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 t