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 system works. He also noted the Commission had not yet discussed an appropriate bond for the project. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Neff to point out the high water level on the stormwater plans dated 8/8/05. Mr. Neff stated if the pipe was plugged, the plans provided for the water to flow overland in the same direction it currently does. The cross section on page 2 was reviewed. Mr. Neff said the runoff would flow down hill parallel to the boundary line and not towards Quarry Ridge. Mr. Picton noted the overflow level would be 12 feet from the property line for a short duration and 40 feet from the steep bank. Mr. Neff said he was not concerned with seepage problems as this was Charlton soil and the disturbed areas would be spread with top soil and planted with grass so they would not be as permeable as unstabilized soil.
Mrs. Andersen commended the Commission for its knowledge and due diligence.
Mr. Boling responded to Mr. Tagley's concerns. He stated no structure was proposed on a slope and all structures were "outside the upland review area" except for the drainage facilities. He again stated the applicant was concerned with ecological issues and so proposed to preserve 75% of the property as open space, which would include all the wetlands and watercourses. Ms. Purnell noted by keeping the proposed impervious development to below 10% the applicant was working to preserve the water quality in the wetlands and watercourse.
Regarding the Affordable Housing Appeals process, Mr. Boling stated the applicant was working to reach the 10% goal of affordable housing with good development in accordance with the character of the Town. He noted the three affordable units would be deed restricted in perpetuity, not 40 years as is required by state statute. Mr. Picton noted, however, that the Town would have to grow by 40% to reach the 10% goal in this manner (3 of 10 units affordable).
Mr. Picton noted if the number of proposed units was reduced, there would be more area in which to solve the buffer area and related problems concerning runoff. For example, space would be opened up for installing the infiltration systems out of the upland review area. Ms. Purnell agreed that feasible and prudent alternatives should be discussed. She stated the applicant had made a start by saying three building lots was an alternative, but had not reported on the long and short term effects three lots would have and had not investigated other alternatives that would meet the owners' economic needs.
Atty. Ebersol commented that all the proposed market value houses were the same distance from the slope. Mr. Picton responded that some of the slopes were steeper than others and his main concern was with houses #2, #4, and #5. Mr. Boling stated the houses were relatively close to the wetlands because the applicant had tried to keep the septic systems as far as possible from the wetlands. Ms. Purnell noted, and Mr. Picton agreed, the Commission preferred that septic systems be kept away from wetlands and watercourses. Mrs. Korzenko stated that several members think that too many units have been proposed.
Mr. Picton noted the hearing would be continued because the Land Tech report had not been received. He asked that if any revisions were made to the plans, that they be submitted as far in advance of the next session of the hearing as possible.
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, October 26, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.
Mrs. Korzenko was not seated for the hearing.
At 6:55 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the hearing to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
This 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 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Hill, Korzenko, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Coe for Mr. LaMuniere.
MOTION: To add subsequent business to the agenda: Other Business: James Calhoun House, LLC./ 156 Calhoun Street/Request to Revise Permit #IW-05-47/Addition to Existing Dwelling. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 9/28/05 Public Hearing-Show Cause Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: 2nd paragraph: Add "was reviewed" at the end of the sentence.
2nd line from bottom: Change Mr. Kelly to Mr. Boling.
Page 2: 2nd paragraph from bottom: 4th line: Add "to wetlands" after "lawn."
Last paragraph and throughout: It was noted it is the Judea Water Company and the Quarry Ridge system.
Page 4: 3rd paragraph from bottom: 2nd line: Add "previously" before "existing."
Page 8: 6th line: Change Mr. "Charles" to "LaMuniere."
Page 13: 2nd line under Gatto: Add "from NCD" after "Mr. Hayden."
Leach-Smith: Add final sentence: "Mrs. D. Hill had raised the latter question."
MOTION: To accept the 9/28/05 Public Hearing - Show Cause Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the Taylor/11 Sunset Lane site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Korzenko, and passed 5-0.
Regarding Taylor/11 Sunset Lane, it was noted Mr. Taylor stated he had done more work on the boulders after Mr. Ajello's site inspection, but had stopped the next day when he received the enforcement order.
Pending Applications
Cohen/62 South Street/#IW-05-44/Pond and Well: Mr. Rosiello submitted revised site plans dated 10/12/05 and a revised narrative entitled, "Ornamental-Irrigation Pond," also dated 10/12/05, which, he said, addressed the concerns raised at the last meeting. Revisions to the map included the addition of the limit of disturbance line and the delineation of the irrigation area and the location of the irrigation pipes. He also provided details of the proposed buffer planting and of the crossing as had been requested by Ms. Purnell and Mr. Picton and noted the 18" deep, 16" wide trench at the crossing would be hand dug and lined with sand. Mr. Rosiello added that the trench would be only 13 ft. long and so the work should take less than a day to complete. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to review these plans for completeness. The Commissioners questioned the need for an irrigation system so close to wetlands and the restored wet meadow. Mr. Rosiello stated all the restoration and buffer plantings proposed had to be watered for two years and said there would also be a vegetable garden. Mr. Picton noted to protect water quality in areas of intense use where there are moderate slopes, the Commission usually requires a minimum 30 ft. wide natural buffer. Mr. Rosiello offered to extend his proposed buffer another 10 feet. Mr. Picton asked if the limit of work was shown on the plan. Mr. Rosiello said he had not drawn it in. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to review the proposal per the Commission's usual standards and to make a list of any additional information, which would be needed for the Commission to make a decision. Ms. Purnell noted Mr. Rosiello had stated the owners want a view of the pond and asked how the Commission could ensure the wetlands plants and natural buffer areas would be maintained in perpetuity. She was concerned sections in close proximity to wetlands could easily be converted to lawn where herbicides, fertilizers, etc. could be used. It was noted there is already a lawn that is mowed once a week in this area. Mr. Picton recommended keeping landscaping enhancements out of the upland review area. Mr. Rosiello said he would redesign the irrigation system to take it out of the upland review area. Mrs. Korzenko asked that the revised plan show all of the proposed irrigation system. Mr. Picton asked that a 30 ft. wide buffer containing natural vegetation be shown within 30 feet of the wetlands along the western edge of the eastern field and for all areas where site work or improvements are proposed.
Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-45/Deer and Pool Fence: Ms. Purnell announced the Garden Club would hold a seminar on deer issues on 10/13 at St. John's Parish Hall. Mr. Rosiello said the application had been revised to propose that only 13 acres be enclosed by deer fence. He said that the area to be enclosed had been divided into two separate sections so that the wetlands would not be partitioned and that slightly more than 1 acre of wetlands would be contained. The site plan revised to 10/121/05 was reviewed. Mr. Rosiello pointed out that the proposed deer fence would act as a barrier that would limit access and disturbance to the wetlands. Mr. Picton thought there should be standards for deer fences; that they be at least 30 ft. from wetlands and they do not bisect wetlands. He reviewed the 9/28/05 minutes and noted the Commission had suggested the pool fence could be installed around the pool and the garden fence around the garden only. Mr. Rosiello noted the applicant had addressed most of the issues raised by the Commission and had the right to develop his property in this way. It was the consensus the review of the application would be limited to how the proposed fence would impact the wetlands. Mr. Picton thought the proposed fence both cut off and isolated the wetlands and funneled them so wildlife would move more intensively through only one section of the wetlands corridor. Mr. Rosiello said the revised plan opened up the corridor to Steep Rock and noted hand dug post holes would not cause much impact. Ms. Purnell stated it was not the post holes, but the impacts to the larger scale habitat and to the ecology of the wetlands and watercourses that were the main issues for the Commission. Given that the next day there would be a seminar that might provide information on preventing damage from deer, Ms. Coe suggested further discussion be tabled to the next meeting.
MOTION: To table further discussion re: Application #IW-05-45 submitted by Mr. Cohen to install a deer fence at 62 Calhoun Street to the next meeting. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-54/10 Dwelling Units: The public hearing was continued to October 26, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Bennett/207 Bee Brook Road/#IW-05-55/Additions to Existing Dwelling: Mr. Ajello reported Mr. Bennett had submitted preliminary floor plans and elevations by Mr. Bugryn, dated 5/24/05 to clarify the renovations proposed. The site plan, "Map Prepared for Joseph Bennett, Jr.," by Mr. Osborne, revised to June 24, 2005 was also reviewed. Mr. Ajello said there was little excavation required because the existing foundation for the decks and dwelling would be used for the renovations. Mr. Picton questioned whether the existing deck foundation was adequate for an upper story addition. Ms. Purnell asked what the impact on Bee Brook would be and about the proximity of construction equipment. Mr. Ajello stated there was a narrow area between the house and the brook where there would be no room for equipment, but would be accessible for manual labor. He noted the other three sides of the house could be accessed by equipment. He also noted the silt fence shown on the site plan was the proposed limit of disturbance and that there is an existing lawn between the house and Bee Brook. Mr. Picton asked what the distance was between the stream and the proposed improvements and noted the Commission does not allow new construction that close to a watercourse due to the soil disturbance during construction and the long term impacts from the intensified use and maintenance of the property. Mr. Picton requested a plan that would show exactly what work was proposed. Mr. Bennett arrived at this point. Mr. Picton pointed out there were discrepancies in the plans regarding which structures already exist and which are proposed and there was a question regarding how close to streams the Commission allows new structures. Mr. Bennett tried to explain how what he proposed to do differed from his preliminary plans, but it was noted based upon his submission, it appeared he was proposing work on the southeast side of the house. Ms. Purnell had no problem with work over the deck on the northeast side because it was existing and there would be no increase in impervious surface. Mr. Picton disagreed, saying the Commission did not always permit new construction over existing decks. Mr. Bennett stated the existing house was 25 feet from the streambank, but the map showed it was 24 ft. from the center of the brook. Mr. Picton asked for accurate measurements. He noted the proposed addition on the NW side would be only 24 ft. from the brook. Mr. Bennett stated he had discussed the work plans with Mr. Ajello as the Commission had requested at the last meeting. He submitted a revised construction sequence and planting plan/site plan both dated 10/10/05. Ms. Purnell noted the planting proposed along the streambank would be mitigation for the work proposed on the opposite side of the house. Mr. Picton stated he was not comfortable approving an addition so close to the stream, even if it did not bring the existing building any closer to Bee Brook. Mr. Bedini pointed out that a bay window was proposed on the brook side of the house, so there would, indeed, be activity on the SE side. Mr. Ajello noted that was the only proposed increase beyond the footprint of the existing building. Mr. Bennett offered to delete it, but Ms. Purnell said there was already a roof overhang there so it was already counted as impervious surface. Mr. Bennett said the existing footprint is 610 sq. ft. compared to the 1170 sq. ft; 690 for the house and 480 for the decks, proposed. Mrs. Hill, Ms. Purnell, Mrs. Korzenko, and Mr. Bedini had no problem with the proposed roof over the existing deck on the NW side. Mr. Bennett asked if he could do the streambank planting now before it gets too cold. Mr. Picton said this could be done upon Ms. Purnell's review and approval of the planting plan. Mr. Bennett, again, was asked to revise his plan to show the exact work proposed.
Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-05-56/Garage, Septic System: Ms. Brose and Mr. Neff, engineer, were present. Ms. Brose submitted a plan revised to 9/26/05, which showed the proposed planting in relation to the wetlands and proposed engineering on the property and the 10/4/05 revised narrative from Cortina Gardens. It was noted lawn would be replaced by clusters of plants to help control erosion. Mr. Neff stated there would be a wide area where runoff would continue to sheet flow, but said the plants would withstand it. Ms. Brose noted she had increased the width of the wetland buffer as had been requested by the Commission. She said wetlands species would be filled in along the natural buffer. Mr. Neff explained that with the removal of the paved driveway, the impervious coverage would decrease by 170 sq. ft., although the impervious surface of building coverage would increase by 678 sq. ft. Ms. Purnell was concerned the original septic for the 2 to 3 bedroom house that had originally been approved in close proximity to wetlands would be replaced by a 5 bedroom system. Mr. Neff said the new septic system was not proposed in the regulated area. Ms. Purnell did not think the Commission would have approved a 5 bedroom house and septic on such a constrained lot if it had been applied for originally. She briefly reviewed the 1998 file for Permit #IW-98-28. Ms. Brose noted she had not changed the number of bedrooms in the house since she had purchased it in February. Ms. Purnell pointed out a former owner had also increased the size of the driveway and parking area over what had been originally approved. Mr. Neff stated the proposed dry wells would handle a 1" downpour and had the capacity for a 25 year storm event so driveway runoff would be managed. Mr. Picton noted the proposed building would not come any closer than 65 feet to the wetlands, which is the distance between the wetlands and the existing building and that the extent of the built area would not be widened along the stream. Most of the Commissioners thought the current property owner should not be penalized for the unauthorized work of previous owners, but Ms. Purnell did not think the Commission should approve increased coverage and usage in such a constrained area. Mr. Picton suggested approval be tied to plans to restore the natural function of the wetlands and wetlands border. It was noted Ms. Brose had agreed to let the understory regrow in all areas beyond the silt fence shown on the revised site plan and Mr. Picton asked that this notation be added to the plan.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-56 submitted by Ms. Brose for a garage and new septic system at 213 Roxbury Road per the plan revised to 9/26/05 and the 10/4/05 Cortina Gardens letter and planting plan with the condition that the entire area below the length of the limit of disturbance line be allowed to revegetate to restore the natural woodland vegetation and the understory. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Korzenko, and passed 4-0-1. Ms. Purnell abstained because she wanted more background information on how the situation on the property developed.
After the vote was taken, the Commission asked Ms. Brose if she would permanently mark the limit of disturbance line on site.
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-05-58/Remediation per IWC Order: Mr. Ajello reported he had sent another letter to Mr. Fowler as requested by the Commission at the last meeting.
Janowicz/51 Rabbit Hill Road/#IW-05-61/Driveway: Mr. Ross, contractor, presented Map #789, which is on file in the Town Clerk's Office, to show the Commission the subdivision had been approved in 1984. He noted in 1994 the Planning Commission had approved a revision to the right of way to avoid a wetland and watercourse area. The Commission asked that the proposed driveway work be indicated on a map of the entire subdivision so the relation of the location of the driveway to the lot it serves and to wetlands and watercourses could be seen. Mr. Picton said when this map is submitted, it would be referred to Land Tech. A colored map of the revised section of the right of way was reviewed. It was noted that although the revised right of way avoided wetlands, it was still in a difficult location due to steep grades. Mr. Picton asked if Mr. Ross had chosen the route with the best grades. Mr. Ross stated the IWC had already twice approved the proposed route. The preliminary construction plan by Mr. Howland, dated September 1993 was reviewed. Mr. Ross noted there would be a separate application to Warren for the section of driveway in that Town. The Commission asked for one plan, which showed the entire driveway, noting that the Warren work could impact Washington. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to inspect the site and determine whether there were additional wetlands. Mr. Ross stated Mr. Howland was going to reflag the wetlands. It was noted the 65 day limit for action by the Commission would be up on 11/18 so an extension would probably be needed. Mr. Ross said he would work on getting the additional information requested by the Commission.
Herrmann/92 East Street/#IW-05-62/Dredge Pond: Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted his plan, "Pond Cleanout Plan," dated 9/15/05. He said the existing pond was a small man made spring fed pond with a 1.5 acre watershed and that no water flowed through it. He proposed to dig out the organic matter and sediment on the bottom without altering the existing side slopes. He noted the pond has no emergent vegetation. The temporary stockpile area was noted. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.
Murgio/21 New Preston Hill road/#IW-05-63/First Cut and Driveway: Mr. Charles presented the map, "Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 10/6/05. He explained this map showed the feasible driveway and house sites, but was not final because it did not include the proposed lot line. Mr. Picton said the Commission would wait until the application is complete before scheduling a site inspection. It was noted a final map and narrative were still needed.
New Applications
Pierce/31 Shearer Road/#IW-05-64/Exterior Stairs, Dormer, Clean Out Ditch, Etc: Ms. Donnelly, agent, presented the map, "Sarracco Residence," by Sarracco, Inc., dated 7/21/87 with handwritten notations by Mrs. Donnelly and the 10/5/05 document, "Scope of Work Within Regulated Wetlands Area." Mrs. J. Hill was asked to bring the original subdivision map to the next meeting so the wetlands boundary could be compared with that shown on the map submitted. Mrs. Donnelly outlined the proposed work, which included removing four pine trees, cleaning debris, dead limbs, and invasives from the area at the corner of Hinkle and Shearer Roads, cleaning out a sediment ditch, repairing or replacing a check dam above a culvert, constructing exterior stairs, extending an existing dormer, and rebuilding the stone wall. Undated elevations by Blaze Design-Build were reviewed. Ms. Purnell questioned why the Town would offer to clean out the ditch when property owners routinely clean up sediment from road runoff. Mr. Ajello said the catch basin had not been maintained and Mr. Cannavaro had offered to clean out the ditch. It was noted the proposed construction on the house would be 60 feet from wetlands. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 4:30 p.m. Mr. Ajello asked the Commissioners to look at the sand bar area and the catch basin, which feeds into the wetlands.
Enforcement
Reinhardt/10 Perkins Road/Clearcutting: The Commissioners wondered how the heavy rains had affected the downhill Dohn property.
Greenfield/13 Ives Road/Clearing In or Near Wetlands: It was noted this matter has gone unresolved for quite some time. Mr. Ross said a comprehensive proposal for the entire scope of the work would be submitted soon and that it would include a remediation plan by Mr. Sabin.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road/#IW-04-V8/Repair Retaining Wall: It was noted this matter has been unresolved for a long time, also. The Commission is waiting for Mr. Neff's input.
Taylor/11 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Excavation: Mr. Ajello sent Mr. Taylor a letter detailing all that he is required to do.
Feola/Carmel Hill Road/Excavation in Wetlands: Mr. Feola paid the citation.
Other Business
Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Request to Release Bond: Ms. Purnell noted she is pleased with the progress made.
October 5, 2005 Organizational Meeting: Mr. Picton asked the Commissioners to read the minutes and be prepared to discuss organization at the next meeting.
James Calhoun House, LLC./156 Calhoun Street/Request to Revise Permit #IW-05-47/Addition to Existing Dwelling: In her letter dated 10/11/05, Ms. Dedell asked to revise Permit #IW-05-47 to comply with the Certificate of Appropriateness granted to her by the Historic District Commission. The previous map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 8/5/05 was compared to the plan revised to 9/30/05. It was noted the change to the proposed addition to not make it come any closer to the wetlands than what had been previously approved.
MOTION: To approve the request submitted by Ms. Dedell on behalf of the James Calhoun House. LLC. to revise Application #IW-05-47 for an addition to the existing dwelling at 156 Calhoun Street per the plans by Mr. Neff revised to 9/30/05. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Korzenko, and passed 5-0.
Pending Litigation
Gatto: Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the site with Mr. Hayden from NCD who would report to the Commission on the proposed mitigation plan.
Cremona: Arguments were scheduled for October 18 in the Litchfield Courthouse. Mr. Ajello will check with Atty. Zizka to find out if it is OK for Commissioners to attend.
Private Mortgage Fund: Mrs. Hill said Atty. Hoben had advised her this appeal was on hold while the adjoining property owner negotiated the purchase of the property.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 9:59 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted, Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
September 28, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. D. Hill, Mrs. Korzenko, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. PurnellALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Ms. Coe
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Williams, Mr. Tagley, Mr./Mrs. Dutcher, Mr. Neff, Mr. Worcester, Atty, Ebersol, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Boling, Mr. Fowlkes, Mrs. Matthews, Mr. Ross, Mrs. Andersen, Mr. Charles, Mr./Mrs. Graham, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Baker, Mr. Palella,
PUBLIC HEARING
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-54/10 Dwelling Units
Mr. Picton called the public hearing to order at 6:08 p.m. and read the legal notice published in the Waterbury Republican on 9/16 and 9/24/05. He seated Regular Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Bedini for Mrs. Korzenko who had not attended the last meeting. Mr. Picton read the list of documents in the file and the 9/28/05 letter from Atty. McTaggart on behalf of Mr. Tagley. Ms. Purnell asked that all the documents from the first application be included in the record.
The map, "Proposed Site Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated January 2005 with buildings, roads, and new grading added by Mr. Worcester, dated 8/22/05.
Mr. Boling and Mr. Worcester, architect, represented the applicant. Mr. Boling recapped the revisions made since the previous application, #IW-05-25, was withdrawn. These included: 1) the three limited equity dwelling units were moved away from Scofield Hill Road to the field off Mygatt Road, 2) the seven market rate units were now located at least 100 feet from the wetlands, 3) all the recommendations by Land Tech had been incorporated into the plans except that as agreed upon at the last meeting, to the rear of the line of seven houses there would be a 6" to 12" deep depression dug on the up hill side of the silt fence to act as extra erosion barrier, 4) stormwater control plans were developed per Land Tech's recommendations, 5) the conservation easement was reintroduced and its language revised, 6) an area was notched out of the proposed easement area for the underground propane tanks, and 7) the future wet meadow was delineated on the map as the Commission had requested. Ms. Purnell recommended the map contain a key to make it clearer.
Other points made by Mr. Kelly were 1) the footprint of each market rate house was approx. 1800 sq. ft. and the total impervious coverage proposed was 8.56%. The state goal for affordable housing units is 10% and presently Washington has 1.7%. The total open space area proposed is approx. 74% of the parcel. There was no proposed activity in or disturbance to the wetlands and only modest regrading and the installation of stormwater infiltraction devices as recommended by Land Tech in the upland review area. No blasting is proposed. The water supply will have to be approved by the state Health Department, but it is currently thought Myfield will tie into the existing Quarry Ridge Water Co. Regarding the buffer area issue raised by Atty. McTaggart in her 9/28 letter, Mr. Boling stated in order to protect the wetlands, the applicant would ensure a proper recharge area for the stormwater runoff, adding that the slope behind the line of seven houses was not that steep. Mr. Worcester noted the lines of silt fence and construction barriers shown on the map were the proposed limits of disturbance so the forest area would be protected from equipment.
Ms. Purnell briefly explained how the infiltration system to recharge the roof runoff into the ground would function.
Mr. LaMuniere noted the applicants had indicated no blasting would be required and asked if an additional search had been conducted for ledge in the area. Mr. Neff, engineer, stated he had inspected downgrade of the development areas and did a substantial number of test pits throughout the site and had found no evidence of ledge.
Mr. Neff noted no fill and no curtain drains were required for the septic systems, which would be gravity flow systems. He said the meadow where the septic systems would be installed would remain meadow.
Mr. Neff briefly reviewed the stormwater management plans. The roof drains would run to an underground infiltration system to recharge the groundwater. The runoff from the parking areas and driveway would be routed through catch basins and piped to a stormwater detention basin with a small outlet. Water would flow out of the basin at a slow rate, which would be equal to the predevelopment rate of flow. He noted the system had been designed to accommodate a 100 year storm. He added the emergency outlet was oversized and the water would spill out over grade at the far outlet end in the event of a larger storm. When asked whether the stormwater management would interfere with the water supply, Mr. Neff responded, no, because the groundwater recharges at a shallow level and most wells go down to bedrock.
Mr. Picton noted the Commission had to make sure there were enough controls around the construction site to protect the wetlands. He questioned how the buffer would be managed and asked what the distance was between the grading line and the edge of the lawn. It was noted the distance was approximately 50 feet. Mr. Picton stated there was excavation and regrading proposed in an area with a 24% slope and so said he wanted it confirmed that the remaining buffer would be adequate to protect the wetlands from damage. Mr. Neff pointed out a second row of silt fence was proposed.
Mrs. Anderson noted the Judea Water Co. is now for sale and asked what would happen if the owner of the Quarry Ridge company abandoned it and it was turned over to the state or if the Quarry Ridge system needed repairs. Mr. Picton stated the water supply was not an Inland Wetlands issue and so the Commission could not address it.
Mr. Tagley asked if all the recommendations in Land Tech's 9/16/05 letter had been addressed. Mr. Picton said Land Tech would review the application and report back to the Commission.
Mr. Tagley questioned whether the property could handle the ten proposed dwelling units. Due to the severe slopes, he did not think the runoff could be adequately controlled so it would not adversely impact the wetlands. He thought the buffer area was critical. Ms. Purnell shared his concerns.
Mrs. Stevens, Mygatt Road, noted the 8/4/05 letter from Land Tech to Mr. Ajello and asked about the proposed stacking of the septic systems. Mr. Neff said he had sent Land Tech additional test data, which showed no hydrological restrictions and no hard pan soils, and so said there would be no problem stacking the systems. Mr. Picton noted Mr. Neff's data resulted from on site testing.
Mrs. Matthews, Quarry Ridge, acknowledged the Commission had no jurisdiction over the water supply, but stated the Quarry Ridge well pumps only 9 gpm, and would run dry if shared with Myfield. Mr. Boling said the state would review the plans and tell Myfield what was required. He said the applicant would drill its own wells if the state so ordered. The potential well sites were noted on the map.
Mr. Budney, Quarry Ridge, suggested the water runoff be purified and recycled. Mr. Neff said there were no provisions in the plans for that but a fire tank would be connected to the roof drains for fire protection.
Mr. Tagley asked if it was normal for an application to have so many revisions. Mr. Picton explained applications are often changed to address the Commission's and/or consultants' concerns.
Mrs. Matthews voiced her concern about the proximity of the Myfield septic systems to the Quarry Ridge boundary line. She presented a superimposed map, which showed the septic was proposed on land, which steeply sloped north and wesst towards Quarry Ridge. Ms. Purnell noted the primary fields were further from the boundary than the reserve field area. It was again noted the Health Dept. would evaluate this issue.
Ms. Purnell informed the public about how the Commission reaches a decision based on both the Town regulations and state statutes.
Mr. Picton noted the main issue was the integrity of the buffer between the wetlands and the area to be excavated. In some places the activity would be as little as 50 feet from the wetlands and the slope of the vegetated buffer would be approximately 24%. He requested that Land Tech address the question of whether the proposed 50 ft. vegetated buffer was adequate due to its steep slope. Ms. Purnell noted that if approved, only two houses would be built at a time so the entire area would not be disturbed at once.
Ms. Purnell said she would closely review the proposed conservation easement for the next session of the hearing.
Mr. Thomas asked what would happen if blasting was required. Mr. Picton stated that blasting seldom affects nearby properties and pointed out the proposed locations of the houses were quite a distance from adjoining properties. Ms. Purnell said adjoining property owners might want to document the existing conditions of their wells and foundations.
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, October 12, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
At 7:10 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the public hearing to Wednesday, October 12, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Taylor/11 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Excavation
Mr. Picton called the show cause hearing to order at 7:11 p.m. He noted the Commissioners had copies of the 9/19/05 cease and desist order issued by Mr. Ajello and explained to Mr. Taylor the purpose of the hearing was to give him an opportunity to show why the order should not remain in effect.
Mr. Taylor presented a sketch plan. He stated he had cut some failing trees and had "scooped out debris" from an existing pond, but had not deepened it. He said a tree had fallen and crushed the outlet pipe so he had also dug a ditch to direct water in case the pond overflowed.
Mr. Ajello circulated photos he had taken on 9/15/05.
Mr. Taylor said he had not been aware this work required a permit and apologized to the Commission. He said the pond had existed when he purchased his property in 1991 and he had always mowed the lawn surrounding it. He showed several photos, noting sometime in the past a property owner had deposited sand to make a beach. One photo was of a rock lined ditch and he pointed out its location on the sketch map. He told the Commission he would like the order lifted so he could put his back yard in order.
Mr. Ajello and Mr. Picton noted the photos showed a muddy hole where the pond had been and unstable ditches. They thought stabilization of the area was a priority.
It was noted the 9/19/05 order requested information such as a restoration plan, which included mitigation, documentation of the existing conditions, and a work sequence for stabilization of the site. Mr. Ajello read a portion of the letter and the Commissioners agreed the list of requests was complete. Mr. Taylor noted the letter did not request that he flag the wetlands. Mr. Picton advised Mr. Ajello that if he thought the wetlands should be flagged, he should amend his order.
Ms. Purnell explained to Mr. Taylor the reason for wetlands and buffer plantings is to improve water quality and stabilize the banks and provided him with a list of plants appropriate to use in a wetlands restoration plan.
Mr. Picton stated there had been no evidence presented to show Mr. Ajello's order had been issued in error.
MOTION: To close the show cause hearing held to provide Mr. Taylor the opportunity to show cause why the enforcement order issued to him on 9/19/05 for unauthorized excavation on his property at 11 Sunset Lane should not remain in effect. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton closed the hearing at 7:25 p.m.
These hearings were recorded on tape. The tapes are on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:27 p.m. and seated Members Korzenko, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
MOTION: To add subsequent business to the agenda: New Application: Murgio/21 New Preston Hill Road/ #IW-05-62/First Cut. By Mrs. Hill, seconded By Mrs. Korzenko, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
Corrections and amendments to the 9/14/05 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes were as follows:
P.2: Sentence just above the first motion: The citation fee is $120.
P.6: The motion was made by Mr. Picton.
P.12: Brose: 8th line: Change "regulated area" to "review area."
P.13: Dedell: Correct spelling is caulk.
Throughout: Correct spelling of the Land Tech consultant is Mr. Allan.
MOTION: To accept the 9/14/05 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mrs. Korzenko, and passed 4-0-1. Ms. Purnell abstained because she had not yet read the minutes.
In the Brose/*IW-05-56 site inspection minutes "regarding" was changed to "regrading."
MOTION: To accept the Brose/#IW-05-56 site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the Bennett/#IW-05-55 site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the Adams/#IW-05-57 site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the Janowicz/#IW-05-61 site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-37/Pond, Well, Wetlands Restoration: Mr. Rosiello, contractor, and Mr. Neff, engineer, were present. They noted the map and narrative had been revised and Mr. Neff had drawn N-S and E-W cross sections and a grading plan. The map, "Proposed Pond Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 9/26/05 and the untitled, colored plan by Mr. Rosiello dated 9/28/05 were reviewed. Mr. Neff stated he had added 2 ft. contours, the proposed contours in the pond area, and the line of the limit of disturbance, which was approx. 20 ft. from the pond. It was noted this 20 ft. work area was relatively flat. Mr. Rosiello noted he had addressed some of the Commission's concerns by reducing the size of the pond so that all activities would be at least 20 ft. from the wetlands and deleting the large berm originally proposed on the north side. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Neff to point out on the cross sections where the wetlands were located. The cross sections were discussed and Mr. Picton noted excavation for the pond probably would not lower the water table in the wetlands. Mr. Picton stated the proposed planting plan would diversify the vegetation in the wetlands buffer and help to restore the adjacent wetlands. Mr. Rosiello detailed the types of plants that would be used. Mr. Neff noted silt fence would be installed at the outlet during construction. Mrs. Hill asked if it would still be used as a fire pond. Mr. Neff stated even though it had been made smaller it was still large enough to serve that purpose.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-37 submitted by Calhoun Street Trust for a pond, well, and wetlands restoration at 62 Calhoun Street per the plan, "Proposed Pond Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 9/13/05, revised to 9/26/05 and the untitled composite planting plan by Mr. Rosiello dated 9/28/05. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton noted the Commission had voted to approve the application because although the work proposed was adjacent to wetlands, it would not damage wetlands or the hydrology of the area, the planting plan added diversity to the buffer area, and the creation of the pond diversified and enhanced the wet meadow area.
Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-44/Well, Irrigation Pond: Mr. Rosiello and Mr. Neff again represented the applicant and the same map, "Proposed Pond Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 9/26/05 was reviewed. Mr. Rosiello noted he had removed one of the two originally proposed deposition areas and said the excavated material would be used to fill "small localized ruts." Mr. Picton asked if the existing crossing was sufficient for well drilling equipment. Mr. Neff said it was. Ms. Purnell suggested there was a feasible and prudent alternative because the pond could be located on the other side of the watercourse. Mr. Rosiello said there was a septic system in that area. Ms. Purnell asked why the proposed well couldn't handle the irrigation without a pond. Mr. Rosiello said the pond would store water and serve as a landscape feature. Mr. Picton said the irrigation well should be deep and Mr. Rosiello stated this was specified in the application. Ms. Purnell pointed out the wetlands and regulated areas on the property and noted if the application were approved, all the upland review areas would have ongoing activities. She said the wetlands had been constricted in the crossing area and that just because the old agricultural road existed did not mean there would be no impact to the wetlands from landscaping and the construction of the pond. She added that she did not think the proposed pond was needed. Mr. Picton asked for written details on the excavation of the trench. Mr. Rosiello said it would be hand dug. The proposed irrigation system was discussed. Mr. Picton noted that activities in the upland review area can compromise the quality of the wetlands and said the Commission did not want to see the area converted to a mono culture lawn. Mr. Rosiello said the area was currently a rough lawn that was mowed once a week. Mr. Picton asked the applicant to consider the addition of a planting plan to enhance the buffer on both sides of the wetlands. Mrs. Hill and Ms. Purnell voiced their concerns about the installation of an irrigation system. Mr. Picton asked for details of the proposed system including how many pipes and where they would be located. Mr. Rosiello said he would submit a new narrative.
Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-45/Deer Fence: Mr. Rosiello pointed out on his untitled colored site plan dated 9/28/05 where he had made a second revision to take an additional half acre out of the area proposed to be enclosed by fence. He said this brought the total area enclosed by fence down to 18 acres. Mr. Picton asked why the wetlands had to be fenced in. Mr. Rosiello said it would protect all the plantings proposed in the previously discussed applications. The Commissioners thought the area was a significant wetlands and wildlife corridor and that a larger area should be left open. Mr. Picton said the proposed fence partitioned areas of wetlands from adjoining wetlands and he did not support this concept on such a large scale. Mr. Rosiello noted the fence would also serve as the pool fence. It was suggested then that it be installed around the pool. Mr. Rosiello said he would work on further revisions.
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-54/10 Dwelling Units: Mr. Picton noted the public hearing had been continued to 6:00 p.m. on October 12.
Bennett/207 Bee Brook Road/#IW-05-55/Addition to Existing Dwelling: The map, "Map Prepared for Joseph Bennett, Jr." by Mr. Osborne, revised to 6/24/95 was reviewed. Mr. Picton noted that while inspecting the property the Commission realized it had misunderstood the scope of the proposed activities as it had thought nothing was proposed in the shaded areas on the map. Mr. Bennett stated nothing was proposed on the south side of the house, a roof was proposed over the deck on the north side, and also a second story addition would be built. Both Mr. LaMuniere and Ms. Purnell stated the application lacked specific details and did not clearly indicate what work was proposed. The construction sequence was briefly reviewed. Mr. Charles thought it was boiler plate and did not specifically relate to the current application. It was noted no septic work was proposed. Mr. Picton asked the applicant for an erosion control plan and a more accurate and exact construction sequence, which included stockpile areas, dumpster location, exact materials to be removed, and notations re: which decks would remain and which would have roofs. He asked Mr. Ajello to review the requested documents prior to the next meeting. Mr. Bennett submitted preliminary construction plans dated 5/24/05 and Mr. Ajello stated every part of the building would be worked on except the foundation. Mr. Bennett asked for suggestions on how to prevent the erosion of the streambank. Ms. Purnell said he could let the banks regrow naturally or propose streamside plantings, which could be added to the application.
Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-05-/#IW-05-56/Addition to Dwelling: Mr. Neff,
engineer, and Mrs. Brose were present. Plans by Mr. Neff, "Septic System Repair Plan," dated 8/20/05 and "Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan," revised to 9/27/05, were reviewed. Mr. Neff proposed two dry wells in the lower yard to take the runoff from the roof gutters on the north end of the house and one on the west side to pick up the runoff from the proposed new roof section. He also proposed to remove the pavement on the north side of the driveway and to put in plantings to reduce the impervious surface on site and allow for the dispersion of water. He had revised the erosion control plan by adding a construction sequence and the above described work. Ms. Purnell asked what percentage of the property was wetlands and watercourses, noting the original 1998 approval was for a four bedroom house in a tight area and the current proposal is for five bedrooms. She did not think the Commission would have approved the proposed footprint in such a constrained area. Mr. Neff stated the house actually has two bedrooms, but according to the Health Code other rooms had to be labeled bedrooms because of their proximity to bathrooms. Ms. Purnell asked if the size of the proposed septic could be downsized to control the size of the house. Mr. Neff said it could not because a five bedroom design was required by the Health Dept. He said the new septic was required only because the garage addition was proposed where the existing septic is located. He said the new septic system would be installed in a well drained area outside the regulated area. Ms. Purnell noted the previous owner had expanded the parking area beyond what was originally approved and that retaining walls had been constructed without permits. She added the original permit approved two to three bedrooms only. Possible wetland impacts were discussed. Mr. Picton said the deck area would not be permeable once it is enclosed and Mr. Neff responded the dry wells had been proposed to address this. Mr. Picton pointed out the back yard, including the lawn that encroaches on the wetlands, slopes down to the wetlands so the applicant would have to be careful to trap sediment. Ms. Purnell also noted sand and silt from Roxbury Road wash onto to the property. Mrs. Brose proposed plantings for remediation and to solve the erosion problems and submitted a proposed plant list. She asked about the possibility of a dry stream landscaping feature to handle stormwater. Ms. Purnell did not think this was a good idea because material from the driveway could be transported to the wetlands. Mrs. Brose agreed to delete it. Mr. Picton noted the location of the wetlands was not shown on the landscaping plan and said it looked like the buffer area had been converted to lawn. He did not want the lawn to extend to the wetlands, noting intensive residential sprawl results in adverse impacts to wetlands and watercourses. The Commissioners considered the fact that activities beyond what had been originally approved were affecting the wetlands, but also that the proposal was to generally build between already existing structures and not come any closer to the wetlands. Mr. Picton suggested the applicant draw up a mitigation plan to enhance the wetlands and buffer areas. Mr. Ajello thought the existing side yard erosion problem needed an engineered solution as well a planting solution. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to advise the applicant regarding plantings to reverse the degradation of the wetlands. He noted the location of the wetlands must be included on the planting plan. Mrs. Korzenko asked that all the proposed work, including the planting plan, be shown on one map.
Smith/35 East Street/#IW-05-53/Repair Dam: Ms. Smith and Mr. Watson were present. The plan, "Improvements to Woodruff Dam," by Lenard Engineering, revised to 3/21/05, 6 pp. was reviewed. Mr. Picton reviewed the 9/14/05 minutes, which listed the information Ms. Smith had been asked to submit. On the map, Ms. Smith marked exactly where on the west bank the equipment would access the work site, stated no ramp would be built, and amended the construction sequence to indicate the equipment would be lowered into the pond. She briefly reviewed the construction sequence. She said the accumulated silt would be removed from the bottom of the pond and deposited in the CL&P easement area approx. 200 ft. from the work area. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to inspect the deposition site to make sure it was safe. Ms. Smith said she would not know how much material would be taken out until the job was completed and said the pond would not be enlarged. Ms. Smith then described the measures, which would be taken such as pumping the water, putting down sand bags, and installing silt fence or hay bales to keep the work area dry and prevent sediment from flowing downstream. Mr. Bedini asked if there would be stockpiles of the new materials to be used. Ms. Smith said these materials would be used as they were delivered. Mr. Bedini asked if all the dewatered material would be taken from the work site. Ms. Smith stated a backhoe would load it into trucks and it would not be reused in the dam reconstruction. It was noted work was expected to begin on Monday, October 3. Ms. Purnell said the engineering specs were OK, but that a plan for post construction planting should be submitted later. The Commissioners discussed and agreed upon additions to Ms. Smith's construction sequence and written responses to the Commission's 9/14/05 requests as follows: 1) Change the last sentence and add a second to the end of #2: Stockpiling of material will be used as access ramp from Old Furnace Road to the work area at the access point indicated on the plan. There will be no change in the contour of the existing bank and any damage to the bank will be repaired to its previous condition. 2) The 7th point in the construction sequence should be changed to: Deliver specified materials to the work area at the access point indicated on the plan. 3) Add a sentence to #4: Only accumulated silt will be dredged. 4) Add to the end of the sentence in #5: ...in a location to be approved by the WEO that is at least 150 feet from any wetlands or watercourse. 5) Add the following sentence to the construction sequence: All necessary measures will be taken to prevent work in flowing water in order to prevent turbidity in the stream. Mr. Ajello said he had asked Ms. Smith to take photos prior to the start of work to document the existing conditions.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-53 submitted by Ms. Smith to repair the dam at 35 East Shore Road per the plans, "Improvements to Woodruff Pond Dam," by Lenard Engineering, Inc., 5 pp, dated 8/1/03, revised to 3/21/05 with notations initialed by Ms. Smith and the construction schedule with revisions initialed by Ms. Smith. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Adams/214 West Shore Road/#IW-05-57/Repair Retaining Wall, Sod Lawn: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his plan, "Proposed Yard Improvements," revised to 9/22/05. The plan incorporated recommendations made at the Commission's site inspection for filling the sink holes. Ms. Purnell noted her concern that the repair of the wall would extend it further into the lake. Mr. Neff said the bottom of the wall was failing and the repairs would be done within the plane of the existing wall. Ms. Purnell worried that more problems would be found as the work progressed and asked Mr. Ajello to photograph the wall to document the existing size and conditions. Mr. Ajello asked if gutters would be installed on the existing building. Mr. Neff said, no, because they would concentrate the flow. Mr. Picton asked how long the ground would be bare before the sod was installed. Mr. Neff said it would be only one day and noted the area of plantings would be as large as the sod area.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-57 submitted by Mr. Adams to repair a retaining wall and sod the lawn at 214 West Shore Road per the plan, "Proposed Yard Improvements," by Mr. Neff, dated 9/13/05, revised to 9/22/05 with the condition that the repairs to the wall be done in the plane of the existing wall and not extend beyond that into the lake. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed Ms. Purnell voted No because she thought more mitigation plantings were needed instead of sod.
Schneider/97 Lower Church Hill Road/#IW-05-59/Dredge Pond: Mr. Baker, caretaker, and Mr. Palella, contractor, were present. They stated the pond was still dry, they did not propose to enlarge it, and they wanted to begin work tomorrow. Mr. Palella said he expected to complete the dredging in one day.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-59 submitted by Mr. Schneider to dredge the pond at 97 Lower Church Hill Road per the plan, "Pond Dredging Project of Upper Pond, 30 X 45," by Mr. Baker with the condition that if water flows through the work site, either the WEO must be contacted so he can direct the work or the work must be stopped. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Dedell/156 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-60/Landscaping: Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, stated there had been no revisions to the plans since the last meeting. The plan, "Proposed Invasives Control and Native Wetland Plantings," by Mr. Sabin, dated 9/14/05 was reviewed. He said invasives would be removed and replaced with native species. Part of the old lawn would be augmented with islands of planted native species and would be mowed only once a year. It was noted no tilling or regrading was proposed and that the wetlands areas would be enhanced and restored.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-60 submitted by Ms. Dedell for landscaping at 156 Calhoun Street per the plan by Mr. Sabin dated 9/14/05. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Janowicz/51 Rabbit Hill Road/#IW-05-61/Driveway: Mr. Picton noted the driveway had been approved in 1993 and 1998, but had not been completed because a stop work order had been issued due to a severe erosion problem during construction. Mr. Ross said he proposed to install the erosion controls proposed in the original permit plus reinforced silt fence per additional specs he submitted. The grading cross section dated 9/93 was reviewed. Mr. Ross pointed out that sections of the driveway would have a 20% grade and Ms. Purnell advised him a zoning variance would be required. Mr. Ross noted the driveway was 75% completed and the culverts had already been installed so if further regrading had to be done to reduce the grades, the whole area would have to be opened up and disturbed again. He hoped the Wetlands Commission would support his variance request so that additional disturbance could be avoided. Ms. Purnell noted the erosion problem had never been solved. Mr. Ross proposed the installation of an enlarged level spreader at the outlet of the 12" by 30' long culvert at the steep section of the driveway and submitted the construction diagram, "Flared End Section," dated 9/27/05. He noted the roadbed would be from 12 ft. to 14 ft. wide and the total width of disturbed area approx. 50 ft. wide. He also stated the steeper sections of the driveway would be paved. Mr. Picton was concerned the sand and salt used on the 20% grade sections of driveway would flow into the catch basins and into the stream. He asked for a site plan so the Commission could review alternate driveway locations. Mr. Ajello said the driveway was located on a right of way and there were no alternatives. Mrs. Korzenko thought there should be an engineered plan to handle the runoff. Mr. Ross's 9/27/05 narrative was reviewed and it was noted all grades over 15% would be paved and all other sections would be processed gravel. The Commissioners were skeptical the Planning Commission had approved a subdivision with such a steep driveway and asked to see the subdivision map, a map of the property, and a vicinity map. Mr. Ross presented a subdivision map, which he did not submit for the file. Mr. Picton also asked to see the Planning Commission file. He requested a site development plan showing a feasible layout for the lot, saying he did not want to approve a driveway to an illegal lot. He also asked that the watercourse be shown on the map and that the original Wetlands permit be brought to the meeting so the conditions of approval could be reviewed. Ms. Purnell noted there had also been questions raised at the site inspection and asked that Land Tech review those issues. Mr. Ross said it had been legally subdivided and is taxed as a building lot. It was the consensus to send the application to Land Tech for review and the Commission would pay for it since the application had been previously approved. Mr. Ajello was asked to get a copy of the letter of notification, which had been sent to the Town of Warren.
New Applications
Herrmann/92 East Street/#IW-05-62/Dredge Pond: Mr. Neff, engineer, noted the property is located on the corner of East Street and Calhoun Hill Road. The application is to clean 100 yards of material from a .1 acre pond, which would not be enlarged or deepened. The dredged material will be spread on site. Mr. Neff said detailed plans had not yet been prepared. Mr. Picton asked that some organic matter be left in the pond to support plant growth.
Murgio/21 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-05-63/First Cut, Driveway Location: Mr. Charles represented the applicant. He did not have a final map ready. He noted he had inspected the property with Mr. Ajello and Mr. LaMuniere who had agreed on an acceptable access along the western boundary. On a preliminary map Mr. LaMuniere pointed out a valuable wetland area in the southeastern part of the property and said activity in this area should be avoided. Mr. Picton noted approval could be subject to the condition that there be no driveway constructed between the two wetlands on the property. Ms. Purnell asked if there were wetlands or watercourses on the adjacent property.
Other Business
Moore Property/New Milford Turnpike/Access/Preliminary Discussion: Mr. Boling and Mr. Charles said they had a client who was interested in purchasing this property at the edge of the village of New Preston. The plan would be to construct mixed housing on 25% of the land and to preserve 75% as open space. They presented a computer generated site plan. Since access from Flirtation Avenue would be difficult because it would be steep and would require a lot of fill and it would make sense to keep traffic on the state road, they asked if the Commission would approve a two lane access through a regulated area off Rt. 202. It was noted there is an existing single lane crossing there now. Mr. Boling noted the state DOT might require site work at the entrance. Ms. Purnell thought historically there was a right to enter the property in this location, Mr. LaMuniere noted a crossing already exists in this location, and Mr. Picton said feasible and prudent alternatives would have to be considered. The Commissioners generally thought such a two lane crossing might be possible.
Enforcement
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-05-58/Remediation Per IWC Order: At the last meeting the Commission had reviewed Mrs. Corrigan's replanting plan and had directed Mr. Ajello to advise Mr. Fowler that in addition the entire 135 ft. long ditch had to be refilled with the material that had been excavated from it. Mr. Ajello said he had received a response from Atty. Kelly saying that two professionals had advised his client not to refill the ditch because it would disturb the vegetation that had begun to grow back in the disturbed area. It was the consensus of the Commission that the two professionals, Mrs. Corrigan, botanist, and Mr. Zitter, horticulturist, were not hydrologists and, therefore, were not qualified to state that the ditch should not be refilled. It was noted that if Mr. Fowler had refilled the ditch a year ago as he had been ordered, disturbance of plant growth would not now be an issue. The planting-restoration plan by Mrs. Corrigan was reviewed. Mr. Ajello was asked to respond to Atty. Kelly with the following points: 1) Mrs. Corrigan failed to observe the order to refill the ditch when she drew her plan, 2) Mrs. Corrigan is not qualified to make the determination that she did because she is not a hydrologist, and 3) the order stands.
Gatto/155 Woodbury Road: Mr. Ajello said he would meet on site with Mr. Hayden to review the proposed mitigation plan.
Taylor/11 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Excavation: A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, October 4, 2005 at 4:40 p.m.
MOTION: To uphold the 9/19/05 Cease and Desist Order issued to Mr. Taylor for unauthorized excavation on his property at 11 Sunset Lane. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Leach-Smith/115 River Road: The excavated material was trucked off site and Mr. Ajello saw no evidence that any rocks had been dumped along River Road.
Town of Washington/Repair of Retaining Wall along East Aspetuck River: Ms. Purnell said she observed that the restored wall was already failing down low along the shore where stones were pushing out. Also on top of that same bank near Pavilion Hall it looked like there was a sink hole undermining the back of the wall. She noted the rest of the wall was mortared but the repaired section was not.
Other Business
Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Request to Release Bond: Ms. Purnell reported the school is doing a good job working to comply with all conditions of approval.
MOTION: To go into Executive Session at 10:59 p.m. to discuss pending litigation. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To come out of Executive Session at 11:07 p.m. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton reminded the Commissioners of the Special Meeting scheduled on 10/5/05 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss organization and procedural matters.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Ms. Purnell.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
September 14, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. PurnellMEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. Korzenko
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Bedini
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Ms. Coe
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Boling, Mr. Charles, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Tagley, Mrs. Andersen, Mrs. Branson, Mr. Branson, Mr. Neff, Mr. Ross, Ms. Brose, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Rosiello, Mr. Baker, Mr. Palello, Residents
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Bedini for Mrs. Korzenko.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: 1) New Applications: A. Schneider/ 97 Lower Church Hill Road/#IW-05-59/Dredge Pond, B. Dedell/156 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-60/ Landscaping, C. Janowicz/51 Rabbit Hill Road/ #IW-05-61/Driveway; 2) Enforcement: Taylor/ 11 Sunset Lane/Notice of Violation/Excavation; 3) Other Business: Murgio/New Preston Hill Road/Preliminary Discussion/First Cut. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 8/10/05 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 4: Top paragraph, last line: Change 7:52 p.m. to 6:52 p.m.
P. 5: 4th line: Delete: "It was the consensus the proposal submitted was a good approach, and."
P. 5: 14th line under Myfield: Change: "questioned whether this paper was relevant as" to: "observed that."
P. 9: The first motion was seconded by Mr. LaMuniere.
4th line from top: Insert: "wetland" before "habitats."
P. 10: First motion: 7th line: Change: "pond" to: "dredge area as shown on the map."
P. 11: Motion: 10th line: Insert: "in the direction of wetlands" before "as shown."
P. 13: #6 under Montessori School: 2nd line: Should be: grass and rock swale.
P. 15: There was a brief discussion regarding whether the $10,000 bond had been a condition in the motion of approval. It was the consensus it had not, although The Gunnery representatives had agreed to post it before beginning work on the driveway. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to make sure this was done prior to the start of work.
P. 16: First line under Smith: Mrs. Smith and Mr. Watson reviewed the plans....
P. 18: Motion regarding Feola at bottom of page: The motion should include a statement that Mr. Feola is required to pay a $100 citation fee.
MOTION: To accept the 8/10/05 Public Hearing - Regular
Meeting minutes as corrected. By Ms. Purnell,
seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 9/7/05 James Calhoun House, LLC.
site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton,
seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
The 9/8/05 Steep Rock Assn. site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. Mr. LaMuniere stressed that it had been agreed that the applicant would return to the Commission for a final review of the plans once they had been finalized by the logger.
MOTION: To accept the 9/8/05 Steep Rock Assn. site inspection minutes as corrected. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
The Commissioners thanked Mr. Bedini for his research and thorough minutes of the 9/8/05 Smith site inspection.
MOTION: To accept the 9/8/05 Smith site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-37/Pond, Well, Wetlands Restoration: Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Rosiello, contractor, discussed the revised plans; "Proposed Pond Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 9/13/05, which was the composite map the Commission had requested, and the site plan received 9/12/05. Mr. Neff also submitted a letter dated 9/14/05 stating the proposed ponds would be safe and stable excavated structures and noting one would serve as a fire pond. Mr. Picton noted the cross sections and grading plan requested at the last meeting had not been submitted. Mr. Neff stated there would be a 3 ft. berm at the lower end of the proposed pond to hold the water level and Mr. Rosiello explained he proposed a berm on the uphill side, too, for landscaping and planting. Mrs. Hill noted a 40 ft. wide berm was proposed around most of the pond. Mr. Picton stated the Commission usually did not want any more fill deposited next to wetlands than was necessary, adding he thought the plans called for more fill than was practically necessary on the north, east, and west sides of the pond. Mr. Rosiello explained the added height of the berms was needed for aesthetic interest and stated on the east side, the pond edge was at least 50 feet from the wetlands and the fill would be kept 45 ft. from the wetlands. Mr. Rosiello stated the north end of the pond would be 30 ft. from wetlands at its closest point and there would be no problem keeping away from the wetlands in this area during pond construction. Elsewhere, however, the pond would be as little as 10 feet from the wetlands. Ms. Purnell said she appreciated the reduction in the size of the proposed pond and the additional plantings proposed for mitigation, but voiced her concern that the PH of the water to be pumped from the proposed well to fill the pond would differ from that of the surface water and might have unanticipated effects. She thought the pond would not have a negative impact on the wetlands. Mr. Rosiello said sedges would be planted on the south and east sides because the areas that would impound water could not have tree roots. Mr. Picton asked if there was a narrative to explain where the machines would operate during excavation. Mr. Rosiello noted it had been submitted with the original application, but Mr. Picton said it had been deficient. Mr. Picton again stated there was more excavation and fill up to the edge of the wetlands than was necessary to accomplish the objective and said the aesthetic landscaping features could be made smaller. He stated that while there was only 7 feet between the pond and the wetlands there was no indication on the map where the boundary was beyond which machinery would not be allowed. He asked that the work proposed in close proximity to the wetlands be minimized and said the work had not been described well enough so that he could be confident there would be no impact to the wetlands. He did not see the need for the berms on the upper perimeter and recommended the pond be made smaller on the east side. Mr. LaMuniere agreed that the Commission had asked for information on hydrology, elevations, and cross sections, but these had not been submitted. Mr. Neff agreed to submit a refined grading plan and cross sections. The Commission asked for both N-S and E-W cross sections showing the berms in relation to the wetlands and asked that the activities be moved farther from the wetlands.
Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-44/Well, Pond: Mr. Rosiello stated this pond was proposed in a more level area, was further from the wetlands, and would be used for irrigation. The maps and plans cited under Application #IW-05-37 were reviewed again. Mr. Rosiello said the limit of the regulated area was not shown on the map, but that at its closest point the proposed pond was 110 feet from the wetlands. He pointed out the location of the well had been moved so that equipment would not have to cross wetlands for drilling. Mr. Rosiello reviewed the work area around the perimeter of the pond and pointed out the two stockpile/dewatering areas. Ms. Purnell asked if depressed areas would be filled in. Mr. Rosiello said they would. Mr. Picton asked that the limit of the work area be indicated on the map. Ms. Purnell was concerned about the impact to the ecological system that would be caused by the wetlands crossing and said there were alternatives other than crossing a watercourse to build a pond for irrigation. Mr. Picton noted, however, the crossing existed and it was the only access to that portion of the property. Mr. Rosiello said the crossing was very narrow, only wide enough to accommodate a garden tractor. He offered to construct a pontoon crossing to minimize the impact by machinery. Mr. Picton noted while Application #IW-05-37 was almost entirely within the upland review area, this one was mainly outside it and so he saw little chance of an adverse impact. Mr. Picton asked the applicant to develop an argument for why he needs the pond and irrigation pipes when there is the possibility that the well alone could serve the purpose. He also asked that the landscaping improvements be drawn so there is little or no chance of impact to the wetlands.
Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-45/Deer Fence: It was noted the deer fence was not shown on the comprehensive map, but would be added if approved. Mr. Rosiello said he had revised the original application by eliminating 9 acres of enclosed area, bringing the total enclosed to 18 acres. Ms. Purnell noted, however, that the wetland corridor would still be enclosed by the fence, which would result in the fragmentation of the habitat. She asked if there were alternatives and suggested the Commission consult with the DEP for guidance. Mr. Picton asked the applicant to try to fence in only the garden and to leave the wetlands out of the enclosure. Mr. Rosiello said there would be only minimal impacts in the areas where the fence crossed wetlands. Mr. Picton said the fence would be an ecological barrier and pointed out that habitat and wetlands quality are interrelated. Mr. Rosiello noted the portion of the wetlands corridor on the adjoining Steep Rock property was unfenced and said the fence would serve as the pool fence as well as for protection from deer. Mr. Picton asked that the applicants more narrowly define their objectives. Ms. Purnell asked that other alternatives be considered.
James Calhoun House, LLC./156 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-47/Addition to Dwelling: Mr. Neff, engineer, reviewed his map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," dated 8/5/05. He pointed out the location of the wetlands and pond and said that part of the existing house was within the 100 foot setback. Mr. Picton asked if the line of silt fence was the limit of disturbance and Mr. Neff said there was a note on the plan to indicate that it was. Ms. Purnell noted the structures proposed would increase the amount of impervious surface within the upland review area. Mr. Neff responded that Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, was working on a wetland planting plan that would increase the diversity of the vegetation in the wetlands. He added that while the work would increase the amount of impervious surfaces, it would have no adverse impact to the wetlands and was approximately 70 feet from the wetlands. Mr. Picton noted the addition to the dwelling would bring it only 10 feet closer than the existing house. Mr. Neff explained the work to be done on the terrace, stone wall, and stone steps down to grade. Ms. Purnell questioned how much encroachment on the upland review area would be allowed, especially since there was no accompanying mitigation plan. Mr. Picton thought in general new buildings would not be permitted, but said he was comfortable with the proposed addition because it was a modest size and the terrain to the wetlands was relatively flat so sediment could be easily controled. He thought structures within 50 feet of wetlands could be critical, but said this addition was 65 feet at its closest point. Mrs. D. Hill noted the Commission frequently requires mitigation plans and suggested the application form be revised to include this requirement.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-47 submitted by the James Calhoun House, LLC. for an addition to the existing dwelling at 156 Calhoun Street per the plan, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 8/5/05. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-1. Ms. Purnell voted No because she was concerned about the cumulative negative impacts to the wetlands and there was no formal mitigation proposed in conjunction with the application.
Bernard-Cahill/7 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-05-48/Dredge Pond: Ms. Purnell recused herself because she is an adjoining property owner. Mr. Neff reviewed his plan, "Pond Cleanout Plan," dated 7/28/05. He noted sediment would be removed from only one section of the pond, the dredged material would be temporarily stockpiled and then taken off site, and the work area would be within the confines of the silt fence. Mr. Picton asked if the exact work areas were specified in the narrative. Mr. Neff said the hydraulic excavator would have to work at the edge of the pond to complete the dredging. Mr. Picton asked if the stream would flow through the area to be dredged while the pond was being excavated. Mr. Neff said a temporary pump would continuously pump out the water so it would not reach the excavation area and that the work would be done during dry conditions and would take only one week. Mr. Picton asked that only clear water be pumped.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-48 submitted by
Mr. Bernhard and Ms. Cahill to dredge the pond
at 7 Old Litchfield Road per the plan, "Pond
Cleanout Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 7/28/05
subject to the following conditions:
1. work areas are limited to the silt removal
area and the stockpile area as defined by
the silt fence as shown on the map, but may
be extended to the edge of the pond to allow
machine access to the pond,
2. water shall not run through the excavated
area during excavation, and
3. only clear water shall be pumped.
By Mr. Averill, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and
passed 4-0.
Ms. Purnell had recused herself because she is
an adjoining property owner.
Ms. Purnell was reseated.
Hildemann/34 Popple Swamp Road/#IW-05-46/Addition to Barn: Mr. Ajello noted the application had been withdrawn. It was the consensus the application fee should be refunded.
Steep Rock Assn./147 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-05-49/Timber Harvest: Mr. Branson, certified forester, stated the application form was not fully completed because some information would not be known until a logger was hired. Mr. LaMuniere noted how steep some the proposed haul road was and asked that the plans be brought back for the Commission to review when they had been finalized with the contractor. Mr. Ajello noted a Timber Harvest application from the Selectmen's Office was also required. Mr. Picton asked if there was a less steep area further from the stream that could be used for hauling the logs. Mr. Branson was not sure the haul road could be moved, but said he would try to increase the width of the filter strip between the road and the stream and would try to move the steep section as far from the stream as possible. Mr. Picton noted silt fence is not always effective in containing sediment so asked that the applicant be prepared to install diversions or otherwise protect the disturbed areas to reduce the erosion potential at its source. Mr. Branson noted the work would be done in the winter.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-49 submitted by
Steep Rock Assn. for selective timber harvesting
at 147 Sabbaday Lane per the 8/10/05 "Timber
Sale Plan," subject to the following conditions:
1. the applicant will determine whether there is
a practical alternative location for the steep
section of haul road, which closely parallels
the stream, in order to increase the width
of the buffer and decrease the likelihood of
erosion from the road toward the stream,
2. the applicant shall return to the Commission
for a final review once plans have been
finalized with the contractor, and
3. as silt fence does not always effectively
trap sediment and sediment laden water, the
applicant shall be prepared to install
diversions and harden or otherwise protect
from erosion the areas of concentrated flow,
which are disturbed by the operation of equipment,
to reduce the erosion potential at its source.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and
passed 5-0.
Croasdaile/67 River Road/#IW-05-50/Repair Septic System: Mrs. D. Hill recused herself because she is an adjoining property owner. Mr. Neff, engineer, noted there had been no revisions to the 7/30/05 plan, which had been discussed at the last meeting, to repair the failing septic system. Health Department approval was noted. The proposed septic system would be within 10 feet of the watercourse, but Mr. Neff explained since the watercourse was routed through a sealed pipe, per the State Health Code, it could be installed 5 feet from the stream. He also noted there was no other location on the property to install a new septic system. Mr. Ajello asked if the stone wall would be reconstructed. Mr. Neff said the top of the wall above the pipe would be rebuilt. Mr. Picton asked if the septic system could be designed for a three bedroom house in order to decrease its size and keep it farther from the stream. Mr. Neff said the house has four bedrooms and a four bedroom system was required.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-50 submitted by Mrs. Croasdaile for a septic repair at 67 River Road per the plan, "Septic System Repair Plan," By Mr. Neff, dated 7/30/05. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0. Mrs. Hill had recused herself because she is an adjoining property owner.
Mrs. Hill was reseated.
Schwartz/173 West Shore Road/#IW-05-51/Replace Retaining Wall, Rebuild Stone Wall: Mr. Neff, engineer, reviewed the plans, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," dated 7/28/05. He said the proposal was to level up the existing stone steps, install a railing, and reconstruct the retaining wall on the lake side of West Shore Road and to reconstruct the existing stone wall on the south side of the road. The south wall, he said, would be constructed on the original base, would require no additional footings, and would be squared up to match the height and width of the original wall as shown on the 7/28/05 plan. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the old material from the work on the north side would be trucked off site. Mr. Neff said it would. Ms. Purnell asked if drains were proposed for the parking area above the retaining wall. Mr. Neff said runoff would sheet flow over the parking area as it does now, the parking area would be stone dust, not asphalt, and the road runoff would not erode the stone dust. Mr. Ajello noted the work, once started, would most likely obstruct traffic and suggested it be done in the off season.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-51 submitted by Mr.
Schwartz to replace a retaining wall and repair
a stone wall at 173 West Shore Road per the plan,
"Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr.
Neff, dated 7/28/05. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded
By Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Town of Washington/2 Bryan Plaza/#IW-05-52/Dredge Pond: Mr. Picton asked if a ditch would be dug to divert the stream, and Mr. Ajello responded no ditch was proposed. Mr. Picton asked if the silt would be dug out under running water and Mr. Ajello said it would not because there was no flow now. Mr. Ajello said the pond was really a sediment pond that would be dredged in a few hours. The excavated material would be stockpiled on the property and surrounded by staked hay bales. Mr. Picton stated the water should be directed around the pond to prevent water from flowing through the work area during excavation or the job should be done when the stream is not flowing. Mr. Ajello referred to the application, which specified the work would be done during dry weather and that an instream filter device would be installed prior to the commencement of work.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-52 submitted by the
Town of Washington to dredge the silt pond at 2
Bryan Plaza per the undated sketch plan as
submitted subject to the following conditions:
1) during excavation, water must be prevented from flowing through the area to be dredged and
2) silt laden water must be prevented from flowing
downstream. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr.
Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Smith/35 East Shore Road/#IW-05-53/Repair Dam: Ms. Smith and Mr. Watson were present. Mr. Picton reviewed Mr. Bedini's 9/8/05 site inspection report. Ms. Purnell asked that a copy of the state consent order be submitted for the file and asked if it included a more detailed narrative for the construction sequence. Ms. Smith did not know. The plans, "Improvements to Woodruff Pond Dam," by Lenard Engineering, 6 pp., revised to 3/21/05, were reviewed. Ms. Smith briefly reviewed the proposal to open the dam as soon as the Town work to repair the wall on the Aspetuck River in New Preston was completed, to bring the flow through the pond down to a trickle and allow the banks to dry out, and then to dredge the pond. She did not know how much material would be removed and stated the plans specified the excavated material would be reused "as a layer underneath the bases." Mr. Bedini noted there was only one spot on the bank with an open slope big enough to dump all the material. Mr. Picton requested drawings and a written narrative to explain how the work would be done. Ms. Purnell noted the Board of Selectmen had agreed to shut off the flow from Lake Waramaug and said she had no problem with the plans to dewater prior to beginning the excavation. Mr. LaMuniere asked what would be done with the excavated material. Mr. Bedini stated no construction sequence had been submitted. Ms. Smith said the excavated material would be deposited either in the old fish hatchery area or in an open area on the CL&P easement. Mr. Picton noted the Commission did not want the excess material used as fill in the regulated area and so asked that the applicant specify on the map where it would be deposited. The Commission also requested other information before work starts; 1) where was the access to the work area, 2) where were the stockpiling, staging, and dewatering areas, 3) what was the sequence of construction, 4) how much material would be dredged and stockpiled, 5) where would excess fill be deposited, and 6) would the fill be respread on the hardened dam layer? Several Commissioners did not think the DEP would permit the reuse of the material as Ms. Smith had described and Mr. Bedini noted no such detail had been included in the plan. Ms. Smith noted a lip would be added to the reconstructed spillway to help prevent the erosion of the front of the dam. Ms. Purnell noted it was important to coordinate work with the ongoing Town project so the Town work is not impacted. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to coordinate the work with Mr. Cannavaro.
New Applications
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-54/10 Dwelling Units: Mr. Boling and Mr. Worcester, architect, represented the applicant. The plans, "Stormwater Management Plan," 2 pp., by Mr. Neff, dated 8/8/05 and "Proposed Site Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated January 2005 with buildings, roads, and new grading added by Mr. Worcester, dated 8/22/05, were reviewed. Mr. Boling asked that the Commission schedule a public hearing for the next meeting and that it state its concerns now and ask Land Tech to review the application immediately so that the applicant could address all concerns in time for the public to review at least 10 days prior to the start of the hearing. The application was briefly reviewed. It was noted the conservation easement had been reintroduced with the stone wall as its logical boundary, the single family dwellings were outside the regulated area, and the closest encroachments to the wetlands were the roof drains for the proposed houses. Mr. Boling stated in order to simplify the application, maintenance of the wet meadow was not proposed at this time. Ms. Purnell noted the proposed easement was integral to the application, but pointed out problems with its generic language. Mr. Picton recommended that she and Mr. Boling resolve the issues she raised before the start of the public hearing. Mr. Picton asked that the wet meadow be delineated on the plan. Ms. Purnell asked about the differences between the deed restriction and proposed conservation easement. Mr. Boling responded the deed restriction had been put on the property by a previous owner. Ms. Purnell asked why the applicant could not build nine rather than ten dwelling units. She said the three affordable units proposed would still meet the 30% requirement under the Affordable Housing Appeals Act and said this was a feasible and prudent alternative that should be considered. Mr. Picton said the applicant had previously stated the construction of fewer units was not economically feasible. Ms. Purnell stated the increase in impervious surface, use of the property, etc. were issues that must be addressed. Reviewing the Stormwater Management Plan, Mr. Picton noted the roof drains had been added at the request of Land Tech, but he was concerned about the disturbance that would be caused when they were installed. Mr. Neff pointed out that the disturbance would be kept to a minimum because the installation would follow the contour lines, only two houses would be constructed at a time to reduce the amount of disturbed area at any one time, and the 2004 Ct. E and S Guidelines would be followed to keep any erosion at the source. He said the applicant would take care to install the drains properly as he did not want a situation where a problem with the underground filtration system developed due to soil disturbance. Mr. Picton recommended a minor depression be made between the hole and the silt fence to hold 6" to 12" of water as an extra erosion protection. Mr. Neff said this could be dug behind the toe of the silt fence. Mr. Picton asked if the area disturbed by the construction of two houses would be completely stabilized prior to the start of work on the next two. Mr. Neff said it would. Ms. Purnell noted the Commission would have to be clear on what it meant by "completely stabilized." Mr. LaMuniere noted neighbors feared there was ledge in the area and that blasting could potentially affect their water supply. He asked the applicant to fully address this issue at the hearing. Mr. Picton noted that in addressing the drainage concerns previously raised by Land Tech, the applicant was now reworking a wider, more continuous band of ground below the houses, where previously there was a separate excavation for each. He thought the previous plan was minor compared to the latest revision, which would require reworking the whole top of the steep slope. Mr. Neff responded the roof drains would be dug into grade along the contour and this would not require regrading along the entire hillside. Mr. Boling again stated his request that all information be submitted at least 10 days prior to the hearing so it could be closed on 9/28. Ms. Purnell advised him that the earliest the hearing would be closed would be 10/12/05. Mr. Picton asked the applicant to identify where there would be reserved rights with wetlands implications, stated it was important to maintain the forest to the edge of the work area, and noted as submitted, the nearest roof drain was 62 feet from the wetlands.
MOTION: To schedule a public hearing to consider Application #IW-05-54 submitted by Myfield, LLC. for 10 dwelling units at 7 Mygatt Road on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. 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 and Mr. Ciapetta, contractor, were present. Mr. Ajello explained the applicant proposed to keep the proposed construction as far from Bee Brook as possible. Mr. Bennett noted the existing house is less than 25 feet from the brook. The plan, "Map Prepared for Joseph Bennett," by CJOC, LLC., revised 6/24/05 was reviewed. Mr. Picton noted only the side of the house away from the wetlands would be affected. Mrs. Hill asked if the existing septic system would have to be enlarged. Mr. Bennett said he had Health Dept. approval and he was not required to enlarge the septic. Ms. Purnell suggested possible mitigation could be the planting of wetlands vegetation along the streambank. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, September 21, 2005 at 3:00 p.m.
Brose/213/Roxbury Road/#IW-05-56/Addition to Dwelling, Repair Septic System: Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted the plan, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," dated 9/12/05, which included the construction sequence that was not on the plan, "Septic System Repair Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 8/20/05, already in the file. Mr. Neff detailed the proposed work, which included a portion of a new garage, a side deck, and a screened porch in the regulated area. Ms. Purnell recommended the Commission review the original permit granted to construct the house as a point of reference. Mr. Picton asked that the distances from the proposed structures to the wetlands be included on the map. A site inspection was scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 21, 2005.
Adams/214 West Shore Road/#IW-05-57/Repair Retaining Wall, Sod Lawn: Mr. Neff reviewed his plan, "Proposed Yard Improvements," dated 9/13/05. He explained the upper part of the existing retaining wall was in good shape, but the lower section was in need of repair. He also stated the owners proposed to take off the existing turf and replace it with sod. The alternative to sod, he said, would be to chemically treat the existing lawn. Ms. Purnell noted homeowners should be educated about the benefits of minimizing lawn areas and increasing the diversity of vegetation. She was concerned about any increase in the amount of stone or lawn near the lake. Mr. Neff said the holes in the lower wall would be filled by hand from a stockpile of stones located across the street. He noted mortar would be needed to hold the stones in place. Ms. Purnell said a mechanism to prevent spillage would be required. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, September 21, 2005 at 3:30 p.m.
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-05-58/Remediation per IWC Order: Two sketch plans, one by Mrs. Corrigan, undated, not to scale, showing the proposed planting plan and the other entitled, "Remediation Per IWC Order," by Mr. Fowler, dated 8/1/05 were reviewed. Mr. Picton pointed out the location of the unauthorized ditch that had been dug to drain the yard and asked whether the plan showed full restoration of the original contours. He stated this should be accomplished by returning all of the excavated material to the ditch. Mr. Ajello noted doing so would disturb existing vegetation and said Mrs. Corrigan did not think all the material could be recovered. Mr. Picton again stated it was important to fill in the ditch, not just soften the edges, so the original contour would be restored. Ms. Purnell said once filled, the hydrology would be reestablished. The planting plan was briefly reviewed and it was noted 15 shrubs were proposed over 135 linear feet. Mr. Ajello said there seemed to be an attempt to keep the plants away from the drop off of the lawn, and suggested planting closer to this line be encouraged. Mrs. Hill noted the ditch extended further behind the house than was shown on the plans. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to contact the applicant to ask that he comply with the enforcement order.
Schneider/97 Lower Church Hill Road/#IW-05-59/Dredge Pond: Mr. Baker, caretaker, and Mr. Palella, contractor, were present. The July 1983 site plan with notes by Mr. Baker was reviewed. Mr. Palella noted the pond fills up fast with silt from the road, stated 15 to 25 yards of material would be removed, and said the lawn would be used for access to the work area. He was anxious to begin work soon because the pond is now dry. Mr. Ajello noted the machinery would work from the far stream bank and the excavated material would be taken off site. Mr. Picton noted the pond would not be enlarged or deepened. He asked the Commissioners to inspect the site on their own before the next meeting and noted if conditions change, information on pumping and how the water will be dealt with would be required.
Dedell/156 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-60/Landscaping, Calk Pond, Build Footbridge: Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, reviewed his plan, "Proposed Invasives Control and Native Wetlands Species," dated 9/14/05. He pointed out the existing wetlands features such as the wet meadow and rivulet, existing vegetation, and proposed locations for native wetlands species and a footbridge. In addition to the sedges and ferns currently growing in the meadow, he proposed islands of Joe Pye weed, cardinal flowers, and blue iris. The meadow would be maintained in a natural state and would not be mowed during the spring nesting season. Mr. Sabin noted in addition to the landscaping, the joints of the concrete pond had to be calked because they were leaking. He noted, too, a narrative had been submitted with the application. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to review the proposal. Mr. Sabin gave the Commissioners permission to inspect the site individually.
Janowicz/51 Rabbit Hill Road/#IW-05-61/Install Driveway: Mr. Ross, contractor, represented the applicant. The preliminary map, "Plan Prepared for Litchfield Bancorp," by Mr. Howland, dated Sept. 1993 was reviewed. Mr. Ross advised the Commission it had originally approved the driveway in 1993 and had most recently approved it again in 1998 for Mr. Bredenberg. He said the work was 70% complete; all the drainage facilities and rip rap had been installed, but work had been stopped by the Commission due to erosion problems. Mr. Ross proposed to put in base material, touch up the shoulders, and pave the slope per the plan by Mr. Howland. Mr. Ross said he had notified the Warren Inland Wetlands Commission because the property is within 500 feet of the Town line. Mr. Ajello will obtain a copy of the letter for the file. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to review the plans. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, September 21, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.
Preliminary Discussion
Murgio/New Preston Hill Road/First Cut: Mr. Charles presented the map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated May 2005. He said the 17.13 acre parcel contained 3.5 density units and the owner wanted to create and sell a rear 10 acre lot with 2 density units. He reviewed two possible driveway routes to the rear lot, saying the upper route was the better one, but was within 100 feet of wetlands. He asked the Commission to conduct a pre application site inspection to look at both accesses. Ms. Purnell asked if there were wetlands on the adjoining property to the west. Mr. Charles did not know. Both Mr. Ajello and Mr. Picton stated they preferred the driveway be on high ground away from the lower wetlands and on land that does not steeply slope towards wetlands. Mr. Picton advised Mr. Charles to submit a well reasoned application for the driveway route he thought was the best and said the Commission would inspect the property once the application had been received.
Enforcement
Feola/84 Carmel Hill Road/Unauthorized Excavation: Mr. Ajello reported he had only recently sent a letter to Mr. Feola and said the citation had not yet been paid.
DeJong/Old Litchfield Road: A bridge over Mallory Brook is currently under construction. Mr. Ross is the contractor.
Beck/132 Calhoun Street: One spot application of herbicide on the invasives has been completed, but it was noted it takes several applications to work.
Sarjeant/Tinker Hill Road: Mr. Sarjeant paid his citation.
Taylor/11 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Excavation: Mr. Ajello sent a notice of violation and will time an enforcement order so that the show cause hearing may be held on the date of the next regularly scheduled meeting. The hearing was scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on 9/28/05. Photos of the work done were circulated. It was the consensus that Mr. Ajello should not ask the property owner to submit an after the fact application because the Commission preferred the disturbed area be restored. The enforcement order will ask Mr. Taylor to stop work, retain a qualified soil scientist to delineate the wetlands, prepare a restoration plan, and attend the show cause hearing. There was a brief discussion regarding how to determine whether a soil scientist is licensed. Mr. Ajello will ask Mr. Allen of Land Tech.
Holly Hill Farm, LLC/87 Whittlesey Road/Unauthorized Pumping of Water from the Shepaug River: Mr. LaMuniere asked if the unauthorized pump had been removed as requested at the last meeting. Mr. Ajello reported the owner said it would be removed as soon as possible. Mr. Picton asked that it be totally removed within a month so it could not be used again next year without a permit from the Commission.
Whalen/138 Baldwin Hill Road/Construct Stone Wall: Mr. LaMuniere asked if the work was being done according to the approved plan. Mr. Ajello said he had no concerns about the ongoing work and noted the landscaping could not be completed while the weather was so dry.
Reinhart and Cremona/10 and 8 Perkins Road/Clear Cutting: Mr. Ajello noted the Land Tech report had been received and had been forwarded to Atty. Hoben and Atty. Kelly. Further discussion would take place under Executive Session.
Other Business
Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Request for Release of Bond: Ms. Purnell said she was working with Mr. McNaughton to resolve the outstanding issues and was very encouraged with the progress made to date.
Communications
It was noted the NW Conservation District would conduct a vernal pool seminar at the Washington Montessori School in the fall of 2005.
Mr. Picton noted he had reviewed a new land use form for the Town of Washington that will be used beginning on October 1 to ensure all land use applications conform with the new state legislation PA 05-124.
Regarding the 8/16/05 referral from New Milford about the receipt of a subdivision application within 500 ft. of the Town boundary line, Mrs. J. Hill reported Mr. Ferlow, New Milford's WEO, had advised her that the application had been withdrawn.
Brochures about the 11/5/05 annual CACIWC meeting were circulated. Commissioners who plan to attend were asked to get their completed forms to Mrs. J. Hill as soon as possible.
MOTION: To go into Executive Session at 11:18 p.m. to
discuss pending litigation. By Mr. Picton,
seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end Executive Session at 11:50 p.m. By Ms.
Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Ms. Purnell.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
August 10, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. D. Hill, Mrs. Korzenko, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. PurnellALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Bedini
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Ms. Coe
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, Mr. Charles, Mr. Boling, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Worcester, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Tagley, Mr. Etherington, Atty. Ebersol, Mr. Finkler, Mr. Piskura, Mr. Altermatt, Mr. Hildmann, Ms. DeDell, Mr. J. Potter, Mr. Branson, Mrs. Branson, Mr./Mrs. Feola, Mr. McNaughton, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARING
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-25/10 Single Family Dwellings
Mr. Picton reconvened the public hearing at 6:06 p.m. and seated Members Hill, Korzenko, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell. For the record, Mr. Picton read the list of documents submitted since the last session of the hearing. (See attached list.)
Mr. Boling and Mr. Worcester represented the applicant. Mr. Boling noted that earlier in the afternoon he had submitted a response to all of the concerns raised in Land Tech's 8/4/05 report, and also an invasive species management plan dated 8/10/05 and an attachment with modified figures for lot coverage and the area of wetlands disturbance. They had both decreased per the plan, "Proposed Prudent Alternative Number 2," received by Mr. Ajello on 8/9/05.
"Proposed Prudent Alternate Number 2" (PPA2) was discussed. Mr. Boling stated the original plan with the three affordable units located closer to Wheaton Road was the plan that better balanced all of the Town's goals, but said the applicant had agreed to submit the current plan to respond to the concerns raised by the Inland Wetlands Commission at the last meeting. It was noted there was no revision date on PPA2 so Mr. Worcester amended the date to 8/9/05 and initialed the change. Mr. Boling noted PPA2 had three "duplex units" and a barn in the field and no activities below the existing stone wall. He said the line of market value houses was now outside the 100 foot review area and only minor regrading and drainage were proposed within 100 ft. of wetlands.
Mr. Neff, engineer, briefly reviewed PPA2, sheet #2. The septic system had been redesigned and compressed in a smaller area. The groundwater discharge system included a roof drain infiltration system for each of the proposed buildings. He noted additional perc tests had been done and pointed out their locations. He also described the details of the design for the level spreader on the outlet of the detention basin. Mr. Picton asked if details on flows were included. Mr. Neff said they were. Mr. Picton said Land Tech would review the revisions.
Ms. Purnell asked if written statements had been submitted regarding the potential reduction in the number of houses and alternate plans for mixing the units. She said these were feasible and prudent alternatives the Commission should consider.
Mr. Picton noted there was some excavation proposed within 100 feet of the wetlands and said temporary sediment basins would be needed during construction as recommended by Land Tech. Mr. Neff referred to the 2004 Ct. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Guidelines and explained a better alternative would be to install more controls on site to provide more intensive protection than a silt basin. He said it was better to catch the sediment at its source. Mr. Boling noted there was a more elaborate plan for silt fences in PPA2. Mr. Neff said that once water collects in a basin it can overflow and so additional measures would be needed to guard against sedimentation from the silt basin.
Mr. Picton said the Commission would discuss both bonding and mitigation. Mrs. Korzenko asked why the proposed conservation easement had been deleted. Mr. Boling said this had been done to make the application as simple as possible and because the applicant did not want to commit to a boundary line at this time. Mr. Picton encouraged the applicant to put the easement back in to serve as mitigation for the excavation on the slopes above the wetlands.
Comments from the public were received.
Mr. Finkler, Wheaton Road, asked why the plans had been amended to show only eight septic systems when there were ten dwelling units proposed. Mr. Neff stated the three units in one building shared a single system. Mr. Finkler also asked why there was a need to excavate on the steep slopes and asked that Land Tech address the potential impacts to neighboring properties, and on the watercourse. He also asked if blasting would be required, and asked that Land Tech address the possible effects of blasting, too. Mr. Picton said this would be done. Mr. Tagley, Quarry Ridge, had submitted a letter from Atty. McTaggart, dated 8/10/05, but noted this had been based on the previous plan and Land Tech's 8/5/05 review. He asked for the opportunity to forward the revised plans to his attorney for review. Mr. Tagley then noted 7 Mygatt Road is above Quarry Ridge and said any drainage problems would flow down into Quarry Ridge. He voiced his concern about the issues that Land Tech raised in its 8/5/05 review and about their possible impacts to downhill neighbors. Mr. Finkler agreed with Mr. Tagley that the public needed the opportunity to review and respond to the newly revised plans submitted by the applicant, which would not be possible if the public hearing were closed this evening. Ms. Moriniere, Wheaton Road, said she appreciated the removal of the proposed driveway on Scofield Hill Road, but expressed her concerns about potential damaging impacts caused to downhill properties by the construction. She said blasting and excavation would affect the natural runoff and wetlands and asked what could be done to protect the existing downhill homes from flooding. Mr. Dandelin, Wheaton Road, also asked for an opportunity to review and respond to the revised plans. He noted he already has very wet conditions on his property and wanted assurances the proposed work would not result in additional problems on his land. Ms. Matthews, Quarry Ridge, asked for a copy of the revised plan so the public could review it. Mrs. J. Hill said only one copy had been submitted. Mr. Tagley noted additional perc tests had been done as Land Tech requested, but asked what was the state law regarding perc tests in August. It was noted the tests had not been done in August. Mr. Finkler said the Land Tech report said no test pit data had been submitted. Atty. Ebersol said this was a mistake by Land Tech, which had since been addressed. Ms. Purnell read Section 9.2 of the Regulations, which stated if the public hearing were closed, the applicant could respond to further comments by Land Tech, but not the public. On behalf of the applicant, Atty. Ebersol asked the Commission to keep the hearing open so the public would be able to comment on the revised plans. Mr. Picton pointed out, however, that the Commission would not be meeting again until after the deadline for closing the hearing and that realistically, the seven days remaining would not be enough time for Land Tech to complete its review. Mr. Picton reviewed the three alternatives at this point; 1) The Commission continues the hearing to a date prior to 8/17. This was not supported because at least three of the Members would be on vacation. 2) The Commission closes the hearing and denies the application without prejudice. 3) The Commission closes the hearing. The applicant withdraws the application and resubmits in the near future. Mr. Picton urged the applicant to consider this option. Atty. Ebersol asked when the hearing would be held if the application were withdrawn and resubmitted. Mr. Ajello responded the hearing would be held at the second meeting in September. Atty. Ebersol asked for a recess until 7:15 so that he could consult with the applicant. At 7:52 p.m. Mr. Picton recessed the public hearing.
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Feola/84 Carmel Hill Road/Unauthorized Excavation in Wetlands
Mr. Picton reconvened the show cause hearing at 6:55 p.m. and seated Members Hill, Korzenko, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell. It was noted Mr. and Mrs. Feola were present.
Mr. Feola said he was willing to work with the Commission to reach an amicable agreement on how to resolve this matter. He read a written statement, which responded to much of the evidence in the file. His points included: 1) There was a cistern that collected rainwater on the property and there was no sign of wetlands vegetation in the vicinity. He noted Mrs. Corrigan had recorded evidence of a dry, leaf lined vernal pool, but he saw no such evidence. 2) He had filled in this open well due to safety concerns. 3) His neighbor, Mr. Dugin, was mistaken; he had filled in only the one area. 4) Mrs. Corrigan's statement was extremely exaggerated. Contrary to her claims, the weight of the machine he used (26 lbs PSI) would not compact the roots and soil much more than a man's shoe (20 lbs PSI). 5) He thought the vernal pool in question was located next door on the Harkness property. He said he did not agree there had been a vernal pool in the area he had landscaped, but said he would compromise and submit a reasonable plan for restoration.
He submitted a sketch of the existing conditions and photos. He suggested the restoration of a 30' X 30' area because that was the size of the vernal pool listed on the vernal pool assessment sheet. As the assessment sheet did not list the depth of the pool, he proposed to excavate the area to a depth of 18" and plant species that do not require a lot of water such as viburnum and eastern wood fern. Mr. Picton wondered whether 18" would be the level to excavate to so that the ground water conditions would approximate what had previously existed. Although the cistern had been deeper than 18", Mr. Feola stated there had been no mottling and no water table when the site was tested.
Mr. Feola was advised there would be no decision made at the public hearing, but that later during the meeting the Commission would most likely vote to keep the order in effect and request restoration of the disturbed area. It was the consensus the proposal submitted was a good approach, and Mr. Feola was advised to work with Mr. Ajello to come up with a plan that would approximate the previous site conditions. This matter will be on the agenda of the September 14 2005 meeting.
MOTION: To close the show cause hearing to provide
Mr. Feola the opportunity to show cause
why the 6/13/05 enforcement order issued
to Mr. Feola for unauthorized work at 84
Carmel Hill Road should not remain in
effect. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr.
Picton, and passed 5-0.
At 7:13 p.m. Mr. Picton closed the show cause hearing.
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-25/10 Single Family Houses
Mr. Picton reconvened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Atty. Ebersol reported to the Commission the application would be withdrawn and resubmitted tonight. Ms. Purnell advised him the application could not be accepted by the Commission until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Atty. Ebersol said the Commission had the discretion to accept the application before then and asked that this be done so that the public hearing could commence at the next meeting on 9/14. He asked for a ruling on this request from a land use attorney.
As the application had not yet been withdrawn, two additional items in the file were noted; 1) the 8/10/05 letter from Atty. McTaggart on behalf of Mr. Tagley and 2) the position paper by Brian Murphy entitled, "Utilization of 100 Foot Buffer Zones to Protect Riparian Areas in Connecticut." Ms. Purnell questioned whether this paper was relevant as it had been prepared by the Inland Fisheries Division of the DEP. It was also noted the applicant had only submitted one copy of the revised plans.
Mr. Etherington, Wheaton Road, asked that a complete, final set of plans be available for public review prior to the next meeting. He was advised to check the Land Use Office when the application had been resubmitted.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider
Application #IW-05-25 submitted by Myfield
LLC. for ten single family dwellings at
7 Mygatt Road. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by
Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m.
These hearings were recorded on tape. The tapes are available in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:26 p.m. He seated Members Hill, Korzenko, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to
the agenda: New Applications: 1) Croasdaile/
67 River Road/#IW-05-50/Septic Repair, 2)
Schwartz/173 West Shore Road/#IW-05-51/Replace
Retaining Wall, 3)Town of Washington/2 Bryan
Plaza/#IW-05-52/Dredge Silt Pond, 4) Smith/
35 East Shore Road/#IW-05-53/Repair Dam. By
Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed
5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 6/22/05 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes were corrected as follows:
Page 1: Also Present: Change Atty. Sabin to Mr. Sabin.
10th line from bottom: Insert "on wetlands" after "affordable units."
2nd line from bottom: Change "regulated" to "review."
Page 2: 4th line: Insert "part of" before "the field."
Page 3: 12th line above motion: Insert "by moving the houses out of the upland review area" after "direction."
Page 5: 6th line: Insert "look" before "at all the evidence."
Page 8: 10th line: Insert "initially" before "declared."
Page 10: 16th line from bottom: Insert "farther, to 77 feet" before "from the wetlands."
Page 15: 8th line: Change "could" to "may be able to."
MOTION: To accept the 6/22/05 Public Hearing-Regular
Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill,
seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
The 7/27/05 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes were corrected as follows:
Page 2: 7th line from bottom: Add: "and was not economically feasible" to the end of the sentence.
Page 3: 10th line: Insert "of the NWCD" after "Mr. Hayden."
13th line from bottom: Change "upland" to "uphill."
Page 4: 15th line from bottom: Insert "upper" before "driveway."
Page 6: 11th line from bottom: Change "underlined" to "underlain."
Page 13: 12th line: Change "eroded gullies" to "last eroded gully."
Page 15: Motion: Change "Charles" to "LaMuniere."
MOTION: To accept the 7/27/05 Public Hearing-Regular
Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton,
Seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 8/9/05 Bentzen-Silverman site
inspection minutes as written. By Mr.
LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Picton, and
passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 8/9/05 Sachs site inspection
minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded
by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
The Dohn site inspection minutes were corrected to note the correct spelling of the adjoining property owner is Mr. Lines.
MOTION: To accept the 8/9/05 Dohn site inspection
minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton,
seconded by Mrs. Korzenko, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-25/10 Single Family Dwellings: Mr. Picton read the 8/10/05 letter of withdrawal signed by Mr. Worcester, which also requested a public hearing be scheduled for 9/14/05 and the fees for the resubmittal be waived.
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-37/Pond, Well, Wetlands Restoration: Mr. Rosiello submitted the comprehensive site plan requested by the Commission at the last meeting and noted the different projects proposed were shown in different colors on the map. He also submitted a written statement, "Section IV," dated 8/10/05, which detailed the proposed erosion control measures. Other information submitted included: 1) addition of sedges in the planting plan, 2) reduction in the size of the proposed pond to 150' X 110' in order to decrease the cuts and fills required and to move the pond further from the wetlands, 3) cross section of the pond, and 4) information on the clay liner. Mrs. D. Hill asked if the Fire Dept. had reviewed the plans. Mr. Rosiello said it had not, but that he had installed fire ponds before. Mr. Picton said the extent of the fill around the pond perimeter was not indicated. Mr. Rosiello said a berm would be constructed on the uphill side so that evergreens could be planted in front of the deciduous tree line. Mr. Picton questioned why the uphill side, which is so close to the wetlands, would be filled and recommended filling and excavation be kept a suitable distance from the pond. Mr. Rosiello stressed that the applicant wanted a planting buffer. Mr. Picton asked for existing and proposed contours and that the edge of the wetlands be indicated on the map. He also requested engineered plans for the pond construction because the pond was not proposed in a level area. The Commissioners noted their questions about potential impacts to the water table had not been addressed. Ms. Purnell and Mr. LaMuniere recommended a hydrologist be consulted. Mr. Rosiello said the pond would be fed from a deep well so the groundwater level would not change. Mr. Picton requested additional data and better technical drawings. Ms. Purnell will review and evaluate the proposed wetlands restoration plantings. Mr. Rosiello was advised to contact the Washington Fire Dept.
Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-44/Well, Pond: Mr. Rosiello pointed out the location of this second pond and well on the comprehensive site plan and said their purpose was for fire protection and irrigation. It was noted this proposed pond was approximately 140 feet from the wetlands and in a level area. Mr. Rosiello said there was an existing bridge to reach this area, so no new access would be needed, but Mr. Picton did not think the grass lawn would be reliable emergency access in the spring. Mr. Picton requested cross sections and information on the overflow and on how much grading would be required. Ms. Purnell noted both ponds were fire ponds and asked if having only one would provide adequate protection. Ms. Korzenko thought if the applicant could not prove that the first pond (#IW-05-37) would enhance the wetlands, the Commission would find the second pond should serve for fire protection. Mr. Ajello was not sure this would work because access to the second pond would require a wetlands crossing. Mrs. Korzenko asked for more details on the crossing; its width, pipe size, etc. She also asked for more information about how the irrigation system would cross the wetlands.
Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-45/Deer-Pool Fence: Mr. Picton noted the application had not been reviewed because the information had just been submitted at the meeting. 2400 feet of fencing was proposed, much of it through wetlands. Mr. Picton noted the Commission prefers that only the areas that need to be fenced be fenced in to avoid the construction of ecological barriers and the fragmentation of habitats. He asked the applicant to focus more narrowly on the objective he was trying to accomplish. The application will be discussed further at the next meeting.
Carter/59 West Shore Road/#IW-05-39/Gazebo: It was noted the application had been reviewed at the last meeting and there were no outstanding issues. The gazebo would be constructed on an existing concrete slab, it was a precut kit, no stockpiling of material or excavation would be required, and the work would be completed in two days.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-39 submitted
by Mr. Carter to construct a gazebo at 59
West Shore Road as submitted. By Ms. Purnell,
seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
Dohn/4 Perkins Road/#IW-05-40/Replace Storm Drain: Mr. Picton noted the intent of the proposed work was to preserve the existing drainage flow and direction. Mr. Worcester, authorized representative, noted this on the site plan. The new drainage pipes will be installed 18" below the surface and all but a 12 ft. section of the old pipes will be left in place. The application, construction sequence, proposed stockpile area, and erosion control measures were reviewed and found to be in order. Mr. Ajello urged the applicant to complete the project during dry weather.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-40 submitted by
Mrs. Dohn to replace the drainage system at
4 Perkins Road per the plans, "Proposed
Drainage Improvements," by Mr. Worcester,
dated 6/16/05 as revised at the 8/10/05
Inland Wetlands Commission meeting. By Mr.
Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Sachs/35 Potash Road/#IW-05-41/Dredge Pond, Replace Outlet Pipe: Mr. Neff, engineer, reviewed the application and the plan, "Pond Outlet Repair Plan," dated 7/20/05. He briefly stated the north end of the pond would be dredged to clean out accumulated material, the excavated material would be taken off site, and that there was good access from the road for equipment. He noted the pond was not an instream pond and did not have a significant flow through it. The side slopes of the pond were discussed. Mr. Picton requested shelf areas for emergent vegetation, which would act as filters.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-41 submitted by
Mr. Sachs to dredge the pond and replace the
Pipe outlet at 35 Potash Hill Road per the
plans, "Pond Outlet Repair Plan," by Mr.
Neff, dated 7/20/05 subject to the following
condition: that the southern two thirds of
the completed sides of the pond has a slope
under 2:1 and the northern third has a
maximum slope of 3:1. By Mr. LaMuniere,
seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Profita/246 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-05-42/Addition to Existing Dwelling: Mr. Altermatt, architect, and Mr. Profita were present. Mr. Altermatt detailed the proposed buffer area, which would serve as mitigation for the project and reviewed the colored site plan revised to 8/9/05. The applicant proposed to plant 24 bushes along the watercourse as it exits the pond. Also a note was added to the plan stating clearing, grading, and construction of additional structures would be prohibited on the west side of the pond and watercourse and this area would be mowed only once a year. Ms. Purnell noted leaving two thirds of the pond perimeter in shrubs, meadow grass, and natural vegetation would provide good habitat and additional filtration benefits. Mr. Altermatt said the proposed addition was 58 feet from the edge of the pond, 8 feet closer than the existing house. The location of the retaining wall was noted, and Mr. Profita said he did not want to remove it. Mr. Profita said potential locations for the addition were limited due to zoning setbacks and the location of the septic system. Mr. Altermatt stated the construction access would remain lawn throughout the duration of the project.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-42 submitted by
Mr. Profita to construct an addition to the
existing dwelling at 246 Litchfield Turnpike
per the site plan by Altermatt Engineering,
LLC. revised to 8/9/05. By Mrs. Hill,
seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Bentzen-Silverman/341 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-05-43/Relocate Barn, Install Paddock, Riding Ring: Mr. Sabin represented the property owners. Mr. Picton noted the Commission had conducted a site inspection and had seen no problems. Mr. Sabin submitted the map, "Septic System "As-Built Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 9/10/03 and a memo dated 8/10/05, which addressed the questions raised by the Commission at the last meeting regarding 1) extent of grading, 2) manure management, and 3) location of the existing septic system. Mr. Sabin stated there would be no post holes for the fence installed through the septic system. He said he had been concerned about horses in the area of the leaching trenches, so he had contacted Mr. Neff, engineer, who redesigned a section of the system. Two of the leaching trenches will be replaced by two concrete galleries because they are stronger. He explained an alternative would be to fence off that area and move the paddock, but Mr. Neff vouched the concrete galleries would work. Mr. Picton noted this would increase the duration of the project, which Mr. Sabin said would now be 3 to 4 weeks. Limits of disturbance and setbacks from the wetlands were discussed as possible conditions of approval.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-43 submitted by
Bentzen-Silverman to relocate a barn and
construct a paddock and riding ring at 341
Nettleton Hollow Road per the plans, "Proposed
Horse Barn, Paddocks, and Riding Ring," by Mr.
Sabin, revised to 8/10/05, and including Mr.
Sabin's 8/10/05 memo to the Commission, subject
to the following conditions: 1) there shall
be no filling or grading further than 5 ft.
from the fence as shown on the plans submitted
and 2) there shall be no operation of equipment
or storage of material outside the silt fence
as shown on the above referenced plans. By
Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and
passed 5-0.
New Applications
Hildmann/34 Popple Swamp Road/#IW-05-46/Addition to Barn: Mr. Hildmann was present. The map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 8/2/05 was reviewed. Mr. Picton noted the addition was proposed 63 feet from the wetlands and asked what its purpose was. Mr. Hildmann said he needed space for spectators and trainers. Ms. Purnell asked if the addition could be placed on the other side of the building. Mr. Hildmann stated this was not possible due to the interior layout of the barn and vehicular access. Mr. Picton noted the Commission tries to avoid buildings in the upland review area. He asked Mr. Hildmann to provide information on manure storage and the area where equipment would be used. A site inspection was scheduled on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.
James Calhoun House, LLC./156 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-47/Addition to Dwelling: Mr. Neff, engineer, and Ms. Dedell, property owner, were present. The map, "Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 8/5/05 was reviewed. Mr. Neff explained the rear portion of the house would be demolished and a new larger addition constructed and a terrace rebuilt. He noted part of the house was within 100 feet of wetlands, which had been delineated last May, and said no septic work was proposed. Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, discussed the proposed landscaping plan. Sections of the existing lawn within 100 feet of wetlands would be planted with native species to attract wildlife and provide a more natural look. Mr. Sabin asked whether that required a full application or could be handled administratively. He was asked to submit a separate application for the landscaping. The Commission advised the applicant it did not want to see the understory cleared for lawn. Mrs. D. Hill asked for a copy of the soil report and sketch map. A site inspection was scheduled on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 at 4:30 p.m.
Bernhard-Cahill/7 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-05-48/Dredge Pond: Ms. Purnell recused herself because she is a neighbor. Mr. Neff noted the small instream pond had a large deposit of silt and sediment to be removed. The plan, "Pond Cleanout Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 7/28/05 was reviewed. He pointed out the proposed location of the stockpile area on the east side of the pond and said the excavated material would be taken off site. Mr. Picton asked for confirmation that the pond would not be dug to make it deeper or wider and Mr. Neff noted the narrative description of the project stated the pond would not be enlarged and the work would be limited to maintenance operations. The process of pumping down the pond and excavating from the edge of the pond was discussed. Mr. Picton thought the machinery should not enter the wetlands or watercourse, there would be little impact as the work could be done from one point, and the vegetation in the area would recover quickly. The Commissioners relied on Mr. Ajello's description of the site and determined a site inspection was not necessary.
Ms. Purnell was reseated.
Steep Rock Assn./147 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-05-49/Timber Harvest: Mrs. Branson, Steep Rock, Mr. Branson, forester, and Mr. J. Potter were present. They proposed to thin and cut the white pines planted in Hidden Valley in 1958. Mr. Branson explained this was the first step in producing an impressive stand of white pines. No clear cutting was proposed; the trees surrounding the biggest and best specimens would be removed. The map, "Timber Sale Plan Map," by Branson Forestry, dated 8/10/05 was reviewed. Location of wetlands, review areas, and intermittent streams were noted. Mr. Branson explained the proposed skid road would cross an intermittent stream at "the bar," but he noted it was a narrow channel at that point and that silt fence was proposed. Yarding areas were indicated on the site plan, but Mr. Branson said their exact location would be determined after a contractor had been hired. Mr. Picton recommended a forwarder be used between the landing areas because it would not cause as much damage as a skidder. A site inspection was scheduled on Thursday, September 8, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. Members will meet on the Depot side of the Bee Brook Road entrance to Hidden Valley.
Other Business
Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Request for Release of Bond: Mr. McNaughton was present. The recommendations on page 8 of Ms. Purnell's 7/25/05 review of the school's compliance with the permit's conditions of approval were the basis for discussion.
Points #1 and #2: Water quality tests and monitoring had not been carried out exactly as specified. Mr. McNaughton agreed to monitor the six sites plus a site between the leaching fields and wetlands through 2008 per Table #6 of Ms. Purnell's 7/25/05 review and Mr. Bernard's 10/10/03 letter. The separate reporting schedules for all requirements (not just water quality) were combined and revised so they were all due each spring and fall. #3: Mr. McNaughton agreed to submit a written statement that no pesticides have been used on the property since the last report. #4 and #5: Mr. McNaughton will have his engineer assess whether the two basins are functioning properly. Their capacities, water levels, functioning of the outflow structures, and possible undermining of the berms by cattails will be addressed. The Commission thought two thirds to three quarters of the cattails should be removed. Mr. McNaughton offered to do so under the Commission's direction. #6: Mr. McNaughton agreed to let the vegetation grow back with native species in the areas west of the grass swale and south of the dirt swale near the western vernal pool. #7: Mr. McNaughton stated the catch basins were periodically cleaned out, but agreed to clean the southwestern catch basin in the Warren gravel parking lot and to clean out this basin's 2 foot sump more frequently. The Gunnery,Inc/22 South Street/Request to Amend Permit #IW-00-63/
Driveway and Classroom Building: Atty. McCain, Mr. Reiffenhauser, engineer, Mr. Powell, Mr. Graham, Mr. Ullram, and Mr. Previdini were present on behalf of The Gunnery. Atty. McCain noted the original permit, #IW-00-63, was still valid and said the proposed revision did not change the length, orientation, or grading of the driveway within the regulated area, but did add a classroom building, which at its closest point was 165 feet to the wetlands. He also noted there is an existing stone wall, also out of the regulated area, between the proposed building site and the wetlands and the construction of the building would have no direct impact on the wetlands. Ms. Purnell thought the driveway was only partially as originally proposed since the rationale originally had been for the passage of two busses to athletic fields. Atty. McCain stated the 18 foot width had not changed, the Commission had determined in 2000 this was the appropriate width for the accessway, and it remained appropriate width for both emergency vehicles and for the passage of two vehicles. Ms. Purnell thought that passage for two busses was not now needed and that the Commission should ensure the driveway would be no more than the minimum width required for the classroom use. She said there could be a feasible and prudent alternative site on the property where the driveway to a classroom building would not cause so much indirect impact to the wetlands. Mr. Picton thought the driveway as approved was still suitable for the school's reasonable use of its 70 acre property and there was no need to request a narrower drive because it was known it would be needed for additional uses in the future. Mr. Picton also noted the Commission had worked with the applicant in 2000 and had determined this was the best and most practical plan for the driveway. He thought to require a narrower driveway now, which would have to be widened later, was an unrealistic approach. Mrs. D. Hill agreed and added the proposed building was not a regulated activity. Mr. Graham and Atty. McCain spoke briefly on the school's future plans for athletic fields and faculty housing, the number and location still to be determined. They agreed to fully delineate the wetlands on site, design projects to minimize wetlands impacts, and to return to the Commission for reviews of future proposals. Ms. Purnell thought every effort, such as locating the building closer to the street, installing pull off areas for passing, and decreasing the with of the driveway shoulders, should be made to reduce the impact on the natural resources. She wanted a new application. Mr. LaMuniere agreed. Ms. Korzenko suggested the plans could be sent to Land Tech to find out if there were any techniques that would reduce the impact of the driveway on the wetlands. Mr. Picton said this had already been done by Mr. Smith. Mr. Rieffenhauser detailed the driveway construction plans and stated Land Tech had reviewed them and the current plans addressed those comments. Mrs. Hill thought the request was for a minor permit revision. Mr. Bedini noted the only change requested was not under the Commission's jurisdiction. Ms. Korzenko had no problem with the request for a revision, but asked that all the changes be indicated on one map. Mr. Picton asked The Gunnery representatives if they thought the possible future uses for the property would require an 18 ft. wide driveway. Mr. McCain said they would and noted the approved driveway had been carefully routed through the sensitive wetlands areas. Mr. Picton noted a letter from Mr. Swain against the revision to the permit had been read at the last meeting. He also read letters in opposition from Atty. Secor on behalf of the Sterns, Mr. Payne, Mrs. Crumrine, Mr. Kiiffner, Mr. and Mrs. Gorrivan, and Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell. Mr. Picton asked if The Gunnery would consider posting a bond, although it had not been required as a condition of approval for the original permit, to ensure there would be no damage to the wetlands. After a brief discussion, The Gunnery agreed to post a $10,000 bond. Responding to a point raised in one of the letters, Ms. Purnell said there had been recent changes to the property and suggested the Commission make an inspection. Mr. Picton said he had inspected the property earlier in the year when the school had requested an extension of the permit. He noted there had been work done in the well area, but not in the proposed driveway area. Mr. Graham agreed this was so. Mr. Swain read the language of the original permit letter. Mr. Picton stated it did not say revisions to the approved site plan require a new application; only review and approval by the Commission.
MOTION: To approve the request by The Gunnery, Inc. to
revise Permit #IW-00-63 for 22 South Street
per the map, "Site Plan, Grading, Drainage,
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Smith
and Company, dated 7/12/05 for a driveway and
environmental classroom building with the
understanding that any additional activities
must be reviewed and approved by the Inland
Wetlands Commission. By Mr. Picton, seconded
by Mrs. Hill, and passed 3-2.
Ms. Purnell voted No because she thought there
were feasible and prudent alternatives, that the
Commission did not have all the information
required to properly evaluate the proposed
revision, and that approval would not be
consistent with past actions by the Commission.
Mr. LaMuniere voted No because he did not think
The Gunnery had been forthright with the
Commission because it had not applied for all
phases of development at once.
Peterson/99 Baldwin Hill Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-00-56/ Single Family Dwelling: Mr. Peterson compared the original approved site plan by Mr. Neff, dated 10/16/00, with the proposed plan, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 8/5/05. It was noted the revised plan moved the house farther down the hill and the septic system and driveway farther from the wetlands. Mr. Peterson said he preferred the house to be more centrally located and noted very little regrading would be required because the area is fairly level. He said the tree line shown on the map would be the limit of disturbance. Mr. Picton noted the importance of maintaining the woods next to the wetlands.
MOTION: To approve the request by Mr. Peterson to revise
Permit #IW-00-56 to construct a single family
Dwelling at 99 Baldwin Hill Road per the map,
"Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by
Mr. Neff, revised to 8/5/05 with the condition
there be no clearing of the woods within the
upland review area. By Ms. Purnell, seconded
by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Smith/35 East Shore Road/#IW-05-53/Repair Dam: Mr. and Mrs. Smith reviewed the plans, "Improvements to Woodruff Pond Dam," 5 sheets, by Lenard Engineering, Inc., revised to 3/21/05. Mrs. Smith explained the dam repair was required per her agreement with the DEP to satisfy its requirements and had to be completed by October 2005. Ms. Purnell asked that a copy of the consent order be submitted to the file. Mrs. Smith noted some of the proposed work was on DOT property and that the retaining wall on DOT property along Rt. 45 has structural problems and is scheduled for repair in 2009. Mr. Picton asked if the DEP had approved the plans and said the Commission might decide to have its consultant review them, also. A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, September 8, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. Mrs. Smith stressed the work had to be completed by October 2005 and said the project would require that the dam at Lake Waramaug be sealed off. The estimated duration of the project varied per contractor from two weeks to one month.
Other Business
Breakstone-Garfunkle/127 Church Hill Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-04-37/Demolish and Rebuild Single Family Dwelling: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented the map, "Proposed Site Improvement Plan," revised to 7/28/05. He noted the Commission had previously approved plans to reconstruct the house within 53 feet of the wetlands, but that the current proposal would move both the house and a section of the existing driveway to locations 100 feet from the wetlands. Mr. Picton asked if new landscaping was proposed. Mr. Neff said, no. Mr. Neff pointed out the proposed silt fencing and the limit of disturbance line. The Commissioners agreed any impact to wetlands would be minimal.
MOTION: To approve the request by Breakstone-Garfunkle
to revise Permit #IW-04-37 per the plan,
"Proposed Site Improvement Plan," by Mr. Neff,
revised to 7/28/05 to demolish and rebuild a
single family dwelling and to relocate a section
of the driveway at 127 Church Hill Road. By Mr.
Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Croasdaile/67 River Road/#IW-05-50/Repair Septic System: Mrs. Hill recused herself because she is a neighbor. Mr. Neff, engineer, stated the existing septic is failing and would be abandoned. The new system, which had been approved by the Health Department, would come within 10 feet of the existing piped watercourse. Mr. Neff stated the size of the system would not increase, it was designed for a four bedroom house as shown on the Assessor's card. The map, "Septic System Repair Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 7/30/05 was briefly reviewed. The Commissioners will inspect the property on their own prior to the next meeting.
Mrs. Hill was reseated.
Schwartz/173 West Shore Road/#IW-05-51/Replace Retaining Wall, Rebuild Stone Wall: Mr. Neff, engineer, said the proposal was to replace the parking area retaining wall with a reinforced concrete wall and to rebuilt the stone wall on the south side of West Shore Road to its present dimensions reusing the existing stone. The map, "Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 7/28/05 was reviewed. The Commissioners will inspect the site on their own prior to the next meeting.
Town of Washington/2 Bryan Plaza/#IW-05-52/Dredge Silt Pond: Mr. Ajello, WEO, said there is so much silt in the pond that it is affecting the water feed to the hydrants and said the dredging should have been done earlier. He explained the work would be done during dry weather. A by-pass trench would be dug on one side on the pond to channel the water while the dredging was being done. A hay filter across the stream was proposed. It was noted only a sketch map had been submitted and there were no details provided about how the work would be done. Mr. Picton also asked for details on downstream protection.
Enforcement
Mr. Ajello's 8/10/05 report was reviewed. Discussion included:
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road: Mr. Neff is working on the requested report.
Reinhardt/10 Perkins Road: The Commission was disappointed Land Tech had not yet submitted its report. Mr. Picton noted this matter was a priority. Compliance and restoration plans will be discussed at the next meeting.
Beck/132 Calhoun Street: It was noted Mrs. Corrigan had inspected the property and discussed the status of the work done with Mr. Ajello, but had not submitted a written report. Mr. Ajello will contact Mr. Beck, and will research the file, and will report at the next meeting regarding the exact requirements with which Mr. Beck must comply.
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road: An application was submitted and will be reviewed at the 9/14 meeting.
Holly Hill Farm, LLC./87 Whittlesey Road: Mr. Ajello reported Holly Hill Farm is pumping water from the Shepaug River. Mr. Picton stated this was a regulated activity that was not permitted unless approved by the Commission. It was noted the Commission requested an application for similar activity on Sprain Brook. Mr. Ajello will inform the owners they may not pump water from the Shepaug unless they apply for and are granted a permit.
Feola/84 Carmel Hill Road: Although Mr. Feola had been advised earlier to submit an application for restoration, Mrs. Korzenko and Mrs. D. Hill did not think an application was necessary for a restoration plan required due to an enforcement order. Ms. Purnell asked Mr. Ajello to explain to the Feolas that many vernal pools are completely dry in the summer. Mr. Picton said the restoration plan should include organic matter in the final surface.
MOTION: To keep the 6/13/05 enforcement order issued
to Mr. Feola for unauthorized work at 84
Carmel Hill Road in effect and to request a
restoration plan for the disturbed area. By
Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed
5-0.
Sarjeant/28 Tinker Hill Road: Mr. Ajello recommended a citation be issued as the work had been done without a permit and restoration was not appropriate in this case. The Commission agreed a citation should be issued.
Lavado/School Street: It was noted Mr. Lavado had already paid his citation fee.
Whalen/138 Baldwin Hill Road: Ms. Purnell commented this work was more extensive than she had thought it would be. It was thought the stone work would be done from one side of the wall only and would be very limited. Mr. Ajello will investigate.
Other Business
MOTION: To go into executive session at 12:40 a.m. to
discuss pending litigation. By Mrs. Hill,
seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To come out of executive session at 12:50 a.m.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and
passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Korzenko.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
July 27, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. D. Hill, Mrs. Korzenko, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. PurnellALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Bedini
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Ms. Coe
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Tagley, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Boling, Mr. Worcester, Mr. Charles, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Neff, Mr. Kappes, Mr. Smith, Ms. Leach, Mr. W. Johnson, Mr. E. Johnson, Mr. Rosiello, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Profita, Mr. Ultermatt, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARING
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-25/10 Single Family Dwellings
Mr. Picton reconvened the public hearing at 6:02 p.m. and seated Members Hill, Korzenko, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
Mr. Picton identified the new documents in the file; 1) the 7/15/05 letter to Mr. Ajello from Atty. Ebersol, which listed the reasons for the withdrawal of Plan #2 and submission of Plan #3 as a feasible and prudent alternative, 2) the 7/13/05 letter to Mr. Fowlkes from Mr. Black of Water System Solutions and Design, Inc. in support of locating the well at the high point of the property, 3) the 7/14/05 letter from Mr. Jontos of Land Tech stating the application is not complete enough to conduct a full environmental and engineering review, 4) the 7/25/05 letter from Mr. Hayden of the NW Conservation District with recommendations regarding erosion and sedimentation control measures, 5) Mr. Picton's 7/25/05 memo regarding his observations on the nature of the buffer area between the proposed development envelope and the ravine, 6) "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 7/18/05, 7) the 7/20/05 letter to Mr. Jontos from Mr. Neff with attached erosion control plan and information on the feasibility of the proposed septic systems on site, 8) the 7/5/05 letter to Mr. Sears from a concerned taxpayer, which voiced concerns about the proposal and support for Plan #2, 9) the 7/20/05 report from Mr. Temple of Nutmeg Soil Services (no sketch map attached), 10) a red folder received 7/6/05 containing a "petition" with 34 signatures against the application and other letters to the Commission voicing concerns about building so close to the deeply cut stream, and 11) maps of a proposed plan and alternate plan dated 7/10/05 submitted by the applicant.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the information on the map matched the information provided in Mr. Temple's 7/20/05 report. Mr. Ajello was asked to determine whether it does.
Mr. Boling and Mr. Worcester represented the applicants. They reviewed the two plans currently under consideration, "Proposed Application Plan," by Mr. Worcester, revised to 7/10/05 and "Proposed Prudent Alternative Plan," by Mr. Worcester, revised to 7/10/05. The revisions included renaming the plans, wetlands delineations, and restoration of the wet meadow. The alternate plan showed the market value houses moved further into the field, which would reduce the amount of regrading required.
Mr. Picton asked if invasives would be removed from the wet meadow. Mr. Boling stated a forester would be consulted, but the proposal was to cull non native saplings and plant the meadow with a wetlands mix grass seed. Mr. Picton noted the Commission would be concerned about the concept of thinning woodlands because it often ends up park-like, so would closely review that aspect of the application. Ms. Purnell asked for more specific information regarding the species and number to be cut and said she was concerned about the potential increase in runoff caused by the clearing. It was noted the recommendations of both Mrs. Corrigan and Mr. Branson would be followed and the homeowners' association would be committed to a five year maintenance plan to ensure the invasives would not grow back.
Mr. LaMuniere asked why the road to the three affordable units was proposed so close to the sharp curve and to the brook. Mr. Worcester said it would have more impact if moved due to the steep slopes, which would require extensive filling and excavation at the entrance.
Ms. Purnell asked if it would be economically feasible to reduce the project to six market value and two affordable units and move one of the affordable homes away from the ravine. Mr. Boling said that ratio would not work under the Affordable Housing Appeals Act.
The drainage plans were briefly discussed. Ms. Purnell asked for language in the homeowners' assoc. documents to ensure maintenance in perpetuity for all drainage facilities, including infiltration systems and back yard swales. Mr. Boling asked that the public hearing remain open in order to receive the technical review from Land Tech.
Ms. Purnell asked if information had been submitted regarding on site waste water function and the function and value of the wetlands. Mr. Boling said the standards did not require the applicant to provide this information, but Ms. Purnell noted it would help the Commission understand the impacts to the wetlands and to preserve their most valuable functions. She stated the three smaller houses were proposed completely within the upland review area for a perennial watercourse.
Mr. LaMuniere noted Mr. Hayden had found the proposed erosion controls were not adequate. Mr. Boling stated Mr. Hayden's requests were reasonable, but said the applicant would wait for the Land Tech report before responding.
Ms. Purnell asked if the stormwater calculations had been submitted. Mr. Boling said they had, but noted Mr. Neff would not complete the stormwater management plan until all the comments were in from Mr. Hayden and Land Tech. It was also noted Mr. Neff had been asked to add a detention basin to handle the runoff from the driveway near the watercourse. Ms. Purnell asked if the basin would be wet or dry and Mr. Boling responded it would be dry.
The applicant was asked if a planting plan had been submitted. Mr. Boling said the landscaping would be limited, natural areas would remain, and the homeowners' association would have restrictions against planting invasive species. He also noted there would be compact lawn envelopes and an erosion control restoration mix grass seed would be used to stabilize the disturbed areas.
Mr. Picton noted his serious concerns about the location proposed for the three smaller units due to the constricted nature of the building envelopes and their close proximity to both steep banks and to the watercourse. He questioned the adequacy of the proposed buffer areas between the disturbed areas and the wetlands. He pointed out the proposed buildings would be close to the upland wetlands and on steep slopes above the watercourse, noting these two wetlands were only 150 feet apart. He said the slope begins only 7 feet from the stone wall, which would define the limit of the construction site. He stated the proposed driveway would begin on an existing slope of 24% only 25 feet above the wetlands and that the slope down to the wetlands was 32%. He did not think erosion could be easily controlled on such steep slopes. He noted, too, that the water and septic lines would also traverse the steep slope. He noted he had reinspected the site of the proposed detention basin and saw signs of concentrated water flow during storms. He questioned whether the wetlands could contain the water flowing down the hillside and noted, too, runoff would flow across the construction site and would not be limited to the wetlands boundaries. Mr. Picton noted the Commission tried to be consistent in its policies. Although other applicants had had work approved within the upland review area, the work had been activity such as a driveway within 77 feet of the wetlands; nothing as extreme or as close as the three houses and driveway proposed in the current application. He thought there were other flexible and creative alternatives that the applicants could consider that would result in better protection of the wetlands and watercourses.
Mrs. Korzenko noted the applicant kept moving the location of the large houses, but had not addressed the concerns about the small houses. The applicant was asked if he could remove the affordable units or put them on another property where wetlands aren't a factor. Mr. Boling said the affordable units were an integral part of the application and stated the intermingling of diversified housing is one of the defining criteria of rural character.
Mr. Picton noted the Inland Wetlands Commission must be consistent in how it handles applications, noting this application has much more potential of adversely impacting the wetlands than do most applications it reviews. Mr. Boling showed a detail of the Dodge Farm application approved by the Commission more than ten years ago and pointed out structures were approved in wetlands and an extensive parking area had been approved close to the wetlands due to the social benefit of creating affordable housing. The commissioners noted the circumstances then had been different because the wetlands had been man made and there were no steep slopes involved.
Mr. Picton again stated the three smaller houses were a major concern because they would be located in such "tight quarters" and so close to wetlands and steep slopes. He asked if they could be moved to the end of the driveway. Mr. Boling noted that was where the detention basin was proposed. Mr. Picton asked for a better plan in terms of wetlands protection. Ms. Purnell asked if the number of units could be reduced. Mr. Boling agreed the construction envelope was tight, but stressed the social benefits of the project and that all the wetlands and watercourses would be permanently protected by a conservation easement.
Mr. Tagley asked what key issues the Commission would consider. Mr. Picton responded the key issue was wetlands protection. Mr. Tagley noted that local residents agree with Mr. Picton's assessment of the site conditions and the difficulty of protecting the wetlands. He also noted that in the state's Affordable Housing Appeals Act, comingling of the affordable and market price units was a key factor. He said the current application did not accomplish this and that was a factor the Commission should consider.
Mr. Boling submitted a letter dated 6/27/05 to request the hearing be continued to August 10, 2005.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider
Application #IW-05-25 submitted by Myfield,
LLC. for 10 single family dwellings at 7
Mygatt Road to Wednesday, August 10, 2005
at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and
passed 5-0.
At 7:06 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the hearing to 8/10/05 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Feola/84 Carmel Hill Road/6/13/05 Enforcement Order
Mr. Picton reconvened the show cause hearing at 7:07 p.m. He noted Mr. Feola was not able to attend tonight and the hearing would be continued.
MOTION: To continue the show cause hearing to provide
Mr. Feola the opportunity to show cause why
the 6/13/05 enforcement order issued to Mr.
Feola for unauthorized work at 84 Carmel Hill Road should not remain in effect to 6:45 p.m.
on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 in the Land
Use Meeting Room. By Ms. Purnell, seconded
by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
At 7:08 Mr. Picton continued the hearing to 8/10/05 at 6:45 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
These hearings were 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 7:10 p.m. and seated Members Hill, Korzenko, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
Election of Officers for 2005-2006
The nominating committee gave its report recommending Mr. Picton and Mrs. Korzenko continue as Chairman and Vice Chairman. There were no other nominations.
MOTION: To elect the following officers for 2005-2006:
Chairman: Mark Picton and Vice Chairman:
Candace Korzenko. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by
Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already
posted on the agenda: New Applications:
1) Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-44/Well,
Pond and 2) Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-45/
Deer Fence and Other Business: Gunnery School/
___ South Street/Driveway and Classroom Bldng/
Change in Approved Site Plan of #IW-00-63/
Ruling Re. IWC Jurisdiction. By Mr. Picton,
seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 6/29/05 Calhoun Street Trust
site inspection minutes as submitted. By
Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and
passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 6/29/05 Johnson site inspection
minutes as submitted. By Mr. LaMuniere,
seconded by Mrs. Korzenko, and passed 5-0.
The 6/29/05 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: #2, 6th line: Change "regulated area" to "review area."
#3, 4th line: Change "should" to "could."
#3, 3rd line: Change "2005" to "2004."
Page 2: Mid point in 13th line: Add sentence: Moreover, that part of the parcel is underlined with terrace soils, which allow for an interflow between the waters of Lake Waramaug and underground water flowing down the hill.
Next to last line: Change "regulated area" to "review area."
Page 3: 8th line: Add after "Lake Waramaug:" "...streambelt protection area as defined on a map of the Lake Waramaug" watershed.
19th line: Add after "hill:" "...and adjacent wetlands" would....
MOTION: To accept the 6/29/05 Special Meeting minutes
as amended. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Ms.
Purnell, and passed 5-0.
It was noted the 6/22/05 Regular Meeting minutes would be accepted at the next meeting.
Pending Applications
Myfield, LLC/7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-25/10 Single Family Dwellings: The public hearing was continued to August 10, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-28/Guest House and Driveway: This application was approved at the last meeting.
Frisbee Farm Estates, LLC./61 Frisbee Road/#IW-05-29/First Cut and Development: Mr. Ajello reported there had been no new information submitted since the June 22 meeting. Mr. Picton stated the Commission had not been comfortable with the plan as submitted. It was noted per state statute the Commission had to act or begin a public hearing within 65 days of receipt of the application, the 65th day being 7/29.
MOTION: To deny without prejudice Application #IW-05-29
submitted by Frisbee Farm Estates, LLC. for a
first cut and development at 61 Frisbee Road
due to insufficient information on the possible
adverse impacts to the wetlands. By Mr. Picton,
seconded by Mrs. Korzenko, and passed 5-0.
Kappes/8 Christian Street/#IW-05-32/Deck: Mr. Kappes compared his original plan, undated, with the revised plan dated 7/27/05, which addressed the concerns raised by the Commission at the last meeting. The deck was shortened and at no point would be closer than 18 feet from the top of the river bank. Mr. Kappes stated pressure treated lumber would be used and the deck would be on sono tubes so the treated lumber would not be in the ground. He noted for the record the lumber would be stained to seal in the pressure treated chemicals. Ms. Purnell asked if a planting plan was proposed for mitigation. Mr. Kappes offered to plant shrubs along the top of the bank.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-32 submitted by
Mr. Kappes for a deck at 8 Christian Street
as amended on the map received 7/25/05 with the
condition that the applicant plant one line of
native woody shrubs on the flat lawn area along the top of the streambank for the full width of
the deck according to guidelines to be provided
by the Wetlands Enforcement Officer. By Mr.
Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-33/Rebuild Pool Wall, Extend Parking Area: Mr. Rosiello, authorized agent, submitted written statements revised to 7/25/05 and a map revised to 7/27/05, which addressed the concerns raised at the last meeting. The parking area in front of the house was reduced in size to 40' X 35' and the planting bed was reduced to 6' 6". As a result, the parking area was no closer than 77 feet to the nearest wetland. Mr. Rosiello also revised the planting plan for the pool area based on the comments made during the site inspection. The 7/25/05 statement was discussed. Mr. Rosiello added that no trees would be planted closer than 12 feet from the edge of the bank and there would be no change in the existing grade resulting from the proposed landscaping. Mr. Picton again requested a comprehensive site plan for all the ongoing and proposed work on this property.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-33 submitted by
Calhoun Street Trust to rebuild the pool wall
and extend the parking area at 62 Calhoun Street
per the 7/27/05 map and materials submitted on
7/25/05 subject to the following condition:
that a comprehensive site plan be submitted for
this property before other more substantial work
is started. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr.
Picton, and passed 5-0.
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-37/Pond, Well, and Wetlands Restoration: Mr. Rosiello reported the test pit had been dug and water found at 9 feet. He stated 1) the well would be installed to ensure a steady water supply for the pond, 2) a dry hydrant would be installed, and 3) he would check with the Fire Dept. to make sure the dry hydrant was installed per its specifications. He noted the pond would be reduced in size to minimize the cuts and regrading required. The landscaping plan for the restoration of the wetland was discussed. Ms. Purnell recommended sedges and rushes be included and warned about the possibility of a mono culture developing. She asked for additional information on the amount of typha allowed. Mr. Picton requested the following information: 1) proof there will be no negative hydrological impact including information about whether the construction of the pond would lower the water table in the wetlands, 2) cross sections of the underwater slopes, 3) regrading plans, 4) engineered pond construction plan, including the proposed location for fill material. Further discussion was tabled until more detailed information is submitted.
Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-44/Well, Pond
Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-45/Deer Fence: Mr. Picton noted the pond application was incomplete because it did not include construction plans for the pond. Regarding the fence application, it was noted that a written description had been submitted, but the location was not indicated on a map. Discussion on both applications was tabled.
Casey/119 West Shore Road/#IW-05-34/Repair Septic System: It was noted this application had been discussed at the last meeting and was ready to be acted on.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-34 submitted by Mr.
Casey to repair the septic system at 119 West
Shore Road as submitted. By Ms. Purnell,
seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Johnson/30 West Mountain Road/#IW-05-35/3 Lot Subdivision: Mr. W. Johnson and Mr. E. Johnson were present. Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted the map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 6/30/05, which addressed the issue of runoff along the driveway to Lot #3. Three culverts and a grassed swale were added. Mr. Neff said the culverts would be placed approximately 300 feet apart at the points where the driveway changes direction and that all three would have rip rapped pads for dispersion at the outlets. Mr. Picton noted the land was not excessively steep and was heavily grassed and so stated in this case the proposal addressed the Commission's concerns. He did note, however, that information from the NW Conservation District indicated that 5 to 15 ft. wide spreaders do not effectively respread runoff along steep hillsides.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-35 submitted by Mr.
Johnson for a 3 lot subdivision at 30 West Mt.
Road according to the map, "Proposed Site
Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to
6/30/05 with the understanding that any
subsequent change to the approved plan must be
submitted to the Commission for reapproval. By
Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Picton, and
passed 5-0.
Milstein/36 Hinkle Road/#IW-05-36/Installation of Septic System: This application had been discussed at the last meeting. Since then Mr. Ajello had inspected the site and had found no problems. The map, "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 6/11/05 was reviewed and Mr. Neff reported the Health Department had approved it. Mr. Picton requested a second copy of the map for the file.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-36 submitted by
Mr. Milstein to install a septic system at 36
Hinkle Road as submitted. By Mr. Picton,
seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Leach-Smith/115 River Road/#IW-05-38/Dredge Pond: The plan, "Pond Clean Out Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 6/4/05 was reviewed. Ms. Purnell asked if an instream filter could be installed. Mr. Neff said it could serve as extra protection right before the waterfall, but Mr. Picton said he had never seen an instream filter that trapped much sediment during a storm. Mr. Neff reviewed the project narrative and the sequence of construction. He noted 200 cu. yards of material would be removed and that a diversion permit from the DEP would not be required because the dredging of the pond was routine maintenance, not a long term diversion. Because the stream has quite a bit of flow and the drainage area is 290 acres, the Commissioners thought it important that the work be done quickly and during the dry time of year. Mr. Neff thought the project would take at least one week to allow time for the dewatering of the spoils. This material would be temporarily stockpiled as shown on the plan before it was moved to the deposition area in the meadow further back on the property.
Mr. Picton requested that only clear water be pumped from the pond into the settling basin. Mrs. D. Hill noted the plans included filling in the swale southwest of the pond. Ms. Purnell asked if placing wetlands soil in this depression would cause it to remain wet. Mr. Neff said this was only a narrow gully with no water.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-38 submitted by
Leach-Smith to dredge the pond at 115 River
Road per the plan, "Pond Cleanout Plan," by
Mr. Neff, dated 6/4/05 subject to the following conditions: 1) the operation be conducted
Between 6/1 and 9/30 during low stream flow and
clear weather, 2) the work be completed quickly,
3)the excavation of sediment from the pond basin
be completed within one day, and 4) the
dewatering operation may pump out only clear
water. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill,
and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Carter/59 West Shore Road/#IW-05-39/Gazebo: Kehoe Brothers Contractors, authorized representatives, were present. They briefly explained the construction would be low impact because no excavation would be required; the gazebo would be placed on an existing slab. Also the presealed lumber would come in a kit so that no on site cutting would be required. The kit would be delivered by pick up truck and unloaded in pieces in the driveway. Mr. Picton noted it appeared there were no wetlands issues, but asked that the map be amended to include what type of structure would be erected and its location. Action will be taken at the 8/10 meeting.
Dohn/4 Perkins Road/#IW-05-40/Replace Storm Drain: Mr. Worcester represented the applicant. Mr. Ajello stated the Dohn property was directly below the Cavallaro property, which adjoins the Reinhardt and Cremona properties where unauthorized clearing occurred. He noted the existing drainage system was not functioning. Mr. Worcester reviewed the site plan, "Proposed Drainage Improvements to: Dohn Residence," by Mr. Worcester, dated 6/15/05. A solid 8" PVC pipe is proposed. Mrs. Dohn will discuss her application with Mr. Lines, her down hill neighbor who is also having trouble with his drainage system. Mr. Worcester noted the existing intermittent streams on the property are very evident. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Worcester encouraged the Commission to look at the Lines property, also. Mr. Picton requested an additional copy of the plan.
Sachs/35 Potash Hill Road/#IW-05-41/Dredge Pond: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented the map, "Pond Outlet Repair Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 7/20/05. He briefly reviewed the plans to replace the existing leaking outlet pipe with 15" PVC pipe and to dredge the inlet area on the road side of the pond. Mr. Neff noted the pond had drained itself down due to the leaks. Approximately 500 c. yards will be taken off site after it dewaters in the deposition area east of the pond. Mr. Picton thought the pond should not be completely steep sided and recommended part of it remain shallow for emergent vegetation. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 4:30 p.m.
Bentzen-Silverman/341 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-05-42/Relocate Barn, Build Paddock: Mr. Sabin reviewed the plans, "Proposed Horse Barn, Paddocks, and Riding Ring," dated 7/25/05. A
16' X 24' barn would be moved to the property and a frost wall, concrete floor, and floor drain would be built. Mr. Sabin said some second growth would be cleared from a relatively level area for the construction, which would be 30 feet from West Mountain Brook and 45 feet from a pocket wetlands. He had considered feasible and prudent alternatives, but said the barn could not be moved up the hill because the grade was steeper and there were rock outcroppings. Mr. Picton asked if regrading would be required. Mr. Sabin said there would be only surface grading. The Commission requested information on the location of the existing and reserve septic system and on the regrading and grubbing of the top soil. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 4:15 p.m. Ms. Purnell asked about the long term plans for the management of the horses. Mr. Sabin noted there would be only one horse. Mr. Picton asked that the number of horses and the location for storage of manure be specified in the application.
Profita/246 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-05-42/Addition to Existing Dwelling: Mr. Ultermatt, engineer, was present to represent the applicant, but it was noted he had no letter of authorization. A 18' X 20' addition was proposed. Mr. Ultermatt reviewed the site plan dated 7/22/05 and noted the wetlands had been flagged and that the edge of the existing lawn is essentially the wetlands boundary. He noted the ZBA granted Mr. Profita a variance for the addition. The excavation for the addition would be done with a small backhoe, which would access the site across the lawn. Silt fencing was proposed down slope of the work site. Mrs. Korzenko asked the applicant to consider planting around the pond for mitigation. Mr. Ultermatt responded the applicant wanted to keep his yard open, but thought a deed restriction or conservation easement might be possible. Mr. Picton thought mitigation could be used to improve the ecological quality of the shores of the pond. Mr. Profita noted most of the area on the far side of the pond was left in its natural state. Mr. Picton asked that the natural area be drawn on the site plan. Mr. Picton asked the Commissioners to inspect the property on their own prior to the next meeting and to think about possible plantings to enhance the streambelt buffer area.
Enforcement
Averill/14 Sunset Lane: Mr. Ajello inspected the property and saw no evidence of ditching to drain the wetlands and no signs of recent work. The Commission asked that he go out again and look more closely.
Holly Hill Farm, LLC./87 Whittlesey Road: Mr. Picton met on site with Mr. Childs to inspect the rip rapped gullies. He noted they had been filled to ground level, but said he would have preferred they had been left lower to accommodate any overflow. He said he also inspected the silt fence, which is now a continuous barrier and is creating a new erosion problem. He noted the owners had abandoned the idea of tilling the hillside to plant flowers and will "plug plant" instead. He asked Mr. Ajello to send a letter to ask that the silt fence be removed as long as there were no plans to disturb the soil or to deposit loose material above it and to advise the owners they may continue with the treatment of the eroded gullies as long as the finished rip rapped surface is left concave. Ms. Purnell suggested the owners be reminded that any changes to the permit must be reviewed by the Commission.
Lavado/11 School Street: Mr. LaMuniere said he had inspected the excavated streambank and agreed a citation should have been issued. He noted, however, that directly across the Shepaug River the water is eroding the base of the concrete wall. He said the Town should be notified that this needs to be stabilized immediately.
Reinhardt-Cremona/10-8 Perkins Road: Mr. Ajello noted Land Tech had inspected the properties on 7/26/05, but had not yet issued a report. He said the report would address down hill impacts and provide recommendations for restoration.
Sarjeant/27 Tinker Hill Road: There was no progress to report.
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road: Mrs. Corrigan is working with Mr. Fowler on a planting plan. Mr. Ajello said they were aware of the requirement to restore the original contour.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road: Mr. Ajello will call Mr. Carter and will remind Mr. Neff to inspect the work done during the low water season.
Other Business
Pinover/Senff Road: Mr. Picton reported the state had issued the herbicide permit over the objections of the Commission. However, he had spoken to the property owners who agreed they would not apply the chemicals unless absolutely necessary.
Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike: In response to Mr. McNaughton's request for the release of the bond, Ms. Purnell wrote a detailed report regarding the school's compliance with Permit #IW-01-08. The Commissioners will study the report for the next meeting. Mr. Picton thanked Ms. Purnell for her work.
Walker Brook Farm Residential Subdivision/Rt. 109, New Milford: Mr. LaMuniere and Ms. Purnell will draft a memo to the Board of Selectmen and the Planning Commission as this application will be submitted to the N. Milford Planning Comm. next. They hope these two boards will follow up. Mr. LaMuniere thought a riverine ecologist was needed to address the issues of water quality and erosion control.
The Gunnery School/ South Street/Driveway and Classroom Building:
It was noted the Commission had approved Permit #IW-00-63 for a driveway and athletic fields, but that the current Special Permit to the Zoning Commission was for a driveway and a small classroom building. Mr. Ajello noted the proposed building was not a wetlands issue. Ms. Purnell stated the Commission had approved the athletic fields and driveway because there was no feasible or prudent alternative and that the approval took into account the use of the property. She thought now that the building was proposed, other feasible and prudent locations should be considered because they might require a different driveway that would result in less impact to the wetlands. She did not think an approximately 800 ft. long by 18 ft. wide driveway was required to access a small classroom building. It was noted Mr. Swain had submitted a letter dated 7/27/05 and this was read by Mr. LaMuniere. After a brief discussion it was the consensus that The Gunnery should apply for a revision of its permit as the current site plan differs from the one Wetlands originally approved in 2000.
Private Mortgage Fund, LLC/South Fenn Hill Road/#IW-05-12-Driveway and #IW-05-18-Lot Line Revision: It was noted the adjoining property owner, Mrs. Mitchell, had appealed the Commission's approval of both applications.
Communications
Roxbury "Fines:" Mr. Picton briefly reviewed the Roxbury Inland Wetlands Commission's policy of negotiating a settlement in advance of likely litigation. The Commission will keep this in mind as a possible tactic in the future.
Land Use Fees: The Board of Selectmen had requested all Land Use Commissions to review their fee schedules. It was noted the Inland Wetlands Commission's fees are in line with those in most other surrounding towns and it was the consensus that an increase was not warranted.
Memo to First Selectman from Mr. Picton: Mr. Picton said he had sent a memo regarding the Wetland staff's workload and informed the First Selectman either an expansion of the EO position or in the number of staff hours might be required in the future. Ms. Purnell said this was an issue that should be discussed at the Special Meeting for administrative matters in October.
Possible Seminar: Mr. Ajello reported Mr. Jontos of Land Tech offered to conduct a seminar on application requirements. Mr. Ajello is trying to set it up for the Town of Warren and if successful, Washington may be able to participate.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Charles.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
June 22, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Gray, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Ms. Coe, Mrs. Korzenko
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Boling, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Neff, Mr. Worcester, Ms. Baechle, Atty. Ebersol, Mr. Mandell, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Feola, Atty. Sabin, Mr. Stiteler, Atty. Kelly, Ms. Moriniere, Mr./Mrs. Donnolly, Mr. Jack Johnson, Press, Mr. Elliot Johnson, Mr. Washington, Residents
PUBLIC HEARING
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-25/10 Single Family Dwellings/ Con't.
Mr. Picton reconvened the public hearing to order at 6:04 p.m. and seated Members Gray, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
Mr. Picton noted Land Tech had given an estimate for its review of the application, but had not yet completed a review.
Mr. Boling stated the applicant had made significant revisions to the plans including delineation of an additional wetlands area and had also drawn a plan showing the three affordable houses in the field, which he said was feasible, but not prudent. Mr. Picton read Atty. Ebersol's 6/14/05 letter, which detailed the changes to the plans and notified the Commission the applicant wanted only the 6/2/05 and 6/10/05 plans to be considered. In his letter, Atty. Ebersol stated that limiting the impacts of the three proposed affordable units did not outweigh the loss of the meadow. The 6/22/05 letter from Mr. Neff was submitted, which stated the entire property was located in the same watershed, DEP subregional drainage basin #6502.
The maps by Mr. Alex with roads, buildings, and new grading added by Mr. Worcester, "Alternate Site Analysis Plan," revised to 6/21/05 and "Alternate Site Analysis Plan #2," 2 pp., dated 6/21/05 were reviewed and compared. It was noted the market value houses had been moved out of the regulated area and that no regrading would be required within 46 feet of the wetlands. An alternate plan showed the three affordable houses in the field in the NE corner of the property with a berm and heavy planting to buffer them from the larger dwellings. Mr. Boling did not support this layout because it would eliminate the field.
Ms. Purnell noted the plan showed the septic and utility lines running along the road and asked if mitigation was proposed for this encroachment. Mr. Boling responded that a conservation easement was proposed for all of the wetlands and 80% of the upland review area. Ms. Purnell noted the trench would be kept to a minimum width, but thought to minimize the possibility of undermining the road, the utilities would have to be moved closer to the wetlands.
Mr. Boling reviewed the drawbacks of "Alternate Site Analysis Plan #2." He said it would create a potential economic problem for the applicant and would preserve the upland review area at the expense of views and prime farmland that are also worthy of preservation. Mrs. Korzenko thought Plan #2 was more in the spirit of the St. Affordable Housing Statute because the different sized housing was intermingled. Mr. Boling pointed out that moving the smaller houses to the field would eliminate their walkout basements. Mr. LaMuniere thought Plan #2 was best for the wetlands, but he was not sure it was the best plan overall.
Mr. Boling pointed out the Commission had approved the layout for the Dodge Farm apartments, which had a building located in the wetlands and a large area of impervious surfaces. Ms. Purnell thought the reason that site plan was approved was because the Commission must take into account the purpose and social benefits of a proposal.
Mr. Boling submitted a letter dated 6/22/05 requesting that the public hearing be continued. He said he would submit detailed mechanical plans, figures on how much of the field would be lost under the various alternate layouts, and percentage of wetlands vs. upland review area that would be preserved in the proposed open space.
Atty. Ebersol requested the Land Tech report be submitted a week prior to the next meeting so that the applicants would have time to respond to any concerns raised. Mrs. J. Hill noted Land Tech would not begin its review until the applicant had signed the consultants' fee form and had paid the estimated fee.
Ms. Moriniere asked if there had been any change made to the proposed driveway off Scofield Hill Road. Mr. Worcester stated there was no change in one plan, but it had been deleted in Plan #2. Mrs. Moriniere said she did not support a driveway entrance on Scofield Hill Road due to the existing drainage problems in the area. She noted over ten years ago the runoff from a storm had washed out Wheaton Road and said there were wetlands issues on Scofield Hill. Mr. Picton said the applicant had been asked to submit a stormwater management plan and that this would be reviewed by the Commission's consultant.
Ms. Baechele reminded the Commission that at the last session of the hearing she had submitted a petition with 34 signatures against the application.
Mr. Mandell voiced his support for the proposal. He thought the applicant's preferred plan should be strongly considered and that it was an example of intelligent growth. He also liked Plan #2 because it had no impact to the wetlands.
Mrs. Korzenko asked about the management of the open field. Mr. Boling stated Mrs. Corrigan had recommended the field be managed as a bird sanctuary, but that this was not included in the application at this time.
Mr. LaMuniere noted in Plan #2 the loss of some of the field was off set by the lesser amount of regrading required near the slopes.
Mr. Picton asked the applicant to address the point discharge from the detention basin. Ms. Purnell asked if there would be directed runoff. Mr. Worcester said there would be a stone lined level spreader 10 feet wide and 15 feet long. Mr. Picton noted this would concentrate the runoff, which had previously spread over 400 feet, and so asked what the cumulative effect of the concentrated runoff would be on the wetlands. Mr. Ajello noted Land Tech had requested a stormwater control plan.
Ms. Purnell suggested the applicants should not limit their consideration of feasible and prudent alternatives to just the two options submitted that evening. Mr. Picton thought the applicant was moving in the right direction with the two revised plans.
Possible mitigation such as management of the area now overgrown with invasives was briefly discussed.
Ms. Purnell asked if the EPA's Phase II stormwater management program would require that the application be signed off by the DEP since more than one acre would be disturbed. Mr. Ajello will investigate.
Ms. Moriniere asked what Land Tech's review would include. Mr. Picton stated issues covered in the review would include the potential impacts to the wetlands and watercourses and to water quality and the adequacy of the technical plans for stormwater management and septic system design.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider
Application #IW-05-25 submitted by
Myfield, LLC. to construct ten single
family dwellings at 7 Mygatt Road to
Wednesday, July 27, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in
the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial
Town Hall. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms.
Purnell, and passed 5-0.
At 6:48 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the public hearing to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 in the Land Use Meeting Room.
In the time between the two hearings the Commission briefly considered the need to discuss administrative matters. A Special Meeting was scheduled for October 5, 2005 at 5:00 p.m.
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Feola/84 Carmel Hill Road/Unauthorized Excavation in Wetlands
Mr. Picton called the show cause hearing to order at 7:05 p.m. and seated Members Gray, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell. He noted the purpose of the hearing was to provide Mr. Feola an opportunity to show why the 6/13/05 enforcement order should not remain in effect. He briefly stated the reason for the enforcement order. It had been reported to the Land Use Office that there was ongoing activity in the vicinity of a vernal pool at 84 Carmel Hill Road, but that the vernal pool had been dug out and filled in before the Enforcement Officer could make the inspection and confirm the existence of the vernal pool. Information to substantiate the previous existence of a vernal pool had since been submitted. This evidence consisted of 1) the wetland symbol on the USDA map, 2) the 6/8/05 email from Mrs. Corrigan, Conservation Commission member, employee of the NW Conservation District, and member of the Litchfield County Conservation District committee that conducted the vernal pool inventory for the Town of Washington, 3) letters from neighbors and the previous property owners, and 4) photos of the excavated material. Mr. Picton said the above information was substantial.
Mr. Feola said he had not had time to review and respond to the information in the file and so asked that the hearing be continued. He thought a lot of the documentation cited was hearsay and asked how the Commission could ask him to reestablish a feature when no one was sure exactly what had previously existed. He said there was no vernal pool on the property prior to the excavation.
Ms. Purnell stated the field card for the vernal pool inventory includes the approximate location and dimensions of the pool. She also noted a statement from a previous property owner is not hearsay.
Mr. Picton explained that the 6/13/05 order set forth the sequence of events the Commission wants to see accomplished. The order included a request for a mapped plan for the reconstruction of the pool or a mitigation plan. Mr. Picton stated the Commission would work with Mr. Feola to resolve this matter.
Mr. Feola noted he had cooperated immediately when the Enforcement Officer had contacted him and said he thought the Commission's requests were unfair. Mr. Picton asked him to review the record and at all the evidence regarding what had previously existed on site.
MOTION: To continue the show cause hearing to
provide Mr. Feola an opportunity to show
cause why the 6/13/05 enforcement order
issued to Mr. Feola for unauthorized work
at 84 Carmel Hill Road should not remain
in effect to 6:45 p.m. on Wednesday, July
27, 2005 in the Land Use Meeting Room,
Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mrs. D. Hill,
seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
At 7:14 p.m. Mr. Picton continuted the show cause hearing to 6:45 p.m. on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 in the Land Use Meeting Room.
These hearings were recorded on tape. The tapes are 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 7:16 p.m. and seated Members Gray, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to
the agenda: 1) New Applications: A.
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun St/#IW-05-37/
Pond, Well, and Wetlands Restoration, B.
Leach-Smith/115 River Road/#IW-05-38/Dredge
Pond, 2) Enforcement: Sarjeant/28 Tinker
Hill Road/Landscaping Violation, 3) Communications: Michael Harwood Lecture
Series, 4) Other Business: Appointment of
Nominating Committee. By Mrs. D. Hill,
seconded by Mrs. Gray, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 6/8/05 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Throughout: Tow of slope should be toe of slope.
Page 2: Last paragraph: Mr. McGowan is a consultant for the Lake Waramaug Association.
Page 4: 2nd paragraph: It should be USDA soils map.
Page 5: 3rd sentence above the motion: Insert "again" to read, "...and again asked what it was."
Page 6: 3rd full paragraph: Capitalize Power Point.
Page 8: Last sentence in 2 nd full paragraph: Change to: Mr. Picton suggested that he must be referring to the vicinity of the lower envelope for the three affordable units, which is next to the ravine.
Page 11: Sentence just prior to the motion: Change to: He did not consider the proposed driveway improvements to pose a significant risk of adverse impact to wetlands.
Page 12: #8 condition in motion of approval: Add quotations around "Restricted areas...in perpetuity."
Page 13: Insert prior to last sentence before motion: Ms. Purnell disagreed, stating that her training had explained that a deed restriction is not as strong as a conservation easement.
Page 14: Under Rosen: Address should be 304 Nettleton Hollow Rd.
Page 16: 8th line from the bottom: It should be ...grade of 15%.
Page 19: 3rd line from the bottom: Add: in the Litchfield County Conservation District's vernal pool inventory and in Washington's Natural Resource....
Page 20: Under the motion to approve Application #IW-05-16: Ms. Purnell did not vote No. She abstained.
Page 20: 7th line from the bottom: Change Mrs. to Mr. Sears.
MOTION: To accept the 6/8/05 Regular Meeting minutes
as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms.
Purnell, and passed 5-0.
The 6/21/05 Kappes site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. Sono tubes should be changed to concrete piers.
MOTION: To accept the 6/21/05 Kappes site
inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr.
Picton, seconded by Mrs. D. Hill, and
passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 6/21/05 Beck site
inspection minutes as written. By Mr.
Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and
passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
H.O.R.S.E. of Ct./43 Wilbur Road/#IW-04-57E/Construct Sheds and Fence: Mr. Ajello reported Ms. Wahlers would continue to make
better use of the upland areas, would move the remaining grassed paddocks away from the stream in the near future, had regraded and seeded the disturbed areas, and had installed hundreds of feet of fencing and buffers to keep the animals away from the wetlands and watercourse. Mr. Ajello showed a sketch map, "HORSE of Ct, 43 Wilbur Road," with all ongoing activities shown in yellow and future activities shown in orange. He noted Ms. Wahlers had followed the advice of Mrs. Johnson from the NRCS and that the continuing work complied with best management practices. It was the consensus that the applicant was succeeding in her efforts to prevent adverse impacts to the wetlands and so should be granted the agricultural exemption applied for. Mr. Ajello was asked to inspect the property again in six months.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-04-57E submitted
by H.O.R.S.E. of Ct. for an agricultural
exemption to construct sheds and fences at
43 Wilbur Road per the 6/22/05 letter from
Ms. Wahlers and the map received 6/8/05
entitled, "HORSE of Ct., 43 Wilbur Road,"
referencing activities for the purpose of
completing the transfer of potentially
damaging activities away from the wetlands
and regulated areas as recommended by the
NRCS and the WEO subject to the following
condition: The WEO shall continue to
monitor any potentially polluting activities
as needed. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs.
D. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Stiteler-Giddins/198 Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road/#IW-05-13
2 Lot Resubdivision: The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/25/05 was reviewed. The Commission discussed whether it was ready to act on the application and concerns it had about possible impacts to wetlands and water quality. These included: 1. Construction plan for the proposed swale: Mr. LaMuniere did not think the plans for the swale were specific enough. He pointed out the December '04 minutes indicated it would be 6 to 12 inches deep and the January minutes said it would be 1 to 3 feet wide. He thought this would be insufficient to handle the drainage from the 4.6 acre watershed, that the swale would have to be extended and would require a detention basin, and that sediment controls would be needed on both sides of the swale. Mr. Picton agreed. He said Land Tech had asked for a more detailed treatment for ground water and surface water management, but the application still called for a grassed swale with no description of how it would be stabilized prior to the start of construction. He said the adequacy of the plans was questionable. 2. Accuracy of wetlands mapping: Ms. Purnell pointed out that in its 5/5/05 report, Land Tech noted a potential watercourse not indicated on the map, that on its site visit, the Commission had observed this area to be wet, and that the 6/12/05 REMA report also questioned whether this area was a watercourse. She said they proposed to construct the driveway through a swamp. It was noted the reason the Commission had not declared the proposal to be a significant activity was because it had continually requested more accurate information upon which to base such a determination. Mr. Picton discussed the red maple swamp. He noted Mr. McGowan said it was located in the 100 year flood plain, but it was not indicated on the map. 3. Plans for driveway construction: Mr. LaMuniere stated the information on Mr. Sabin's landscaping plan that the disturbed swath would be 40 feet wide was not identical to Mr. Neff's statement that it would only be 20 feet wide. 4. Conservation easements: Ms. Purnell noted the property currently has four conservation easements, the fourth one done in 11/04, about the same time that the first subdivision application had been submitted to Wetlands. She noted the fourth easement differed from the first three as it allowed for things not permitted in the others such as a right of way through wetlands. She said the applicant had boxed himself in with this series of easements and was forcing the Commission to deal with a very constricted site. She thought the placement of the conservation easements limited the options for the sensitive development of the property. She asked if in order to preserve the wetlands and watercourses on site, the easement for Parcel A, for example, could be traded or altered to allow the house site to be located there. She did not find any language in the easements to say this could not be done. 5) Feasible and prudent alternatives: Ms. Purnell read Section 8.13 of the Regulations. Mrs. Gray asked if, considering the conservation easements, a feasible and prudent alternative did not exist. Mr. Picton suggested several alternatives; a) They don't build. b) They propose to construct a smaller structure. c) They propose a temporary structure. Each Commissioner will generate his own list of reasons for approving and/or denying the application and of feasible and prudent alternatives. These will be used to draft a motion to approve or deny the application at a Special Meeting at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 29, 2005 in the Land Use Meeting Room. Mrs. Gray noted she would abstain from the vote because she had not been involved with much of the consideration of this application.
Matthews/142 Upper Church Hill Road/#IW-05-23/Reconstruction and Extend Driveway: Mr. Neff said the driveway plans had not yet been finalized. It was noted the application had been submitted on 5/11/05 and action could not wait until the next meeting. Mr. Neff advised the Commission that Mrs. Matthews would submit a request for an extension. If this is not received, the Commission will act at the Special Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, July 29, 2005 at 3:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-05-24/Tennis Court: Mr. and Mrs. Rosen, owners, and Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, were present. Mr. Sabin noted at the last meeting he had submitted revised plans to push the court into the hillside and realign the driveway. The following documents were submitted and reviewed: 1) "Proposed Tennis Court," by Mr. Sabin, dated 6/20/05 (drawn on the "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated 4/05), 2) "Septic System Repair Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 6/20/05, and 3) "Project Synopsis" and attached site plan by Mr. Sabin, dated 6/20/05. Mr. Sabin said the area behind the existing house was not a feasible and prudent alternative for the court because it would require extensive regrading and would take up a large portion of the back yard. Ms. Purnell thought that although the court was pulled back as far as possible from the wetlands, there could still be short term impacts to the watercourse. She suggested a bond be posted in case of a significant failure. It was noted 1) The area below the court would be revegetated with native species. 2) At the bottom of the filled slope, the land flattens towards the wetlands and would act as a buffer area. 3) The installation of the court would not increase the percentage of impervious surfaces on the property to the point where it would impact the wetlands. 4) An underground recharge system was proposed, but in the event of a major storm, the overflow would outlet from a 6 ft. wide level spreader into a dense meadow. 5) The duration of construction would be 6 to 8 weeks. 6) The soil stockpile area shown on the map was adequate.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-24 submitted
by Mr. and Mrs. Rosen to construct a tennis
court at 304 Nettleton Hollow Road per the
maps, "Proposed Tennis Court," by Mr. Sabin,
dated 6/20/05 (drawn on the 4/05 "Property/ Boundary Survey by Mr. Alex) and the "Septic
System Repair Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated
6/20/05 and all other documents revised
through 6/20/05 including the 6/20/05 "Project
Synopsis" with attached map subject to the
following conditions:
1. All activities within 50 feet of wetlands
and watercourses must be done by hand or
non powered hand tools.
2. No excavation equipment is permitted within
50 feet of wetlands and watercourses.
3. No filling, excavation, or regrading is
permitted within 50 feet of wetlands and
watercourses.
4. A $3000 bond shall be posted prior to the
issuance of the permit and will be released
when all construction is satisfactorily
completed and all conditions of approval
have been satisfied.
5. All construction and stabilization of all
disturbed surfaces shall be completed by
October 15, 2005.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. D. Hill, and
passed 4-0-1.
Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not
attended the site inspection.
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-25/Ten Single Family Dwellings:
Discussion was tabled until the continuation of the public hearing on July 27, 2005.
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-28/Guest House and Driveway: Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted revised plans, "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System," by Mr. Neff, revised to 6/18/05 and "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 6/19/05. These showed the driveway pulled back approximately 10 ft. from the wetlands. Mr. Neff noted all the driveway drainage would flow away from the wetlands towards the lawn area. He had also reduced the amount of gravel that would be deposited on the driveway within the regulated area.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-28 submitted by
Calhoun Street Trust to construct a guest
house and driveway at 62 Calhoun Street per
the "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 6/19/05 and "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System," by Mr. Neff, revised
to 6/18/05 with the condition that the surface
of the parking area slope to the south and not
towards the wetlands. By Mr. LaMuniere,
seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Frisbee Farm Estates, LLC./61 Frisbee Road/#IW-05-29/First Cut and Development: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, submitted a letter dated 6/22/05 requesting a 30 day extension of the time period in which to begin a public hearing. Further discussion was tabled to the next meeting.
Whalen/138 Baldwin Hill Road/#IW-05-30/Stone Wall: Mr. Whalen submitted a letter dated 6/22/05, which he read, and a revised plan by Mr. Neff, "Stonewall Reconstruction Plan," revised to 6/21/05. He stated the bobcat would be used only along the stone wall and the wetlands vegetation would be allowed to regrow; the existing lawn would not be extended. Mr. Picton noted the cut area could not be converted to lawn or meadow. Mr. Picton asked if it would be possible to work on rebuilding the wall from the side along the road and the stone pile from the lawn side in order to limit the compaction of the soils and the travel of machinery through the wetlands. Mr. Whalen responded the area in front of the wall was wetter than the area behind it.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-30 submitted by
Mr. Whalen to construct a stone wall at 138
Baldwin Hill Road per the map, "Stonewall
Reconstruction Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to
6/21/05 and the 6/22/05 letter from Mr. Whalen
to the Commission subject to the following
conditions:
1. The access by mechanical equipment is
limited to within 10 feet of the stone wall.
2. The cleared area up to the original lawn
edge as shown on the above referenced map
shall be allowed to regrow with natural
species and invasive species controlled
under the monitoring of the Wetlands Enforcement Officer.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere,
and passed 5-0.
Croasdaile/67 River Road/#IW-05-31/Garden Maintenance: It was noted the application had been complete at the last meeting. Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the site and the heavy mulch had not yet been spread.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-31 submitted by
Mrs. Croasdaile for garden maintenance at 67
River Road subject to the condition that the
restoration work proceed under the supervision
of the WEO. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr.
Picton, and passed 5-0.
Kappes/8 Christian Street/#IW-05-32/Deck: Mr. Picton suggested the applicant be asked to redesign the deck so that it doesn't come closer to the riverbank than the existing house already does. He noted the Commission was concerned about a new structure so close to the stream. Ms. Coe noted the bank was vertical and unstable. Mrs. D. Hill said she was concerned about the proposed deck even if it was redesigned. Ms. Purnell agreed it would be a difficult decision due to the constricted lot and the cumulative impact to the East Aspetuck River. She suggested feasible and prudent alternatives be considered. Mr. Ajello will work with the applicant to draft a better plan and will advise him that even if redesigned, approval is not guaranteed.
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-33/Rebuild Pool Wall and Extend Parking: Mr. Rosiello from Kent Horticultural Services represented the applicant. The maps, a sketch plan revised to 6/22/05 and the "Proposed Plot Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/12/05 were reviewed. Mr. Rosiello explained the proposal to take out the northeast side of the wall surrounding the pool and to extend it away from the wetlands, which were over 100 feet away. A flower bed and an evergreen screen would be planted near the wall. The applicants also proposed a 40 ft. by 50 ft. "boxed out" parking court yard, which was reduced in size from the original application. At its nearest point, it would be 68 feet from wetlands and would consist of two layers of armor coating over a gravel base. Mr. Picton noted earlier the Commission had requested that Mr. Neff move the driveway farther from and slope it away from the wetlands. Mr. Rosiello agreed to pitch the driveway away from the wetlands. Mr. Picton noted many separate applications had been received for this property and that the improvements were creeping towards the wetlands. He asked for a comprehensive site plan showing all of the recently approved and proposed work on one map. He asked that it also include the upland review area and the distances from the proposed activities to the wetlands. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, July 29, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.
New Applications
Casey/119 West Shore Road/#IW-05-34/Septic Repair: Mr. Neff stated the site was very tight and that the old septic must first be removed and taken off site before the new one could be installed. The map, "Septic System Repair Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/20/05 was studied. Mr. Neff said the new system would be slightly larger than the old one. It was noted the plan called for silt fencing. The Commissioners will inspect the property on their own prior to the next meeting.
Johnson/30 West Mountain Road/#IW-05-35/3 Lot Subdivision: The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 6/15/05 was reviewed. Mr. Jack Johnson explained the bulk of the land would remain with the existing house and barn and two interior lots were proposed. The wetlands within 100 feet of the proposed activities were pointed out and it was noted no wetlands crossings were proposed. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, July 29, 2005 at 4:45 p.m.
Milstein/36 Hinkle Road/#IW-05-36/Install Septic System: Mr. Washington, agent, presented the map, "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 6/11/05. Mr. Ajello explained the septic line would be trenched down the middle of the existing level driveway and would have to cross a stream. Mr. Picton noted the septic system was outside the regulated area. Mr. Ajello will review the plans and report at the next meeting.
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-37/Pond, Well, Wetlands Restoration: Mr. Rosiello submitted six copies of an untitled, colored map dated 6/22/05 and said he would add the upland review area and distances from wetlands for the next meeting. The application was for the installation of a pond surrounded by a marsh garden. Digging would occur as close as 20 feet to the wetlands. Once again, Mr. Picton asked for a comprehensive map for the property. Mr. Rosiello said there was an upcoming meeting for all contractors on site and he would try to coordinate their work. Mr. Rosiello proposed to dig a 12 ft. deep test hole in the center of the proposed pond. If enough water was found, a pond liner would not be needed. If not much water was found, the proposed well would supply it. It was the consensus the test hole should be dug as soon as possible so the Commission would know the specific details of the pond construction. Mr. Rosiello stated the test hole could be dug without any machinery crossing the wetlands. Mr. Picton reminded the Commission of the site inspection at 4:00 p.m. on July 29, 2005. He asked Mr. Ajello to review the plans. There will be further discussion at the next meeting.
Leach-Smith/115 River Road/#IW-05-38/Dredge Pond: The map, "Pond Cleanout Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 6/4/05 was reviewed. It was noted the pond had last been cleaned in 1992. Ms. Purnell was familiar with the property and noted there was a fairly significant outfall from the pond. She asked if a plunge pool or sediment basin was proposed. Mr. Neff said, no, due to the small size of the pond. Mr. Neff briefly reviewed the work to be done. The pond would be dewatered, then excavated, and the spoils stockpiled. Once dry, they would be moved farther back on the property. 1:3 slide slopes were proposed. The Commissioners will inspect the site on their own before the next meeting.
Enforcement
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-04-V5/Excavation in Wetlands and Watercourse: Mr. Ajello wrote Mr. Fowler on 6/1 with a copy to Atty. Kelly to advise him the Commission is waiting for the required information. Mr. Ajello was requested to warn Mr. Fowler that if he did not submit the required material, a notice of violation would be placed on the Town Land Records and possibly other appropriate enforcement measures would be taken. Mrs. Korzenko thought the Commission should find out whether he could be cited again for the continued violation.
Holly Hill Farm, LLC./Whittlesey Road: Mr. Picton stated he had received a report from Mr. Childs regarding the completion of work on several of the eroded gullies. Mr. Picton reminded him the Commission should have been notified after the completion of the first gully so that the required inspection could have been made. It was hoped both fabric and rocks had been used to stabilize the banks. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to inspect and noted an ongoing problem with water being diverted by the silt fence.
Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Request for Release of Bond: Ms. Purnell had not yet completed her review of the file to determine whether all the conditions of approval had been met and all required work completed. She said she did not think the bond should be released at this point, but also said to require new work would be unfair. Upon completion of the report, she will send a copy to Mr. McNaughton and leave copies in the Land Use Office for the Commissioners to review before the next meeting. Mr. Picton thanked her for her efforts.
Walker Brook Estates/New Milford: Mr. LaMuniere reported that Ms. Purnell had written an excellent letter to the New Milford Inland Wetlands Commission, who was pleased to received it. The public hearing was continued to 6/23/05.
Sarjeant/28 Tinker Hill Road/Landscaping: Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the landscaping and terracing being done along West Shore Road without a permit. Mr. Picton read the letter from Mr. Sarjeant explaining the work done to date. Mr. Ajello said the site was not stabilized. Since some of the work was in the state right of way, he thought DOT approval would be required. An after the fact application is required. Mr. Ajello will work on a list of recommendations for stabilizing the site.
Greenfield/12 Ives Road: It was noted the required application still has not been submitted. Ms. Purnell asked about clearing done across the street from Greenfield's. Mr. Ajello thought it was probably for the Klemm driveway, but will investigate.
Beck/132 Calhoun Street: Mr. Picton said the work done so far was good, but that it must continue to carry out the terms of the enforcement order. Mrs. Corrigan did not supervise the application of the herbicide, so she was not certain it was applied correctly. Mr. Ajello was directed to research the terms of the order to see if they have all been met. It was noted if Mr. Beck wants the enforcement order taken off the Land Records, he could post a bond to ensure the work is properly completed.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road: The Commission did not know whether Mr. Carter had hired Mr. Neff to check the work completed for compliance with the permit. The Commission has not received the report requested.
Other Business
Pinover/Senff Road: Mr. Ajello was reminded to inspect the property. Mr. Picton suspected the Commission had the wrong pond in mind when it contacted Mr. Pinover several months ago about the proposed herbicide application.
Nominating Committee: Mrs. D. Hill and Mrs. Gray volunteered to serve on the committee. Mr. Picton and Mrs. Korzenko said they were willing to run for reelection.
MOTION: To go into Executive Session at 10:45 p.m. to
discuss pending litigation. By Mr. LaMuniere,
seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To come out of Executive Session at 10:57 p.m.
By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Mrs. Gray, and
passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Gray.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
June 8, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Gray, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Ms. Coe, Mrs. Korzenko
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sabin, Mr./Mrs. Ernhout, Mr./Mrs. Frank, Mrs. Sutter, Mr. Kleinberg, Atty. Sienkiewicz, Mrs. Weeks, Mr./Mrs. Klein, Mr. McGowan, Atty. Kelly, Ms. Baechle, Mrs. Mitchell, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Fenwick, Mr./Mrs. Baiocchi, Atty. Hammer, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Boling, Mr. Egan, Mr. Worcester, Mrs. Ward, Mr. Ross, Mr. Charles, Mr./Mrs. Papsin, Mr./Mrs. Corrigan, Mr. Cornett, Mr. Mustich, Mr./Mrs. Donnelly, Mr. Sears, Mr. Meeker, Mr./Mrs. Whalen, Mrs. Croasdaile, Mr. DePecol, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. McNaughton, Mr. Wellings, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Tagley, Mr. Antonios, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Stiteler-Giddins/198 Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road/ #IW-05-13/2 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Picton reconvened the public hearing at 5:05 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Korzenko for Mrs. Gray.
Both Atty. Kelly and Atty. Sienkiewicz submitted letters dated 6/8/05 summarizing the comments they made at the last session of the public hearing.
Ms. Purnell referenced the following documents for the record: 1) Wetlands, 3rd Edition, William Mitsch and James Gosselink, 2000 and 2) Wetlands Indicators - A Guide to Wetland Identification, Delineation, Classification, and Mapping, Ralph W. Tiner, 1999.
Mr. Neff, engineer for the applicants, stated he had nothing new to submit and briefly summarized how he had addressed the Commission's concerns. Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, commented on the proposed maintenance of the site; 1) deer fence protection for the first two years, 2) watering of the plants for the first growing season, 3) brush hogging of the vegetative filter buffer strips every two to three years, 4) brush hogging around the septic and house sites once a year and 5) annual leaf clean up around the house and along the driveway. No lawn was proposed, but Mr. Sabin said leaf clean up was needed due to the planting beds. He said there would be a short grass meadow around the house to suppress woody growth.
Atty. Sienkiewicz referred to Sheet #2 of Mr. Sabin's 5/19/05 landscaping plan. He said although only a 20 foot swath was supposed to be disturbed for the driveway and the silt fence was supposed to be the limit of disturbance, this plan indicated there would be planting beyond the silt fence and in an intermittent watercourse. He suggested that if the application were approved, this planting should be reduced in scope. He voiced his concern the owners would eventually try to clear the property for "elbow room" and a view of the lake. He noted any clearing would tend to dry out the wetlands by letting more sunlight in. He said the applicant had not submitted before and after drainage calculations and so the Commission had no "tools" with which to make a decision. He concluded that the proposed development site was the "worst spot" to put a house and driveway because it is so wet.
Mrs. Weeks noted she had mailed the Commission additional information for the record: her letter dated 5/31/05, excerpts from A Sierra Club Naturalist's Guide, Southern New England by Mr. Jorgensen, pp. 248-298 and plates V-VII, and five photos taken on the subject property on 5/27/05. She stated the photos had been taken after a heavy rain and noted the water in the area of the proposed driveway remained there for three days before it was absorbed.
Mr. Frank, the President of the Lake Waramaug Assoc., said he would not speak for or against the application, but for the protection and preservation of Lake Waramaug. He said the Commission should not accept any preventable environmental damage to the lake.
Mr. McGowan, consultant for the Lake Waramaug Country Club, stated the property was one of two areas adjacent to the lake where there is a close relationship between the groundwater and the water in the lake. Therefore, he stated, the health of Lake Waramaug was more directly at risk as a result of development on this site than it would be from development on other sites near the lake. He pointed out the location of terrace soils with 15% slope on the colored map, "Lake Waramaug Watershed" and noted although the proposed lot is 12 acres, it has only three non contiguous acres of non wetlands soils. Considering the water interplay issue in this area, he did not think the mitigation proposed was sufficient. He asked for a comprehensive stormwater management plan, not just for the proposed lot, but for the entire surrounding area. He noted his concerns about the proposed curtain drain for the septic system. He asked the Commission whether it would be practical to enforce all the conditions that would be needed to guarantee there would be no impact to the lake.
Atty. Sienkiewicz disputed Atty. Kelly's statement that since the Commission did not rule the proposal was a significant activity, it was not required to consider feasible and prudent alternatives. He advised the Commission that according to the Inland Wetlands Regulations, if a public hearing is held, feasible and prudent alternatives must be considered. Mr. Picton said he considered the activity to be significant, as evidenced by the three sessions of the public hearing to consider it. Ms. Purnell stated it was not relevant whether the Commission found the proposed activity to be significant as it was considering feasible and prudent alternatives anyway.
Mrs. Sutter raised four questions/points: 1) the beach area below the property is very shallow and collects a lot of sand that washes into it, 2) a 3000 sq. ft. house is not a small house as was claimed by the applicants, 3) how would a meadow be created in a woodland, and 4) would the applicants install a water system?
Ms. Baldwin noted for the record the 5/29/05 Voices article, which quoted the Roxbury Inland Wetlands Comm. chairman as saying that work could not be done within 50 ft. of a watercourse without an impact to that watercourse. She added that if any activity was allowed, the Commission must carefully monitor it and prohibit the use of heavy equipment.
Mr. Neff responded to Mr. McGowan's remarks. He stated the proposed curtain drain was a standard procedure, had been approved by the Health Department, was not prone to operating problems, and work upgrade of the septic would have to be substantial to change the groundwater flow in this area. Mr. Neff said he had considered a groundwater containment system, but the high water table made it impossible, so he proposed the above ground vegetative filter buffer strips on both sides of the driveway. He noted the proposed discharge area was flat so that the flow would slow and the sediment would settle before the runoff reached the lake. He said the owners had agreed to all the limitations suggested by the Commission and knew this was a very limited site.
Mr. Sabin briefly responded to Atty. Sienkiewicz's points about the planting plan. He stated all the planting would be done by hand and that the plantings would extend beyond the silt fence because he was trying to achieve a transition area between the buffer strip area and the woods. He said no additional trees needed to be cut in order to put in these plants.
Mr. Wellings thought if approved, the property owners should be required to post a million dollar bond for twenty years.
Mr. Talbot, architect, stated the proposed house was not 3000 square feet; it was one story and approximately half that size. Mr. Neff said, and Mr. Talbot agreed, that revised plans had been submitted at the last meeting and that the house would be located within the existing staked area on site.
Ms. Purnell referenced both the original Stiteler-Giddins application for the main house on Tinker Hill Road and the ASDA soils map for the file in case this had not previously been done.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider
Application #IW-05-13 submitted by Mr. Stiteler
and Ms. Giddins for a 2 lot resubdivision at
198 Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road. By
Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. D. Hill, and
passed 5-0.
At 5:53 p.m. Mr. Picton closed the public hearing.
Private Mortgage Fund, LLC/61 South Fenn Hill Road/#IW-05-12/ Driveway
Mr. Picton reconvened the public hearing at 5:56 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Korzenko for Mrs. Gray.
Mr. Picton noted the new documents in the file: 1) the 5/30/05 memo to the Commission from Mr. Bedini, which analyzed the adequacy of the culvert and found it to be safe, 2) the 6/1/05 letter from Mr. Neff, which also analyzed the culvert and found it was safe, and 3) 6/8/04 fax from Atty. Hammer, which included the 6/7/05 letter from REMA concerning potential impacts to wetlands and watercourses. Mr. Neff also submitted a letter dated 6/8/05, which stated the proposed driveway construction would not adversely impact the wetlands and watercourses.
Atty. Fisher submitted a letter dated 6/8/05, which addressed comments Atty. Hammer made at the last session of the hearing. He stated 1) impacts to wetlands and watercourses would be minimal, 2) lot line revision issues were for the Zoning Commission to consider unless they relate to inland wetlands or watercourses, 3) the Commission had approved many other driveways in the regulated area throughout the years, and 4) Mr. Antonios had agreed to impose deed restrictions on the SE corner of the other lot to protect against future impacts to the wetlands.
Mr. Picton asked if the deed restrictions were shown on the map. When Atty. Fisher responded they were on the map submitted for the proposed lot line revision, Mr. Picton asked that the same map be submitted for both applications. Atty. Fisher agreed. Mr. Picton stated he wanted all the measures proposed for wetlands protection in the lot line revision application, #IW-05-18, incorporated in the driveway application.
Atty. Hammer made the following statements: 1) The application must be denied because there were feasible and prudent alternatives. 2) There was insufficient information submitted upon which to base a decision; no report from an environmental expert, a lack of base line data and analysis, no assessment of the impact that would be caused by runoff, omission of a watercourse on the map, no report on the quality and function of the existing watercourse, lack of data on species of concern; the REMA report noted a bobolink had been seen on the property, and the impacts of the use of heavy equipment and future maintenance had not been addressed. 3) The applicant did not legally have two building lots.
Atty. Fisher reminded the Commission the application was for a very limited activity, a driveway over an existing culvert, and that it was common sense that the impacts would be negliable. Mr. Picton agreed that although the REMA report claimed there was the likelihood that the driveway would adversely impact the wetlands and watercourse, it had not provided the Commission with specific information about what the impacts would be.
For the record Mr. Neff listed his credentials, which included licensed engineer and a director of the Roxbury Land Trust.
Atty. Hammer noted the REMA report stated the bobolink, a species of concern, prefers wetlands habitats. Ms. Purnell noted the Natural Diversity Data Base Map showed a species of concern on the property across the street, and asked what it was. Mr. Neff did not know. He pointed out, however, that he had attached a map to his 5/25/05 letter, which showed the species of concern was clearly located outside the area where the activity was proposed.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider
Application #IW-05-12 submitted by the Private
Mortgage Fund, LLC. for a driveway at 61 South
Fenn Hill Road. By Mr. Picton, seconded by
Mrs. D. Hill, and passed 5-0.
At 6:22 p.m. Mr. Picton closed the public hearing.
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-25/Ten Single Family Dwellings
Mr. Picton called the public hearing to order at 6:25 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Bedini for Mrs. Gray. Mrs. D. Hill read the legal notice published in the Waterbury Republican on 5/26 and 6/4/05.
For the record, Mr. Picton referenced the list of 24 documents that were in the file and noted the applicant's power point presentation would also be included.
Mr. Boling and Mr. Worcester represented the applicants.
Mr. Picton noted the Commission has jurisdiction only over wetlands issues.
Mr. Boling gave a power point presentation, which included the following topics; affordable housing regulations, the reasons this parcel was selected for the proposed development, how the proposed plan meets the Town goals, description of the current site conditions, the development potential of the property, and how the proposal balances conservation and development goals. Mr. Boling said the original proposal had been for 12 houses, but had been decreased to 10; 7 market value and 3 affordable dwellings. In the current plan, 3.06 acres of the 13.54 acre parcel would be developed with 1.16 acres or 8.56% impervious surfaces and 77% preserved as open space. Mr. Boling said there would be no casual violations of the Inland Wetlands Regulations by the residents because the homeowners' association would monitor activities. He briefly described the plans for narrow gravel driveways, a stormwater management system with two detention basins, and vertically stacked utility conduits to limit the disturbance. He stated no activities were proposed in any wetlands and no crossings were proposed. Under the proposed conservation easements, 81% of the upland review area would be protected. Mr. Boling pointed out the limited construction proposed in the upland review areas and said he thought the proposed conservation easement, which would protect all of the wetlands, was a sensible "trade-off."
Ms. Purnell asked to review the draft association rules. Mr. Boling said they had not yet been written, but that he welcomed comments and suggestions.
Mr. Boling addressed the precedent of allowing new construction in the upland review area. He suggested that under certain circumstances, such as the existence of poor quality wetlands, if no crossings were proposed, if open space would be preserved, if wetlands would be protected by easements, if the development plans met the goals of the Town's Plan of Conservation and Development, etc., the Commission could then approve activities in the upland review area.
Mr. Boling presented an alternate plan, "Alternate Site Analysis Plan," revised to 6/2/05 that was based on input from the last meeting. This plan moved the buildings further into the existing field so that they met the 100 ft. setback requirement. He did not favor this plan, however, because the applicant's goal was to preserve both the view and the agricultural soils. Also, one of the proposed detention basins had been relocated.
Mr. Picton asked if the runoff would overflow the basin. Mr. Boling said it would overflow in the direction of the wetlands. Mr. Worcester noted it was a metered drain.
The public had the opportunity to comment.
Mr. Tagley, resident of Quarry Ridge, complained about the non wetland issue comments that had been made by the applicants and said he had hired an attorney to review the application. He asked that the public hearing be continued so the public would be able to review the revised plans, which had just been submitted. Mr. Picton advised him the hearing would be continued in order to receive a review by Land Tech Consultants, but that he did not expect that report to be ready before the next meeting date on June 22nd. If necessary, he said the hearing would be continued beyond June 22nd.
Ms. Baechle submitted a petition with 34 signatures against the application plus written material for the record.
Mrs. Papsin said she thought so much of the property was being preserved because it was unbuildable. She objected to the applicant referring to Marbledale as a village center and asked if the Town would make a major investment in the upgrade of Mygatt Road. She also asked if the drainage issues in the area had been addressed. Mr. Picton responded that the Wetlands Commission has jurisdiction only over wetlands and watercourses.
Mrs. Matthews submitted a paper dated 6/8/05 regarding septic system and health issues.
Mr. Etherington spoke against the application saying it was an ecological disaster and had many design faults. He said he was against building houses in a ravine near a brook.
Ms. Thomas thought the project could be a disaster and cautioned the Commission to act carefully so it did not make a mistake.
Mr. Picton again noted the hearing would be continued and urged the public to submit written statements.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the alternate plan were approved, how much of the field would be lost; he didn't think it looked like much of an impact. Mr. Boling said he would get this figure, but pointed out the impact would visual.
Mr. Picton asked if there was an alternate plan to move the affordable houses farther from the wetlands. Mr. Boling said there was not and that these units would be built at a loss and so had to be physically separated from the market units for economic reasons. Mr. Worcester said some alternate plans would require the relocation of the septic system to the regulated area.
Mr. Tagley again complained that the hearing was being tainted by subject matter not under the Commission's jurisdiction.
Mrs. Papsin stated the price of the affordable units would be well over the price given by Time as the average price in the US. Mr. Picton asked that the public comments be limited to wetlands issues.
Ms. Purnell asked whether due to the relocation of one of the detention basins, water would be taken from one watershed to the other. She asked for an analysis of the drainage and the sub basins.
Mr. Etherington said drainage is a serious concern as a few years ago the stream had taken out Wheaton Road. He asked the Commission to go look at the site because it is unbuildable. Mr. Picton pointed out he was referring to the lower ravine area, where no buildings were proposed.
Mr. LaMuniere asked how much less disturbance would be required for the alternate plan. Mr. Worcester said it would be substantially less.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider
Application #IW-05-25 submitted by Myfield, LLC.
to construct ten single family houses at 7
Mygatt Road to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 22, 2005
in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town
Hall. By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton,
and passed 5-0.
At 7:18 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the public hearing to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 in the Land Use Meeting Room.
These public hearings were 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 Gray, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted
on the agenda: New Application: Calhoun
Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-33/
Rebuild Pool Wall and Extend Parking Area and
Communications: Wetlands and Wildlife Seminar/
Sessions Woods/6/14/05. By Mr. Picton, seconded
by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes: The 5/25/05 Public Hearings-Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as amended:
Page 2: 1st paragraph, #6: Change to: The length of stonewall was corrected.
1st paragraph, #1 under revs to the erosion control plan: Change to piles along the driveway.
Page 5: End of 5th line: After "property: add: during the first application.
End of 1st paragraph: Add sentence: Ms. Purnell asked a question regarding the lake access for the large lot and the new lot.
Page 9 and throughout: Change "toe" to tow of slope.
Page 10: 3rd sentence: Change: wetlands vegetation to native vegetation.
Page 11: Middle of page: Change the sentence to: Mr. Picton also said it was important that the owners had proposed to let a strip of the meadow on the east side of the wetlands regrow.
Page 13: 17th line under Myfield: Change lightly to slightly.
Page 15: 8th line from the bottom: The spelling of diluted was corrected.
Page 16: 14th line under Feola: Add to the sentence ending in "area:" and it is shown on the Natural Resource Inventory Report map for vernal pools, which had been circulated.
19th line under Feola: Change impression to depression.
Page 17: 4th line under Hill: Insert: to the "cut" stem.
3rd line under Pinover: Change pesticides to herbicides.
4th line under Walker Brook Farm: Change complained to commented.
MOTION: To accept the 5/25/05 Regular Meeting minutes
as corrected. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr.
Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 5/17/05 Rosen Site Inspection
minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded
by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 6/1/05 Calhoun Street Trust Site
Inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. D. Hill,
seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 6/1/05 Frisbee Farm Estates Site
Inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Gray,
seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
H.O.R.S.E. of Ct./43 Wilbur Road/#IW-04-57E/Construct Sheds and Fence: Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the property and Ms. Wahlers had installed hundreds of feet of fencing to separate the pasture from the watercourse, had seeded much of the disturbed area, and had relocated many of the animals to the hill. She submitted a map and documents earlier in the day, but Mr. Ajello had not had time to review them. He noted recent water tests by Montessori School showed very high E. coli content, but he thought this was due to the recent regrading and fence installation. The Commission thought great progress had been made and hoped by the next meeting the property would qualify for an agricultural exemption because the activities would no longer be impacting the wetlands. Mr. Ajello will continue to monitor the progress and will make sure a summary of the work completed has been submitted.
Private Mortgage Fund, LLC./61 South Fenn Hill Road/#IW-05-12/Construct Driveway: Mr. Picton seated Alternate Korzenko for Mrs. Gray. He noted Mr. Bedini had prepared a review of the issues and how they had or had not been addressed and possible conditions of approval. The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/25/05, Revision #4, was reviewed. Mr. Picton read Mr. Bedini's 6/8/05 review of the application. Ms. Purnell made a motion to deny the application because there were feasible and prudent alternatives; a building site in the east corner of the property, which would require no wetlands crossing. There was no second. It was the consensus the possible conditions listed in the report would be a constructive framework in which to begin discussion of the application. There was a lengthy discussion about whether the application should be approved and if so, what, if any conditions should be incorporated. Mr. LaMuniere stated there was no evidence there would be significant damage to the wetlands by the proposed driveway; the culvert was existing and according to Mr. Neff was "solid," and that the conditions discussed would provide additional protection to the wetlands. Ms. Purnell stated the Commission approved other driveway crossings, but only when they were the only means to access the property or were an alternative that would have less impact to the wetlands. Mrs. Korzenko said the crossing had existed for over 40 years, had been previously used for agriculture, which was more harmful to the wetlands than the proposed residential use, and that in all the years the driveway had existed, it had never been considered a significant activity. Mrs. Korzenko also pointed out that the conservation easements proposed and conditions being considered would be more beneficial to the bobolink than the preservation of the proposed house site. Mr. Picton did not think it had been demonstrated there would be unreasonable impacts to the wetlands as a result of the driveway improvements, especially with the conditions being considered. He thought the minimal chance of an adverse impact was offset by good planning. Ms. Purnell asked if he was discounting that the existing crossing constricts the wetlands. Mr. Picton responded that the crossing had been installed many years ago and there would be significant short term impacts to remove it. He did not consider the proposed driveway improvements to be a significant activity.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-12 submitted by
The Private Mortgage Fund, LLC. for a driveway
crossing at 61 South Fenn Hill Road per the
material submitted for the public hearing
record and the site development plan labeled,
"Boundary Line Revision," by Mr. Neff, revised
to 5/25/05, Revision #4, showing proposed deed
restricted areas to protect the wetlands
subject to the following conditions:
1. In the area between the central wetlands and
the western most building site shown on the
above referenced map, a note shall be
prominently placed on the mylar stating that
all activities, including the cutting of
vegetation and disturbance of soil, within
100 feet of wetlands and watercourses require
a permit from the Inland Wetlands Commission.
2. The edge of the 100 foot regulated area shall
be clearly and permanently marked in the field
prior to the start of construction.
3. The driveway surface shall remain a stable gravel surface and shall not be paved within 100 feet of wetlands.
4. A guard rail or fence shall be installed along
the driveway within 5 feet of the edge of a
maximum 12 foot wide travel way where it passes
within 25 feet of wetlands to limit the
expansion of shoulder and landscaped area
toward and into wetlands.
5.Native vegetation shall be allowed to grow
undisturbed within 30 feet of all wetlands and
watercourse areas, with the exception of the
driveway route as detailed above.
6.Inland Wetlands Commission authority encompasses
any clear cutting of vegetation, whether under-
story or canopy, and disturbance of soil within
100 feet of all wetlands and watercourses. Such
activities require a wetland review and in most
cases a permit.
7.Ground disturbance for construction of retaining
walls at the culvert shall not extend wider than
the length of the existing culvert.
8.The conditions of this approval shall be shown
as directed and listed on the mylar along with
the following note: Restricted areas and other
wetland protection provisions as shown or listed
on this map per the conditions of approval
constitute a deed restriction to run with the
land in perpetuity. The chairman shall sign the
mylar after ensuring that all of the above
referenced conditions are incorporated. The mylar shall be filed by the Town Clerk on the
Town Land Records prior to issuance of the permit.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill and passed
4-1. Ms. Purnell voted No because 1) a feasible
and prudent alternative exists, which is a house site that does not require a wetlands crossing, 2) the existing watercourse crossing constricts
the wetlands, 3) construction of the proposed
driveway will cause long term impact to the
wetlands, especially during the winter when
plowing is done and because the construction will
allow two building sites when previously there
was one legitimate large scale building site, 4)
although nothing is presently proposed, there
is the potential for future encroachments at the
second building site, and 5) the two large scale
building sites will impact in perpetuity the
high water quality of the watercourse that has a
high diversity of benthic macrofauna as documented in REMA's 5/25/05 report.
For the majority, Mr. Picton summarized the application had been approved because there was not a reasonable likelihood of a significant impact to the wetlands and watercourses because the driveway would be constructed according to the plans submitted and the conditions of approval specified in the motion.
Stiteler-Giddins/198 Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road/#IW-05-13
2 Lot Resubdivision: Mr. Picton asked the Commissioners to review the documents in the file. Discussion was tabled to the next meeting.
Private Mortgage Fund, LLC./61 South Fenn Hill Road and 4 Shinar Mountain Road/Lot Line Revision: Mr. Picton noted Alternate Korzenko was seated for Mrs. Gray. The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan, Boundary Line Revision," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/25/05, Revision #4, was reviewed. Ms. Purnell asked if the question of whether there were two existing legal lots had been settled. Mr. Picton responded that was not a wetlands issue. Mr. Ajello agreed the Inland Wetlands Commission would act on the concept and then the application would go to the Zoning Commission. Mr. Picton thought the application would prevent a marginal site in the SE corner of the property from being built on in the future. Ms. Purnell disagreed because she thought a smaller house even though closer to the wetlands, might have less impact that a larger house farther from the wetlands. The proposed deed restriction was discussed. Atty. Fisher stated it would have the same effect as a conservation easement and it referenced the map so it was enforceable and subject to all notes, legends, and restrictions on the map. Conditions of approval were discussed.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-13 submitted by
the Private Mortgage Fund, LLC. for a lot line
revision at 61 South Fenn Hill Road and 4
Shinar Mountain Road per the proposed site
development plan, "Boundary Line Revision," by
Mr. Neff, revised to 5/25/05, Revision #4
showing proposed deed restricted areas to
protect the wetlands, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The right of way across the eastern parcel
in favor of the western parcel shall be shown
on the mylar as a 50' wide right of way
labeled, "ROW for all purposes in favor of
adjacent lot to the west."
2. In the area between the central wetlands and
the western most building site shown on the
above referenced map, a note shall be
prominently placed on the mylar stating that
all activities including the cutting of
vegetation and disturbance of soil within
100 feet of wetlands and watercourses require
a permit from the Inland Wetlands Commission.
3. The edge of the 100 foot regulated area shall
be clearly and permanently marked in the
field prior to the start of construction.
4.Native vegetation shall be allowed to grow
undisturbed within 30 feet of all wetlands and
watercourse areas,
5.Inland Wetlands Commission authority encompasses any clear cutting of vegetation,
whether understory or canopy, or disturbance
of soil within 100 feet of all wetlands and
watercourses. Such activities require a
wetland review and in most cases a permit.
6.The wetland protected areas and other provisions
for wetlands protection shown on the map are
a permanent deed restriction to run in
perpetuity with the land.
7.A mylar showing all of the above conditions
shall be produced for review and signing by
the Commission chairman prior to its filing
on the Town Land Records and issuance of the
wetlands permit.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Korzenko, and
passed 4-1. Ms. Purnell voted No because the
approval was counter to what the Commission has
allowed in the past and results in the great
potential that two large structures will be
built with the potential for a long term
adverse impact to the wetlands and watercourses.
Mrs. Gray was reseated.
Matthews/142 Upper Church Hill Road/#IW-05-23/Reconstruct and Extend Driveway: Mr. Neff, engineer, reported the location of the driveway right of way was still being considered by the applicant. He will call Mr. Ajello when it is staked so that he can make an inspection. Discussion was tabled to the next meeting.
Rosen/302 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-05-24/Tennis Court: Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, represented the applicant. He submitted a map, "Adjusted Plan," dated 6/7/05, which showed the proposed court moved slightly up the hill to increase the distance between it and the wetlands. The closest point from the pavement to the wetlands increased to 80 feet and the limit of disturbance to 50 feet. He noted the drywell and walkway had also been moved back. He also submitted a construction sequence. Mr. Picton asked what would happen to the spring. Mr. Sabin said the recharge gallery would pick up the groundwater flows, which would then flow into the curtain drain and overflow, so the seep would continue. Ms. Purnell asked if the court would be level. Mr. Sabin said it was crowned towards the perimeter where there was a surrounding drain. Ms. Purnell thought a feasible and prudent alternative would be to locate the pool behind the house. Mr. Sabin thought that was feasible, but not prudent, because it would take up all of the back yard next to the pool. Mrs. Korzenko asked for a written narrative on how the invasives would be removed. Mr. Ajello noted he had inspected the site, but had not yet reviewed the plans and so Mr. Picton asked him to do so. It was also noted the DEP form had not yet been submitted. Mrs. Korzenko said she was concerned there could be an adverse impact to the wetlands while there was ongoing construction. Mrs. D. Hill asked if the septic system would be located outside the regulated area. Mr. Neff said the plans had not yet been finalized, but it would not be within the 100 ft. setback. Mr. Picton said this was an issue because the proposed court would occupy part of the existing septic area. He asked that the location of the new system also be included on the map. It was suggested a $3000 bond be posted to cover emergency remediation if needed. The Commissioners noted there were potential erosion problems along the perennial watercourse due to the proposed removal of invasives and the work proposed above the steep slopes.
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-25/Ten Single Family Dwellings: The public hearing was continued to June 22, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Adams/214 West Shore Road/#IW-05-27/Replace Drainage Pipe: Mr. Neff, engineer, briefly reviewed the proposal to replace the two existing 4" pipes with an 8" pipe and catch basin with 2 ft. sump, which he said would greatly improve the drainage and lessen the impact to the lake. Because the catch basin would be located on private property and so not routinely maintained by the state, it was the consensus to make annual cleaning a condition of approval.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-27 submitted by
Mr. Adams to replace the drainage pipe and
install a culvert at 214 West Shore Road per
the plans, "Proposed Drainage Improvements,"
by Mr. Neff, dated 4/25/05 subject to the
following conditions:
1. The catch basin must be cleaned out at
least once a year.
2. No additional work may be done on the north
side of the road.
By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Picton, and
passed 5-0.
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-28/Guest House and Driveway: The map and plans, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/9/05 and "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/20/05 were reviewed. It was noted the proposed driveway would pass through a regulated area and half of the proposed parking would be within 100 feet of wetlands to the NE. Mr. Neff, engineer, noted the drainage would flow away from the wetlands, pointed out a natural buffer of vegetation between the proposed activities and the wetlands, said the parking area would be gravel, and noted he had kept the parking further from the wetlands that were down gradient. Ms. Purnell was concerned about leaks and spills working their way into the ground and that winter plowing would disrupt the parking area. The Commissioners asked Mr. Neff to reconfigure the parking to get it further from the wetlands. He agreed to shorten the driveway as much as was reasonably possible.
Frisbee Farm Estates/61 Frisbee Road/#IW-05-29/First Cut and Development Plan: Mr. DePecol, owner, and Mr. Szymanski, engineer, were present. Mr. Picton noted a site inspection had been conducted and concerns had been raised about the proposed driveway. A set of maps, "Frisbee Farm Estates, LLC.," 8 sheets, by Mr. Howland, revised to 6/8/05 was reviewed. Mr. DePecol stated the plans had been revised and the wetlands flagged to address those concerns. The proposed driveway would cross wetlands at its narrowest point, which was approx. 100 ft. wide and also would cross three intermittent streams further up the hill. Mr. Szymanski detailed the proposed construction and stormwater management plans, which, he said, ensured the hydrological function of the wetlands would be maintained. He also reviewed the mitigation plan comprised of 80 2 to 4 foot plants, which would form a permanent barrier of vegetation along the driveway. The erosion control measures, which included water bars, silt fencing, hay bales, and an anti tracking pad were also reviewed. It was noted a detailed narrative had been submitted and the limit of disturbance was indicated on the plans. Mr. Szymanski then presented three alternate plans to address feasible and prudent alternatives. The amount of disturbance proposed varied from .28 acres of wetlands in Alternative #2 and 1.23 acres of regulated area in Alternative #2 to 0 acres of wetlands and .2 acres of regulated area in Alternative #3. A lengthy discussion regarding the alternatives ensued. Mr. LaMuniere noted the proposed 1100 ft. long driveway would be in the regulated area for almost its entire length. Mr. Picton did not think the driveway could be constructed without both short term and long term impacts to the wetlands and watercourses. He referred to the 6/1/05 site inspection minutes, which stated the sideslopes would be typically 2:1 and a lengthy section of the driveway would have a grade of 15, which he thought were extreme conditions in close proximity to the wetlands. Mr. Picton thought there were other places on the property that could be developed with no impact to the wetlands. Mr. DePecol said the wetlands would not be impacted because the construction would be done properly according to plan. He noted he was trying to create a three lot conservation "subdivision" rather than a more densely developed (6 or more lots) subdivision with ultimately a greater impact to the wetlands. He asked the Commission what it thought about deed restrictions prohibiting further subdivision. Ms. Purnell said a more sophisticated analysis would be required to determine whether that was a legitimate option. Mr. Picton thought that six houses that were not in the regulated area and were away from the steep slopes would have less impact than the original proposal. Ms. Purnell suggested this was a significant activity, which would merit a public hearing. Mr. LaMuniere thought the Commission had enough information to deny the application without holding a hearing. He made a motion to deny the application and Mr. Picton seconded it. Mrs. D. Hill and Ms. Purnell did not think the Commission had given the applicant adequate opportunity to address its concerns and to consider feasible and prudent alternatives. It was agreed they should have more time to study the matter and revise their plans. Mr. LaMuniere withdrew his motion. It was the consensus this was, indeed, a significant activity and that the Commission would wait until the June 22nd meeting to set a date for a public hearing.
New Applications
Whalen/138 Baldwin Hill Road/#IW-05-30/Stone Wall: The map, "Stonewall Reconstruction Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/23/05 was reviewed. Mr. Picton stated the application was a result of a violation of clearing in the wetlands. Mr. Whalen noted the vegetation cut in the wetlands was already growing back. Mr. Picton asked that the area cleared and the proposed limit of open area be shown on the map. He was also asked to show where the understory would be allowed to regrow, the existing edge of the lawn, and where the stones were located that would be removed to use on the wall. Mr. Whalen said he did not propose to do additional clearing and that what had already been done was to provide access for the proposed work on the stone wall. The planting plan by old Farm Nursery, dated Spring 2005 was reviewed. Mr. Picton stated the application did not include adequate detail and asked for a written narrative on how the work would be done, what kind of equipment would be used, what earth work would be done, etc. Mr. Whalen asked if he was entitled to an exemption under the state statutes. Ms. Purnell pointed out that Washington does not easily fit under this statute due to its soil based zoning regulations. The Commissioners will inspect the property on their own prior to the next meeting.
Croasdaile/67 River Road/#IW-05-31/Garden Maintenance: Mrs. D. Hill recused herself and Alternate Korzenko was seated. Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the property and the cut vegetation was growing back. Mr. Picton read the undated proposal signed by Mrs. Croasdaile and photos taken by the property owner showing the new growth were circulated. Mr. Ajello thought the measures proposed would be adequate to restabilize the disturbed area. Mr. Ajello will inspect the site again before the next meeting and if he determines there are no problems, the Commission will act at the next meeting.
Kappes/8 Christian Street/#IW-05-32/Deck: Mrs. D. Hill was reseated. Mr. Ajello said he had not yet inspected the site. It was noted the distance from the deck to the stream had not been provided, although it appeared to be only 20 to 30 feet away. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-33/Rebuild Pool Wall, Extend Parking Area: The map, "Proposed Plot Plan Map," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/12/05 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello explained all the recent applications for work on this property had not been coordinated because each project has a different contractor. Even so, the Commission urged the property owner to coordinate the applications so it could be better determined what the impacts to the wetlands would be. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to review the application for completeness and to ask the applicant to make every effort to keep parking and buildings out of the regulated area. Mr. Ajello will also request a planting plan for both the guest house and pool.
The Commission altered the agenda to accommodate those present.
Other Business
Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-01-08/ Request for Release of Bond: Mr. McNaughton submitted the 6/8/05 letter, which detailed the final restoration work completed, provided a long term maintenance schedule, and included the results of water tests. Based on this information, he asked for the release of the bond. It was noted Mr. Ajello, Ms. Coe, and Mr. LaMuniere had inspected the vernal pools. Ms. Purnell asked how the vegetation on the west side was doing, and Mr. LaMuniere said it was doing well on both sides. She then asked about the area between the rock lined swale and the area to the north. Mr. Ajello said it was thickly vegetated. Ms. Purnell was concerned about the cattails filling the detention basins because they were forming a monoculture. She said the area was supposed to be stabilized with a diversity of plants. She suggested Mr. McNaughton return to the Commission with an adaptive management plan. Ms. Purnell will evaluate the work done, check to make certain all the conditions of approval have been complied with, and have recommendations ready for the next meeting. Mr. McNaughton advised the Commission that at this stage he would not be receptive to additional requirements.
Meeker/269 New Milford Turnpike/Request to Revise Permit #IW-05-01
Outside Storage Structure: Mr. Meeker explained he was now applying to the Zoning Commission for the outside storage structure already approved by the Wetlands Commission. He said Zoning would prefer it be located closer to the stream where it would be less visible to adjoining property owners. Wetlands had approved a location 107 feet from the stream and the revised location was only 40 feet from the streambank. It was the consensus of the Commission that since pool chemicals would be stored in the structure, it should not be moved closer to the river. The Zoning Commission will be notified that Inland Wetlands will not approve the change in location and recommends instead that screening; lattice, fencing, potted plants, etc. be used to buffer it from the adjoining properties. Mr. Meeker's permit revision fee was returned to him.
Ross/24 Wilbur Road/Clarification of Permit #IW-04=59: Mr. Ross noted his approval had included the condition that no top soil be removed from the site in an attempt to prevent the spread of knotweed. The map, "Septic Plan," by Altermatt Engineering, LLC., revised to 10/26/05 was reviewed. Mr. Ross stated he would have 500 yards of excess top soil and would not be able to use it all on site. It was the consensus that all soil within 20 feet of the knotweed must remain on site and the rest could be removed.
Enforcement
Feola/84 Carmel Hill Road/Excavation in Wetlands: Mr. Ajello said he had received the following documents: 1) 6/3/05 letter from Mr. Duggins of 64 Woods Edge Road, Bethlehem and 2) a page from Mrs. Corrigan's 1999 vernal pool assessment. Mrs. Corrigan stated there is also evidence of a vernal pool on the aerial map and that she expected the adjoining property owners and the previous owners, the Desmonds, to submit statements that a vernal pool did, indeed, exist. She said the aerial map would not copy well, but urged the Commissioners to go to the Conservation Service office to inspect it. Ms. Purnell said the vernal pool was also indicated in the Natural Resource Inventory Report. Mrs. Corrigan advised the Commission that if it ordered the pool to be restored, the vegetation would have to be monitored. Mr. Picton noted the piles of black soil still on the property were evidence a watercourse had existed. It was the consensus that Mr. Ajello should issue an enforcement order to Mr. Feola and a Show Cause Hearing was scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on June 22, 2005 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Other Business
Town of Washington/6 Bryan Plaza//Modification of Permit
#IW-05-16/Replace Bridge: Mr. Sears summarized the conditions of approval regarding the ban of pressure treated materials in the construction of the bridge and asked that the condition be modified. He said the bridge was prefab and the manufacturer could not comply. At the previous meeting he had submitted information on the safety of pressure treated materials and stated if the approval were modified, all pressure treated elements would be sealed off site. He said he would look into the possibility of a double seal. Mrs. Korzenko reported on the hazards of pressure treated wood and said the proposal would likely cause only minimal, if any, impact to the watercourse. Mr. Picton noted it had not been proven it was safe, but also it had not been proven there would be an adverse impact. Ms. Purnell was concerned that the chemicals had not been proven to be safe and that there was not enough information upon which to base a decision.
MOTION: To approve the request to amend Permit #IW-05-16
issued to the Town of Washington to replace the
pedestrian bridge at 6 Bryan Plaza to allow the
bridge to be constructed of pressure treated
wood with a double coating of sealer to retard
the leaching of preservatives to be applied
off site prior to installation and with the
condition that there shall be no cutting of the
pressure treated material occurring over the
brook. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere,
and passed 4-1. Ms. Purnell voted No because
she did not think enough information had been
presented to make an informed assessment.
Washington Art Association/4 Bryan Plaza/Modification of Permit #IW-05-17/ Streambank Stabilization: Mrs. Sears submitted a plan, "Alternative #1 to River Bank Stabilization," by Land Tech Consultants, Inc., dated 6/1/05. He proposed stone slope paving instead of the previously approved gabion wall. The stone slope paved area would be 60 ft. long and would require less backfilling and less channelizing of the stream than the gabion wall. The method of installation was discussed. Mr. Picton noted the stones would taper off and would not encroach on the edge of the streambed.
MOTION: To approve the request to amend Permit #IW-05-17
issued to the Washington Art Association for
streambank stabilization at 4 Bryan Plaza to
permit stone slope paving per the plan,
"Alternate #1 to River Bank Stabilization," by
Land Tech Consultants, dated 6/1/05.
By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and
passed 5-0.
Pinover/Senff Road/Herbicide Application: Mr. Ajello had not yet inspected the property. He was asked to visit the site and report back so that the Commission could respond to the Pinover's letter.
Beck/132 Calhoun Street/#IW-02-V1: Mr. Beck had written to the Commission to request a final inspection so that this matter could be closed. Mr. Ajello was instructed to write to him to request the required report by Mrs. Corrigan. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 4:30 p.m.
Referral from the Town of New Milford/Meeker/60 Walker Road North/ Construct Farm Road and Curtain Drain: A computer drawn map was briefly reviewed. It was thought the proposed activities would not have an adverse impact on Washington.
MOTION: To go into Executive Session at 12:10 p.m.
to discuss pending litigation. By Mr. Picton,
seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end Executive Session at 12:16 p.m. By
Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Mrs. Gray, and
passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. D. Hill.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 12:16 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
May 25, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Gray, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Ms. Coe, Mrs. Korzenko
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Stiteler, Ms. Giddins, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Sabin, Atty. Sienkiewicz, Mrs. Weeks, Mr. Neff, Mr. Solley, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Sears, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Kleinberg, Mr. Fenwick, Mrs. Mitchell, Atty. Hammer, Mr. Antonios, Mr. Boling, Mr. Charles, Mr. Worcester, Mr. Zinick, Mr. Collins, Mrs. Matthews, Mr. Neff, Mr. DePecol, Mr. Dolph, Mr. Feola, Residents
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Stiteler-Giddins/198 Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road/
#IW-05-13/2 Lot Resubdivision/Continuation
Mr. Picton reconvened the public hearing at 5:02 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Korzenko for Mrs. Gray.
Mr. Picton noted one hour was scheduled for the hearing; 15 minutes for Commission business, 15 min. for submissions and summary by the applicant, 15 min. for public comment, and 15 min. for the wrap up. He referred to the complete list of documents in the file, which included all those cited at the first session of the hearing and all submitted at the hearing and afterwards.
Mr. Picton noted he had reinspected the property and had two questions: 1) What is the exact shape/location of the proposed house? and 2) Is the water that flows approx. 36 ft. from the NW corner of the house an intermittent stream or surface runoff?
Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted revised documents; 1) "The Proposed Site Development Plan," sheet 3 of 7, by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/25/05, Revision #4, 2) "Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/23/05, Revision #2, and 3) a letter dated 5/25/05 from Mr. Neff to the Commission, which addressed the questions raised at the first session of the hearing. The revisions to the site plan included 1) clarification of the location of an additional intermittent watercourse located at the NW side of the proposed house by the surveyor, 2) location of the rectangular shaped house, 3) the swath to be cut for the construction of the driveway was decreased to 20 ft., 4) the conduit was run down the center of the driveway to reduce the total disturbance, 5) watercourses were more clearly labeled, and 6) the stone wall had been removed from the map. Revisions to the erosion control plan included 1) deletion of the stockpile notes and piles because the excavated material will be immediately trucked off site, 2) addition of a note that the conduit will run down the center of the driveway, 3) addition of a cross section of the crown section of the driveway, 4) addition of notes re: the proposed vegetative buffer along the driveway, and 5) modification of the timing of the work to be done.
Mr. Neff stated he had recalculated the watershed area above the house to 4.6 acres and that the proposed curtain drain was adequately sized to handle the runoff. He also noted Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, had prepared a planting plan for the vegetated filtration buffer along the sides of the driveway.
Mr. LaMuniere asked how the runoff would be directed to the existing culvert. Mr. Neff explained it would flow over land to the vegetated buffers and then find its natural path to the wetland area and the culvert.
Mrs. D. Hill asked if the vegetated buffers were still 15 ft. wide on each side. Mr. Neff said, yes, this had not changed.
Ms. Purnell stated that based on comments from the Commission's consultant, the applicant was filling a watercourse for the driveway. Mr. Neff said the consultant had not definitively stated it was a watercourse and the applicants' consultant had submitted a letter, which stated it was not a watercourse.
Mr. Neff stated the proposed house footprint had been decreased slightly, but was still in the same area. Also the size of the porch on the west side of the house was now slightly smaller. Mr. Picton asked that the house site be restaked.
Mr. Picton noted the swale and vegetated buffers proposed as erosion controls would not be installed until after construction. Mr. Neff stated they would be installed before construction begins, but would not be effective for a few months until the vegetation has grown in.
Mr. Sabin submitted the plan, "Landscape Plan," 2 sheets by Mr. Sabin, dated 5/19/05 and 7 information sheets entitled, "New England Seed Mixes." He made the following points: 1) Native plants that will do well in both wetland and upland soils and that match those already on site would be used, 2) No mowed lawn areas were proposed, 3) New England erosion control mix was proposed for the wetter areas of the property, 4) The septic area would be planted with no mow fescue and with a New England blend wildflower mix around the edges, 5) The wildflower mix would also be planted around the house. He also spoke briefly on feasible and prudent alternatives, saying there were other sites for a small house further up the hill, but they were not prudent due to the location of wetlands and watercourses. He said there were headwaters and seeps in hard pan soils further up the hill, whereas, the proposed house site was on a "bottom flat" where it is somewhat open and only a short driveway is required. Mr. Picton asked if he had considered the non wetlands soils nearer to the existing house. Mr. Sabin said he had not because the applicants want access to the lake and due to the steep slopes, that would not be feasible. Ms. Purnell asked if the buffer area would require maintenance. Mr. Sabin said the herbaceous buffer would be brush hogged once every two to three years, watered the first year, and surrounded by deer fence until it is established. Mr. Picton requested a written maintenance plan. Ms. Purnell asked what would prevent the owners from installing a lawn. Mr. Sabin said that would be a regulated activity in areas that were clearly visible from the road. He pointed out the landscaping plan noted the woods were to remain.
Atty. Kelly asked that the hearing be continued if there was any additional information submitted so that the applicant would have an opportunity to address it. He noted there is already a letter dated 12/8/04, which addresses feasible and prudent alternatives, in the file. He also responded to a remark from Atty. Sienkiewicz at the first session of the hearing, that the applicants had just placed conservation easements on their property without getting prior approval, saying they had not needed approval to do so and the easements were not put where they are in order to force approval of a house at the proposed location. He said the conservation easements were totally restrictive and could not be amended, so a driveway through these parcels could not be considered. He submitted the 5/15/05 letter from Atty. Miles and a 4/21/2000 article from the Litchfield County Times regarding the status of Tinker Hill Road and spoke of how the property owners had cooperated with then First Selectman Chapin when he took the position that the Town would not improve the road. He noted, too, that Mr. Stiteler and Ms. Giddins had first tried to donate their lots to Steep Rock, but since it was not contiguous to other Steep Rock lands, their offer was refused. Finally, on the question of whether the driveway area is a swamp by definition, he stated the Town Inland Wetland Regulations require both swamp vegetation and very poorly drained soils, and therefore, the Commission had no basis for determining the area is a swamp.
The public commented.
Atty. Sienkiewicz, representing Mrs. Weeks, asked that the hearing be continued because he had not had the opportunity to review and comment on the material submitted this evening. He stated he was concerned about the nature of the proposed activity and asked the Commission to rule it a significant activity based on the testimony presented and its own observations. If found to be a significant activity, he said, the Commission could not approve the application unless the applicant shows "in a meaningful way" that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives. He said this had not been done as the applicant had not shown the Commission any other site plans, nor had it discussed the impacts of alternate site plans. He suggested a feasible and prudent alternative would be to access the building site from the top of the hill. He said the applicants would continually fight runoff during construction and that any erosion that occurred would empty into the lake. If the application is approved, he warned the Commission that very restrictive conditions regarding the limit of disturbance during and after construction would be needed. He noted the site is very constricted and feared the limit of disturbance would be expanded for activities such as boat storage and parking. He asked the following questions: 1) How would the discharge from the footing and roof drains be handled? 2) How will the water flowing from the swale around the house be handled, especially considering the increased size of the watershed? 3) With the crown of the driveway raised 8", he thought the driveway would act as a dam for surface runoff flowing west to east, and so asked how that runoff would be handled. 4) What was the purpose of the path shown on the landscaping plan; was it for traffic between the main house and the lake? 5) Is there a watercourse on the west side of the house? He noted with the new watercourse indicated on the map, the proposed house and part of the driveway were in a regulated area and so the application must be revised to show this encroachment. He said the Commission should be concerned about the outflow from the septic curtain drain, especially during high water times of the year. Mr. Picton asked Atty. Sienkiewicz to submit his comments in writing.
Mr. LaMuniere noted the labeling of the watercourse on the west side, the proposed swales, and the existing culvert and asked how the culvert could handle more water. Mr. Neff stated the development site was a relatively small area so there would not be a significant increase in the amount of water and the existing 15" pipe was adequate. He did note, however, the DOT should clean out both the catch basin and pipe. He also pointed out that the 8" driveway crown would direct the runoff in two directions so it would not be as concentrated. Mr. Picton was concerned the driveway crown would create a divide and change the direction of the flow.
If the Commission were to approve the application, Atty. Sienkiewicz stated it should include a condition to prevent the applicants from using the path as a through road as it had been created without any wetlands approvals and there are watercourses throughout the hillside. Ms. Purnell stated she had walked the entire property and had not seen a path. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to inspect the property for regulated activities.
Mr. Picton had previously asked Atty. Sienkiewicz for his comments in writing and he now asked Atty. Kelly to submit a written statement for the record, as well.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider
Application #IW-05-13 submitted by Mr.
Stiteler and Ms. Giddins for a two lot
resubdivision at 198 Tinker Hill Road and
West Shore Road to June 8, 2005 at 5:00 p.m.
in the Land Use Meeting Room. By Ms.
Purnell, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and
passed 5-0.
At 6:05 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the public hearing to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 8, 2005 in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Private Mortgage Fund, LLC./61 South Fenn Hill Road/#IW-05-12/ Construct Driveway
Mr. Picton reconvened the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Korzenko for Mrs. Gray.
Mr. Picton said one hour was scheduled for the hearing; 15 minutes for Commission business, 15 min. for submissions and summary by the applicant, 15 min. for public comment, and 15 min. for a wrap up. He noted the list of items in the file had been updated to include the documents submitted since the first session of the hearing. He stated approximately the first 45 minutes of the first session of the hearing had not been recorded, but that the minutes were thorough and accurate. Ms. Purnell suggested the applicant or the public could augment the minutes if they found them lacking.
Mr. Ajello noted the applicant had submitted a revised map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/25/05 with an expanded conservation easement area. Also submitted were; 1) "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/25/05, Revision #3, which showed the stockpile location closer to the proposed house site in order to preserve the wildflowers reported by Mr. Logan, 2) the 5/25/05 letter to the Commission from Mr. Neff, which stated the property is not located within a designated area on the Natural Diversity Data Base map as Mr. Logan had claimed, with a section of the map attached, and 3) "Proposed Site Development Plan - Boundary Line Revision," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/25/05 for reference purposes. Mr. Neff noted the intermittent watercourse that was not included on the previous map because it flowed through the center of the flagged wetland corridor was now indicated. Mr. Picton asked why the buffer area had not been shown on the map. Mr. Neff responded there was a separate application for the lot line revision and this was included there. Mr. Picton asked that the details for both applications be coordinated on the map.
Atty. Fisher disputed Atty. Hammer's claim that per Section 17.2 of the Zoning Regulations 4 Shinar Mountain Road was not a building lot. He stated 17.2 limits buildability, but does not automatically require that small non conforming lots be merged with any abutting lots and that this matter was not relevant to the Inland Wetlands driveway application.
Atty. Hammer submitted copies of Sections 2, 11, and 17 of the Zoning Regulations and a supplemental letter from Mr. Logan dated 5/25/05 and complained he had no opportunity to review the documents just submitted by the applicant. He said the applicant's claim that he has two lots, doesn't want more than two lots, and only wants to reconfigure the two lots he already has is incorrect because 4 Shinar Mountain Road does not comply with Section 17.2 or the minimum lot size requirements. He also stated map #1655 on the Town Land Records showed the 1.7 acre lot could support only .3 of a dwelling unit. Mr. Picton stated this was not a wetlands issue. He said the Commission would consider whether the proposed activities would have an adverse impact on the wetlands and it would be up to the Planning and/or Zoning Commissions to determine whether this was a legal building lot. Mr. Hammer disagreed, saying the applicant was using the argument that he already has two building lots to show he has no feasible and prudent alternatives. Mr. Picton stated the proposed lot line revision was not the subject of the hearing and asked that the focus return to the wetlands issues involving the proposed driveway.
Atty. Hammer made the following points: 1) REMA found deficiencies in the application, which have not yet been addressed. 2) Not all of the regulated setbacks were shown on the map. 3) No impact analysis was submitted regarding the quality of the existing wetlands resources and how the proposed activities would adversely impact them. 4) The applicant did not find out what significant species is located 100 yards across the street and this was a "fundamental gap" in the application. 5) In its latest report REMA concluded that the proposed site development would likely have adverse impacts to the wetlands and watercourses and would likely unreasonably pollute and destroy the site's natural resources. Mr. Picton asked for specific adverse impacts. Atty. Hammer said there was no exact narrative for the activities proposed so the specific impacts could not be determined. He stated that the impacts would depend on the type and number of trips of construction equipment, how the driveway is maintained, etc. There would be impacts, he stated, but the degree of the impacts to the quality of the wetlands had not been shown. He asked that the application be denied due to lack of information. He also said per Section 22a-19 of the state statues since there was the likelihood of a significant impact to the wetlands, the applicant was required to demonstrate to the Commission there are no feasible and prudent alternatives, and pointed out the alternative was having only one house site. Mr. Picton noted Atty. Hammer had not shown there would be a significant adverse impact to the wetlands, only that the applicant had not shown there would not be. He also noted that in his 5/25/05 report Mr. Logan had not stated exactly what the adverse impacts would be. He asked that Mr. Logan cite specific adverse impacts and specific questions for the applicant to address.
Mr. LaMuniere noted the driveway construction was the key issue and asked that the following questions be answered: 1) How will erosion be prevented? 2) How will the driveway be maintained? 3) What is the capacity of the roadbed? 4) How will spills be prevented? Mr. Neff stated cross sections of the proposed road construction had been submitted and the road base was composed of a good quality sand and gravel.
Ms. Purnell questioned why the Commission had asked for more information when a feasible and prudent alternative exists. Mr. Picton responded that the question was whether the proposed activity would result in a significant adverse impact to the wetlands, and if found to be insignificant, the proposed activity might be approved.
The public commented.
Mr. Baiocchi, adjoining property owner, pointed out that an unnamed brook that feeds into Fenn Brook cuts across the property. He agreed with Atty. Hammer that a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed plan of development exists. He said the existing farm road was used for lightweight farm equipment, not the heavy construction equipment that would be required to build a house. He did not think the applicant was entitled to two "expensive" houses.
Atty. Fisher again stated the small SE lot had not been merged with any other lot, but said it made sense not to develop it. He noted the property owner would place deed restrictions on the sensitive environmental areas. Regarding the construction of the proposed driveway, he stated that minimal excavation was required and there would be virtually no resulting impact to the wetlands or watercourses. He said the proposed activity was not significant and urged the Commission to consider the application as it had other driveway applications in the past.
Mrs. Korzenko and Mrs. D. Hill noted the issue to be considered was the proposed driveway crossing, not the lot line revision, which was a separate application.
There was a brief discussion regarding whether to continue the hearing. Mr. Neff and Atty. Fisher stated the application was complete and all the material requested by the Commission had been provided. Mr. Picton suggested the hearing be continued to give opponents a final opportunity to review and respond to the information submitted this evening. He asked, however, that all new information be submitted a week prior to the next session of the hearing so that the Commissioners would be able to review it.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider
Application #IW-05-12 submitted by The Private
Mortgage Fund, LLC. to construct a driveway at
61 South Fenn Hill Road to June 8, 2005 at
5:45 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room. By
Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mrs. Korzenko, and
passed 5-0.
At 6:54 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the public hearing to Wednesday, June 8, 2005 at 5:45 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
These public hearings were recorded on tape. The tapes are on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Korzenko for Mrs. Gray.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted
on the Agenda: 1) New Application: A. Frisbee
Farm Estates, LLC./61 Frisbee Road/#IW-05-29/
First Cut and Development Plan, 2) Other
Business: A. Dolph/219 Roxbury Road/Preliminary
Discussion/Single Family Dwelling, B. Town of Washington/6 Bryan Plaza/#IW-05-16/Replace
Bridge/Request to Amend Conditions of Approval,
C. DEP Aquatic Pesticide Permit: Mayflower Inn,
Rt. 47/Mayflower Pond and 3) Enforcement: Beck/
132 Calhoun Street/2/25/05/Request to Close File.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 5/25/05 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Under Also Present: Add: Mr./Mrs. Donnelly, Mr. Tagley.
Page 3: 2nd paragraph: Change first sentence to: ...suitable for the proposed driveway base, which will consist of 16" of medium and coarse sand rising to 40" of depth at the culvert.
3rd paragraph: Change second sentence to: ...from a very restricted location to a site that would meet all Health and Zoning requirements.
4 lines from bottom: Change "corner parcel" to "both properties."
Page 4: 15th line: Add "that" after "consensus."
Paragraph above motion: Change "adjoining property owner" to "neighboring property owner."
Page 5: Throughout: Correct spelling is Mr. Allan.
#11: Add "to superior court" after "appeal."
Page 6: #25: Clarify Mrs. J. Hill.
Page 8: End of 6th line: Mr. Bushnell should be Mt. Bushnell.
Pages 9: second line from bottom and 11: #8: Clarify the total width is 40 feet.
Page 14: 13th line under Sarjeant: Change to: ...largest threat was sediment and runoff from the site....
15th line under Sarjeant: Change "toe" to tow."
Page 15: 4th line under Rosen: Delete "to" after "The court would."
6th line under Rosen: Change "wetland" to "watercourse."
14th line under Rosen: Delete "be planted to."
Page 16: 9th line under Murgio: Change "it" to "there."
Page 17: 3rd line from bottom of long paragraph: Change "would" to "could."
Page 19: Under Herbicide Applications: The term, "instream pond" should be used throughout.
MOTION: To accept the 5/11/05 Regular Meeting/Public
Hearing minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Korzenko,
Seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
The 5/17/05 Matthews site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. The correct spelling of perc test was noted.
MOTION: To accept the 5/17/05 Matthews site inspection
minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded
by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. LaMuniere
abstained because he had not attended.
The 5/17/05 Myfield, LLC. site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. The correct spelling of road was noted.
MOTION: To accept the 5/17/05 Myfield, LLC. site
inspection minutes as amended. By Mrs. Korzenko,
seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
H.O.R.S.E. of Ct./43 Wilbur Road/#IW-04-57E/Construct Sheds and Fence: It was reported that Mrs. Wahlers had met with Mrs. Johnson and was receptive to the management recommendations made. She agreed to reduce the use of the pastures adjacent to wetlands during the wet seasons, will establish a 35 foot vegetated buffer zone for all watercourses, and will move fences to provide buffer areas. Mrs. Wahlers will submit a revised plan as soon as possible.
Private Mortgage Fund, LLC./61 South Fenn Hill Road/#IW-05-12/ Construct Driveway: The public hearing was continued to Wednesday, June 8, 2005 at 5:45 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Stiteler-Giddins/198 Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road/#IW-05-13/ 2 Lot Resubdivision: The public hearing was continued to June 8, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room
Private Mortgage Fund, LLC./61 South Fenn Hill Road and 4 Shinar Mountain Road/Lot Line Revision: Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted the map, "Proposed Site Development Plan - Boundary Line Revision," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/25/05, Revision #4. The revisions to the map included; 1) addition of a watercourse, 2) relocation of the stockpile area, and 3) the addition of deed restricted areas. Mr. Neff explained 1.69 acres on the SE corner of the property would be deed restricted where no construction or cutting of wetlands vegetation would be permitted. Also, a 20 to 40 ft. wide deed restricted strip along the east side of the wetlands, where no wetlands vegetation could be cut was proposed. These restricted areas would be permanently marked on site. The trade-off, he said, would be a building site at the NE corner of 61 South Fenn Hill Road, which would not require a wetlands crossing. Mr. Neff stated this overall plan for the two properties was better than the two existing lots. In response to Atty. Hammer's earlier statement that 4 Shinar Mountain Road did not meet the residential density requirements, Mr. Neff said this lot pre existed that revision of the Zoning Regulations. Ms. Purnell thought there could be more disturbance with a 4 BR house on the NE site than by a 2 BR house on the SE site. Mr. Neff admitted the SE site was tight, but noted the septic system was entirely out of the setback area. He added that the NE site was further from wetlands. Ms. Purnell said approval of the lot line revision would create an interior lot with an access through wetlands. She said this was unprecedented. Mr. Picton pointed out there were many subdivisions approved with wetlands crossings. Ms. Purnell argued that this was different because it was a lot line revision proposed for property, which had already been through the subdivision process. Mrs. Korzenko noted the Commission had recently approved the Matthews lot line revision, which required a wetlands crossing. Ms. Purnell stated that application had a lesser impact and the Commission had always tried to minimize impacts. Mrs. Korzenko said the Commission was charged with balancing the long term protection of the environment with economic development and because the property could support two houses, it should be able to be developed. Ms. Coe asked what would prevent the owners from cutting to create a view of the field. Mr. Picton asked if the owners would object to an easement on both sides of the wetlands, saying he would like to buffer both sides with a no cut zone and to place a note on the map that all activities including cutting of vegetation and disturbance of soil within 100 feet of wetlands are regulated. Mr. Neff did not know whether the owners would agree. Mr. Picton also said it was important to let the meadow on the east side of the property regrow. Ms. Purnell noted the deed restrictions would not be recorded on the land records. Mrs. J. Hill suggested that the recording of the deed restriction be made a condition of approval and Mr. Neff noted the deed restrictions and notes would be placed on the mylar, which would be filed in the Town Clerk's Office. Mr. Picton noted one condition of approval could be that the SE corner lot would not be developed. Most of the Commissioners agreed they were ready to act on the application. Possible conditions of approval included: 1) the ROW on the mylar be labeled right of way for all purposes in favor of the abutting lot to the west, 2) in the area between the central wetlands and the western most building site, a note be placed prominently on the mylar that all activities, including cutting of vegetation and disturbance of soil, within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses are subject to the jurisdiction of the Inland Wetlands Commission, 3) the edge of the 100 foot regulated area shall be clearly marked during construction, 4) no cutting or removal of native vegetation is permitted within 25 feet of the wetlands, and 5) the Commission chairman shall sign the mylar, which will include all of the above referenced stipulations, prior to filing it on the land records. Mr. Ajello noted that if the lot line revision were approved, the Commission would, in effect, be approving the driveway application, too. Mr. Picton said with the completion of the public hearing and if all the driveway specs adequately provided wetlands protection and the Commission determined there would be no significant adverse impact to the wetlands the driveway application could be approved. It was the consensus to wait until the public hearing for #IW-05-12/Driveway was completed before acting on #IW-05-18/Lot Line Revision. The clerk was asked to write a draft motion of approval based on all the conditions discussed.
Matthews/142 Upper Church Hill Road/#IW-05-23/Reconstruct and Extend Driveway: The map, "Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/6/05 was reviewed. Mr. Neff said there had been no revisions since the last meeting. Mr. Picton noted while on the site inspection, the Commissioners had not been able to find the property line and so had not been able to determine whether there were wetlands in the vicinity of the new house site. Mrs. Matthews said it would not be known exactly where a new house would be built until the lot is sold. Ms. Purnell noted if there was no agreed upon location for the house, the driveway extension might ultimately need to go in a different direction than that applied for in the current application, resulting in needless clearing. Mr. Neff briefly discussed the proposed driveway work. Repairs would be done to the existing 10 ft. wide surface, 6" of gravel would be added on top, and one culvert would be installed, but no shoulders were proposed. Mr. Picton suggested the Commission act on the driveway repairs first and on the driveway extension when a site development plan is finalized. He asked that the center line of the driveway and property line be flagged so that either he or Mr. Ajello could make a more informed inspection prior to the next meeting.
Rosen/302 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-05-24/Tennis Court: Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, represented the applicant. He noted at the site inspection the area below the court and the recharge gallery had been discussed. Mr. Sabin pointed out the exact area where he proposed to remove invasive species, what native species would be planted, and where the beds and lawn would be located. He noted the regrading required for the pool installation would come to 30 feet of the wetlands and 40 feet of the stream. Mr. Picton noted there would be a 28% slope and asked if there was any way to get the filled slope away from the stream. He, Mrs. Korzenko, and Ms. Purnell thought deposition of fill only 30 feet from the wetlands could cause potential impacts and suggested that alternative locations be investigated. Mr. Sabin said he wanted to keep the filled area away from the septic area and to make it mowable, but said he could move it back 8 feet, increase the distance of the tow of the slope to the stream to 55 feet, and move the recharge gallery up slope. Mr. Sabin noted the paved part of the court would be 70 feet from the wetlands. Mr. Picton and Ms. Coe noted there is an alternate site for the court up the hill behind the house. Mr. Sabin said the owners want to use the existing accessory building near the proposed court as a recreational facility. Maintenance requirements were briefly discussed. Ms. Purnell noted if the lawn was eliminated there would be no need for herbicides. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Sabin to submit an improved plan that would keep the proposed activity as far as possible from the wetlands and stream because the Commission was not comfortable with the current one. It was also noted the DEP form had not been submitted.
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-25/10 Single Family Dwellings: Mr. Boling and Mr. Worcester represented the applicants. They submitted the revised map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex with buildings, roads, and grading added by Mr. Worcester, revised to 5/23/05. The revisions made were based on comments made at the site inspection voicing concern about the proximity of the proposed structures to the wetlands. The row of the seven larger houses was moved 30 feet farther from the wetlands, which reduced the amount of excavation required on the hillside. Mr. Worcester pointed out the silt fence line, which was the proposed limit of disturbance and noted now three of the buildings were completely outside the regulated area. Mr. Boling said there would be no clearing beyond the stone wall where a conservation easement area would be located. Ms. Purnell asked that a written list of the revisions made be submitted for the file. Mr. Boling explained porches had been added to the dwellings so the lot coverage had increased lightly and the lot envelope had increased so the open space area decreased to 75%. Mr. Picton stated he preferred there be no structures or soil disturbance within 100 feet of the wetlands. Mr. Boling said the applicants were trying to preserve the viewshed and the farm field and balance these with the need to preserve the wetlands. Alternatives were briefly discussed. It was noted the property could be subdivided into three lots with three dwelling units each. Mr. Picton noted another alternative would be to delete one or two houses. Mr. LaMuniere asked that the property be more clearly marked so that members could go out again individually before the start of the public hearing. Mr. Picton said the application would be referred as soon as possible to Land Tech for a review, which would include an impact assessment and drainage review, and asked Mr. Ajello to draft a letter of instruction to accompany the application materials. Mr. LaMuniere noted the application included a plan by Mrs. Corrigan for the removal of the invasive species and asked if this would be the responsibility of the homeowners' association. Mr. Boling noted a rough draft of the proposed conservation easement had been submitted.
Murgio/21 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-05-26/Clear Brush: Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the property and thought the proposed clearing would have no significant impact on the wetlands. He noted when the lot is developed and a complete driveway proposed, a second application will be submitted. The clearing would be done by hand, the brush piled on the property, and would come within 30 feet of the wetlands. Mr. Picton asked if there was a better alternate location for the driveway that did not come so close to the wetlands. Mr. Ajello said that the driveway location was limited due to stone walls and ledge. The map, "Property/Boundary Survey, First Cut," by Mr. Alex, dated May 2005 and the map detail showing the portion of the right of way to be cleared were reviewed. Mr. Picton asked that the entire 50 ft. width of the right of way not be cleared and Mr. Charles noted he was applying for only a 15 ft. wide path. Mr. Picton asked him to draw in the 15 ft. wide oorridor on the map, label, and date it.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-26 submitted by
Mr. and Mrs. Murgio to clear brush for a 12 ft.
wide driveway access at 21 New Preston Hill
Road per the drawing amended on 5/25/05 by Mr.
Charles. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr.
LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Adams/214 West Shore Road/#IW-05-27/Replace Drainage Pipe: Mr. Neff, engineer, was present. The map, "Driveway Drainage Improvements," by Mr. Neff, dated 4/25/05 and photos of the current conditions were reviewed. Mr. Neff stated the new pipe and culvert are needed because the existing pipes are too small and keep plugging up. Ms. Purnell asked if a maintenance schedule was proposed. Mr. Picton asked that a note be placed on the plan stating that yearly cleaning of the catch basin is required. Mr. Ajello will inspect the site prior to the next meeting.
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-28/Guest House and Driveway: Mr. Neff, engineer, reviewed the proposal to construct a guest house and driveway on the northern part of the property in an open mowed field. He said no wetlands crossing was required. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, June 1, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Picton asked that a larger scale map be submitted.
Frisbee Farm Estates, LLC./61 Frisbee Road/#IW-05-29/First Cut and Development Plan: Mr. Ajello noted this application had been submitted too late to review before the meeting. Mr. DePecol submitted a revised set of maps, "Proposed First Cut Map," by Mr. Howland, 9 sheets, dated 5/23/05 (some sheets revised to 5/25/05). He proposed the creation of three large lots from the 66 acre parcel, which, he said, according to the density calculations, could be divided into eight lots. He said he would donate a conservation easement to Steep Rock. Ms. Purnell asked if there was any way to access the proposed lot without crossing wetlands or if a bridge could be considered. Mr. DePecol stated a bridge was not feasible. Mr. Picton asked whether there were any other possible building sites that would not require a wetlands crossing. He said the Commission must consider the best protection of the wetlands and not where the applicant prefers to place conservation easements. Mr. DePecol stated under the three lot proposal, the only way to access the first cut lot required a wetlands crossing. Ms. Purnell requested a feasibility plan for the 8 lot scenario as part of the review of feasible and prudent alternatives. Mr. DePecol briefly reviewed the proposed driveway plans, pointing out the locations of the crossings where culverts are required. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, June 1, 2005 at 4:45 p.m.
Other Business
Dolph/219 Roxbury Road/Preliminary Discussion/Single Family Dwelling: Mr. Dolph noted he wants to build a house with a larger footprint than the one originally approved by the Inland Wetlands Commission. However, the property owner did not come to the meeting with the plans and so the discussion could not take place.
Town of Washington/6 Bryan Plaza/#IW-05-16/Replace Bridge: Mr. Sears read his 5/24/05 letter in which he stated the Town could not comply with condition #1 of Permit #IW-05-16 and asked that the condition be removed so the project could proceed. He proposed a bridge made of pressure treated material, which would be sealed off site. Mr. Picton noted this would be the "new" pressure treated wood that was not as dangerous as the old type, that the minute amount of leachate would be quickly dilluted, and that the bridge would not be in the water or on wet ground. Ms. Purnell voiced her concern about the fresh water organisms that are sensitive to the chemicals that leach from the pressure treated wood. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the railings could be metal and Ms. Purnell asked if recycled materials could be used. Mr. Sears said the structure proposed is prefab. He noted he had attached 18 pages of information on the standards for the treatment of pressurized wood and asked the Commission to review it before the next meeting. Mr. Ajello was also asked to review and comment on the information.
Enforcement
Feola/Carmel Hill Road/Excavation in Wetlands: Mr. Ajello noted the details of this matter were provided on page 2 of his enforcement report. Mr. Feola was present and stated he had cleared the understory and "cleaned the forest floor" on his property and had been unaware there were any wetlands in this area. He said the Health Department had been on site and had not indicated to him there were wetlands and his licensed septic installer said based on the perc tests, he found it was difficult to believe there were any wetlands on the property. Ms. Purnell noted the Town Sanitarian is not a soil scientist. He said there was an old well that he removed because it was a safety hazard and that he thought the vernal pools the Commission thought he filled were in the rear of his property. Ms. Purnell noted there is an extensive vernal pool system in the area. Mr. Feola agreed there are vernal pools across the street, but stated his property had no connection to them. Mr. Feola submitted a map, "Property Survey," by Berkshire Engineering, dated 4/8/05, which showed the location of the old stone well. He noted before he had excavated there had been an impression, which collected runoff. Mr. Picton noted the soils map showed a swamp symbol for this location and that the Commission was still waiting for vernal pool information from Mrs. Corrigan. He asked the Commissioners to inspect the property on their own prior to the next meeting.
DEP Pesticide Permit Application: It was noted this application was for the Mayflower Pond, which is an instream pond. In general the Commission does not support the use of chemicals in streams and asked the clerk to send a letter to the state and to the property owner to explain alternate measures that can be taken.
Croasdaile/67 River Road: Mr. Ajello said he had written to Mrs. Croasdaile to request an application and plans for preventing the erosion of the steep slope.
Beck/132 Calhoun Street: Mr. Beck had sent a letter to the Commission stating the invasives had been removed as ordered and asking that the file be closed on this matter. Several Commissioners thought the property was supposed to be monitored for invasives for three years. It was noted a final report from Mrs. Corrigan, botanist, had not been submitted. Mr. Ajello will review the file and list all the information needed and inspect the site before the next meeting.
Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Ajello noted Mr. McNaughton will attend the next meeting to discuss the completion of the work done and the release of the bond. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to inspect the property and the vernal pools prior to the next meeting.
Fowler/Nichols Hill Road: There has been no new information submitted since this issue was last discussed. Mr. Ajello was asked to contact Mr. Fowler directly.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road: There has been no new information submitted.
Logging Operation/Romford Road: It was noted Mr. Cannavaro had complained to the Land Use Office about this activity. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to monitor the project and check the erosion controls and to make sure it is progressing as approved.
Bolek/East Shore Road: Mr. Ajello said he had reviewed this file with Mr. Bolek and had asked him to draw up a proposal.
Hill/71 River Road/Removal of Invasives: Mrs. D. Hill said she would like to cut the Japanese knotweed growing at the edge of her property, but noted there is a small stream in the vicinity. Ms. Purnell recommended the application of an herbicide to the stem. Mrs. Hill said she had planned to cut it. Mrs. Korzenko thought, and the other Commissioners agreed, this could be considered landscaping maintenance and asked the EO to monitor the work done.
Pinover/Senff Road: Mr. Ajello had been asked to inspect the property because the Commission was not sure which pond the Pinovers proposed to apply pesticides to. Mr. Picton asked him to check this out so that the Commission can respond to their letter.
Town of New Milford/Walker Brook Farm Subdivision/Rt. 109: Mr. LaMuniere and Ms. Purnell attended the 5/12/05 public hearing and noted the next session is scheduled for June 9th. They will work further on specific questions and recommendations, but complained so far they have received only vague answers to questions raised.
Seminar: It was noted there would be a stormwater management seminar in Cornwall on 5/26/05.
MOTION: To enter into Executive Session at 10:29 p.m. to
Discuss pending litigation: Reinhardt/10 Perkins
Road. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and
passed 5-0.
MOTION: To close Executive Session at 10:44 p.m. By
Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Korzenko.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
May 11, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
MEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. Gray
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Ms. Coe, Mrs. Korzenko
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, Mrs. Mitchell, Atty. Hammer, Mr. Fenwick, Mrs. Roberts, Atty. Kelly, Mr./Mrs. Baiocchi, Mrs. VonHoorn, Mrs. Frank, Mr. Sears, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Wellings, Mr. Charles, Mr. Boling, Mrs. Weeks, Mr. Sabin, Mrs. Matthews, Mr./Mrs. Klein, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Dirienzo, Atty. Sienkiewicz, Mr. Kleinberg, Mr. Jack Johnson, Mr. E. Johnson, Public, Press
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Private Mortgage Fund, LLC./61 South Fenn Hill Road/#IW-05-12/ Driveway
Mr. Picton called the public hearing to order at 6:00 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Korzenko for Mrs. Gray. Mrs. D. Hill read the legal notice published in the Waterbury Republican on 4/29 and 5/7/05.
Mrs. Hill read the 5/11/05 letters of authorization from Mr. Antonios for Atty. Fisher, Mr. Neff, and Mr. Fenwick. She then noted for the record the following documents in the file:
1. Application #IW-05-12 dated 3/25/05
2. Legal Notice dated 4/28/05
3. Notification of public hearing sent by certified mail to Private Mortgage Fund, LLC. dated 4/28/05
4. Letter from Atty. Hammer dated 4/27/05
5. Notice of Intervention, undated
6. Statement from Mrs. Mitchell requesting copies of paperwork be sent to Atty. Hammer, undated
7. Letter from REMA Ecological Services to Atty. Hammer, dated 4/27/05
8. Resume for Mr. George Logan, REMA
9. Letter from Loureiro Engineering, Assoc. to the Inland Wetlands Commission, dated 4/27/05
10. Resume for Mr. Jeffrey Loureiro
11. portion of Roxbury Quad Map, #62
12. Letter of authorization from Mr. Antonios for Mr. Neff, undated
13. DEP Activity Reporting Form
14. 3/23/05 WEO Report
15. Minutes of the 4/6/05 Site Inspection
16. 4/13 and 4/27/05 Minutes
17. "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 3/15/05
18. "Proposed Site Development Plan-Boundary Line Revision," by Mr. Neff, revised to 4/26/05
19. "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System," by Mr. Neff, dated 3/7/05
20. Minutes of the 3/23/05 Meeting (weren't in file, but will be included)
21. Office memo dated 4/29/05 by Mr. Ajello and Mr. Picton to discuss issues
Atty. Hammer asked for a copy of the 4/29/05 memo.
The Commission Members cited their backgrounds and qualifications for the record.
Mr. Neff submitted additional documents:
1. Report by Nutmeg Soil Services, dated 8/28/04
2. Letter from Mr. Neff to the Inland Wetlands Commission responding to the 4/27/05 letter from Loureiro Engineering.
3. Copies of the "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," revised to 5/10/05 addressing concerns raised at the last meeting by the Commission.
Mr. Neff discussed some of the information included in his submissions. He noted test holes adjacent to the existing culvert and 40 feet west of the culvert had been witnessed by the Town Sanitarian and a summary of the findings was attached. Also included were calculations for the capacity of the culvert and watershed calculations from the east and west sides of the watercourse, which took into account the development possibilities. He found the existing culvert exceeded the capacity required for two fully developed house sites to handle a 100 year storm. He noted he had included the existing house to the north of the property in the calculations.
Ms. Purnell asked if there was additional information on wetlands off the site to the north of the property. Mr. Neff stated an intermittent stream from the north, which connects to the wetlands was included, but there had been no investigation conducted on other properties. Mr. Picton asked if the wetlands followed the stone wall on the other property. Mr. Neff did not think it did. Mr. Baiocchi asked if his spring rights were noted on the map. Ms. Purnell indicated the spring was shown.
Mr. Neff reported the farm road was very suitable for the driveway base, consisting of 16" of medium and coarse sand and gravel and 40" deep at the culvert. He noted cross sections of the driveway and the stone walls at the north and south ends of the culvert were provided on the erosion control plan and said the existing culvert was heavy duty reinforced concrete pipe, which was also suitable for the driveway.
Alternatives were discussed. Mr. Neff noted there was a separate application for a lot line revision, which, if approved, would move a second potential house site to a very restricted location on the other lot owned by the Private Mortgage Fund. He said this house site would meet all Health and Zoning requirements. Mr. Picton noted, however, there was an existing approved house site on the east side of the parcel (61 Fenn Hill Road), which required no wetlands crossing and would cause no additional impact to any wetlands or watercourse.
Mr. LaMuniere said the report by REMA identified additional possible wetlands on adjoining properties and asked Mr. Neff if he had investigated these claims. Mr. Neff said he had submitted Mr. Temple's 8/04 report to address this. Atty. Fisher stated adjoining property owners could not be compelled to allow wetlands inspections on their properties and asked what the likelihood was that the proposed development would impact the property to the north. Mr. Neff stated the leaching fields would run east to west, not directly down to the watercourse, and the Health Dept. had approved the septic system. Mr. Baiocchi stated a pond on the adjoining property had not been considered and Ms. Purnell asked Mr. Neff to determine whether it was located within the regulated area.
Atty. Fisher noted it had been established that the corner lot, 4 Shinar Mountain Road, is a building lot, but if the Commission approved the lot line revision, the corner lot would not be built on. It was noted this lot goes back to at least 1943 and meets all the Zoning and Health requirements including density calculations. Mr. Neff stated approval of the lot line revision application would eliminate the possibility of feasible and prudent alternatives in the NE corner of the site.
Mr. Picton suggested features of the lot line revision application could work as mitigation for the impact of resurfacing the driveway in the first application, and in doing so a bad building site could be replaced with a better one. He requested a comprehensive plan for wetlands protection on the corner parcel. Mr. LaMuniere asked for a permanent conservation easement. Ms. Purnell cautioned that impact to wetlands and watercourses should not increase due to the lot line revision. She asked whether one 2 BR house or one 4 BR house would have more impact. Ms. Korzenko pointed out the wetlands crossing already exists.
Atty. Hammer, representing Mrs. Mitchell, adjoining property owner, complained that he did not have an opportunity to review the information submitted this evening, and so requested the hearing be continued. He argued that the 1.72 acre corner lot was not a legal building lot per Section 17.2 of the Zoning Regulations. He also argued this lot did not meet the density requirements because it would yield only .34 of a dwelling unit and would require activity within the regulated area if developed.
(At this point, it was noted that due to technical difficulties the hearing had not been recorded as required by statute.)
Atty. Hammer requested the first part of the hearing be repeated so a transcript could be produced rather than relying on the clerk's notes. It was the consensus the hearing would be continued to the next meeting and would be repeated in its entirety and that the public would be given the opportunity to speak tonight.
Atty. Hammer noted his client is an intervener and asked for simultaneous receipt of all information submitted to the Commission and for copies of everything already submitted.
Mr. Logan, environmental scientist hired by Mrs. Mitchell, stated he had issues with the baseline information submitted by the applicant. 1) He noted an intermittent watercourse, which was flagged by the applicant's consultant, was not shown on the map. 2) He conducted water testing and found the water quality was very good. 3) He found mainly grassland species of wildlife on site. 4) He found "rare and uncommon" wildflowers in the rock outcrop area where the stockpile site was proposed. He said the stockpiling of material here would destroy the wildflower community and recommended the Natural Diversity Data Base Map and the DEP be consulted.
Mrs. Roberts, adjoining property owner, requested that if the driveway is approved, the Commission require it not be blacktopped as a condition of approval.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider
Application #IW-05-12 submitted by The
Private Mortgage Fund, LLC. for a driveway
at 61 South Fenn Hill Road to May 25, 2005
at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room,
Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mrs. Hill,
seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
At 8:12 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the public hearing to Wednesday, May 25, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Stiteler-Giddins/198 Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road/ #IW-05-13/2 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Picton called the public hearing to order at 8:15 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Korzenko for Mrs. Gray. Mr. Picton read the legal notice published in the Waterbury Republican on 4/29 and 5/7/05.
Mr. Picton referenced all the documents in the file:
1. All minutes pertaining to this application and to the original application,
2. 5/5/05 letter from Land Tech Consultants to the Commission to respond to technical questions from the Chairman
3. 4/14/05 email to Mr. Allan from Mr. Picton
4. 5/10/05 letter from Mr. Alex to Mr. Neff
5. 4/28/05 certified letter to Mr. Stitler and Ms. Giddins from Mrs. Hill re: notification of the public hearing
6. 4/18/05 letter from Mr. Wellings and Ms. Baldwin to the Commission
7. 4/13/05 letter from Ms. Baldwin to the Commission re: expert on vernal pools
8. 4/14/05 memo from Mr. Picton to Mr. Allen
9. Petition for public hearing with at least 25 signatures for second submission
10. 4/12/05 memo from Land Tech to Mr. Ajello and Mr. Picton
11. Appeal of the first application, which was denied without prejudice due to lack of information
12. "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 10/7/04
13. evidence of certified mailing from Mrs. Weeks to Mr. Ajello
14. 4/12/05 letter from Land Tech to the Commission
15. 10/1/04 letter from Mr. Stiteler and Ms. Giddins to Commission authorizing Mr. Neff to represent them
16. 3/23/05 letter from Atty. Kelly to Commission re: enforcement matter
17. 3/17/05 signed agreement Mr. Neff to pay for consultants' fees
18. copy of check #3085 for consultants' fees
19. 3/18/05 letter from Mr. Neff to Commission re: resubmission of application - Mr. Picton noted all documents associated with the original application were included in the file for the second.
20. 3/8/05 summons to Superior Court
21. "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/19/05
22. "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 10/7/04
23. first application received 10/13/04
24. DEP Activity Reporting Form, undated
25. 2/18/05 letter from Mrs. Hill to applicants re: notification of denial without prejudice
26. 2/18/05 legal notice published in Voices 0n 2/23/05
27. 1/26/05 letter from Atty. Kelly to the Commission
28. 1/24/05 letter from Land Tech re: estimate of fee
29. 1/14/05 letter from Mrs. Weeks re: activity in and near wetlands
30. petition with 32 signatures received 1/24/05 (received too late for public hearing)
31. 1/21/05 cover letter from Mr. Neff re: his review of REMA report and revised site development plan
32. Report of Conservation Comm. site inspection received 1/20/05
33. 1/13/05 letter from Mr. Picton to Mr. Jontos requesting review
34. 1/13/05 memo from Mrs. Hill to Mr. Neff re: copies of new documents
35. copy of USGS map with location of property noted
36. 1/12/05 report from REMA to Mrs. Weeks
37. 1/5/05 letter from Mrs. Hill to Northwest Conservation District requesting review
38. 12/16/04 letter from Mr. Neff to Commission re: request for 65 day extension
39. 12/8/04 letter from Mr. Neff to Commission re: responses to questions raised at previous meeting
40. 4 deeds of conservation easements for contiguous lots owned by the applicants
41. 11/1/04 site inspection report
42. 11/06/04 letter from Mrs. Weeks to Commission
43. 11/16/04 email from Mrs. Weeks to Commission re; her concerns
44. 11/1/04 notice of scheduling of site inspection
45. 11/22/04 report by Nutmeg Soil Services
46. USDA soil map with property outlined
47. 3/18/05 letter from Mrs. Hill to Atty. Zizka re: communications concerning court case
48. "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated 6/04, received 12/7/04
49. "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised 5/9/05
50. "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 10/7/05, revised to 1/20/05
51. "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 10/10/04, revised to 1/19/05
52. "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 10/10/04
53. "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 10/7/04, revised to 12/8/04
For reference, Mr. Neff submitted the original report by Nutmeg Soil Services covering inspections conducted on 12/31/1999 and 1/2/00 and a Soil Report Amendment dated 9/29/03. He said he would try to get a copy of the sketch map that originally accompanied this report. He then briefly summarized the proposal to create a 12.87 acre lot with frontage on West Shore Road from the existing 72.22 acre lot with house. He submitted sheet 3 of 7 of the "Proposed Site Development Plan," revised to 5/9/05. He proposed to install a vegetative filter to run along both sides of the proposed driveway to serve as a stormwater management system for the runoff flowing down the hillside. He noted an underground filtration system was not feasible due to the seasonal high water table. He said a small scale, 2 BR house was proposed with a constricted lawn area. The septic system would be installed on the hill above the house and had been approved by the Health Department.
Mr. Picton asked if the vegetative filters would be installed prior to the start of construction. Mr. Neff said, no, there would be temporary erosion controls up during construction. Mr. LaMuniere noted the runoff would be concentrated and asked how it would be taken off site. Mr. Picton asked for a cross section and Mr. Neff agreed to submit one. Mr. Neff stated there was no proposal to regrade the sides of the driveway, which would be buffered with herbaceous, woody plants as a landscape architect advises. Ms. Purnell asked if the installation of the vegetative filters would require that more trees be cut. Mr. Neff said it would not; that some of the lawn would be eliminated.
Mr. Neff reported that Mr. Alex and Mr. Temple had reinspected the property to identify the additional intermittent watercourse noted by Mr. Allen of Land Tech. They did not find it, however, and stand by their original mapping. One wetlands flag that had been omitted from the map will be added. Mr. Picton submitted the 4/12/05 photo, which showed the watercourse or surface runoff Mr. Allen had referred to. Its location was midway up the east side of the proposed driveway.
Mr. Picton noted Land Tech's 5/5/05 comments were included in the record.
There were the following comments from the public.
- Mrs. Frank, Conservation Commission, asked how wide the vegetative buffer would be. Mr. Neff said it would be 15 feet wide. Mrs. Frank then asked if it would still be necessary to cut down so many trees. Mr. Neff said, yes, the trees originally proposed to be cut would be cut and that area replanted with the buffer.
- Mrs. Sutter, West Shore Road, asked for the size of the proposed house. Mr. Neff said it was 2 stories, 30' X 50' with a 50' X 8' porch; 3000 sq. ft. total.
- Mr. Wellings, West Shore Road, asked if the new lot would have lake rights. Mr. Neff explained the 12.87 lot would include the lake frontage across the road.
- Mrs. Weeks, adjoining property owner, stated there was an ecological reason why the property had not previously been developed; that it was a wet drainage basin for Mr. Bushnell. She said it was wet three quarters of the year and subject to tremendous runoff. She suggested the applicant find a different access from Tinker Hill Road so the wetlands would not have to be filled. She said it was the property owners' right to construct a house on the property, but said they did not have the right to impact the lake's water quality by constructing an access that was not suitable for that site and curtain drains for the septic that would not function properly in time. Again, she suggested both the house site and driveway be moved up the hill so they could be accessed from Tinker Hill Road. She asked all concerned people in the audience to stand. Approximately ten people stood.
- Mr. Kleinberg said the original 80 acre parcel was riddled with streams, which all emptied into the basin that is blocked by the road. He said there is nowhere for the water to go because the road dams it up. He stated the owners had already cut down a lot of sensitive forest and said this property had already reached the maximum amount of development that it could handle. He said the owners could not claim they were being denied the use of their property if the application were denied because they had had previous subdivision applications approved and had placed conservation easements on several lots.
- Atty. Sienkiewicz represented Mrs. Weeks. Using 1" = 100' maps, which he said were already in the file, he discussed the resubdivision application. He said the applicant had not considered feasible and prudent alternatives as required under the Commission's Regulations. He reviewed the existing adjoining lots with conservation easements and suggested the owners could use Tinker Hill Road to access the proposed house site. Ms. Purnell noted that portion of Tinker Hill Road is basically a watercourse. Atty. Sienkiewicz said the owners had landlocked themselves with the conservation easements, created their own problems, and now find themselves having to deal with difficult site conditions. He suggested they access the proposed house site through the existing property, which he said, was a feasible and prudent alternative. He noted the contours on site and explained they come down from the east to the proposed building site and so, in effect, the proposed building would be in a bowl. Mr. Picton asked if there were better possible house sites. Atty. Sienkiewicz said there were flatter building sites on Parcels B and D, but that these had conservation easements. Mr. Neff said he had considered feasible and prudent alternatives in his 12/8/04 letter to the Commission. Atty. Sienkiewicz referred to the map revised to 1/20/05 to point out the regulated area and how tight the proposed house site was on all sides. He said it did not make sense to approve a house in such a restricted location as once it was built the limits would continue to be pushed for things such as clearing to prevent mosquitos, play areas, etc. Atty. Sienkiewicz complained there were no construction details for the proposed curtain drain. He noted the drain would discharge to the slope protected only by a silt fence, which would not be maintained on a permanent basis. He asked where the runoff would go, and answered that it would flow towards the driveway and would collect by West Shore Road where there are presently two partially plugged culverts that would require upgrading. He noted the Commission's consultant had found the watershed area to be handled by the drain and swale was larger than was claimed by the applicant. Mr. Picton said he would discuss this matter with Land Tech. Atty. Sienkiewicz also asked the Commission to give careful consideration to the Conservation Commission's 12/11/04 report. He said the Conservation Commission, REMA, as evidenced in photos taken on 12/31/04, and his own observations, as shown in photo #3, show flowing water coming down the hill just west of wetland flag #99 and an area of standing water to the east of the driveway. He noted the Conservation Commission found the proposed development would reduce the storage capacity of the land and would likely increase the runoff into the lake and so recommended the installation of dry wells and additional culverts and no clearcutting on the property. Mr. Picton stated the Commission agreed there was a high volume of surface water flowing over the site and that it had to be engineered properly. He questioned whether one more watercourse should be added to the map. Atty. Sienkiewicz questioned the validity of Mr. Temple's soil reports. He said he could find no evidence that Mr. Temple is a certified soil scientist and he pointed out that the soils referred to in his 11/22/04 report were not indicated on his map. Atty. Sienkiewicz pointed out discrepancies between the map and the erosion control narrative. He also stated that considering the new proposal for vegetative buffers, there was no longer any need to clear cut all the trees within 40 feet of the proposed driveway. He pointed out that no planting plan for the buffer had been submitted for the Commission's review. Mr. Picton requested a planting plan.
- Mr. Logan, environmental scientist, stated the area at the bottom of Lot #3 is a regulated area because it is a watercourse falling under the definition of a swamp. He said Land Tech's inspection of the site had not been conducted during the growing season and so was deficient in that respect as swamps are defined by vegetation, not soil type. Mr. Picton read the 5/5/05 letter from Land Tech. There was a discussion concerning the state definition of watercourse in Section 22a of the statutes.
The size of the watershed was briefly discussed. It was noted Land Tech thought it was larger than .25 acres, but did not say how much larger.
Mr. LaMuniere said he was concerned about the ability of the soils on site to handle the sewage. He asked Mr. Neff to address this issue. Mr. Neff said a curtain drain would be installed to pick up the excess flow and that this had been approved by the Health Department. He said he had no doubt the septic system would work, but stressed the curtain drain was needed.
- Ms. Baldwin noted conservation easements in Litchfield County are often swapped and suggested the owners might place the proposed lot under an easement while lifting one of the existing easements off one of their other parcels, which would be more suitable for development. She favored the prohibition of all soil disturbance in this area in order to preserve the quality of the lake. Ms. Purnell said this matter should be addressed by the applicant when feasible and prudent alternatives are considered.
Mr. Picton summarized the outstanding issues and asked that the following documentation/information be submitted:
1. The intermittent watercourse flagged but not shown on the map should be added to the map.
2. The watershed for the whole site, not just the house site, should be recalculated.
3. More detailed information about the water flowing over the entire site is needed.
4. All points raised in Mr. Allan's 5/5/05 letter should be addressed.
5. The map should be labeled more clearly. Mr. Neff noted many of the details the Commission wanted to see were already on the 40 scale map in the file.
6. The driveway cross section should be submitted.
7. Details for the stockpile areas near the driveway should be provided.
8. A planting plan listing species and giving reasons why clearcutting within 40 feet of the driveway is still required should be submitted.
9. A thorough discussion of feasible and prudent alternatives should be presented.
10. There were some questions raised about whether the stonewall actually extends as far as shown on the map. This should be corrected.
Mr. Neff pointed out that Mr. Allan of Land Tech identified the area east of the driveway as a watercourse, but Mr. Temple did not.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider Application #IW-05-13 submitted by Stiteler-
Giddins for a 2 Lot Resubdivision at 198
Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road to
May 25, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use
Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and
passed 5-0.
At 8:55 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the public hearing to Wednesday, May 25, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
These public hearings were recorded on tape. The tapes are on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 9:08 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell, and Alternate Bedini for Mrs. Gray.
It was the consensus that due to the late hour, Consideration of the Minutes would be taken up at the end of the meeting.
Pending Applications
H.O.R.S.E. of Ct./43 Wilbur Road/#IW-05-57E/Construct Sheds and
Fence: Mr. Ajello said he was still trying to schedule an on site meeting with Mrs. Wahlers and Mrs. Johnson.
Private Mortgage Fund, LLC./61 South Fenn Hill Road/#IW-05-12/ Driveway: It was noted the public hearing had been continued to Wednesday. May 25, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Stiteler-Giddins/198 Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road/ #IW-05-13/2 Lot Resubdivision: The public hearing was continued to May 25, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Washington Art Association/4 Bryan Plaza/#IW-05-17/Streambank Stabilization: Mr. Sears submitted a new plan, "Proposed Bridge and River Bank Stabilization," by Land Tech Consultants, revised to 5/1/05, which showed an approximate 30 ft. decrease in the length of the proposed gabion wall. The revised plan was compared to the 4/6/05 plan. Mr. Picton noted 3 feet of fill was required behind the wall so it would merge with the top of the slope. Mr. Picton questioned why the wall had to be so high. He said he did not like the idea of unnatural streambanks and thought this was a poor example to set. It was noted, however, that this was a special situation because there was a building within 20 feet of the stream and because there was evidence of erosion of the streambank. Ms. Purnell stated the repair work would merely address a symptom and not the underlying problem, which was the cumulative impact of upstream activities. She noted for the record the Commission must consider feasible and prudent alternatives and it had been the consensus that bio engineering features would not be feasible. Mr. Sears noted poured concrete streambanks like those further downstream were another option. Ms. Purnell and Mr. Picton wanted assurance that the gabion would not be installed any farther up stream than was shown on the 5/1/05 plan. Mr. Sears said it would not. Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Picton asked why the wall had to be 6 ft. high. Ms. Purnell said since the width of the streambed was being reduced, the increase in height would compensate during high water events and prevent the wall from eroding from behind. Ms. Purnell asked for mitigation to offset the impact to the watercourse and said it was important that the Commission act in a consistent manner.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-17 submitted
by the Washington Art Association to
stabilize the streambank at 4 Bryan Plaza
per the plan, "Proposed Bridge and River
Bank Stabilization," by Land Tech Consultants,
Inc., revised to 5/1/05. By Mr. LaMuniere,
seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-1.
Ms. Purnell voted No because there was no
mitigation proposed to offset the impact to
the watercourse.
Private Mortgage Fund, LLC./61 South Fenn Hill Road and 4 Shinar Mountain Road/#IW-05-18/Lot Line Revision: Mr. Neff submitted a feasibility plan, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/10/05, for the 1.69 acre lot. Mr. Picton thought when an applicant proposed two expansive house sites where there was one and a second marginal site existing, a comprehensive site plan including wetlands protection and limitations of uses near wetlands should be submitted. He said the Commission had no guarantee that if the lot line revision were approved, the applicant would not propose a third house site at a later date. Mr. Neff noted at the last meeting the applicant's attorney had said this would not be done. Ms. Purnell questioned which would have more impact on the wetlands; the smaller footprint house closer to wetlands or the two larger houses. Mr. Neff responded the larger houses would not be within 100 feet of the wetlands. Ms. Purnell said the quality of the wetlands also had to be considered. Mr. Picton asked that a wetlands protection line and a line marking the limit for cutting vegetation be shown on the map. Mr. Neff agreed to submit a more comprehensive plan to include specific wetlands protection measures. Ms. Coe asked whether Zoning would approve the application and if Atty. Hammer was correct that the smaller lot was not legal per Section 17.2 of the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Ajello responded the Wetlands Commission should consider only wetlands issues.
Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-05-20/Reconstruct Accessory Building: Mrs. Donnolly represented the applicants. Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the property and thought there would be no significant impact from the proposed activites. Mr. Picton noted adequate erosion control measures had been proposed.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-20 submitted
by Mr. and Mrs. Rosen to renovate the
accessory building at 304 Nettleton Hollow
Road as submitted. By Mr. LaMuniere,
seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Town of Washington/11 School Street/#IW-05-21/Sprinkler System and Well: Mr. Picton noted the only question unresolved at the last meeting was the exact location of the well. Mr. Ajello noted there was no new information in the file. It was the consensus to approve the application with conditions.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-21 submitted by
the Town of Washington to install a well and
sprinkler system at 11 School Street subject
to the following conditions:
1. the well shall be drilled in the existing
lawn area, not in the wooded riparian
buffer,
2. silt fence must be installed between the
well and the river before the well
drilling begins.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and
passed 5-0.
Sarjeant/27 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-05-22/Single Family Dwelling: The map, "Proposed Sanitary Disposal System Plan," by Howland, revised to 5/20/05 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello pointed out the limit of disturbance. Mr. Picton noted a site inspection had been conducted and that due to the steep slope, the Commissioners had been concerned about the adequacy of the proposed erosion controls. Mr. Sarjeant stated he would install a temporary hay bale line across the driveway, which would serve as overnight protection for storm conditions. Ms. Purnell asked if the stockpile area could be moved as there were 25 ft. wide vegetated buffers elsewhere on the property. Mr. Sarjeant said they would be moved if possible. Mrs. Korzenko stated the largest threat of sedimentation was from runoff from the site during construction. Ms. Purnell asked if there were any permanent provisions at the tow of the slope for handling runoff. Mr. Sarjeant pointed out a stonewall, which would slow the flow, but said the Health Dept. might require it be removed because it is located within 50 feet of the septic system. Mr. Picton advised the applicant that careful maintenance of the erosion controls would be required and that the WEO would monitor the site and require additional measures as needed. Mr. Picton asked if a bond should be posted for emergency repairs. Mr. Ajello did not think this was necessary because Mr. Sarjeant lives next door to the construction site and could take care of minor problems before they became major ones. Ms. Purnell thought additional erosion control measures would be necessary, but thought they could be added as the project progressed.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-22 submitted by
Mr. Sarjeant to construct a single family
dwelling at 27 Tinker Hill Road per the plan,
"Proposed Sanitary Disposal System Plan," by
Mr. Howland, revised to 5/20/05, subject to
the following conditions:
1. due to the steep grades and existing ledge
on the property, the owner shall closely
monitor the erosion and sedimentation
controls,
2. the owner shall bear the cost of cleaning
up any sediment that leaves the property.
By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and
passed 5-0.
New Applications
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business not
already posted on the agenda: New Applications:
1. Matthews/142 Upper Church Hill Road/#IW-05-23/
Reconstruct and Extend Driveway, 2. Rosen/304
Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-05-24/Tennis Court,
3. Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-25/ Construct
10 Single Family Dwellings, 4. Murgio/21 New
Preston Hill Road/#IW-05-26/Clear Brush, and
Other Business: Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun
Street/Request to Amend Permit #IW-05-03/Addition
to Existing Dwelling. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded
by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Matthews/142 Upper Church Hill Road/#IW-05-23/Reconstruct and Extend Driveway: The map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/6/05 was reviewed. Mrs. Matthews stated she planned to either use the existing house as a guest house or tear it down and construct a new dwelling. The driveway would be extended to the new house site. Mr. Neff noted the existing driveway would be reconstructed and a culvert replaced. Mr. Ajello was asked to review the plans and report to the Commission at the next meeting. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, May 17, 2005 at 4:30 p.m.
Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-05-24/Tennis Court: Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, represented the applicants. The plan, "Tennis Court Schematic Refinements," by Mr. Sabin, dated 5/7/05 was reviewed. The court would to be built into the hillside and a retaining wall and stone walkway for access were also proposed. The structure would be 70 feet from the wetland and the required grading would come within 30 feet. Runoff would be directed to dry wells and invasive plants would be removed and replaced with native species. Existing vs. proposed grades were reviewed. Mrs. Korzenko asked if the Commission would also receive an application for a septic system as Mr. Sabin said the owners planned to do the work required for both at the same time. Mrs. Hill commented the tennis court would be visible from the road. Mr. Sabin said trees would be planted to screen it. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, May 17, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-25/10 Single Family Dwellings: Mr. Boling submitted ten copies of the application and reports and asked for the dates of the public hearing and site inspection. A public hearing was scheduled for June 8, 2005 and a site inspection on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Boling said the proposed house sites, limit of disturbance, and areas proposed for conservation easements were clearly marked on site. It was noted the houses had been kept out of the field and so were proposed closer to the wetlands and watercourse. Mr. LaMuniere asked the applicants to justify the layout. Mr. Boling said the Natural Resource Inventory Report identified the field as a view that should be preserved and also said the plan attempted to preserve prime farm soils.
MOTION: To schedule a public hearing to consider
Application #IW-05-25 submitted by Myfield,
LLC. to construct 10 Single Family Dwellings
at 7 Mygatt Road on Wednesday, June 8, 2005
at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room,
Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mrs. Hill,
seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
In response to a question from Mr. Tagley, it was noted site inspections are open to the public.
Murgio/21 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-05-26/Clear Brush for Access: Mr. Charles represented the applicant. The map, "Property/Boundary Survey - First Cut," by Mr. Alex, dated May 2005 was reviewed. Mr. Charles said only clearing was proposed at this time; a first cut would be applied for at a later date. He said the wetlands had been flagged. He noted there had been a question about whether there was a vernal pool on the property, but that Mrs. Corrigan and Mr. Ajello had inspected and advised him it was not. Ms. Purnell noted that neither Mrs. Corrigan nor Mr. Ajello is a wetland scientist. It was the consensus to ask Mr. Ajello to make an inspection and report back at the next meeting regarding whether there were any problems in light of the Commission's sensitivity to clearing in and around wetlands.
Enforcement
Reinhardt and Cremona/10 and 8 Perkins Road/Unauthorized Clearcutting: Mr. Dirienzo, environmental consultant, submitted his 5/10/05 report, noting he had not been paid and it was his honest assessment. In summary, he made the following points: 1) There was no doubt that the clearcutting done was a regulated activity. He noted the location of an intermittent, possibly perennial watercourse, and the headwaters of a second stream. 2) He said the hardpan soil in the area had no drainage capacity and that those who did the clearing failed to recognize the delicate situation on site and the potential for downstream damage if the existing drainage patterns were changed. It was noted there was a "staggering" amount of runoff in the area. 3) He stated runoff had increased 50% as a result of the clearcutting and downhill properties had already been negatively impacted. He made this conclusion because vegetation takes up 50% of runoff, but since this acre had been clearcut, that water was now flowing down the hill. Mr. Dirienzo stated that in addition to the clearcutting, the intermittent stream had been trampled. He recommended the Commission decide on the course of action that will be best for the environment. He advised it that some kind of engineered drainage control was needed in addition to more erosion and sedimentation control measures. The environmental impact to the lake, which would result from storm events, was noted. Ms. Purnell stated there would be thermal impacts, sedimentation, and additional pollution. Mr. Dirienzo thought there was a chance that the intermittent stream could dry up because the overhead canopy had been cut down. Mr. Ajello noted that when both streams are considered, the 100 ft. review area encompasses a large portion of the cleared area. Mr. Picton questioned whether just allowing the vegetation in the cleared area to regrow naturally would provide the volume of uptake necessary to prevent downhill impacts. Mr. Dirienzo said that was why he recommended a stormwater control system, but added that possibly the combination of planting large trees and installing a stormwater system could work. Ms. Purnell said it was important to reestablish some canopy cover as soon as possible. Mr. Picton will also consult with Mr. Jontos of Land Tech about quantifying the cost of the damage. Mr. Dirienzo suggested more than $50,000 damage had been done. He briefly discussed how the Town of Roxbury had negotiated with violators to avoid going to court to collect damage on enforcement matters. Mr. Dirienzo recommended the Commission contact both the state DEP and the Phase II stormwater management staff to get the state involved in this matter. Don Gonyea with the stormwater permitting unit and Chris Stone, the head of the stormwater division, were suggested as contacts. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to write a letter to the DEP and to the stormwater management unit, which Mr. Picton would sign on behalf of the Commission. Mr. Picton said he would also consult with the US Forest Service and Atty. Zizka. The Commissioners thanked Mr. Dirienzo for his time and efforts.
Other Business
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/Request to Revise Permit #IW-05-03/Addition to Existing Dwelling: Mr. Neff noted the previous addition approved had been 83 feet from wetlands. The current proposed 15' X 18' addition to the SW corner of the existing house was 89 feet from wetlands. Mr. Ajello said that there was a heavily landscaped lawn area between the construction site and the wetlands and the construction would be contained.
MOTION: To approve the revision to Permit #IW-05-03
as requested by the Calhoun Street Trust to
construct an addition extending 15 feet to
the SW of the existing dwelling, subject to
the conditions of the original permit. By
Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and
passed 5-0. Ms. Purnell abstained and Mrs.
Korzenko was seated.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted
On the agenda: Other Business: Johnson/30
Mountain Road/Preliminary Discussion/
Subdivision. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs.
Hill, and passed 5-0.
Johnson/30 West Mountain Road/Preliminary Discussion/Subdivision:
Mr. Johnson presented a preliminary map of his 40 acre parcel, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated February 2005 and explained he would like to create two additional 6 acre lots. He pointed out areas where he might propose right of ways and conservation easements. Mr. Picton asked if a soil scientist had flagged the property. Mr. Johnson noted the location of a pond and a stream on the property and said all proposed activity would be 300 to 400 feet from any wetland. He said the subdivision was for his family and asked if a full wetland flagging would be required for the Wetlands application. Mr. Picton asked him to lay out all proposed activities and to have a soil scientist investigate the land within 200 feet of any development. It was noted, however, that for the subdivision application and the required residential density determination form the amount of wetlands on the entire property would have to be calculated.
Enforcement
Feola/Carmel Hill Road/Clearing, Excavation in Wetlands: Mr. Ajello showed photos of the excavation and regrading done. He noted Mrs. Corrigan informed him that a vernal pool had been filled, but she had not yet provided any documentation. Mr. Ajello was directed to write an investigatory letter to Mr. Feola. If there is no response, a citation will be issued.
Croasdaile/River Road/Clearing: It was noted Mrs. Croasdaile had cleaned out her steeply sided detention basin two years ago. Mr. Ajello said all the vegetation had been cleared from the banks and they had been raked clean. Mr. LaMuniere said the banks would likely erode into the basin. Mr. Ajello said he had recommended to the owner that a jute mat be installed to stabilize the banks. Mr. Ajello will send a Notice of Violation and this matter will be discussed again at the next meeting.
Mitchell/Shinar Mountain Road: It was noted that Mrs. Mitchell, adjoining property owner to 61 South Fenn Hill Road, had cleared the understory on her property.
Fowler/Nichols Hill Road: Mr. Ajello said he had asked Atty. Kelly to respond, but had received no response.
Averill/14 Sunset Lane: Mrs. Korzenko noted the Commission had seen violations on this property while inspecting the adjoining property, but as yet, had done nothing about them. Mr. Ajello will send a Notice of Violation.
Blackville Road near Mallory Brook: Mrs. D. Hill said she called in a complaint regarding clearing along Mallory Brook, but did not know whether it had been addressed. Ms. Purnell reported severe erosion on a hillside on Blackville Road near the bridge. Mr. Ajello said he could not find the area Mrs. Hill was concerned about, but would look again.
Other Business
Aquatic Herbicide Applications: 1) Pinover/Senff Road: Mr. Picton thought the Commission might be confused about which pond would be treated. He asked Mr. Ajello to make an inspection and report back to the Commission. 2) Canal/Sabbaday Lane: This pond is definitely located on a stream, which concerned the Commission. Mrs. Hill was asked to send both the DEP and the Canals the same letter sent to Mr. Pinover, which noted the herbicide treats the symptom, not the cause of the problem.
3) Meyer/Senff Road: This pond was previously owned by the Wertheimers and is Clunde Pond on local maps. The same concerns were voiced about this pond as it is on a stream, which is a tributary to the Bantam River. Both the DEP and property owners will receive a letter from the Commission.
Walker Brook Subdivision/Rt. 109/Mew Milford: Due to the late hour, this matter was not discussed. Mr. LaMuniere stated the public hearing had been continued to May 12 and that the Commission may want to hire a consultant to review all of the calculations.
Executive Session: There was nothing new to report on any of the pending appeals.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 4/27/05 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as amended.
Page 3: 4th line under Holly Hill: After "Whittlesey Road" add: and the driveway, which flowed....
Page 4: 3B: Wildflower is one word.
Page 5: 4th line: Change "which" to "that." Delete comma.
Page 6: 15th line under Private Mortgage Fund: Change "minimum" to "limited" damage....
Page 7: Third line above motion: Change: "due to the public interest shown" to "because it was thought to be in the public interest."
Page 8: 3rd line from the bottom: Correct spelling is locust.
Under Town of Washington/Replace Bridge: It should be noted, too, that this is a matter of consistency as other applicants have been asked to do the same.
Page 10: Under Rosen: 16th line: Sonotube is one word.
Page 12: Under Carter/292 Walker Brook Road: Delete "an application" and add: "a report from the engineer regarding how the approved plan was carried out and how what was built differs from what was approved."
MOTION: To accept the 4/27/05 Regular Meeting minutes
as amended. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr.
Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 5/3/05 Sarjeant site inspection
minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by
Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 11:43 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
April 27, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Gray, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Ms. Coe, Mrs. Korzenko
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sears, Mr./Mrs. Baiocchi, Mr. Fenwick, Atty. Hammer, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Williams, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Boling, Mr. Charles, Ms. Paca, Mr. Cook, Mr. Lecher, Ms. Donnelly, Mr. Tagley Mr. Worcester
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and seated Members Gray, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already
posted on the agenda: 1) New Application:
Sarjeant/27 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-05-22/
Single family dwelling, 2)Other Business:
Walker Brook Development, New Milford, and
3) Communications: Pinover/12 Senff Road/
3/28/05 letter re: use of aquatic pesticide.
By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and
passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 4/13/05 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Present: Add initials for D. Hill and J. Hill.
Page 3: End of 7th line under #1: Add "with jute mesh" after stabilize and delete that phrase later on in the sentence. Elsewhere on page 3: There is no e in gully.
Page 4: Line 8: Change "pilot strip area" to "pilot planting done in autumn 2004.
Line 10: Change "the working" to "for working."
Line 11: Capitalize Sweet Peet throughout.
Line 9 under #4: Insert ", the stewardship abstract for knotweed," after "guidance."
Line 9 under #4: Delete "removal."
Line 6 under #5: Add "from the Paca language as a description of the proposed work" after "deleted."
Page 5: Last sentence under Bachelier: Add "and completed in a satisfactory manner" after "approved."
Page 6: Throughout: Change "SE corner" to "east field."
Line 15: Change "asphalt" to "grass" and add "direct" after "little."
Line 16: Add: "on the wetland, but some indirect impact. It was noted that the road area had been wetland before it was filled." after "impact."
7th line from the bottom: Insert "grade" after "driveway."
Page 7: Line 3: Insert: "more than the required" after "from."
1st sentence under Bialobrzeski: Correct spelling is "regraded."
Page 8: Line 11 under Washington Art Assoc: Change "the Shepaug River" to "Canoe Brook."
Line 2 under Lake Waramaug Country Club: Correct spelling is "reroofing."
Page 9: Sheinfeld: Should be: check this property "to confirm that the terms of the conservation easement are being met."
Reinhardt: Change to: "Mr. Ajello reported that the water...."
Beck: Change to: "Mrs. D. Hill stated it was her understanding that Mr. Beck...."
MOTION: To accept the 4/13/05 Regular Meeting minutes
as amended. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by
Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 4/19/05 Town of Washington/
Hinckley Road and Church Street site
inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton,
seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0-1.
Mrs. Gray abstained because she had not
attended.
MOTION: To accept the 4/19/05 Town of Washington/
6 Bryan Plaza site inspection minutes as
written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr.
Picton, and passed 4-0-1.
Mrs. Gray abstained because she had not
attended.
MOTION: To accept the 4/19/05 Washington Art Assoc./
4 Bryan Plaza site inspection minutes as
written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr.
LaMuniere, and passed 4-0-1.
Mrs. Gray abstained because she had not
attended.
Pending Applications
H.O.R.S.E. of Ct./43 Wilbur Road/#IW-04-57E/Construct Sheds and Fence: The applicant was not present and she had not submitted any new information. Mr. Ajello said he had spoken with Mrs. Johnson from the NRCS who said she would be willing to meet on site with the applicant to discuss the proposal. Mr. Ajello was asked to contact Mrs. Johnson and Ms. Wahlers to set up a meeting.
Holly Hill Farm, LLC./87 Whittlesey Road/#IW-05-09/Restoration and Reforestation: Mr. Neff read his 4/25/05 letter concerning stabilization of the gullies on the eastern slope of the property. Mr. LaMuniere noted Mr. Childs had recommended the flow of water from Whittlesey Road, down the slope, and to the Shepaug be addressed by redirecting the water around the house. Mr. Picton encouraged the applicant to come back with a well thought out proposal to handle this drainage and noted he did not want to hold up the current application until the drainage problem had been resolved. Mr. Neff said there would be a future application for the house and yard area. The 4/27/05 discussion motion, which was drafted based on the points raised at the last meeting was reviewed and modified. The following action resulted:
MOTION: To approve in part the application submitted
by Holly Hill Farm, LLC. for Restoration and
Reforestation at 87 Whittlesey Road subject
to the following conditions and noting only
those activities specifically cited in this
motion are approved:
1. Stabilization of the dump area.
A. Work shall be done according to Mr. Childs' 3/22/05 report, page 9, and subject to a review and recommendations by Mr. Neff, to be submitted in writing to the Commission prior to the start of work.
B. Work shall be done under the supervision of Mr. Childs.
C. No further removal of embedded material or organic covering over soil shall be permitted unless specified by an engineer and approved by the Commission.
2. Stabilization of the severely eroded gullies.
A. Work shall be done according to Mr. Childs' 3/22/05 report, page 5, paragraph 1, page 6, paragraph 3, and page 7, paragraph 1.
B. The filter fabric shall be installed with small aggregate to hold it in place, and larger stones on top per Mr. Neff's instructions dated 4/25/05.
C. Work shall be done under Mr. Childs' or Mr. Neff's supervision.
D. Stabilization of one gully shall be completed, at which time the Inland Wetlands Commission shall inspect the work done and determine whether work on the remaining gullies may proceed.
3. Establishment of the wild flower meadow.
A. Silt fence shall be installed along the entire expanse of the 663 contour prior to the commencement of work.
B. Wild flowers shall be planted one strip at a time in a manner that will prevent the slope from becoming erodable per page 3, #1 of Mr. Ajello's 4/13/05 report. However, the existing sod may be tilled if necessary to make the new planting viable, provided that enough course organic matter remains in the surface to keep the soil in place. The strip highest up the hill shall be done first so the existing vegetation below will continue to function as a silt trap.
C. The conversion of lawn to wild flowers shall occur in strips no wider up and down slope than 30 ft.
D. No top soil may be spread and no other fine material shall be added to the surface making it unstable as it did the test plot installed in the fall of 2004. "Sweet Peet" and green sand may be worked in to improve porosity.
E. The Commission shall inspect to make sure a stable ground cover has grown in before granting permission for work to begin on the next strip.
4. Removal of pachysandra and Japanese knotweed and replanting of the disturbed area with wild flowers.
A. The removal of these plants is approved only for plots 3 and 4 per page 6, paragraph 2 of Mr. Child's report. Areas to be managed will be clearly defined on site by the applicant or his agent and approved by the Commission or its agent.
B. Care shall be taken to remove only these invasives, as the blanket removal of all plants would destabilize these areas.
C. No invasive plants, which are contributing to slope or soil stability, shall be removed until a plan to prevent destabilization is approved by the Commission.
D. Replanting shall be done in accordance with page 10 of Mr. Child's report and per the planting plan, "The Restoration and Reforestation of the Slope Leading to the Shepaug River, Prepared for the Washington Inland Wetlands Commission, Washington, Ct." by Ms. Paca, dated 10/1/04.
E. Removal of any other invasives shall require a separate application.
5. Pilot restoration of the native forest and understory.
A. The pilot area shall be limited to an area no larger than 50' X 50'.
B. Mr. Childs will flag the trees proposed for removal.
C. The work shall be done per pages 2 and 3 of Mr. Child's report.
In addition:
1) The applicant shall submit to the Commission a written progress report twice a month until the approved work is completed and a report on the stability of the site and maintenance of the erosion and sedimentation controls after major storm events.
2) Any additional work proposed under the application is denied at this time for all the areas from the river to a line 50 feet upgrade from the top of the steeper slopes (those exceeding 20% grade) down to the river and in and within 100 feet of all watercourses, wetlands, and floodplain areas. In these areas, as in all other areas subject to Inland Wetlands jurisdiction, the Commission does not permit the cutting of vegetation, disturbance of soil and its covering of organic material, or the deposition of any material, organic or otherwise, unless specifically authorized by an Inland Wetlands permit. In all the above referenced areas, the native forest understory shall be allowed to regenerate fully. Any work beyond that specifically authorized above shall require a separate application.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0-1.
Mrs. Gray abstained because she had not
been present for much of the previous
discussions.
The Private Mortgage Fund, LLC./61 South Fenn Hill Road/#IW-05-12/ Construct Driveway
The Private Mortgage Fund, LLC./61 South Fenn Hill Road and 4 Shinar Mountain Road/#IW-05-18/Lot Line Revision: Mr. Neff submitted a revised map, "Proposed Site Development Plan-Boundary Line Revision," by Mr. Neff, revised 4/26/05," which showed a proposed .6 acre deed restricted conservation area. Mr. Picton and Ms. Purnell again asked for verification that the existing parcel at 4 Shinar Mountain Road is a legitimate lot of record. Mr. Picton noted the Commission did not want to approve a lot line revision that would make two building lots possible if two did not already exist. Mr. Neff offered to have perc tests done to prove the lot is buildable and Mr. Picton said he would consult with the Commission's attorney. The potential impact of converting the grass farm road to a gravel driveway was discussed. Mr. Ajello asked if the mortar walls for the crossing would require footings. Mr. Neff said no, there was an existing stone headwall. Mr. LaMuniere thought the driveway could be built with minimum damage to the wetlands. Mrs. Mitchell, adjoining property owner, said she had hired an attorney, engineer, and environmental consultant to help the Commission protect the wetlands. She said the engineer and consultant had raised concerns about the proposed driveway and so she requested a public hearing be conducted. She submitted 1) the 4/27/05 report by Mr. Loureiro of Loureiro Engineering Assoc. and 2) the 4/27/05 letter to Atty. Hammer from Mr. Logan and Mr. Gadwa of REMA Ecological Services, LLC. Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Fenwick, contractor, pointed out the Commission has approved wetlands crossings in the past, but Mr. Picton noted they had been approved only when there were no feasible alternatives. Mr. Neff stated the proposed crossing was located at the point where the wetlands were constricted, said it was not known for sure the farm road had been constructed over wetlands, and said the existing culvert was reinforced concrete pipe and there was no material stronger that could be used. Mr. Picton said he was concerned about the driveway crossing because it would extend 80 to 100 ft. along the wetlands. Mr. Neff responded that erosion and sedimentation control measures would be installed on both sides. Mr. Picton said the application would have been "easier" to approve if mitigation such as a 50 foot buffer or a deed restriction to prevent the future mistreatment of the wetlands had been shown on the map. Mr. Neff said 1) a minimum amount of wetlands would be disturbed, 2) the concrete culvert was stronger than either steel or double wall plastic, and 3) the culvert was properly sized. Ms. Coe noted maintenance of the driveway and the use of sand and salt could impact the wetlands. Mr. Picton said it was not known how much gravel there was under the road surface and so he was concerned about use by heavy construction equipment. Mr. Neff said this was a minor problem and that geotextile mesh could be installed on top of the subgrade to address it. He asked for a vote on the driveway. Atty. Hammer submitted his letter to the Commission dated 4/27/05 and a Notice of Intervention. He urged that both applications be declared significant activities. He said the following information was missing from the applications and/or map: 1) wetlands and watercourses were not fully delineated, for example, the spring on the northern portion of the property was not shown, 2) setbacks from wetlands on adjoining properties were not indicated, 3) the depth of the covering and the bearing capacity of the farm road were not provided, 4) the true scope of the proposed work was not specified, and 5) the status of 4 Shinar Mountain Road had not been verified. Atty. Hammer asked for public hearings on both applications because he thought they were integrally related and he informed the Commission that in cases when a proposed activity is likely to impact a natural resource, the Commission may not approve it if there are feasible and prudent alternatives. After a lengthy discussion, it was decided to hold a public hearing to consider Application #IW-05-12 for the driveway on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, not because this is a significant activity, but due to the public interest shown and to provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond to the reports submitted by Mrs. Mitchell.
MOTION: To schedule a public hearing on Wednesday, May
11, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting
Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall to consider
Application #IW-05-12 submitted by The Private
Mortgage Fund, LLC. to construct a driveway at
61 South Fenn Hill Road. By Ms. Purnell,
seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Stiteler-Giddins/198 Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road/
IW-05-13/2 Lot Resubdivision: It was noted a public hearing had been scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 11, 2005.
Town of Washington/Church Street and Hinckley Road/#IW-05-15/ Drainage and Paving: Mr. Sears noted the catch basins, which already exist, would not be changed. The plans, "Preliminary Plan Depicting Proposed Road Drainage Improvements, Overall Plan," 4 sheets, by Stuart Somers Co., LLC., dated 11/1/04 were reviewed. Plans for proposed new catch basins and sediment traps on Sheet P-3 were studied. Mr. Ajello recommended a "silt sack" be installed at the existing catch basin during construction, but otherwise thought the erosion control measures proposed were adequate. Mr. Picton said Mr. Ajello, Enforcement Officer, would monitor the work while it was in progress and would specify any additional erosion control measures that were needed. It was the consensus that the work description provided was adequate. It was also noted the spoils would be kept to a minimum and the drainage trenches opened and closed as quickly as possible.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-15 submitted by
the Town of Washington for drainage and
paving on Church Street and Hinckley Road
per the plans, "Preliminary Plan Depicting
Proposed Road Drainage Improvements -
Overall Plan," 4 sheets, by Stuart Somers Co., dated 11/1/04, as submitted. By Ms. Purnell,
seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-0-1.
Mrs. Gray abstained because she had not
been present for the previous discussion.
Town of Washington/6 Bryan Plaza/#IW-05-16/Replace Bridge: The plans, "Proposed Bridge and River Bank Stabilization," by Land Tech Consultants, Inc. dated 4/6/05 were reviewed. Construction materials were discussed. It was noted the specs called for glued laminated beams of compressed, pressure treated pine. Mr. Picton recalled that on the site inspection, the Commission had asked that some other material be used for the decking. Ms. Purnell did not support the use of pressure treated wood over any waterbody. Mr. Picton again recommended the Town look into non pressure treated elements for the bridge or if pressure treated wood had to be used, then it look into a sealing method to ensure the chemicals would not leach into the brook. Mr. Sears said the bridge was premanufactured and so he did not know if the specs could be altered. The Commissioners explained to the First Selectman why they thought it was important not to use pressure treated wood and suggested alternate building materials such as cypress, lotus, cedar, and plastics.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-16 submitted by
the Town of Washington to replace the bridge
at 6 Bryan Plaza per the plans, "Proposed
Bridge and River Bank Stabilization," by
Land Tech Consultants, dated 4/6/05 subject
to the following conditions"
1) either A. no pressure treated material
be used at all or B. if A. is not possible,
then pressure treated material may be used
only for the structural elements with the
non structural elements composed of non
pressure treated material and
2) all pressure treated material used must
be prestained off site.
By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Picton, and
passed 5-0.
Washington Art Association/4 Bryan Plaza/#IW-05-17/Streambank Stabilization: The plans, "Proposed Bridge and River Bank Stabilization," by Land Tech Consultants, Inc., dated 4/6/05 proposing a gabion wall along the banks of Canoe Brook were reviewed. Mr. Picton questioned why the gabion was needed for the sections where the banks were more gradually sloped with trees and still functioning naturally. He did not think these sections needed to be changed as they showed no evidence of erosion. He preferred the natural areas remain natural. Mr. Sears noted the Town's engineer had designed the gabion as the best solution to the problem and so was not certain whether it could be shortened. Mr. Picton directed Mr. Sears to ask the engineer why the gabion was needed beyond the first 45 feet. He said he would need a compelling reason to approve more than that. Ms. Purnell noted if the gabion was going to be shorter, the Commission would have to see revised details regarding how it would be tied in to the banks. Further discussion was tabled to the next meeting.
Private Mortgage Fund, LLC./61 South Fenn Hill Road and 4 Shinar Mountain Road/#IW-04-18/Lot Line Revision: Mr. Picton said he would like to see a feasibility plan for this parcel to show it could be developed and meet all Health Department, zoning, and wetlands requirements. Mr. Neff noted the state health code requires only a 25 foot setback from wetlands for septic systems, whether for new construction or repair.
Lake Waramaug Country Club/22 Golf Links Road/#IW-05-19/Renovate Beach House: It was noted this application had been discussed at the last meeting and that as proposed on the map presented, there was little likelihood of impact to the wetlands or to the lake.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-19 submitted by
the Lake Waramaug Country Club to renovate
the beach house at 22 Golf Links Road as su bmitted per the map, "Site Plan of Lake Waramaug Country Club," by Mr. Lecher, revised to 4/11/05. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-0-1.
Mrs. Gray abstained because she had not been
present for the discussion at the previous
meeting.
New Applications
Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-05-20/Reconstruct Accessory Building: Mrs. Donnolly represented the owners. The map, "Property/Boundary Survey - G.C. Project 2," by Mr. Alex, dated June 2002 with the footprint of the accessory building attached, was reviewed. Photos of the existing building were circulated. The building now houses an accessory apartment and would be converted to a studio/recreation room. The applicant proposed to add fireplace, which would extend the foundation by 4 ft, and to square off the existing deck, which would also require footing work. The work would be within the upland review area. The silt fence would be the limit of disturbance, approximately 35 feet from the wetlands. The Commissioners will inspect the site on their own prior to the next meeting. Ms. Purnell asked the applicant to address why this configuration had been chosen over others due to the resulting additional encroachment and asked for a review of feasible and prudent alternatives. Mrs. Donnolly noted the existing deck has six sono tubes and needs repair whether or not it is extended. She said there would be no additional footing drains and that she would add gutters and leaders and where they flow to the map. Mr. Picton asked for 2 copies of the map.
Town of Washington/11 School Street/#IW-05-21/Sprinkler System and Well: Mr. Cook, Park and Rec. Commissioner, represented the Town. The site plan by Mr. Alex, revised to 5/24/04 was reviewed. Mr. Cook explained Ted Alex field has an existing irrigation system that uses a hand dug well, but that it would not be adequate to also serve the Martin and Ayres softball fields. The Town proposed to drill a well approximately 20 to 30 feet from the Shepaug River and to install pipes, a small holding tank, and pump. The pipes would typically be buried 18" underground. Mr. Picton noted the Commission would prefer the well be located in the grassy field and not in the wooded area and that silt fence be installed prior to commencement of the drilling. It was noted the application was incomplete; there was no DEP form or letter of authorization for Mr. Cook. Ms. Purnell remarked that the proposed erosion controls and construction sequence appeared to be OK. Mr. Cook was urged to complete the application, which will be taken up again at the next meeting.
Sarjeant/27 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-05-22/Single Family Dwelling: The map, "Proposed Sanitary Disposal System," by Mr. Howland, revised 3/28/05 was reviewed. It was noted the proposed house site was more than 100 feet from Lake Waramaug, but the property was steep and sloping towards the lake. Mr. Ajello pointed out the location of an intermittent stream on the adjoining property. Mr. Picton noted there would be filling, regrading, excavation, and building on site and asked if the erosion controls proposed were adequate. Mr. Ajello said he had asked for more and in response, Mr. Sarjeant had submitted a letter dated 4/27/05 listing additional measures that would be implemented. A second copy of the map was requested. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, May 3, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.
Other Business
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Condominium Development/ Preliminary Discussion: The maps of the 13.54 acre property, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated 1/2005 and "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, also dated 1/2005 were reviewed. Mr. Boling and Mr. Worcester gave a brief presentation of the goals of the development and asked the Commission to identify any wetlands concerns and to list any additional information required. Mr. Picton asked that the upland review areas be shown on the map. Ms. Purnell asked for information about alternatives plans considered and why this one had been chosen. Erosion controls, limit of disturbance, drainage, and buffers were briefly discussed. Mr. Picton said the applicant would be asked to explain why some of the yards are located so close to the wetlands and to discuss feasible and prudent alternatives. Mr. Boling informed the Commission some of the property will be protected by conservation easements.
Ingrassia/135 East Shore Road/#IW-0407/Request to Amend Permit/ Landscaping Changes: Mr. Neff explained the owners proposed to eliminate the grid reinforcement behind the barn. He said it was not needed because the configuration of the barn had been changed and there would no longer be a storage area on the lower level. A grassed surface, he said, would be able to handle the little traffic anticipated. Ms. Purnell read Mr. Neff's 4/25/05 letter.
It was the consensus to allow the elimination of the grid, but if the slope did not remain stable, Commission approval of an engineered solution would be required.
MOTION: To approve a revision to Permit #IW-04-07
requested by Mrs. Ingrassia to delete the grass
paving reinforcement on the pathway behind the
barn shown on the "Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan, Revision 2" by Mr. Neff dated 4/23/04 at
135 East Shore Road. By Mr. Picton, seconded
By Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Catlin/East Street: Mr. Ajello asked that the owners stop clearing near wetlands and they did so. A citation will not be issued because the activity was not clear cutting or excavation.
Parent/197 Tinker Hill Road: Mr. Parent is clearing a construction site where no application is necessary because there are no wetlands according to the subdivision map. Mr. Ajello said he had driven by and did not see any wet areas.
Whalen/138 Baldwin Hill Road: Mr. Whalen has hired Mr. Alex and Mr. Temple to help him prepare the required application.
Reinhardt/10 Perkins Road and Cremona/8 Perkins Road: Mr. Ajello prepared a separate detailed report on these two properties. He stated he had inspected the site with Mr. Jontos of Land Tech and would soon conduct an inspection with Mr. Dirienzo. Mr. Ajello recommended a report from Mr. Childs, too, but Mr. Picton thought Mr. Jontos' report should be reviewed prior to making a decision to hire a forestry consultant.
Roselli/27 Birch Hill Run/Agent Approval: Ms. Purnell stated she was uncomfortable with agent approvals for activities in the upland review area. Mr. Ajello stated the proposed pole barn would have no possible affect on the wetlands as there is a fence and a vegetated buffer between the construction site and the wetlands and the land slopes away from the wetlands. Mrs. D. Hill noted the legal notice for the agent approval had been incorrect and so the legal requirements had not been met; renoticing would be necessary. Mr. Ajello reviewed the conditions of approval, which he said he said were referenced on the approved map. Mrs. Korzenko said whenever an application is approved with conditions, the conditions must be sent to the applicant in writing.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road: The Commission has been waiting a long time for an application.
Fowler/Nichols Hill Road: The required planting plan has not yet been submitted. Mr. Ajello was asked to check with Atty. Kelly.
Greenfield/Ives Road: The required application has not yet been submitted. Mr. Ajello was asked to contact Mr. Ross, contractor.
Walker Brook Road Subdivision/New Milford: Mr. LaMuniere noted the N. Milford Inland Wetland Commission had continued its public hearing to mid May. He noted Ms. Purnell's excellent letter to that Commission was in the file for anyone wanting to review it. Mr. LaMuniere and Ms. Purnell agreed the Kings Mark study was not well done. Mr. LaMuniere noted WEC was willing to hire a consultant to make sure the outstanding drainage issues that could impact Washington were addressed. Ms. Purnell noted, however, the consultant would need the property owner's permission to access the property and said she thought it was premature for WEC to hire a consultant at this time. Ms. Purnell will draft a follow up letter to New Milford to raise additional questions and concerns. Mr. Picton appointed Mr. LaMuniere and Ms. Purnell to serve as a subcommittee to monitor this matter.
Pinover/Senff Road/Aquatic Pesticide Application: Mr. Picton noted he had received a letter from Mr. Pinover. He said the Pinovers were knowledgeable about the causes of pond growth and were considering the herbicide as a last resort. Mr. Picton will inspect the pond.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 11:12 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
April 13, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton Ms. PurnellMEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. Gray
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Ms. Coe, Mrs. Korzenko
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Weeks, Mr./Mrs. Baiocchi, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Childs, Mr. Charles, Mr. Neff, Ms. Paca, Mr. Lecher, Mr. Sears, Mr. Fenwick, Press
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, and Picton and Alternates Coe and Bedini for Mrs. Gray and Ms. Purnell.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business
to the agenda: 1) New Applications:
A) The Private Mortgage Fund/61 South Fenn
Hill Road and 4 Shinar Mountain Road/
#IW-05-18/Lot Line Revision, B) Lake
Waramaug Country Club/___ Golf Links Road/
#IW-05-19/Renovate Beach House 2)
Communications: A) 4/11/05 Memo to Inland
Wetlands Commission from Ms. Volinski, HVA,
3) Other Business: A) Walker Brook Subdi-
vision, New Milford. By Mr. Picton,
seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 3/23/05 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as amended.
Page 1: Ms. Dzenutis should be listed under Also Present.
Page 5: Whalen: 4th line: Insert he after said.
Page 5: Whalen: last sentence: #5: Should state: ...the additional after the fact fee of $60 with his application.
Page 5: Motion to enter executive session: Add: to discuss the following pending litigation: Gatto, Reinhardt, Stiteler-Giddins, and Reinhardt and Cremona.
MOTION: To accept the 3/23/05 Regular Meeting
minutes as amended. By Mr. LaMuniere,
seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
The 4/6/05 Private Mortgage Fund site inspection minutes were accepted as written.
MOTION: To accept the 4/6/05 Private Mortgage Fund
site inspection minutes as written. By
Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and
passed 4-0-1. Mr. LaMuniere abstained
because he had not attended the site
inspection.
Ms. Purnell arrived at 7:07 and was seated.
Pending Applications
H.O.R.S.E of Ct./43 Wilbur Road/#IW-04-57E/Construct Sheds and Fence: Mr. Ajello noted no new information had been received. Ms. Purnell asked again for a clearer map showing which structures exist, which are proposed, which will be taken down, and the location of the wetlands. She stated it was the applicant's responsibility to prove an agricultural exemption is justified. It was the consensus that a vegetative cover along the stream banks and the proper management of manure were required and that if the proposed activities did not qualify for an agricultural exemption, this would become an enforcement matter. As the applicant had not provided information from the NRCS as requested, Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to do so. Mr. Ajello was also asked to write to Ms. Wahlers to inform her that if the requested information is not submitted by the next meeting, the Commission will likely vote to deny the exemption request and order protective wetlands measures such as maintaining vegetation in the wetlands and fencing off the stream areas.
Holly Hill Farm, LLC/87 Whittlesey Roa