The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Inland Wetlands Commission, 2006
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Inland Wetlands Commission, 2006 |
|
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 13 •November 29 •November 15 •October 25 •October 11 •September 13 •August 9 •June 28 •June 14 •May 24 •May 10 •April 26 •April 12 •April 5 •March 29 •March 22 •March 8 •February 22 •February 8 •January 25 •January 11 •Meetings in 2005 •Meetings in 2004 •Meetings in 2003 •Meetings in 2002
Posted: December 21, 2006 December 13, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Potter, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Ms. Coe
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Mr. Reich, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Neff, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Plourde, Mr. Watson, Mrs. Smith, Atty. Hoben, Atty. Kelly, Residents, Mrs. Reinhardt
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: 1) Approval of 2007 Calendar, 2) Consideration of the 12/8/06 Special Meeting minutes, and 3) Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 11/15/06 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 2: 2nd paragraph from bottom: Last sentence: Insert "it" after: Mrs. Purnell said....
P. 2: 10th line under Rising: Change "he" to Mr. Pawlik.
P. 6: Last line in second motion: Insert apostrophe to state, wetlands'.
P. 6: 3 lines from bottom: Correct spelling is "cumulative."
P. 7: 3rd line under Aragi: Insert "including" before approximately.
P.7: 15th line under Aragi: Correct name is Mrs. J. Hill.
MOTION: To accept the 11/15/06 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1.
Mrs. Hill abstained because she had not attended the meeting.
The November 29, 2006 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 1: Also Present: Add: Dr. Kortmann
P. 3: 4th full paragraph: Change the last phrase to: but had not participated in any discussion about the launch.
P.3: 3rd paragraph from bottom: Change the second sentence to: ...the general state permit would be followed....
P. 4: 4th full paragraph: Correct spelling is Mr. Cornet.
P. 4: 5th full paragraph: 3rd sentence: Change end of sentence to: ...invasives if the boat launch was permitted.
P. 5: 1st full paragraph: 3rd sentence: Change to: ...would not be possible because the property's septic system is located on the south side.
P. 5: 1st full paragraph: 4th sentence: Change "text" analysis to written analysis.
P. 5: 3rd full paragraph: 4th line from bottom: Insert "presenters'" before consensus.
P. 7: Under Rising: Change NCR to NCD throughout.
P. 8: 1st paragraph: 4 lines from bottom: Insert: "more than" before 45 ft.
P.10: 6 lines above motion: Insert: "upland" before review area.
P.11: Under Betolatti" Beginning of 7th line: Change to: ...plan crossing an adjacent lot was feasible....
P.11: Under Betolatti: 6th line from bottom: Add: "at this time" to the end of the sentence.
P.12: Under Steep Rock: 4th line from bottom: Insert: "within" before the river.
P.13: Under Spring Hill: The correct spelling is Whittlesey.
P.13: Under Tompkins: Change first sentence to: Ms. Purnell reported that O and G had deposited a lot of material on a steep slope above and possibly within 100 ft. of a watercourse....
MOTION: To accept the 11/29/06 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 12/8/06 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
The 12/6/06 James Calhoun Street site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. It should be stated that Ms. Purnell arrived late.
MOTION: To accept the 12/6/06 James Calhoun House site inspection minutes as amended. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 12/6/06 John Dorr Nature Lab site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. D. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Rising/191 West Shore Road/#IW-06-46/Repair Septic System: Mr. Ajello said there was no new information. Mr. Hayden from NCD will inspect the site. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to make sure Mr. Hayden's review address the issues listed in the previous minutes.
Town of Washington/59 East Shore Road/#IW-06-53/Boat Ramp and Parking: Mr. Picton noted the public hearing had been closed on 11/29 because the Commission thought all the issues had been addressed and adequate explanations explained. He said Mr. Kortmann and Mr. Wilson, engineer, had supplied oral testimony, plus had submitted copies of the alternate plans that had been denied by the state. Ms. Purnell said she had asked for a written analysis of these plans, and noted this had not been submitted. Mr. Picton said the testimony had been given on tape and Dr. Kortmann had submitted a written feasible and prudent alternative analysis. Ms. Purnell recommended the Commission incorporate Dr. Kortmann's recommendations in any motion of approval. She then asked about the proposed 2 ft. retaining wall between East Shore Road and the parking area. She asked how much material from the highway would reach the parking area and asked if any weep holes were proposed. The map, "Boat Ramp," by Mr. Wilson, revised to 10/23/06 was reviewed. As these questions asked for clarifications of material already submitted, Mr. Wilson responded there would be no weep holes. He stated there would be a driveway apron and the slopes would be from the wall towards the road and from the parking area towards the catch basin, so no material from the road would reach the parking area. He noted the purpose of this wall was to level the area to meet ADA requirements. Regarding mitigation, Mr. Picton said he had looked for a way to replace the shallow shoreline with something equivalent, but it had been pointed out the existing shoreline dropped abruptly into the water so there was not that much of a change proposed and the quality of the shoreline that would be lost was not that great. Ms. Purnell asked the Commission to consider cumulative impacts. She noted the application was for Phase I only and asked that mitigation be incorporated in Phase II or at least recommended by the Commission for Phase II. Dr. Kortmann's recommendations and hand written notes on the site plan were reviewed and Mr. Wilson said the applicant would be willing to include them in the final design except for the relocation of the catch basin nearest to the driveway. Ms. Purnell asked and Mr. Picton agreed that the incorporation of Dr. Kortmann's notes on the final plans be made a condition of approval. Ms. Purnell said the Commission had 65 days in which to act and thought a carefully drafted motion should be approved at the next meeting. She noted a public hearing had been held and said the Commission should now determine what the impacts to the lake would be and whether there should be mitigation required to offset them. She acknowledged the shoreline would be armored and there would be an increase in impervious surfaces, but said in her opinion, these were offset by the increased opportunity for public use of the lake. She said why and how the Commission approved the application was important to create a record to explain why the Commission was allowing the Town to fill the lake, but would not allow anyone else to do the same. Mr. Picton asked if the applicant could wait 30 days for an approval. Mr. Frank noted the Town intended to apply to the other commissions before then. Mr. Potter and Mr. LaMuniere were satisfied with the plans submitted and thought mitigation would be appropriate in Phase II. Mrs. D. Hill saw no need to delay action on the application.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-53 submitted by the Town of Washington for a boat ramp and parking at 59 East Shore Road as submitted subject to the following condition and suggestion: 1) that the recommendations made by Dr. Kortmann be incorporated in the final site plan and these be checked and OK'd by the WEO against Dr. Kortmann's oral testimony and hand written notes on the site plan and 2) the Commission suggests that when the Town is ready to develop the rest of the site, it look into the possibilities for mitigation for the loss of the shoreline and filling of the lake. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere.
Discussion followed. Mr. Picton stated that strict adherence to the maintenance plan and monitoring by the EO would be required. Ms. Purnell read Section 8.4 and said this should be addressed in its entirety. Mr. Picton reviewed each section under 8.4 and made the following statements for the record; 1) A thorough discussion of alternatives had taken place, and none were found to be feasible and prudent. 2) The file contained information on the relation between short term and long term impacts. 3) Regarding the maintenance and enhancement of the long term productivity of the lake, the plan included the continued monitoring and management of invasives. 4) Although the shoreline would be altered and some of the lake filled, the design had gone to great lengths to improve the drainage system to ensure that less pollution would reach the lake. 5) A lot of work had gone into a plan that would allow the reasonable use of Town property in a healthy and safe manner. 6) Impacts of the proposed activity outside the Town property had been briefly considered. Dr. Kortmann had advised the Commission that monitoring of invasives in the E. Aspetuck River would not be necessary. 7) There was no opportunity to mitigate the impacts in Phase I, which the applicant claimed were minimal. 8) Section 8.4.h was not applicable. He concluded by stating this situation was unique and that the Commission hoped it would never again have to approve filling in the lake or changing the nature of the shoreline. Ms. Purnell noted there were no feasible and prudent alternatives. Mr. Picton stated that even if the discussion in support of the motion was not complete, the information in the file was complete.
Vote: Approved 5-0. Ms. Purnell made a procedural objection.
Hochberg/15 Couch Road/#IW-06-55ATF/Clean Out Pond: Mr. Ajello said he had no new information and did not expect any. Ms. Purnell said this matter should have been handled as an enforcement issue rather than as an after the fact application.
MOTION: To deny Application #IW-06-55ATF submitted by Mr. Hochberg to clean out the pond at 15 Couch Road because the work has already been completed without a permit and this is not the first time Mr. Hochberg has done unauthorized work. By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton noted that in addition to the reasons cited in the motion, he voted to deny the application because it was incomplete.
James Calhoun House, LLC./156 Calhoun Street/#IW-06-58/Install Inground Pool: Mr. Neff, engineer, was present. Ms. Purnell noted the pool could be located elsewhere on the 30+ acre lot, but that would not make much sense because it would require more disturbance to the wetlands. Mr. Picton agreed the proposed location was a logical one. Ms. Purnell noted approval of a previous application included planting additional vegetation between the pool and wetland area. Mr. Picton asked if a garage would be proposed in the future. Mr. Neff stated the existing barn is now used as the garage and there were no plans for a garage. Mr. Picton noted if a garage were proposed in the future, the owner would have to show why the existing barn could not continue to be used. Ms. Purnell recommended a condition of approval that if the pool is drained the water must be pumped into a tanker and trucked off site.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-58 submitted by James Calhoun House, LLC. to install an inground pool at 156 Calhoun Street subject to the following condition: if the pool is emptied, the water must be pumped into a truck and taken off site. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Ms. Purnell said the proposed activity falls into the upland review area, but the building envelope was tight, the land level, and the closest point to wetlands was 54 ft. Also additional plants would be put between the pool and the wetlands so the chance of long term impacts were limited.
John Dorr Nature Lab/220 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-06-59/Restore Stream Channel: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented the map, "John Dorr Nature Lab of the Horace Mann School," by the office of
Arthur Howland, revised to 12/13/06. Ms. Purnell thought the proposed activity could cause a significant impact and a public hearing should be conducted. Mr. Szymanski thought the owner would withdraw the application if a hearing was required. Mr. Picton asked for clarification regarding the proposed erosion control measures and flood channels. Mr. Szymanski stated the stream had no potential for flood storage and its banks were eroding. He proposed to bolster the undercut banks with rip rap and coconut wattles. Plugs of ferns and other plants would be planted every 6 inches in the wattle to try to establish vegetation to stabilize the banks. Mr. Szymanski said the wattle would last for 5 to 10 years before decomposing. He reviewed both the rip rap and wattle specifications. The project would necessitate the removal of 15 trees. Mr. Szymanski advised the Commission a bobcat and a mini excavator would operate in the streambed to install the rip rap. Ms. Purnell thought the proposed filling along the watercourse and altering of the flood path was a significant activity. Mr. LaMuniere did not think the proposed activity would cause an adverse impact. Mr. Bedini and Mr. Potter noted if the restoration work was not done, the situation would get worse. Mr. Picton noted the stream would be moved back to an established stream channel. Mrs. D. Hill pointed out that similar work had been done on the Carter and Knudsen properties and no public hearings had been held. Ms. Purnell read section 8.1 of the Regulations, but Mr. Picton pointed out that the Commission has the flexibility to hold a hearing or not on a regulated activity. Mr. Ajello advised the Commission the application was complete and the posting of a bond was not justifiable. Mr. Picton suggested a condition of approval that the work be done during low flow conditions, but Mr. Szymanski responded this would mean the banks would continue to erode throughout the spring and summer. Ms. Purnell recommended that additional erosion and sedimentation control measures be implemented downstream of the work area. Mr. Szymanski stated the only appropriate area would be just downstream of where the wattle would be installed. Mr. Picton asked for photos of the existing site conditions for the file.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-59 as submitted by John Dorr Nature Lab at the Horace Mann School at 220 Nettleton Hollow Road to restore a stream channel per the plan dated 10/25/06 and revised to 12/12/06 and the additional specifications in Mr. Szymanski's 12/13/06 letter to the Commission with the following condition: that the applicant work with the EO to install additional downstream erosion and sedimentation control measures. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. D. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Foothills Group/55 West Shore Road/#IW-06-60/Repair Steps and Walkway: The commissioners agreed the application was complete.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-60 submitted by the Foothills Group to repair the steps and walkway at 55 West Shore Road as submitted. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. D. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Plourde/33 East Shore Road/Unauthorized Tree Clearing: Mr. Ajello noted the location of the property along the East Aspetuck River and suggested the Commission conduct a site inspection. Mr. Plourde said he had not been aware he needed a permit to cut trees as he had previously cleared his land on Calhoun Street and had not needed a permit. He also said there was an existing foundation on the property, which he planned to rebuild for storage purposes. He said trees were growing up in the foundation and neighbors had asked him to clean up the property. He added he had stopped work when the EO had ordered him to do so. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.
MOTION: To enter executive session at 8:45 p.m. to discuss pending litigation. By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To exit executive session at 9:37 p.m. By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
The 12/13/06 WEO Report was reviewed and other enforcement topics briefly discussed.
Franco/River Road: Mr. Ajello continues to receive complaints about runoff from this property. He already discussed the problem with the contractor. The affected neighbor may contact an attorney.
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road: Mr. Ajello was asked if he was keeping track of the conditions of approval and he said he was.
Smith/35 East Shore Road: Mr. Picton had inspected the construction site and questioned whether the work conformed with the approved plans. He said it looked like a channel had excavated into the pond on the up hill side of the last stone bridge and that the pipe forked to supply the pond with water. He said this was not included in the approved plan. Mr. Ajello explained the reasons for the changes. Mr. Picton stated all variations must be approved by the Commission and asked the EO to make sure all work conformed to the permit issued.
Corbo Assoc./40 Nettleton Hollow Road: Mr. Bedini noted the driveway work had begun. Mr. Picton complained the work was progressing on the steep hillside without installation of the required silt fence and asked Mr. Ajello to check this out.
Steep Rock Assn./Hidden Valley: It was noted the timber harvest application had been approved with the condition that Steep Rock would submit the final, exact logger's plan, but to date this had not been received. Mr. Ajello was asked to check into it.
Yourwith/258 New Milford Turnpike: A ditch had been dug to direct basement water to the river. Mr. Ajello noted one possible solution would be to direct this runoff to a raised infiltration system in the back yard. Mr. Picton recommended the outflow pipe be moved farther from the river. Photos were circulated. Mr. Ajello said he had advised the property owner to hire an engineer to design a system to address the runoff.
Bowles/Carmel Hill Road: Atty. Fisher will represent Mr. Bowles at the next meeting. He had questioned whether the work on the spring house was a regulated activity, saying construction was not listed in the regs as a regulated activity. Mr. Ajello circulated photos, which showed how close the work was to the pond on the property. The commissioners agreed the repair work definitely required a permit. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to handle this matter.
MOTION: To reenter executive session at 9:52 p.m. By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To exit executive session at 10:20 p.m. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Reinhardt/10 Perkins Road/Unauthorized Clearing and Soil Disturbance: After a brief discussion with Atty. Hoben regarding the terms of the revised consent order the following action was taken.
MOTION: To agree to follow our attorney's advice concerning litigation. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To endorse the 12/8/06 draft of the consent order and Mr. Ajello's answers to Mrs. Reinhardt's questions dated 12/13/06. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. D. Hill, and passed 5-0.
It was noted Mrs. Reinhardt was obligated to remove the logs at 10 Perkins Road prior to the closing. Mr. Picton urged Mr. Ajello to get the consultant to the property before then and to make sure the bond was in place and the consent order signed before the work started.
Enforcement
Spring Hill Farm, LLC/Whittlesey Road: Mr. Picton asked if Mr. Ajello was monitoring the work in progress. Mr. Ajello said Mr. Neff submits reports twice a week and said he would make an appointment to inspect the property.
Tompkins/Tompkins Hill Road: Mr. Ajello said he had looked into the complaint raised at the last meeting and had found the fill for the driveway had extended into the regulated area by at least 20 ft.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Clearing, Filling: Mr. Ajello said there was nothing new to report.
Feola/Carmel Hill Road: Mr. Ajello said he sent Mr. Feola a letter regarding the required restoration work that had not been done and had given him until 1/10/07 to respond.
2007 Calendar: The Commission agreed to conduct only one meeting in the months of June, July, August, and December 2007 and to approve the 2007 Calendar with these changes.
Revision of the Regulations: This work is ongoing.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Bedini.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 10:37 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: December 12, 2006 November 29, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Ms. Purnell, Mr. Picton
ALTERNATEs PRESENT: Mr. Potter, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Ms. Coe
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sears, Mr. Wilson, Mr. McGowan, Mr. and Mrs. Frank, Mrs. Payne, Mrs. Corrigan, Ms. Dupuis, Mr. Mustich, Mr. Cornet, Mr. Carey, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Solley, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Brigham, Atty. Kelly, Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Kozak, Mr. Neff, Mr. Betolatti, Mr. Scully, Mr. Esker, Mr. Arnold, Mrs. Branson, Mr. White, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARING
Town of Washington/59 East Shore Road/#IW-06-53/Boat Ramp and Parking
Mr. Picton called the public hearing to order at 5:05 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell. He read the legal notice published in Voices on 11/15 and 11/26/06 and the list of 21 documents included in the file.
Mr. Sears stated the towns of Kent, Warren, and Washington had worked with the state for two years on the boat launch proposal, which he believed was the "best possible solution." He thought the proposal would help to preserve the water quality of the lake and noted, if approved, the boat launch would be the only public launch on Lake Waramaug.
The maps, "Lake Waramaug State Park, Day Use/Boat Launch," dated Jan. 1995 and "Boat Ramp," by Mr. Wilson, revised to 10/23/06 were reviewed.
Mr. McGowan spoke about wetlands and environmental issues and submitted a four page summary of the 2004 Lake Waramaug Agreement, which he said the Lake Waramaug Task Force supports. He noted that aquatic weeds are a major problem in Ct., that the state does not inspect for them at any of the state boat launches, but that the 2004 Agreement would allow for the continued inspection of all motor boats entering the lake from the Washington launch site. He said the state had also agreed to allow the inspection of all car top boats launched at the state park.
Dr. Kortmann, a wetlands and watercourses specialist from Eco Systems Consulting Services, addressed feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed plan. He based his opinion on the following decision criteria: 1) Are there prudent and feasible alternatives with less regulated activity and less impact to the resource? He found that due to the steep slopes down to the lake along Rt. 45 and the north shore, the general unavailability of any land along West Shore Road, the increase in wetlands resources that would be impacted if the launch was constructed in the Ash Swamp area, and the difficulty in negotiating trailer traffic around the lake there were no other suitable sites. 2) Are there alternates for design that could reasonably minimize impacts further? Dr. Kortmann noted the difficulties that would be encountered if the boat ramp was installed at the state park where the lake is most shallow. The amount of dredging required and sediments that would be stirred up would be far less at the Town Beach site than at the state park. He noted the construction plans for the Town property called for a minor projection of the seawall, well designed drainage behind the wall, and buffer plantings that would minimize the total impact. 3) Are there additions to the proposal that could reasonably be added to further protect the wetlands resources? Dr. Kortmann made several suggestions: A. Install a small vegetated dry drainage basin so that stormwater will not discharge directly into the lake. B. Move one catch basin 20 feet and install it with oil absorbent material and regrade the ramp pavement differently so that wastes from the boat bilges can be intercepted in the basin instead of flowing directly into the lake. C. Require that instructional signage be posted in a prominent location. D. Install gating on the entrance so that access can be monitored. 4) Are there prudent and feasible mitigative measures that could reasonably be required to make up for the unavoidable loss of wetlands resources? Dr. Kortmann said a very small area of wetlands resources would be lost and, in fact, the proposal would result in improvements such as guarding against erosive forces along the shoreline. Therefore, he did not think there was a need for additional mitigation.
Mr. Wilson, engineer, stated he had submitted five various plans that were bound by both the DEP and DOT requirements and he briefly reviewed some of the problems with each design. He noted one of the earlier designs had a softer treatment of the edge of the lake, but the final plan calls for a seawall that will resist wave action and prevent scouring and is segmented to provide greater stability without requiring a solid poured foundation beneath it. He reviewed the construction sequence, which is detailed on 10/23/06 plan. He noted a turbidity curtain would be installed prior to the start of the ramp construction, work areas segmented to control turbidity and a 6 ft. wide vegetated buffer, not lawn, would be planted at the top of the seawall. Work would be done 3 days a week April - June, 7 days a week July - Labor Day, and 3 days a week Labor Day - October. He also noted the work area would be inspected every day.
Mr. Potter asked if there would still be a launch at the state park once the new launch was constructed. Mr. Wilson said the park would allow carry on launches only.
Mr. Picton asked if boats would be inspected at the state park. Mr. Wilson said in theory this would be done. Mr. McGowan said the state had agreed and hopefully, would allow volunteers to make the inspections.
Mr. Bedini asked how much invasive plant material would be brought in from car top boats. Mr. McGowan said the amount brought from smooth sided canoes and kayaks was less than what was brought in by other boats and trailers.
Ms. Purnell noted she was a board member of the Lake Waramaug Task Force, but had not participated in any of it ongoing discussions about the launch.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the site plan had been amended since the Commission's site inspection. Mr. Wilson said it had not.
In response to a question from Ms. Purnell, Mr. Wilson stated there would be 9 parking spaces including one handicapped space, 220 ft. of shoreline would be disturbed, 3800 sq. ft. was the size of the area to be filled, and the volume of fill proposed was 220 cu. yrds.
Mr. Picton said the Commission would require a more comprehensive consideration of the feasible and prudent alternatives and also of the type of shoreline being lost compared to the type of shoreline it would be replaced with.
Mr. Dishy, Warren, asked what regulations the state would abide by if it did the building. Ms. Purnell said a general state permit would be issued and the state would decide what regulations would apply. Mr. Wilson said DEP and DOT regulations would have to be followed.
Mr. Frank, president of the Lake Waramaug Assoc., read the Association's 11/28/06 letter of "unqualified" support.
Mr. Cornet thought the proposed boat launch would ruin the Town beach, result in dangerous traffic conditions, and would cost too much. He asked why the remediation was necessary and why motorboats had to be allowed on the lake. Mr. Picton noted traffic safety was not a wetlands issue. Mr. Sears noted Lake Waramaug belongs to the people of the state and Mr. McGowan said the state has plans to build a launch here as it has on all other significant state lakes. Mr. Cornet argued that different lakes should accommodate different activities. Mr. McGowan agreed, but said it was up to the state.
Mrs. Frank stated the Town beach would not be ruined and the launch would not be seen from the beach because the existing house would block the view. She also said once the new drainage system was installed less pollution would reach the lake because materials would be filtered that had never been filtered out before. Ms. Purnell agreed runoff reaching the lake would be cleaner, but said the increase in the number of boats served would result in an impact. Mr. McGowan noted a maximum of 20 boats per day would use the launch, which was fewer than the number proposed under the original state park plan.
Mr. Potter asked how long the total shoreline of the lake was and pointed out the disturbance of 200 ft. of a total 7.8 miles was insignificant.
Mr. Kozak spoke of the public's right to fish and pointed out how difficult the new launch and parking rules would make it for fishermen. He said the parking requirements would mean fishermen would need partners and the out of town people returning their trailers to the state park would increase the traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the lake.
Mr. Cornett said if the state did not inspect boats launched at the state park, then it should be responsible for funding the clean up of the lake.
Ms. Purnell asked if there was a correlation between lakes with boat launches and infestation of invasive plants. Mr. McGowan said a study was now being done, but that statistics showed invasive weeds first show up in close proximity to boat launches. Ms. Purnell asked if it would be a good idea to monitor the East Aspetuck River for invasives once the launch is opened. Mr. McGowan said he would consider it. Dr. Kortmann did not think invasives would threaten the East Aspetuck because unlike the lake, its water was flowing and it had a canopy.
Another resident pointed out that Mr. Kozak had raised valid points about parking difficulties. He thought fishermen would purchase season passes for the Town beach to get around this, which would result in more congestion for the beach users. He thought it was short sighted of the Town not to recognize the need for more parking spaces and not to include them in the proposed design.
Dr. Kortmann addressed Mr. Picton's question about the comparison of the existing shoreline to that with which it will be replaced. He noted the existing condition is almost entirely wall or rock promontory and therefore, the proposal would not be that much of a change. Mr. Picton pointed out, however, that the vegetation would be at the top of the wall, not in the water, and there would be a vertical drop off. Dr. Kortmann said the slope of the wall could be built with a more gradual grade to deeper water, but then there would be greater impacts further into the lake. He thought the proposed wall mimicked the existing conditions as closely as possible.
Alternative plans were discussed. Mr. Picton asked if it was possible to flip the location of the ramp and the Town beach. Mr. Wilson said this would not be possible due to the state Health Code requirements. Ms. Purnell asked if there was text analysis in the file. Mr. McGowan said there was not. Mr. Sears stressed the use of the public beach would not be compromised. Mr. Picton thought it made sense to move the boat ramp to the other side where the beach is wider. Mr. Wilson said the geometry for entering and exiting and the turning radius for boat trailers would not work on the other side. Dr. Kortmann said the lake contour itself was a reason the locations could not be flipped. The beach was too gradual with a sandy bottom at the current Town beach, which would require dredging and result in turbidity.
Mr. Kozak asked what the cost of the project was and how it would be funded. Mr. Picton said these were not wetlands issues. Mr. Wilson said the cost would be $215,000+/-.
Mr. Picton asked if the other commissioners wanted a site by site analysis of the alternatives. Ms. Purnell asked that this be submitted in text. Mr. Wilson stated Dr. Kortmann's submission addressed the alternatives, but Dr. Kortmann said it was not an exhaustive property by property analysis. Mr. McGowan said the current Zoning Regulations do not permit private boat launches on the lake so the only other alternative would be at the state park. It was the consensus the Town property was the better location. Mr. Wilson noted, too, that the proposal for the Town beach property took into account all DEP, DOT, zoning, and inland wetlands regulations.
Mr. Cornet asked why the Warren Town beach was not a suitable location. Mr. McGowan responded it was too shallow for the first 50 ft. into the lake.
Ms. Purnell thought the hearing should be continued so there would be more time for the public to raise issues and for the Commission to review the alternate plans. Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Potter, Mrs. Hill, and Mr. Bedini thought the notice requirements had been met and the hearing should be closed.
Mrs. Buonaiuto asked whether it was possible for the three towns to tell the state they did not want a boat launch on the lake. Mr. McGowan said they already did, but the state went ahead with its plans anyway. Mr. Sears noted the three towns are now bound by an agreement to put the launch at the proposed site. Dr. Kortmann said he knew of no major lake in the state that is a significant public resource where part of the shoreline is owned by the state that did not have a public boat ramp. He noted Lake Waramaug is the second largest natural lake in Ct.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider Application #IW-06-53 for a boat ramp and parking at 59 East Shore Road. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-1.
Ms. Purnell voted No because she wanted more opportunity for public comment.
Mr. Picton closed the hearing at 7:07 p.m.
This hearing was recorded on tape. It 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 7:18 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: New Application: 1) The Foothills Group/55 West Shore Road/#IW-06-60/Repair Steps and Walkway and Other Business: 1) Request from Steep Rock to Amend Permit #IW-06-33/147 Sabbaday Lane/Bridge, 2) Executive Session to discuss pending litigation, 3) Potter Farm proposal. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 11/15/06 Regular Meeting minutes were not received in time to be reviewed before the meeting. They will be considered at the next meeting.
MOTION: To accept the Reinhardt/11/21/06 site inspection minutes as submitted. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1.
Mrs. Hill abstained because she had not attended the site inspection.
MOTION: To accept the Mayflower Inn/11/21/06 site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-0-1. Mrs. Hill abstained because she had not attended the site inspection.
Pending Applications
Rising/191 West Shore Road/#IW-06-46/Repair Septic System: Mr. Ajello reported a written request for an extension had been received within the required time frame. There was no other new information. Mr. Ajello again suggested that NCR be asked to review the erosion control issues. Ms. Purnell said, however, that the issues went beyond erosion and sedimentation control. She said hydrological concerns must be addressed. Mr. LaMuniere agreed. Mr. Picton wanted to know how the relocation of the stream and the removal of massive quantities of rock from a steep major runoff area would impact the lake, how the stream channel and slope would be stabilized, and how the construction project would be managed. Mr. Ajello noted the applicant would not agree to pay for any other technical reviews. Ms. Purnell suggested the NRCS also be asked to conduct a review the application with the above issues in mind. Mr. Picton pointed out that the engineering plans submitted did not provide specifications such as the rock size, width, etc. and noted the plan called for moving water features on a steep site that was marginal for accommodating a septic system. Mr. Ajello asked the commissioners to submit to him as soon as possible the concerns they want NRC and NRCS to address. He will then contact these organizations to request reviews.
Town of Washington/59 East Street/#IW-06-53/Boat Ramp and Parking: The Commission will review the materials presented prior to acting on the application.
Hochberg/15 Couch Road/#IW-06-55ATF/Clean Out Pond: Mr. Hochberg paid both the citation and the after the fact fee and reported that he does not intend to conduct any more regulated activities. Mr. Picton noted if the Commission knew where the excavated materials had been deposited, it would order they be removed. Ms. Purnell asked for photos of the current site conditions. Mr. Ajello presented the photos he took on August 4th. Mr. Picton asked why no enforcement action had been taken, resulting in the excavated materials washing down stream. Mr. Ajello said there had been other legal matters that were priorities at that time. Ms. Purnell recommended this issue should be included in a discussion of Commission procedures in the future.
Mayflower Inn, Inc./118 Woodbury Road/#IW-06-56/Repair Septic: Mr. Neff, engineer, was present. Mr. Picton noted the Commission had conducted a site inspection. Mr. Neff submitted the topographic map by Mr. Riordan, dated 9/30/88, which showed the location of wetlands in the area and the 11/24/06 document, "Septic System Repair," which included a description of the project, materials to be used, and proposed sequence of construction. The map, "Brook House Septic System Repair," by Mr. Neff, dated 9/16/06 was reviewed. He noted the proposed septic system would serve the 2 bedroom Brook House only and would be located in the same general location where it is now. Ms. Purnell was concerned about locating the septic tanks and pump chamber so close to large trees whose roots would be cut during the installation. Mr. Neff said no trees would be cut down. Ms. Purnell was surprised the Health Dept. approved a septic location so close to the trees and asked if there was a place where the pump chamber could be relocated. Mr. Neff thought it would fit between the leaching fields. Mr. Picton noted this would increase the distance from the stream to 45 feet. It was the consensus this was a good idea because it would be farther from both the trees and the stream. Mr. Neff said he would submit revised plans for the file.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-56 submitted by the Mayflower Inn, Inc. to repair the Brook House septic system at 118 Woodbury Road subject to the condition that Mr. Neff move the septic tank and pump chamber away from the stream side of the system to a location in between the galleries or off the end of the galleries in order to minimize damage to the tree roots and to get the tank and chamber away from the stream. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Klauer/102 East Street/#IW-06-58/Temporary Wetlands Crossing: Mr. Esker, contractor, submitted an amended document dated 11/29/06, which stated the proposed wetlands crossing would be 40 ft. wide by 60 ft. long, covered with geotech road fabric, and a layer of gravel spread over that. Once the house was moved, both the gravel and fabric would be removed. Mr. Picton noted at the last meeting the Commission had asked for a map that showed more of the property. Mr. Klauer presented the map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, revised to 8/28/06. Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the property and had no concerns. Mr. Esker noted some wet areas on the property, but said he would put planks down as they pull the house to its new site. Mr. Picton said he was satisfied with the mapping.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-58 as submitted by Ms. Klauer for a temporary wetlands crossing at 102 East Street with a note of caution that the Enforcement Officer must pay attention to the other wet sites on the property. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Reinhardt/10 Perkins Road/#IW-06-57E/Exemption: It was noted a report from Mr. Allan of Land Tech, dated 11/22/06, had been received. Representing Mrs. Reinhardt, Atty. Kelly said he had anticipated Mr. Allan's questions and had revised the map in the file in response. The map, "Existing Conditions Map," by Mr. Howland, revised to 10/25/06 was reviewed. Atty. Kelly listed the revisions to the map and presented photos for the file. Mr. Picton briefly summarized the points in Allan's 11/22 report and noted on her property Mrs. Reinhardt had cleared a small triangular area within 100 feet of a watercourse. He asked 1) Did that clearing impact a wetlands or watercourse? 2) Is the 100 ft. review area adequate for dealing with the potential adverse impacts of the clearing? 3) Should the Commission assume the activity on the Reinhardt property was only part of the entire activity and that clean up would be an additional activity? He also noted that the issue of whether the activity qualifies as an exemption differed from the issue of whether it caused an adverse impact. Atty. Kelly stated the triangular area had not been forested; that "growth" had been cut there, not trees. He said this qualified as an exemption for landscaping under the Regulations and that whether it had caused an adverse impact was irrelevant. Ms. Purnell disagreed and read Section 4.3, which states that nonregulated use does not carry with it the right to disturb the natural and indigenous character of the wetlands and watercourses. She also read a portion of Section 2.3. Sections 2.4 concerning clear cutting and 2.34 concerning regulated activities were also read in part. Atty. Kelly argued the Commission could consider only the clearing that occurred in the approximate 75 sq. ft. area on the Reinhardt property and that the clearing qualified as an exemption under Section 4. Ms. Purnell disagreed and read Section 4.3 again. Mr. Ajello thought the clearing qualified as a regulated activity under Section 2.34 and read the second sentence in Section 4.1(a), which he thought excluded it from uses permitted as of right. Atty. Kelly said he was seeking the exemption under 4.1(d) not (a). Mr. Ajello noted the clearing had been done as part of a timber harvest operation, not due to landscaping. Atty. Kelly read a portion of Mr. Ajello's 2/23/06 enforcement report, which referred to the clearing as insignificant and said Mr. Ajello had issued the cease and desist order without knowing exactly where the property line was. Mr. LaMuniere said he had inspected the site and had seen no evidence that large trees were cut in the triangular area. He saw no further issues on the Reinhardt property, but stressed she had to pay for the damage done and be responsible for the ecological restoration required on the Cremona and Cavallaro properties. Atty. Kelly briefly discussed the terms of a previously proposed consent order, said Mrs. Reinhardt would take full responsibility for the damage done to the other properties, and said he wanted the Commission to acknowledge its mistake regarding the cease and desist order issued for her property. Mr. Picton said he viewed the clearing as one activity that extended beyond property lines and said the clearing was not part of an exempt landscaping activity. As one regulated activity, he continued, the clearing could be regulated beyond the 100 ft. review area as it was done above the lake on a hillside with a complicated drainage pattern. He asked if the Commission was ready to vote. Mr. LaMuniere thought the Commission should have a restoration plan drawn up by a forester and/or Land Tech specifying exactly what work must be done and how much it would cost before the vote was taken. Atty. Kelly pointed out that Mrs. Reinhardt could not sell her property until the enforcement order is released and said she never waivered from her responsibility on the Cremona property. Mr. LaMuniere thought approval of the exemption could be conditioned on the posting of a sufficiently sized bond to ensure the required restoration work on the other properties was completed, but Mr. Ajello questioned how approval of a non regulated activity could be conditioned. He said the activity was not landscaping; it was clearing. Mr. Bedini asked whether the work done within the 75 sq. ft. area had an adverse impact, but Mr. Picton said the relevant question was, is it a regulated activity? Ms. Purnell noted it was difficult to identify the triangular area and agreed the Commission had the authority to regulate beyond the 100 ft. review area. She also noted Land Tech's letter described the adverse impacts caused due to the elimination of the tree canopy. She and Mr. Bedini thought it was logical for the Commission to request an application for a regulated activity should the exemption request be denied. Ms. Purnell stated the Commission must follow its Regulations and proper procedures.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-57E submitted by Mrs. Reinhardt for an exemption for activities at 10 Perkins Road. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and denied 2-3.
Ms. Purnell voted No because landscaping as a permitted as of right use does not carry with it rights to disturb the natural and indigenous character of the wetlands or water courses and Land Tech's 11/22/06 letter pointed out there had been impacts resulting from the clearing done.
Mr. Picton voted No because the activity on the Reinhardt property was part of the one timber clearing activity that took place on all three parcels and this type of clearing is not permitted as an exempt landscaping activity.
Mr. Bedini voted No because he, too, thought the clearing done was a regulated activity.
Betalotti/32 Flirtation Avenue/#IW-06-54/First Cut: Mr. Betalotti and Mr. Scully, engineer, were present. Mr. Picton noted that at the last meeting the Commission had asked that a specific location for the proposed driveway to the rear lot be shown on the map. The map, "Preliminary Driveway Plan," by CCA. LLC., dated 11/28/06 was reviewed. Mr. Scully noted while the driveway shown on the plan was feasible, it did not necessarily mean it would be eventually proposed. Mr. Picton noted the feasible driveway route did not cross wetlands and so no drainage details were required. The commissioners advised the property owner an application would be required when the lot was to be developed and the driveway constructed. Ms. Purnell did not understand why the proposed lot included an access to Flirtation Avenue that did not meet the zoning grade requirement for driveways.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-54 submitted by Mr. Betolatti for a first cut at 32 Flirtation Avenue with the understanding there is a driveway location without an adverse impact to the wetlands subject to the condition that prior to construction of the driveway, detailed drainage plans must be reviewed and approved by the Commission to confirm there will be no adverse impact to the wetlands and watercourses. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0-1. Ms. Purnell abstained because she did not understand the driveway proposal.
New Applications
James Calhoun House, LLC./156 Calhoun Street/#IW-06-58/Inground Pool: Mr. Neff, engineer, said a pool was proposed between the existing house and cottage. The map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 11/22/06 was reviewed. Ms. Purnell noted it was proposed entirely within the regulated area. Mr. Neff responded the proposed location was a relatively level lawn area. He noted a patio around the pool, fencing, cartridge filter so there would be no backwash, heater, and underground propane tank were included in the application. Ms. Purnell thought realistically the pool water would flow downhill toward the wetlands when the pool was drained. Mr. Neff suggested a condition of approval that the pool be pumped out to a pool truck when it is emptied. Mr. Ajello thought the proposed plan was a good one because it condensed the development envelope. The commissioners thought the pool site was the logical location for a future garage and so asked if there were plans for a garage. Mr. Neff said the existing barn currently serves as the garage. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, December 6, 2006 at 3:30 p.m.
John Dorr Nature Lab at the Horace Mann School/___Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-06-59/Restore Stream Channel: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, represented the applicant and submitted proof the Town of Bethlehem had been notified of the application. He noted the existing watercourse had badly eroded and was threatening to undercut an existing building. He briefly detailed his plans to stabilize the disturbed slope with filter fabric and standard grade rip rap. A site inspection was scheduled for December 6, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.
Foothills Group/55 West Shore Road/#IW-06-60/Repair Steps and Walkway: Mr. Arnold, property owner, noted the steps are in the regulated area. He said he would reuse the materials on site to repair them. Photos of the existing steps were reviewed. All work would be done by hand and the stones put in without mortar. The map prepared for Peter Arnold and Timothy Lee by Mr. Howland, dated 4/11/06 was reviewed. Mr. Picton asked the commissioners to drive by the property on their own before the next meeting.
Other Business
Steep Rock Association/147 Sabbaday Lane/Request to Amend Permit #IW-06-33/Bridge: Mrs. Branson, Director, read her 11/29/06 letter to the Commission. She explained that although she had stated when the application was originally applied for that no machinery would operate from the river, due to the above average rain fall this year, it would now be necessary for the crane to operate in the water for a brief period when it sets the far section of the bridge on the north side of the riverbank. She noted the piers and abutments were finished and the bridge was now being assembled on site. Mr. Picton asked how long the crane would be in the water. Mrs. Branson said approximately one hour. She also noted only the tires would be in the water and the water level would be 1 to 1.5 feet below the axle. Mr. Bedini asked if a ramp would be built into the river. Mrs. Branson said, no. Ms. Purnell asked if there would be armoring of the banks and if the work area would need restoration. Mrs. Branson responded there would be no armoring and Mr. Ajello stated the area has a sandy beach and would need no restoration. Mr. White also noted the smallest piece of equipment possible would be used to get the work done.
MOTION: To approve the revision to Permit #IW-06-33 issued to Steep Rock Assn. to install a bridge at 147 Sabbaday Lane. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-1. Ms. Purnell voted No because she thought it was too significant of a revision to be handled by a revision to the application.
Enforcement
Spring Hill/Whittleey Road: Mr. Picton noted the cottage was not being reconstructed. An entirely new building was being built in a different location.
Wright/Scofield Hill Road: Ms. Purnell asked if the work was progressing per the agreement. Mr. Ajello reported the base rocks had been put in as agreed.
Tompkins/Tompkins Hill Road: Ms. Purnell reported that O and G had deposited a lot of material within 100 ft. of a watercourse and should have had a permit to do so. Mr. Ajello said a driveway had been applied for and the plans showed it was not within 100 ft. of the stream. He will inspect the site to confirm this before the next meeting.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Ajello compared the "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated 8/1999 with the "Site Analysis Plan," dated July 2006. When the flagged wetlands areas were compared, it was evident where filling had occurred between 1999 and 2006. Ms. Purnell noted that Mr. Moore had admitted he had filled in wetlands and had said he would remove the material. She asked Mr. Ajello to show him the maps and ask him to remove the deposited material. Mr. Ajello agreed to ask Mr. Moore to remove all the fill from the areas on the map that highlight the differences in the wetlands delineation and everything within the previous wetland perimeter.
Potter Farm Proposal: Mrs. Hill asked what, if anything, the Inland Wetlands Commission had approved. Mr. Picton noted the driveway for a subdivision lot on the north side of Shearer Road had been approved, but that this had nothing to do with the current proposal.
Communications
Mr. Picton noted the Board of Selectmen had asked for a volunteer from each of the land use commissions to provide input on the proposed walking trail for the River Loop property. Mr. LaMuniere will serve on behalf of the Inland Wetlands Commission.
MOTION: To enter executive session at 9:48 p.m. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end executive session at 10:21 p.m. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 10:22 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: November 22, 2006 November 15, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
MEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. D. Hill
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Potter
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Griffiths, Mr. Betolatti, Mrs. Reinhardt, Mr. Neff, Mr. Aragi, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Lecher
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. and seated
Members Bedini, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Thomson for Mrs. Hill.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: under New Applications: Klauer/102 East Street/#IW-06-58/Temporary Wetland Crossing and under Other Business: Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 10/25/06 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 3: 9th line under Melahn: Change to: ...because the proposed work would be down grade of the watercourse....
P. 5: 3rd line: Change "fully stocked" to "completely filled in."
P. 6: 4th line under Wright: Correct spelling is gully.
P. 8: 9th line under Moore: Correct spelling is Mr. Allan.
MOTION: To accept the 10/25/06 Regular Meeting minutes as amended. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1. Ms. Purnell abstained because she had not attended the meeting.
MOTION: To accept the 11/8/06 Town of Washington site inspection minutes as written. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 11/2/06 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Rising/191 West Shore Road/#IW-06-46/Repair Septic System: The discussion that took place at the last meeting was reviewed; Mr. Pawlik of the DPH had approved the application, but he had not addressed the specific questions raised by the Commission. It was the consensus that a technical review by a qualified consultant was needed to address the Commission's questions about the proposed design, the stabilization of the slopes during construction, the location so close to the stream, etc. Ms. Purnell asked if the state had inspected the site because she did not think the plan conveyed the site conditions. Mr. Ajello did not think he had done so. Mr. Picton also noted that when the boulders were removed, the soil profile would change. Mr. Ajello noted he had talked to Land Tech about keeping down the cost of this review and had written again to Mr. Rising regarding payment. Mr. Ajello noted the time limit for action on the application would expire on 11/17.
MOTION: To deny without prejudice Application #IW-06-46 submitted by Mrs. Rising to repair the septic system at 191 West Shore Road with the condition that if a request for extension is received before the close of the business day on Friday, 11/17/06 the Commission will consent to granting an extension. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Town of Washington/59 East Shore Road/#IW-06-53/Boat Ramp and Parking: It was noted a public hearing had been scheduled for 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 29, 2006. Mr. Ajello said the discussion at that time would include temporary housing for rescue boats. Mr. LaMuniere asked how long the aerator would be shut down due to the proposed work. Ms. Purnell said has always been shut off in October.
Betolatti/32 Flirtation Avenue/#IW-06-54/First Cut: The map, "Proposed Survey Showing Proposed Parcel Line," by CCA, LLC., dated 10/19/06 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello said there had been no changes since the last meeting. Ms. Purnell noted there were seeps, which were seasonal intermittent watercourses, that were regulated and in addition, asked why an access that could never be used was being shown on the site plan. She said since there were seeps in the accessway, the Commission would be required to consider alternatives. Mr. Ajello explained the access shown was too steep to meet the zoning requirements and so the proposed lots would share a single driveway (which was not shown on the site plan.) Ms. Purnell pointed out that if the Commission approved this application with the proposed access, then in the future if the two property owners did not want to share the driveway, they would be able to use the access, guaranteeing an impact to the watercourses the Commission is trying to protect. Mr. Bedini asked why the access strip could not be eliminated. Ms. Purnell asked for an analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives that would avoid the construction of a driveway in the access strip. Mr. Picton noted the Commission would require either information about where the driveway would actually be built or information on how the drainage would be handled in the access if the driveway were built there. Mr. Betalotti gave the commissioners permission to inspect the property on their own before the next meeting.
Hochberg/15 Couch Road/#IW-06-55ATF/Clean Out Pond: Mr. Ajello reported he had sent Mr. Hochberg a letter as he had been directed to do at the last meeting, but to date there had been no response. Ms. Purnell asked Mr. Ajello if he had reviewed the previous files for this property, and he said he had. Further discussion was tabled to the next meeting.
New Applications
Mayflower Inn, Inc./118 Woodbury Road/#IW-06-56/Septic Repair: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his map, "Brook House Septic System Repair," dated 9/16/06. He explained the existing system is undersized and he proposed to replace it in the same general location 50 feet from the watercourse as is permitted under the state health code. Mr. Picton asked if there were other locations on the property suitable for the septic system that would be further from the stream. Mr. Neff said any other location would require pumping at least 500 feet. Mr. Picton asked if Mr. Neff had considered the entire property and all the septic systems located on it and asked him to report on why no other location was practical. Mr. Neff noted that except for the top of the hill, which was quite a distance above the Brook House, there had not been good perc test results. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, November 21, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.
Klauer/102 East Street/#IW-06-58/Temporary Wetlands Crossing: The map. "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated October 2006 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello explained a house would be moved to another property over an existing grassed swale composed of wetlands soils. Mr. Esker, contractor, said the house could not travel over the town roads because they were too narrow and would require the cooperation and coordination of the phone, cable, and electric companies to take down the wires. He noted the proposed route, shown in blue on the map, would have the least impact because it would go across the wetlands at its narrowest point. He proposed to put down an extra wide swath of geo textile fabric over the swale, fill in gravel over that, and then remove the gravel once the house has been moved. Ms. Purnell was concerned the gravel would not be taken out. Mr. Picton asked for a specific written description of the proposed work, including provisions for the removal of the gravel. Ms. Purnell asked for a map of the entire area with all of the wetlands delineated and for the dimensions of the crossing and the quantity of the material to be used. Mr. Esker stated it would be 40 feet wide Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to make certain the application was complete for the next meeting and to inspect the entire route.
Reinhardt/10 Perkins Road/#IW-06-57E: Atty. Kelly and Mrs. Reinhardt were present. The map, "Existing Conditions Map," by Mr. Howland, dated June 20, 2006, revised to 10/26/06 was reviewed. Mrs. Reinhardt gave a lengthy statement about the circumstances that lead her to believe she did not need a permit for the clearing done and the reasons why she took legal action against the Commission. She hoped both sides could now come to an agreement on how to resolve this matter so that the legal action would not have to continue. Atty. Kelly asked that the enforcement order be released from the Land Records so that Mrs. Reinhardt can sell her property and said the purpose of the Exemption application was to "jump start" that process. Atty. Kelly stated a soil scientist had been hired to flag the wetlands and watercourses on the properties where the cutting had occurred and with those results in hand, claimed that there had been no regulated activities on the Reinhardt property and that Mrs. Reinhardt had complied with the terms of the cease and desist order. (See the 11/9/06 letter from Atty. Kelly to Mr. Ajello for details.) Ms. Purnell said soil scientists often disagree on wetlands boundaries and noted the Commission and its consultant had been denied access to the property. She said that had been the reason for the issuance of the order. It was the consensus of the Commission that a site inspection should be scheduled and its consultant should confirm the location of any wetlands and watercourses. A site inspection was scheduled for 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 21, 2006. Mr. Picton asked that the property line be flagged for the inspection. Atty. Kelly pressed for the quick approval of the application and release of the order, but the Commission wanted time to study Atty. Kelly's letter, which had just been submitted that afternoon, to refer it to its counsel, and to get a report from its own consultant. Upon continued pressure from Atty. Kelly to approve the exemption request, Mr. Picton asked the other commissioners if they thought the Commission was prepared to act on the application tonight. Ms. Purnell, Mr. LaMuniere, and Mr. Thomson said, no. Atty. Kelly said his client agreed to be responsible for the work done on the other properties, but needed the order released from her property so she could comply with the terms of her real estate contract. Atty. Kelly argued that not all enforcement orders are placed on the Land Records, that the Commission could continue to enforce it if it were released, and that the order could be amended even after it was released. He also argued that he had been trying to get a decision from the Commission and its counsel, but the resolution had been continually delayed. Mr. Picton countered that that the Commission had proposed a bond and conditions, which Atty. Kelly had argued against point by point. Mr. Picton noted this matter would be discussed in executive session later in the meeting. Atty. Kelly said that would not give him the opportunity to present his client's position to the Commission, to understand the parameters of any potential agreement, and to respond reasonably. It was the consensus the Commission would further discuss this matter with Atty. Kelly for a half hour later in the meeting.
Other Business
Corbo/40 Nettletown Hollow Road/#IW-06-34/Analysis of Alternate Driveway Route Per Condition of 9/27/06 Approval: Ms. Purnell read portions of Mr. Neff's 11/3/06 letter, which concluded that utilization of the existing wood road would cause the least amount of disturbance to the regulated area. The map, "Division of Property - Topographic Survey," by Smith and Company, dated 10/25/06 was reviewed. Mr. Picton asked if it was possible to traverse the hill farther up. Mr. Neff stated the east side of the wood road was too steep, that there were 20% to 100% slopes for the first 60 feet. Mr. Picton thought this confirmed the proposed route was the most feasible. Ms. Purnell disagreed, noting she had originally voted to deny the application because she thought there was a feasible and prudent alternate driveway route on a wood road running in the opposite direction.
MOTION: Regarding Corbo/40 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-06-34 to approve the location originally shown for the driveway to lot #2 because there is no better alternative in the area the Commission asked to be studied. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1.
Ms. Purnell abstained because she thought there was a feasible and prudent alternate driveway location elsewhere on the property.
Lecher/23 New Preston Hill Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-06-49: Mr. Lecher detailed the proposed revisions to his approved site plan; 1) relocate the house to the northwest, resulting in a shorter driveway and better view, 2) relocate the septic system to the existing cleared area, which is farther from the easternmost wetlands, and 3) reduce the area of disturbance, driveway area, and building coverage. The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 11/6/06 with hand drawn revisions by Mr. Lecher, was reviewed. Ms. Purnell asked if the driveway area would slope away from the wetlands. Mr. Lecher said it would. Ms. Purnell said the revisions were a net gain for the resources on site, but she was concerned about future expansion. She asked if the upland review area could be marked with permanent markers to provide notice there could be no encroachment with landscaping features beyond that point. Mr. Lecher agreed to do so.
MOTION: To approve the request submitted by Mr. Lecher to revise Permit #IW-06-49 for a house, driveway, and utilities at 23 New Preston Hill Road per the revised site plan dated 11/6/06 subject to the condition that the edge of the upland review area be marked with permanent markers on the side of the development envelope; the size of the markers to be recommended by the WEO; the markers printed to state, "edge of wetlands upland review area." By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Solomon/12 Painter Ridge Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-06-11: Mr. Neff, engineer, explained the proposed revisions to put in an underground propane tank at the north end of the pool and to build a short retaining wall on the north and south ends of the pool to even out the grade. He noted both of these activities were proposed in areas already approved for disturbance and that the limit of disturbance would not change. The map, ""Proposed Swimming Pool Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 11/11/06 was reviewed. Mr. Picton asked if there would be any fill deposited on the woods side of the pool. Mr. Neff said there would not. Ms. Purnell was concerned about cumulated impacts and the cutting off of one side of all the tree roots at the edge of the wooded area. Mr. Picton noted the proposal would keep the work area compact and maintain a buffer between it and the wetlands. Mr. Neff added that the proposed location of the tank would be easily accessible for refilling.
MOTION: To approve the request submitted by Ms. Solomon to revise Permit #IW-06-11 for a swimming pool at 12 Painter Ridge Road per the plans revised to 11/11/06. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Aragi/9 Wilbur Road/Preliminary Discussion/8 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Aragi showed a preliminary map of the 34.5 acre parcel; no title, no date. He proposed 8 lots; one with the existing house, and approximately 7 to 8 acres of open space. He noted the wetlands had been flagged and pointed them out on the map. He asked the commissioners for suggestions. Mr. Picton suggested using the open space to buffer the wetlands and asked if Mr. Aragi could use the open space subdivision alternative so this would be possible. Ms. Purnell advised the owner that lots adjoining permanent open space have a higher retail value. Mr. Bedini asked that the 100 ft. regulated area be shown on the final map. Mr. Picton noted the steeper slopes on site were directly above the wetlands and asked that the house sites be moved away from the edge of the slopes. Ms. Purnell agreed that development on the slopes above wetlands should be limited. Mrs. Hill said she did not think the Planning Commission would like the open space proposal. She noted in general, the Planning Commission has in the past favored open space that connects with other open space in the area or that is located along the road to preserve the rural streetscape, the Conservation Commission has recommended open space not be used as an additional wetlands buffer because wetlands are already protected, but should be used to preserve other valuable ecological features of a property, while the Inland Wetlands Commission has favored the use of open space to provide an additional buffer area to protect wetlands and watercourses. Mr. Picton advised Mr. Aragi that the Commission would inspect the site upon receipt of an application.
Reinhardt/10 Perkins Road/Unauthorized Clearing: The map, "Existing Conditions Map," by Mr. Howland, dated 6/20/06 was reviewed again. Atty. Kelly referred to the "Proposed Consent Order" and to the difficulties he said he had trying to work with the Commission's attorney to bring this matter to a resolution. He again noted Mrs. Reinhardt has a signed contract to sell her property and requested the enforcement order be released from the Land Records so it could go through. He said he understood the Commission's point that it needed time to review the materials he just submitted, but he pointed out how long he had been trying to negotiate with Atty. Hoben and said most of the documents had been in the file for a long time. Ms. Purnell asked if he was prepared to post a bond to guarantee the ongoing problems would be addressed. Atty. Kelly said, yes, if an amount could be agreed upon. He then briefly described the restoration he proposed, which, he said, was based on the comments in the Commission's site inspection report, Mr. Dirienzo's recommendation to let the disturbed areas revegetate themselves, and Mr. Temple's finding that that was no intermittent stream on the Reinhardt property. This consisted mainly of creating a low shade canopy over the wetlands. He said he had complied with all of the Commission's recommendations listed in the site inspection minutes except for the mapping of the downgrade drainage routes. Ms. Purnell noted site inspection minutes are written by one person and do not necessarily reflect all of or the final requests concerning a property. Atty. Kelly noted there had been a lack of trust on the Commission's part concerning the first consent order because it feared there were not enough funds included for the entire restoration of the three properties. Therefore, to address this concern, he wrote his own order, "Proposed Consent Order Submitted on Behalf of Susan Reinhardt, November 15, 2006." (Refer to this document for details.) A lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. LaMuniere was concerned there would not be enough funds available for the reforestation and correction of drainage problems. Ms. Purnell noted the work may have caused inadvertent impacts to the lake and down hill properties and so explained that was the reason the Commission had requested the downhill information. Mr. Picton advised Atty. Kelly that his document appeared to be a constructive effort to reach a final agreement. He said the Commission would study the document, refer it to Atty. Hoben, and possibly make some modifications that would be fair to both sides.
Enforcement
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Clearing and Filling: Mr. Ajello sent a letter to Mr. Moore as the Commission requested at the last meeting. Mr. Moore was unable to attend tonight's meeting, but will attend the next meeting. Mr. Ajello will try to obtain additional wetlands information before the next meeting.
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Filling, Soil Disturbance: Mr. Ajello reported Mr. Wright will comply with the enforcement order. The Town will pay for half the cost of the materials used to complete the restoration work on the trench.
Revision of the Regulations: Ms. Purnell said she was inclined to adopt the DEP's model regulations due to legal issues. She said she had reviewed Mr. Picton's recommendations, but did not think they could all be legally incorporated. Mr. Picton suggested a committee work on the revisions outside the regular meetings. Mr. Thomson, Mr. LaMuniere, and Mr. Bedini volunteered. All other commissioners were asked to forward their comments to Mr. Bedini. A special meeting will be noticed when they schedule a meeting.
MTION: To go into Executive Session at 10:10 p.m. to discuss pending litigation. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To come out of Executive Session at 10:30 p.m. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 10:31 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: November 3, 2006 October 25, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Bedini, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Potter
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, Mrs. Smith, Mr. Watson, Mr. Foss, Mr. Branson, Mr. Boling, Mr. Wright, Mr. Sears, Mrs. Gentile, Mr. Scully, Mr. Betolatti
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, and Picton and Alternate Thomson for Mr. Bedini.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: V. New Applications: C. Hochberg/15 Couch Road/#IW-06-55ATF/Dredge Pond, VII. Other Business: D. Myfield, LLC. /7 Mygatt Road/Permit #IW-05-54/Request for Minor Revisions to Conservation Easement per Conservation Commission Review and E. Schaeffner/12 Painter Ridge Road/Request to Transfer Permit #IE-06-11 to Solomon, and F. Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 10/11/06 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 3: Under Rising: Mid motion: One of the commissioners thought the Risings were told they could remove the stockpile, but since that was not specified in the motion, it was decided to stay with the original language.
Page 5: Under Melahn: 7th line: The correct spelling is Houldin.
Page 9: Under Moore: It was suggested the date Mr. Moore purchased the property should be included in the minutes. Mr. Ajello said he had that information in the file.
MOTION: To accept the 10/11/06 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 3-0-1.
Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not attended the meeting.
MOTION: To accept the Brown - 10/17/06 site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.
Pending Applications
Rising/191 West Shore Road/#IW-06-46/Repair Septic System: Mr. Picton noted that at the last meeting the replacement of the septic tank had been approved and the application had been referred to Mr. Pawlik of the state DEP. The Commission had raised questions concerning alternative plans, stabilization of the slope, moving the stream channel, and stabilizing its banks and it wanted him to address these. Mr. Ajello said he was not sure that Mr. Pawlik had been asked to respond to these questions. Mr. Picton noted the Commission had specific issues and that if they were not addressed, the application would have to be referred to another engineer for review. Mr. Ajello will consult with Mr. Crespan, Director of Health, concerning what instructions Mr. Pawlik was given.
Smith/35 East Shore Road/#IW-06-48/Hatchery Restoration and Buffer Garden: Mrs. Smith submitted the 10/21/06 letter to Mr. Picton, which, she said, answered the questions raised at the last meeting. The map, "Hatchery Area Restoration Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 10/24/06 to show the equipment access was reviewed. Mr. Neff, engineer, explained the excavation process, reviewed the construction sequence, and stated all the information requested was now indicated on the plans. He said 40 to 50 c. yards of silt would be removed from the pond and deposited in the two low basin areas. Mr. Picton asked what the depth of the fill in the middle of each basin would be. Mr. Neff said 2 ft. maximum, but if needed, a few more inches would be OK. Mr. Picton asked what the designed water level of the pond would be. Mr. Neff said the overflow point and, therefore, the water level in the pond, would be 2 ft. lower than it is now. He said also, the bottom of the pond would be sealed so it would be more stable in terms of the water level. Mr. Picton asked if a cross section had been provided. Mr. Neff said, no. Mr. Picton asked for the depth of fill at the lower end of the lower basin. Mr. Neff said it would be roughly 1.5 ft. at the lowest point. Mr. Picton noted his concern about the transit of the dredged material and that the exact amount of fill had not been specified. Mr. Watson stated the stone walls would still be exposed after the fill was deposited and if there was too much extra, it would be taken off site. Mr. Picton asked Mrs. Smith if Ms. Purnell had reviewed the plant list with her. Mrs. Smith said she would follow Mrs. Corrigan's recommendations re: the removal of invasive species, adding that all of the plants proposed were "wetlands recommended." Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to photograph the site prior to the commencement of work.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-48 submitted by Mrs. Smith to restore the hatchery and plant a buffer garden at 35 East Shore Road per the map, "Hatchery Area Restoration Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 10/24/06 with the stipulation that through the two basins to be regraded along the west side of the East Aspetuck River, roughly 1.5 ft. of fill will be placed at the north- south centerline of those basins and will be cut down along the back of the streamside wall by 1 ft. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.
Melahn/67 River Road/#IW-06-50/Well and Water Line: Mrs. Hill recused herself because she is an adjoining property owner. Mr. Foss, contractor, was present. Mr. Ajello reported he had inspected the site and had no concerns regarding access to the well head. However, due to ledge found in the area, it would be necessary to excavate 2 ft. for the water line and then bring in foam board and an estimated 14 yards of material to cover it. Mr. Picton asked how close the fill would be to the wetlands. Mr. Ajello said there would be no risk to the wetlands because it would be down grade of the proposed work and separated from that area by a wall. Mr. Picton said it should be understood the fill was to be deposited over the water line and not spread over the rest of the yard.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-50 submitted by Mr. Melahn for a well and water line at 67 River Road as submitted with the understanding that there may be moderate filling over the waterline itself as needed to provide sufficient cover over ledge. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 3-0.
Mrs. Hill was reseated.
Brown/125 Shearer Road/#IW-06-51/Timber Harvest: Mr. Branson, forester, briefly explained the proposed timber harvest and his goals to 1) soften the edge between the meadow and the forest so there is a more gradual transition and 2) establish buffer strips on both sides of the intermittent stream to try to stabilize its banks. The declining white ash and some of the sugar maples would be cut to allow more sunlight so the understory would grow. This would eventually result in a two age forest. Mr. Picton remarked the understory had been cut by the owner, probably in violation of the Regulations. Mr. Branson noted that no planting was proposed; there would be a natural resurgence of vegetation. The map, "Proposed Site Plan," no signature, no date with the area to be cut drawn in by hand by Mr. Branson was reviewed. Mr. Branson stated some of the cutting proposed would have to be approved by Steep Rock because it was within conservation easement parcels. Mr. Picton noted the Commission was interested in preserving a fully stocked forest and a natural corridor within 50 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Mr. LaMuniere stated the Commission regulates within 100 ft. of wetlands and watercourses and has systematically objected to the cutting of the canopy along intermittent watercourses. He said any thinning in that area would have to be very carefully monitored. Mr. Branson proposed a 30 to 50 ft. buffer strip of younger trees extending out from the stream. He said although there would be selective cutting in this area, the canopy would be retained. Mr. Picton said the Commission wanted to limit the effect of landscaping and cutting for views on the wetlands and watercourses. He noted that 150 ft. west of the wetlands shown on the map was another wetlands network that was not shown. Mr. Branson said there was interconnected drainage between the two. Mr. Picton did not want the proposed work to adversely impact the wetlands that were not mapped. There was a lengthy discussion concerning conditions of approval to ensure the Commission's ecological objectives would be upheld during the timber harvest.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-51 submitted by Mr. Brown for a timber harvest at 125 Shearer Road subject to the following conditions:
within 50 ft. of the wetlands and watercourses and in all areas within this cutting perimeter which lie west of the north flowing stream shown on the hand colored map, no more than 30% of the canopy can be removed and the removal of trees will be for forest stand improvement and for the purpose of restoration and maintenance of a fully stocked forest at all levels with no cutting of the understory,
1. Mr. Branson shall supervise the cutting,
2. condition #1 also applies to the forest land 100 ft. upslope of any wetlands and watercourses, and
3. the 10/25/06 Inland Wetlands Commission
approval shall be appended to the July 2006 forest management plan.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Ribadenera/79 South Street/#IW-06-52/Repair Pond Overflow Pipe: Mr. Picton noted limited work was proposed and it had been adequately described at the last meeting. Mr. Ajello said there were no unresolved issues.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-52 submitted by Mr. Ribadenera to repair the pond overflow pipe at 79 South Street. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.
New Applications
Betolatti/52 Flirtation Avenue/#IW-06-54/First Cut: Mr. Betolatti, owner, and Mr. Scully, engineer, were present. The map, "Property Survey Showing Proposed Parcel Line," by Mr. Bunnell, dated 10/19/06 was reviewed. A 4.5 acre interior lot and a 4 acre frontage lot were proposed on the 8.5 acre parcel. It was noted the plans had been approved by the Health Department and that they included the demolition and removal of four buildings from the property. A soil scientist flagged the wetlands and had found the intermittent stream and three seeps; one on the property and two on the adjoining lot. Mr. Scully reviewed the possible house and septic locations on the two lots. Although there appeared to be no activities within the regulated areas, it was noted the owners would have to come back to the Commission when a specific site plan was proposed. Mr. Picton noted the soil scientist's report was in the file, but asked for a copy of the sketch map. Mr. Scully said there was no sketch map; the seeps had been located by the surveyor. The Commission will act on the application at the next meeting.
Enforcement
Carter//292 Walker Brook Road (141 Shinar Mt. Rd.)/#IW-04-V8/Repair of Retaining Wall: Mr. Ajello reported an environmental scientist, Mr. Pawlek, would soon inspect the site to address the Commission's specific concerns that were raised in the 10/11/06 letter to Mr. Carter. Mr. Picton asked if this consultant was qualified to analyze the stream flow. Mr. Neff thought so, but said he would find out. Mr. Pawlek will submit his report to the Commission.
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Filling, Soil Disturbance: Mr. Wright attended the meeting to respond to the latest letter sent by Mr. Ajello. He complained that no other road in Town had a gulley filled with jagged rocks to solve a drainage problem and he asked if he could fill in between the rocks to encourage vegetation to grow there. Mr. Ajello said using a smaller alternate stone for the rip rap had been considered by the engineer who had concluded the jagged rocks lock together better for stabilization of the banks. He also noted the rip rap acts to trap sediment as it flows down the channel. Mr. Picton thought the engineer's recommendations were clear and complete and should be followed. It was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. Wright should not attempt to fill the gaps between the rip rap and the engineered plan should be implemented.
New Application
Town of Washington/59 East Shore Road/#IW-06-53/Boat Ramp: Mr. Ajello noted the application had been submitted with colored maps and an analysis of alternatives as the Commission had requested. Mr. Sears noted a copy of the Lake Waramaug Agreement was included in the file. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, 11/8/06 at 3:00 p.m. A public hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, 11/29/06 at 5:00 p.m.
Other Business
Gentile/38 Winston Drive/Request to Revise Permit #IW-03-68/ Retaining Wall: Mrs. Gentile presented the map, ""Plot Plan and Grading Plan," by Mr. Trinkaus, revised to 3/9/04 with the location of the proposed retaining wall and a row of silt fence drawn in by hand. She pointed out the location of the retaining wall, plunge pool, and future deck stairs. Mr. Picton noted the deck stairs were not shown on the map and advised her that a future application would be required for any activities within 100 ft. of wetlands and watercourses that were not indicated on the current map. Mr. Picton asked if fill had been placed behind the retaining wall. Mrs. Gentile responded that 2 loads of fill had been brought in and the disturbed soil had been seeded and mulched. It was noted the Gentiles had been asked at the last meeting not to bring additional fill in until the Commission had acted on the revision request. Mr. Ajello noted a new parking area had been built within 100 ft. of the stream on the lower portion of the property. Mr. Picton said this would require an application or would be put on the agenda under enforcement. He asked Mrs. Gentile to submit an application with an enlarged map to show both the parking area and the access to it, and said she could add the deck stairs to the application if she wished.
MOTION: To approve the request to revise Permit #IW-03-68 issued to Mr. Gentile/38 Winston Drive to include a retaining wall as built in the location shown in red on the map, "Plot Plan and Grading Plan, by Mr. Trinkaus, revised to 3/9/04 with further undated and unsigned revisions in red. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.
Other Business
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/ Revisions to the Conservation Easement per Conservation Comments: Mr. Boling reviewed the minor revisions on a draft dated 10/24/06. On pages 1 and 2 references to wildlife habitat had been deleted, on page 2 a reference to the property constituting a significant natural area was deleted, and on page 3 wireless telecommunications infrastructure was added to the list of prohibited uses. On page 5, a sentence was added to Section 3.3 to state that a qualified professional may be retained to use herbicides to eradicate invasive species if non chemical methods are not effective or practical.
MOTION: To approve the revisions to the conservation Easement for Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Permit #IW-05-54 as specified in the 10/24/06 final draft and to authorize the WEO to OK any other minor changes if they become necessary prior to the next Inland Wetlands Commission meeting. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 3-1.
Mr. LaMuniere voted No because he thought the proposed revisions were spurious.
New Application
Hochberg/15 Couch Road/#IW-06-55ATF: Mr. Ajello showed the August photos of the muck that had been excavated from the pond. He said Mr. Hochberg admitted that a lot of the dredgings had washed downstream. It was the consensus of the commissioners that Mr. Hochberg knowingly violated the Regulations and that a citation and fine should be issued. It was also noted the after the fact fee was due. Mr. LaMuniere said this was a major violation and a specific engineering plan and remediation plan should be included with the application. Mr. Ajello will write to Mr. Hochberg to request additional information and the after the fact fee.
Other Business
Schaeffner/12 Painter Ridge Road/Request to Transfer Permit
#IW-06-11: Mr. Ajello noted he had already reviewed the erosion control requirements with the new owner's contractor. Mr. Picton asked him to make sure that the contractor doesn't clear more woodland than was approved by the Commission.
MOTION: To approve the transfer of Permit #IW-06-11 issued to Mrs. Schaeffner/12 Painter Ridge Road to Ms. Solomon. By Mr. Picton, seconded By Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.
Enforcement
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clear Cutting: Mr. Picton read the undated letter from Mr. Moore, who was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Ajello pointed out that at the last meeting Mr. Moore had agreed to have borings done to determine how much fill had been placed over the wetlands, but according to his letter, he did not think this would be worthwhile. Mr. Ajello suggested an exploratory swath be excavated from the wetlands towards the road so that a cross section of the strata could be seen by a soil scientist, probably Mr. Allen of Land Tech. It was the consensus that this was a good idea and that two trenches should be dug; one close to the pig pen and the second 20 to 30 feet to the west. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to write up a "settlement offer" stating what the Commission proposed and the reasons for it and containing specific information on wetlands setbacks and vegetative buffer requirements. Mr. Picton will review the letter before it is sent to Mr. Moore.
Knudsen/Nettleton Hollow Road/Streambank Retaining Wall: Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello if the work done was per the approved permit. Mr. Ajello said it was.
Corbo/40 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-06-34/Analysis of Alternate Driveway Route per Condition of 9/27 Approval: Mr. Ajello said Mr. Corbo was working on a plan with 2 ft. contours and an alternate driveway route analysis.
9 Main St. Assoc./9 Main Street/Unauthorized Construction of Stone Wall: Mr. Johnson submitted a map with an overlay showing the location of the existing grass, brush, and wall. Mr. Ajello explained Mr. Johnson proposed to add woody growth in all the area within 50 ft. of wetlands that is not already planted. Mr. Picton read Mr. Johnson's 10/25/06 memo, which detailed the rationale for the proposed 50 ft. buffer. Mr. Picton asked that a note be added to the map that the vegetation in the 50 ft. buffer would be left to grow in its natural condition.
Caco/16 Flirtation Ave./Unauthorized Clearing, Grading: Mr. Ajello reported there had been no progress on this matter.
Collins/323 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Clearing and Soil Disturbance: Mr. Ajello reported there had been no progress on this matter.
Revision of the Inland Wetlands Regulations: It was noted Ms. Purnell still had the copy of Mr. Picton's Regulations with his recommended revisions. Mr. Picton hoped all the Members would make comments and that Ms. Purnell would pass his copy on to them soon.
Communications
It was noted the November meetings will be held on November 15 and 29, the third and fifth Wednesdays of the month.
MOTION: To enter into executive session at 10:08 p.m. to discuss pending litigation. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To end executive session at 10:38 p.m. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
October 11, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. LaMuniere
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Potter, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Ms. Coe
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Smith, Mr. Watson, Mr. Foss, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Moore, Mr. Sears, Mr. Boling, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Frank, Mr. McGowan, Mr. Branson
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Thomson for Mr. LaMuniere.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: V. New Applications: Melahn/67 River Road/#IW-06-50/Well and Water Line, B. Brown/125 Shearer Road/ #IW-06-51/Timber Harvest, and C. Ribadenera/ 79 South Street/#IW-06-52/Repair Pond Overflow Pipe and VII. Other Business: Town of Washington/East Shore Road/ Preliminary Discussion re: Boat Ramp, B. Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Request to Amend Deed Restrictions, and C. Gentile/38 Winston Drive/Request to Amend Permit #IW-06-68/ Deposit Soil, Construct Retaining Wall. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 9/27/06 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 3: 12th line under Rising: Should be: ...tri-axles would back up to the hill....
Page 5: 11 lines from bottom: Delete "soil" to read, wetlands scientist.
Page 6: 6th line: Change DEP to NCD.
4th line under Eaton-Carroll: Change step to are stepped.
Page 9: Under Revision of the Regulations: 1) The end of the last sentence should be changed to: ...and any revisions should be reviewed by the state DEP staff.
2) Mr. Picton pointed out his proposed revision was just one of a number of possible revisions.
MOTION: To accept the 9/27/06 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
The 10/3/06 Gentile site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. 1) The date of the Regular Meeting should be 10/11, not 10/18. 2) The date of the site inspection should be 10/3.
MOTION: To accept the 10/3/06 Gentile site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 10/10/06 Moore site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Eaton-Carroll/284 West Shore Road/#IW-06-45/Rebuild Lake Wall: Mr. Johnson, contractor, reported the property owners would not consider stepping the wall back as had been suggested by the Commission. The drainage system for the roof runoff was discussed. The Commission did not support the proposed overflow pipe, which would empty directly into the lake. It was agreed the infiltration system would have stone up to grade and that any overflow would run over the grass to the corner of the site. This would allow the water to spread out and infiltrate prior to reaching the lake. Mr. Picton asked if adequate erosion control measures had been proposed. Mr. Ajello said, yes, and pointed out that only 25 ft. of the wall would be worked on at a time. Mr. Picton asked that the repair of the wall be done when the water level was low.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-45 submitted by Eaton and Carroll to rebuild the lake wall on the south side of the dock stairs on its current footprint to its prior configuration as to size and height and to approve the roof water infiltration basin, but not the overflow pipe to the lake at 284 West Shore Road. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Rising/191 West Shore Road/#IW-06-46/Repair Septic System: The Commissioners read the undated letter from Mr. Rising and the 10/11/06 letter from Ms. Von Holt, Town Sanitarian, which stated there was no alternate location or type of leaching system that would be better suited for the property and that the State DPH would not review the application because the site was not complicated and the proposed system complied with the state regulations. Mr. Ajello noted that contrary to Mr. Rising's claim, the Inland Wetlands Commission had not approved the septic design in 2001. Mr. Picton asked him to research the old files to make sure this was so. Ms. Purnell suggested the applicant be asked to provide a copy of the permit. Mr. Picton thought the estimated $1600 consultant's fee to review this application was high and asked Mr. Ajello for a list of other engineers that could be considered. Mr. Ajello said there was no other suitable location for the septic and thought it would be best to complete the project and stabilize the disturbed areas as soon as possible. Mr. Picton disagreed, saying the work should wait for the growing season. Mr. Potter suggested a mat be placed over the disturbed areas for the winter. Documents in the previous file from 2000 were reviewed. The map, "Plan Showing Code Complying Septic System," by Mr. Trottier, revised to 9/7/06 was reviewed. It was the consensus that option #2 in Mr. Rising's letter, installation of a new tank only and the planting of trees at the top of the steep slope could be approved at this time. The Commission will try to find another engineer to review the plan and to determine whether there is an alternative system to handle the effluent that would provide more protection for the wetlands and watercourses. Ms. Purnell stated pilot septic plans are sometimes approved by the state on a case by case basis, so she thought this should be looked into. It was noted, while the repair work was needed, this was not an emergency situation.
MOTION: Regarding Application #IW-06-46 submitted by Mrs. Rising to repair the septic system at 191 West Shore Road, to approve option #2 listed in the undated letter from the Risings to the Commission to 1) install a new septic tank and 2) plant trees at the edges of the septic system, but to defer the elimination of the soil stockpile and the proposed work on the leaching field and to leave that soil surface undisturbed until the Commission receives a review from a consultant on the proposed septic system design and wetlands related work. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
It was noted this was a partial approval only and that the remainder of the application was still pending.
Smith/135 East Shore Road/#IW-06-48/Hatchery Restoration and Buffer Garden: Mrs. Smith and Mr. Watson were present. Mr. Ajello referred to Mrs. Corrigan's 10/10/06 report, which found it was unlikely the trout pond functioned as a vernal pool. Ms. Purnell suggested that the material excavated from the pond should be bagged and taken off site to prevent the spread of invasive species. Mrs. Smith agreed not to deposit the excavated material elsewhere on her property. The map, "Hatchery Area Restoration Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 9/26/06 was reviewed. Mr. Picton asked whether a qualified professional had commented on the plans to deposit fill in an area that occasionally floods. Hearing this had not been done, he noted this was a question that had to be addressed. He also asked that the construction route be drawn on the map. There was a discussion regarding whether the applicant had to have the wetlands soils flagged by a soil scientist as the Commission had previously requested. Mr. Watson explained there was only one appropriate location for the construction equipment to enter and exit because other locations would require that trees be cut. Mr. Picton asked that the construction access be identified and detailed specs for keeping it stable submitted. In response to a question from Ms. Purnell, Mrs. Smith stated none of the stone walls would be taken down to accommodate the construction equipment, but a ramp would be built at one end of the wall. Mr. Picton asked that routing the access through the enclosed courtyards where regrading is already proposed be compared with installing the access across seasonal streams on the hillside. Mr. Ajello noted the application did not specify the intermittent streams would be crossed. Additional information/ documentation required included: 1) a list of the machinery to be used, 2) provisions for hardening the stream, if any, 3) a thoughtful description of how the equipment will access the pond (on the map it states walls will be taken down, but the applicant stated this was not so at the meeting), 4) what protective measures would be taken, 5) duration of construction and 6) regarding the access, what was the route, what types of equipment would be used, how many trips would be made during the construction process. It was the consensus that the wetlands soils would not have to be flagged. Mr. Picton suggested the area that floods should be left alone. Mrs. Smith explained the goal was to repair the wall, put filter fabric behind it, and regrade to relieve the pressure. She agreed not to fill the area if she could pull the wall back, insert the fabric, and restore it to its previous grade. Mr. Picton asked that all this be added to the plans, including to what extent regrading would be done north of the wetlands. Possible granite work in this area was discussed. Mr. Picton thought granite blocks would tend to block the passage of water, but Ms. Purnell thought water would flow through if the blocks were not mortared. Ms. Purnell also noted the capacity of the pond would increase when it was dredged and so thought flooding would not be so much of a problem. Mr. Picton also asked for details on how much silt would be taken from the pond. Mr. Ajello was asked to study the file before the next meeting.
Lecher/23 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-06-49/House, Septic, Driveway, Utilities: Mr. Picton noted all the questions raised at the last meeting had been addressed. The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 10/10/06 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello noted the Commission had asked that the limit of disturbance line and the notes from the IW-05-03 approval be added to the map and said this had been done.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-49 submitted by Andrew Lecher, Inc. for a house, driveway, septic system, and utilities at 23 New Preston Hill Road. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Melahn/67 River Road/#IW-06-50/Well and Water Line: Mrs. Hill recused herself because she is an adjoining property owner and Mr. Potter was seated. Mr. Foss, contractor, reviewed the map, "Property Survey for Alison Melahn," by Mr. Osborne, dated 8/25/06 on which the location of the well and water line were drawn in by hand. Mr. Foss explained the well site would be accessed through the Holden property and the trench for the water line would be open for only a few hours. Ms. Purnell asked if there would be impacts to other properties. Mr. Foss said there would not because the Holden driveway was close by. Mr. Ajello noted there would be a hay bale barrier around the well to contain the backwater. It was the consensus a site inspection was not needed. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to review the file for the proper documentation.
Mrs. Hill was reseated.
Brown/125 Shearer Road/#IW-06-51/Timber Harvest: Mr. Branson, contractor, noted that 4 acres had been cleared previously and that Steep Rock holds a conservation easement on a portion of the property. The map, "Proposed Site Plan," no signature, no date, on which Mr. Branson had drawn in the 3.5 acre harvest area, skid roads, and landing area was reviewed. He pointed out the location of the nearby stream channel and said the management plan proposed would clean out the diseased ash trees and regenerate the forest near the streambed. Mr. Branson stressed that stabilization of the site would be a priority; that the mature sugar maples would be left and the growth of new maples encouraged. Ms. Purnell asked if the snags would be left on site. Mr. Branson said only a few would remain. Mrs. Hill asked if the understory would remain. Mr. Branson said it would. Mr. Branson submitted a copy of his "Forest Management Plan," dated July 2006 for the Commission to review and noted that a letter of authorization with a live signature was in the mail. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, October 17, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.
Ribadenera/79 South Street/#IW-06-52/Repair Pond Overflow Pipe: Mr. Bennett, contractor, represented the property owner. Mr. Ajello advised the Commission the work was urgently needed because the pipe had failed and the pond was draining. Mr. Bennett said he had originally thought the pipe could be dug out by hand, but now thought due to the weight of the iron pipe encased in concrete, machinery would be required to do the job. He said the replacement could be completed in one day. Mr. Ajello recommended the work be done as soon as possible and an after the fact application approved at the next meeting because there would soon be a frost and the pond would refill if it rained. Ms. Purnell said this could not be done due to the notice requirements under the Freedom of Information Act. It was the consensus a site inspection was not needed. Mr. Ajello was asked to review the file prior to the next meeting.
Other Business
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-54/Request to Amend Deed Restriction: Mr. Boling detailed the minor revisions proposed for the previously approved conservation easement in a draft dated 10/3/06. These included changes to dates, the addition of a paragraph granting the right to do things already approved by the Commission and already shown on the site plan, addition of the right to construct, install, use, and maintain additional utilities and their supporting infrastructure, addition of the right for future public utility companies to provide new utility infrastructure, addition of the right to repair and maintain the stormwater management systems, addition of the right to keep livestock, and other similar revisions. In sections 3.10 and 3.19 the Commission asked that language be added that the management plan must be approved by the Inland Wetlands Commission as well as the Grantee and the construction and maintenance of a fire pond and hydrant be subject to review by the Commission. Mr. Boling agreed to do so. Ms. Purnell referred to the Ct. DEP's brochure on best management practices and said they should be implemented for any work in the easement area to minimize potential impacts.
MOTION: To approve the revisions to the conservation easement for Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/ #IW-05-54 per the 10/3/06 draft and the subsequent changes made at the 10/11/06 Inland Wetlands Commission meeting. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Boling presented a sample 4" X 4" plastic conservation easement boundary marker for the Commission's approval.
MOTION: To approve the marking of the conservation easement boundaries for Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/#IW-05-54 with 4" X 4" plastic markers similar in color and design to the sample viewed at the 10/11/06 meeting. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Boling asked for permission to begin the driveway work and to install the erosion and sedimentation control measures before the easement is filed on the Town Land Records. He said the owners wanted to begin work, but the Conservation Commission, who would sign off on the final draft before it was filed, would not meet again until next month. There was a brief discussion about exactly what work should and should not be permitted prior to the filing of the easement.
MOTION: To permit Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/ #IW-05-54 to begin site work for the driveway and stormwater management system, but not for the houses or septic systems, prior to the filing of the conservation easement on the Town Land Records. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Gentile/38 Winston Drive/#IW-03-68/Request to Revise Permit: The 10/10/06 letter requesting a revision of the permit for deposition of soil to bring up the grade adjacent to the existing dwelling and to construct a retaining wall was noted and the map, "Plot Plan and Grading Plan," by Mr. Trinkaus, revised to 3/9/04 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello noted the house and drainage had been constructed in the locations previously approved by the Commission, but the retaining wall differed from what was approved. Land Tech's 3/4/04 letter was noted and Mr. Gentile said he had left 140 ft. of the drainage ditch undisturbed per this letter. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Gentile if he had a plan depicting the revisions requested. Mr. Gentile did not. The Commission requested a larger scale map showing the proposed work and asked Mr. Ajello to review it before the next meeting. Mr. Gentile asked if he could bring in two more loads of fill before the next meeting. Mr. Picton said he wanted all the specifications in place before the proposal was discussed further.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clear Cutting: Mr. Thomson recused himself and Mr. Potter was seated. Ms. Purnell noted she had been late for the site inspection, but had walked the property with Mr. Moore afterwards. Mr. Picton briefly reviewed what had been observed on site during the site inspection, which included what appeared to be recent filling of wetlands in the area near the pig pen, in the fenced pasture, and on the far side of the driveway. Ms. Purnell noted the wetlands had all been connected in the past. Mr. Picton said the filling under the power lines had been done long ago, but beyond that point there had been more recent clearing and stockpiling of materials. He thought the recently deposited fill should be taken out of the wetlands, perhaps under the supervision of a soil scientist, and the area restored to its previous contours and condition. Mr. Moore said he had filled within approximately 3 ft. of the driveway to establish a shoulder and make it more level, but had done no filling beyond that. He said this was an area that had been filled before he purchased the property and that he had filled up, but not out closer to the wetlands. He also stated he had removed the asphalt and wood chips from the vicinity of the pig pen. Mr. Potter suggested the disturbed areas be seeded to stabilize them, but did not think anything would be gained by removing the fill spread by Mr. Moore since it had been placed over other fill, not wetlands. There was a discussion about whether the recent fill should be removed, and if so, how much should be removed. Mr. Picton maintained that if Mr. Moore was not ordered to remove what he had illegally placed, every property owner would think he could get away with filling in wetlands. Mr. Moore agreed to follow best management practices and move the pig pen away from the wetlands to a location that would limit the animals' access to the water to only one spot. Mr. Picton noted that moving both bare earth and manure away from the wetlands would improve the water quality. He asked also that the storage of construction materials be moved further from the wetlands. He also recommended an appropriate vegetative buffer be installed between activities and the wetlands. Ms. Purnell noted Mr. Moore had also indicated he wanted to construct a pond and asked that detailed plans be submitted for review at the next meeting. Mr. Moore said he wanted the existing stream to flow through the pond and said he would hire an engineer to draw the plans. Ms. Purnell advised him that the DEP no longer advocated constructing ponds in wetlands and suggested a compromise might be to locate the pond so that only a portion extended into one end of the wetlands. Mr. Picton said the Commission would wait for the pond construction plan and application before requiring a plan for the revegetation of the disturbed areas. Mrs. Hill asked how the previous limit of the wetlands would be determined. Ms. Purnell recommended core samples be taken with an auger by a soil scientist, but Mr. Moore thought borings should be done instead. Mr. Moore asked what the point would be to taking out only what he deposited. He thought first the extent of the original wetlands should be determined and then the Commission should decide how much material should be removed. The Commission discussed what the proper distance from wetlands should be for various activities; possibly no filling within 50 ft. of wetlands, removing the fill to within 10 ft. of a wetland boundary, removing manure and agriculture to 30 ft. from wetlands, and removing the storage of construction materials to 30 ft. from the wetlands. It was also thought a 30 ft. wide vegetative buffer would be needed to trap sediment before it reached the wetlands. Mr. Ajello noted a 1983 aerial photo in the file showed an unobstructed watercourse and no crossing.
Town of Washington/Preliminary Discussion/Boat Launch: First Selectman Sears, Mr. Wilson, engineer, Mr. McGowan, Director of the Lake Waramaug Task Force, and Mr. Frank, president of the Lake Waramaug Association, were present. Ms. Purnell noted she serves on the board of the Lake Waramaug Task Force, but it had not yet held a discussion about the specific plans. Mr. Sears gave a brief history of the negotiations to limit and control motor boat access in order to protect the quality of the lake and guard against invasive species. The plans were drafted over two years in cooperation with the DEP and the DOT. Mr. Sears noted the main problem was the small size of the property, which had to provide the maximum number of parking spaces with as little impact as possible to the lake shore. The topo map prepared for the Lake Waramaug Assoc. by Mr. Adams, dated 9/2000 was reviewed. Mr. Sears said the work would be done in stages; stage II being the replacement of the boat storage and air pump facility to be relocated to the other side of the property. Mr. McGowan spoke of the efforts to protect the health of the lake. He said from an ecological viewpoint, the proposed boat launch on Town property would be far better for the lake than would the construction of a launch on state property at the other end of Lake Waramaug. The reasons he gave included: 1) it was shallower at the state park and the wave action in the shallow area would cause greater disturbance, 2) minor dredging would be needed at the Town end in comparison to what would be needed at the state park end, 3) the Town already has a boat inspection program in place, while the state has no plans to begin such a program, and 4) much larger boats would be able to launch at the state park site. Mr. Wilson reviewed his map, "Boat Ramp," dated July 2006. He noted the net impact would be below the 5000 sq. ft. threshold that would require an Army Corps of Engineers permit. 220 ft. of shoreline would be affected, 3000 sq. ft. of the lake would be filled, and 200 cu. yrds. of material would be deposited for the proposed parking area. A minimum of seven spaces is needed, but 9 spaces is the goal. All improvements would be kept out of the state right of way and sufficient sight lines for entering and exiting would be maintained. A retaining wall of precast units would be constructed along the shore line and all drainage would be handled on site. Mr. Wilson explained a standard catch basin with a drop in filter would be installed to catch petroleum, and added the filter could be lifted out for cleaning and perhaps even removed on a seasonal basis. He also briefly reviewed the construction sequence, which included construction of a staging area so the existing boat ramp could function while the new one was being built. The commissioners were asked to come in to review the preliminary plans and to submit questions and comments as soon as possible. The applicant was asked to submit with the application a colored map and a narrative analyzing feasible and prudent alternatives.
Enforcement
Spring Hill Farm, LLC. and Kessler: Mr. Ajello reported the court had approved both settlements and both cases were closed. He said he had attended a pre construction meeting for Spring Hill and had approved the final plans. He said the plan was in the file and commissioners were welcome to review it.
Town of Washington/Canoe Brook Streambank Repair: Mr. Picton asked if the modified rip rap installed was what had been approved. It was noted the Commission had not granted permission for excavation or equipment in the streambed; it had understood the work would be done from the bank by the Art Association. Mr. Ajello was asked to discuss the restoration of the streambed with the contractor.
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Filling, Soil Disturbance: Mr. Ajello reported Mr. Cannavaro, road foreman, had not yet had a chance to review the engineered plans and that Mr. Wright was waiting to hear from the Town before beginning the restoration work.
9 Main Street: Mr. Ajello met with Mr. Johnson who promised to submit a map showing the planted buffer line so that it could be discussed at a future meeting.
Peck/10 Slaughterhouse Road: Mr. Ajello reported the enforcement order had been filed on the Town Land Records. He noted the disturbed areas were gradually being restored on their own.
Corbo/40 Nettleton Hollow Road: Mr. Corbo is still working on the analysis required as a condition of his driveway permit.
Other Business
Revision of the Regulations: Ms. Purnell was still reviewing Mr. Picton's draft and said she would circulate it soon.
Mr. Bedini had drafted a letter to the Atty. General concerning the difficulties under which Inland Wetlands commissions work when the courts do not support their decisions. He asked if he could send it on behalf of the Commission. Mr. Picton and Mrs. Hill agreed with the points he raised.
Mr. Potter said he thought people were reluctant to appear before the Inland Wetlands Commission because its decisions were arbitrary. Mr. Picton explained the Commission had to take into account the specific physical conditions on site and so it was, indeed, a challenge not to appear arbitrary when making judgments. Ms. Purnell also noted the Commission follows its regulations for new activities, but sometimes must deal with grandfathered uses, and in doing so, might appear to be arbitrary. Mr. Bedini recommended Mr. Potter attend all of the DEP Inland Wetlands commissioner training sessions and Ms. Purnell said she would supply him with information on wetlands impacts, recommended buffer widths, etc.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Ms. Purnell.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 10:24 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
September 13, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton,
Ms. Purnell
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bedini
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Potter, Mr. Thomson
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Hannibal, Mr. Corbo, Mr. Volpe,
Mr. Neff, Mr. Farmer, Mr. Sears, Mrs. Smith,
Mrs. Taylor, Mr. Wyant, Mr. DePecol, Mr. Watson, Residents
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Clearing and Filling
Mr. Picton called the show cause hearing to order at 6:48 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Coe for Mr. Bedini.
Mr. Ajello, EO, noted at the last meeting the site plan and wetlands mapping had been submitted, but there had been no new information received since. He added that Mr. Moore said he would not challenge the order and expected a site inspection by the Commission.
Ms. Purnell noted the violation had been ongoing for quite some time. Mr. Ajello explained it had taken a long time for Mr. Moore to get the required mapping done and that he had also done substantial clean up of the site. Ms. Purnell asked if photos of the violations were on file. Mr. Ajello said they were.
Mr. Picton asked if the unauthorized activities had stopped. Mr. Ajello said he knew of no further cutting and filling in the wetlands.
It was noted the Commission was still waiting for a restoration plan.
It was the consensus that the activities that had occurred were significant and the enforcement order should remain in effect.
MOTION: To close the Show Cause hearing to consider
the 9/5/06 enforcement order issued to Mr.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike for unauthorized
clearing and filling. By Mrs. Hill, seconded
by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton closed the hearing at 7:53 p.m.
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, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Coe for Mr. Bedini.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to
the agenda: Invasives in Lake Waramaug. By
Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and
passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 8/9/06 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 5: Under Lloyd: 9th line: Ms. Purnell preferred a pervious surface, not impervious.
10th line: Change basin to drain.
Page 5: Change the wording of the condition of approval to: the motion of approval be added to the revised site plan and the site plan be filed on the Town Land Records.
Page 8: 9th line: Insert: top of the before bank.
11th line: Delete the sentence beginning, "Mr. Picton thought that should be the objective...."
7th line from bottom of long paragraph at top of page: Insert: top of the bank adjacent to before wetlands.
Page 9: Under Ingrassia: 4th line: Change under to on.
MOTION: To accept the 8/9/06 Public Hearing - Regular
Meeting minutes as corrected. By Ms. Purnell,
seconded by Mrs. Hill and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 8/15/06 Shepaug Realty (across
from June Road) Site Inspection minutes as
submitted. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr.
Picton, and passed 4-0-1.
Ms. Purnell abstained because she had not
attended the site inspection.
MOTION: To accept the 8/15/06 Shepaug Realty (46 June
Road) Site Inspection minutes as written. By
Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed
4-0-1.
Ms. Purnell abstained because she had not
attended the site inspection.
MOTION: To accept the 8/15/06 Hannibal Site Inspection
minutes as written. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded
by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0-1.
Ms. Purnell abstained because she had not
attended the site inspection.
MOTION: To accept the 8/15/06 Knudsen Site Inspection
minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded
by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0-1.
Ms. Purnell abstained because she had not
attended the site inspection.
MOTION: To accept the 9/7/06 Reinhardt-Cremona
Site Inspection minutes as written. By Mr.
LaMuniere, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and
passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Corbo/40 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-06-34/First Cut and Driveway: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his revised map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," revised to 9/8/06, driveway profiles, "Lot No. 2 Driveway Profile," dated 9/12/06, and the 8/31/06 memo containing the project description and an analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives for the driveway route. Revisions to the site development plan included addition of the proposed contour lines, the proposed pond overflow at station 550, and a description of the overflow, which would be 20 ft. wide, 6 in. deep, and rip rapped for stabilization. Mr. Neff said it was well vegetated on the other side of the driveway so he had no concerns about erosion. He noted the flow calculations were 15 c. ft. per sec. maximum in a 100 yr. storm. He added that this runoff would flow over a flat section of the driveway and there was no need to harden the area between the driveway and the wetlands. Ms. Purnell asked if the alternate driveway route on the section of the existing wood road to the north had been considered. She thought this route was further from wetlands and said she did not favor the proposed route because it was in such close proximity to the wetlands. Mr. Potter noted there was already a hard wood road to the south where the driveway was proposed. Mr. Neff said he had considered both a bridge and the longer route suggested by Ms. Purnell, but noted it, too, was in the regulated area. Regarding the proposed route to the south, Mr. Picton asked how fast you could get away from the wetlands by moving the route up the hill. He said the Commission usually did not like to disturb steep hillsides above wetlands, but that he wanted to make sure all feasible and prudent alternatives were considered. Mr. Neff said significant cuts and fills would be required as well as cutting more trees. Ms. Purnell thought the proposed route would likely result in long term impacts and that it could also impact the wetlands off site. Mr. Ajello stated that he thought the proposed route was the best one because it was an existing roadbed, which would cause less disturbance when installed. Ms. Purnell said there were times when consideration of long term impacts should outweigh the short term impacts from construction. Mr. Corbo offered to do a detailed study of the possible hillside route and present it to the Commission prior to construction as a condition of approval. Ms. Purnell noted the Commission normally waits until all documentation is in before acting on an application. Mr. Picton thought in this case, however, since three professionals had said this was not a good alternative and there would be no driveway construction to Lot #2 until after the study was submitted, it would be OK to act on the application at this time. Mr. Corbo also noted that he would submit applications for the specific site development of each lot. Mr. Picton asked that the limit of disturbance line be shown on the map and that it be understood that this line was also the limit of clearing line. He also asked that a noted be added to state the vegetation between the driveway and the wetlands would remain undisturbed. The bond requirement and conditions of approval were discussed. Mr. Picton seated Mr. Thomson for Ms. Coe because he had attended the site inspection.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-34 submitted by
Corbo Associates, Inc. for a first cut and
driveway at 40 Nettleton Hollow Road per the
plans revised to 9/8/06 and 9/12/06 subject to
the following conditions:
1. the limit of disturbance line shall be the
limit of clearing,
2. a $10,000 bond shall be posted before the
start of work,
3. all the land between the driveway and wetlands
shall remain vegetated and a minimum of 10 ft.
of the existing moderate grade between the
driveway and the top of the steeper bank
adjacent to the wetlands shall be maintained
as a vegetated buffer along the full length of
the driveway,
4. there shall be no surface disturbance on slopes
exceeding 20% on the wetlands side of the
driveway,
5. before work commences on lot #2 or on the
segment of the driveway to lot #2, there shall
be a more thorough study of the hill above the existing wood road where it follows the edge of
the wetlands from the pond crossing to steep
slopes on the hillside above the proposed
driveway for a possible alternative driveway
location, and this study shall be analyzed and
prepared by the applicant and submitted to the Commission for the final determination of the
driveway route,
6. the motion of approval with all conditions
shall be added to the final site plan and two
copies provided to the Commission for its files.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed
4-1.
Ms. Purnell voted No because she thought the
proposed driveway route so close to the wetlands
would have a perpetual long term impact on the
wetlands and also had the potential to impact
wetlands off the property.
Shepaug Realty, LLC./46 June Road/#IW-06-37/Rebuild Steps, Add Rail, Install Fence: Mr. Farmer was present. Mr. Ajello explained the parking area had been installed without a permit and would be restored to conditions approved by the DOT. The sketch map dated 7/19/06 was reviewed. Mr. Farmer noted he had repaired the existing steps with as little disturbance as possible, added a railing due to the steep drop off, had installed the fence in front of the old one, but would lower the height, and would restore the traffic posts as ordered by the DOT. Mr. Picton noted the placement of 1.5 feet of gravel over the existing culvert was an additional violation that hadn't been noted before. Ms. Purnell asked if the DOT had a problem with the fill. Mr. Farmer said the DOT had asked him only to reinstall the posts. Mr. Ajello thought the fill would be stable for the long term. Mrs. D. Hill asked if the after the fact application fee had been paid. Mr. Farmer said it had.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-37 submitted by
Shepaug Realty to rebuild the steps, install a
railing, and install a new fence at 46 June Road
per all the information in the file, including
the sketch map dated 7/19/06. By Ms. Purnell,
seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Shepaug Realty, LLC./46 June Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-02-73/
Realign Driveway Entrance: Mr. Farmer and Mr. DePecol were present. The map, "Drainage Area Plan," by Berkshire Engineering, dated 12/31/02 was compared with a revised portion of the same map in the 8/8/06 packet of information, "Proposed Driveway Alignment." Mr. DePecol proposed to move the driveway entrance south in order to reduce the grade of the first 50 ft. from 17% to 10%. Mr. Ajello explained the first 50 ft. of the driveway had not been included in the original application because it had been existing. Mr. DePecol noted the driveway was 240 ft. from the lake. Mr. Picton observed the runoff moves swiftly down the steep slopes, and Mr. Farmer said it gets caught by the swale and is channeled. Ms. Purnell noted the driveway entrance would be 40 ft. wide. Mr. Picton noted the existing driveway slopes were not well vegetated. Mr. Farmer said there were ferns and moss on the banks, but he proposed to use some stockpiled soil and jute mesh to alleviate the problem. Mr. Picton worried the banks would not support sufficient growth or that the soil would wash out. He asked the applicant to address whether the banks required hardening. Ms. Purnell was concerned that the cut into the bank could intercept groundwater, which could result in additional runoff problems. Mr. DePecol presented a centerline profile and said the plan had been approved by the Town Highway Dept. Mr. Picton thought an engineered plan by a professional engineer was needed and asked for revised contours and a cross section showing slope, gutters, and stabilization of the banks. He also asked for a list of proposed mitigations. Mr. Farmer said this had already been submitted to Mr. Ajello. Ms. Purnell asked for a long term maintenance plan.
Knudsen/236 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-06-39/Build Retaining Wall: Mr. Nelson, contractor, said the idea of laying the stones flat into the bank as had been discussed at the site inspection was unacceptable to the property owner. He presented a compromise plan by Mr. Neff, "Brook Bank Stabilization Detail," dated 8/19/06, which proposed the wall set back into the bank. Ms. Purnell noted a minimum amount of the wall should be in the stream channel. Mr. Nelson responded his starting point was where the original streambed ran, saying he just wanted to close the stream back to its original bed. He described his proposal, which would allow the stream to flow as it had in the past with no eddy. Ms. Purnell noted her concerns about downstream scouring and that if the curve were taken out the velocity would increase. Mr. Nelson again stated there had not originally been a curve in this section of the stream. The portion of a survey map dated 8/13/06 and initialed EN was reviewed. Mr. Nelson agreed to Mr. Picton's request not to exceed the profile of the existing bank by more than 6 inches. Mr. Neff said the wall would be stepped back. In lieu of a more detailed plan, Mr. Picton asked that the proposed limit of work be staked at both the top and bottom of the wall so that prior to the commencement of work he and the EO could check to make sure the configuration of the slope would not change. Ms. Purnell asked if the proposed work would have hydrological implications. Mr. Neff responded there would be no problems at the transition point. Mr. Nelson noted at the site inspection it was suggested that the material deposited in the stream be removed and asked if this was still OK. Mr. Picton read the last paragraph on page 1 of his 8/15/06 site inspection minutes describing the specific excavation work to be done. Mr. Nelson said there would be no work in the channel directly in front of the culvert. Ms. Purnell was concerned that all of the proposed work would increase the velocity of the stream. Mr. Nelson agreed not to excavate more than 12 c. yards of material.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-39 submitted by
Mr. Knudsen to harden 65 ft. of the streambank
at 236 Nettleton Hollow Road in the location
shown on the portion of the survey map submitted,
initialed EN and dated 8/13/06 subject to the
following conditions:
1. the upper and lower lines of the slope to be
hardened shall be staked in the field for
inspection and approval by the EO and a
Commission member,
2. the slope hardening shall not encroach on
the existing stream basin cross section,
3. the excavation of sediment not to exceed 12
cubic yards shall be permitted per paragraph 5
of Mr. Picton's 8/15/06 site inspection report.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed
5-0.
Hannibal/80 Sunset Lane/#IW-06-40/2 Lot Subdivision Feasibility: Ms. Purnell recommended approval based on the site inspection report that the proposed activities would have no impact on wetlands or watercourses and because the approval would be for feasibility only. Mrs. D. Hill thought the applicants may have been charged too much for the application fee and Mr. Ajello said he would try to get $30 refunded to them.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-40 submitted by
Mr. Hannibal for a 2 lot subdivision feasibility
at 80 Sunset Lane per the plans by Mr. Neff
dated 8/1/06. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs.
Hill, and passed 5-0.
Meyers/5 West Church Hill Road/#IW-06-41/Dredge Silt Basin and Pond Inlet: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his plan, "Silt Basin/ Pond Cleanout Plan," dated 8/2/06. He proposed to dig out the silt basin and pond inlet and deposit the excavated material north of the basin. Mr. Ajello said he had no problem with the proposal. Ms. Purnell asked if the basin would be cleaned out every year. Mr. Neff said every other year. Ms. Purnell asked for source reduction to control the sediment. Mr. Neff thought the other stream flowing into the pond actually contributed more to the sediment problem. Mr. Picton asked if there would be hazards associated with the removal of the dredged material. Mr. Ajello said there would be none. Ms. Purnell recommended that only two thirds of the material be removed to leave a fore bay to collect future sediment.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-41 submitted by
Mr. Meyers to dredge the silt basin and pond
inlet at 5 West Church Hill Road as submitted
per the plans by Mr. Neff dated 8/2/06. By
Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed
5-0.
Walberg/113 West Shore Road/#IW-06-42/Install Surface Drain: Mr. Wyant, contractor, was present. The maps, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated August 1999 and the hand drawn sketch map by Mr. Wyant were reviewed. Mr. Wyant explained the existing pipe was crushed. The proposed replacement pipe, a 4 inch perforated PVC pipe, would be installed in 3/4 in. gravel up the grass section in the center of the driveway and would hook into the catch basin for the existing patio. The pipe would be installed no deeper than 2 ft. due to the ledge on the property. Mr. Picton stated the new pipe would not change the direction or quantity of the flow. Ms. Purnell noted the runoff would end up in a catch basin that flows into the lake. She also noted the required USGS quad map had not been submitted. It was the consensus that the sequence of construction submitted was adequate.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-42 submitted by
Mr. Walberg to install a surface drain at 113
West Shore Road as submitted. By Mr. Picton,
seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Town of Washington/1 West Shore Road/#IW-06-43/Repoint Spillway, Install Trash Rack: Mr. Sears, First Selectman, explained the DEP Bureau of Water Management had inspected Dam #15008, which is 50 ft. south of West Shore Road, and had ordered repairs. The masonry face of the spillway must be rechinked and repointed and a new trash rack to protect the intake structure will be custom built and installed. He noted copies of the DEP report and specifications were in the file. He proposed to do the work during low water, said it would take five days to complete, and added that there would be no change to the flow characteristics of the stream. Ms. Purnell asked how often the rack would be cleaned out. Mr. Sears said it would be monitored and cleaned out from time to time. The Commissioners will inspect the dam on their own prior to the next meeting.
Devereux Foundation/81 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-06-44/Emergency Repair of Water Line: Mr. Ajello noted this was an after the fact application. He said the line had been retrenched from the well on the east side of Sabbaday Lane through the campus, but only the first 50 ft. had been near wetlands. The work was now completed, the disturbed areas mulched, and no problems had been created or damage done to the wetlands. Mr. Picton noted the emergency work had been necessary because the water line connected to the school's water supply. Ms. Purnell noted there was no topo map with the application. The Commissioners were asked to inspect the property on their own before the next meeting.
Eaton-Carroll/284 West Shore Road/#IW-06-45/Rebuild Lake Wall: Mr. Johnson, contractor, proposed to rebuild 106 feet of the existing 200 ft. long wall. The 106 ft. section had already fallen into the lake, but so far no soil was eroding. He said the work would be done during low water and the existing footing used. Mr. Johnson said the application also included resetting caps on six spots on the remainder of the wall and repair of a dry well elsewhere on the property. A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.
Rising/191 West Shore Road/#IW-06-46/Repair Septic System: Mr. Picton expressed the Commission's dissatisfaction that the Health Department does not routinely refer septic repair work to the Inland Wetlands Commission when it is required. The map, "Plan Showing Code Complying Septic System," by Mr. Trottier, revised to 9/7/06 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello noted the new pumped system would be on the uphill side of the house, further from the lake than the existing system. Included in the application were the replacement of the existing curtain drain and the piping of the intermittent stream on the east side of the house. Ms. Purnell asked if any of the runoff could be infiltrated. Mr. Ajello did not think so due to the proximity of the septic area and pointed out that the plan was engineered and had Health Dept. approval. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to tell the property owner to do no more clearing on the hillside until after the Commission inspects the site. Mr. Picton noted the Health Dept. had approved moving the watercourse without approval by the Inland Wetlands Commission. Ms. Purnell noted there were other possible configurations of the proposed septic system that would not infringe so much on the existing watercourse. Mrs. D. Hill noted two copies of the plan had not been submitted as required. A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 4:45 p.m.
Whitney/191 Roxbury Road/#IW-06-47/Driveway and First Cut Feasibility: Ms. Zinick, agent, noted 120 feet of the proposed driveway would be within 100 feet of the pond and said this was for feasibility only; a specific application would be submitted prior to construction. She stated the DOT required the proposed driveway location due to sight line requirements and the steepness of the highway. At its closest point, the driveway would be 40 ft. from the pond. Mr. Picton asked if there would be a gutter or cross culvert. Ms. Zinick said there would be a pipe under the driveway entrance. The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 8/7/06 was reviewed. Mr. Picton asked if the rest of the property had been checked for wetlands, noting the Commission does not rely on the USGS map. Ms. Purnell asked for a soil report and sketch map by a soil scientist. A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 5:30 p.m.
Smith/35 East Shore Road/#IW-06-48/Restore Hatchery and Install Buffer Garden: Mrs. Smith, Mr. Watson, and Mr. Neff, engineer, were present. Mrs. Smith proposed to dredge the pond, take down the wall that is severely leaning towards the river, rebuild it, solidify the bank of the pond, remove all the invasives in the area, and replant with wetlands buffer plants. She showed a photo of the original hatchery, which hasn't operated in 80 years, and said she wanted to restore it and stock it again with trout. Ms. Purnell noted trout are a cold water species, but Mrs. Smith said they had been recommended by the Conservation District. The map, "Hatchery Area Restoration Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 4/26/06 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello circulated the 9/11/06 report from Mr. Hayden of the NWCD and said three letters in support of the project had been received. Mr. Picton asked how this application differed from the last discussion with the Commission. Mrs. Smith stated the application was more complete with input from both the NWCD and Mr. Neff. She also noted the proposed buffer garden would help to keep the restored hatchery ponds healthy. Mrs. D. Hill asked about the pipe mentioned on the application form. Mrs. Smith said the pipe had not yet been added to the plan, but would be installed underground and activated during the dry season to feet the pond. The diverted water would eventually return to the East Aspetuck River. Mr. Picton asked for construction specifications. A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 5:00 p.m.
Enforcement
Taylor/11 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Excavation in Wetlands: Mrs. Taylor submitted the 8/23/06 report from Mr. George of CCA, LLC. and said Mr. Hayden of the NWCD inspected the site, but had said he would send his report directly to the Commission. Mr. Ajello noted Mr. Hayden would not complete his report until he had received a planting plan with plant list from Mrs. Taylor. She then reviewed the CCA report for the Commissioners who had not had an opportunity to read it prior to the meeting. She said the report included the following points: 1) the drainage area was only 1-5 acres, 2) an emergency swale was not needed because the outlet pipe is stable, 3) the outlet pipe must be increased from 6 in. to 8 in. and installed 24 in. below the top of the berm, 4) the outlet should be rip rapped extending to the existing ditch, and 5) no regrading of the slopes was necessary as they were heavily vegetated and regrading would cause further disturbance. The Assessor's map showing the location of the pond and inlet and outlet pipes was reviewed. Mrs. Taylor said she never agreed to the compromise planting plan recommended in the past by the Commission and instead proposed to plant native and medicinal species from long list of plants she was considering. She noted she did not want tall grass near the pond because it would attract ticks and said she would plant vegetation that could be used to "treat ticks." She also stated she would intersperse the plants around the boulders to maintain the integrity of the banks. Mr. Picton asked Mrs. Taylor to send a copy of the planting plan to Mr. Hayden. When Mr. Picton advised Mrs. Taylor the Commission would review the documents just submitted and make a decision at the next meeting, Mrs. Taylor objected because she wanted her husband to have time to complete the required work within the next month. After a lengthy discussion it was the consensus the Commission would approve the pond restoration and planting plan subject to the EO's review and approval. Ms. Purnell said she would review the plant list because some of the plants proposed were invasive species. Mr. Picton noted approval was with the understanding that the work would be completed as soon as possible this fall.
MOTION: Regarding the 9/19/05 Enforcement Order issued
to Taylor/11 Sunset Lane for unauthorized
excavation and clearing in a regulated area: To
approve the engineered specifications by CCA
dated 8/23/06 for the restoration of the pond
subject to review and approval by the enforcement
officer. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell,
and passed 5-0.
Mrs. D. Hill asked for updates on Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/
#IW-06-38 and Steep Rock Assn./147 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-06-33 because these permits were not to be issued until the conditions of approval were met. Mr. Ajello noted both applicants responded promptly in writing and were OK.
Mr. Potter left the meeting at this point.
Enforcement
The Commissioners signed up for the next session of the DEP Wetlands training program and a talk by Mr. Klemmens sponsored by the NWCD.
Mr. Picton reminded the Commission of the Special Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. The agenda is executive session to discuss pending litigation.
Zelman-Defendorf/16 Tompkins Hill Road: Mr. Picton asked if the work was being done according to the approved plan. Mr. Ajello said the planting was still in progress and he would inspect the site tomorrow.
Franco/25 River Road: Mr. Ajello reported 1) Mr. Franco had paid the citation and 2) he would inspect the site soon. Mr. Picton did not think a good effort had been made to properly install the hay bales, noted Mr. Franco had not cleaned up the sediment, and thought if it wasn't cleaned up soon, a per day fine should be issued.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Clearing and Filling: A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, September 26, 2006 at 5:00 p.m.
MOTION: That the 9/5/06 enforcement order issued to Mr.
Moore for unauthorized clearing and filling in
regulated areas at 25 Litchfield Turnpike shall
remain in effect. By Mr. Picton, seconded by
Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Martin/35 Nichols Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing and Soil Disturbance: Mr. Ajello said walking trails had been installed and neighbors would inform him if these trails are used for ATVs.
Peck/10 Slaughterhouse Road/Unauthorized Excavation, Tree Removal: Mr. Ajello reported Mr. Peck had submitted a soil report and wetlands sketch map. Mr. Picton asked if the MA soils had wetlands soils beneath them. Mr. Ajello thought the MA areas were wetlands that Mr. Peck had cleared and regraded. Mr. Peck is working on a restoration plan, which he will submit in two weeks.
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Filling, Soil Disturbance: Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to check to determine whether there were things Mr. Wright was asked to do, but hasn't. If so, he recommended official action and the issuance of a citation. Mr. Ajello noted Mr. Wright had paid for engineered plans and said he would contact the Highway Dept. about providing some of the materials and/or having the Town do some or all of the work.
Complaint/Gunn Hill Farm: Mr. Ajello said he had driven by the property and had seen no evidence of ditches dug in the wetlands as had been reported. He was asked to walk the fields to make a thorough inspection.
Carter/Walker Brook Road/Repair Retaining Wall: Certified letters had been mailed to three different addresses and had all been returned. Mr. Picton suggested trying regular mail.
9 Main Street Assn./9 Main Street: The Commission had requested a map to show the extent of the established lawn. To date there has been no progress.
Caco/16 Flirtation Ave./Unauthorized Clearing, Grading: Mr. Ajello said there had been no recent contact.
DEP Pesticide Permits: It was noted that because the DEP approves all applications, the Commission normally does not comment unless the application was for an active stream.
MOTION: To enter executive session at 11:02 p.m. to
discuss pending litigation. By Mr. Picton,
seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To leave executive session at 12:12 a.m. By
Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Spring Hill Farm, LLC./69 Whittlesey Road/#IW-05=74:
MOTION: Regarding Spring Hill Farm, LLC./69 Whittlesey
Road/Application #IW-05-74/New Dwelling: To
approve the plan, "Partial Site Plan - Development
Areas," DD100, by Halper Owens Architects, revised
to 8/29/06 and the draft motion as modified at the
9/13/06 Inland Wetlands Commission meeting. By
Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed
4-1.
Ms. Purnell voted No because she thought the
conditions of approved had been gutted to the
point that they were unacceptable.
Kessler/103-105 West Mountain Road/#IW-06-05:
MOTION: Regarding Kessler/103-105 West Mountain Road/
Application #IW-06-05/Two New Dwellings and
Driveway Crossing: To approve the plan,
"Partial Site Plan with Slopes 20% or More
Indicated and Guest House at Alternate Location,"
A-006, by Halper Owens Architects, revised to
9/11/06 and the draft motion as modified at the
9/13/06 Inland Wetlands Commission meeting. By
Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-1.
Ms. Purnell voted No for the same reasons she
voted to deny the application on 5/10/06: 1)
the potential precedent set when removing an
existing footprint and allowing for modification
of that footprint, 2) the impacts from the
existing structures and the cause for the
eutrophication of the pond had not been
definitively established, 3) there are feasible
and prudent alternatives for both the main house
and the guest house, and 4) the property is not
appropriate for development of this size.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 12:15 a.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
August 9, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Potter
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Thomson
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sabin, Atty. Fisher, Mr./Mrs. Lloyd, Mr. DiBiase, Mrs. Beck, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Neff, Mr. Rosiello, Mrs. Branson, Mr. Humes, Mr. Corbo, Mr. Volpe, Mr. DePecol, Mr. Nelson, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Boling, Press
PUBLIC HEARING
Lloyd/149 Whittlesey Road/#IW-06-29/Demolish Existing House, Build New House
Mr. Picton reconvened the hearing at 6:32 p.m. and seated
Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
Atty. Fisher noted Land Tech raised no significant concerns in its 7/25/06 review, but said Mr. Sabin had revised his plan to address some minor points raised.
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, presented his map, "Site Plan for Jill and Michael Lloyd," revised to 8/4/06 and submitted the 8/9/06 letter from Mr. Neff, which confirmed the biofilter basins have sufficient capacity to handle the runoff from a one inch rainfall. He reviewed the revisions, which included: 1) addition of notes re: protection of large trees within the construction envelope, required use of construction fence to more visibly mark the limit of disturbance boundary, and keeping extra silt fencing on site for emergency repairs, 2) addition of recharge galleries for the roof and terrace runoff, and 3) addition of a septic reserve area. He noted the Health Department had approved the construction plans on 7/5/06.
Mr. Picton asked if the footprint of the proposed house had changed. Mr. Sabin said it had not.
Mr. DiBiase, architect, presented the plan, "Foundation Plan Showing Flood Vent Locations," sheet SK-33, by Dibiase Filkoff Architects, dated 7/26/06 and the 8/8/06 letter from Mr. DeBartolomeo, PE, which stated the number of vents proposed was adequate and the proposed modifications would not have downstream adverse impacts. The letter also indicated the addition of terraces had been considered and would not "present any significant adverse impact to flooding." Mr. DiBiase noted calculations had been done, but were not included in the engineer's letter. Mr. Picton asked, then, how the Commission could be sure the correct calculations had been done. Ms. Purnell thought downstream scouring could be an issue.
Ms. Purnell asked if the terraces would be composed of solid fill. Mr. DiBiase said they would be compacted gravel.
It was noted the Building Official would review the plans for compliance with the Building Code for flood plain construction.
Atty. Fisher again stated that Land Tech had found there would be no significant adverse impacts caused by the proposed construction and noted 3400 sq. ft. of existing lawn would be converted to natural buffers.
In response to a question from Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Sabin pointed out the locations of the five recharge galleries.
Ms. Purnell questioned how it could be guaranteed that the proposed natural buffers would be maintained in perpetuity. Mr. Sabin responded they were shown on the final map and recommended the Commission require that map to be filed on the Town Land Records. Atty. Fisher agreed this would be an effective way to make the maintenance of the buffers binding. Mr. Lloyd asked if this was a normal requirement. Ms. Purnell responded the Commission had done it in the past and had also required that permanent markers be installed to delineate buffer areas on site. It was the consensus of the commissioners that the filing of approved maps on the Town Land Records should become standard procedure.
The widths of the proposed natural buffers were discussed. Mr. Sabin noted they ranged between 40 to 60 feet wide. Mr. Picton asked Ms. Purnell if there were any specs regarding the recommended widths for forested buffers. Ms. Purnell noted the width requirements varied depending upon the resource to be protected and the slope of the land, but said generally within 100 feet was the important buffer area. Mr. Picton noted he was not satisfied with the lack of information regarding what constitutes a functional forested buffer. He thought since the new house was being reconfigured, it was appropriate for the Commission to consider the quality and character of the site. Ms. Purnell noted several publications from the Center for Watershed Protection, including "Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection," and the "CAWS White Paper on Vegetative Buffers," by Mr. Jontos and Mr. Picton asked that they be included in the record.
It was the consensus of the commissioners to close the public hearing.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider Application #IW-06-29 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd to demolish the existing house and construct a new house at 149 Whittlesey Road. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: 1) Enforcement: P. Franco/ 25 River Road/Unauthorized Disturbance in Upland Review Area, 2) Consideration of the Minutes: D. Executive Session - 7/10/06. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 6/28/06 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 5: Under Zelman-Defendorf: 15th line from bottom: Add that Mr. and Mrs. Touroczi are Earth Tones, LLC.
Page 6: In motion: 7th line: Change: "the" to: to.
Page 10: 1st paragraph: 3 lines from bottom: Insert: wetlands after "mowed."
MOTION: To accept the 6/28/06 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0-1. Ms. Purnell abstained because she had not attended the meeting.
MOTION: To approve the 7/5/06 Cohen Site Inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-0-1. Ms. Purnell abstained because she had not attended the meeting.
MOTION: To accept the 7/10/06 Executive Session minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1. Ms. Purnell abstained because she had not read the minutes.
Pending Applications
Potter/220 Old Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-06=14/Site Development: Mr. Ajello noted no new information had been submitted since the last meeting. The map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, revised to 3/27/06 with a hand drawn line depicting the extent of the cleared land was reviewed. Mrs. D. Hill noted the Commission had asked for the location of the most recent soil tests. Mr. Ajello pointed out the location of the unauthorized activities on the property in relation to the wetlands on site, noted the area between those activities and the wetlands was approximately 50 ft., and asked if the Commission was satisfied there had been no damage to the wetlands caused by the clearing. Ms. Purnell noted the canopy had been opened and the light would dry the wetland areas. She asked if there were any wetlands within 100 feet of the southern boundary. Mr. Ajello said there were none. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello if any further enforcement action was needed. Mr. Ajello said the cleared areas were filling in, but noted the understory had been trampled in the test pipe area to the east of the driveway entrance. He recommended the current limit of clearing be maintained as the new limit of disturbance line in the current application, but Ms. Purnell did not agree because she thought this would set a bad precedent. There was a brief discussion regarding whether to deny the application because the additional information requested had not been submitted. Mr. Picton noted the Commission wanted the extent of the clearing shown on the site development map. Mr. Potter said there was no application for site development and agreed there would be no further activity within 100 feet of wetlands, no further surface disturbance, and no more clearing until another application was submitted.
MOTION: Regarding Potter/220 Old Litchfield Road/ Application #IW-06-14/Site Development, to accept the extent of the clearing depicted on the hand drawn map with the green line dated 6/14/06 with the stipulation that any areas within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses are not to be disturbed and shall be allowed to revegetate. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Lloyd/149 Whittlesey Road/#IW-06-29/Demolish House, Construct New House: Mr. Picton asked whether the Commission was ready to act or needed time to review the file. The commissioners each briefly stated their opinions about the application. Ms. Purnell stated Land Tech's recommendations had been fully addressed and if the plans were approved, additional infiltration would be gained. She recommended that in order to ensure the perpetual maintenance of the mitigation for the increase in impervious surfaces, a condition of approval requiring the approved map to be filed on the Town Land Records. She said she would prefer impervious terraces, but thought the installation of a basin in the terrace would be OK. Mr. LaMuniere said he had also been concerned about the increase in impervious surfaces, but thought the proposed galleries would handle the drainage. He also thought all of Land Tech's points had been addressed and that the mylar should be filed on the Land Records. Mrs. Hill and Mr. Bedini agreed with the above remarks. Mr. Picton thought this was a property where there should not be building in proximity to the rivers. He noted the applicant proposed to increase the size of the house and the area of hard landscaping, but were opposed to resiting the house so that the buffers could be increased. They also had not realigned the driveway to reduce its surface along the river and approach the house more directly. Ms. Purnell agreed the rivers were two of the Town's most cherished resources, but pointed out the property currently has a limited ecological function and said she saw the proposed mitigation as a net benefit.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-29 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd to demolish the existing house and construct a new house at 149 Whittlesey Road per the plans submitted this evening and revised to 8/14/06 subject to the following condition: that a note be added to the site plan that the motion of approval and revised site plan be filed on the Land Records in the Town Clerk's Office and that this be done accordingly. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-1. Mr. Picton voted No for the following reasons: the size of the house had increased, 2) the amount of hard landscaping had increased, 3) the applicant refused to reroute the driveway so it would approach the house more directly, and 4) the applicant did not resite the house in a location that would have enabled the size of the buffers to be increased.
Potter/253 Old Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-06-32/2 Lot Subdivision: The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 6/23/06 was reviewed. Mr. Picton noted the driveway would come within 60 feet of the wetlands, which were mowed already. Ms. Purnell suggested a condition requiring vegetation be planted on the north side of the driveway to help intercept the driveway runoff, but the other commissioners did not think this was necessary. Mr. Ajello noted this was a feasibility plan, that all future proposed activities would require an application, and the drainage could be considered at that time.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-32 submitted by John and Timothy Potter for a 2 Lot Subdivision and development feasibility plan at 253 Old Litchfield Road. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Steep Rock Association/147 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-06-33/Replace Bridge: Mrs. Branson, Director, and Mr. Humes, O and G project manager, were present. Mr. Humes presented preliminary plans, but did not submit them. Mr. Picton noted many questions remained unanswered since the last meeting and asked Mr. Humes if he had written responses to them all. Mr. Humes responded an engineered plan that would take the 100 year flood plain into account was still in the design stage. Mrs. Branson noted the date for the bridge dedication ceremony had been moved back to October 15. She and Mr. Humes wanted an approval as soon as possible so that the construction materials could be ordered. Mr. Picton thought the Commission should wait to further discuss the application until written information was submitted. Mr. LaMuniere agreed, saying the engineered specs and written information on materials, access, and equipment were required. Mr. Humes said the only changes to what had been previously discussed were 1) use of a center pier and 2) consideration of the 100 year flood plain. Mr. Potter thought approval based on the submission of stamped engineered plans should be sufficient, but Mr. Picton thought it would set a bad precedent to act before plans and written answers were submitted. Mr. Humes made the following points about the proposed construction:
The bridge would be constructed of fiberglass. The pressure treated wood discussed at the last meeting was changed to ipe, a renewable resource. Galvanized bolts would be used. No widening of or improvements to the access would be needed. No additional armoring would be required. The work would be done during a low water period and would take five days. The center pier would be pre cast off site and then anchored into existing rock with large bolts. Mr. LaMuniere asked what kind of rock it was and whether it could withstand the bolts. Mr. Humes said an engineer had inspected it and would determine how to attach the bolts. Heavy construction equipment would not operate in the river. Conditions of approval were discussed.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-33 submitted by Steep Rock Association to replace the bridge at 147 Sabbaday Lane (Hidden Valley) subject to the receipt of a written narrative by the applicant to answer all of the questions raised in the 6/28/06 minutes pertaining to this application and the written response shall be subject to approval by either the Commission or the Enforcement Officer and shall be approved prior to the issuance of the permit. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton noted in the future, written documentation would be required prior to action by the Commission.
Corbo Associates/40 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-06-34/First Cut and Driveway: Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted his revised map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," revised to 8/7/06, which included the addition of 1) a limit of disturbance line for the construction of the house and driveway, 2) a blow-up of the driveway entrance where the stone pillars are proposed, 3) erosion control and sequence of construction notes concerning the installation and monitoring of the silt fence, 4) notes on the regrading and proposed cuts and fills in the steep areas of the driveway, 5) catch basin details, 6) driveway sections, and 7) swale details. Ms. Purnell suggested the house be moved to a more central location to eliminate some of the driveway and get it away from the wetlands. Mr. Corbo said the driveway was proposed along the existing wood road because it was stable and if routed up the hill it would be difficult to get the grades to work. Mr. Volpe stated this was the best area on the lot on which to locate the house. Also, Mr. Neff noted there was a pond and wetlands on the other side of the property so that most of the lot was within the regulated area. Ms. Purnell asked for calculations on the percentage of the lot that was wetlands and upland review area. The driveway construction was briefly discussed. Mr. Neff stated there would be a 12 inch base over geofabric and gravel. Mr. Picton asked for cross sections of the cut and fill areas within the 100 ft. review area and on the steep slopes along the wetland boundary. Mr. Picton reviewed the questions raised on the 7/5/06 site inspection. He asked if the pond had an emergency overflow. Mr. Neff said there didn't appear to be one. Mr. Picton asked that he design one to accommodate the pond overflow across the driveway. Mr. Neff pointed out the proposed stockpile locations and the proposed drainage system on the east side of the driveway. It was the consensus the driveway should be kept as far from the wetlands as possible and at least 10 feet from the bank at the edge of the wetlands. Mr. Ajello thought the wood road should be used when at all possible. Mr. Picton thought that should be the general objective when the driveway would be within 3 feet of the bank above the wetlands. Ms. Purnell anticipated the driveway would cause a continuing adverse impact to the wetlands and watercourse and noted an alternative would be not to divide the property into two building lots. Mr. Picton stated more details were needed before the Commission could act on the application. Ms. Purnell asked for a written discussion of feasible and prudent alternatives. Possible conditions of approval were discussed: 1) where possible, maintaining 10 feet of existing vegetation between the driveway and the wetlands and 2) not permitting any disturbance on the slopes exceeding 20 percent grade on the wetlands side of the driveway. Mr. Corbo stated he understood the proposed development would be a two stage process: 1) first cut and ground work improvements this fall and 2) construction of the house next year. Mr. Corbo and Mr. Volpe submitted a request for a 30 day extension.
New Applications
Mr. Ajello noted the first five of the new applications had been received prior to July 26 and so could be acted on at this meeting if the Commission thought they were complete.
Beck/3 Perkins Road and West Shore Road/#IW-06-35/Replace Dock, Piers
Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted photos of the existing dock and his map, "Dock and Cabin Foundation Repair," dated 7/12/06. Mrs. Beck proposed to remove the part of the concrete dock that is cracked and to repair the existing piers.
Mr. Picton asked if pressure treated wood and poured concrete would be used. Mrs. Beck said cedar would probably be used and that the steel brackets would be reused to hook up the new section. Mr. Picton advised her that if poured concrete was necessary a revision of the permit would be required. He asked if the rocks underneath the dock would be removed. It was noted only the rocks with concrete attached would be removed.
Mr. Neff amended the application form to state the dock would be "reinstalled."
Mr. Ajello recommended the work be done during low water conditions.
Mrs. Hill asked if there were any concerns about sedimentation. Mr. Neff said the concrete would be broken up and taken out by hand and then the piers would be reset and the wood anchored to them.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-35 submitted by Mrs. Beck to replace the dock and piers at 3 Perkins Road (West Shore Road) subject to the following conditions: 1) hand held tools shall be used; no excavation equipment is permitted, 2) no pressure treated wood may be used, and 3) the work shall be done during low water conditions. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Ingrassia/252 Bee Brook Road/#IW-06-36/Underground Utilities
Mr. Neff, engineer, represented the applicant. He presented his plans, "Underground Utility Wetlands Crossing," dated 7/13/06. He described the route from the utility pole on the east side of Bee Brook Road, noting the conduit would cross the brook under the bridge, not in the streambed. He noted there would be a 3' X 3' concrete vault on each side of the brook and a third outside the regulated area. Mr. Picton asked if there would be any digging on the steep banks along the brook. Mr. Neff said there would not. It was noted the conduit would be along the driveway shoulder and only minor clearing would be required. Ms. Purnell voiced her concern about possible clearing in the upland review area. Mr. Neff stated the proposal did not require cutting any large trees and the area to the east of the driveway was already relatively clear. The specifications in the construction sequence were briefly reviewed.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-36 submitted by Mrs. Ingrassia to install underground utilities at 252 Bee Brook Road. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Shepaug Realty, LLC./46 June Road/#IW-06-37/Rebuild Steps, Add Rail and Fence
Representing the property owner, Mr. DePecol said he wanted to discuss the proposed driveway realignment. Mrs. J. Hill noted this activity was not included on the application form, but Mr. Ajello said Mr. Farmer had written in his 8/7/06 letter about improving the driveway.
Ms. Purnell thought the Commission should inspect the site and compare what had previously been approved with what was now proposed.
Mr. DePecol said he had asked the Town if he could realign the driveway entrance because it is too steep. Mr. Cannavaro said it would be OK, but it required a driveway permit, which was applied for in April. He said it had been held up since then due to its proximity to Lake Waramaug. The driveway entrance is 240 feet from the lake, but the drainage flows towards it.
Mr. Potter noted it looked like there had been erosion because the banks of the driveway had not been seeded. Mr. Ajello did not think there was an erosion problem on the first 50 feet of the driveway.
A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.
The parking area on East Shore Road was briefly discussed. Mr. Farmer had indicated the state was OK with it, but Ms. Purnell read from a previous WEO report that it would be removed. This area will also be viewed during the 8/15 site inspection.
The work along the shoreline was discussed. Mr. Ajello said he would like the Commission to inspect it. Mrs. D. Hill noted an after the fact application fee should be submitted and Mr. Ajello agreed to contact the applicant.
Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-06-38/Construct Retaining Wall, Dry Stone Wall, and Accessway
Ms. Purnell recused herself.
Mr. Rosiello, landscaper, presented the map, "Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 8/10/06. As had been discussed at the site inspection, a note that there could be no disturbance within the limit of landscaping line had been added to the map.
On an enlargement of a portion of the site plan Mr. Rosiello pointed out the location of the two proposed walls and 10 ft. wide accessway.
Mr. Picton asked about the change in grade for the retaining wall. Mr. Rosiello stated an average of 2 ft. would be removed, 4 ft. at the highest point; approximately 50 yards total. He said there would be no fill deposited behind the freestanding wall, which was to limit the caretaker's access to the natural areas and protect the wetlands.
Mr. Picton reviewed the narrative on the application form, which included the following activities: 1) leveling off the driveway, 2) pouring footings for the concrete retaining wall, 3) constructing two stone walls; a 120 ft. long, 4 ft. high, 2-3 ft. wide retaining wall and a dry stack wall, 4) installing a lawn "farm" accessway, 5) constructing stairs at the retaining wall, and 6) constructing pillars. It was noted the pillars would be constructed at the driveway entrance to the property and would be in the upland review area.
Mrs. Hill noted there were other walls on the property that had been constructed without the required permits.
Mr. Picton indicated he wanted the location of the limit of disturbance line settled before additional changes were acted upon. Mr. Rosiello described the mitigation outlined on the revised plan. It was noted that in addition to the requirement that all areas outside the limit of landscaping line shall remain in their natural condition the area to the west of the guest house near wetlands flags #229 - #234 shall be mowed only once a year.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-38 submitted By Mr. Cohen, 62 Calhoun Street, to construct a retaining wall and a dry stone wall and for an access "road" with removal of up to 3 ft. of fill in the access area and with the understanding that the approval includes all the landscaping walls as shown on the mitigation plan, revision #2, as amended to 8/7/06, with the condition that a note be added to the map, "Site Plan," (mitigation plan) by Mr. Neff, revised to 8/7/06 stating the areas shown in purple hatch beyond the limit of landscaping area line are to remain in their natural condition and the permit shall not be issued until the Commission receives the revised map with the notation added. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0. Ms. Purnell had recused herself.
Ms. Purnell was reseated.
Knudsen/236 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-06-39/Dredge Silt Pond, Build Retaining Wall
Mr. Nelson, contractor, submitted his 7/26/06 letter and retaining wall information.
The proposed cleaning of the silt ponds was discussed first. Mr. Nelson stated the two upper silt ponds were completely filled. He said the dredging could be done in one day and all the excavated material would be immediately trucked off site. Ms. Purnell noted the ponds are lined with concrete so there would be no ecological impact.
A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 4:45 p.m.
Mr. Nelson explained the proposed 50 ft. long retaining wall along the bank of the intermittent stream that is only 4 feet from the driveway was a "time sensitive" proposal. He thought the work should be done in August during the dry season because the stream had such a large watershed. He feared the driveway would wash out in September if there were heavy rains. He also noted he had applied previously to armor the entire streambank, but had been denied. Ms. Purnell noted a retaining wall could cause eddying and asked if Mr. Nelson had considered stabilizing the bank with a bio engineering mat and/or plant materials. Mr. Nelson said those measures would not be applicable here due to the large volume of water the stream handles.
Mr. Nelson did not think either of the proposed activities could wait for approval at the next meeting in September. Mr. Picton noted the Commission would have to inspect the site of the proposed wall before acting on the proposal. It was decided to act on the cleaning of the silt ponds only.
MOTION: To approve part of Application #IW-06-39 submitted by Mr. Knudsen to clean the silt basins at 236 Nettleton Hollow Road with the stipulation that the dredged material be trucked off site as specified. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1. Mrs. Hill abstained because she did not think the Commission should act on only half the application.
Hannibal/80 Sunset Lane/#IW-06-40/2 Lot Subdivision - Feasibility
Mr. and Mrs. Hannibal and Mr. Neff, engineer, were present.
Mr. Neff submitted the map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 8/1/06. Mr. Picton asked if there were any activities proposed in the regulated area. Mr. Neff said there were not. Mr. Hannibal noted also, there were no activities proposed near the steep slope.
Ms. Purnell asked if there were any wetlands on the adjoining property to the southwest. Mr. Picton asked for the soil scientist's report and sketch map.
A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 4:45 p.m. The Knudsen site inspection was changed from 4:45 to 5:30 p.m.
Meyers/5 West Church Hill Road/#IW-06-41/Dredge Silt Basin and Pond Inlet
Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted his map, "Silt Basin/Pond Cleanout Plan," dated 8/2/06.
Mr. Ajello noted the main pond had been cleaned out last year.
Mr. Neff explained there were two watercourses flowing into the pond. The southernmost pond has no silt basin and flows directly into the pond where sediment collects at the inlet. The other watercourse does have a functioning silt basin, but it is full. He proposed to remove approximately 60 c. yrds. of material and to temporarily stockpile it in an area in the northwest section of the property accessible from West Church Hill Road.
Ms. Purnell asked if it would make sense to construct a silt basin outside the pond itself. Mr. Neff responded that would be tough to do due to the steep terrain.
Mr. Ajello noted the Commission could not act on the application until the September meeting. Mr. Picton asked the commissioners to inspect the site on their own.
Possible conditions such as doing the work during the dry time of year and pumping only clean water from the pond were briefly noted.
Walberg/113 West Shore Road/#IW-06-42/Install Surface Drain
Mr. Ajello noted the contractor, Mr. Wyant, could not attend tonight's meeting, but had asked the Commission to review the proposal and contact him with any concerns. The map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated August 1999 and a sketch map by Mr. Wyant of the work proposed were reviewed.
It was noted the purpose of the surface drain was to prevent the driveway from washing out. Ms. Purnell asked why an infiltration system could not be installed. Mr. Ajello said there was too much ledge on site, but Ms. Purnell thought there must be pockets where infiltration would be possible.
The proposed work was discussed and Mr. Ajello read the specifications on the application form. It was noted additional information such as the depth of the trench, materials to be used, and construction sequence were required.
Enforcement
Reinhardt/10 Perkins Road/Unauthorized Clearing: Atty. Kelly presented the map, "Existing Conditions," by Mr. Howland, dated 6/20/06 on which he had drawn in by hand the locations of cut logs, undisturbed land, silt fence, and wood chip pile and had attached photos and had indicated where and from what direction they had been taken. He noted a soil report from Mr. Temple had been submitted that confirmed the existence of wetlands soils on the Cremona property. He said Mr. Temple did not believe there was a watercourse where the Commission claimed, but had located it on the map. Discrepancies between the soils sketch map and the survey map were noted. Atty. Kelly noted he represented Mrs. Reinhardt, but not the Cremona estate. He said only five trees had been cut on the Reinhardt property and he asked that the enforcement matter for Reinhardt be resolved separately from the Cremona matter and as soon as possible due to the upcoming sale of the property. Mr. Picton thought the Commission should reinspect both properties now that the wetlands had been flagged and the above referenced map submitted. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, September 7, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.
Taylor/11 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Excavation in Wetlands: Mr. Taylor reported his wife was still working on a planting plan and that he had not been able to meet with Mr. Ajello and the NRCS representative or to give them permission to inspect the site on the day Mr. Ajello had requested. Mr. Picton noted that Mr. Ajello had gone out of his way to schedule this inspection so that Mr. Taylor would not have to pay for a consultant. It was the consensus the Taylors should call the NRCS on their own to schedule a site inspection. Mr. Picton advised Mr. Taylor there must be some progress toward a resolution by the next meeting. If there is no progress the Commission will fine him again and file a notice of violation on the Town Land Records.
Other Business
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Permit #IW-05-54/Request to Revise Conditions of Approval: Mr. Boling noted Land Tech had sent a favorable report regarding the modified site plan (13 houses with smaller footprints.) He submitted a letter dated 8/9/06 to request three revisions to the conditions of approval: 1) permission to concurrently construct four houses instead of two because the footprints and disturbance envelopes are now substantially smaller, 2) permission to excavate a small amount of additional material due to an error in calculations, and 3) regarding the boundaries of the conservation easement, permission to mark only the southern, eastern, and western edges of the development envelope because the rest is already marked by town roads, property lines, and the driveway. The letter contained detailed information regarding the proposed changes and Mr. Picton thanked him for providing clear written specifications. Mr. Picton suggested the Quarry Ridge boundary line be marked, too.
MOTION: To approve revisions to Permit #IW-05-54 for Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road regarding 1) construction sequencing, 2) additional excavation, and 3) marking of the conservation easement boundaries as specified in the 8/9/02 letter to the Commission from Mr. Boling. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road/#IW-04-V8/Repair of Retaining Wall: Ms. Purnell brought in the letter for Mr. Picton to sign. It will be copied and mailed out as soon as possible.
Franco/25 River Road/Unauthorized Soil Disturbance: Mr. Ajello noted the clearing had expanded and there had been sedimentation onto the road near a catch basin resulting in an impact to the Shepaug River. He asked the Commission to inspect the site and recommended either a citation or an enforcement order. Ms. Purnell noted that in the past the Commission had issued citations only when the work done was in wetlands or resulted in a direct adverse impact to wetlands or watercourses. Mr. Ajello will issue a citation and send a letter advising the property owner that further encroachment toward the river will result in further enforcement action.
Zelman-Defendorf/16 Tompkins Hill Road: Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello if he had been routinely inspecting the property. Mr. Ajello said he had been on site once a week.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clear Cutting: The wetlands have now been flagged and Mr. Ajello recommended a site inspection. The survey map, "Site Analysis Plan," dated July 2006 and soil scientist's sketch map were briefly reviewed. Mr. Picton asked if the soil scientist could determine what soil types were under the MA (disturbed) soils. Mr. Ajello noted some of the cleared land was wetlands and that Mr. Moore was claiming he was using the land for agriculture. Ms. Purnell noted that even for agricultural uses there are guidelines that must be followed. It was noted a notice of violation had been written and an enforcement order should now be issued. A show cause hearing will have to be conducted. The Commission will consider the wetlands functions that may have been impacted or lost and may decide to order the filled and cleared areas restored to their previous undisturbed condition.
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Filling, Soil Disturbance: Mr. Ajello read the 7/25/06 letter from Mr. Szymanski, engineer, recommending three measures for stabilizing/ restoring the intermittent watercourse. Mr. Ajello agreed with the recommended techniques, while Ms. Purnell asked if there was "softer" engineering that could be used. Mr. Ajello will ask Mr. Szymanski about alternate techniques. The next step will be a meeting with the Selectmen and Mr. Cannavaro to see whether the Town will do the required work.
Martin/35 Nichols Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing and Soil Disturbance: Mr. Ajello noted this included an unauthorized stream crossing. He said what first appeared to be a dirt bike trail is actually a hiking trail. He will continue to monitor the situation.
Other Business
Election of Officers
The nominating committee noted Mr. Picton had agreed to serve another term as Chairman and Mr. Bedini would run for Vice Chairman. There were no nominations from the floor.
MOTION: To elect Mr. Picton Chairman and Mr. Bedini Vice Chairman of the Commission for 2006 - By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Brose/213 Roxbury Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-05-56: The air conditioning unit and its concrete pad had inadvertently been left off the original map. The pad is located on the north side of the house approximately 30 feet from wetlands. Mr. Ajello said the silt fences have been maintained and it was the consensus the pad would have no adverse impacts.
MOTION: To approve the revision to Permit #IW-05-56 for Brose/213 Roxbury Road to install a utility pad. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To go into Executive Session at 11:27 p.m. to discuss pending litigation: Kessler and Spring Hill Farm, LLC. By Mr. Picton, seconded By Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To come out of Executive Session at 11:36 p.m. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 11:37 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
June 28, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Ms. Coe
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sabin, Ms. Dzenutis, Mr. Peck, Mr. Wolff, Mr./Mrs. Turoczi, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Rosiello, Mr. Munson, Mr. Neff, Mr. Saunders, Mr. Charles
PUBLIC HEARING
Lloyd/149 Whittlesey Road/#IW-06-29/Demolish, Build New Home
Mr. Picton reconvened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Picton and Alternate Thomson for Ms. Purnell. He noted two new items in the file since the last session of the hearing: 1) the 6/20/06 site inspection report and 2) the 6/23/06 letter from Land Tech with the estimated fee for the consultants' review.
The map, "Site Plan," by Mr. Sabin, revised to 6/27/06 was reviewed. Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, detailed the revisions that had been made based on the discussion that had taken place at the site inspection. 1) The limit of disturbance line had originally encompassed the bank area to be landscaped below the house, but this had been pulled up the slope to decrease the total area to be disturbed during construction. 2) Mr. Sabin eliminated the proposed drains, basin, and recharge galleries to handle the driveway runoff. Instead the runoff would leak off the driveway to an 18" deep sump with a 2000 gallon storage capacity. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the storage capacity would be adequate. Mr. Sabin replied it would because the soils were well drained sands and gravels. Mr. Ajello asked how many inches of rainfall an hour the sump could handle. Mr. Sabin will provide this information at the next meeting. Mr. Picton asked if only the existing points of discharge would be used and if the sump would handle only the water already directed to that area. Mr. Sabin confirmed this was so, noting the sheet flow would not be erosive and the sump would filter out both sediment and pollutants. He also noted this area would handle runoff from the gutter drains.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the proposed terraces were impervious. Mr. Sabin said they would have a frost line footing filled with gravel and crushed stone and would contribute to the runoff.
Mr. Picton noted the consultant could not begin his review until mid July, but it was hoped the report would be ready for the July 26th meeting. He said the Commission wanted to protect the functional river corridors and would ask the consultant to address whether opportunities for improvement had been fully explored, and if none were possible, to make sure there would be no further encroachments on the river corridors. He gave examples of feasible and prudent alternatives such as moving the location of the proposed house to the higher elevation on the SE side of the pool where it would be less prone to flooding and the septic system to the setback area along Whittlesey Road. Ms. Purnell asked Mr. Sabin to submit a substantial alternatives analysis. Mr. Picton said he did not like the fact that the location of the existing pool was dictating the location of the entire project. Ms. Purnell noted cost (for relocation of the pool) was not a valid reason for excluding an alternative. Another alternative suggested was not increasing the size of the footprint by 1000 sq. ft. It was thought either the terraces could be built without increasing the footprint or they could be constructed at ground level of a more porous material. It was also noted the previous driveway route approached the house more directly and so it was suggested the garage doors could be placed on the other side of the building to allow for more direct access to the driveway. Another alternative was to place the garage by the pool.
Ms. Purnell asked if the Commission would consider an increase in the built and hardened area if more mitigation was proposed. Mr. Picton thought the built area was the most important consideration as the buffering "comes and goes."
The Commissioners made the following comments:
Mr. LaMuniere: He asked whether the construction of the house would result in any impact to the watercourses. He felt the two terraces as proposed were not necessary, but suggested they could be constructed nearer to ground level on porous terrain. Ms. Purnell: She said she would consider whether mitigation should be increased and noted the work proposed would interact with whatever was in the ground underneath it. Ms. Purnell feared the proposed terraces would eventually be covered and converted to additional living area. Mr. Bedini: He had no problem with the house construction, but was concerned about the proposed terraces. He thought they should either be lower or pervious. Mr. Picton noted the proposal was more than just a rebuilding of the existing house and that there would be larger areas for flood waters to flow around if the terraces were built. He thought if the house were moved 20 ft. towards the pool there would be no extension of activities towards the rivers. He also thought it was important to change the driveway to a more direct route. Mr. Sabin noted the actual footprint of the house would increase only a few hundred sq. ft. and that it was the terraces and the driveway, which accounted for most of the increase in impervious surface. He pointed out the area of lawn that would be removed and replanted with natural ground covers as mitigation.
Because the Commission would not meet again until July 26, Mr. Sabin submitted a written request dated 6/28/06 for a 35 day extension of the public hearing.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider Application #IW-06-29 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd to demolish the existing house and build a new house at 149 Whittlesey Road to 6:30 p.m. on July 26, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Thomson was seated for Ms. Purnell who arrived late.
At 7:03 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the public hearing to July 26, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. 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 7:04 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: IV. New Applications: Corbo Assoc., Inc/40 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-06-34/First Cut, Driveway Conduit, VII. Other Business: D. Preliminary Discussion/Fisher/66 Calhoun St. and E. Executive Session. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 6/14/06 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 2: Lloyd: 1st paragraph: Change Bantam Road to Bantam River.
Page 2: Lloyd: 3rd paragraph: Change Mr. Charles to Mr. LaMuniere.
Page 10: long paragraph: Change Mrs. Hill "advised" to Mrs. Hill "acknowledged" he could....
MOTION: To accept the 6/14/06 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 6/20/06 Lloyd site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 6/20/06 Taylor site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Potter/220 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-06-14/Site Development: There was no one to represent the applicant. It was noted that after the last meeting, the applicant had requested an extension to give him time to submit the revised map and information requested by the Commission.
Adams/57 West Shore Road/#IW-06-15/Retaining Wall, Path, Stairs, Plants: It was noted a request for an extension had been received after the last meeting. Mr. Picton advised Ms. Dzenutis that at the last meeting the Commission had requested an accurate representation of exactly what work was proposed because what had been shown on the map did not match the written description. For example, Ms. Purnell pointed out the "oval" stonewall on the map appeared to be an additional wall and she wanted to make sure nothing new would be constructed in that area. Ms. Dzenutis agreed the existing wall would be rebuilt in the same location, would not increase in size, and would not extend further towards the lake. It was noted it was unlikely the Commission would approve the proposed lower retaining wall so close to the water line or the deposition of any fill in this area. Ms. Dzenutis deleted these activities from the map and dated and initialed the revision. Mr. Ajello thought the materials submitted with the application did not clearly describe the proposed work and suggested elevations would have been helpful. Ms. Dzenutis agreed to clarify the application and said she would return with revisions later in the meeting.
Lloyd/149 Whittlesey Road/#IW-06-29/Demolish Existing House, Build New House: The public hearing was continued to 6:30 p.m. on July 26, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Zelman-Defendorf/16 Tompkins Hill Road/#IW-06-31/Site Development:
At the last meeting the Commission had decided to refer the application to a consultant, but Mr. Picton was not sure this was necessary. The following maps were reviewed: 1) "Plan Showing Proposed Improvements," by Mr. Wolff, dated 5/19/06, 2) "Alternative I, Plan Showing Proposed Improvements," by Mr. Wolff, revised to 6/13/06, and 3) "Wetland Enhancement Planting Plan," by Earth Tones, LLC., dated 6/28/06. The proposal to direct the runoff from the proposed roof and curtain drains to the wetlands was discussed in detail. Mr. Saunders, down grade property owner, said he would grant a drainage easement if necessary. Mr. LaMuniere thought the plan would maintain the wetland function and allow for flow over the spillway in the case of a major storm event. Mr. Picton, however, asked if the proposal would drain the wetlands and said the high water level of the wetlands would be lowered. Ms. Purnell thought some of the drainage problems were caused by the unauthorized driveway work and suggested if this was addressed, there might not be an overflow problem in the wetlands. Mr. Picton asked that the proposed drainage structures be moved at least 25 ft from the wetlands and the drainage be spread out so that there would not be a concentrated flow entering the wetlands. Mr. Wolff, engineer, noted the plan as proposed would take water away from the septic area. Mr. Wolff then detailed Alternate II and its corresponding map. Mr. and Mrs. Turoczi reviewed their "Wetland Enhancement Planting Plan," and the undated document, "Proposal for Wetland Enhancement and Planting Plan," noting they wanted to eradicate the invasives, remove the leaf litter, and create an environmentally sound wetlands. Mr. LaMuniere noted the plans did not include the replanting of the west side of the driveway, which had been cleared without authorization. Mrs. Turoczi submitted a list of plants suitable for hillside planting in this area. Mr. Picton read the 6/21/06 email from the property owners, which asked for a timely resolution of the matter. Mr. Picton noted the Commission would have an easier time acting on the application if there were no change proposed in the elevation at which the wetlands would overflow. Mr. Thomson noted he had driven by the property many times and observed Mr. Bedini was correct in finding five sources for the water problems on this tiny site. He favored the rain garden design in the wetlands, but did not think it would solve the sheet flow problem on the Saunders' property. Mr. Saunders said if the runoff was piped underground he would have no problem with it being directed to the catch basin. Mr. Bedini said he was not convinced that the work proposed would solve all the drainage problems on the property, but would help the house and septic area and would enhance the wetlands. Ms. Purnell noted there were other unauthorized ongoing activities on site that concerned her and she did not know what the total impact of these were or whether they were taking up areas that could have been used for infiltration instead. Mr. Charles, adjoining property owner, objected that the application would not be referred to the Commission's consultant as had been decided at the last meeting. It was the consensus to act on Alternative I and conditions were discussed at length.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-31 submitted by Mr. Zelman and Mr. Defendorf for site development at 16 Tompkins Hill Road per the map, "Alternate I," by Mr. Wolff, revised to 6/13/06 and the "Wetland Enhancement Planting Plan," by Earth Tones, LLC., dated 6/28/06 both the be amended and approved by the WEO before issuance of the permit according to the following conditions:
1. The elevation of the overflow at the existing overflow elevation must be established, that location staked and a permanent benchmark provided to establish it and the WEO must witness this.
2. The catch basin shall not be located in wetlands.
3. The outlet drains shall be at least 5 ft. away from the wetlands and a 10 ft. wide level spreader shall be installed at the outlet.
4. The wetlands restoration professionals may clean out the coarse yard waste from the wetlands, but may not excavate the soil. The work shall be done by hand; no power equipment may be used in the wetlands.
5. The curtain drain on the west side of the driveway shall be eliminated.
6. The understory on the uphill side of the driveway shall be restored using native species.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-1. Ms. Purnell voted No because she thought the plan should be referred to the Commission's consultant for further review, especially since unauthorized work such as the construction of the patio and additions to the driveway took up space that could have been used to for additional infiltration.
Adams/57 West Shore Road/#IW-06-15/Retaining Wall, Path, Stairs, Plantings: Ms. Dzenutis submitted a revised plan, which she had initialed and dated. Included on it was a 3 ft. wide bluestone walk with a 6 inch lip to hold the stone and a statement that there would be no change in elevation of the planting area and no filling for plantings except for material around the root balls. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to take photos of the site before the work begins. Because the plans were still so confusing, it was the consensus the Commission would act only on the proposed work on the retaining wall and the proposed planting.
MOTION: To approve in part Application #IW-06-15 submitted by Mr. Adams for a retaining wall, path, stairs, and plantings at 57 West Shore Road subject to the following conditions:
1. Planting shall be done per the plan, "Beach Renewal Project," on the July 2004 survey map by Mr. Cheney with no additional fill to be deposited except within 1 foot of each root ball.
2. There shall be no change in the elevation of the ground anywhere in the planting area.
3. The retaining wall along West Shore Road shall be reconstructed in the same location and be the same height and size as the original wall.
4. No other aspects of the application are approved at this time.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Potter/253 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-06-32/2 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted the map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 6/23/06. He noted access to the proposed lot would be off Shearer Road and the proposed driveway would be 52 feet from the regulated area. Mr. Picton asked if all the development would be down slope of wetlands. Mr. Neff said it would. The Commissioners will inspect the property on their own prior to the next meeting.
Steep Rock Assn./147 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-06-33/Replace Bridge: Mrs. Branson, Director, represented Steep Rock and responded to the questions raised at the last meeting. She said O and G had been hired and would submit engineering plans and drawings and the construction sequence. Several issues still had to be decided including whether the existing cement block could be reused for an abutment and whether the pier in the middle of the river would be redesigned. Construction materials were discussed. It was the consensus fiberglass would have minimal impacts, but that pressure treated wood, even the new modified pressure treated wood, and copper should be avoided because they are toxic to aquatic organisms. Mr. Picton suggested plastic composite lumber be considered for the walkway, stairs, and railings. Ms. Branson said the materials would be brought in on a 9 ft. wide truck and the bridge sections constructed on site. It would be necessary to operate a crane from the river to install the sections. The Commission first made a motion to approve the application subject to approval of the specific construction plans, but this was later rescinded when it was thought there were just too many details missing. The following information was requested: 1) Where would the construction equipment be located? 2) How far would it extend into the river? 3) How would the use of concrete be controlled? 4) How would the river be protected from material and debris that could fall into it? 5) What is the dimension of the area to be armored? 6) What material and how much will be used for stabilization? 7) What construction materials will be substituted for the pressure treated materials proposed? 8) More information on access to the site is needed. 9) Provide info on how the disturbed riverbed and access road will be restored to their pre construction condition. 10) Provide a detailed construction sequence. Further discussion was tabled until more information is submitted.
New Applications
Corbo Associates, Inc./40 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-06-34/First Cut and Driveway
Mr. Corbo, owner, and Mr. Neff, engineer, were present. The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 6/23/06 was reviewed. It was noted the wetlands had been flagged on the 30 acre property. Mr. Picton asked if there would be only one driveway entrance for the two lots. Mr. Neff responded there would be one entrance and then the driveway would split. Mr. Corbo noted existing wood roads had been proposed for the driveway routes to minimize disturbance. Mr. Picton asked if Mr. Neff had analyzed whether this was the best access in terms of impact to the wetlands. Ms. Purnell thought there would be long term impacts associated with such a long section of the driveway located along the edge of the wetlands and so suggested shorter routes that would quickly get away from the wetlands. Mr. Corbo said he understood a short crossing might have less impact and said he would consider alternate routes. He noted he had proposed to cross the wetlands with overhead utility lines, which would then go underground. Mr. Corbo said although not shown on the plans, he proposed to construct field stone entry walls. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, July 5, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. Mr. LaMuniere asked that the driveway location be staked.
Enforcement
Cohen/52 Calhoun Street/Unauthorized Construction: Mr. Munson, contractor, Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Rosiello, landscape designer, came to discuss a final resolution regarding the unauthorized retaining walls, proposed stone walls and access road, and mitigation plan. Mr. Picton acknowledged the statement made at the last meeting that for the most part the work in question had not been done in the wetlands; it had taken place in the upland review areas. Ms. Purnell recused herself because she said she was against any additional encroachments in this corner of the property. Alternate Thomson was seated. The map of the entire property, "Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 6/13/06 to show the limit of the landscaping area and the overlay map by Mr. Rosiello were reviewed. Mr. Rosiello pointed out the completed approved work and the proposed locations of the retaining wall and stairs, dry stone wall, and access. He noted the reason for the dry stone wall was to mark the edge of the required buffer area. A grassed accessway to reach the rear portion of the lot was proposed between the two walls. Mr. Picton suggested if the stairs were deleted from the plan, all the other proposed activities could be located at least 50 ft. from the wetlands. He said he would like to reinspect the property to see what remains in a natural state, the limits of landscaping, and locations of the structures, landscaping, and access, saying he had to understand the complete picture before dealing with the proposed walls and access. Mr. Rosiello explained the limit of disturbance line had been moved out to include the fields that had always been mowed. Mr. Picton asked for a plan that showed substantial protection in all areas not otherwise already protected on a workable map that could be used by the EO. Mr. Rosiello proposed to change some of the approved plant materials on the east side of the house to ground covers and ferns to enable the owner to maintain a view of the stream. He also asked if the wetlands mitigation; letting the area regrow and planting native wetlands species, in the front of the property could begin before all the other matters were resolved. Mr. Rosiello asked: 1) What else other than the line for the limit of disturbance was needed on the map? 2) Should he add a note that the fields have always been mowed but will not be landscaped? Mr. LaMuniere asked that the note be added. Mr. Picton noted Mr. Rosiello had drawn a line beyond which there would be no activities in the future and said the Commission now had to determine whether it was meaningful. Mrs. D. Hill questioned why the mowed fields had to be continually mowed. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, July 5, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.
Taylor/11 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Excavation: Mr. Picton reviewed the 6/20/06 site inspection minutes. He noted the Commission had requested a pond design by a qualified professional, addressing both safety and wetlands issues. Specifications for items such as the height of the berm, overflow structure size and elevation, emergency spillway, stand pipe design, and maintenance were required. Mr. Picton informed Mr. Taylor the Commission was not qualified to design ponds or to let property owners work on ponds without approved designs. He noted, too, mitigation was required for the unauthorized excavation and dam work. It was noted the violation had been ongoing for a long time and that if Mr. Taylor did not comply with the enforcement order within a reasonable time, the Commission would proceed with enforcement action and file the violation on the Town Land Records. Mr. Taylor said his wife was working on a planting plan. Mrs. D. Hill suggested Mr. Taylor contact the SCS to find out whether it still supplied free pond designs to residents. Mr. Ajello said he would help Mr. Taylor with this process.
Other Business
Prelinimary Discussion/Fisher/66 Calhoun Street/Wetland Plantings:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, presented photos of the property. He noted there was a man made pond and a mowed area in the rear and that the wetlands had been flagged. He said the owner would like access to the edge of the pond and asked if large slab stepping stones could be installed at the inlet end and proposed to plant the wet meadow with native herbaceous plants and shrubs to establish an upland buffer beyond which there would be no mowing. Mr. Picton asked how the access would be hardened. Mr. Sabin replied that at the narrowest point there would be either 1) a short section of culvert with fill, 2) a short section of wooden bridge, or 3) slabs of stone. Mr. Picton thought the plans to enhance the wetlands were good, but questioned the best method for access to the pond. He suggested a boardwalk would be a feasible and prudent alternative. It was the consensus there would be no problem with stepping stones or planks as long as they were not pressure treated.
Zelman-Defendorf/16 Tompkins Hill Road/#IW-06-31/Site Development: Mr. Charles, adjoining property owner, questioned how the Commission could have approved the application when it had asked for a consultants' review at the last meeting. Mr. Picton noted there was not a lot of engineering required to maintain the wetlands so the Comm. thought it could resolve the matter. Mr. Charles complained that the contractor had misled the Comm. about the site conditions and said it should have been handled as an enforcement matter, not as a new application. The site conditions were briefly discussed. Ms. Purnell noted the patio and driveway reconfiguration shown on the plan had been constructed without permits, were contributing to the drainage problems, and those areas could have been used for infiltration to help solve the ongoing problems. Mr. Ajello noted there was still a coverage problem and a zoning permit would be required for both the patio and driveway. Mr. Charles did not think these property owners had been required to meet the same standards as other applicants. The Commission advised him that Mr. Ajello would closely monitor the ongoing work to make sure it complies with the motion of approval.
Ms. Purnell left the meeting at 10:17 p.m. and Mr. Thomson was seated.
Enforcement Report
Shepaug Realty/East Shore Road: Mr. Ajello reported the unauthorized parking area will be removed and an application submitted for the other work done.
Peck/Slaughterhouse Road: Mr. Ajello extended the time in which the Pecks have to provide the information requested by the Commission to 9/11/06.
Brose/Roxbury Road: Mr. LaMuniere had questioned whether the ongoing work was in compliance with the permit granted. Mr. Ajello said it was except for the air conditioning units along the side of the building. Mrs. Brose will be in to discuss them in the future.
Wright/Scofield Hill Road: Mr. Wright has hired an engineer to draft a plan to restore and stabilize the channel. Mr. Picton hoped it would include an ecological solution and not just the stabilization of the streambanks.
Carter/Walker Brook Road: There is no copy of the letter written by Ms. Purnell in the file. The letter will be sent to Mr. Carter when Mr. Picton has signed it.
Gatto/Woodbury Road: Mr. Ajello met with the property owners on site and reviewed the revised mitigation plan, which he thought was acceptable.
Other Business
Nominating Committee: Mr. Bedini and Mr. Thomson were appointed to this committee.
Revision of the Regulations: Mr. LaMuniere noted the state's new guidelines and asked how they would impact the Town's regs, which are more detailed. Mr. Picton said he was in the process of reviewing the regulations and noting the changes required.
General Information: Mr. Thomson said he had recently attended a seminar where it was noted: 1) the applicant grants an extension, not the Commission and 2) a denial without prejudice is still a denial.
Appointment of Alternate: Mr. Sears asked the Commission to comment on the Republican Town Committee's recommendation that John Potter be appointed as an alternate. It was the consensus of the Commission that it would welcome any new appointee who 1) has the patience to work diligently and constructively with the Commission and 2) will take seriously his responsibility to regularly attend Commission meetings and site inspections.
MOTION: To enter executive session to discuss pending litigation at 10:35 p.m. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end executive session at 10:48 p.m. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 10:49 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
June 14, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Ms. PurnellMEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Picton
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Thomson
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sabin, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Di Biase, Mr. Neff, Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Arturi, Mr. Charles, Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Peck, Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Rosiello, Mr. Munson, Mrs. Branson
PUBLIC HEARING Lloyd/149 Whittlesey Road/#IW-06-29/Demolish Existing House, Build New House
Mrs. Hill called the public hearing to order at 6:03 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Purnell and Alternate Thomson for Mr. Picton. She referred to the list of the twenty documents in the file to date.
Atty. Fisher submitted the green certified mailing receipt cards for the notices he sent to four adjoining property owners and the 6/9/06 letter from Mr. and Mrs. Foley in support of the application.
Mr. Di Biase, architect, submitted "Some Key Design Notes and Data," dated 5/24/06.
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, reviewed his map, "Site Plan," no date, and the proposed activities. He noted the 2.25 acre property was located at the confluence of the Bantam and Shepaug Rivers and that the only wetlands on it were the rivers themselves. He said there were existing riverside hedgerows consisting of dense forest material varying from 30 to 50 feet in width along half of the Bantam River and most of the Shepaug frontage, but little landscaped areas next to the rivers. He noted the FEMA 100 year flood elevation was 617 feet and that the first floor of the existing house was at 615.558 feet. The proposed construction, he said, would increase the size of the house and elevate it above the 100 year flood level. A 9.7% increase in the building footprint was proposed and a 20.5% increase in the total coverage. He said the house would be rotated to align with the existing pool, bringing the closest part of the house to 46 ft. from the Bantam River and 58 ft. to the Shepaug River. He explained the two terraces proposed on the south and west sides of the house were needed because the house would have to be elevated 3 ft. to get it above the flood level so it would not be possible to step out to ground level. Mrs. Hill asked if the terraces would require foundations. Mr. Di Biase said they would. Mr. Sabin briefly discussed the proposed mitigation plan. The lawn would be taken up in the area between the south side of the house and the Bantam Rover and converted to a shade garden with natural plants. The same would be done in the area between the existing driveway and the Shepaug. The existing hedgerow would be preserved.
Cultec recharge galleries to handle the runoff from the driveway and house roof would be installed. Mr. Sabin noted the drainage would be dispersed rather than directed to a point discharge to the Shepaug. Concerns had been raised at the last meeting about high ground water, but Mr. Sabin said it was 6 ft. below the surface and the galleries would be only 3.5 to 4.5 ft. down. The mechanicals serving the house would be inside. Atty. Fisher noted the existing mechanicals were in the basement crawl space, but when the house is rebuilt, this space would be lost because the new foundation would have flood vents and the mechanicals would have to be elevated above the 100 year flood level.
Mr. Di Biase briefly reviewed the floor plans and elevations dated 5/24/06 and explained the reasons for the realignment of the house. Mr. Charles asked if a new septic system would be installed. Mr. Di Biase said the existing septic system and well would be used.
Ms. Purnell asked about construction access to the site. Mr. Sabin pointed out the silt fence and limit of disturbance lines on the site plan and said he would pull the limit of disturbance line away from the river banks until it was time to remove the areas of lawn. That would help to keep the construction equipment further from the rivers until the landscaping was done.
Mrs. D. Hill asked why the new house would be larger than the existing house. Mr. Lloyd responded it would have additional living space and had to house the mechanicals.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
Atty. Fisher noted there were several letters in support of the application in the file.
Ms. Purnell said she would prefer that another method such as the installation of a small biofilter or sheet flow for the runoff be used to manage the driveway drainage. She feared contamination from oil, grease, antifreeze, etc. would reach the river. Mr. Sabin noted there was a small area that could accommodate a biofilter and said he would look into eliminating the catch basin and utilizing a biofilter instead.
Ms. Purnell noted that although Mr. Sabin had indicated there were no wetlands other than the watercourses on the property, the entire property was in the flood plain and therefore, qualified as wetlands under Ct. law.
A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 5:00 p.m.
Mrs. D. Hill noted the $250 public hearing fee was due.
It was noted the application had been referred to Land Tech.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider Application #IW-06-29 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd to demolish the existing house and construct a new house at 149 Whittlesey Road to the site inspection of that property at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 and then to continue it to 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
At 6:50 p.m. Mrs. Hill continued the hearing per the above motion.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
Ms. Coe arrived at this point.
REGULAR MEETING
Mrs. D. Hill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Purnell and Alternate Thomson for Mr. Picton.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 5/24/06 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as amended.
Bottom of Page 5: Add: the time and date of the public hearing, Wed., June 14, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.
MOTION: To accept the 5/24/06 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Thomson abstained because he had not been present.
MOTION: To accept the 5/31/06 Zelman-Defendorf site inspection minutes as submitted. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add the following site inspection minutes to the agenda: 1) Colville-5/31/06 and 2) Adams-6/13/06. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 5/31/06 Colville site inspection minutes as submitted. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0
MOTION: To accept the 6/13/06 Adams site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Potter/220 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-06-32/Site Development: It was noted the Commission was waiting for a revised site development map. The map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, revised to 3/27/06 and a second map with a limit of disturbance line drawn in by Mr. Potter were reviewed. Ms. Purnell said the hand drawn map did not appear to be to scale and noted the limit of disturbance was shown within 50 ft. of wetlands flags #27 and #33 (when measured it was more accurately 40 ft.), 75 ft. from #6, and 120 ft. from #39. She noted she had asked for information regarding whether there were wetlands on the property to the south. Mr. Ajello said there did not appear to be. Ms. Purnell noted the Commission had requested the soils report and sketch map and asked if they had been submitted. Mr. Ajello said they had not. Ms. Purnell thought it was unlikely that the Commission would have permitted clearing so close to the west side of the wetlands, noted the Site Analysis Plan had not been followed, and suggested some restoration be required. Mrs. Hill noted at the last meeting Mr. Ajello advised the Commission that additional percs would be done on higher ground and a new septic location chosen, but that this was not indicated on the current map. It was noted the 65 days in which to act on the application would be over prior to the next meeting.
MOTION: To deny without prejudice Application #IW-06-14 submitted by John and Tim Potter for site development at 220 Old Litchfield Road because the information submitted to date is incomplete unless a signed request for an extension is submitted no later than 6/16/06. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Adams/57 West Shore Road/#IW-06-15/Retaining Wall, Path, Stairs, Plantings: No one was present to represent the applicant. The map, "Beach Renewal Project," shown on a survey by Mr. Cheney, dated July 2004 was studied. Ms. Purnell reviewed her findings from her recent site inspection, noting the existing wall along West Shore Road was not a true retaining wall and that the proposed wall along the beach would not likely be approved. She made the following observations; 1) the area proposed for planting was all sand, 2) she did not see any erosion on site, 3) runoff from the Adams driveway runs through the site, 4) the now wooden stairways are proposed to be reconstructed with stone and anchored with pins into the existing wall, and 5) she had discussed with Ms. Dzenutis the possibility of installing a barrier of large rocks instead of the proposed lower wall. She also noted another 20 inch wide wall was indicated on the map, but not mentioned in the narrative so it was not clear whether it was proposed or not. Mr. Bedini noted the Commission had a record of denying walls by the lake. It was the consensus that a concise narrative was needed and the map had to reflect all the work that was proposed. Mr. Bedini said it was not clear from the plans submitted how the proposed bluestone walkway would be held in place.
MOTION: To deny without prejudice Application #IW-06-15 submitted by Mr. Adams for a retaining wall, path, stairs, and plantings at 57 West Shore Road due to the lack of concise information unless a written request for an extension is submitted no later than 6/16/06, and if a request for an extension is received, the Commission expects a new plan that shows clearly and concisely what is proposed. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Washington Club, Inc./8 Golf Course Road/#IW-06-24ATF/Utility Trench: Ms. Purnell recused herself and Alternate Coe was seated. Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, and Mr. Arturi, Club vice president, were present. Mr. Sabin presented a simple mitigation plan to stabilize the trenched area, the disturbed steep slope, and the disturbed section of the sandy upland and to clean out the one section of wetlands where sedimentation had occurred. He submitted the 6/14/06 letter with attached map regarding the utility line encroachment and stabilization. He proposed to 1) clean out the sediment in the wetlands by hand to expose the leaf litter, 2) seed the disturbed area with New England wetland seed mix, 3) seed the areas not already germinating naturally in the disturbed corridor with the New England wetland seed mix, and 4) stabilize the disturbed slopes by taking out the stumps and debris, regrading the banks so they are stable, mixing in organics 4" to 6" down, seeding with annual rye and New England upland restoration mix, and mulching with straw. He noted the seed would not be mulched in the wetlands, that natural species would ultimately supercede the annual rye, and that the silt fence would have to be maintained until the WEO OK'd its removal. It was the consensus the proposed mitigation was appropriate.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-24ATF submitted by The Washington Club, Inc. for a utility trench at 8 Golf Course Road per the 6/14/06 plan by Mr. Sabin. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Ms. Coe was seated for Ms. Purnell who had recused herself because she is an adjoining property owner and a member of the Washington Club.
Ms. Purnell was reseated.
Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-06-27/Pave Driveway, Repair Culvert: Mr. Munson, contractor, Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Rosiello, landscape designer, were present. The map, "Driveway Drainage Improvement Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/22/06 was reviewed. Mr. Rosiello submitted the 5/19/06 letter from the Fire Dept. regarding the reconfiguration of the driveway to facilitate access by emergency vehicles. The change requested by the Fire Dept. was approximately 77 ft. from the wetlands and would result in a decrease of 300 sq. ft. of coverage. Ms. Purnell asked if the four culverts shown on the plan were existing. Mr. Rosiello said they were and Mr. Neff added that in one location a new pipe would be added adjacent to the existing pipe. Installation of the bridge was briefly discussed. Mr. Rosiello said it would be done during low water flow. He also noted that all of the required erosion control measures had been installed and more would be added when the driveway work began. It was the consensus the erosion control plan was satisfactory.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-27 submitted by Mr. Cohen to pave the driveway and repair the culvert at 62 Calhoun Street per the 5/22/06 "Driveway Drainage Improvement Plan" by Mr. Neff and the supplemental 5/19/06 request from the Washington Fire Department with attached 5/23/06 drawing showing a circle driveway at the house. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Lloyd/149 Whittlesey Road/#IW-06-29/Demolish Existing House, Build New House: The public hearing was continued to the 6/20/06 site inspection and then to Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 6:30 p.m.
Coville/14 Wheaton Road/#IW-06-30/Excavation, Clearing, Install Septic, Rebuild House: Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Coville were present. The map, "Proposed Site Plan," by Mr. Neff revised to 6/3/06 was reviewed and Mr. Neff noted it had been revised according to the discussion that had taken place at the site inspection on 5/31/06 by adding a double row of silt fence on the south side of the work area. The area to the south of the barrier was to be left undisturbed and the embankment below the septic system would be planted to stabilize the steep bank. There was a lengthy discussion about whether a buffer should be planted along the edge of the top of the bank. Mr. Neff said Mr. Picton had thought this area would revegetate naturally and Mr. Coville preferred not to block his view of the stream, but Mr. LaMuniere thought the buffer would provide added protection for the wetlands by stabilizing the ground and holding some of the increased runoff caused by the cutting of the trees on site. Finally it was agreed that the mowed lawn would be kept at least 3 ft. back from the top of the slope and that this buffer would contain native herbaceous plants.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-30 submitted by Mr. Colville for excavation, clearing, installation of a septic system, and reconstruction of the house at 14 Wheaton Road per Mr. Neff's plan revised to 6/3/06 subject to the condition that the area within 3 to 5 feet of the inner most silt fence from the iron pin at the NW corner of the house along the brook to where the property line makes a ninety degree turn to the east shall not be mowed, but shall be allowed to grow herbaceous plants. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Zelman-Defendorf/16 Tompkins Hill Road/#IW-06-31/Site Development: Mr. Wolfe, engineer, submitted a copy of the 6/1/05 soils report by Mr. Temple, which found only 713 sq. ft. of wetlands in the SE corner of the property. A copy of the sketch map had not been submitted as requested. The map, "Plan Showing Proposed Improvements," by Mr. Wolfe, revised to 6/14/06 was reviewed. Mr. Wolfe noted the revisions included 1) the elimination of a pipe to the curtain drain, 2) the addition of the location of the septic system, and 3) the addition of one yard drain in the NE corner of the property, just beyond the 100 ft. regulated area. He proposed that the yard drain discharge just upgrade of the wetlands area, which would absorb what it could, with the balance overflowing over a drainage easement to the catch basin off site. Ms. Purnell asked if the amount of runoff had been calculated, if it would increase the size of the wetlands, and if the wetlands area had the capacity to handle it. Mr. Wolfe did not think the flow from the yard drain would affect the wetlands. Mr. Peck, contractor, explained the proposed drainage work was to eliminate the ponding of runoff near the house. Mr. Charles, adjoining property owner, claimed the main water problem was due to the high groundwater table and asked why a rain garden was not proposed. Mr. Wolfe explained a rain garden was not feasible due to the topography of the site. Mr. Bedini noted the road runoff also contributes to the drainage problems on the property since the road tilts towards it and there are no curbs to direct the flow down the hill. He suggested the Town be urged to make the necessary road improvements. Mr. Peck asked if a lip could be installed on the driveway apron to prevent the road runoff from flowing down the driveway. Ms. Purnell asked if that would then affect the downhill Saunders property. Mr. Bedini thought a curb could direct the road runoff to the existing catch basin. Ms. Purnell was concerned because the catch basin empties into a nearby stream and directing road runoff into it would also increase the amount of contaminants flowing into it. Mr. Wolfe said a rain garden would treat the runoff before it entered the culvert, but Ms. Purnell noted rain gardens are usually separate entities, not the wetlands themselves, and recommended the garden not be situated in the wetlands or a watercourse. Mr. Ajello did not think there was any other option and asked why the applicant had abandoned the idea of a piped overflow from a rain garden. Mr. Wolfe said he had eliminated this idea based on the comments by commissioners made at the site inspection. Mrs. Hill noted plans for a rain garden were not yet included in the file. Ms. Purnell and Mr. Ajello pointed out that some of the drainage problems were due to unauthorized activities by the applicants such as the construction of the patio and expansion of the driveway. Ms. Purnell thought the septic area might be flooding due to the patio work. She also suggested that a swale be installed along the upper side of the driveway in lieu of the rain garden. Mr. Peck said this would not be possible due to the ledge in this area. Mr. Peck asked about the possibility of excavating a pond in the area adjacent to the wetlands or the owners installing Belgium blocks if the Town did not install a curb. Mrs. Hill said the Commission would not comment until the curb had been discussed with the Town Highway Dept. Mr. Bedini noted there were five sources of water problems on this small property: 1) runoff from uphill, 2) roof runoff, 3) groundwater, 4) road runoff, and 5) runoff entering from the rear of the lot and so thought a professional review was merited. Partial solutions and piecemeal approval of the application were discussed. Mr. Charles complained the Commission was considering solutions without knowing the exact source of the problems or what the impacts would be on adjoining properties. The patio construction was discussed in more detail and Mr. Peck noted the propane tank would be relocated, a generator and underground conduit installed. Mr. Ajello noted information still required included: 1) assessment of the patio construction and its impact on the drainage and runoff, 2) input from the Town regarding the road runoff, 3) a planting plan for the west side of the driveway, 4) the addition to the plans of an overflow pipe in the wetlands, and 5) a planting plan for the enhancement of the plants in the wetland area. It was the consensus that the plans should be referred to a consulting engineer for review. Mr. Wolfe offered to post a bond instead so the Commission would be assured the planting would be completed to its satisfaction, but the Commission thought the review was necessary. Mr. Wolfe will revise the plans before they are referred to Land Tech.
Enforcement
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/Unauthorized Construction: The map, "Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 6/13/06 was reviewed. Mr. Neff noted he had added a limit of disturbance line as had been requested at the last meeting. Mr. Rosiello noted there would be no massive planting behind the guest house; it would be a mowed lawn area, and the area east of the pool behind the spruces would also be mown as it always had. Mrs. Hill asked if the Commission was satisfied with the map as submitted. Ms. Purnell said she would have to research the guest house permit because it appeared according to how the map was drawn that 50 to 100 feet of wetlands near the guest house could be landscaped. Mr. Rosiello and Mr. Neff explained the limit of disturbance line had not included this area because the irrigation system had been installed there and it had always been mowed. They said that differed, though, from a regular landscaped area. Mr. Rosiello stated the purpose of this discussion was for the Commission to determine whether the unauthorized walls could remain and two additional dry stacked walls to protect the wetlands could be applied for. Mr. Ajello noted as proposed, an access to the pool and garden area would remain, but Ms. Purnell said, in effect, it would create a roadway. Mr. Ajello thought it made sense to continue to use the existing access and to construct a barrier to check to landscaping "creep" towards the wetlands. Mr. Rosiello was anxious to know whether this would be acceptable to the Commission so that he could complete the required mitigation plan, which would change if it was thought the walls were a good idea. Mrs. Hill thought Mr. Picton should review the map. Ms. Purnell noted she was angry about the current proposal and the disturbance to the property, which consisted of 50% wetlands and watercourses, and offered to recuse herself. She said all four separate upland areas had been altered. Mr. Rosiello thought once the mitigation plan was implemented, it would be a gain for the wetlands. It was suggested the commissioners should inspect the site again on their own prior to the next meeting. Mrs. Hill advised Mr. Rosiello he could generate an overlay map with the changes to the mitigation plan.
New Applications
Potter/253 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-06-32/2 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Fairbairn represented the applicants. He noted the site development plan was not ready yet, but presented the map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated March 2006. Mr. Fairbairn stated the property totaled 6.94 acres and two lots consisting of 2.55 and 3.59 acres were proposed. The wetlands had been flagged. The proposed house site was out of the regulated area, but the driveway off Shearer Road was proposed within 100 feet of wetlands. He explained an alternate driveway location would be off Rt.109, but as proposed it would help maintain the rural character as viewed when entering Washington from Morris. A site inspection will not be scheduled until the site development plan is submitted.
Steep Rock Association/147 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-06-33/Replace Bridge: Ms. Branson circulated photos of the old bridge and abutments in the Shepaug River in Hidden Valley, noting the replacement bridge would be in the same location and as identical as possible to the original bridge. The proposed fiberglass bridge was 4 feet wide with a wooden cap on the railing. The reasons fiberglass was chosen were detailed in her 6/8/06 letter to the Commission. She noted construction specifications had not been finalized, but said she thought only one abutment would be put in so there would be less chance for debris getting caught by the bridge. Mr. LaMuniere asked how the bridge would be anchored. Ms. Branson was not sure, but said previously there had been a cement block drilled into a shelf in the ledge. Mr. LaMuniere noted the right bank had washed out and asked how the steep side would be accessed. Ms. Branson said it would be accessed the same way as had been done for the first bridge. She noted once a contractor was hired Steep Rock would rely on him to provide the construction and installation details. Questions to be answered included: 1) How would the bridge be anchored on the far side, near side and middle (on the boulder)? 2) What is the construction sequence? 3) What equipment will be used? 4) How will the equipment access the site? 5) Will the bridge arrive in one piece or will it be assembled on site? 6) Will a crane be used? If so, will it reach both sides of the river from one location? Where will it be located?
Enforcement
Taylor/11 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Excavation: Mr. Ajello reported he had sent Mr. Taylor another letter on 6/5/06. Mr. Taylor was present and said he would not agree to the Commission's restoration proposal. It was explained to Mr. Taylor that the Commission did not expect his entire yard to be restored to one third lawn, one third natural growth, and one third wetlands buffer vegetation, but only the pond perimeter. He still did not agree to the proposal and said his wife was working on a planting plan with a professional planting person. Ms. Purnell advised him that the Commission consistently discouraged people from clearing and planting lawn down to the pond edge because plants are filters that help the health of the pond. Mr. Taylor said he would consult with his wife and bring in a proposal to the 6/28 meeting. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.
Peck/10 Slaughterhouse Road/Unauthorized Excavation, Tree Removal: Mr. Bedini read the 6/13/06 letter from Mr. Peck in response to the latest letter he received from Mr. Ajello. In spite of the arguments raised in this letter, it was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. Peck had caused a great disturbance to his property, he had previously agreed to have the wetlands mapped as a first step to solving the problem, and the Commission would still require that he conduct the soil testing he previously agreed to. Mr. Ajello will send another letter and ask Mr. Peck to advise the Commission when he expects to submit the required information.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clear Cutting: Mr. Ajello reported that Mr. Moore said he would not pay the citation. A second notice will be sent and Mr. Moore will have 10 days to respond to the hearing officer if he still plans not to pay.
Shepaug Realty/East Shore Road/Unauthorized Parking Area, Shoreline Work, Dock: The Commission read Mr. Ajello's 6/14/06 enforcement report and studied the DOT photos, which compared the site as it was in 2004 vs. 2005. It was evident the parking area had been constructed in that time period. Mr. Ajello informed the Commission he would begin the enforcement process by sending a notice of violation. He said DOT officials would take separate enforcement action with the possible involvement of the state Attorney General.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road (141 Shinar Mt. Rd.)#IW-04-V8/Repair of Retaining Wall: Ms. Purnell said she had a letter ready for Mr. Picton to sign and that when he had done so she would leave it with Mrs. J. Hill to send to the property owner.
Collins/323 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Clear Cutting, Soil Disturbance: Mr. Ajello reported that Mr. Collins has hired an engineer to work on a drainage plan and that no further work had been done on site.
Mrs. Hill noted a nominating committee to find candidates for the Commission offices would be chosen at the next meeting. Election of Officers will take place at the July 26th meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Ms. Purnell.
Mrs. Hill adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
May 24, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Thomson
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Lyon, Mr. Solley, Mr. Sears, Ms. Dzenutis, Mr. Neff, Mr. Rosiello, Mr. Coville, Mr. Sabin, Atty. Fisher, Mr. DiBiase, Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Peck, Mr. Munson, Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd, Mr. Charles, Press
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
MOTION: To enter executive session at 6:30 p.m. to discuss personnel and pending litigation. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end executive session at 7:10 p.m. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Thomson left the meeting and Alternate Coe was seated.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: New Application: C. Zelman- Defendorf/16 Tompkins Hill Road/#IW-06-31/ Site Development. By Mr. Picton, seconded By Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 5/10/06 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 2: 4th line of motion: Insert: "demolition and" before reconstruction of a guest house.
Page 4: 12th line: Change: "affecting" to from slopes.
Page 4: Last line, #6: Change: "construction" to any work.
Page 5: Ms. Purnell said she had a list of reasons why she had voted against the application and would submit it for the record.
Page 6: 7th line: Delete: "she had submitted."
4th full paragraph: Mrs. Hill said she had also said the Commission should always consider the rights and wishes of property owners.
Page 8: 7th line above motion: Change: "would" to will.
1st sentence under Washington Club: Ms. Purnell recused herself also because she is an adjoining property owner.
Page 9: 1st line: Change: "regrown" to regrow.
Under Smith: Last line of motion: Add to the end: or work in the hatchery, which were withdrawn.
Page 10: 4th line of motion: Move: "for" from before 10 ft. wide to after 10 ft. wide.
Page 11: Throughout Robbins: Change: "for mitigation" to as mitigation.
Page 12: 6th line under Howard Family Trust: Change "lake" side to street side.
Page 16: Add: Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 11:47 p.m.
MOTION: To accept the 5/10/06 Regular Meeting minutes
as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr.
Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 5/2/06 Calhoun Street Trust site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Potter/220 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-06-14/Site Development: Mr. Ajello reported he had received the map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated January 2006, but expected a revised map showing the sites of additional perc tests and the relocated septic system. The two areas where activities had encroached on the upland review area; the construction of the driveway at the first bend and clearing in the NW section of the parcel near wetlands flags #26 abd #27, were noted. Mr. Ajello said there had been no further clearing since the owner had been ordered to stop. Ms. Purnell asked if there were wetlands within 100 feet south of the proposed house site. Mr. Ajello there were none. Mr. Picton asked if there were wetlands in the areas already cleared. Mr. Ajello did not think so, but noted there were currently water filled ruts in these areas. Photos of the disturbed areas on the property were circulated. The commissioners asked for an amended map showing the areas already cleared, the limit of clearing in a different color, and all other proposed changes. Mr. Ajello said he would request that silt fence be installed.
Adams/57 West Shore Road/#IW-06-15/Retaining Wall, Path, Stairs, Plantings: Ms. Dzenutis, landscaper, submitted a revised plan received 5/24/06, which included construction details for the proposed wall at the shoreline. The map indicated a row of silt fence and hay bales between the work area and the lake and 4 ft. between the wall and the water's edge. The commissioners noted it had been the consensus at the last meeting that the wall should not be constructed on the beach nor should soil be deposited there. Mr. Ajello pointed out that without that wall, the soil from the planting area would wash into the lake. Mr. Picton said it was the Commission's responsibility to protect the beach and suggested it be left in its natural state and that the plants be placed in the soil already there or that plants with large balls of soil be planted. Mr. Ajello thought the area was too low for planting without depositing soil and said sand would have to be removed. Ms. Purnell recommended planting grasses that grow well in sand. Mr. Picton asked what the objective of the proposed lower wall was. Ms. Dzenutis said it would stop erosion and the need to upkeep the sandy area. It was noted that was not stated in the application. Mr. Ajello asked why the Commission did not support the construction of the lower wall. Mr. Picton responded that generally new construction, filling, and excavating is not permitted so close to wetlands and watercourses and noted in this case the area proposed to be filled would be under water some times during the year. He recommended the area be stabilized without the deposition of additional soil. Ms. Purnell will reinspect the site and report to the Commission at the next meeting.
Washington Club, Inc./8 Golf Course Road/#IW-06-24ATF/Utility Trench: There was no new information in the file. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to work with the applicant to draft a plan to address the wetlands concerns raised at the last meeting. He also asked for a map that would show both the disturbed area and the restoration solution. Photos of the work site were reviewed.
Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-06-27/Pave Driveway, Install Culverts: Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted his map, "Driveway Drainage Improvement Plan," dated 5/22/06 and he discussed the drainage plan. He said he had hoped the emergency removal of debris approved at the last meeting would have solved the problem, but it didn't; the brook had jumped its banks again after the work had been done. Mr. Picton asked if all the proposed work was within 15 ft. of either side of the driveway except for one point where it would be within 30 ft. Mr. Rosiello, landscape architect, said it was. Mr. Picton noted no work was proposed that would redirect flood water back into the stream where it could do additional damage. Ms. Purnell thought the proposed work might dewater the wet meadow area. Mr. Neff favored paving the driveway because a gravel drive would be more prone to erosion. Mr. Picton was concerned that it might wash out if too much work was done too far in advance of the paving. Ms. Purnell noted the driveway culverts would empty almost directly into the wetlands. Mr. Neff reviewed the culvert cross sections. Mr. Picton asked if the footings for the bridge would be dug directly in the stream bed. Mr. Neff explained 2' by 2' by 10' long precast concrete blocks would be installed during low flow on each side of the stream as a base for the headwalls and noted the backfilling, grading, and rip rapping that would be done. He said an instream filter would be installed to catch the heavy sediment. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to review the plans and determine whether they were adequate. Ms. Purnell was concerned because a fair amount of the stream would be filled and she thought the proposed work might have unintended consequences. The mitigation plan was discussed. Mr. Rosiello proposed to construct stairs off the large retaining walls down to the lawn area. He said Mr. Ajello had been concerned about the caretaker's access to the field and so proposed to continue one of the retaining walls and build a freestanding dry stone wall to mark the edge of the wetland area. Mr. Picton asked that these be shown on the plan. He noted if the retaining wall was taken out, the access could be further from the wetlands. Mr. Rosiello did not know whether that would be possible due to the location of the parking area and the steep slopes in the vicinity. Mr. Rosiello said revisions to the mitigation plan were needed to provide access to the pool. Mr. Picton asked that the map include lines showing the limits of the landscaping and of the structural activities and all the areas limited to natural growth. It was noted this was needed not only for the Commission, but also so it would be clear to the present and future owners which areas were committed to natural growth. Mr. Rosiello noted two other issues that also would have to be discussed; 1) removal of invasives on the property and 2) the Fire Dept's request for a turn around area.
Howard Family Trust/99 West Shore Road/#IW-06-28/Repair Retaining Wall and Driveway: Mr. Ajello summarized the description of the proposed work that Mr. Howard had presented at the last meeting, noting that icing would be reduced and the driveway runoff would be spread out along the length of the retaining wall. He said the work would improve the existing situation on the property.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-28 submitted by the Howard Family Trust to repair the retaining wall and driveway at 99 West Shore Road per the plans submitted on 5/10/06. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Lloyd/149 Whittlesey Road/#IW-06-29/Demolish, Build New House: Atty. Fisher spoke on behalf of the Lloyds. He explained the 2.25 acre site had no wetlands, but was located between the Shepaug and Bantam Rivers. He said the existing house is below the 100 year flood level and that it could not be renovated in place without correcting that. Therefore, the applicant proposed to remove the existing foundation and replace it with a new one with properly elevated flood vents. He noted the surface runoff from the driveway currently flows into the Shepaug. The applicant proposed to remove a portion of the driveway's impervious surface and install an infiltration system to handle the runoff. He said the site was level and well drained and the proposed work would not threaten the rivers. Mr. Sabin submitted the "Project Narrative," dated 5/10/06 and the map, "Site Plan," by Mr. Sabin, dated May 10, 2006. Mr. Sabin pointed out the proposed new locations for the house, terraces, driveway, auto court, increased natural buffer area, and recharge galleries, noting the total coverage would increase by 1765 sq. ft. He provided additional information regarding proposed mitigation; some lawn areas would be removed and natural buffers installed. He also pointed out the limit of disturbance line. It was noted some areas would be disturbed right up to the river banks, but that this was necessary to plant the buffers. Mr. Sabin said he would submit more details on the limit of disturbance area at the next meeting. Ms. Purnell noted that except for one small portion of the house, all of the proposed work would be located within 100 ft. of the rivers. Mr. Picton noted the rebuilt house would be larger than the existing house and the hard landscaping would extend closer to the river. Because there may be a public interest and there was the potential for significant impact to the rivers, the commissioners unanimously agreed to conduct a public hearing. Mr. Picton asked if the 100 year flood line was shown on the map. Mr. Sabin said it was elevation 617 and that he would add it. Mr. Picton said a feasible and prudent alternative would be to reconstruct the house so that it was entirely out of the 100 year flood area. Ms. Purnell asked if floodway information had been submitted and whether there were stream encroachment lines established for this area. Atty. Fisher asked for any other input from the Commission to help the applicant prepare for the hearing. Ms. Purnell asked for information concerning the interaction between the ground water and the infiltration system, but noted the Commission was not bound to only those issues raised at tonight's meeting. Mr. Picton asked how the project could be reconfigured so that 1) the footprint did not increase, 2) coverage within the regulated area would not increase, and 3) the building and hard surfaces would not come any closer to the watercourses. Atty. Fisher said the increase was so small there would be minimal or no impact to the rivers. Mr. Picton, however, noted the lot was small so that in terms of proportion, a significant increase in coverage was proposed. Mr. DiBiase explained the house would be rotated to relate to the pool and for solar heat gain. He briefly presented floor plans and a rendering of the exterior. Ms. Purnell asked the applicant to address how the runoff from the gutters and leaders would be handled. Mr. Ajello asked if the new house would require deeper footings. Mr. DiBiase said they would be 3' 6" below grade. Mr. Sabin stated when it had been excavated in the summer, the bottom of the pool hit groundwater. He noted the infiltration system would be above that level. Mr. Picton advised the applicant the application would be referred to either Land Tech or Fuss and O'Neill. Ms. Purnell noted the Commission would have to identify specific questions and issues before it sent for the review.
Coville/14 Wheaton Road/#IW-06-30/Excavation, Clearing, Install Septic System, Rebuild House: Mr. Coville and Mr. Neff, engineer, presented the map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated January 2006. Mr. Neff detailed the work proposed. A new foundation would be constructed and the house rebuilt on the same footprint and a new driveway and septic system would be installed. It was noted the existing house was only 30 feet from the brook. Mr. Coville explained if he were to try to move the house further from the wetlands and watercourse, it would bring it closer to the zoning setbacks since the lot was so constrained. He noted he had already gotten a variance for rebuilding on the existing footprint. Ms. Purnell thought perhaps a public hearing should be held. A site inspection was scheduled on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 at 5:00 p.m.
Zelman-Defendorf/16 Tompkins Hill Road/#IW-06-31/Site Development: The map, "Plan Showing Proposed Improvements," by Mr. Wolfe, dated 5/15/06 was reviewed. Mr. Wolfe pointed out the wetlands, which had been flagged by Mr. Temple on the SE side of the property. He said the owners wanted to stop the flooding in the basement by installing drains and also wanted to find the exact location of the septic system so it could be determined whether it had to be replaced. Also proposed were gutters for the house, which would run to the existing culvert on the Town road. If the Town did not approve this, Mr. Wolfe suggested a rain garden to handle the roof drain overflow. He noted a curtain drain and a couple of yard drains had already been installed. Ms. Purnell asked how long the driveway had been in its current configuration. Mr. Peck, contractor, said a pad had been added for access and stone had recently been deposited on the driveway. Ms. Purnell noted she had seen work already in progress and mounds of disturbed material on site. She asked for a list of the work already done and the dates it had been done. She also asked for Mr. Temple's soils report. Mr. Ajello noted that in addition to the wetlands on site, there was a stream on the other side of the road. Mr. Picton said the Commission also wanted Mr. Temple's sketch map and a report regarding the wetlands and watercourses off site. Mr. Wolfe pointed out the location of a possible intermittent watercourse on the property. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, May 31, 2006 at 4:15 p.m. Mr. Wolfe asked if the owners could dig some test holes with a backhoe to determine the location of the septic system.
MOTION: To authorize Mr. Zelman and Mr. Defendorf to dig only the number of test holes necessary to located the existing septic system at 16 Tompkins Hill Road. By Mr. Picton, seconded By Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Charles, adjoining property owner, pointed out where the property had been cleared and where drainage work had been done within regulated areas. He also said a new portion of driveway and a patio had been added without permits and advised the Commission about several zoning issues.
Enforcement
Klein/West Shore Road/Deposition of Material: Mr. Ajello reported he had caught contractors dumping soil on the shoreline and had ordered them to stop. He advised the owner to apply if he wants to establish a lawn area by the lake.
McTiernan/52 Calhoun Street/Unauthorized Clearing: Mr. Ajello noted Mr. Moore, contractor, has refused to pay the citation issued to him for the unauthorized clearing. He asked if a hearing would have to be held to provide Mr. Moore an opportunity to show why he should not have been fined. Atty. Zizka will be asked whether people with outstanding citations can be prohibited from obtaining permits to work in Town.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Clearing and Filling: It was noted the Commission was still waiting for the wetlands to be flagged on this property before conducting a site inspection. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to monitor the site to make sure Mr. Moore was not continuing to alter the nature of the wetlands on his property.
Peck/10 Slaughterhouse Road/Excavation, Tree Removal: Mr. Ajello had not yet contacted the owner regarding the wetlands map that had been requested.
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road/Unauthorized Cutting, Filling, Soil Disturbance: Mr. Ajello reported the Selectmen have told Mr. Wright to get an engineered plan for correcting the damage done. It was the consensus that since the work was done on Town property, the Town should order that restoration be done. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to meet with Mr. Wright and Mr. Sears and to report on progress at the next meeting.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road (141 Shinar Mt. Rd.)/#IW-04-V8/Repair Retaining Wall: Ms. Purnell had emailed the 5/24/06 draft letter to Mr. Carter to the commissioners prior to the meeting. Ms. Purnell recommended Mr. MacBroom inspect the site because he does river restoration work and would know whether there were significant problems that require remediation. She noted the problem was caused by the owner's failure to follow his permit and so the consultant's fee was a legitimate cost that should be paid by the owner. It was agreed the letter should be amended to state Mr. Carter would be required to pay the consultant's fee. Mr. Picton noted the Commission could also consider placing a notice of violation on the Land Records if the work was not brought into compliance with the permit. It was the consensus the amended letter should be sent as soon as possible.
Rheinhart/10 Perkins Road/Unauthorized Cutting: It was noted Atty. Kelly had submitted a petition for certification to the court, but the decision in the Commission's favor still stood so enforcement action could proceed.
Other Business
Bennett/207 Bee Brook Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-05-55/ Trenching for Wood Stove: Mr. Ajello explained an outdoor wood boiler would be installed and would require insulated pipes to be run underground to the house. A portion of a survey map, undated, untitled, with the location of the boiler and trench sketched in was reviewed. The map also showed the line of silt fence would be extended. It was noted the property was fairly level. Mr. Picton said the trench would have to be narrow and the work completed within two days. Ms. Purnell asked if provisions had been made for constructing the house in a flood plain. Mr. Ajello said he did not think the property was in the flood plain.
MOTION: To approve the revision requested by Mr. Bennett to Permit #IW-05-55 to allow trenching for the installation of an outdoor wood stove at 207 Bee Brook Road. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1. Ms. Purnell abstained.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
May 10, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Thomson
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Griffiths, Atty. Cornell, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Arturi, Mr. Owens, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Neff, Atty. Kelly, Mr./Mrs. Howard, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Wilson, Ms. Dzenutis, Mr. Rosiello, Mr. Boling, Mr. Charles, Press
Regular Business
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: Other Business: Preliminary Discussion/Strawman, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road (Juniper Meadow Road)/Bridge. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 4/26/06 Public Hearing - Show Cause Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0-1.
Ms. Purnell abstained because she had not read them.
The 5/2/06 Smith site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. Mr. Watson's name was added to those in attendance.
MOTION: To accept the 5/2/06 Smith site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
The 5/2/06 Brown site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. After the third sentence add the following: A fair amount of native woody vegetation was growing between the stones.
MOTION: To accept the 5/2/06 Brown site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 4-0-1. Mrs. Hill abstained because she had not received the minutes.
MOTION: To accept the 5/2/06 McTiernan site inspection minutes as written. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-0-1.
Mrs. Hill abstained because she had not received the minutes.
Pending Applications
Kessler/103-105 West Mountain Road/#IW-06-05/Two Dwellings, Wetlands Crossing, Planting, Etc.: Mr. Picton noted at the last meeting he had asked the commissioners to write down both reasons for denial and conditions of approval. These were sent to Mr. Ajello who had written two draft motions upon which to start discussion. The map, "Wetland Mitigation Plan," by Land Tech Consultants, revised to 4/24/06 was reviewed. The draft motion of approval was discussed first and the following conditions agreed upon:
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-05 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Kessler for the construction of a house and access driveway with bridge and the reconstruction of a guest house at 103-105 West Mountain Road per all the documents submitted as revised to this date subject to the following conditions:
1. A $40,000 bond shall be posted before any activity begins on either site to cover all protective measures and long term mitigation and professional supervision and monitoring on behalf of the Commission pre, during, and post construction. If there are adverse impacts detected, then further mitigation measures shall be implemented under the direction of the Commission's consultants. If in the judgment of the Commission it becomes necessary for the Commission to hire contractors and consultants to properly implement any of the protective measures, the property owner by acceptance of the permit authorizes such work to be carried out and covered by the bond. If such judgment is made by the Commission, the remediation, stabilization, or repair work shall proceed without delay. If the bond balance should fall below $30,000 at any time, all other construction work shall stop until the expended bond is replaced and the total bond amount is restored to $40,000. Partial releases may be granted at the discretion of the Commission with an adequate portion of the bond remaining in place through two growing seasons following completion and stabilization of all work.
2. The applicant shall cover the cost of the services of an engineer or other qualified individual or firm mutually agreed to with the Commission to monitor the implementation of the project and to report twice a week or more often as necessary to the Commission through the EO on its progress. That party is to confirm to the Commission in a final report that the conditions of the permit have been met. A similar report shall be prepared regarding the functioning of the vegetative buffers and other erosion/stormwater control measures during the first two growing seasons after the end of construction.
3. On both the guest house and main house sites, the limit of disturbance line shall be redrawn to exclude any slopes with an existing contour greater than 20% from the work area so that currently undisturbed, vegetated, stable slopes in excess of 20% will remain in that condition. The slope shall be determined by survey or by analysis of the surveyed contour map with site measurements being determinative. The amended line shall not be any closer to wetlands or watercourses than the line as shown at the close of the public hearing. Plans for landscape changes, regrading, and building construction and the new limit of disturbance line shall be amended accordingly, with amended plans submitted for review and approval before the start of work. Exceptions: a) where the pipe and swale accepting overflow from the roof drain infiltration structures must be installed down the steeper slope, disturbance of a slope greater than 20% is permitted, but shall be kept to a maximum of 30 feet wide, b) where existing structures are to be removed affecting 20% slopes or steeper, the footprint of the patio, steps, and pathways to be removed shall be regraded to its pre existing natural contour and disturbance kept to a minimum. This work shall be completed and stabilized at the onset of construction and before upslope areas are disturbed, c) all inspection and monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Land Use Office and distributed to the commissioners.
4. Regarding the emergency overflow channel from the main house the applicant shall either: a) widen the channel to 8' and install a 2' layer of intermediate rip rap and a check dam half way up the slope or b) install a 2'layer of standard rip rap along the entire length of the swale.
5. The soil stockpile location shown to the west of the guest house site shall not be used due to its proximity to runoff and saturated soil areas. An alternate location at least 30 feet away from slopes exceeding 20%, which slope down to wetlands and at least 100 feet from wetlands shall be identified and used.
6. The applicant must provide a detailed construction plan describing the sequence in which construction phases will take place and showing how these different components interface in time and space. This comprehensive construction plan must be reviewed and approved by the EO and the Commission before construction begins.
7. All conditions of approval shall be listed on the site development mylar. The mylar and construction and implementation sequences shall be filed prior to the start of construction in the Town Clerk's Office on the Land Records and be referenced in and/or attached to the deed of the subject properties.
8. The limits of disturbance shall be marked in the field prior to breaking ground or clearing (pre construction) using a substantial and durable barrier.
9. The boundaries of the protective buffer areas shall be permanently marked with durable posts or trees and signs every 30 to 50 feet depending on the configuration of the line, prior to the start of work.
10. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the EO, contractors, owners, owners' representatives, and the Commission's site monitor and the detailed construction sequence shall be reviewed.
11. All areas within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses shall remain in undisturbed native forest vegetation and soil cover except for the conditions and activities shown on the amended plan, which is to be approved by the Commission pursuant to this decision.
12. The guest house shall be limited to two bedrooms and its presently approved footprint size (size shown on 4/24/06 plan) and the driveway surface area shall not be increased beyond that approved.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-1.
Ms. Purnell voted No for the following reasons: 1) the potential precedent set when removing an existing footprint and allowing for modification of that footprint, 2) the impacts from the existing structures and the cause for the eutrophication of the pond had not been definitively established, 3) there are feasible and prudent alternatives for both the main house and guest house, and 4) the property is not appropriate for development of this size.
Mr. Picton noted the Commission hoped with a careful plan and based on a lot of engineering and carefully worded conditions that the approved activities would cause no significant adverse impact to the wetlands and watercourses. He thought an adequate buffer area had been left between the construction area and the wetlands. He stated the motion had been very specific and that he did not believe that what was approved for this site would set a precedent for any other site because each was unique.
Ms. Purnell noted the research she had submitted on buffers was important, noting that shrinking the size of the dwellings and disturbed area was not just a goal in itself, but also allowed for an increase in the surrounding natural areas. She also noted the Commission is allowed to take into account normal future uses associated with residential development. She thought it was unrealistic to think only the 30 feet designated as lawn would be disturbed in the future.
Mr. LaMuniere thought the engineering details submitted and the Commission's monitoring condition would be sufficient to prevent damage to the wetlands.
Mr. Bedini stated the applicant's engineer was reputable and if the plan presented was implemented as proposed there should be no impact to the wetlands.
Mrs. D. Hill agreed with Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Bedini. She did not like such large structures located so close to wetlands, but she did not think there would be long term impacts.
Ms. Coe did not think the structures should have been built there in the first place, but since they had been, she thought the Commission must do its best to work with the existing situation. She thought the applicant's engineer made a good faith effort to protect the wetlands.
Potter/220 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-06-14/Site Development: Mr. Ajello stated he was still waiting for the site development plans that had been requested by the Commission several meetings ago.
Adams/57 West Shore Road/#IW-06-15/Retaining Wall, Path, Stairs, Plantings: Ms. Dzenutis, representing the property owners, stated the map had not changed since the last meeting, but that the contractor had submitted a document dated 5/10/06 to respond to many of the Commission's questions. The map, "Beach Renewal Project," drawn on the survey map by Mr. Cheney, dated July 2004, was reviewed. The proposed work included: 1) replace the existing wall and fence along the road, 2) repair the deck, walkway, and steps down to the beach; the existing wood would be replaced with bluestone on crushed rock and a small stone wall would be built to support them, 3) construct a small retaining wall to hold an area for native plants. Mr. Picton said the most important question was whether the Commission should allow this type of work at the water's edge. Photos of what now exists on site were circulated. Regarding the fence along the road, Ms. Dzenutis said the new fence would use the existing iron casings and would have the same dimensions as the original. Mr. Picton did not think this would have an impact. Ms. Purnell did not think the replacement of the deck and stairs would have an additional impact because the existing cement was not porous. Ms. Dzenutis said the proposed work would help to solve the erosion problem here. Mr. Picton questioned whether the lower retaining wall and the change of the beach to a landscaped area were merited. Ms. Dzenutis said the buffer plants would be planted directly in the beach and the wall was needed to protect them. Ms. Purnell did not think some of the suggested plants would survive in wet sand and offered to provide a list of native plants that would. She and Mr. Picton suggested the vegetation be planted without the retaining wall. Mr. Picton asked if the replacement of the deck and stairs could be done without increasing the height or width of the existing cement. Mr. Bedini noted according to the plans, the concrete would be raised about 1 ft. and asked if that barrier could be removed instead. Ms. Dzenutis said it could be made lower instead of taller. Mr. Picton read the question and answer sheet. Mr. Picton advised Ms. Dzenutis that silt fence was needed between the work area and the water to catch construction debris. He asked how deep and how wide the foundations would be. Mr. Bedini asked for a cross section of the proposed construction. Mr. Picton noted if soil would not be deposited for the plantings, the landscape fabric would not be needed and suggested the masonry and stonework for the path should be no higher or further out towards the lake than what now exists. Mr. Picton noted the changes must be shown on the site plan and all of the above questions answered and information provided before the Commission would act on the application. He asked Mr. Ajello to work with the applicant to make sure the application was complete for the next meeting.
Schoellkopf/330 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-06-20/Deer Fence: Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, submitted his 5/10/06 memo to the Commission with attached cross section, entitled, "Schoellkopf Fence Crossing at Sprain Brook." He said he had understood from the discussion at the last meeting that there was a consensus that as long as the crossing was detached so it could breakaway and there was adequate room for smaller animals to pass, the commissioners would be OK with it. He explained in detail the cross section, which included normal deer fence to the top of the overbank and then four sections of breakaway connectors. He said it was obvious they would require frequent maintenance, but noted Mr. Schoellkopt has a full time maintenance staff. He noted similar plans had been used successfully in Wisconsin and British Columbia. Ms. Purnell asked if it turned out there was a problem with catching debris, would Mr. Sabin evaluate an alternate solution. He said he would. Mr. Picton did not think the goal of protecting the garden from deer merited the blockage of the stream, especially since there were feasible and prudent alternatives such as installing an electric fence around the garden area only. He also thought it was not a good idea to fence across wetlands, watercourses, and wildlife corridors that relate to wetlands. Ms. Coe agreed and said she would vote, No, if seated. Mr. LaMuniere noted that at the last meeting several of the commissioners thought the proposed fence could be an exception because the garden was nationally recognized and would be preserved in perpetuity. Ms. Purnell stated that in terms of environmental connectivity, Mr. Sabin had made an effort to pull back the fence from upper wetlands and said he had agreed to look into alternatives if this was not a workable solution. She considered this to be a unique situation and did not foresee any other exceptions.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-20 submitted by Mr. Schoellkopf to erect a deer fence at 300 Nettleton Hollow Road per the 5/10/06 letter from Mr. Sabin and the 4/25/06 site plan.
By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-1.
Mr. Picton voted No because he thought it was not a good idea to fence across wetlands, watercourses, or wildlife corridors that relate to wetlands and there were feasible and prudent alternatives.
Washington Club, Inc./8 Golf Course Road/#IW-06-24ATF/Utility Trench: Ms. Purnell recused herself because she is a member of the Washington Club and Alternate Thomson was seated. Mr. Ajello's 5/10/06 report was reviewed. He noted there was a 20 ft. wide area the length of the trench that had been disturbed when all that had been necessary was 8 ft. He also noted that where the activity had occurred close to wetlands, sediment had washed into the wetlands. He recommended this material be removed by hand and that the disturbed area be graded over and hayed. Mr. Picton asked if something could be done with the disturbed area to make a suitable wetlands buffer. Mr. Ajello responded it could either grow back naturally, noting the canopy remains, or wetlands appropriate vegetation could be planted. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello for recommendations on site restoration and to review the application for completeness for the next meeting. Mr. Ajello noted the restoration of the steep road shoulder would be a problem. Mr. Underwood suggested it be left to regrown on its own. Mr. Ajello worried that due to the sandy soil and 4:1 grade, this would be difficult and he recommended silt fence be maintained at the bottom of the slope. He thought environmental mesh or an engineered solution might be needed. Mr. Underwood noted that if an engineer was required, the restoration plans would not be ready for the next meeting. Commissioners will inspect the site on their own and Mr. Bedini offered to write an inspection report.
Smith/35 East Shore Road/#IW-06-24/Restore Pond, Build Greenhouse and Garage: Mr. Picton noted the portion of the application for the restoration of the pond had been withdrawn. The map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/8/06 was reviewed. The locations for the greenhouse on the north side of the property and the garage on the south end and the limit of disturbance areas for both were noted. Regarding the garage, Mr. Neff, engineer, stated a frost wall footing would excavated, but the existing foundation would remain and the new building would be constructed inside it. Mr. Picton noted the garage would be 60 ft. from the stream, but that the driveway and a stonewall were between them. He thought there were no other suitable locations for the garage and greenhouse than those proposed. Mr. Neff noted variances for this work would be required from the ZBA.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-24 submitted by Mrs. Smith to construct a garage and a greenhouse at 35 East Shore Road per the plans dated 5/8/06 and with the understanding the approval does not include the restoration of the pond. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Ms. Purnell was reseated.
Brown/127 West Shore Road/#IW-06-25/Rebuild Retaining Wall: Mr. Wilson, engineer, presented photos of the existing site conditions. He pointed out the area where the commissioners agreed there was an existing wall and the section where they did not think the rocks were part of a wall. Mr. Wilson said the owners preferred to rebuild the wall along the entire length of the property. He noted the wall is only 36" tall and he proposed to mortar only the top 12". The work would require excavation behind the wall, removal of the unstable material, relaying of the stones, and capping the top with flat stones. Stone stairs down to the water would also be added. He said a filter fabric would be installed behind the wall and then top soil deposited, and the disturbed area seeded and mulched. The existing ramp would be left as it is for access to the lake. Mr. Wilson said the purpose of the work was to make the wall look uniform and to repair two areas for dock anchors. Armored versus natural shoreline was briefly discussed. Mr. Ajello thought an armored shore was good when there was boat traffic, but Mr. Picton thought an ecologically functioning shoreline was more beneficial. He understood the need for dock anchors, but thought the natural portion of the shore should remain. He asked if two 5 ft. by 10 ft. areas could be repaired for anchors and the rest left as is. Mr. Wilson suggested an alternate plan to repair the existing 65 ft. that all agree is a wall, build the stairs, and leave the remaining 65 ft. from the stairs to the NW end of the property as it is. The map, "Site Plan," by Mr. Wilson, dated 4/12/06 with handwritten revisions by Mr. Wilson dated 5/10/06, was reviewed. It was noted the former dock would be abandoned and the proposed stairs were a new feature. Mr. Picton asked if the existing dock location could be used. Mr. Wilson said it had to be moved because the state fence along the highway interfers with access to the dock in its current location. There was a lengthy discussion regarding whether to permit the repair of the entire wall or just the anchor sections and stairs. Mr. Bedini asked if there was a consistent Commission policy on the building and repair of walls along the shoreline as it seemed to him some owners were permitted to do so while others were not. He asked if a wall with no mortar would be more acceptable. Several commissioners did not think the repair work, even with a dry wall, was justified merely to make the shoreline "nice." Mr. LaMuniere suggested another alternative would be to plant a vegetated buffer for a more natural shoreline. It was the consensus of the Commission to allow the work for the two anchor areas and stairs and to continue discussion regarding the repair of the entire length of wall in the future.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-25 submitted by Mr. Brown for the rework of the shoreline, no more than 10 feet wide for each of 2 docks and for 10 ft. wide steps as shown on the plan revised to 5/10/06 and to remove the existing concrete pads and replace them with stones at the top level of the wall at 127 West Shore Road subject to the following conditions: 1) there is to be no change to the remainder of the shoreline except for the 30 ft. width specified above, 2) the newly reworked wall sections shall be in the same location and with the same height and width as the rocks at the existing shoreline, 3) all other components on the plan are not approved at this time, 4) the applicant shall submit a revised map subject to the approval of the EO prior to the issuance of the permit.
By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Robbins/18 Winston Drive/#IW-06-26/Deck: Mr. Ajello noted a small deck was proposed approximately 65 ft. from a regulated area at the outlet of the roadside catch basin and 85 ft. to down slope wetlands. He had no wetlands concerns. The hand drawn site plan, "Robbins Deck," was reviewed. Mr. Ajello read the construction sequence by Candlewood Living, LLC. and he noted the post holes would be dug by hand. It was the consensus an area of coarse natural vegetation the approximate size of the proposed deck should be allowed to grow in the vicinity of the outlet for mitigation.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-26 submitted by Mrs. Robbins for a deck at 18 Winston Drive with the condition that for mitigation an area equal in size to the area of the proposed deck be maintained with coarse natural vegetation along both sides of the runoff stream. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Cohen/62 Calhoun Street/#IW-06-27/Pave Driveway: Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Rosiello, landscape architect, were present. Mr. Neff submitted photos of two sections of the stream blocked by debris and of the driveway culvert. He explained the debris forced the water out of the stream channel across the property, which affected the driveway and general drainage of the area. Mr. Neff said he was working on plans for the reconstruction of the culvert. He submitted the overall map, "Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/9/06 noting 1) unauthorized work was listed, 2) 2 ft. contours were provided, 3) as-built locations for sprinkler heads, deer fence, gates, etc. were provided, 4) wetlands flags were included, and 5) the planting plans were shown. Mr. Picton noted the deer fence gate walls were not permitted and that existing construction access that may or may not be approved was not shown. Mr. Rosiello pointed out the mitigation plantings. Removal of the woody debris from the channel was discussed at length. Mr. Rosiello considered this an emergency request due to the heavy rains predicted for the weekend. He noted the blockage was behind the pond that was recently rebuilt and asked if this work could be considered a revision to that permit. Mr. Picton asked that he submit a letter to request the revision. Mr. Neff discussed the proposed driveway paving and said it made sense to do all the drainage/maintenance work before the pavement was put down. He proposed to upsize the pipes under the driveway. He pointed out the flat area to the west of the barn and said it might be suitable for a weir that would allow flow over the top of the driveway during severe storm conditions. It was noted these plans would be discussed once they have been submitted. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to study the proposed mitigation plan to determine whether it was adequate, whether the buffers were wide enough, whether "in perpetuity" had been well enough defined, etc. Mr. Rosiello submitted the 5/10/06 letter to request the revision of the pond permit, #IW-06-37.
MOTION: To approve the request by Mr. Cohen, 62 Calhoun Street, to revise Permit #IW-05-37 to allow emergency stream channel clean out subject to the following conditions: 1) only woody debris shall be removed, 2) the work shall be done by hand and/or with a chain saw, 3) no excavation equipment shall be used, 4) there shall be no disturbance to the sides of the stream, 5) there shall be no removal or deposition of soil, 6) the vegetation on the stream banks shall not be disturbed, 7) the woody debris removed shall not be stockpiled in the regulated area. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Howard Family Trust/99 West Shore Road/#IW-06-28/Repair Driveway and Retaining Wall: Mr. and Mrs. Howard submitted an undated letter, which included a description of the proposed work, stormwater control measures, and a construction sequence. Mr. Howard detailed the work to be done. A fallen tree had ripped out a large section of the driveway, so he proposed a retaining wall on the east side (lake side) to shore it up. He said there would be no regrading below the wall and he would put in plants to prevent the erosion of the fill behind the wall. At its highest point the wall would be 2.5 ft. Ms. Purnell noted there would no longer be sheet flow down the slope. Mr. Howard responded one mason he consulted recommended a slot every 8 to 12 feet in the wall so the driveway runoff would flow onto the bank. Mr. Picton thought this idea to spread out the runoff was a good one. The commissioners will inspect the site on their own before the next meeting.
Other Business
Strawman, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road (Juniper Meadow Road)/Bridge/ Preliminary Discussion: Mr. Boling, consultant, presented a map showing the location of the parcel behind the existing Bee Brook Condominiums and the right of way to it through the condo property. He noted the Commission had previously approved one application to cross the watercourse to access the property and a subsequent application had been withdrawn. He asked the Commission for any recollection of problems or issues that would have to be addressed in a future application. Mr. Picton noted there was only a narrow access to the property and said if that was the only access, that would be where the bridge would have to be installed. Ms. Purnell remembered that there was an ownership issue and that off site wetlands and watercourses had not been identified. She recommended Mr. Boling review the old files and minutes.
Enforcement
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road (141 Shinar Mt. Rd.)/#IW-04-V8/Repair Retaining Wall: Ms. Purnell had not yet completed the letter, which will be sent to Mr. Carter. Mr. Thomson noted the Walker Brook Road bridge upstream of this property is due to be rebuilt in 2007.
Reinhardt/10 Perkins Road - Cremona/8 Perkins Road/Unauthorized Cutting: Mr. Picton noted the Commission had won the appeal and that the court had found that the Commission had not been biased in its actions and that it had jurisdiction over wetlands, even if they weren't shown on the wetlands map. Mr. Ajello noted the Inland Wetlands Regs should be amended to specify that the EO has the authority to issue enforcement orders. It was noted copies of the DEP model regulations would be available for the commissioners to review before discussing possible revisions.
Taylor/11 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Excavation in Wetlands: Mr. Ajello said he had not yet written to Mr. Taylor. Mr. Picton said the letter should include a request that the area be returned to one third each natural growth, wetlands buffer plants, and lawn as had been discussed at previous meetings.
9 Main Street Assoc./9 Main Street/Unauthorized Construction of Stone Wall: Mr. Ajello said he had not yet written to Mr. Johnson.
Peck/10 Slaughterhouse Road/Excavation, Tree Removal: It was noted the Commission is still waiting for the wetlands to be flagged. Mr. Picton suggested that if Mr. Peck is not responsive, a notice of violation should be posted on the Land Records.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clearcutting: It was noted the Commission had decided not to inspect the property until the wetlands had been flagged. Mr. Picton said he was concerned that the character of the wetlands may have been altered and asked Mr. Ajello to monitor the ongoing activities.
Caco/16 Flirtation Avenue/Unauthorized Clearing, Grading: Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to determine what had been done on this property, which resulted in the increase of runoff onto down grade properties, and to make recommendations regarding how it could be remedied.
Collins/323 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Cleardutting, Soil Disturbance: Mr. Ajello said he had discussed this violation with the contractor who will hire an engineer to draw up a drainage plan for the property. Mr. Picton suggested a letter to the owner to request that he allow the area to regrow and asked Mr. Ajello to have recommendations prepared for the next meeting.
Bennett/207 Bee Brook Road/Violation of Permit #IW-06-55: This matter was resolved at the last meeting and will be taken off the agenda.
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road/Unauthorized Cutting, Filling, Soil Disturbance: Mr. Ajello reported the Selectmen have recommended Mr. Wright hire an engineer to provide guidance on how to stabilize the channel. He said it appeared the Town and property owner were cooperating and that the outcome might be an armored swale. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to send a firm letter that if corrective actions are not taken quickly, further enforcement will follow. It was noted the Commission was concerned about downstream impacts.
McTiernan/52 Calhoun Street/Unauthorized Clearing: It was generally thought Mr. McTiernan should be permitted to clear the island with mitigation elsewhere. Mr. Picton recommended the trees and canopy be restored at the shoreline, especially if Mr. McTiernan planned to have trout in the pond. Mr. Ajello was requested to send a letter to request that the pond's shoreline be allowed to regrow naturally with native species.
Enforcement Report
Holly Hill Farms, LLC./Whittlesey Road/Irrigation from the Shepaug: Mr. Ajello reported the owners had inquired whether they could temporarily take 2400 gallons of water a day from the Shepaug River to irrigate their recent plantings during their ongoing construction project. Ms. Purnell said this request would be under the jurisdiction of the Commission because it is under 50,000 gpd, which would require an application to the DEP for water diversion. It was generally thought property owners should scale back their landscaping plans to what they can provide water for on their own. It was noted feasible and prudent alternatives would be to drill some wells or truck in water from off site. Mr. Ajello was asked to inform the property owners the Commission would not permit water to be taken from the Shepaug.
Gatto/155 Woodbury Road/Restoration Plan: Mr. Ajello said Mr. Gatto had called to ask if pachysandra could be planted instead of native ferns. Ms. Purnell responded that part of the mitigation and compromise had been that a native buffer would be established, noting that pachysandra was not native. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to inform Mr. Gatto that if he did not want to plant the recommended ferns he could proposed a substitute native plant.
Kleinberg/164 West Shore Road/Agent Approval for Repair Work and Reroofing: Ms. Purnell questioned why the Commission had not reviewed this application. She noted in the past it has looked closely at all activities very close to the lake. Mr. Ajello said he had required that a tarp be installed to catch all the debris. Ms. Purnell pointed out the Commission's policy has always been to require permits for all activities around the lake. Mr. Ajello noted this was a small job that he had approved with conditions and he did not think it was necessary for the Commission to act on small jobs that would not impact the lake. Ms. Purnell said this would be a change in Commission policy.
Other Business
Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Request for Release of Bond: There was nothing new to report.
Walker Brook Subdivision II, New Milford: Ms. Purnell reported the New Milford Inland Wetlands Commission had approved the application and the N. Milford Planning Commission had continued its hearing to 5/18. She said she had submitted a second letter from the Washington Planning Commission regarding how the application was not consistent with New Milford's Plan of Development and Subdivision Regulations.
Administration Meeting: It was noted the Commission had scheduled a Special Meeting to discuss administrative issues on May 17. Several members noted they would not be able to attend and so it was postponed. Mr. Picton noted one reason for the meeting was that the Board of Selectmen wanted to discuss topics such as feedback from the community, shorter meetings, and less litigation with the Commission. He asked everyone to make a list of topics that should be addressed at a future meeting. The Selectmen will be asked if they would like to meet prior to the meeting on the 24th. The recent funding for enforcement that was added to the Town budget was discussed. Mr. Thomson said the commissioners should get out the vote at the 5/18 Town Meeting to approve the budget.
Communications
Commission policy was discussed. Mr. LaMuniere thought the Commission should act consistently when dealing with various types of problems and issues. Mr. Bedini suggested it would be worthwhile to establish a consensus on issues such as deer fence and armoring the lake shore. Ms. Purnell noted that turnover in membership sometimes results in changes in policies, which she did not think should happen without good reason. Mr. Thomson noted that even with established policies, the Commission is required to review every application in terms of its impact to the wetlands. Mr. Picton asked the commissioners to make lists of potential policies to be discussed at a later date.
MOTION: To go into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation at 11:37 p.m. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed
5-0.
MOTION: To come out of Executive Session at 11:47 p.m. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
April 26, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Ms. Coe
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Thomson
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. DeSantos, Atty. Cornell, Mr. Owens, Ms. Saul, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Jontos, Mr. Arturi, Mr. Lasar, Mr. Dobson, Ms. Dobson, Mr./Mrs. Wright, Mr. Neff, Mr. Bennett, Mrs. O'Malley, Ms. Smith, Mr. Watson, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Charles, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Kleinberg/181 West Shore Road/#IW-06-07/Driveway and Utilities
Mr. Picton reconvened the public hearing at 5:58 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell. Mr. Picton read the 4/25/06 letter of withdrawal from Mr. Wilson to the Commission.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider Application #IW-06-07 submitted by Mr. Kleinberg to install a driveway and utilities at 181 West Shore Road. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton closed the hearing at 6:00 p.m.
Kessler/103-105 West Mountain Road/#IW-06-05/Two Dwellings, Wetlands Crossing, Planting, Etc.
Mr. Picton reconvened the hearing at 6:01 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell. It was noted that Mrs. Hill had listened to the tape of the 4/12 session of the hearing because she had been absent. Mr. Picton noted the documents added to the file since the last meeting.
Mr. Jontos, applicant's consultant, submitted the following new material: 1. the 4/26/06 transmittal letter from Mr. Jontos to Mr. Picton, 2. a sheet entitled, " Slope Percentage (I.E. Grade) vs. Slope Angle," by Land Tech Consultants, dated 4/24/06 to help the Commission better understand the relationship between grade percentage and slope angle, 3. "Wetland Mitigation Plan," by Land Tech, revised to 4/24/06, and 4. the 4/26/06 letter from Mr. Jontos to Mr. Picton, which responded to the articles submitted by Ms. Purnell at the last session of the hearing.
The revised mitigation plan was reviewed. Ms. Saul detailed the plans for the bioretention system and the 35 ft. wide vegetative buffer adjacent to the wetlands. She said native species would be planted by hand to enhance the understory and increase the density of the well established vegetation on the slopes and around the pond. Mr. Picton asked if it was intended that the area below the purple line shown on the map would be mowed. Ms. Saul said it would be ground cover. Ms. Purnell asked for the width of the buffers and the linear distances between the buffers and the wetlands. Mr. Jontos gave the following distances: 18 ft. at the driveway at the NW corner, 30 ft. to the S, 20 ft. to the SE, 60 ft. SE to the edge of the wetlands, 33 ft. to the edge of the pond S of the regraded area, and 55 ft. to the NE. He added the area of filtration was more than 70 ft. from the patio to the edge of the pond.
Concerning the guest house, Mr. Jontos stated both the footprint and the impervious area as well as the amount of runoff had been reduced under the proposed plan. He noted the erosion and sedimentation controls were in compliance with the 2002 Ct. E and S Guidelines. He said the steepness of the slope would be reduced and there would be no disturbance in the areas with 80% grades.
Ms. Purnell expressed her concern about the impact of the runoff in the wetlands. She said the construction was close to the slope on several sides, was perched on a knoll above the wetlands, there was a lot of work proposed in close proximity to the wetlands, and there would be long term impacts from residential use. She questioned whether the degree of the slope would negate the effectiveness of the proposed buffers. She was also concerned about non point source pollution and thermal and chemical impacts. She noted the existing house already has impacts on the wetlands and the Commission had not considered how routine maintenance and normal residential living would cause adverse impacts. Mr. Picton agreed that slopes greater than 25% are not generally effective buffers.
Mr. Neff, engineer, referred to his 4/24/06 letter to Mr. DeSantos with attached roof drainage system calculations and hydraulic computations. He noted the guest house was on a knoll where the runoff would flow in all directions so it was logical to use an underground infiltration system to effectively manage the roof runoff. He also noted that putting all of this water back into the ground was a vast improvement over the current conditions. He briefly addressed the management of the roof runoff from the main house. In case of overflow in the proposed infiltration system, he proposed a rip rapped swale with a 20 ft. wide splash pad. The splash pad and the existing stone wall would slow the velocity of the overflow before it reached the wetlands. Mr. Picton worried about siltation on the 40% slopes during storm events. Mr. Jontos noted the amount of runoff would be reduced due to the infiltration system and the vegetation proposed would aid the dispersal of the water and also increase infiltration. Mr. DeSantos asked for the flow depth of the channel and said he was concerned about erosion during any storm event greater than a 2 year storm. Mr. Neff said the splash pad would promote sheet flow so there would be less chance of erosion. Mr. DeSantos thought there was a potential for scouring of the swale.
Ms. Purnell was concerned that the biorention system for the driveway runoff would not adequately handle pesticides, fertilizers, and nutrients and that they would impact the pond. Mr. Jontos responded that nutrients would naturally reach the pond from the runoff through the forest watershed. Ms. Purnell thought there was not enough data on whether the eutrophication of the pond was due to impacts from the existing dwelling.
Mr. Neff said he had consulted with the Health Dept. about the potential impacts of the copper hardware to be used on the roofs and was told that copper levels were not tested in potable water tests.
Mr. Owens, architect, read a statement regarding the improvements, which would be made to the existing site conditions with the implementation of the proposed plans. He noted the Commission's concern about erosion of the steep slopes and pointed out the applicant proposed to decrease the slopes on average from 41% to 32%.
Ms. Purnell noted the decrease in impervious surfaces and asked how the Commission could ensure it would remain as proposed. Mr. Owens said there were sufficient parking and passing areas proposed and the Kesslers wanted to see as much green as possible. Ms. Purnell noted the sloped area to be regraded contained the septic leaching fields and asked if there was any hesitation about running machinery over it. Mr. Owens said this was not a problem. Mr. Neff confirmed that there would be a minimum of 6 in. between the top of the units and the finished grade and that they were reinforced concrete galleys so there would be no problem. Referring to the proposed removal of the terraces, Ms. Purnell asked if additional landscaping features would be added later. Mr. Owens said there would not because the proposed plan was the worst case scenario.
Mr. Jontos asked if the Commission recorded its permits on the Land Records as most towns do. Mr. Picton said it did not, but it would consider it for complicated applications.
Mr. LaMuniere noted he was not comfortable with the proposal for the reconstruction of the guest house. As long as the existing foundation would not be used, he did not see why the house could not be moved away from the fragile area and steep slopes and noted he was concerned about the potential for a significant impact resulting from such a major undertaking. Mr. Owens said all of the short term impacts had been addressed, again reviewed some of the improvements proposed, and asked if Mr. LaMuniere thought there would be long term impacts. Mr. Jontos noted the reductions in runoff, slope, and impervious surfaces had been quantified. Mr. LaMuniere did not think the Commission could legislate for the long term, but thought short term impacts could be improved. For example, he said the Commission had to make sure the planted buffers would function as proposed. He also suggested a well be drilled in a new location so the building could be moved back. Mr. Owens said this was a compact site and the dwelling could not be moved back without encroaching on Zoning's required 50 ft. setback from wetlands.
Mr. Owens noted the applicant was eager to begin work and would consider accepting conditions of approval. Representing the Kesslers, Atty. Cornell agreed the applicants would accept some conditions of approval. He suggested they would agree to the restriction of the guest house to 2 bedrooms in perpetuity.
Mr. Picton stated it was clear the applicant was not interested in reconfiguring the houses or in relocating them, which he thought were the easiest ways to address the problems of steep slopes and adequate buffers. He said he understood the slopes would be reduced, but pointed out they were fully stable now and the work to decrease them would cause a lot of short term disturbance. He feared the disturbed slopes would wash out during storms. Mr. Picton was concerned about activities proposed on slopes over 20% and asked if the applicant would agree to redefine the work areas to exclude those slopes or agree to this as a condition of approval. He stated that from his 30 years experience as a builder he found that steeper slopes were unmanageable. Mr. Owen responded the applicant would not say no at this point, but again stated it would be better in the long term if the slopes and amount of impervious area were reduced. He asked if instead, the Commission would consider a condition that the work in these areas be done only during times of dry weather. Ms. Purnell noted if the slopes were regraded they would also be more useable for residents. Ms. Saul said the slopes would be stabilized with ground cover. Mr. DeSantos noted there were 20% slopes within 10 feet of the house on the east side. Mr. Jontos said the area in question was 70 ft. long by 20 ft. wide, that it would take only two days of work to regrade, and that an erosion control blanket would be put down. He said the area was so small that runoff from a deluge could be diverted at the top of the slope throughout the entire time the slope would be unstable. Mr. Picton favored his suggestions to keep out of the area or reconfigure the structure rather than Mr. Jontos' engineered solution.
Mr. Picton asked the same questions about the main house; could the work area be redrawn so it did not include areas with slopes exceeding 20%. Mr. Owens asked Mr. Picton if his request was because he thought it was a better practice or if he thought the proposal would be likely to have an adverse impact on the wetlands. Mr. Picton responded both applied and noted the lack of cooperation on the part of the applicant. Mr. Owens replied that Mr. Jontos could not anticipate problems because he did not understand the basis for the Commission's concerns. Mr. Picton again stated the Commission's aim was to get the proposed activities away from the edge of the steep slopes and as far from the wetlands as possible. Mr. DeSantos noted there was no reason the garage had to be sited as the applicant proposed and that it could be shifted as had Mr. Picton recommended.
Mr. Picton noted there was water flowing down along the west side of the temporary soil stockpile. He asked if it was a watercourse that was not shown on the map, but noted even if it did not qualify as a watercourse, it would be a factor in managing the site. Mr. Jontos stated it was not a watercourse. Mr. Picton asked if the stockpile could be moved out of the regulated area. Mr. Jontos suggested diverting the flow around the pile instead. Mr. Owens noted the project would be phased and the stockpile could be moved to a safer area where the main house would eventually be built.
Mrs. D. Hill asked if all the existing stone walls would remain. Mr. Owens said they would.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider Application #IW-06-05 submitted by Mr. Kessler to construct two dwellings, install a wetlands crossing, planting, etc. at 103-105 West Mountain Road. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. It was noted that according to Mr. Zizka's What's Legally Required, the Commission had 35 days in which to render a decision. Mr. Picton asked the commissioners to study the file and get ideas about what to include in either a motion of approval or denial to Mr. Ajello in a timely manner so that he would be able to prepare draft motions for discussion at the next meeting.
Revision of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations/Section 8.1
Mr. Picton called the hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
Mr. Picton explained that Section 8.1 governed when the Commission shall conduct a public hearing to consider an application. He reviewed the current Section 8.1 and the proposed revised language: The Commission may hold a public hearing on any application to conduct regulated activities, provided that the decision to hold such hearing is made in accordance with the relevant provisions of state law.
The 4/5/06 letter from the state DEP was noted. It basically said the state would not review the Town's proposed revision, but sent a copy of its draft model regs for review.
There were no comments from the public and the commissioners were satisfied with the proposed revision.
MOTION: To approve revisions as proposed to Section 8.1 of the Washington Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations concerning when a public hearing shall be conducted to consider an application. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revisions to Section 8.1 of the Washington Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Mt. Picton closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
It was noted the Show Cause Hearing to consider Bennett/207 Bee Brook Road was scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m., but since Mr. Bennett had not yet arrived, it was tabled until later in the evening.
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 7:40 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: V. New Applications: B. Smith/35 East Shore Road/#IW-06-24/Restore Pond, Build Greenhouse, Build Garage, C. Brown/127 West Shore Road/#IW-06-25/Rebuild Retaining Wall, D. Robins/18 Winston Drive/#IW-06-26/Deck; VI. Enforcement: P. Action Taken by WEO: 1) Adams/ 136 West Shore Road/Excavation and Backfill; VII. Other Business: E. Calhoun Street Trust/ 62 Calhoun Street/Request to Revise Permit #IW-05-37/Improve Existing Drainage System, F. Shepaug Realty/46 June Road/Preliminary Discussion/Realign Driveway, G. Aquatic Pesticide Permit Application/Pinover/12 Senff Road, H. Hiring Consultant to Revise Regs and Bring Them into Compliance with DEP Model Regs; VIII. Complaint/Zelman-Oefendorf/16 Tompkins Hill Road. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 4/5/06 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 3: 3 lines from bottom: Change to: ...even if the house was slightly larger than the existing, the structure and stockpile area could be moved farther from the wetlands.
Page 4: 14th line: Add: a comma and if after " asked whether....:
Page 5: 8th line under #1 in the motion: Insert: at after "including."
MOTION: To accept the 4/5/06 Special Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 3-0-2. Ms. Purnell abstained because she had not yet reviewed them and Mrs. Hill abstained because she had not attended the meeting.
The 4/12/06 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 2: Last line in 2nd paragraph from bottom: Change "base" to bank.
Page 5: 5th line: Delete "the" after "because."
8th line and throughout: Change "molt" to mold.
12th line from bottom: Correct spelling is eutrophic.
Page 6: 4th line from bottom of 2nd paragraph: Add following sentence before "Ms. Purnell...:" Mr. Picton pointed out when the limit of disturbance does extend onto these slopes.
2nd paragraph: 3rd to last line: Change: "affect" to address.
Page 7: 2nd paragraph: 5th line from bottom: Change: "he" to Mr. De Santos.
5th paragraph: End of 4th line: Delete: "...not only would the activity have to be moved 100 feet away," and Add in its place: that would be a good start.
Page 9: 8th line in motion: Correct spelling is swale.
Page 11: Last line: Change: "she" to Mrs. Wright.
Page 17: 2nd to last line: Correct spelling is lose.
MOTION: To accept the 4/12/06 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-0-1. Mrs. Hill abstained because she had not been present.
The Wright, Dobson, Adams, and Schoellkopf site inspection minutes were accepted as written except that Mr. Thomson was added as present at the 4/20 Adams site inspection.
MOTION: To accept the 4 Site Inspection minutes: Wright, Dobson, Adams, and Schoellkopf. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Kessler/103-105 West Mountain Road/#IW-06-05/Two Dwellings, Wetlands Crossing, Planting, Etc: Mr. Picton again urged the commissioners to study the file and to get their comments into Mr. Ajello as soon as possible. Reasons for both approval and denial will be considered.
Kleinberg/181 West Shore Road/#IW-06-07/Driveway and Utilities: This application was withdrawn.
Potter/220 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-06-14/Site Development: Mr. Ajello noted the site development plan that he had requested had not yet been submitted. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to contact the applicant again to request the map. If it is not submitted, the Commission will have to deny the application. It was noted there is no work on site being done now.
Adams/57 West Shore Road/#IW-06-15/Retaining Wall, Stairs, Path, Plantings: It was noted the applicant was asked to submit additional information regarding the proposed fill and the proposed stone wall. No new information had been submitted. There was a discussion regarding whether there was sufficient documentation in the file to act on the application. Upon review of the material, several questions were raised including; was there an easement for the work along the roadway, would the existing fence be removed, whether one or two stone walls would be built, whether one of those walls would be stone or a continuation of the concrete wall, and whether the lower wall would be above or below the high water level of the lake. It was also noted that Ms. Dzenutis, who spoke on behalf of the applicant at the last meeting, was not authorized to do so.
Dobson/255 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-06-16/Accessory Building: Mr. Dobson presented the revised site plan, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Cheney, dated May 2000 and revised to April 2006 to show wetlands flagged by Mr. Temple. He proposed the building be located 55 ft. from the rear boundary line in order to keep as much of the existing parking area as possible. Mr. Picton asked if the building could be moved 20 ft. further from the wetlands to leave room for equipment during construction, noting a 40 ft. wide parking area would remain in front of it. Mr. Dobson said the building would be built on a slab, it would have no drain, there would be no outside storage in back of the building, and the excavated material would be taken off site. Ms. Purnell noted the Commission has consistently required new construction to be at least 70 feet from wetlands and Mr. Dobson agreed to move the building location so that no part of the structure would be closer than 70 feet.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-16 submitted by Mr. Dobson for an accessory building at 255 New Milford Turnpike per the hand drawn specifications on the map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Cheney, dated May 2000 subject to the following conditions: 1) that no point of the proposed building may be any closer than 70 ft. to the wetlands as indicated on the above referenced map and 2) that the map be revised to show the approved building location and submitted to the file. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Lederer/274 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-06-17/Demolish Greenhouse, Fill to Grade: Ms. Zinick represented the applicant. The untitled map revised to 3/24/86 with the location of the greenhouse and silt fence drawn in by hand was reviewed. Mr. Picton noted all of the Commission's questions had been answered at the last meeting.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-17 submitted by Mr. Lederer to demolish a greenhouse and fill to grade at 274 Nettleton Hollow Road. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, passed 5-0.
Swanson/282 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-06-18/Dry Hydrant: Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the site and found the pond where the hydrant was proposed was surrounded by lawn. He said this was a standard application, the installation would take half a day, and in the future the pond would need to be cleaned out. Ms. Purnell asked where the pipes would be located. Mr. Ajello said they would be in the existing roadbed. Mr. Picton noted there were no particular erosion hazards. Ms. Purnell noted the hydrant was a matter of public safety.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-18 submitted by Mr. Swanson to install a dry hydrant at 282 New Milford Turnpike. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Schoellkopf/300 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-06-20/Deer Fence: Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, represented the owner. He submitted a revised site plan, "Schoellkopf Deer Fence, Revised Layout," dated 4/25/06, which he said, formalized the comments made by the Commission at the site inspection. He pointed out the two intermittent watercourses at the eastern end of the property and said the fence would no longer enclose them. He had instead followed the existing electric horse fence, which reduced the length of the proposed fence by approximately 900 ft. Mr. LaMuniere asked how the stream crossings would be handled. The plan, "Sketch Detail at Crossing," dated 4/26/06 was reviewed. Mr. Sabin noted there would be 2 ft. of clearance above the water so debris would not collect, but it would not be high enough so that deer could swim under the fence. Mr. LaMuniere noted the crossing would have to be maintained after each storm event. Mr. Picton thought the fence stream crossing would obstruct the stream, collect trash, divert the wildlife corridor, and unnecessarily change the character of the wetlands by altering the natural relationship of the wildlife and the stream. He suggested the alternative of fencing in only the garden area. Ms. Purnell said she appreciated the reduction in the proposal and noted the property is currently a maintained landscape, Sprain Brook is the only natural feature in the area, and the property would be maintained in perpetuity. Mr. Sabin asked Mr. Picton to read the literature he had submitted on this historic garden. Mr. Bedini asked if a weighted flexible cable wire not attached to the bottom of the stream could be used. Mr. Sabin said he was trying to attach the fence to granite. Regarding the Commission's reluctance to permit fencing in vast areas with deer fence, Mr. LaMuniere and Ms. Purnell thought there was a reason for an exception in this case as the entire landscape was an integral part of the entire public garden. While she agreed this was a unique garden, Ms. Coe did not like to see the deer fence divide the wetland corridor and asked why, after 20 years, the fence was now needed. Mr. Sabin said the deer had gotten worse. Mr. Bedini asked if a non toxic chemical spray applied once a week would be effective. Mr. Sabin said that would affect the horses on the property. Mr. Picton asked if Mr. Sabin had consulted Mr. Childs. He said he had not been able to reach him. A decision was put off until the next meeting.
Wodtke/155 West Shore Road/#IW-06-21/Dock Anchors: Mr. Lasar, architect, represented the applicant. The plans, "Site Plan and Details for Proposed Dock, Wodtke Residence," by Mr. Lasar, dated 4/11/06 were reviewed. Mr. Lasar said the owner wanted to add the repair of the existing 40 ft. retaining wall to the application. He said the wall would be taken apart as far down as necessary and then dry layed with mortar used in the back of the wall. He noted nothing below water level would be rebuilt. Mr. Ajello said this would not be a major project; all work would be done by hand, fill would be required in back of the wall and the disturbed area would have to be top dressed, seeded, and
mulched. Ms. Purnell asked for a specific description of the work to be done, which should include statements that only the existing stones on site would be used and where the temporary stockpile area would be located. She asked if any erosion and sedimentation controls were proposed. Mr. Ajello said when the lake level was low, the work could be done without standing in water. Mr. Lasar took the application to amend so action could be taken later in the meeting.
Bent/60 Hinkle Road/#IW-06-22 Dry Hydrant: Mr. Ajello noted the pond was close to the road, there would be no access problem, and the application was complete. He briefly summarized the proposal. Mr. Picton noted the Commission should always specify the work area should be restored to its previous grade. Ms. Purnell asked what maintenance would be required. Mr. Ajello stated a truck would have to blow out the line to unclog it from time to time. Ms. Purnell noted this was a standard hydrant installation that would have limited impact.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-22 submitted by Mr. Bent to install a dry hydrant at 60 Hinkle Road subject to the condition that the site be restored to its previous grade upon completion of the work. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
O'Malley/9 Mallory Brook Road/#IW-06-23/Remodel Guest House, Patio: Mr. Picton asked Mrs. O'Malley if all the proposed hard landscaping was shown on the site plan as requested. Mr. Ajello noted the addition to the guest house was no longer proposed; it would be rebuilt on the existing footprint. Mr. Picton asked if the patio would also be rebuilt. Mrs. O'Malley said the brick would be taken up and replaced with stone. Mr. Picton noted there were no plans for the patio. Mr. Ajello said it would be rebuilt to the same dimensions and Mrs. O'Malley amended and initialed the application. Mr. Picton asked what would be done with the excavated material. Mr. Ajello said it would be trucked off site. Ms. Purnell noted all work would be done within the established footprint and erosion and sedimentation controls were proposed.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-23 submitted by Mr. O'Malley to remodel the guest house and replace the patio at 9 Mallory Brook Road per the 4/1/06 site plans and "Protection of Wetlands Measures," revised to 4/26/06. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Bennett/207 Bee Brook Road/Violation of Permit #IW-05-55/Unauthorized Demolition
Mr. Picton convened the show cause hearing at 9:05 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell. Mr. Bennett was present. Mr. Ajello noted the purpose of the hearing was to give Mr. Bennett the opportunity to contest the 4/17/06 cease and desist order.
Mr. Picton explained Permit #IW-05-55 had been approved for an addition on the side of the existing structure farthest from the stream, but in fact, the structure had been totally demolished and was now being rebuilt. Mr. Bennett said he had not intended to demolish the entire building, but when work was in progress the carrying beam broke and was not secure to the foundation. He said the Building Official had inspected the building and had approved the work being done. He noted there had been no wetlands impacts and silt fence had been up. He also said the disturbed area had been seeded and grass would be up in two weeks.
Mr. Ajello circulated the 4/26/06 WEO report.
Ms. Purnell noted there was a huge stockpile of material by the stream. Mr. Bennett said it had been removed and the area cleaned up.
Mr. Picton asked if there were any changes to the approved plan. Mr. Bennett said, no, the house would be rebuilt according to the approved plan. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to continue to monitor the project.
Mr. Bennett offered to plant additional vegetation and to remove the old shed by the streambank for mitigation.
Mr. Bennett was advised the hearing would be closed and discussion would continue at the meeting.
MOTION: To close the Show Cause Hearing regarding the 4/17/06 Cease and Desist Order issued to Mr. Bennett for the unauthorized demolition of the dwelling at 207 Bee Brook Road. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton closed the show cause hearing at 9:12 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
Bennett/207 Bee Brook Road/Violation of Permit #IW-05-55/Unauthorized Demolition: Mr. Picton said the Commission would acknowledge that the demolition had occurred due to unforeseen circumstances and would accept Mr. Bennett's offer to remove the shed. Mr. Bennett was advised to mulch the area when the shed is taken down and to obtain a demolition permit from the Building Department. Mr. Bennett said he would put in additional plants in the future when he had funds available.
MOTION: To rescind the 4/17/06 Cease and Desist order issued to Mr. Bennett for the unauthorized demolition of the dwelling at 207 Bee Brook Road, to allow him to proceed with the construction, and to accept his offer to remove the shed as mitigation and to improve the conditions along the brook. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Washington Club, Inc./8 Golf Course Road/#IW-06-24ATF/Utility Trench:
Ms. Purnell disqualified herself because she is a member of the Club and Alternate Coe was seated. Mr. Arturi and Mr. Underwood represented the applicant. Mr. Picton reviewed the application form and read the 4/26/06 WEO report regarding the after the fact work. Mr. Underwood pointed out the location of the new electrical trench to the maintenance building and the wetlands boundary on the site plan. Mr. Arturi explained the contractor installed the trench in the wrong location and that was the reason for the after the fact application. Mrs. D. Hill noted the $60 ATF fee and the $30 state tax were still due. Mr. LaMuniere said he did not think there had been an adverse impact to the wetlands caused by the unauthorized work. Mr. Ajello will inspect the site and report back at the next meeting.
Ms. Purnell was reseated.
Wodtke/155 West Shore Road/#IW-06-21/Dock Anchors, Repair Retaining Wall: Mr. Lasar noted he had amended the plans to add all of the Commission's comments made earlier in the meeting. Mr. Picton read the added notes. Ms. Purnell reminded Mr. Ajello to photograph the wall prior to the start of work.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-21 submitted by Mr. Wodke to install dock anchors and repair the retaining wall at 155 West Shore Road per the 10/03 site plan by Mr. Lasar as amended at the 4/26/06 meeting with the condition that the stone wall be reconstructed in the same location to the same height, width, and thickness. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/Unauthorized Construction: Mr. Munson, contractor, Mr. Rosiello, landscape architect, and Mr. Neff, engineer, were present. Mr. Neff submitted the as-built map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, revised to 4/26/06 and advised the Commission the comprehensive site plan requested by the Commission was not yet completed. Mr. Picton asked that Mr. Neff include on the map what had actually been approved so it could be compared with the actual work done. He said the Commission had to know how the work actually deviated from the permits granted and what the resulting impacts were. Ms. Purnell noted grade changes like those relating to the wing walls should also be indicated on the map. Mr. Picton asked the limit of disturbance lines, actual and approved, also be shown so they can be compared. He suggested the applicant submit a proposal to more permanently protect the wetlands environment. Ms. Purnell noted this should include permission for the Enforcement Officer to make site inspections to monitor compliance with the permits granted. Mr. Picton suggested permanent markers be installed to define the areas where there would be enhanced protection. Mr. Rosiello said he was also working on an additional mitigation planting plan. Mr. Picton advised him that this should reinforce the comprehensive protection of the wetlands and wetlands buffer enhancement and that allowing some areas to grow back naturally would be important, too. Ms. Purnell asked that all the documentation be submitted together as the piecemeal information that had been coming in was difficult to effectively analyze.
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road/Unauthorized Filling, Clearing, Soil Disturbance: Mr. Bedini's site inspection report and map, the definition of "watercourse," and photos taken by Mr. Ajello and Mr. Thomson were circulated. After a lengthy discussion, it was the consensus that this was a watercourse, although not pristine, and that Mr. Wright should not be permitted to fill it because that narrows the channel and causes downstream impacts. It was thought that he should remove all of the woody debris, trash, boulders, and other obstructions that he had deposited. The matter was further complicated because the watercourse was not on Mr. Wright's property and Mr. Wright claimed the roadside would have eroded away if he had not deposited fill in the trench. Mr. Picton recommended the Town consult with an engineer to make sure the channel was stabilized and the runoff safely discharged. Ms. Purnell suggested the Commission provide guidance to the road crew regarding how to stabilize the channel without further digging a ditch or installing a pipe. It was thought the best solution would be bioengineered such as the restoration of the vegetated slope. Mr. Picton made it clear there could be no additional work in the watercourse by the Wrights and said the minutes and a letter would be sent to the Board of Selectmen. The method for stabilizing the channel would be decided on by the Commission and Board of Selectmen perhaps with input from an engineer paid for by the Wrights. It was noted it was important to leave the understory and mulch on the hillsides. There was a discussion regarding whether a citation should be issued to the Wrights. Mr. Wright noted last year the Town had installed a culvert on Scofield Hill Road without a permit and that it was clearing along wetlands on Baldwin Hill without a permit. Mr. Picton stated the Town could maintain drainage facilities without a permit, but Mr. Wright had worked on Town property without permits. Mr. Ajello was asked to issue a restoration order and to discuss this matter with the First Selectman. Mr. Picton urged the Town to consult with an engineer so that an armoured open swale would not be installed and he thanked Mr. Bedini for all of his research.
MOTION: To issue a citation and a fine to Mr. and Mrs. Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road for unauthorized filling of a watercourse and clearing. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 4-0-1. Ms. Purnell abstained because she did not think this was consistent with the Commission's past policy.
New Applications
Smith/35 East Shore Road/#IW-06-24/Restore Pond, Build Greenhouse, Build Garage: Mrs. Smith, Mr. Watson, and Mr. Neff, engineer, were present. Mrs. Smith presented a board mounted map and sketches and Mr. Neff reviewed the map "Hatchery Area Restoration Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 4/26/06. Mrs. Smith briefly explained the proposals. 1) The first was to clean out the existing pond, repair the wall on the southeast side of the pond, and plant native vegetation as recommended by the NW Conservation district. Mr. Neff explained the base of the wall was in good shape. The applicant would excavate behind the wall and pull the stones back away from the river. He noted it would not be necessary to reline the pond. 2) The existing barbeque area would be covered and a greenhouse built. The foundation of the former cider mill would be used. Mr. Picton asked Mrs. Smith to draw this on the map and to describe all the work to be done on the application form. 3) Also, a garage was proposed on an existing foundation. Again, Mr. Picton asked that the location be shown on the map and the distances from wetlands, watercourses, and boundary lines specified. He asked that the limit of disturbance and the limit of clearing also be indicated. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.
Brown/127 West Shore Road/#IW-06-25/Rebuild Retaining Wall: The map, "Site Plan," by Mr. Wilson, dated 4/12/06 was reviewed. Mr. Wilson, engineer, briefly explained the wall would be rebuilt in 50 ft. sections. The ground would be excavated behind the wall, the wall would be dry laid down to roughly water level, geotextile fabric would be installed behind the new wall, and then it would be backfilled with stone. He submitted photos of the existing wall, showing how it had fallen back due to the erosion behind it. Also, the application called for the replacement of the concrete anchors for the docks, which were not being applied for at this time. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to review the application for completeness. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 4:45 p.m.
Other Business
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/Request to Amend Permit #IW-05-37 Improve Existing Drainage System: Mr. Rosiello, landscape architect, Mr. Munson, contractor, and Mr. Neff, engineer, were present. Mr. Rosiello pointed out on the site plan where water overflows the brook during storm events and the locations of the driveway culverts that were damaged in recent storms. He proposed the installation of a berm in the wetlands to keep the water in the stream. Mr. Neff pointed out that the damaged pipes were not adequately sized to handle the storm runoff. Mr. Picton did not think the pond should have been placed where it was since it was in the natural path of the brook overflow. Mr. Rosiello responded there had been a problem with the driveway washing out even before the pond was dug. Mr. Picton suggested perhaps a gutter with a cross culvert could be installed along the driveway so that no work in the wetlands would be necessary. Mr. Munson noted the headwalls had been breached on the underpass and they would blow out in the next storm. Ms. Purnell voiced concern about the cumulative downstream impacts. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 5:15 p.m. Mr. Picton thought the proposed activity should be considered a new application. Mr. Rosiello asked if the silt on the driveway could be dug out and new processed material deposited. Mr. Picton thought this could be done under Mr. Ajello's supervision as long as the work did not exceed that of a maintenance activity.
Zelman-Oefendorf/16 Tompkins Hill Road/Complaint Re: Ongoing Activities: Mr. Charles complained there had been ongoing work on the property for two years without wetlands permits. Mr. Ajello said he was aware of the
work being done, but there had been no impact to the wetlands, and he was waiting for the contractor to submit a comprehensive plan with flagged wetlands. He noted the two major projects were the reconstruction of the barn and installation of a trench. Ms. Purnell said she had seen the site and was surprised at the extent of the work done. Mr. Picton advised Mr. Ajello that any activity within 100 feet of wetlands requires a permit. Ms. Purnell noted that even though the barn reconstruction was further than 100 ft. from the wetlands, the associated excavation and filling was within the upland review area. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to stop all further work until an Inland Wetlands permit is obtained.
Enforcement
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road (141 Shinar Mt. Rd.)/#IW-04-V8/Repair of Retaining Wall: Ms. Purnell noted she had not yet emailed the draft letter to all commissioners. Mrs. D. Hill stated the Commission's concern was noted in the record and she did not know what could be gained by pursuing the matter at this late date. Ms. Purnell said she was concerned with the possible liability of the Commission.
Reinhardt/10 Perkins Road/Unauthorized Clearcutting: Atty. Kelly did not send a letter on this matter as he indicated he would at the last meeting. Mr. Ajello noted he had received a letter from Ms. Dohn, down grade property owner, who wrote that several down grade property owners have experienced water problems since the cutting took place on the Reinhardt property and were considering a law suit. Ms. Purnell noted the log and brush piles still on the Reinhardt property were serving as erosion and sedimentation barriers.
Taylor/11 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Excavation: The information requested had not been submitted.
Pasatieri/57 Findley Road/Septic Repair Within 100 Ft. of Stream: Mr. Ajello said he had copied all the information in the Health Dept. file for the Wetlands file.
9 Main Street Assoc./9 Main St./Unauthorized Construction of Stone Wall: The information requested had not been submitted. Mr. Picton noted Mr. Johnson had been told that the areas within 50 ft. of the stream should remain natural. Ms. Purnell suggested that due to the steep slope, the natural vegetation should be kept for more than 50 feet of the stream. Mr. Ajello was asked to call Mr. Johnson.
Peck/10 Slaughterhouse Road/Unauthorized Excavation, Tree Removal: Mr. Ajello advised the Commission that Mr. Peck had hired a soil scientist and was waiting for him to map the wetlands on the property. Mr. Picton noted the entire area above the house had been wiped clear of leaf litter and vegetation. Mr. Ajello was asked to contact the owner.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clear Cutting: Mr. Moore is waiting for the soil scientist he hired to map the wetlands on the property. It was noted the Commission had decided to wait for the mapping to be complete before conducting a site inspection of the property.
Caco/16 Flirtation Avenue/Unauthorized Clearing, Grading: Mr. Ajello said prior to the 4/12/06 meeting he had sent the property owner a letter regarding the runoff from this property impacting off site downstream wetlands. He suspected the Cacos had diverted runoff, drilled a well, or did some other work that resulted in the downstream impacts. The commissioners will make drive by inspections prior to the next meeting.
Collins/323 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Clearing in Wetlands: Mr. Ajello noted there had been severe cutting of the understory and use of equipment in the wetlands and recommended a citation. He also stated the notice of violation sent to the property owner had been sent back as undeliverable. It was the consensus of the Commission to send the notice of violation again and to issue a citation.
McTiernan/52 Calhoun Street/Unauthorized Clearing: Mr. Ajello read the 4/20/06 letter from Mr. McTiernan. Mr. Picton asked for information on the nature of the clearing; was it the maintenance of an old field or new cutting, what type of vegetation had been removed, what was the extent of the cutting, etc. and also asked Mr. Ajello to recommend how to remedy the situation. Mrs. D. Hill noted the vegetation along the shoreline had also been cleared and Ms. Coe stated a buffer should be reestablished around the pond. It was the consensus the citation was justified. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to send an order to restore. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 5:30 p.m.
Other Business
Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Request for Release of Bond: There was no new information at this time.
Walker Brook Subdivision II, New Milford: Ms. Purnell noted the N. Milford IWC would vote on the application tomorrow night. She will continue to work with the Planning Commission on a revised letter to the N. Milford Planning Commission to voice concerns about the application.
Administrative Meeting: Mr. Picton recommended an administrative meeting to clarify how the Commission conducts its business. He suggested, for example, that applicants might be encouraged to come in for preliminary advice. Ms. Purnell noted public hearings should be held to take in information, and voiced her concern that the commissioners conduct too many discussions at those hearings. However, she did note that when the Commission discusses feasible and prudent alternatives, applicants should not be surprised that their applications are denied if they make no changes to their plans. A meeting date of Wednesday, May 17 was set, but neither the time nor the place was decided. The commissioners were asked to make lists of topics they think should be addressed.
Revision of the Regulations: Mr. Picton recommended that a consultant be hired to update the Regulations. Mr. Ajello pointed out this would be very expensive, but Mrs. D. Hill noted the Commission has no time to work on it itself. Ms. Purnell thought the revision of the Regs should wait until the DEP model regs were completed.
Shepaug Realty/June Road: Mr. Ajello said neighbors have complained about the runoff from this driveway. The owner has approached the Selectmen's Office re: realigning the driveway and moving the entrance 50 ft. south to reduce the grade. This would require Inland Wetlands approval. Mr. Ajello will inspect the site to determine whether the work done was in compliance with the permit previously issued before a new application is submitted. A related problem, said Mr. Ajello, was a lakeside parking area the owner constructed on East Shore Road and the installation of stairs and docks on the lake shore. He will research to find out when they were built and try to find photos of the shore.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
April 12, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
MEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. D. Hill
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Thomson
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Frank, Mr. MCGowan, Ms. Matteo, Mr. Bonachea, Mr. Wilson, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Neff, Mr. DeSantos, Mr. Jontos, Mr. Owens, Ms. Saul, Mrs. Schaffner, Mrs. Linen, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Boling, Ms. Dzenutis, Mr. Dobson, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Lasar, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Rosiello, Mr. Charles, Ms. Zinick, Mr. Munson, Mr./Mrs. D. Wright, Mr. H. Wright, Atty. Ebersol, Mrs. Kessler, Mr. O'Malley
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Kleinberg/181 West Shore Road/#IW-06-07/Driveway and Utilities
Mr. Picton called the public hearing to order at 5:05 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Coe for Mrs. Hill. He noted the location of the property, said the hearing had been noticed according to the state statutes, and referred to the list of 22 documents in the file.
Mr. Wilson, engineer, briefly described the proposal to construct a driveway to a potential house site. He submitted the 5/6/75 Planning Commission minutes and Map #357 filed on the Town Land Records to show this was an approved lot. He noted it had recently been perc tested because the old perc test results were not on file.
The map, "Site Plan," by Mr. Wilson, dated 12/5/05, revised to 4/3/06 was reviewed. Mr. Wilson noted the driveway route had been redesigned to preserve the existing trees. This made it longer, approximately 210 feet, and placed it on a steeper slope, which resulted in a maximum grade of 14.5%. He stated there would be no more than a 2 ft. cut on the up hill side and 7 ft. at the corner on the down hill side. He pointed out the location for a possible retaining wall. He said the flat parking area would serve as a stockpile area during construction, the 1.5 to 2 story house would be cut into the bank and had been located so it would have a view without cutting the trees. The driveway entrance was located as far as possible from the wetlands on the lower part of the lot.
Ms. Purnell noted there was a watercourse nearby and asked if there was any subsurface flow. Mr. Wilson responded there was a high water table and noted the house would probably have foundation drains that would connect to the state drainage system.
Ms. Purnell stated the Commission does not approve many driveways without complete plans for the residence and so advised Mr. Wilson he must address the septic issues. Mr. Wilson submitted the map, "Feasibility Site Plan Prepared for Tinker Hill Estates, Lots 2 and 3," dated 4/3/06. He noted Lot #2 contained a proposed septic easement area for Lot #1. He said this had not yet been approved by the Health Department, but he expected it would be because it met all its requirements. The proposed septic easement area was in a flat area approx. 40 feet above the house site on Lot #1. It was noted the lot may have been approved at one time, but would no longer be an approved building lot if the Health Department did not approve the septic plans. Ms. Purnell noted Lot #2 would have to be approved for two septic systems according to the feasibility plan. Mr. Picton noted the Commission was concerned with the overall impact of the proposal and wanted to make sure all the lots would work together. Mr. Wilson stated he only wanted to apply for a driveway to make the lot saleable.
In response to questions about the location of wetlands, Mr. Wilson said they had been flagged by Mr. Temple and he would fax the soils report to the Commission as soon as it was available. Mr. Bedini and Mr. Picton had inspected the property and thought there were wetlands off site to the east and also above the site. Mr. Picton asked that wetlands on all three lots be flagged.
Mr. Picton pointed out there was no curtain drain proposed along the driveway. Mr. Wilson said he did not want to discharge surface water into the lake as it could have a thermal impact. He showed a potential underdrain on the uphill side of the driveway. Mr. Wilson proposed sheet flow to the wetlands and noted the driveway would be crowned so its runoff would flow to the catch basin. He said the roof runoff could be handled up the hill in the flat parking area.
Ms. Baldwin asked if coverage had been addressed. Mr. Wilson noted it was not a problem because the lot was 1.6 acres.
Mr. Bonachea noted there appeared to be several underground currents, which had damaged a neighboring driveway in this area. Mr. Picton agreed that groundwater was evident close to the surface and said the Commission would pay close attention to this condition. Mr. Wilson noted the driveway construction plans called for stabilization fabric and base run gravel.
Mr. McGowan, consultant for the Lake Waramaug Task Force, asked if the feasible house site was in the upland review area. Mr. Wilson said it was, but no activities were proposed in the wetlands. Mr. McGowan then asked if the Commission had asked Mr. Wilson to look at the feasibility of the other two lots as well as Lot #1, noting that potentially the entire subdivision was located in the upland review area. Ms. Purnell said he was probably correct and that the Comm. had asked the applicant to look at the wetlands off the property and at possible activities in the upland review areas. Mr. McGowan noted the entire area has severe limitations and so noted it would be wise to find out whether the other lots were feasible building lots. He did not think the approach of the application; applying for a driveway without any information regarding drainage issues that could result from the construction of a house, was a prudent one. He noted, too, that the corridor for the proposed septic pump system was proposed in the upland review area. Mr. Picton agreed the Commission would look into the feasibility of all the lots and the area as a whole. Mr. Wilson noted that the other lots were not part of the application and that he did not want future owners to be locked into the site plan discussed at this time.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the tree cutting would be selective. Mr. Wilson said there would be no clear cutting and the grading avoided large trees.
Ms. Purnell stated she is a member of the Lake Waramaug Task Force, although she was not a neighbor and had no financial interest in the application. She asked if anyone thought she had a conflict of interest. The Commissioners did not think there was any conflict.
Mr. Picton voiced his concern about water and runoff issues on such a constrained lot. He thought the plan presented was so deficient in detail and comprehensiveness that he suggested the applicant submit more thorough plans. He noted, for example, none of the drainage facilities for the house was shown. Mr. Wilson said he was trying not to increase the runoff from the site and again stated he was applying only for a driveway. He said he would consult with his client about whether he would submit more detailed plans. Mr. LaMuniere agreed with Mr. Picton, saying future owners might apply for revisions, but all possible impacts should be considered at this time. Ms. Purnell advised Mr. Wilson that the Commission reserved the right to review beyond 100 ft. of wetlands if there were steep slopes or specific concerns.
Mr. McGowan requested that the Commission ask its consultant to review the runoff implications of the entire area. He noted runoff flows from Tinker Hill Road over Lot #1
It was the consensus not to refer the application to the Commission's consultant until more detailed plans were submitted.
At 6:00 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the public hearing to Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Kessler/103-105 West Mountain Road/#IW-06-05/Two Dwellings, Wetlands Crossing, Etc./Con't.
Mr. Picton reconvened the public hearing at 6:04 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Coe for Mrs. Hill. He noted 21 documents to add to the list of documents in the file, which had been presented at 3/22/06 session of the hearing.
Mr. Jontos, applicant's consultant, submitted the following documents: 1) "Wetland Mitigation Plan," by Land Tech Consultants, revised to 4/12/06, 2) the 4/12/06 letter from Mr. Jontos to the Commission re: response to Fuss and O'Neill's 4/4/06 review, and 3) the 4/11/06 letter from Land Tech to the Commission regarding erosion and sedimentation controls, which included in particular, information on instream water controls.
Mrs. Kessler made a brief statement to the Commission noting her efforts to come up with an environmentally sound plan.
Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted the following documents: 1) his 4/12/06 letter to the Commission responding to the 4/4/06 Fuss and O'Neill review, including drainage calculations, 2) "Proposed Grading Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 4/9/06, 3) "Existing Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 3/5/06, and 4) "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 4/8/06. He detailed the revisions of these documents, which included the addition of silt fence and straw wattle areas on the erosion control plan and the deletion of the future tennis court from the map. Mr. Owens, architect, said he understood separate future applications would be required for the tennis court and swimming pool.
Ms. Purnell noted there had been three original lots and asked where the current boundary lines were. It was noted the eased lot was 14 acres, the lot with the proposed new main house was 5.5 acres, and the lot with the existing house was 5+ acres.
The map, "Existing Site Plan," was reviewed.
Mr. DeSantos, the Commission's engineer, asked if Mr. Neff had computed the volume of runoff both for pre and post development. Mr. Neff said, yes, he had done the calculations for 10, 25, and 100 year storm events. Mr. DeSantos asked if the velocity of runoff flowing down off the slopes had been analyzed. He said he wanted to review the velocity at the splash pad so he could determine there would be no erosion problems. Mr. Neff briefly described the proposed reinforced channel down to the splash pad. It was noted there were no swales graded in between the splash pad area and the area below. Mr. Neff said there would be sheet flow from the high point and that it would naturally drain away from the house site.
Ms. Purnell voiced her concern about the long term impacts once the houses are lived in. She noted Mr. Owens had stated the terrace at the existing house would be removed, but that garden plans had not yet been submitted. She said plant buffers were needed to protect the water resources. Having no plans for regrading or planting in this area, she asked if the future garden would interfere with plans to handle runoff. Mr. Jontos noted the drainage calculations had been for turf grass, and that gardens would have more infiltration capabilities. Ms. Purnell noted pesticides and herbicides would be used in a constrained area.
Mr. Picton asked if the public hearing were closed tonight, whether Mr. DeSantos would be able to report on the documents just submitted. Ms. Purnell said he would, but that the applicant would not have an opportunity to respond. Mr. DeSantos described briefly the steps the applicant had taken to try to mitigate the impacts to the wetlands including the treatment of polluted runoff with the installation of the proposed rain garden. He also noted the proposed porous pavement, while not as good as grass, infiltrated runoff better than hard pavement.
The mitigation plan revised to 4/12/06 was reviewed.
Mr. Jontos summarized his responses to Fuss and O'Neill's 4/4/06 review. He included the following points. He noted he had been concerned about the separation distance between the bioretention system, which would be 6 inches deep and 700 sq. ft. in area, and the seasonal groundwater table so he had shot the grades and had determined the basin would be 24 inches above the maximum seasonal groundwater. Mr. Jontos listed the roof construction materials and said there would be no leaching of heavy metals. Ms. Purnell asked about the copper flashing. Mr. Jontos responded the runoff from the flashing would flow through a substantial vegetative buffer. He noted these buffers were 35 feet wide and properly sized according to the latest literature. He said they would serve to enhance both the filtration on site and would also enhance the floral community. Mr. Picton asked if the forest floor would be undisturbed. Mr. Jontos said it would because the all the plants to be added would be planted by hand. He briefly reviewed the planting plan, which called for grasses and a second line of shrubs. Grass would be planted over the leaf molt; it would not be removed from the site. Mr. Jontos noted a letter from the Health Dept., which stated the proposed 25 ft. separation distance between the infiltration system and the well was OK, had been received.
Mr. Owens submitted 4/12/06 revisions to his original 1/12/06 letter concerning feasible and prudent alternatives and quickly reviewed it for the Commission. Mr. Picton noted when Mr. Owens had discussed the alternate main house at the 3/22 hearing, he had stated a lot of fill would be required if the house was moved because there would be no guard rails. He asked if the amount of fill could be decreased if guard rails were installed. Mr. Owens read the section regarding the variation of the building foundation on page 3 of his revised letter, said he had encroachment information, but had no cut and fill comparisons. Mr. Jontos noted if the house were moved, the driveway would be longer and the vegetative buffer would have to be moved to a less effective location.
Mr. Jontos stated he stood by his original assessment of state listed species on the property. Ms. Purnell questioned whether he had been on site at the proper times of year to find all of the species in question.
Mr. Jontos discussed the limits of the proposed clearing, saying there would be no selective clearing within the buffers. The trees in the buffers would be preserved and the understory planted. Ms. Purnell thought clearing had been proposed to the northeast, but Mr. Jontos said none was proposed.
Mr. Jontos concluded saying he believed with the best management practices and the design criteria proposed there would be no loss of wetlands and no loss of upland function as a result of the proposed development.
Ms. Purnell stated she had concerns about the construction of the guest house because it was in a constrained area, was not located on the existing footprint, and there was no mitigation proposed. She noted there were steep slopes adjacent to wetlands E and B and that the water quality data had indicated the pond was atrophic. She asked Mr. Jontos if he thought the existing house affects wetlands E and B. He replied he did not think so because it was a well established house and because the day a pond is born, it begins to die. Ms. Purnell said she was trying to establish the existing impacts and asked whether a yearly evaluation was needed. She wished it could be moved further than 100 ft. from the wetlands and said Mr. Jontos's conclusion that a 35 ft. wide buffer would remove a major amount, not all of the pollutants, was a concern to her. Mr. Jontos stated from both a scientific and engineering perspective the control measures proposed were more than adequate to treat the post development runoff and to maintain the hydrology of the system. He was not concerned about the possible use of pesticides and herbicides because he said the runoff flow path moved through extensive areas of understory. Ms. Purnell pointed out, however, there were 20% to 35% slopes in the area. She again said she believed there were existing impacts and that it was not likely the Commission would permit the construction of a new house in such proximity to steep slopes and to the wetlands. She said she did not consider the proposal to be a reconstruction of the existing house. She asked why no protective buffers were proposed near the steep slopes. She noted this was a precedent setting decision for the Commission. Mr. Jontos again reviewed all of the fully engineered protective measures and best management practices proposed, stated the existing vegetative buffers would remain and could be enhanced per a condition of approval. Mr. Owens noted the proposed guest house was smaller than the existing and the drainage system would be improved.
Mr. Picton thought Ms. Purnell's main concern was the disturbance of the inadequate buffer on the steep slopes above the wetlands. He said the existing slope had an approximate 45% grade. Mr. Jontos noted the post construction slope would be 25%. Mr. Picton said some of the slopes to the east of the guest house where the applicant would try to manage sediment had grades between 60% and 100%. Mr. Jontos stated no activities were proposed on those slopes. Ms. Purnell said she wanted to make certain that what was proposed would affect the existing impacts, especially because the construction site was surrounded by wetlands.
Mr. Jontos agreed the applicant would consent to an extension of the public hearing to give the Commission's consultant an opportunity to review all of the information that had just been submitted. Mr. DeSantos noted some of the material he particularly wanted to review and questions he had included 1) runoff from the copper flashing on the guest house infiltrating within 25 ft. of wetlands, 2) how best to restrict the use of fertilizers, and 3) how to minimize the area of disturbance. He noted the plans had been designed within the spirit of the Stormwater and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Guidelines.
Mr. Picton stated the proposed activity imposed an inherent possibility of significant impacts to the wetlands due to its proximity to steep slopes above wetlands and that was the reason for all of the engineering. He said feasible and prudent alternatives that would be less likely to impact the wetlands should be considered. He said he did not understand why the applicant did not try to implement the obvious feasible and prudent alternative and move the activity away from the steep slopes. He also said he did not understand why it was not possible to move the house into the hillside closer to the uphill wetlands, but away from the downhill wetlands and the steepest slopes. He read excerpts from "Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection" and urged everyone to read the entire article. He noted BMP's can only partially control impacts to the wetlands and watercourses due to the difficulties of successful implementation and a high incidence of failure. Therefore, he stated the most effective protection was the vegetative buffer to increase the distance between the activity and the sensitive resources. He thought the proposal ignored what a good site planner would have designed for this property.
Ms. Purnell submitted the following documents for the record: 1) "Federal Guidance on the Use of Vegetative Buffers as Compensatory Mitigation Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act," draft dated 8/27/04, 2) "Understanding the Science Behind Riparian Forest Buffers: Effects on Water Quality," by the Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2000, 3) "Vegetated Buffers: Improving Environmental Quality in Coastal North Carolina," by the North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve, no date, and 4) "Scientific Overview of Coastal Buffer Water Quality Functions," by Arthur Gold from URI, dated 1/12/05. She read a section of Table 1 from #3 above, regarding the effectiveness of buffers based on their width.
Mr. Picton asked Mr. DeSantos 1) did he think the proposed activity posed a possible adverse impact to the wetlands, 2) did he think there was the possibility of failure during construction, and 3) did he find after analyzing the feasible and prudent alternatives that there was an opportunity to reduce the risk of error and adverse impact to the wetlands. Mr. DeSantos said the construction would have to be monitored closely or mistakes could happen and that was his biggest concern. If the construction progressed as proposed, he did not think this would be an issue. Mr. LaMuniere said the Commission must have a precise and detailed construction sequence and proposal for monitoring the project. Mr. Neff noted a thorough and detailed construction sequence was included on sheet 2 of the "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" and added that execution could be a problem. Regarding alternatives, he noted the applicant did attempt to mitigate the disturbance, but said there were other possibilities for the main house such as moving it into the hillside. He said moving it further from the steep slopes would minimize the disturbance closer to the downhill wetlands.
Mr. Jontos asked the Commission to identify what likely loss of wetlands function would result from the project. Mr. Picton said the impacts of development activity were included in the file.
Mr. Jontos submitted a letter consenting to a two week extension of the hearing.
Ms. Purnell said she was concerned about water quality and noted the runoff would ultimately flow into Sprain Brook. Mr. Jontos asked if the activities were relocated entirely out of the 100 ft. setback, would all of the Commission's concerns go away. Mr. Picton said not only would the activity have to be moved 100 ft. away, but it would also have to be moved away from the steep slopes, there would have to be a fully forested buffer, and the size of the work area increased.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider Application #IW-06-05 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Kessler for two new dwellings, a driveway crossing, etc. at 103-105 West Mountain Road to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
At 7:43 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the hearing to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 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 meeting to order at 7:47 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Thomson for Mrs. Hill.
MOTION: To include the following subsequent business on the agenda: 1. Consideration of the Minutes - D. Site Inspection - Linen - 4/4/06, 2. New Applications - H. Wodke/155 West Shore Road/#IW-06-21/Dock Anchors, I. Bent/60 Hinkle Road/#IW-06-22/ Dry Hydrant. J. O'Malley/9 Mallory Brook Road/#IW-06-23/Remodel Guest House, 3. Enforcement - O. Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Soil Disturbance, and Filing of Watercourse, P. McTiernan/52 Calhoun Street/Unauthorized Clearing, 4. Other Business - F. Beck/132 Calhoun Street/Request for Release of Bond. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Kessler/103-105 West Mountain Road/#IW-06-05/Two Dwellings, Wetlands Crossing, Etc.: The public hearing was continued to 4/26/06 at 6:00 p.m.
Kleinberg/181 West Shore Road/#IW-06-07/Driveway and Utilities: The public hearing was continued to 4/26/06 at 5:00 p.m.
Due to the late start of the meeting, it was decided the order of the agenda would be altered to accommodate those present.
Schaffner/12 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-06-11/Inground Pool: The map, "Proposed Swimming Pool Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 4/10/06 was reviewed. Mr. Neff, engineer, noted the Commission had expressed its concern about the distance between the limit of disturbance line and the wetlands near the road, and so he had pushed the pool back to increase the separation distance and provide a wider buffer. He noted the closest activity, the pool fence, would now be 54 feet from the wetlands. He said the existing woods and brush would not be disturbed and a barrier fence would be installed around the work zone prior to the start of work. Mr. Picton noted the wetlands were across the slope, not down slope, of the proposed activity. Mr. Neff pointed out that runoff would be directed by a grass swale around the east side of the house. Ms. Purnell noted there were already erosion problems in this area. Mr. Neff said he was reluctant to pipe the runoff because the grass swale would be the lowest impact way to handle the runoff and the natural flow was to the east around the house. He said he would encourage more of a vegetated surface, grass for shade, to prevent further erosion. Mr. Ajello recommended the entire construction site including the area by the driveway be seeded and mulched immediately upon completion of the work. He pointed out an area near the driveway at the foot of the construction access where erosion was likely to occur and said it would need daily monitoring. Mr. Neff said the proposed pump and cartridge filter system was a closed system that would be placed up against the house and would require no dumping of water to grade. Mr. Ajello asked if all the excavated material would be used on site. Mr. Neff said some would be taken off site and there would be no fill spread outside the barrier fence. Mr. Neff added the grassed swale to the revised map. Ms. Purnell noted with the revisions to the plan and the conditions of approval agreed upon by the Commission, there would be minimal impact to the wetlands.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-11 submitted by Mrs. Schaffner to construct an inground pool at 12 Painter Ridge Road per the map, "Proposed Swimming Pool Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 3/10/06, revised to 4/10/06, and further revised at the 4/12/06 meeting subject to the following conditions: 1. the swall shall be redirected on the east side of the house as shown and initialed on the plan and 2. for the duration of construction the entrance to the site shall be stabilized every day with hay bales. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Linen/34-38 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-06-12/Site Grading: Mr. Neff, engineer, said there had been no changes since the last meeting to his map, "Proposed Site Plan," dated 12/21/05. Mr. Neff reviewed the proposal for grading associated with the driveway construction within 100 ft. east of the pond and noted it would be down grade of the septic system. All other activities for the site development for a single family house would be further than 100 ft. from wetlands and not at the edge of any steep slopes. Mr. Picton thought a good effort had been made to keep the development activities outside of the upland review area and noted there was an existing stone wall to separate the regraded area from the undisturbed meadow. Mrs. Linen noted she planned to keep most of the property as rough meadow and said she had contacted Weantinogue for advice on how to remove Japanese knotweed.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-12 submitted by Mrs. Linen for site grading at 34-38 New Preston Hill Road per the map, "Proposed Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 12/21/05 subject to the condition that the area within 100 feet of the wetlands to the east of the septic system be mowed a maximum of three times a year and with the strong recommendation that the Japanese knotweed be removed. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Adams/57 West Shore Road/#IW-06-15/Retaining Wall, Path, Plantings: Mr. Ajello explained the applicant proposed to replace the beach with a vegetated buffer. He said he had driven by the property and had found it was a neglected beach and there were no erosion problems in the area. Ms. Dzenutis, contractor, presented a site plan, "Beach Renewal Project," no signature or date, drawn on the survey map by Mr. Cheney, dated July 2004. Ms. Dzenutis explained she had met with the DOT because West Shore Road is being undermined along this stretch of beach. To correct this problem a stone retaining wall was proposed to prevent any more sand from washing out. Also proposed, the existing walkway would be upgraded to bluestone, stone stairs down to the beach would be added, and a dry stone wall built at beach level. Behind the beach level wall, soil would be brought in and landscape fabric would be pinned over it. Holes would be cut in the fabric for the proposed plants. Mr. Picton asked the applicant to fully describe the installation procedures because the Commission would want to be certain the soil would not erode into the lake. He asked Mr. Ajello to review the application to make sure it was complete. A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, April 20, 2006 at 4:40 p.m.
Dobson/255 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-06-16/Accessory Building: Mr. Dobson, property owner, submitted the map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Cheney, dated May 2000 on which he had drawn in the location of the proposed accessory building and the distances from boundary lines and wetlands. He noted a brook flowed across the rear boundary line towards the East Aspetuck River. He proposed to place a 40' X 70' storage building 30 ft. from the brook and said according to Mr. Condon, previous owner, the brook had never flooded the property. Mr. Ajello advised him that according to Section 12.1 of the Zoning Regulations, the building must be set back 50 ft. from the brook. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Dobson to include grading and the access on the site plan. Mr. Dobson said there was an existing access. A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, April 20, 2006 at 4:15 p.m. Mr. Dobson said he would have the corners of the building staked for the site visit.
Lederer/274 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-06-17/Demolition of Greenhouse and Fill to Grade: Ms. Zinick, agent, explained an old 10' X 16' greenhouse would be demolished and the area where it had been built into the ground would be refilled. The site plan, drawn by hand on a portion of a survey map from 1988, was reviewed. She said 6 yards of clean fill would be brought on site and a mini excavator would be used to spread it. She pointed out the location of the proposed hay bale barrier to be installed between the work site and Sprain Brook and noted there were no wetlands between the work site and the brook. The duration of work was estimated to be 4 hours. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to inspect the site and to make sure before the next meeting that the application was complete.
Schoellkopf/300 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-06-20/Deer Fence: Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, submitted a topo map, pointed out the location of the property, and noted Sprain Brook flows through it. He noted most of the proposed fence would be in the upland review area, but two sections would cross the brook. Mr. Picton noted the Sprain Brook corridor would be bisected and would change the biological community. He asked why the owner couldn't just fence the garden. Mr. Sabin explained the garden was nationally recognized by the National Garden Trust and the whole hillside was an integral part of the landscape setting. The space between the fence and the surface was discussed, noting it would have to be low enough to prevent deer from crawling under, but high enough so debris would not back up on the brook. Mr. Sabin said he would submit details of the proposed wing walls and said the fence would have wooden posts and would not be electric. Mr. Picton asked if migrating deer were integral to the function of wetlands corridors, noting areas all over Town were being fenced off. Mr. Sabin said there was a large amount of open space and conserved land in the Nettleton Hollow area and so there were many existing wildlife corridors. Mr. Picton recommended Mr. Sabin draft a plan that did not include cutting off the watercourse corridor. Mr. Sabin spoke of the uniqueness of the garden and Mr. Ajello said if there was any place where an exception would be beneficial, this would be it. Mr. Picton said he understood, but asked if the view of the garden landscape was a wetlands concern. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 4:40 p.m.
Enforcement
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road/Unauthorized Filling of Watercourse and Clearing: Mrs. Wright submitted an undated letter to the Commission to respond to the 4/11/06 notice of violation. Mr. Picton read the 4/11 notice. Mrs. Wright said they wanted to build a stonewall at the top of the hill so they had removed trees there and had cleaned rotten logs and leaves from the hillside. Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the work that had been done and the debris and contamination in the channel. He said he thought the channel met the state definition of a watercourse, but recommended the Commission discuss it later. Mrs. Wright said the only time water flows through it is when there is a heavy rain. Mr. Ajello noted even if it was determined it was not a watercourse, there was a stream below and work had been done within 100 ft. of it. She said Mr. Wright had been filling the channel since 1994, the Town had installed a longer pipe in the area so he could continue to do so, and she objected to the wording of the enforcement letter. A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, April 20, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.
New Applications
Wodke/155 West Shore Road/#IW-06-21/Dock Anchors: The map, "Site Plan and Details for Proposed Dock," by Stephen Lasar Architects, dated 4/11/06 was reviewed. Mr. Lasar explained the proposed dock would be located in the middle of the 40 ft. wide property. Mr. Ajello said he was concerned about shoreline disturbance. Mr. Lasar noted a dry field stone retaining wall exists, and the dock would be anchored by two sono tubes sunk behind the wall. The holes would be dug by hand. The dock would be cedar and would be capable of seasonal removal. Ms. Purnell noted the application was not signed and Mr. Lasar said he would have the signature for the next meeting. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to review the application for completeness.
O'Malley/9 Mallory Brook Road/#IW-06-23/Remodel Guest House: Mr. O'Malley submitted photos of the guest house and surrounding area. He proposed to remodel the guest house including enclosing and extending the existing porch, which was 50 to 60 ft. from the pond on the property. Mr. Picton noted it was fairly level between the construction site and the pond and that some of it was already covered by impervious surface. Mr. O'Malley also proposed to remove the brick patio and replace it with stone. Mr. Picton asked the applicant to provide the Commission with all the details concerning hard landscaping, changes in grade, and proposed hard surfaces. He asked Mr. Ajello to review the application for completeness and to inspect the site before the next meeting.
Other Business
Bitar/36 Carmel Hill Road/Tennis Court and Sports Court: Atty. Kelly represented the property owner and said he would prefer to send a letter regarding this matter. He said the owners had proposed a tennis court within 100 ft. of wetlands, but had revised their plans. The court was no longer in the upland review area, but the WEO had advised him an application was still required. He respectfully asked why an application was needed. Ms. Purnell referred to Section 4.4 of the Inland Wetlands Regulations and noted the Commission reserved the right to regulate an activity depending on the resources that need protection, soil types, slope, etc. Atty. Kelly argued that even so, an application would not be required. Ms. Purnell said it would if the proposed activity was deemed a regulated activity. Ms. Purnell also referred to Section 2.3.4 regarding regulated activities. Atty. Kelly stated there was nothing in this section that suggested the Commission could regulate further than 100 ft. from wetlands and said he would put his response in writing. Mr. Picton noted there was a 20% slope in the area and said if the court would drain towards the slope, the Commission would tend to consider it a regulated activity unless it was isolated by the terrain. He asked Mr. Ajello if the court was isolated. Mr. Ajello said the plan was a good one, but the drainage would flow towards the wetlands. Mr. Picton asked how much fill was required at the lower edge. Mr. Ajello said 4 to 5 ft. at most. Mr. Neff noted the other corner only required a 1 ft. cut. Mr. Picton asked whether it would be easy to control the runoff. Mr. Neff indicated the area was not flat, that it did slope towards the pond. There was a brief discussion regarding whether Mr. Ajello could handle this matter without an application. He reminded the Commission it had required an application from Mr. Brighenti whose court was also further than 100 ft. from wetlands. Mr. Picton said this was so, but in that case there had been 40% slopes, 9 ft. of fill was required, and there had been alternate sites available. Mr. LaMuniere thought Mr. Ajello should use his judgment, but Ms. Purnell thought the Commission should act in a consistent manner. Mr. Ajello was confident the wetlands would be protected in this case because the area was heavily wooded. It was the consensus that Mr. Ajello should work with Mr. Neff to make sure adequate erosion controls would be installed and there would be no clearing within 100 ft. of the wetlands. Mr. Ajello asked if this was a new Commission policy. Mr. Picton said it was not because each situation was different and had to be assessed according to the existing site conditions.
MOTION: Regarding the construction of a tennis court and sports court by Mr. Bitar at 36 Carmel Hill Road, the Commission authorizes Mr. Ajello, EO, and Mr. Neff, engineer, to plan adequate and substantial erosion and sedimentation controls and to ensure that no woodlands be cleared within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Reinhardt/10 Perkins Road/Clear Cutting: Atty. Kelly noted a decision on this matter was pending, but in the meantime Mrs. Reinhardt wanted to have the notice of violation taken off the Land Records because her property is for sale. He said that very little clearing had actually been done on her property and he was not convinced that any of it was within 100 ft. of a wetlands or watercourse. He asked if a soil scientist flagged the wetlands on this property only, would she be able to get the title cleared. Mr. Picton noted the Commission had to consider the Reinhardt and Cremona properties as a whole. Atty. Kelly noted he did not represent the Cremona estate. He said he would send a letter to ask the Commission for consideration in this matter.
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/Unauthorized Construction: Mr. Picton asked if a comprehensive plan of the property had been prepared as requested. Mr. Munson, contractor, said Mr. Alex was working on it. Mr. Picton noted there were multiple deviations from the approved plan and so an entire property map on one sheet was required so the Commission could compare what had been approved to the work actually done. Mr. Ajello said he had met with the contractors on site to discuss the violations noted in the site inspection minutes. Mr. Rosiello reported he had cleaned out sediment by hand and installed silt fence by the edge of the driveway with Mr. Ajello's OK. Mr. Munson stated the day after the inspection all the debris left by the former caretaker was removed and the disturbed areas raked, seeded, and mulched. He also stated he had inspected all the silt fence and found it was in good shape. Mr. Picton asked if the channel near the guest house had been redirected away from the wetlands. Mr. Munson, said, yes, the berm had been replaced. Mr. LaMuniere said this was important because pool chemicals should not end up in the pond. Mr. Rosiello said a contained cartridge system would be used. Mr. Picton suggested for mitigation of the unauthorized work the buffer areas surrounding the wetlands be enhanced. There was a brief discussion regarding whether to issue a second citation for the violation of the permit conditions and Mr. Ajello was ordered to do so.
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-05-54: Mr. Boling, agent, advised the Commission that revisions had been made to the approved site plan to respond to the Zoning Commission's concerns regarding comparability. He noted this was "good news" from an Inland Wetlands Commission perspective because all of the changes either moved the activity further from the wetlands and/or reduced the impact. Mr. Picton noted he had previously written a letter to the Zoning Commission to say that he did not think the application was a good solution for the affordable housing problem, but said he could consider the wetlands issues separately in an unbiased manner. Atty. Ebersol thanked him for bringing this to his attention and Mr. Boling noted that Mr. Picton had previously held the same opinions, but had voted to approve the Myfield Inland Wetlands application. Mr. Boling reviewed the document, "Wetlands Implications of Modified Site Plan," revised 4/11/06. The Map, "Proposed Site Plan, 13 Detached 1904 Sq. Ft. Unit Scheme," by Mr. Worcester, dated 3/26/06 and revised to 4/4/06 was also reviewed. Ms. Purnell was concerned any contamination from the parking areas would seep down into the groundwater due to the pervious underlayment. Mr. Boling compared the plan originally approved with the revised plan. Mr. Picton thought the applicant did a good job of keeping activities that could cause erosion away from sensitive areas. Although the applicant preferred to work with Mr. Ajello and Mr. Neff, the Commission thought its consultant should review the revised plans. Mr. Picton said the consultant would be asked about the possibility of oil contamination from the parking areas.
MOTION: To approve revisions to Permit #IW-05-54 issued to Myfield, LLC. for 13 dwelling units at 7 Mygatt Road per the map, "Proposed Site Plan, 13 Detached 1904 sq. ft. Unit Scheme," by Mr. Worcester, revised to 3/26/06 (on the survey map by Mr. Alex, dated January 2005) subject to a satisfactory review by the Commission's consultant and if the consultant makes any recommendations, subject to the applicant addressing them all to the consultant's satisfaction. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Stiteler-Giddins/198 Tinker Hill Road/Preliminary Discussion/Accessory Building: Atty. Kelly noted Mr. Talbot was not present, nor did he have a map, and so he asked that this be discussed at a future meeting.
Averill/7 Titus Road/#IW-06-10ATF/Excavation: Mr. Ajello reported all the contaminated soil had been removed from the riverbank. He said Mr. Averill now proposed to pull back the gravel that had been deposited in 1972 for the parking area to resculpt the bank to its natural contours. Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the site and read Mr. Averill's letter received on 4/11/06.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-10ATF submitted by Mr. Averill for excavation and restoration of the riverbank at 7 Titus Road subject to the following conditions: 1) the old fill material from the riverbank shall be used to refill the recently excavated area at the edge of the parking area and where the old fill is removed, the contour of the original riverbank will be restored so it is similar to the contour on each side of the old fill pile, 2) there shall be no excavation within 10 ft. of the river, 3) all work shall be done under the WEO's supervision, and 4) all disturbed areas shall be seeded with conservation mix and mulched immediately upon the completion of work. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
There was a brief discussion about the construction of the parking area. The Commissioners voiced their concerns about gas and oil seeping through blacktopped surfaces, proper maintenance of sumps, parking junked and/or leaky vehicles so close to the river, and the benefit of requiring a concrete surface because the lot was so close to the river. It was the consensus the lot should pitch away from the river.
Potter/220 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-06-14/Site Development
Swanson/282 New Milford Turnpike/#Iw-06-18/Dry Hydrant
Bent/60 Hinkle Road/#IW-06-22/Dry Hydrant
No representatives were present to discuss these three applications. Mr. Ajello was asked to review them for completeness and to have recommendations ready for the next meeting.
Enforcement
Beck/132 Calhoun Street/Cutting, Clearing in Wetlands: Mr. Ajello said he had discussed this matter with both Atty. Miles and Atty. Cornell and it had been agreed that Mrs. Beck would post a $1000 bond with the Town to cover the monitoring and removal of invasives on the property by Mrs. Corrigan. Ms. Purnell recused herself because she is a friend of Mrs. Corrigan. Ms. Coe was seated.
MOTION: To authorize Mr. Ajello, EO, to accept a $1000 bond to cover the completion of monitoring and the removal of the invasive species by Mrs. Corrigan for the Beck property, IW-02-V1, at 132 Calhoun Street. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Ms. Purnell was reseated.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road (141 Shinar Mt. Rd.)/#IW-04-V8/Repair of Retaining Wall: Ms. Purnell reported she had completed a draft letter, which she would circulate before the next meeting.
Taylor/11 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Excavation in Wetlands: No new information had been received. Mr. Ajello said he would reinspect the property to make sure no additional work had been done. Ms. Purnell noted the Commission wanted a buffer restored around at least part of the pond. The possibility of a citation was discussed, but no decision was made.
Peck/10 Slaughterhouse Road/Unauthorized Excavation, Tree Removal: Mr. Peck had asked Mr. Ajello if he could regrade the site, but was told he had to wait for the results of the wetland flagging.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling and Clearcutting: The Commission is still waiting for a report from a soil scientist.
Caco/16 Flirtation Avenue/Unauthorized Clearing, Grading: Mr. Picton read the 4/12/06 letter from Mrs. Caco to the Commission in response to the 4/4/06 notice of violation. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to inspect the site and come up with some solutions for the ongoing drainage problem that is sending an increased amount of runoff to the Berry property across the street. Mr. Bedini thought this might qualify as a civil matter between property owners.
Collins/323 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Clear Cutting, Soil Disturbance:
Mr. Ajello said there was no question that wetlands had been cleared and circulated photos of the site. He said he had issued a notice of violation and urged the commissioners to make a drive by inspection prior to the next meeting.
McTiernan/52 Calhoun Street/Unauthorized Clearing: The commissioners agreed citations should be issued to both the contractor, Mr. Moore, and the property owner.
Revision of Fee Schedule and Public Education: Ms. Purnell suggested the Commission ask the Town to amend the citation ordinance to adopt a more stringent fee schedule. It was generally agreed there had been many violations of late and this might be a good deterrent. Ms. Purnell also suggested a direct mailing to residents to inform them of the necessity to obtain a permit prior to clearing in or within 100 ft. of a wetlands or watercourse.
Parent/Old Litchfield Road/Unauthorized Clearing: Mr. Ajello noted he had ordered clearing stopped in this area along the stream two years ago. He did not think too much clearing had been done this time and said he had ordered that all the leaf mulch raked up be respread.
Bennett/207 Bee Brook Road/#IW-05-55/Addition to Existing Dwelling: Ms. Coe noted the Commission had approved an addition, but instead the house had been taken down completely. Ms. Purnell reported material was stockpiled by the riverbank. Mr. Picton thought if the Commission had known the house would be completely demolished, it would have required that it be moved further from the stream. It was the consensus Mr. Bennett should be issued a citation for the violation of his permit and that he be requested to attend the next meeting to explain why he had not complied with his permit and to explain what his plans are. Upon further consideration, it was also decided that a stop work order should be issued.
MOTION: Regarding Bennett/207 Bee Brook Road/ #IW-05-55/Addition to Existing Dwelling, to instruct Mr. Ajello, EO, to issue a stop work order and to direct Mr. Bennett to attend the next Commission meeting to explain his future plans and why he is in gross violation of his permit. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Walker Brook Subdivision II, New Milford: Ms. Purnell said she had sent everyone an update and reminded them the New Milford Inland Wetlands Commission would next meet on April 13.
Revision of Inland Wetlands Regulations/Section 8.1: It was noted a public hearing had been scheduled on Wednesday, April 26, 2006.
Communications
Mr. Picton reported he had been talking to the Selectmen about increasing the capacities of the Land Use Office. He said more staff and hours are needed. He requested that the WEO's job be augmented so that he can spend more time in the field on enforcement matters and less time in the office doing administrative work. The commissioners worried both that the current staff was overworked and the land use commissions would loose volunteers if staffing wasn't increased so the Town's regulations could be better enforced. Mr. Picton said he would not write another letter, but asked that the minutes be sent to Mr. Sears so he would know the Commission considers this to be an important issue.
Wright/59 Scofield Road/Unauthorized Filling, Clearing: Mr. Ajello said he had consulted with Mr. Cannavaro, Road Foreman, who had advised him there were ongoing problems with the filling done by Mr. Wright, that he had caused the road to wash out, and that he had repeatedly warned him to stop.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 3/22/06 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes, the 3/29/06 Public Hearing - Special Meeting minutes and the 4/4/06 Linen, Schaffner, and Calhoun Street Trust site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Ms. Purnell.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
April 5, 2006
Special Meeting
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Thomson
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Olson, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Owens, Mr. Sears
Spring Hill Farms, LLC./69 Whittlesey Road/#IW-05-74/Reconstruct, Enlarge, Relocate Building
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and seated Members LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternates Coe and Thomson for Mrs. Hill and Mr. Bedini.
The maps, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 3/5/06 and "Septic System Repair Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 3/4/06 were reviewed and Mr. Picton noted the major features of the site.
First, reasons to deny the application were discussed. Ms. Purnell noted the applicant had responded to Mr. Allan's review and had moved the proposed house 4 ft. back from the wetlands to minimize its impact, but a substantial outside staircase had been added. She also pointed out the size of the footprint of the house had more than doubled and the only reason the amount of impervious surface had decreased was because the driveway was shortened. Mr. Picton's comments included the following: 1) the proposed redevelopment of the site was entirely within the upland review area, 2) on its SE corner the existing house was as close as 28 feet from the wetlands, 3) the new house would be 25 to 80 feet from the down slope wetlands next to the pond, 4) the impervious surface of the house would double, 5) the average grade was 11%, 6) the disturbed area would be a half acre, 7) the proposed activity would occur within an area 1 to 2 feet from the wetlands to 90 feet from the down slope wetlands, and 6) the site was very constrained so most of the proposed work area would have to be utilized. Mr. Picton thought it was well established that this type of activity so close to wetlands could likely have an adverse impact, and so noted that had been the reason for the public hearing. He referred to the EMS letter, which stated some of the proposed activities posed some risk to the environment. Mr. Picton also pointed out that in his analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives, Mr. Majewski said a larger house was not an option due to the site constraints on this property. However, the applicant proposed a house that both doubled in footprint and in use since it would be improved from seasonal to year round use. Ms. Purnell thought because the building would be taken down completely, it should be considered a new structure, noting this was a unique situation rarely encountered by the Commission. She said the Commission had previously allowed owners, Mr. Bransfield, for example, to rebuild on the same footprint when there were severe constraints on the property. She pointed out that all of the consultants had acknowledged there were existing impacts and that based on the construction of only a slightly larger house, they had determined that with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures there would no significant changes in most of the functional values of the wetlands and watercourses as a result of the proposed activity. Mr. Picton noted the proposed house was not slightly larger; it was a new building, would be in a different location, and would be twice as large as the existing. He also voiced his concern about non point source pollution, which he said was a serious threat to water quality. Mr. Picton noted the Commission's consultant had not answered all of the Commission's questions concerning the proposed increased activity on the property because it could not be quantified. Ms. Purnell suggested a denial without prejudice might be appropriate due to lack of information and because the Commission did not have the correct baseline information for the degraded site. She also said it was unlikely that the Commission would have approved a similar new building so close to wetlands and that it would have looked for feasible and prudent alternatives. Mr. LaMuniere agreed it was a difficult site, but noted the applicant had addressed all of the points raised by the Commission's consultant. He suggested a lengthy list of conditions of approval, which he said, should be filed on the Town Land Records to alert future owners. Mr. Picton questioned whether all of these conditions, such as prohibiting the use of pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers on site, were enforceable. Mr. LaMuniere suggested a bond be posted and monitoring during construction to ensure work progressed according to the approved plan. Mr. Picton and Ms. Purnell thought construction projects usually deviated from the approved plans and often violated the terms of approval. Mr. LaMuniere said an extremely detailed construction sequence including the establishment of buffers should be required. Ms. Coe agreed with Mr. Picton and Ms. Purnell, saying she considered the project to be new construction and as such there should be improvements made to the existing impacts. She noted the Shepaug River is down grade of the wetlands and so the Commission must be concerned about the larger picture. Atty. Olson asked for specific suggestions. Ms. Coe suggested long term water quality testing. Ms. Coe also asked how the Commission could know whether the activity would be carried out as approved and whether the vegetative buffers would function in the future as they were designed to. Ms. Purnell said the Commission had not asked what the existing impacts were but had asked for additional soil tests; only one of which had been done. Therefore, there was no data or initial assessment of the existing conditions for the Commission to consider. Mr. Thomson thought 1) the Commission should trust the applicant to protect resources and carry out the permit as approved with conditions, 2) part of the Commission's duty is to monitor projects and enforce compliance with permits for as long as necessary, and 3) the process should be used to negotiate the best plan based on the facts and the Commission's knowledge. Mr. Thomson and Mr. LaMuniere thought the Commission had had several months to request additional information and questioned whether it could vote No based on its failure to do so. They also pointed out the Commission's consultant was satisfied with the revised plans. Mr. Picton listed issues the consultant had not addressed such as the effects of non point source pollution from increased human use, malfunction of equipment during and after construction, and the effects of hydrocarbons, antifreeze, deicers, salt, bleach, mildew chemicals, chemicals used in building maintenance, paint, stain, and solvents, fertilizers and pesticides used in landscaping, etc. He thought these might be addressed in conditions of approval, but questioned whether they could be controlled in the long term. Noting that the Commission had not asked for additional specific information in the past, Ms. Purnell asked Atty. Olson if it identified additional material that would help it to make a decision in perpetuity, whether the Commission could deny the application without prejudice in order to seek that additional information. Mr. Picton noted denials must be based on scientific likely impacts, not hypotheses. Ms. Purnell stated the Commission had data such as the statistics from a buffer study, which showed that 95% of required buffers had been encroached upon in some way within 2 to 8 years of approval. Mr. Picton thought there would be an overall lesser chance of adverse impacts to the wetlands if the Commission approved only those activities, which had a good chance of successful implementation. He did not think the measures necessary to protect this constrained site would remain in place over the long term. Mr. Picton asked Atty. Olson if limiting the increase in the size of the house to 10% could be made a condition of approval. Atty. Olson asked him to state how limiting the footprint would address his concerns. Mr. Picton said even if only slightly smaller, the structure and stockpile area could be moved further from the wetlands and the limit of disturbance line, which at present was at the wetland boundary, could also be moved further away so the site could be better managed. He also noted a smaller house would allow for larger buffers. Atty. Olson was concerned such a condition would change the essence of the application and so noted a second option would be to deny the application based on a finding of impact to the wetlands with a suggestion that the footprint be made smaller. Mr. Picton read a list of possible reasons for denial, which he had prepared prior to the meeting. Ms. Purnell noted a list of ten existing impacts to the wetlands and asked if the minor improvements proposed would still generate an adverse impact to the wetlands and watercourses. She thought the Commission required more information to render a correct decision. For example, she noted the Commission had not asked whether the house was enlarged by going up and best management practices were implemented, would that be an improvement over the current proposal. Mr. Thomson asked if the Commission had the option of going to court regarding the placement of the conservation easement. Ms. Purnell said this was not an option because it had been established in 1993. She added it was the main reason there were limited feasible and prudent alternatives. Mr. Picton worried that the EMS evaluation, which stated there were no changes anticipated in the functions of the wetlands and watercourses, was based on the false premise that the size of the footprint of the house would be only slightly larger, when in fact, it would be two times as large. Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell, and Ms. Coe thought the existing impacts were unacceptable because due to the proposed complete tear down and enlargement of the structure and the installation of a basement, it would be an entirely new building with a new site development plan and so all the existing impacts should have to be addressed ad they would be in an application for a new structure.
Reasons for approving the application were discussed. Mr. Thomson pointed out that the Commission's consultant found the proposed treatment of runoff would be an improvement over what now exists on site. He said the cabin exists and the owners could decide to use both it and the existing driveway year round any time. He again noted the activities proposed would be better than what currently exists. Mr. LaMuniere noted the applicant had responded to all of the points raised by the Commission's consultant and said the Commission had had the opportunity to ask for additional data, but had not done so. Mr. Thomson noted that ideally the cabin never would have been constructed so close to the wetlands, but given the fact that it was there, that the applicant responded to all points raised by the consultant, that the consultant stated the proposal may be a net improvement over the existing conditions, and that the Commission may impose conditions of approval that would improve the proposal, he thought the application could be approved. For example, he suggested a condition to specify the size of buffers to be required. This lead to a discussion regarding how wide a vegetative buffer needs to be to remove a major amount of the contaminants in the runoff. Ms. Purnell stated it depends on the topography and proximity to the wetlands, but in general, 25 to 35 feet wide was thought to be adequate. Mr. Picton voiced his concern that conditions of approval would not hold up in the long term. Possible conditions of approval were discussed. Atty. Olson advised the commissioners that every condition imposed must relate to a specific likely impact that must be addressed. Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Picton reviewed their lists of conditions of approval that they had drafted prior to the meeting. A very lengthy discussion ensued regarding what the conditions should be and how each should be worded. The resulting conditions of approval are found in the motion below.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-75 submitted by Spring Hill Farms, LLC. to reconstruct, enlarge, and relocate the building at 69 Whittlesey Road per the map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Revision #4," by Mr. Neff, dated 12/10/05 and revised to 3/5/06 and "Septic System Repair Plan, Revision #5," by Mr. Neff, dated 12/9/05 and revised to 3/4/06 subject to the following conditions:
1. A $30,000 bond shall be posted to cover all protective measures and long term mitigation and professional monitoring on behalf of the Commission of water quality, testing pre, during, and post construction according to the guidance of our consultant sufficient to determine the impacts of development and including a minimum testing for phosphorus, nitrogen, fecal coliform, and total suspended solids in a number of locations to address the concerns of the Commission. If there are adverse impacts detected, then further mitigation measures shall be implemented under the direction of the Commission's consultants.
2. A detailed chronological construction sequence and a sequence for implementation, including the vegetative buffer planting, shall be developed by the applicant or at the applicant's expense.
3. All conditions of approval shall be listed on the site development mylar. The mylar and construction and implementation sequences shall be filed in the Town Clerk's Office on the Land Records and referenced in the deed.
4. The limits of disturbance shall be marked in the field prior to breaking ground or clearing (pre construction) using a substantial and durable barrier such as 4 X 4 posts and boards or orange construction barrier.
5. The boundaries of the protective buffer areas shall be permanently marked with durable posts and signs every 30 to 50 feet depending on the configuration of the line prior to the start of work.
6. There shall be monitoring a minimum of two times a week and as needed of the site work and compliance with the permit conditions by the Commission's consultant with a memo to the Wetlands file each time regarding the condition of the site and the compliance with the provisions of the application as approved through final site stabilization.
7. Substantial measures shall be taken to prevent the reuse of the driveway and road areas proposed for abandonment beyond the extent of the stippled driveway titled, existing gravel drive, including removal of the culvert crossing the watercourse to the northwest of the house. The driveway shall not be paved.
8. There shall be no future additions to impervious surfaces or additions to the proposed building or additional buildings within the upland review areas as shown on the site plan.
9. No chemicals, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, or fungicides shall be used in the upland review area.
10. The vegetative buffers shall be evaluated for effectiveness by the Commission's consultants and augmented as necessary according to their recommendations.
11. All inspection reports and water quality monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Land Use Office and distributed to the commissioners.
12. A 20 foot wide vegetative buffer shall be installed along the northern portion of the existing stone wall between the house and the pond.
By Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere.
Vote: 2-3.
LaMuniere and Thomson: Yes
Coe, Picton, and Purnell: No
Mr. Picton listed the following reasons for denial:
1. The plan presented is not consistent with the basics of what was proposed for development of the site by the applicant's professionals, which was minimal increase in building size due to the constraints of the site and the associated risks to wetlands and watercourses.
2. Alternatives exist, which would have a lesser impact on wetlands, including the one for a new house with a slight or no increase in size, just as recommended by EMS, on the same footprint or one farther from down slope wetlands. Another alternative is to maintain the structure in its present configuration for seasonal use and build a residence in either or both of the other unrestricted areas on the 210+ acre parcel.
3. The likelihood that proposed protective measures and mitigation upon which the conclusion of no significant impact relies, will be carried out successfully in every respect on such a constrained site is not high and it is not believed they will be carried out in the way they are proposed and there would be nothing the Commission could do about it. This is based on the Commission's experience, logic, and the materials in the file.
4. The long term effect of adverse changes to water quality from human activities in such close proximity to wetlands and watercourses has not been addressed adequately in the application and probably can't be with the limited separating distances available. This is also based on data in the file on buffer functions and distances.
5. Due to the increased building size and use, the contaminant sources that have been cited earlier pose additional increased risks associated with non point source pollution and furthermore, the list of conditions for approval, which the Commission felt was necessary to make this a successful project if the Commission did approve it, is not manageable to the point where there is a likelihood that they will be carried out successfully.
Ms. Purnell referred to her list of existing impacts as her basis for denial, saying the proposal would not result in any measurable improvement and the Commission still had not addressed whether or not there would still remain an impact(s) to this site. The impacts exist now and they have not been evaluated to the best of our abilities. There is still additional information that would help the Commission render its decision.
MOTION: To adjourn. By Mr. Picton.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
March 29, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton Ms. Purnell
MEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. D. Hill
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Ms. Coe
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Olson, Mr. Owens, Mr. Majewski, Mr. Neff, Atty. Kelly
Spring Hill Farms, LLC./69 Whittlesey Road/#IW-05-74/Reconstruct, Enlarge, Relocate Existing Building/Con't.
Mr. Picton reconvened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Coe for Mrs. Hill. Mr. Ajello read the list of documents, which had been submitted to the file since the last session of the hearing. Mr. Picton asked if there was any new information to be submitted and Mr. Owens responded there was not. Atty. Kelly asked if Land Tech's 3/22/06 letter was included. Mr. Picton said it was.
Mr. Picton noted Mr. Allan, in that 3/22/06 letter, had stated all of his concerns had been adequately addressed. Ms. Purnell pointed out that Mr. Allan's item #7 stressed that the natural character and functions of the wetlands were likely to remain unchanged as a result of the proposed house reconstruction and said it was up to the Commission to interpret the impact of the existing structure. Atty. Kelly disagreed, saying if an interpretation was to be made, Mr. Allan should be present to make it.
Mr. LaMuniere thought Mr. Neff, the applicant's engineer, had been very responsive to the issues raised in Land Tech's original review dated 2/23/06.
Ms. Coe questioned whether the application addressed the potential long term impacts of the proposal and wondered how the Commission could be sure the proposed mitigation would be effective and would remain in place as required. She asked how the Commission could guarantee the property would be used as approved and how the difference between the existing seasonal and proposed year round use could be measured. She noted the engineering review had not addressed those questions. Ms. Purnell noted Mr. Allen had been asked what the impact to the wetlands and watercourses would be as a result of the increase in both the footprint and use of the proposed house, but he had told the Commission this was unquantifiable. Ms. Coe said she trusted his findings concerning short term impacts, but said she was still bothered by the issue of long term impacts. Mr. Owens noted the applicant's consultant, Mr. Majewski, had advised the Commission the septic system would perform better with more and year round use and noted the existing cess pool would be replaced with a septic system further from the wetlands. Regarding runoff, he stated there would be a net improvement because although the roof area would be larger, the runoff would be better managed. Ms. Purnell did not think these points addressed the question of the impact of a larger building.
Mr. LaMuniere said the Commission could not legislate the future. He advised the commissioners to assess the physical impacts of the proposal and to make sure its design was sound.
Mr. Bedini noted this was a complex application and that the work done by all the engineers and the back and forth consultation between them had been useful and helpful. He said his only concern was that if an approval was granted there had to be measures in place to monitor the work to ensure it was done in compliance with the permit.
Ms. Purnell noted the public hearing was the forum to receive information and the deliberation by the commissioners should take place at the special meeting. She asked if the time in which to make a decision could be extended. Mr. Ajello stated the 65 days in which to render a decision would expire on 4/9/06. She asked if the applicant was willing to grant an extension. Mrs. Hill stated the maximum 65 days had already been granted. It was also noted later in the meeting that the applicant was not willing to grant any further extensions.
Ms. Purnell submitted articles on the use of road sand and salt for the record since the use of the property would be expanded to year round use. These were "Snow, Road Salt, and the Chesapeake Bay," by Mr. Schueler from the Center of Watershed Protection and "Increased Salinization of Fresh Water in the Northeastern United States," from the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 2005. Mr. Picton thought there would also be an apparent increase in the use of household chemicals and nutrients from landscaping maintenance chemicals and that the watercourses could experience thermal warming from the roof and driveway runoff. He questioned what affect the increased use of road salt and other ice melting chemicals would have on the wetland biology. Ms. Purnell also submitted a report on pesticide levels in streams, "Pesticides Found in Streams Across the United States" and excerpts of "Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection," by Mr. Schueler from the Center of Watershed Protection, dated December 1995. Atty. Kelly objected to the submission of the articles because he said 1) Ms. Purnell was not qualified to interpret them and she was representing herself as an expert, 2) it was not known whether they were relevant to the application, and 3) the authors of the articles were not present for him to cross examine. Atty. Kelly questioned whether the public hearing had been necessary and said all the qualified experts had stated the proposed activities would cause no significant impact. He also stated Ms. Purnell had misinterpreted Mr. Allan's statement in his 3/22/06 letter. He then said that two commission members who were not experts were "sourcing" the record without Mr. Allan's testimony that the documents submitted were relevant. He accused Ms. Purnell of bias and asked that she recuse herself. Atty. Olson said the commissioners had the right to submit material for the record. Further, she stated they were not restricted by what their consultant said and if the applicant did not agree with the decision made or how that decision was arrived at, he had the right to appeal. Atty. Kelly argued that the commissioners may not decide that a significant impact may exist without expert testimony. Atty. Olson noted the Commission was not limited to the report submitted by any one consultant. She asked Atty. Kelly if he refuted any of the information on the record. Atty. Kelly objected that the applicant would not have time to read the articles just submitted. Ms. Purnell explained she had submitted the articles because the Commission's consultant had not been able to give quantifiable answers to the questions raised and this material might help the commissioners to quantify the long term impacts of a larger house and the increase to year round use. She said she was not biased, she had made no predetermination, and the reports were from reputable sources such as the National Academy of Sciences. She also listed some of her qualifications and work experience. Atty. Kelly stated he thought Ms. Purnell's actions were highly inappropriate. Atty. Olson noted it was not known whether the articles were important evidence at this time and there was no basis for him to assume the Commission would deny the application based on any of them.
Mr. Picton asked Atty. Olson if she thought the public hearing was called properly. She said it was.
Mr. Picton asked if it was true that if the Commission finds the proposed activities may have a significant impact on wetlands and watercourses, the Commission may not approve the application unless a feasible and prudent alternative does not exist. Atty. Kelly noted if the Commission does not find there is a significant impact, feasible and prudent alternatives are not relevant to the Commission. Atty. Olson said that was correct. Atty. Kelly objected to Mr. Picton's use of the word, "may," saying the Commission would have to determine it was likely there would be a significant impact in order to deny the application.
Mr. Picton asked if the applicant would discontinue the farm access road and if he would agree to this as a condition of approval. Atty. Kelly answered yes to both, saying the road would be discontinued at the house. He added that the applicant was open to any reasonable suggestion.
Mr. Picton asked how many stories were proposed. Mr. Owens, architect, said one and a half stories.
Mr. Picton noted Mr. Owens had previously confirmed the proposed footprint was approximately two and a half times larger than the existing building.
Mr. Picton pointed out what he thought were discrepancies in the information submitted by the applicant. 1) In the January ESM report, the replacement of the house with a "slightly larger" structure, not a structure with a footprint two and a half times larger, was considered. 2) The conclusion had been made that there would be no long term impacts, but non point source pollution had not been addressed. 3) On page 4 of his impact analysis, Mr. Majewski discussed the alternatives that might have less risk of an adverse impact. One alternative was a larger house, but this alternative was discarded due to site constraints, yet a larger house was, indeed proposed. Mr. Majewski said Mr. Picton was exaggerating the increase in the size of the house and noted it had been moved farther from the wetlands.
Mr. Johnson asked how the Commission decided there would be an increase in the use of the building. Ms. Purnell said due to the increase in size and with the septic improvements proposed more people would likely use it. Ms. Coe said the building was being winterized so it would be used all year round. Mr. Johnson said during the last five years two families had lived in the cabin and that the current owner did not expect to use it full time so the use would decrease. Atty. Kelly said the structure could be used now or in the future as much or as little as any other home. Atty. Olson noted the Commission had the right to consider the intensity of the proposed use. Ms. Purnell read a portion of Section 8.4 of the Regulations, referring to factors to consider when evaluating an application. Atty. Kelly objected, saying it was not the residence, it was the construction of the residence that was the proposed activity. Ms. Purnell said there were uses associated with residences such as maintenance of the structure and snow plowing that could be considered.
Ms. Purnell described the 9/20/05 article from the National Academy of Sciences on watershed protection and a recent USGS publication on pesticide levels in streams that she submitted for the record. Mr. Picton noted that if the Commission's decision was based on any of the information contained in those articles, it would first make a determination that it was relevant. Atty. Olson agreed that ultimately the Commission would have to make a determination that they were relevant, but it was not necessary at this point. Mr. LaMuniere and Ms. Purnell briefly explained why they thought the review of this scientific data would help them to determine whether the proposed activity would likely have a significant impact and might help them to render a decision, whether it be to approve or deny or to condition approval in a particular manner.
Mr. Neff, the applicant's engineer, said he understood the Commission's concern about lawn chemicals and salt, but pointed out the amount of finished lawn area would be reduced and the length of the driveway shortened. Therefore, he said, there would be a decrease in the amount of chemicals and salt used. Ms. Purnell noted their proximity to the wetlands, however.
Ms. Coe asked if the road was plowed now. Atty. Kelly said it was. Mr. LaMuniere suggested a condition of approval could be that no salt could be used on the road. Ms. Purnell thought that would be impossible to enforce. Atty. Kelly said there was no evidence the driveway ever had or ever would be salted, so he did not understand why it was critical to the discussion concerning this application. Ms. Purnell stated it was being addressed because the Commission had asked Mr. Allan a direct question, what impact would changing the building from seasonal to year round use have, but had received no answer. Atty. Kelly stated he was sure the applicant would not use salt on the driveway. Ms. Purnell pointed out the decision would run in perpetuity. Atty. Kelly said she could not assume future owners would violate the permit. Atty. Olson noted the Commission was concerned with this application and its impacts and how it might impose conditions to control those impacts. Ms. Purnell noted that in her experience having served 8-9 years on the Commission, she found the Commission often carefully crafted conditions to minimize impacts only to find later that the owners had encroached somehow. Mr. Picton agreed that in the Commission's experience it was difficult to enforce conditions for wetlands protection in the long term. Ms. Purnell referred to a report from the state of Washington that stated within 2 to 8 years after approval, 95% of the required buffers showed some degree of encroachment. Mr. LaMuniere thought the Commission should focus on implementing conditions to minimize the impacts addressed by its consultant.
Ms. Purnell noted in this case the feasible and prudent alternatives were limited by the historic conservation easement on the property.
Ms. Purnell asked that Mr. Jontos' white paper on vegetative buffers, "Vegetative Buffers for Water Quality Protection: An Introduction and Guidance Document," revised to 2/21/04 be included in the record. She noted it contained information on the buffer widths required for protection from sediment and nutrients and other potential impacts.
Atty. Kelly submitted the 1/11/06 Special Meeting minutes in which Atty. Zizka addressed many questions, which, he said, Ms. Purnell did not understand.
There were no other questions or comments from the commissioners or from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
This hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
Special Meeting
Mr. Picton called the Special Meeting to order at 7:23 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Coe for Mrs. D. Hill.
Mr. Picton noted the application was very complicated and would require a carefully worded motion with many conditions to cover long term maintenance, bond, mitigation, implementation of protection measures in perpetuity, no additional impervious surfaces, and abandonment of the farm road, etc. He was concerned such conditions would not be enforceable in perpetuity.
Ms. Purnell said she was concerned about the proximity of the proposed activities to the wetlands and watercourses. She thought the existing building and conditions resulting from it were grandfathered, but since the applicant was proposing to change the footprint, the existing site conditions had to be addressed and improved. She asked whether the Commission would permit the proposed structure in this larger configuration and in this location if it were new. She thought it would be looking to move it further from the wetlands in order to lessen the long term impacts. Mr. Picton agreed, noting one alternative would be the construction of only a slightly larger building mostly on the existing footprint; alternate D as offered by Mr. Majewski.
Mr. Picton said the Commission's consultant had not dealt with non point source pollution. Mr. LaMuniere did not think issues already addressed by the consultant should be reopened. He read point #7 of Mr. Allan's 3/22/06 letter, which stated, "the natural character and functions of the site's wetlands are likely to remain unchanged as a result of the proposed house construction." Mr. Picton thought Mr. Allan had signed off on the engineering, but not on all aspects of the application. He asked Atty. Olson whether Mr. Allan's letter precluded the Commission from discussing any other considerations. Atty. Olson said it did not, but noted the discussion of other concerns should be tied to the premise of the likelihood of adverse impact. She also thought it would be difficult to formulate conditions of approval based on the Commission's experience with other applicants.
Ms. Coe thought there were so many wetlands surrounding the site that there was a greater chance they would be impacted. Atty. Olson said it was the Commission's job to determine whether there would be unacceptable impacts and whether they could be fixed through conditions of approval. Mr. Bedini said he was bothered by conditions that might not be enforceable over the long term. Ms. Purnell asked if the Commission could require a bond large enough for twenty years' evaluation. Mr. Bedini questioned whether the Commission could ensure the evaluation would be done for that period of time. He thought the conditions should be limited to the period of the construction process since enforcement would then be doable. Ms. Purnell said she could not approve the application in that case because the mitigation areas and planted buffers had to be guaranteed for the long term or it could not be determined there would be no significant impact to wetlands and watercourses. Mr. Bedini asked for the definition of long term. Mr. Picton said it was in perpetuity.
The commissioners discussed whether they would vote to deny or to approve with conditions and whether to try to craft motions tonight or hold another Special Meeting. Ms. Coe and Ms. Purnell were undecided. Mr. Bedini said he would not be able to decide until both motions with conditions of approval and reasons for denial had been drafted. Mr. LaMuniere said he would vote to approve with conditions. Mr. Picton asked the commissioners to draft two motions, one for approval with conditions and one for denial with relevant reasons. Mr. LaMuniere again noted if the Commission votes to deny the application it must find there would likely be a significant impact, which its consultant did not find. Atty. Olson advised the commissioners to work on their own motions and conditions of approval for discussion at another meeting.
Mr. Picton asked Atty. Olson if one condition could be that the house may not be any larger than the existing structure. Atty. Olson advised him to first determine what the impact would be and if he was convinced there would be a likely impact, then to articulate the reasons based on technical and scientific data.
Ms. Purnell asked if and how the Commission could quantify its experience. Atty. Olson said it could, but that it had to be done within the parameter of its Regulations.
A Special Meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, April 5, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct. Atty. Olson will attend. The commissioners were asked to draft two motions to be discussed.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Bedini.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 8:01 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
March 22, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Ms. PurnellMEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Picton
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Thomson
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Munson, Mr. Neff, Mr. Rosiello
Mrs. D. Hill called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Purnell and Alternate Thomson for Mr. Picton.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: 1) New Applications: A. Schaffner/12 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-06-11/ Inground Pool, B. Linen/34-38 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-06-12/Site Grading, C. Town of Washington/2 Bryan Plaza/#IW-06-13E/ Plant Vegetative Buffer Around Pond: 2) Enforcement: A. Potter/220 Old Litchfield Road/Unauthorized Cutting and Soil Disturbance: 3) Allen/159 Popple Swamp Road/Site Plan Review for Single Family Dwelling. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 3/8/06 Regular Meeting - Public Hearing - Show Cause Hearing minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Add to Also Present: Mr. Brighenti and Mr. Fenwick
Pages 5-6: Change to "coarse" meadow grass.
Page 9: Sentence beginning in the 5th line under Brighenti: Insert: "sloped up" before "from the wetlands."
3rd line under Private Mortgage Fund: Correct date of revised map is 3/3/06
Page 10: 2nd line under the motion: Correct spelling is Allan.
Page 11: 7th line: Change "requested" to "suggested."
10th line: Insert: "on the lot" after "existing line."
Last sentence under Kleinberg: Insert at the end: "...following submission and payment of that firm's estimated fee by the applicant."
Page 12: 6th line from bottom under Calhoun Street Trust: Change: "serious" to "comprehensive."
Last line under Calhoun St. Trust: Add: "fee" at end of the sentence.
Last sentence under Getnick: Delete: "...the size of...."
Page 14: 5th line under DEP Permits: Correct spelling is Tessitore.
Under DEP Permits: Add final sentence: "Ms. Purnell offered an update on Roxbury's recent letter to the pesticide division of the DEP and the Attorney General's Office."
Page 15: Motion under Gatto: Add to end of 6th line: "and installation."
MOTION: To accept the Public Hearing-Show Cause Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Brighenti/49 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-71/Tennis Court: Mr. Ajello read sections of Mr. Allan's 3/22/06 review, which made two points: 1) It was likely additional work area would be required adjacent to the stone wall during its construction because the silt fence was shown at the edge of the wall, leaving no room for the work to be done and 2) There was a possibility that the depth and close proximity of the proposed excavation would result in the discharge of partially treated sewage onto the tennis court or into the gravel base at the at the western end of the septic system and then into the drainage system. Mr. Ajello noted the proposed cuts and fill would extend to within 12 feet of the septic system and that the Health Dept. had not yet reviewed the revised plan, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated March 2006. The Commission considered whether to address these two concerns with conditions of approval or to delay action on the application until the 3/29/06 Special Meeting in order to give the applicant time to address them. Mr. Neff, engineer, briefly described the curtain drain requirements around septic systems.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-05-71 submitted by Mr. Brighenti to construct a tennis court at 49 Calhoun Street per the map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated March 2006 subject to the following conditions: 1) the work area must be more clearly defined on the map to show the limit of disturbance and 2) Land Tech's 3/22/06 letter must be referred to the Health Dept. for review of the concerns raised in it. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded
Ms. Purnell noted for the record that the tennis court had been pulled back from the wetlands since the original submission, that the proposed area of disturbance had been minimized, additional drainage had been proposed and it had been directed away from the wetlands, and the court would now be more than 150 feet from the wetlands, all of which meant there would be less chance of an adverse impact to the wetlands.
Spring Hill Farms, LLC./69 Whittlesey Road/#IW-05-74/Reconstruct, Enlarge, Relocate Building: The public hearing was continued to Wednesday, March 29, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.
Kessler/103-105 West Mountain Road/#IW-06-05/Two Dwellings, Driveway Crossing, Etc.: The public hearing was continued to Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.
Kleinberg/181 West Shore Road/#IW-06-07/Driveway and Utilities: After a brief discussion it was the consensus a public hearing should be scheduled to consider this application.
MOTION: To schedule a public hearing to consider Application #IW-06-07 submitted by Mr. Kleinberg to install a driveway and utilities at 181 West Shore Road on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct. because given the proximity to Lake Waramaug and the steepness of the slope there is a likelihood of adverse impact to the lake and it is in the public interest because this is one of the last wooded lots on Lake Waramaug. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Getnick/237 West Shore Road/#IW-06-11/Repair Retaining Wall: Mr. Ajello read the description of the proposed work and the reviewed the 3/2/90 site plan with handwritten notes regarding the length of wall to be repaired. Mrs. D. Hill asked if a reasonable amount of material was proposed for the project. Mr. Ajello said the amounts listed were reasonable and that the work would be done by hand.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-09 submitted by Mrs. Getnick to repair the shoreline wall at 237 West Shore Road per the plans submitted with the condition that the work be done only during a time of low water between June and September 30. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini.
A discussion followed regarding whether the repair work could be done any time of the year during low water or only during the summer months. Mr. Ajello thought the work should be allowed now so the property could be enjoyed during the summer, while Ms. Purnell noted that instream work and work around the lake had always been approved for the summer months only so that it would not be subjective. It was the consensus that if the Commission varied the work time for this applicant, others might also ask for special dispensation. Mr. Ajello argued that if the work was done now, the vegetation would be reestablished earlier in the year. Mrs. Hill noted a motion had been made and seconded.
Vote: 5-0.
Averill/7 Titus Road/#IW-06-10ATF/Excavation: Mr. Ajello reported that Mr. Averill had been unable to remove the stockpiled material due to a backup at the treatment plant and also that excavation and removal of an additional foot of soil near the river was scheduled for Monday, March 27th. That soil would be tested to determine whether any more soil would have to be removed. Mr. Ajello said Mr. Averill was considering a smaller gravel parking area for undamaged vehicles only. He said pavement, slopes, curbs, etc. had been discussed, but not underlayment. Ms. Purnell suggested an underlayment of impervious geotextile fabric 6" below the surface because the parking lot would be so close to the river. Mr. Bedini suggested a curbed containment area, but Mr. Ajello noted Mr. Averill plows snow towards the river. It was the consensus that the parking area would be discussed further when Mr. Averill submits a plan with additional information. The commissioners agreed this was an after the fact application and asked that the after the fact fee be submitted.
New Applications
Marbledale Pub/ New Milford Turnpike: Mr. Ajello noted this had been included on the agenda because an application had been expected. However, no application was submitted.
Schaffner/12 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-06-11/Swimming Pool: Mr. Neff, engineer, briefly reviewed the application for the installation of a 16' X 32' pool and his map, "Proposed Swimming Pool Site Plan," revised to 3/20/06. Mr. Neff noted the site conditions on the lot were unusual because the wetlands boundary runs through the existing dwelling. He submitted a copy of the 7/6/88 soils report by ConnSoil. He explained the proposed site was on the west side of the house in an existing lawn area, and that the limit of disturbance would be 51 feet from the wetlands at its closest point. He noted the pool would be located in the well radius. Mr. Neff stated the pool would have a cartridge type filter and a non discharge filtration system. Ms. Purnell asked for the percentage of pools that develop leaks. Mr. Neff responded that liner pools would be more susceptible to leaks than concrete pools would be. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, April 4, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. Ms. Purnell asked that the location be staked prior to the inspection.
Linen/34-38 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-06-12/Site Grading: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented the map, "Proposed Site Plan," dated 12/21/05. He explained most of the site development would take place outside the regulated area, but some regrading would be required for the driveway and on the east side of the house below the septic system. He pointed out the location of the existing stone wall, which would remain as a barrier between the site work and the wetlands and noted erosion and sedimentation controls would be installed downgrade of the regraded areas. Mr. Neff compared the original feasibility plan, "Proposed Site Development Plan," revised to 7/3/04 with the current plan. Ms. Purnell noted with the driveway changes proposed, the impervious surfaces would increase by approximately 50%. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, April 4, 2006 at 4:44 p.m.
Town of Washington/2 Bryan Plaza/#IW-06-13E/Plant Vegetative Buffer Around Pond: Mr. Charles recused himself because he is a member of WEC, which would be funding the project, and had helped draft the planting plan. Mr. Ajello briefly explained the proposal to plant a buffer around the fire pond in back of the Town Hall. Plants would be obtained from NCD and planted in phases to determine how they will do in the gravelly soil before proceeding with the entire project. Ms. Purnell reviewed the plant list, noted they would be planted by hand, and objected to the proposed willow. It was the consensus of the Commission that the willow should not be planted because it has shallow roots and the pond has an earthen embankment.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-13E submitted by the Town of Washington to plant a vegetative buffer around the pond at 2 Bryan Plaza with the condition that the proposed willow tree not be planted. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.
Enforcement
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/Unauthorized Construction: Mrs. J. Hill noted she would assign this matter a violation number. Mr. Rosiello, landscape architect, Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Munson, contractor, were present. Mr. Ajello said a planting/mitigation plan shown on a section of the "House Site Plan" had been submitted. Mrs. D. Hill noted this was shown on just a portion of the site plan and was not the comprehensive plan the Commission had requested at the last meeting. It was the consensus it would be easier to evaluate the latest proposal if all the work was shown at a larger scale on a single map of the entire property. Mr. Neff agreed to provide it. Ms. Purnell noted that new stairs next to the retaining wall were shown on the map. Mr. Rosiello said he understood any revisions had to be approved by the Commission. The mitigation plan was discussed. Mr. Rosiello said he had not yet drafted a written plan; he wanted direction first from the Commission. Mr. Munson explained he had concentrated on the mitigation plan rather than a comprehensive map because he hoped the Commission would allow the retaining walls to remain if it found the mitigation satisfactory. Ms. Purnell asked if additional walls were proposed. Mr. Neff responded they would apply for additional walls in a separate application. Mrs. D. Hill noted one condition of a previous approval for this property was a 30 ft. wide buffer around the wetlands. Mr. Rosiello proposed to increase that buffer to 50 feet. The partial site plan was reviewed and Mr. Rosiello pointed out the back area that had been planted to prevent the caretaker from working in the buffer area, the access area to the rear portion of the property, and the point where the unauthorized retaining walls were only 57 feet from the wetlands. A site inspection was scheduled for April 4, 2006 at 5:15 p.m. Mr. LaMuniere hoped the comprehensive map would be ready by that date to help the Commission evaluate the scope of the work.
Beck/132 Calhoun Street/#IW-02-V1/Cutting and Clearing in Wetlands:
Mr. Ajello reported there had been progress on resolving this matter. Mrs. Beck agreed to post a maintenance bond of $800 to $900 and the Commission would monitor the site for two years.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road (141 Shinar Mountain Road)/#IW-04-V8/ Repair of Retaining Wall: Ms. Purnell noted she had written a draft letter and would email it to all commissioners for review before the next meeting.
Reinhardt/10 Perkins Road and Cremona/8 Perkins Road/Clearcutting: This pending litigation was discussed later in the meeting under Executive Session.
Taylor/11 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Excavation in Wetlands: There was no new information on this matter. Mr. Ajello will send another enforcement letter.
Pasatieri/57 Findley Road/Septic Repair Within 100 ft. of Stream: Mr. Ajello will try to find a better map of the property and develop a more complete file on this matter.
9 Main Street Assoc./9 Main Street/Unauthorized Construction of Stone Wall: Mr. Johnson continues to work on the planting plan requested by the Commission.
Peck/10 Slaughterhouse Road/Excavation, Tree Removal: Mr. Ajello reported he had mailed the required letter to Mr. Peck to inform him the Show Cause Hearing had been conducted and the 3/1/06 enforcement order would remain in effect. Mr. Peck has hired a soil scientist who will do testing after the frost is gone.
Averill-Titus Park Garage/7 Titus Road/Unauthorized Excavation: Mr. Ajello noted Mr. Averill is selling his business, not the property. It was the consensus to remove this matter from Enforcement as there is a pending application. Mr. LaMuniere voiced his concern about the parking of wrecked vehicles so close to the Shepaug River. Mr. Ajello said Mr. Averill understands the Commission's concerns and is working on a plan to correct the problem.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clearcutting: Mr. Ajello noted this matter was addressed in his enforcement report and he circulated photos of the existing conditions on the property. He said Mr. Moore was cooperating and the clean up had begun. The commissioners requested that the wetlands be flagged before they conduct a site inspection of the property. It was the consensus that a citation should be issued immediately because work was done directly in the wetlands and that a site inspection would be conducted before deciding whether to issue an enforcement order.
Potter/220 Old Litchfield Road/Unauthorized Clearing: Mr. Ajello reported a notice of violation had been sent to the property owner. He said that clearing had been done within the upland review area and that he had asked that the fallen timber be left on site for erosion control. He anticipated sending an enforcement order for the replacement of vegetation with appropriate wetlands species within 100 feet of the wetlands flags. There was a general discussion regarding whether an application to Wetlands should be required in this case or in any other where the proposed site development is outside the upland review area. Ms. Purnell and Mrs. D. Hill noted the Wetlands Commission has always reviewed applications when there are wetlands on the property as it is up to the Commission, not the applicant, to determine whether it has jurisdiction. It was also noted regrading, filling, and potential impacts have always been considered by the Commission. Mr. Ajello said this would be costly and slow up the permit process for applicants. Mrs. D. Hill said it would not because the property owners could come in for a jurisdictional ruling, which would then be on record. For this particular situation, it was the consensus an application was required for the proposed site development because there are wetlands on the property and there have already been violations. Mr. Ajello was asked to send an enforcement letter regarding the clearing done in the upland review area. It was the consensus an after the fact application fee would not be required.
Other Business
Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Release of Bond: There was nothing new to report.
Revision of the Regulations/Section 8.1: A public hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday, April 26, 2006.
Walker Brook Subdivision II, New Milford: Ms. Purnell is drafting a letter to WEC to request funding for a base study of Walker Brook. She will submit the finished draft to the Commission for review. Mr. Bedini asked if the DEP would be involved in the study. Ms. Purnell said it would not because it did not have adequate staffing and remarked that she had been disappointed with the level of review by the fisheries dept.
Allen/158 Popple Swamp Road/Single Family Dwelling: Mrs. D. Hill had requested the site development plan be brought to the Commission for review because activities just outside the 100 ft. setback had been approved by the WEO. The map, "Proposed Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 9/6/06 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello noted a map of the entire parcel had not been submitted. The commissioners reaffirmed their policy of reviewing all site development plans with activities within 200 feet of wetlands and watercourses, with Mr. LaMuniere being the one member who did not think this was necessary. Ms. Coe noted this would help make property owners aware that the Wetlands Commission takes its responsibilities seriously. Ms. Purnell pointed out that in addition to the Commission's plan review, the WEO must inspect all sites because plans are often incomplete as far as showing all activities proposed and locating all wetlands and watercourses.
Ms. Purnell noted she had information about the impacts of road salt and sand on wetlands and watercourses and on rain gardens and would forward it to everyone to review.
The parking area for Titus Road Garage was discussed again. Mr. Bedini noted that if the parking area was paved, gas could leak through the blacktop and so a containment pad made of a particular kind of concrete should be required. Ms. Purnell also recommended a concrete lip. Mr. Bedini thought the Commission had missed this point when it acted on the Denscott application. Ms. Purnell noted that in the Depot there were many opportunities to implement added protection for the Shepaug; biofiltration basins, for example. She thought Mr. Averill should seriously study construction options for his parking lot to ensure pollutants could not seep into the ground or the river. Mr. Bedini agreed, saying that once the soil is contaminated, it is too late. He noted long term construction sites where equipment and vehicles are refueled can result in spills and contamination of sites. Ms. Purnell recommended that the Inland Wetlands Commission send a thoughtful letter to the Planning Commission to recommend it consider this issue as it works on the Depot study. Mr. Ajello suggested the Zoning Commission should be contacted, too.
MOTION: To go into Executive Session at 10:15 p.m. to discuss pending litigation. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To come out of Executive Session at 10:26 p.m. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mrs. Hill adjourned the meeting at 10:27 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
March 8, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Thomson
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Jontos, Mr. Owens, Mr. DeSantos, Mr. Charles, Mr./Mrs. Poskas, Mr. Neff, Mr. Allan, Atty. Kelly, Mrs. LaVerge, Mr. Munson, Mr. Wilson, Atty. Olson, Ms. Saul, Mr. Spath, Mr. Mack, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Kessler/103-105 West Mountain Road/#IW-06-05/Two Dwellings, Driveway Crossing, Excavate Basin, Etc.
Mr. Picton called the public hearing to order at 5:05 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Picton and Alternate Coe for Ms. Purnell. He noted there was only an hour scheduled for the hearing and so hoped to keep to the following schedule; 20 minutes each for the applicant's presentation, questions from the Commission, and comments from the public. He referred to the list of documents in the file, which included all of the documents from the first application, and said they were all available for public inspection.
Ms. Purnell arrived at this point.
Mr. Owens, architect, submitted the following documents for the record: 1) the 3/8/06 transmittal to Mr. Ajello from Mr. Owens listing the documents the applicant requests be included in the record. Mr. Owens asked that this list be checked against the Commission's list referred to previously by Mr. Picton. 2) the 3/2/06 letter from Mr. and Mrs. Kessler re: their apologies for not being able to attend the hearing. 3) the 3/8/06 letter to Mr. Picton from Halper Owens Architects re: revisions to its original 1/11/06 analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives. 4) The plan, "Main House Alternative, #A004," dated 3/8/06, by Halper Owens Architects, which he described as a grading study of the house totally removed from the upland review area.
Mr. Picton introduced Mr. DeSantos, the Commission's consultant from Fuss and O'Neill.
Mr. Jontos, applicants' consultant, listed his credentials and submitted the following information: 1) the 3/8/06 letter to Mr. Picton and Commissioners re: response to the Fuss and O'Neill review, 2) the 3/8/06 letter to Mr. Ajello from Mr. Jontos re: update on the Natural Diversity Data Base species, 3) the 2/21/06 memo to Mr. Jontos from Mr. Allan, re: additional soils investigation, and 4) "Wetland Mitigation Plan," by Land Tech Consultants, Inc., revised to 3/8/06. He then briefly described the different types of wetlands and watercourses on the property and the activities proposed.
Mr. Jontos stated that other than the proposed planting, the only direct impact to the wetlands and watercourses would be the replacement of the bridge. He quickly detailed revisions to the plans and responses to the revised Fuss and O'Neill report. These included: 1) He proposed to leave the sediment in the basin behind the weir and instead introduce vegetation by seed and direct planting. This would enhance the condition of the basin by using bioremediation to remove the accumulated nutrients within the system and it would also diversify the habitat. Thus, the revised plan eliminated a direct impact to wetlands. 2) He explained how the increase in runoff generated by the 3000 sq. ft. of impervious areas around the newly constructed house would be managed. A yard drain would be installed in the center of the driveway area. This would be discharged into a small plunge area in the center of the proposed bioretention area. Also, cross drainage over the driveway would flow to the stone weir, which would trap sediment. Mr. Jontos noted Fuss and O'Neill had requested additional soil testing, so deep tests pits were done. One was in the area proposed for the bioretention system and it was determined the Charlton soil in this location had excellent infiltration capacity. He reviewed the details on Sheet #2 of the mitigation plan for sheet flow to Wetland A, the installation of a level spreader, and the revegetation of the surface. Mr. Jontos said soils tests were done to the east of the driveway, but it was found this area was not suitable for the installation of an infiltration system. He noted if the Commission was uncomfortable with the plans for the bioretention system, then an infiltration system with a locus spreader, which flows through a vegetative filter and then to the wetlands could be implemented. He reviewed the construction details, sequence of construction, and maintenance plans on Sheet 3, and stated in either case, the runoff would be managed in a way that would protect the surface and the groundwater quality. Mr. Picton asked Mr. DeSantos to review the revisions and improvements and comment on the alternative plans proposed.
The replacement of the bridge was discussed and the plan, "Proposed Driveway Bridge Installation, by Mr. Neff, revised to 2/18/06 was reviewed. Mr. Jontos stated this would require little activity in the streambed. Mr. Neff, engineer, said the temporary sediment basin details in this plan had been revised to reflect concerns raised by Fuss and O'Neill. The plans now called for a larger square basin with one row of hay bales and rip rap at the outlet of the discharge pipe.
Mr. Neff had also made changes to the "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," revised to 3/4/06 and the "Proposed Grading Plan," revised to 3/1/06 in response to comments by Fuss and O'Neill. Mr. Neff stated there was minor regrading proposed in spots, changes to the discharge basin, and the addition of a roof infiltration system for the guest house. He noted the site was very constrained and the Health Department had approved this infiltration system only 25 feet from the well. Again, Mr. Picton asked Mr. DeSantos to review the revisions.
As he thought the permanent protection of the wetlands buffers was critical to maintaining wetlands functions, Mr. Picton asked which activities actually would extend to the limit of disturbance line and what activities could be proposed as alternatives with less impact. He noted the width of the buffer needed to protect the wetlands would vary according to the steepness of slope and other site conditions.
Mr. Owens referred to the 20 scale main house proposal, which showed both the originally proposed location and an alternate location where it was completely outside the 100 ft. upland review area. He explained the original house site had been carefully selected to place it in a less risky position in relation to the existing slopes, where although it was on the edge of the steep slope, little regrading would be required. The alternate site, however, would require the building be raised in elevation 1 ft. resulting in a significant amount of regrading. Mr. Picton asked if it could be moved further back into the hill. Mr. Owen responded that part of the house would be underground and regrading would still be required. Mr. Picton responded that regrading on the side opposite the wetlands was of less concern to the Commission. He also asked why a change in architectural plans wasn't considered as a feasible and prudent alternative. Mr. Owens responded the plans met the objectives of his clients and would not cause an adverse impact to the wetlands.
Mr. Silverman, adjoining property owner, said he generally had no opposition to the proposal, noting one house on the property was better than two. Ms. Purnell noted two houses were proposed.
Mrs. Poskas, adjoining property owner, questioned what the impact would be on Sprain Brook. As a downstream neighbor, she stated this was her major concern. Mr. Picton advised her that the Commission was struggling with this question and had hired a consultant to thoroughly review the plans. He said the Commission was working to protect the brook from any impact.
Mr. Picton asked Mr. DeSantos when he reviewed the line of disturbance associated with the proposed activities to list the possible adverse impacts. He then asked if the surface was regraded and machinery was operated up to the limit of disturbance line, would this result in compacted soils that could result in an impact to the wetlands. Mr. DeSantos said it depended on the site hydrology and other factors such as the amount of additional impervious area, whether the runoff velocity had increased, whether erosion increased, etc. Mr. Picton asked him to review the limit of disturbance line in relation to the wetlands and whether soil compaction in this area would result in the loss of the soils' absorption capacity.
Mr. Owens noted the Commission should be concerned with likely adverse impacts, not possible adverse impacts to the wetlands. Ms. Purnell stated the Commission was concerned with both the short term impacts during and immediately after construction and the long term impacts. Atty. Olson explained the regulations govern likely impacts, but the Commission must look at all the possibilities in order to determine whether there are likely adverse impacts.
Mr. LaMuniere asked what measures the applicant proposed to remedy impacts such as soil compaction. He suggested they could be addressed with a precise construction sequence. He noted he was most concerned about the impacts immediately following construction and asked the applicant to demonstrate they would be minimal and would be corrected to the greatest extent possible.
The definition and method of measuring compaction were briefly discussed.
Mr. Picton asked if the soils in the stockpile area for the guest house were wetlands soils. Mr. Jontos said they were not, that this information was contained in his revised report, and that this stockpile had been relocated further south to avoid the spring activity in the area. Mr. Picton noted Mr. Wilson from Fuss and O'Neill had found wetlands soils in the stockpile area and so requested additional information from him. Mr. Jontos asked that Mr. Wilson identify the exact location of the wetlands soils.
Mr. Picton asked if the applicant had considered additional permanent protection of the critical portions of the upland review areas, which were indicated on the map as not to be disturbed. He noted, for example, the revised limit of disturbance line in the area near the guest house was only 20 ft. from wetlands. He asked what kind of work would be done within 20 ft. of wetlands and whether all types of work including operation of machinery would be permitted here. Mr. Owens said grading was specified for this area. Mr. DeSantos noted any trees to be cut beyond this line would have to be cut by hand. Mr. Jontos said he would add this note to the commentary.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if data had been submitted to show how much more disturbance would result from construction in the alternate main house location. Mr. Owens said it had. Mr. Picton asked Mr. DeSantos to investigate feasible and prudent alternatives including different configurations of the dwelling as well as different locations. Mr. Owens objected, saying it would be inappropriate to entertain a design process at the hearing unless it had been demonstrated the proposed activities would have a likely adverse impact on the wetlands.
There was a brief discussion regarding the continuation of the hearing. The Commissioners were asked to submit final questions by the next meeting at the latest. It was agreed the consultants could confer directly regarding the review of the materials submitted.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider Application #IW-06-05 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Kessler for two dwellings, driveway crossing, excavation of basin, etc. at 103-105 West Mountain Road to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
At 6:14 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the public hearing to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Spring Hill Farms, LLC./69 Whittlesey Road/#IW-05-74/Reconstruct, Enlarge, Relocate Building
Mr. Picton called the public hearing to order at 6:17 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell. He noted the Commission's technical consultant, Mr. Allan, and attorney, Ms. Olson, were present. For the record he then referred to the list of fifty-one documents in the file.
Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted revised plans, "Septic System Repair Plan," revised to 3/4/06, which addressed the points raised by Mr. Allan in his letter dated 2/23/06. Revisions included: 1) The building was relocated approximately half way between the pond and the wetlands to the north and had also been moved slightly west. Mr. Neff said this was a good idea because it would move the footing drain far enough away from the wetlands to the north so that it would not impact the groundwater table there. 2) Originally there were no plans to change the existing drainage ditch. The revised plans proposed to cut back the sides, install a turf stabilization blanket, and to plant a grass seed mix. 3) The stone wall would be moved to the south side of the ditch where it would create a permanent barrier between the ditch and the yard. 4) Orange barrier fencing would be installed along the limit of disturbance line so it would be clearly marked in the field. The limit of disturbance line was also added to the "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan." 5) Check dams would be installed in the ditch. Mr. Neff detailed their construction specifications. 6) The driveway loop was deleted and a new driveway route configured. A temporary contractors' parking area was shown on the site plan in an area where the wetlands would not be adversely impacted. The construction sequence noted this area would be removed and replanted upon the completion of construction. 7) Mr. Neff noted the overall area of disturbance had decreased due to the latest revisions. 8) A 25 ft. wide shrub buffer was added at the west side of the house as recommended by Mr. Allan. 9) An additional 40 ft. wide buffer area was added on the south side of the driveway. Invasive species will be removed in this area and it will be replanted with native plants and course grasses. The buffer area is addressed in the erosion control plan and the EMS planting plan. Mr. Picton noted limited cutting of the course grasses would be an improvement over the existing lawn. 10) To address the current erosion problem in the area at the southwest side of the house, the break in the stone wall would be widened to 20 ft. and the threshold rebuilt to make it into a level spreader, which would both slow the velocity and spread out the runoff to eliminate the erosive conditions below. 11) Repairs were proposed for the northeast corner of the stone wall where an erosion problem currently exists. A 10 ft. long return to create a catchment point would be constructed of dry stone so it would be porous enough for the drainage to flow through. Mr. Owens noted the position of the wall was at the edge of the maintained area and would permanently define the limits of this area so there would be no chance that it would be gradually enlarged.
Mr. Neff discussed the modifications to the plan, "Soil and Erosion Contol Plan," revised to 3/5/06. These included: 1) a cross section of the drainage ditch as detailed above, 2) addition of sections of the stone wall and overview of the drainage ditch, 3) modification of the construction sequence, and 4) addition of miscellaneous notes.
Mr. Owens submitted updated coverage figures resulting from the relocation of the house and reconfiguration of the driveway and pointed out there would be a significant reduction in coverage. The commissioners noted, however, this was accomplished by reducing the amount of driveway; the building footprint would more than double. Mr. Owens noted all the formerly untreated roof water will be recharged under the proposed plan. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Allan whether there was a qualitative difference in the building coverage, a hard surface, vs. the driveway surface coverage. He also asked Mr. Allan to address the increase in the building size in relation to the wetlands.
Representing the applicant, Atty. Kelly said these answers had already been covered in Mr. Allan's review, adding that Mr. Neff had made a good faith attempt to address each concern raised, so therefore, there would be no significant adverse impact to the wetlands or watercourse. He questioned the Commissioners' right to ask additional questions because he said it supposed they had a foundation as experts. Ms. Purnell explained the Commission generated a better response from its consultants when it asked its own questions for its own greater understanding. Atty. Olson noted new plans had been submitted this evening and the Commission had the right to ask additional questions.
Regarding the increase in the building footprint, Mr. Allan responded that although the size would, indeed, double, the stormwater infiltration system proposed would capture 99% of the runoff and be an improvement over the existing conditions. He noted the increased use of the site due to the improvements to the building was more difficult to quantify. Mr. Picton asked if he thought there would be an impact. Mr. Allan said even if there would, it would be confined to the area bound by the stone walls. He said the number of people who might use the building was not as important to consider as the area of impact and that had been the reason he had recommended the natural buffer areas. Ms. Purnell asked if he had any suggestions on how the Commission could ensure the course meadow remains course meadow, as it has been its experience that they usually get mowed and revert to lawn. Mr. Allan suggested 4X4 posts be installed with conservation emblems that state, don't mow beyond.... Mr. Picton noted the importance of keeping the mitigation long term. Ms. Purnell noted the other increase in use was seasonal to year round. She asked if that impact could be quantified when considering snow plowing and deicing. Mr. Allan noted the driveway was gravel so he did not think much sand would be used. Atty. Kelly said most of the driveway is the existing farm road and there was no intention to ever pave it. Ms. Purnell noted the buffer areas would help to ameliorate any problems. Ms. Purnell asked about the soil borings in the area of the foundation and whether the proposed foundation work would impact the subsurface flow in the area. Mr. Allan said he found no fault with the boring results and did not foresee that the foundation work would impact the pond.
Mrs. LaVerge noted she had written the ZBA a letter in support of the project.
Atty. Kelly attempted to get Mr. Allan to say for the record that each of the concerns raised in Land Tech's 2/23/06 review had been adequately addressed by the revised plans. Mr. Picton, however, asked that Mr. Allan do a thorough review of the plans and inform the Commission in writing whether or not all of his concerns had been addressed.
Atty. Kelly noted there had been a comment at an earlier meeting that the application was incomplete. Ms. Purnell said it appeared to be complete now, but she would have to go through it on her own to be sure. Atty. Kelly asked that she do that right now as his client had the right to know.
Atty. Kelly submitted the 3/8/06 letter in which he stated the following: 1) Under Section 22a-42a and 8-7d, the public hearing had to commence within 65 days of receipt of the application and therefore, the hearing was invalid. 2) It was his legal opinion that 69 Whittlesey Road is a valid, separate building lot. 3) Since the Commission had no legal right to hold a public hearing, it had no legal right to require the consideration of feasible and prudent alternatives. 4) The Inland Wetlands Commission only has the right to regulate activities, which are likely to adversely impact wetlands and watercourses, not their buffer areas. 5) The determination of whether there is likely to be a significant impact on a wetlands or watercourse must come from expert testimony.
Mr. Majewski, applicant's consultant, submitted his 3/8/06 letter to Mr. Kelly re: review of Commission's consultant's review and mitigation and planting plans.
There was a brief discussion regarding whether to continue the public hearing. It was the consensus that continuing the hearing to March 29th would provide the applicant with enough time to respond to Mr. Allan's comments if necessary.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing and to hold a Special Meeting to consider Application #IW-05-74 submitted by Spring Hill Farms, LLC. to rebuild, enlarge, and relocate the building at 69 Whittlesey Road to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
At 7:21 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the public hearing to Wednesday, March 29, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Peck/10 Slaughterhouse Road/Unauthorized Excavation and Tree Removal
Mr. Picton called the show cause hearing to order at 7:22 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
Mr. Ajello noted he had issued an enforcement order on March 1, 2006 and had discussed the violation with Mr. Peck who would not attend tonight's hearing to contest the order. He reported Mr. Peck was cooperating and had already hired a soil scientist to delineate the wetlands on the property.
Mr. Picton noted the order had been issued and the property owner did not contest it.
MOTION: To close the show cause hearing for Peck/10 Slaughterhouse Road/Unauthorized Cutting and Regrading. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton closed the hearing at 7:25 p.m.
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 meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: Other Business: 1) Revision of Section 8.1 of the Regulations and 2) 2 DEP Pesticide Application Permits. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 2/22/06 Show Cause Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: 9th line: Delete: "had" and "been" to read: ...wetlands and not authorized....
Page 5: End of the first motion: Change: Mr. Charles to Mr. LaMuniere.
Page 7: Under Washington Montessori School: 3rd line: Delete: "as required by Mr. Bernard."
MOTION: To accept the 2/22/05 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
The 2/28/06 Kleinberg Site Inspection minutes were accepted as corrected.
1) Correct the spelling of "perc" test.
2) 4th sentence: Insert "upward" to read: ...steeply upward to the south."
MOTION: To accept the 2/28/06 Kleinberg site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 2/28/06 Schneider site inspection minutes as submitted. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 2/28/06 Calhoun Street Trust site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Brighenti/49 Calhoun Street/#IW-05-71/Tennis Court: Mr. Brighenti submitted the A-2 survey map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated March 2006, which, he said, was revised according to Land Tech's recommendations. The major revision was the proposed stone retaining wall at the southwest corner of the court. The wall would be 4 ft. tall at its "worst" corner and would pull back the limit of disturbance to 164 ft. from the wetlands. He reviewed Mr. Allan's 1/24/06 report item by item and noted corresponding changes in the plan including: 1) There would be no disturbance or regrading on the steep slope. 2) All runoff was directed to the north. 3) No filling would be required except at the the one corner where the retaining wall would be built. 4) The silt fence was specified as the limit of disturbance line. It was also noted information on access routes and the limit of clearing was provided. The curtain drain details were discussed and it was noted they would take the overland flow as well as the court runoff. Mr. Brighenti noted the construction sequence had been submitted previously and he read M&M's construction timetable. Mr. Picton noted the plan was not engineered as had been requested by the Commission, but it was drawn according to Mr. Allan's recommendations. He advised Mr. Brighenti to wait for the dry season before beginning work. The commissioners thought the plan was greatly improved and responsive to the concerns raised. Mr. Allan will study the revised plans and submit a written review.
Spring Hill Farms, LLC./69 Whittlesey Road/#IW-05-74/Reconstruct, Enlarge, and Relocate Building: The public hearing was continued to 6:00 p.m. on 3/29/06. There was no further discussion.
Private Mortgage Fund, LLC./59 South Fenn Hill Road/#IW-06-01/Revisions to Original Permit: Driveway, Fence, Generator, Retaining Wall, Etc.: Mr. Fenwick, contractor, and Mr. Spath and Mr. Mack, engineers, were present. The revised plan, "Modified Site Plan," by Stuart Somers Co., LLC., revised to 3/13/06 was reviewed. Mr. Spath noted the slope had been revised to 2.5:1 from the original 2:1 proposed and that this had been made possible by moving the pool back. He said there would be no disturbance within 100 feet of wetlands. Mr. Spath and Mr. Mack explained the revisions made to the pool drains and noted they probably were not necessary because the flow drained away from the steep slope. Mr. Picton noted the retaining wall at the toe of the slope had been moved slightly further from the wetlands and asked that a limit of disturbance line be shown on the plan. Ms. Purnell asked if the fill already placed on site had been compacted in lifts. Mr. Spath said this would be done to ensure there would be no erosion. Mr. Fenwick noted there are currently three rows of silt fence and staked hay bales installed so the entire hillside was under control. It was the consensus of the commissioners that the modified slope proposed was safer and more workable even though it was not the 3:1 slope recommended by Mr. Allan. Possible conditions of approval were discussed including provisions for the limit of disturbance line and work area, future maintenance of the lower field, posting of a bond for the erosion controls, soil testing and compaction requirements, and inspections.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-01 submitted by Private Mortgage Fund, LLC. for revisions to permit/Driveway, Generator, Retaining Wall, Etc. per the map, "Modified Site Plan," by Stuart Somers Co., LLC. revised to 3/3/06 subject to the following conditions: 1) The line of silt fence defines the limit of the work area except below the proposed retaining wall, where the work area may extend 12 feet out from the wall and if any machine activity is necessary beyond 12 ft. from the wall, additional silt fence will be installed immediately down slope of it, 2. Native vegetation shall be allowed to grow undisturbed within 30 feet of all wetlands and watercourse areas, 3) Inland Wetlands Commission authority encompasses any clear cutting of vegetation, whether understory 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. 4) A $5000 sedimentation and erosion control cash bond must be filed with the Town to secure performance. It will be released when the site is fully stabilized to the satisfaction of the Wetlands Enforcement Officer. 5) There shall be inspections and reports to the Commission during and after construction to ensure the compaction has been properly completed per the plan approved. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Ms. Purnell asked if heavy machinery encroached in the upland review area, how the soil could be uncompacted. Mr. Allen responded the top soil could be stripped and the subsoil scoured with a track machine to a depth of 12 inches. Mr. Picton thanked Mr. Fenwick for his cooperation and noted a greatly improved plan had resulted.
Kessler/103-105 West Mountain Road/#IW-06-05/Two Dwellings, Driveway Crossing, Etc.: This public hearing was continued to 6:00 p.m. on April 12, 2006. There was no further discussion.
Kleinberg/181 West Shore Road/#IW-06-07/Driveway and Utilities: Mr. Wilson, engineer, represented the applicant. In response to the Commission's question regarding whether the parcel is an approved building lot, he submitted a copy of map #357 on the Town Land Records, "Plot Plan, Tinker Hill Estates," by Mr. Osbourne, dated 12/6/74 with a note by Mr. Callahan, Planning Commission chairman that the subdivision had been approved on 5/6/75. He pointed out the location of the parcel on the Assessor's Map. The map, "Site Plan," by Mr. Wilson, revised to 3/8/06 was reviewed. Mr. Wilson said he had added a limit of disturbance line, the location of the intermittent watercourse, and a stockpile area as had been requested at the 2/28/06 site inspection. Mr. Bedini noted the application was originally for underground utilities, but the current proposal indicated they would be brought in from the existing line on the top portion of the property. Mr. Wilson indicated he had added an optional underdrain with a catch basin at the end of the proposed driveway to handle the runoff. Mr. Bedini asked if the runoff would become a problem if the driveway was paved, and if paved, how would the velocity be slowed down. It was noted the driveway grade was 14.5%. Mr. Wilson said there would be a flat swale with a reinforced turf mat along the edge of the driveway. Mr. Wilson said the septic system would be located on another lot. Mr. Picton thought the site required a careful design and should have a technical review. Mr. Bedini asked whether the driveway and roof drainage would cause problems and whether there would actually be a feasible development plan for the site. He said he did not want to approve a driveway to nowhere. The site conditions were discussed. Mr. Wilson said the grade averaged 25% and that the property was wooded. He noted the driveway had been located to preserve the large trees. He also stated the roof drains for any future house would discharge to an area where the runoff could infiltrate. Mr. Ajello noted there was standing water at the roadside. Mr. Wilson said the construction of a house was not proposed at this time and said he had responded to all relevant questions. Ms. Purnell asked if curtain drains would be required for the septic system. Mr. Picton thought perhaps a detention or biofiltration structure should be considered. Mrs. D. Hill noted drainage from off site was flowing into this property and asked if all the wetlands above and to the east had been flagged. Mr. Picton asked that a copy of the soils report and sketch map be submitted. Mrs. D. Hill also noted the property could not be considered an approved building lot until the Health Department had approved it was feasible to install a septic system on it. Mr. LaMuniere voiced his concern about clearing the trees on this property as it is one of the few remaining densely wooded and understoried areas around Lake Waramaug. It was the consensus to refer the application to Land Tech for review.
Schneider/97 Lower Church Hill Road/#IW-06-08/Replace Bridge and Pergola, Landscaping: Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted photos of the existing bridge and pergola. The map, "Site Plan," by McCobb & Assoc., dated 1/4/06 with the proposed activities highlighted in color was reviewed. It was noted all of the proposed planting would be done by hand and no chemical fertilizers would be used. Mr. Neff stated the existing cement base for the pergola would be removed and a small backhoe would dig holes for the sono tubes for the new structure. Mr. Ajello advised the applicant to add the installation of a pool fence to the plans. Mr. Neff pointed out the location of existing fences. Mr. LaMuniere had inspected the site and reviewed the plans and was satisfied there would be no wetlands issues as long as the planting was done by hand as specified.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-08 submitted by Mr. Schneider to replace the pergola and bridge and landscape at 97 Lower Church Hill Road as submitted. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/Unauthorized Construction: Mr. Munson, contractor, and Mr. Neff, engineer, were present. The map, "House Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 2/21/06, which showed the location of the two unauthorized retaining walls, was reviewed. Mr. Picton noted as a condition of approval for another project, the Commission had specified the preservation of a 30 ft. wider buffer area around the wetlands and asked that this be shown on this map. The construction of the walls and the filling that had been done was briefly discussed. Mr. Neff said the owner wanted to apply for an after-the-fact permit for the retaining walls and mitigation rather than remove the walls. Mr. Munson indicated the owners would also like to build another wall. Mr. Picton voiced his concern that the maintained area keeps pushing closer to the wetlands. He suggested a fence 50 ft. from the wetlands so there would be a visible barrier with the area beyond it required to remain in its natural state. Mr. LaMuniere thought a strong mitigation effort should also be required. Mr. Picton asked for a serious site plan showing mitigation to protect the wetland buffer and natural areas throughout the property. He asked that this plan be placed on a site plan showing the entire property so the Commission would have a comprehensive view of all the activities approved and proposed. Mr. Ajello noted the owner had already paid the citation.
New Applications
Getnick/237 West Shore Road/#IW-06-09/Repair Wall: Mr. Ajello explained the proposal to repair the existing shoreline wall. Mr. Picton read the description of the work to be done, undated, unsigned. Mr. Ajello stated in addition to the ten points noted, he had asked that the work be done during a period of low water. The map, "Proposed Site Plan," dated March 2, 1990 with handwritten notes regarding the portion of the wall to be repaired was reviewed. Mr. Picton asked if the bottom of the wall was below the water and whether Mr. Ajello was OK with the use of mortar. Mr. Ajello said at times of high water the bottom of the wall was in the water and that he did not object to the use of mortar. Ms. Purnell asked Mr. Ajello to take photos to document the size of the existing wall.
Averill/7 Titus Road/#IW-06-10ATF/Excavation of Contaminated Soil: Mr. Ajello noted the work had already begun and he had given his OK for it to continue because tests showed that additional contaminated material must be removed from the property. The digging will go down about 2 more ft. He explained the area of excavation was half way between the Shepaug and the asphalt parking lot, approximately 25 feet from the river. Mr. Ajello noted the application had come in at the last minute and was not detailed. The sketch map, "Excavation of Contaminated Soil," by Mr. MacCaskie, dated 3/6/06 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello advised the Commission the excavated material was being taken immediately off site; that it was material from elsewhere on the Titus Park Garage property that was stockpiled along Titus Road, and that he had asked that this pile be covered and a silt fence installed around it. Mr. Ajello noted Mr. Averill was considering abandoning the use of the area being excavated for parking wrecked vehicles. Mr. Picton noted the continued excavation was in the long term best interest of the river, but advised Mr. Ajello to continue to monitor the site as the Commission was concerned about possible short term impacts.
Enforcement Report
Beck/132 Calhoun Street/#IW-02-V1/Clearing and Cutting in Wetlands: Mr. Ajello said it would not be known until the spring growth could be observed whether the efforts last year to remove the invasive species had been successful. He recommended the Becks put enough money in escrow to retain Mrs. Corrigan and to manage the invasives for one to two years and said he would have to get an estimate of how much this would cost. He hoped to get this off the agenda soon.
Peck/10 Slaughterhouse Road/Excavation, Tree Removal: Mr. Ajello questioned whether the bike path was a low intensity recreational use that would be permitted by the Zoning Commission in the R-1 District.
Taylor/11 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Excavation in Wetlands: Mr. Ajello had not received any new information from the Taylors. Mr. Picton advised him to continue to monitor the property and suggested a second citation might be in order for a continued violation. Mr. Ajello said he would send another letter to advise the property owners that unless they respond immediately, further enforcement action will be taken.
Feola/84 Carmel Hill Road: It was noted the restoration plan had been approved at the last meeting. Mr. Ajello will monitor the work when it begins.
Pasatieri/57 Findley Road/Septic Repair: There was no new information.
9 Main Street Assoc./9 Main St./Stone Wall: There was no new information.
Other Business
Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Project Completion-Release of Bond: There was no new information.
Ingrassia/135 East Shore Road/Fence: Mr. Ajello reported he had approved this application as the Commission had authorized at the last meeting.
Revision of the Regulations/Section 8.1: Mrs. J. Hill circulated her 3/6/06 email to Atty. Zizka. She pointed out Atty. Zizka had recommended slightly different language than the Commission had agreed upon at the last meeting. It was the consensus to follow his recommendations. The existing Section 8.1 will be deleted and the following sentence inserted instead: "The Commission may hold a public hearing on any application to conduct regulated activities, provided that the decision to hold such hearing is made in accordance with the relevant provisions of state law."
Mrs. J. Hill will refer the proposed revision to the DEP as required and schedule a public hearing for the second meeting in April.
Kleinberg/181 West Shore Road/#IW-06-07/Driveway and Utilities: It was the consensus the proposed activities were likely to have a significant impact on wetlands and watercourse and so a public hearing should be scheduled for Wednesday, April 12, 2006.
Walker Brook Subdivision II, New Milford: Mr. Picton again expressed the Commission's appreciation for the work done by Ms. Purnell and Mr. LaMuniere. Ms. Purnell reported the Planning Commission public hearing had been continued to March 16 at 7:00 p.m. and the Inland Wetlands hearing to March 23. It was noted the application was still for 78 lots. A major question was whether so dense a development so far from New Milford's town center was sustainable. Mr. LaMuniere voiced his concern that the approval of this application as it is now proposed would mean the end of Walker Brook as we know it. Ms. Purnell urged that a base line study be done immediately to document existing conditions and it was the consensus this should be undertaken. Ms. Purnell said WEC might agree to fund the study and said a letter should be sent to ask if it would do so.
Myfield, LLC/7 Mygatt Road/10 Dwelling Units: It was noted the proposal had been revised slightly for the Zoning Commission and so would have to return to the Wetlands Commission for review.
DEP Pesticide Application Permits: It was noted the Commission had received notification the DEP had approved applications for Lemonade Pond and the pond on the Meyer's property on Senff Road. A stream flows through at least one of the ponds. Mrs. Hill was asked to send a letter to the DEP to voice the Commission's concerns. Mr. Tessatore of the DEP is working with the pesticide division to establish procedures that will take into consideration the opinions of local wetlands commissions before granting these permits.
Allen/158 Popple Swamp Road: Mrs. D. Hill said she learned of this application for a single family dwelling and accessory apartment from the newspaper, noted there were wetlands on the property, and asked why the Commission had not been asked to review the plans. Mr. Picton said Mr. Ajello thought it was not necessary because the activities were just out of the 100 ft. setback and this portion of the property was fairly level. Mrs. Hill noted this was a large scale project and thought the Commission should be consistent. She said, for example, the Commission had required an application from Mr. Tagley for a similar project. Ms. Coe and Mr. LaMuniere agreed. Mr. Picton asked that the site plan be brought in for review at the next meeting.
MOTION: To enter into Executive Session at 10:10 p.m. to discuss pending litigation. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end Executive Session at 10:17 p.m. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Gatto/155 Woodbury Road: As had been discussed and agreed upon in executive session, the Commission made the following motion:
MOTION: To authorize the WEO to write to Mr. and Mrs. Gatto/155 Woodbury Road to inform them 1) the Commission will accept the proposed planting plan with the stipulation that only native plants may be used and 2) when the Wetlands Enforcement Officer has approved the plan, enforcement proceedings will be terminated. 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 10:20 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
February 22, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Ms. Coe
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Munson, Mr. Neff, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Owens, Mr. and Mrs. Mello, Mr. Peck
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/Unauthorized Construction
Mr. Picton called the Show Cause Hearing to order at 6:47 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell. He explained the purpose of the hearing was to provide the property owner an opportunity to present reasons why the 2/13/06 Cease and Desist order should not remain in effect. Mr. Ajello read the enforcement order, which cited other previous unauthorized work on the property and ordered the property owner to 1) stop all construction activity related to Permit #IW-05-03 and to 2) remove the new retaining walls and any other structures built closer than 83 feet to the wetlands and had not been authorized under any other permit. Mr. Munson, contractor, and Mr. Neff, engineer, represented the property owners. Mr. Munson explained the circumstances under which the walls had been constructed and assumed complete responsibility for the violation. The following maps and plans by Mr. Neff were reviewed: "Property Plot Plan," dated 2/11/05, "Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Plan, revised to 8/16/05, and "House Site Plan, dated 2/21/06. This last map included the location of the two retaining walls. Mr. Picton asked if there had been regrading work associated with the construction of the walls. Mr. Munson said, yes, the terracing around the house had been redone and fill had been deposited behind the walls. He noted there was lawn between the new walls and the brook and that silt fence had been installed. Ms. Purnell recommended the Commission inspect the site to determine whether the Commission would have approved the walls if they had been applied for. Mr. Munson said he discussed the previous unauthorized cutting in the wetlands with the property owner who had then authorized Mr. Neff and Kent Greenhouse to draw up a mitigation plan to the Commission's satisfaction. Mr. Picton stated and the Commission agreed there was good reason for the Cease and Desist order and it should remain in effect.
MOTION: To close the show cause hearing for Calhoun Street Trust/62 Calhoun Street/Unauthorized Construction. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton closed the Show Cause Hearing at 7:08 p.m.
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 7:08 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: Consideration of the Minutes: C. Site Inspection/Peck/2/22/06 and New Application: A. Schneider/97 Lower Church Hill Rd/#IW-06-08/ Replace Pergola and Bridge, Landscaping. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 2/22/06 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 2: Under Pasatieri: 4th line from bottom: correct spelling is "liening."
Page 3: 12th line: Add: and/or after "size."
Page 4: Fowler heading: Correct spelling is Fowler.
Private Mortgage Fund: 12th line: Add: for the wall after "design."
5th item: Add: Per Land Tech recommendations after "device."
Page 6: 9th line: Change: "Mr. Picton" to the original Fuss and O'Neill report.
10th line: Add to the end of the sentence: "and that the revised report no longer included that reference."
MOTION: To accept the 2/8/06 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
The 2/15/06 Mello Site Inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. The correct spellings are David Thomson and Kathy Coe.
MOTION: To accept the 2/15/06 Mello site inspection minutes as amended. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
The 2/22/06 Peck Site Inspection minutes were accepted as amended. The correct spelling is Ajello.
MOTION: To accept the 2/22/06 Peck site inspection minutes as amended. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Pasatieri/77 Findley Road/#IW-05-68ATF/Septic Repair: Mr. Ajello reported there was no new information. He recommended this matter be moved to Enforcement as the original application had been incomplete and a fee was never submitted.
Brighenti/49 Calhoun Street/#IW-06-71/Tennis Court: The Commission is still waiting for additional information.
Spring Hill Farms, LLC./69 Whittlesey Road/#IW-05-74/Reconstruct, Enlarge, Relocate Building: It was noted a public hearing had been scheduled for 6:00 p.m. March 8, 2006. Mr. Owens asked when the report from Land Tech Consultants was expected. Mr. Ajello said it would be in prior to the hearing and that he would send it to Mr. Owens as soon as possible.
Private Mortgage Fund, LLC./59 South Fenn Hill Road/#IW-06-01/Revisions to Original Permit - Driveway, Generator, Retaining Wall, Etc.: Mr. Fenwick, contractor, was present. The map, "Modified Site Plan," by Stuart Somers Co., LLC., revised to 2/15/06 was reviewed and compared to the original version dated 12/28/05. Ms. Purnell noted the plans showed a 2:1 slope, not 3:1 as recommended by Land Tech, and otherwise had not changed much except to connect the curtain drain around the patio to the yard drain with rip rapped outlet. Mr. LaMuniere asked if this would allow chlorinated water to flow from the pool to the outlet. Mr. Fenwick said the pool would have a self contained system and he did not know for sure that the pool would be installed. Mr. Picton noted Land Tech had recommended that no water run directly down the slope and it was noted that was the reason for the curtain drain. The cross sections of the curtain drain and level spreader were studied. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the proposed drainage system would handle a 6" rainfall. Mr. Fenwick stated that even with leaving the slope at 2:1, Land Tech agreed it would work. The Commission noted Mr. Allan of Land Tech had not confirmed this in writing. It was noted the applicant had not submitted an engineered design for the sections of the retaining wall that would exceed 4 ft. in height as had been requested by the Commission. Mr. Picton referred to Land Tech's 2/7/06 report, which stated in part that the proposed activities would have no adverse impacts if 1) the wall is properly constructed, 2) the fill is properly placed, compacted, and vegetated, 3) runoff is managed, and 4) erosion and sedimentation controls are monitored and maintained. He asked Mr. Fenwick why these concerns had not been addressed point by point. Mr. Ajello said the applicant's engineer had been sent a copy of the Land Tech report and had then advised him that all the above concerns had been adequately addressed, but that nothing had been put in writing. Ms. Purnell voiced her concern about the management of runoff and the fact that "maxing out" the development on site by including structures like the pool and patio had made it impossible to achieve the recommended 3:1 slope. She thought the site disturbance had not been minimized. Mr. Picton noted if the elevation of the house were dropped 5 ft., a 3:1 slope would be possible. Mr. Fenwick stated the house was already under construction. Mr. Picton asked if the wording on the revised plan had been amended according to Land Tech's recommendations. Mr. Fenwick stated it had. Mr. Picton noted the applicant proposed to keep all activities out of the 100 ft. review area and that the land flattened out at the bottom of the hill along the stream. Mr. Fenwick stated this flat area was also thickly vegetated. The Commission briefly discussed the bond requirement and agreed $5000 to $10000 would be adequate. It was the consensus to wait for an engineered plan for the construction of the retaining wall and for a written response to all of the points raised in the Land Tech report before acting on the application.
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-06-04/Remediation Per IWC Order: Mr. Picton read the "Project Narrative," revised to 1/23/06, which had been discussed with Atty. Kelly at the last meeting, and noted it was responsive to the Commission's request to refill the trench with the material that had been taken out of it. Ms. Purnell said the only questions remaining were whether there had originally been a swale and if so, the extent of that swale. She also noted the number of plants to be planted according to the planting plan did not correspond to the number shown on the sketch map. Mr. LaMuniere noted it would be important that the WEO be contacted prior to the start of work so that he can monitor the restoration work.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-04 per the 1/25/06 application and attached documents submitted by Mr. Fowler for remediation at 138 Nichols Hill Road per the 5/17/04 enforcement order subject to final approval of the restoration work by the WEO and the Commission. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Kessler/103-105 West Mountain Road/#IW-06-05/Two Dwellings, Driveway Crossing, Excavate Basin, Etc.: A public hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, March 8, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Mello/183 Woodbury Road/#IW-06-06/Remodel House and Garage, Rebuild Stone Wall: Mr. and Mrs. Mello pointed out the changes they had made to the plans submitted at the last meeting. 1) Grubbing invasives was no longer proposed. 2) Pruning to create a view of the pond from the house was deleted. 3) The area on the west side of the house would be allowed to naturally revegetate. The map, "Landscape Plantings," by Meadowbrook Farms, received 2/22/06 was reviewed. After briefly discussing the improvements planned for the property, Mrs. Mello further revised the map to include the following: 1) The old foundation at the south end of the property would be removed. 2) A note that the area to the west of the house would revegetate was added. 3) The slabs to be removed near the existing house were noted. 4) The location of a proposed patio on the west side of the house was added. 5) The location of a proposed stairs-walkway was added. 6) Notes regarding the repair of the existing wall along the bridge were added. Mr. Picton said the replacement of the stones on the bridge was considered maintenance. Mr. Mello noted as much of the work as possible would be done by hand and that the patio area would be regraded so the runoff would flow away from the house.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-06-06 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Mello per the plans "Landscape Plantings," by Meadow Brook Farms, dated 1/12/06 and revised by the applicant by hand at the 2/22/06 meeting to renovate the house and garage and rebuild the stone wall at 183 Woodbury Road subject to the following conditions: 1) no fill or regrading is permitted except as needed for the proposed patio area, stairs and walkway, and stone wall and 2) the stone wall be rebuilt in its existing location. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
Kleinberg/ ? West Shore Road/#IW-06-07/Driveway and Underground Utilities: Mr. Ajello described the conditions on the property and recommended a site inspection. The map, "Site Plan," by Mr. Wilson, dated 12/5/05 was reviewed. Ms. Purnell asked if the parcel was a legitimate building lot, if it contained the correct soil types, and if it was part of an approved subdivision, noting the proposed activities were not necessarily as of right permitted uses. Mr. Ajello said the parcel was 1.6 acres and it had been represented to him that it was a legitimate lot. Mr. Picton asked for evidence it is an approved building lot and for proof of Health Department approval. A site inspection was scheduled for 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 28, 2006. When on site the commissioners will consider whether there is the potential for the proposed activities to adversely impact wetlands and watercourses. If so, a public hearing will be required.
New Applications
Schneider/97 Lower Church Hill Road/#IW-06-08/Replace Bridge and Pergola, Landscaping: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his construction plans, "Pergola Plan and Details," dated 2/10/06 and the site plan, "Fine and Schneider Residence," by McCobb and Assoc., dated 1/4/06 was reviewed. He explained the existing pergola and bridge would be replaced with steel prefab structures that would require a minimum amount of disturbance. The pergola would be set on a concrete pad. Also proposed, the patio and the coping around the existing pool would be replaced, the patio area would be expanded, and the stone work behind the house redone. Mr. Neff was asked to highlight the proposed work on the map. Mr. Picton asked if the wetlands on the property had been flagged and Mr. Neff responded that had been done a long time ago for previous applications. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to get out the old maps and to focus his review on the proposed activities that could impact the wetlands. A site inspection was scheduled for 4:45 p.m. on Tuesday, Febraury, 28, 2006.
Enforcement
Peck/10 Slaughterhouse Road/Unauthorized Excavation, Tree Removal: Mr. Peck offered to work with the Commission to resolve this matter. Mr. Picton gave him a copy of the 2/22/06