello responded it was the line of silt fence. Mr. Picton asked why the silt fence was located in the wetlands. Mr. Sabin explained this was to allow room for the mitigation planting. Mr. Picton asked that the disturbance be kept outside of the wetlands and the silt fence be moved out of the wetlands. He noted the soggy ground extends further into the lawn area than is shown on the map. Mr. Ajello recommended a double row of silt fence; one row to be removed for the planting of the buffer. Mr. Sabin noted he planned to move the existing compost pile out of the wetlands and agreed to move the silt fence out, also. Mr. Ross stated the work site would be accessed from the driveway side only. Mr. Picton noted the existing barn is only 44.6 ft. from the wetlands and questioned whether an extension of the barn should be permitted so close to the wetlands. It was noted limiting access to the work area by heavy machinery could be a condition of approval. Mr. Ross stated machinery would have to operate within 10 to 15 feet of the foundation for backfilling. Mr. Sabin stated he would include a temporary machine access limit line on the map.
Godwin/35 West Morris Road/#IW-05-65/Stone Wall: Mr. Money, contractor, was present and submitted a sequence of construction as requested at the last meeting. He stated there would be no stockpiling of material on site and that the work was planned for the first two weeks in December. Mr. Picton noted the line of silt fence was the limit of disturbance and of the work area.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-66 submitted by Mr. Godwin to construct a stone wall at 35 West Morris Road per the undated site plan and the construction sequence received 11/9/05 and with the condition that no work be done on the wetlands side of the silt fence. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Henning/1 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-05-67/Propane Tank, Deck, Stairs, Fence: Mr. Ajello noted there was no letter of authorization from the property owner for Mr. Woodward, contractor. The sketch map by Woodco, LLC. was reviewed. It was noted the proposed buried propane tank was 60 feet from the Aspetuck River and the rest of the proposed activities were at least 84 feet away. Mr. Picton observed there were no wetlands between the existing house and the river and that the grade was not steep. He asked if the proposed work would involve a risk to the watercourse. Mr. Ajello stated most of the digging would be done by hand and that he had asked that the silt fence be left up over the winter. Mr. Picton suggested the Commissioners consider the appropriateness of the proposed deck in the upland review area. Mr. Woodward stated the deck was located as far as possible from the river, the pier holes would be hand dug, the deck would have no roof, and there was no intent to convert it to living space. For the installation of the propane tank, Mr. Woodward noted a 24 inch deep trench would be dug between the tank and the dwelling. The Commissioners will inspect the site on their own prior to the next meeting.
Enforcement
9 Main Street, LLC. (Ingrassia)/9 Main Street/Stone Wall: Mr. Picton asked if Mr. Ajello had asked the property owner for a mitigation plan as was discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Ajello said he had not. Mr. Picton noted the Commission usually required that the wetlands be mapped and a mitigation/ remediation plan be submitted for similar violations. Mr. Picton asked that a follow up letter be sent to the owner to request a planting plan to protect the nearby wetlands. It was noted that some of the disturbed area was probably in the state right of way and that over time the area had gradually been cleared and grass planted.
The Gunnery, Inc./22 South Street/#IW-00-63/Driveway: Mr. Ajello was asked to make sure The Gunnery had posted the $10,000 bond for this project.
Gatto/155 Woodbury Road: The map, "Zoning Location Survey," by Stuart Somers Co., LLC., revised to 9/6/05 to show proposed buffer plantings was reviewed. Mr. Picton noted the Commission did not normally recommend non native plants for the remediation of the wetlands buffer. It was noted Mr. Hayden's 11/5/05 report had been received and Mr. Ajello said it concluded the proposed planting plan was adequate. Mr. Ajello stated the planting proposed was not extensive and Mr. Picton noted it was not a natural streambelt buffer that was proposed. Mr. LaMuniere questioned whether substituting cinnamon fern for the proposed pachysandra would be adequate. Mr. Picton asked the Commission whether it would keep pressing for a naturalized area within so many feet of the stream or whether it would accept Mr. Hayden's recommendations. It was generally thought substitutions of cinnamon fern and gray dogwood should be made, but otherwise a planting plan according to Mr. Hayden's recommendations would be OK. Mr. Ajello will contact Atty. Zizka and forward a copy of the minutes to the Gattos.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road/#IW-04-V8/Repair of Retaining Wall: It was the consensus that because there had been no response to the enforcement order, a second citation for double the amount of the first should be issued. Mr. Ajello said he would first send one last warning. It was suggested that if the property owner did not hire an engineer to certify the work done complies with the specifications approved by the Commission, the Commission could hire its own engineer.
Feola/Carmel Hill Road: Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to reissue the citation if Mr. Feola does not comply with the requests made by the Commission by 11/30/05.
Taylor/11 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Excavation in Wetlands: Mr. Ajello reported the citation had not yet been paid and none of the information requested by the Commission had been submitted.
Other Business
Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Request for Release of Bond: Ms. Purnell reported Mr. McNaughton had agreed to remove the cat tails from the detention basins. She recommended that once this work had been completed that one half to two thirds of the bond be released and the remainder retained to ensure compliance with the monitoring requirements. She noted another monitoring well had to be dug and monitored for three successive years. Also two sampling sites would be added to replicate pre development conditions.
Citation Procedure: Mr. LaMuniere asked Mr. Ajello to research the citation ordinance to determine under what conditions the Commission may issue a second citation. It was noted that in the future, citations will include a date by which the property owner must comply.
Commission Organization and Procedures: Mr. Ajello stated he had read the 10/5/05 minutes and Mr. Picton's resulting procedures document, but did not think it would be possible for him to complete all the written work specified within the hours currently allotted to him and still have time to get out into the field for inspections. It was recommended that he limit his hours spent on public contact in order to free up time for inspections. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to implement as many of the recommendations as possible and to write up what he could not accomplish. He then asked Mr. Ajello and Mrs. Hill to draft a list of recommendations for how to accomplish more of the work in the procedures document. Ms. Purnell asked if it would be beneficial for the Land Use Office to have a receptionist to deal with the public and do some of the paperwork. Mr. Ajello said there was no room to accommodate another staff member, but Mr. Bedini thought another staff person to check for incomplete applications, inform the public of requirements, etc. was needed. Also, Mr. Ajello did not think it was a good idea that he attend only one Commission meeting per month because doing so would disrupt communication. Ms. Purnell and Mr. Bedini reported they had begun work on the application checklist, which would be specific to the activity proposed and would be used by the EO, the applicant, and the Commission.
It was not necessary to go into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation.
Mr. LaMuniere noted the Queach ruling was not applicable unless the Inland Wetlands Regulations included specific language regarding the upland review area. Ms. Purnell said Washington's Regs already conform, using a definition from the state model regs.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
October 26, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Korzenko, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. D. Hill
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Bedini
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Ms. Coe
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Corrigan, Atty. Ebersol, Mr. Charles, Mr. Boling, Mr. Worcester, Ms. Mathews, Mr. Sears, Mr./Mrs. Williams, Mr. Tagley, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Neff, Mr./Mrs. Krajnak, Mr. Gitterman, Mrs. Condon, Mrs. Andersen, Mr. Ross, Mr. Munson, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Rosiello, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARING
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-54/10 Dwelling Units/Continued
Mr. Picton reconvened the public hearing at 6:05 p.m. and seated Members Korzenko, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Bedini for Mrs. Hill. Mr. Picton read the list of documents submitted since the October 12 session of the hearing. Mr. LaMuniere arrived and was seated.
The map, "Proposed Site Plan," by Mr. Alex and Mr. Worcester, revised to 10/18/05 was reviewed.
Atty. Ebersol outlined the revisions to address concerns raised by the Commission that were made to the site plan since the original submission. These included 1) moved the three affordable units away from the ravine to the edge of the meadow, 2) moved five of the market units so that none will be located within 100 feet of wetlands and so there will be no activities within 75 feet of wetlands except for a small section of the infiltration systems, which were requested by Land Tech, the Commission's consultant, 3) increased the size of the proposed conservation easement area to 78% of the site. Mr. Worcester also noted that the walk out basements on buildings #1 and #2 had been deleted, the infiltration system for building #2, the system closest to the wetlands, would be no closer than 82 ft. from the wetlands, the lawn areas had been reconfigured to decrease their size, and the northern silt fence indicated the limit of grading line. Ms. Purnell pointed out the southern silt fence line was labeled as the limit of disturbance. Mr. Worcester noted the turn around and gas tank areas had been deleted from the easement.
Mrs. Korzenko asked if additional space had been allotted for the driveways and parking areas between the market unit dwellings. Atty. Ebersol said there had been no changes and pointed out there is an area 35 ft. beyond each garage for parking, meaning there would be more room to maneuver in each driveway. He said residents would be told to park in the garages or in the areas beyond the driveways. Mr. Picton was concerned the applicant might find it necessary to apply for expanded parking or driveways in the future. Mr. Worcester said this would not happen. Ms. Purnell was concerned that the trees to be planted in the middle of the driveway would not survive and she recommended they be planted to either side.
Mr. Neff, engineer, stated the stormwater management plan had been revised to include the new building sites and driveway configuration. The proposed infiltration systems and the drainage system for the driveway had not been changed. He noted he had analyzed the pre and post development conditions and had concluded that implementation of the proposed drainage systems would result in a 10% reduction in runoff. The reason for this was that each proposed infiltration system would have a 5000 gallon capacity and could accommodate a 2.3 inch storm. He noted the driveway runoff would be routed through catch basins and pipes to the stormwater detention basin. He commented on Land Tech's 10/26/05 letter; 1) He said deep hole testing had been done in the area of the infiltration systems, but he could do additional tests. 2) He noted there are proposed overflows on the infiltration systems so the water would exit to grade should there be a clog. 3) He stated the route analysis for the detention basin system was simple because there was such a small drainage area. He noted the existing topography allows the water to drain in two directions. The emergent overflow would be channeled in a grass lined, 8 ft. wide, 2 ft. deep swale as depicted in the cross section on sheet 2 of the Stormwater Management Plan. He said he could add a lateral cross section if required. He described the outlet of the detention basin. The water would flow in a reduced rate through the standpipe and eventually to an 8 ft. wide, 4 ft. deep concrete level spreader that would further reduce the flow of the runoff and spread it out. Ms. Purnell asked if after monitoring the system for a few years it could be retrofitted if it was found it did not function adequately. Mr. Neff said it could, but that this would not be necessary as what he proposed was less erosive than the existing conditions. Mr. Picton asked what would happen if the detention pond overflowed. Mr. Neff said the stand pipe would handle a 100 year storm and with greater storm events the water would continue through the standpipe plus overflow the sides. Mr. Picton asked if the overflow would erode the steep slope. Mr. Neff responded the detention system was conservatively designed for a 100 year storm when most detention systems accommodate only 25 year storm events. Mr. Picton questioned the sq. footage of roof area used in the drainage calculations and Mr. Neff stated he had used larger figures to be conservative. Atty. Ebersol asked Mr. Neff to compare the potential runoff from other potential uses of the property with that of the proposed use. Mr. Neff stated there would be more runoff generated by a corn field than from the proposed stormwater management system proposed for the 10 units. He also stated there would be more post development runoff for two or three single family dwellings because most dwellings do not install infiltration systems. He said with the implementation of the proposed system there would be less runoff flowing to the wetlands than there is currently.
Ms. Purnell asked if the driveway information was specific. Mr. Neff said the gravel base would be 12 inches and said he would add a note to the plans.
Mrs. Korzenko read the 10/1/05 letter from Ms. Mathews to the Dept. of Public Health, which questioned the adequacy of the proposed septic system.
Mr. Tagley, Quarry Ridge, stated he was concerned about the ecology of the area and thought the number of buildings proposed was an issue. He urged the Commission to continue the hearing to allow the public time to review the latest information submitted. Also, in response to a question raised by Mr. Tagley regarding the jurisdiction of the Commission, Ms. Purnell explained per its Regulations, the Commission may establish a distance from wetlands, which it views as the regulated area, but that it may extend its jurisdiction beyond that distance if there is a likelihood the proposed activity will impact a wetlands or watercourse. Mr. Tagley asked then if the proposed septic system would be included under the Commission's jurisdiction. Ms. Purnell thought it would be difficult to make the argument that the septic system could impact the wetlands and watercourse to the south. Mr. Picton said the applicant had responded to the Commission's concerns, but the Commission would discuss the proposal and determine whether the plans were adequate.
Mr. Branson, consulting forester, noted the existing wetlands contain invasive species and said the proposed development would enhance ecological diversity and would keep activities out of the meadow.
Mrs. Krajnak, Quarry Ridge, said she appreciated the tremendous effort being put into the proposal, but voiced her concern about the precedent that would be set should the application be approved. She thought her property value would be affected because the Myfield buildings would overlook Quarry Ridge. She also asked for a vegetative buffer to ensure privacy. Mr. Picton noted these were zoning issues.
Mrs. Andersen said the water source for Myfield was an important issue because the owner of the water system had begun proceedings to abandon that company. Mr. Picton said this matter was not under the jurisdiction of the Inland Wetlands Commission.
Ms. Mathews asked if Myfield would install its own well. Ms. Purnell noted the applicant had applied to the State Health Department and would either tie in with the Quarry Ridge system or drill its own wells depending on what the state ordered. She said this was not a Wetlands issue. Atty. Ebersol noted the applicant was not applying for approval of well sites. He said if needed, the applicant would submit a separate application.
Mr. Tagley asked why the conservation easement was relevant to the Wetlands Commission's discussion and were there any tax issues involved. Mr. Picton explained that activities in the regulated and upland review areas can degrade the quality of the wetlands. A landowner, however, may propose specific conservation easement language, which would protect the wetlands beyond what the Inland Wetlands Regulations require. He said the Commission would consider such an easement as mitigation for the proposed impacts. Ms. Purnell said there might be tax benefits to the property owner, but that the Wetland Commission was concerned with management issues.
Mr. Williams, Quarry Ridge, commented on Ms. Mathews 10/1/05 letter, saying Myfield would be located on a steep slope above Quarry Ridge. He said 9 years ago his basement had been flooded from runoff down that slope and he had had to install drains. He feared this type of flooding would happen again once the Myfield units were constructed. Ms. Purnell responded the engineering calculations showed there would be a 10% decrease in post development runoff.
Mr. Picton asked Mr. Neff if the soil would absorb water in the detention basin area like it would in the infiltration system areas. Mr. Neff said the detention basin collects runoff and allows it to flow out at a metered rate. He said it would only detain water; there would be no seepage into the ground. Mr. Neff said the gradual release from the detention pond would flow south down the hill in a direction away from Quarry Ridge to the level spreader, which again, would disperse the flow away from Quarry Ridge.
Mr. Neff stated the septic system would be set back 20 feet, 10 more than required by the State Health Code, from the Quarry Ridge boundary line, not 6.5 feet as noted in Ms. Mathews' letter.
Mr. Picton noted the septic system will introduce more water to the soil and asked if it would flow towards Quarry Ridge. Mr. Neff responded there was no hardpan soil in the area so this was not a concern. Mr. Williams noted that 93 Quarry Ridge does not have a full basement because it is on ledge. Mr. Neff said extensive tests had been done and there was no ledge or groundwater at a depth of 7-8 feet on the Myfield property. He noted the topography runs gradually down to the north and that the west side had a steeper grade, but no water was being directed to the west.
Mr. Picton advised the public the Commission would require a bond to ensure proper completion of all approved work and the Wetlands Enforcement Officer would inspect the project as the work progressed.
Ms. Purnell noted the Commission could not sign off on the proposed conservation easement language because it required clarification due to inconsistencies. Atty. Ebersol noted the applicant had received Ms. Purnell's 10/26/05 memo and would incorporate all necessary changes. Mr. Boling said the applicant wanted to go through the zoning application process prior to finalizing the conservation easement. Mr. Picton asked if an endowment would be established to fund the maintenance of the easement area. Ms. Purnell said a stewardship fund had not been mentioned.
There was a brief discussion regarding whether to continue the public hearing. Although the application had not been substantially changed since the last meeting, it was noted the Land Tech report and Ms. Purnell's review of the conservation easement language had only been received that day and Mr. Hayden's report had not yet been submitted. Atty. Ebersol submitted the 10/26/05 request to extend the hearing to Nov. 9, 2005.
Mrs. Krajnak voiced her concern about the possibility of water from the septic system reaching the Quarry Ridge property. Mr. Picton stated the sanitary engineer and the Health Department would review and approve the plans and that resubmittal to the Wetlands Commission would be required if there were any revisions made.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider Application #IW-05-54 submitted by Myfield, LLC. for 10 dwelling units at 7 Mygatt Road to Wednesday, November 9, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct. By Mr. Picton, seconded By Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
At 7:20 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the public hearing to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Picton called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:25 p.m. and seated Members Korzenko, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Bedini for Mrs. Hill.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the Agenda: 1) Consideration of the 10/5/05 Special Meeting minutes, 2) New Application: Godwin/35 West Morris Road/#IW-05-66/Stone Wall, and 3) Other Business: Adams/214 West Shore Road/ Request to Amend Permit #IW-05-57/Repair Retaining Wall, Sod Lawn. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Korzenko, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 10/12/05 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: 3rd Paragraph: 3rd line: After "area" add: between the wetlands boundary and the split rail fence.
4th paragraph: 5th line: After "him" add: about this recent review.
Page 3: 3rd paragraph: 2nd line: Change: "to reach" to towards.
Page 5: 7th line from bottom: Correct date is 10/12/05.
Page 10: Under James Calhoun House: 2nd to last line: Change "to" to did.
MOTION: To accept the 10/12/05 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 10/5/05 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-44/Well, Pond: Mr. Rosiello submitted a revised site plan, dated received 10/24/05 and the unsigned, "Addendum to narrative submitted Oct. 12th." On the site plan he pointed out the limit of construction for the pond and proposed irrigation system, which he stated would be hand dug, and the location of the feed lines and the area to be irrigated. He noted the width of the planting buffer had been increased to 30 feet to address the Commission's concerns and would be planted with herbaceous shrubs and wetlands species. Mrs. Korzenko and Mr. Picton asked why irrigation was needed between the pond and the wetlands. Ms. Purnell noted there would be a well that could be used for watering. Mr. Rosiello said it would be a drip irrigation system and that it had to be installed in an area that would not impact the electrical service on the north side of the driveway. Mr. Picton noted 1) the irrigation system would be out of the 100 ft. review area, 2) the limit of disturbance would be only 25 ft. into the review area, 3) the area was fairly level, 4) the work area next to the driveway was well confined, and 5) there were no serious wetlands issues. Ms. Purnell disagreed, saying the Commission had to consider feasible and prudent alternatives. She thought there were other feasible locations for both the pond and the well and that the improvements would be used for the maintenance of a manicured lawn where fertilizers and herbicides would be used. Mr. Picton asked if the well could be moved at least 50 feet from the wetlands. Mr. Rosiello agreed to do so and amended and initialed the site plan. It was noted the irrigation system was included in the application.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-44 submitted by Mr. Cohen for a well and pond at 62 Calhoun Street as submitted per the site plan dated received 10/24/05 with the condition that the well must be installed at least 50 feet from any wetland or watercourse. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Korzenko, and passed 4-1. Ms. Purnell voted No because she said there were feasible and prudent alternatives for the proposed work.
Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-45/Deer Fence: Mr. Rosiello said there had been no changes made to the application since the last meeting. The proposed deer fence would enclose 13 acres, 1.3 acres of which were wetlands, and would not enclose any vernal pools or other sensitive areas. He submitted a revised narrative, "Addendum to revision of October 12, 2005, dated received 10/24/05. Mr. Picton asked if the narrative addressed the impact of keeping the deer out of the wetlands. Mr. Rosiello stated other animals would be able to pass under the fence if it was properly installed 9 inches above the ground, but it was noted this would also serve as the pool fence and it was thought per the Building Code there could not be a 9 inch gap under the fence. Mr. Picton thought the Commission should establish a policy regarding deer fences, permitting them if they do not surround or bisect wetlands and if they do not redirect wildlife in, through, or around wetlands. He noted the proposed fence did not meet the above criteria. Ms. Purnell thought the Commission should have more information on large scale corridor issues and nutrient cycles before acting on the application. Mr. Rosiello argued that the Commission had approved deer fences in the past and that at the last meeting it had advised him the decision would be made based on whether there would be an impact to the wetlands. Ms. Purnell asked how wide the remaining corridor would be. Mr. Rosiello said it would be 6 feet wide and would have a closed gate at each end of the driveway.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-45 submitted by Mr. Cohen for a deer-pool fence at 62 Calhoun Street per the site plan dated received 10/24/05. By Mrs. Korzenko, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 3-2. Mr. Picton voted No because he did not think the deer fence should surround or bisect wetlands, he thought it would redirect wildlife to the point that there would be an impact on the wetlands vegetation, and he thought there was a feasible and prundent alternative. Ms. Purnell voted No because there was no data available on the long term impacts of deer fencing around and through wetlands.
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-54/10 Dwelling Units: It was noted the public hearing had been continued to 11/9/05 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Bennett/207 Bee Brook Road/#IW-05-55/Addition to Existing Dwelling: Mr. Bennett submitted a revised site plan, "Map Prepared for Joseph Bennett, Jr.," by Mr. Osborne, revised to June 24, 2005 and updated on October 20, 2005, which showed the correct measurement was 22.5 ft. from the closest part of the existing house to the center line of Bee Brook. Mr. Picton measured 12 feet from the house, 15 feet from the nearest deck, and 17 feet from the proposed second story addition to the streambank. Mr. Bennett stated the building would not be extended any further than the existing porch line and that the porch would be roofed over. Mr. Picton asked if the architect's preliminary drawings had been corrected. Mr. Bennett left the table to make the required corrections.
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-05-58/Remediation Per IWC Order: Mr. Picton read the 10/21/05 letter of withdrawal from Atty. Kelly. The Commissioners questioned how Mr. Fowler could withdraw the application when he is under an enforcement order to restore the property. Mrs. Korzenko suggested a second fine be levied for not complying with the enforcement order. It was the consensus to consult with Atty. Zizka regarding 1) whether a second citation could be issued and 2) what additional enforcement action should be taken. Mr. Picton suggested the enforcement order be filed on the Town Land Records.
MOTION: To file on the Town Land Records the 5/17/04 Enforcement Order issued to Mr. Fowler for #IW-04-V5, unauthorized excavation and filling in the wetlands at 138 Nichols Hill Road. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Bennett/207 Bee Brook Road/#IW-05-55/Addition to Existing Dwelling: Mr. Bennett revised the preliminary architect's drawings and initialed and dated the changes. Mr. Picton asked if the Commission was satisfied that the application was complete. It was. He asked Mr. Ajello if there was adequate information regarding the limit of the work area and the erosion and sedimentation controls. Mr. Ajello said there was. Mr. LaMuniere pointed out the applicant proposed remediation along the streambank. The revised site plan updated to 10/20/05 was reviewed. Mr. Picton noted the limit of the work area was only 1.5 feet from the streambank and asked if it could be moved at least 8 ft. back. Mr. Bennett so revised the map and initialed and dated the change. He said he would double up on the silt fence and would hold a preconstruction meeting before beginning work. Mr. Picton said he did not support approval of a new structure within 75 feet of the stream. Ms. Purnell noted neither the addition nor the proposed work on the second story would bring the building any closer to the stream. She also noted that once the vegetative barrier was established on the streambank it would help to prevent any impacts to Bee Brook.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-55 submitted by Mr. Bennett for an addition to the existing dwelling at 207 Bee Brook Road per the A-2 survey map by Mr. Osborne revised to 6/24/05, with updates to 10/20/05, and as amended by Mr. Bennett on 10/26/05 and the preliminary elevations and floor plans by Mr. Bugryn dated 5/24/05 and revised and initialed by Mr. Bennett on 10/26/05 with the condition that the limit of disturbance be pulled back 8 feet from the streambank as shown on the above referenced survey map. By Mrs. Korzenko, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 4-0. Mr. Picton voted No because there would be too large a structure too close to the stream and in the past the Commission's policy had been to keep new structures at least 75 feet from wetlands and watercourses.
Janowicz/51 Rabbit Hill Road/#IW-05-61/Driveway: Mr. Ross, contractor, said he had no additional information at this time. Discussion was tabled to the next meeting.
Herrmann/92 East Street/#IW-05-62/Dredge Pond: The plan, "Pond Cleanout Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 9/15/05 was reviewed. Mr. Picton asked if after the work was completed, the pond would become a sterile basin with no organic material or aquatic vegetation. Mr. Neff, engineer, stated the decomposing organic material at the bottom of the pond would be removed instead of installing a fountain. He said no material would be removed from the pond sides for the first 3 to 4 feet in depth. Mr. Picton recommended a condition of approval that the shallow water slopes be left in tact. Mr. Neff also noted 100 cubic yards would be taken out and deposited on site in the same area used for deposition in the past. It was decided not to act on the application until the next meeting to give those who had not yet inspected the property the chance to do so.
Murgio/21 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-05-63/First Cut and Driveway: Mr. Charles, agent, presented the map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 10/6/05, but stated it did not yet accurately show the proposed lot line. He pointed out where the probable lot line would be located and said the new parcel would contain most of the proposed right of way. Mr. LaMuniere noted there are significant wetlands located at the rear of the property. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, November 2, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.
Pierce/31 Shearer Road/#IW-05-64/Dormer, Exterior Stairs, Clean Out Ditch, Etc.: Mrs. Pierce was present. The map, "Site Plan," by Sarracco, Inc., dated 7/21/87 with handwritten notes by Mrs. Donnelly and the renovation plans by Mrs. Donnelly, dated 10/5/05, 6 pp. were reviewed. Each item of proposed work as outlined in Mrs. Donnelly's 10/5/05 "Scope of Work Within Regulated Wetlands Area" was discussed. The Commission had no problem with items #1 through #3, install erosion controls, remove dead pines, and remove dead spruce. Regarding #4, clean out debris and invasives from Hinkle-Shearer Road corner and plant pines to screen, Ms. Purnell asked that native species be planted. Plans for #5 and #6, cleaning out the sediment in the ditch and repair of the check dam above the culvert were reviewed. Mr. Ajello said the Town would clean out the sand with a backhoe. Ms. Purnell noted the catch basin should be regularly maintained to prevent the ditch from filling with sand again. Mr. Picton noted there is water flowing in the ditch now and this work should wait until the dry season. He thought the limbs and organic matter could be cleaned out by hand now, but the excavation of the ditch should wait for a time of low flow. It was the consensus the work proposed to the rear of the house and the repair of the stone wall would not adversely impact the wetlands.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-64 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Pierce for various work including addition of stairs and a dormer, removal of dead trees, removal of sediment from ditch, repair of check dam, and reconstruction of stone wall at 31 Shearer Road per the 10/5/05 Scope of Work within the Regulated Wetlands Area and the site plan by Sarracco, Inc. dated 7/21/87 with undated hand written notations subject to the following conditions: no activities are approved in the wetlands to the south and west of the Hinkle Road driveway, sediment may be cleaned out of the channel upstream of the Hinkle Road driveway if the stream channel is not enlarged, the work is done during low flow conditions, and woody and leafy debris is removed by hand, the catch basin from Shearer Road is to be cleaned out as soon as possible. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Korzenko, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Greenfield/12 Ives Road/#IW-05-65/Reconstruction of Garage: Mr. Ross, contractor, presented the maps, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated 12/2004 with "Wetland Buffer Management Plan" dated 10/10/05 drawn in by Mr. Sabin, landscape architect and "Greenfield Barn, Septic Tank, and Pump Chamber," received 10/24/05. Mr. Ross stated the building would be enlarged within 50 feet of the wetlands and a dry stone wall would be built also within 50 ft. of wetlands. He noted the wetlands were flagged on site. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, November 2, 2005 at 4:30 p.m. Mr. Ajello noted the wetlands violations on the property have remained unresolved for quite some time. He thought an after the fact fee should be submitted and noted the conservation easement form must be submitted by the property owner.
Godwin/35 West Morris Road/#IW-05-66/Construct Stone Wall: Mr. Ajello noted the conservation easement form had not been submitted. Mr. Money, contractor, proposed to construct a stone wall and mortared pillars along West Morris Road. He said he would excavate 2 ft. down for the concrete footings. Mr. Picton asked what the slope was between the work area and the wetlands. Mr. Money said it was 15% to 20%. Mr. Picton noted the only excavation required would be in the line of the wall. Ms. Purnell requested that a construction sequence be submitted. Mr. Picton asked that it include a description of how the excavation would be limited. It was noted that once constructed the wall could serve as a barrier between the road and the wetlands. The application will be discussed further at the next meeting.
Other Business
Adams/214 West Shore Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-05-57/Repair Retaining Wall, Sod Lawn: The map, "Proposed Yard Improvements," by Mr. Neff, revised to 10/13/05 was reviewed. Mr. Neff, engineer, explained the owners proposed to remove two concrete slab sections above the retaining wall and put down sod in those areas. Ms. Purnell said she preferred low vegetation to lawn. Mr. Neff stated even if replaced with lawn, it would be an improvement as impervious surface would be replaced with pervious sod. Mr. Picton noted that rubble might be found under the concrete slabs. Mr. Neff said top soil would be placed under the sod and any sink holes found would be filled with rocks, gravel, and filter fabric. Ms. Purnell objected. She thought the work proposed was major and so did not qualify as an amendment to the existing permit. She was concerned the work would result in the retaining wall being extended out into the lake. Mr. Neff said the repair work to the wall would be completed first and that it would not be taken down. After the work on the wall was finished, the concrete slabs would be broken up with hand tools and removed. Ms. Purnell and Mrs. Korzenko thought removal of the slabs might cause the retaining wall to become unstable. Mr. Neff said the slabs were separate from the wall. Ms. Purnell noted all the work on the wall was going to be done by hand and Mr. Neff said that had not changed. He noted the entire project would take only a few days. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to take before photos from both sides of the wall so that it could be verified that the wall had not been extended.
MOTION: To approve the request to amend Permit #IW-05-57 by Mr. Adams for repair of a retaining wall and installation of sod at 214 West Shore Road per the plan, "Proposed Yard Improvements," by Mr. Neff, revised to 10/13/05 with the condition that if a porous material or rubble is found under the concrete slabs to be removed, the same procedure specified on the plans for the filling of sink holes shall be implemented. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-1. Ms. Purnell voted No because the installation of sod would require more maintenance than the existing surface and could result in herbicides and pesticides flowing directly into Lake Waramaug.
Enforcement
Taylor/11 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Excavation in Wetlands: Mr. Ajello noted Mr. Taylor had been asked to supply data on the pre existing conditions on his property, but said he had been unresponsive to date. It was noted all the information required had been detailed in the enforcement order. It was also noted the citation had not yet been paid. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to check the Ordinance and to follow the procedures specified when a property owner does not pay the citation.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road/#IW-04-V8/Repair of Retaining Wall: Mr. Ajello reminded Mr. Neff that the Commission is still waiting for the information it requested from him.
Reinhardt/10 Perkins Road and Cremona/8 Perkins Road/Clearcutting: Mr. Picton explained the Commission could not take further action until the court decides these appeals. He noted the Commission would be in a stronger position to act once its jurisdiction is confirmed. Mr. Ajello noted in the meantime there is a large brush pile on the hill to catch sediment caused by storms.
Paserteri/57 Findley Road/Septic Repair Within 100 Ft. of Intermittent Stream: It was noted the Health Department should have advised the property owner to apply to the IWC for a permit for the required septic repair work. Mr. Ajello said he expects an application will be submitted for the next meeting.
Ingrassia/9 Main Street/Construct Stone Wall: Mr. Ajello reported a stone retaining wall had been constructed without a permit within 50 feet of wetlands, but that he had called the contractor who had responded very quickly. Ms. Purnell noted the steep hillside had been cleared last year. She said the entire hillside needs vegetation for stabilization. It was the consensus that because the work was done in a regulated area without a permit, a citation should be issued. Mr. Picton advised Mr. Ajello to ask the owner for a mitigation plan. Ms. Purnell noted that if the owner had applied for a permit prior to starting work, the Commission would have required a vegetative buffer. Mr. Ajello will ask for a planting plan when he issues the citation.
Other Business
Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Release of Bond: Ms. Purnell reported she is still working with Mr. McNaughton for full compliance with the permit.
Armstrong/72 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-04/Release of Bond: Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the site and recommended release of the bond.
MOTION: To approve the release of the bond for Armstrong/ 72 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-04. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Results of 10/5/05 Organizational Meeting: Mr. Picton explained his 4 page document, "Enforcement Officer/Wetlands Administrator Guidelines," was the result of the discussion that had taken place at the 10/5 meeting. He noted the purpose of the guidelines was to help the Commission shorten the length of its meetings and to help the Enforcement Officer establish procedures that would enable him to spend more time in the field. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Ajello if he thought the guidelines were doable, and Mr. Ajello said he didn't know because they were confusing and lacked direction. Several issues were discussed.
Working with the public: The Commissioners agreed the EO should spend less time handling routine matters with the public. To this end the land use brochure should be used more often to provide general information and the public should first be directed to the Land Use Coordinator. Weeding out matters that can be handled by other staff would free up more time for the EO to review applications and get out in the field. Mr. Ajello did not think the office functions could be separated from working with the public. Mrs. Hill said that after a trial period it might be determined that additional office staff is needed to fully implement the procedures recommended in the guidelines. Written reviews of applications: It was the consensus that Ms. Purnell and Mr. Bedini would work on a checklist to be used by the EO when he reviews applications for completeness. Mrs. Korzenko suggested the checklist also be handed out to applicants with the application form. Mr. Ajello said he had no problem with using a checklist, but thought there should be different standards for less complex applications. Mr. Picton noted the reason for the checklist was to make sure applications are complete prior to each meeting. It was noted that some applicants may have to hire a consultant to do some of the paperwork that Mr. Ajello currently does for them. Scheduling of Time: It was thought Mr. Ajello should make an office hours schedule and deal with the public only during those hours. This would allot more time for review of applications and inspections, which the Commission considered to be priorities that were more important than dealing with the public. Revision of application form: It was noted a requirement to describe proposed mitigation should be added to the form. Creation of data base: Ms. Purnell and Mr. Bedini agreed to work on a wetlands data base. One major problem noted was that the Town does not have the necessary hardware capabilities like Access and the data base would have to be done in Excel. Mrs. Korzenko suggested the Commission apply for a grant to get a software designer to work on the data base. She noted the grant could also cover staff training costs. Mr. Ajello will review the guidelines and they will be discussed again at the next meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Picton.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
October 12, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. D. Hill, Mrs. Korzenko, Mr. Picton, Ms. PurnellMEMBER ABSENT: Mr. LaMuniere
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Ms. Coe
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Tagley, Mr. Boling, Mr. Charles, Ms. Matthews, Mrs. Andersen, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Worcester, Mr. Neff, Mr. Sears, Mrs. Condon, Ms. Brose, Mr. Rosiello, Mr. Ross, Mrs. Donnelly, Mr. Sabin, Atty. Ebersol, Press
PUBLIC HEARING
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-54/10 Dwelling Units/Con't.
Mr. Picton reconvened the public hearing at 6:00 p.m. and seated Ms. Purnell, Mr. Picton, and Mrs. Hill, and Alternate Bedini for Mrs. Korzenko.
Mr. Picton noted the only new document in the file was his 10/2/05 memo to Land Tech questioning the effectiveness of the proposed buffer area.
The map, "Proposed Site Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated January 2005 with buildings, roads, and new grading by Mr. Worcester, revised to 8/22/05 was reviewed.
Mr. Boling submitted the plan, "Proposed Planting and Invasive Species Management Plan," dated 10/12/05. The entire 37 foot wide buffer area would be left totally undisturbed and a rail fence installed at its upper edge to mark the limit of disturbance line. He said if the invasives were to be removed in the future, a separate application would be submitted.
Mr. Boling reported he had reviewed the Myfield plans with Mr. Hayden from NCD who was satisfied with the erosion control measures proposed and who would submit a written report to the Commission. Mr. Picton noted Mr. Hayden was supposed to be working for the Commission, but the Commission had heard nothing from him. He said the Commission, not the applicant, would communicate with its consultants in the future.
Mr. Boling submitted the map referenced above revised to 10/11/05, which included a line to mark the conservation easement area and the grade of the slopes between the roof drains and the wetlands. Mr. Worcester stated the worst of these grades was 26%. Also added to the map were updated calculations for proposed open space - 75%; and coverage - 8.56%. Mr. Neff noted he had submitted revised calculations to Land Tech earlier in the day.
Mr. Picton said he had inspected the site since the last meeting. He noted the market rate houses have garages that face each other and that these were only 34-35 ft. apart. He questioned whether this was an adequate distance apart for the proper maneuvering of vehicles, noting this was relevant because the Commission had to know whether the proposed plan was realistic or if it would require a series of revisions. Mr. Boling responded that in keeping coverage to a minimum, some dimensions were tighter than they would be in conventional developments. Mr. Picton noted the plans showed walk out basements, but no landscaping features at the walkout level. Mr. Boling said room had been allowed for a terrace for each unit and that the terraces had been included in the coverage calculations. Mr. Picton said he figured the slopes between the roof drains and the wetlands varied between 24-32% and that one section behind the row of houses had a 60% grade. Mr. Worcester said the area with the 60% grade would be undisturbed. Mr. Picton noted he had asked Land Tech whether the proposed buffer was adequate. He said the Commission should apply the same standards when reviewing this application as it usually does for an application for one single family dwelling. Although the standards can differ due to differences in proposals and site conditions, he noted usually the Commission requires 75 feet of undisturbed area between new development and wetlands and that in such cases it evaluates the condition of the buffer area to determine that 75 feet is adequate. He said he was not assured at this point that the row of houses proposed conformed to both the consultants' standards and the usual Commission standards. Public comments were taken.
Mr. Tagley, Quarry Ridge, thought the applicant was trying to put an inordinate number of large buildings on an ecologically sensitive property with wetlands and a watercourse downgrade of the development site. He thought too many units were proposed in relation to the degree of the slope of the land and called for the redesign of the project.
Mrs. Krajnak, Quarry Ridge, was concerned about the Quarry Ridge water supply and Myfield's possible use of the Quarry Ridge well pump. Mr. Picton stated the domestic water supply was not under the Commission's jurisdiction.
Mrs. Krajnak noted some of the proposed units are very close to the steep slope above the Quarry Ridge units and worried that if the proposed dry wells were installed so close to the boundary line, Quarry Ridge units and back yards would flood. Mr. Neff explained some of the runoff would continue over land as it has always flowed and some would flow into the detention basin, which would empty at a slow rate. He said the natural soils would not hold a significant amount of water on a continual basis and also there would not be a significant amount that would infiltrate into the soil. Mrs. Krajnak asked if the Myfield owners would be liable for any damage resulting from flooding due to a blocked outlet pipe in the detention basin. Ms. Purnell said that would be a civil matter between the parties involved. Mr. Picton stated prior to the final Wetlands signoff there would be storm events to prove the