The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Inland Wetlands Commission, 2007
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Inland Wetlands Commission, 2007 |
|
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 12 •November 28 •November 14 •October 24 •October 10 •September 12 •August 15 •July 11 •June 13 •May 23 •May 9 •April 25 •April 11 •March 14 •February 28 •January 24 •January 10 •Meetings in 2006 •Meetings in 2005 •Meetings in 2004 •Meetings in 2003 •Meetings in 2002
Posted: December 21, 2007 December 12, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Potter
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Lodsin, Mr. Neff, Mr. and Mrs. Klein, Mr. Carusillo, Mr. Coville, Mr. Szymanski
Mr. Hoffman
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-07-V12/Unauthorized Excavation in Wetlands
Mr. Picton called the show cause hearing to order at 6:47 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson and Alternate Wadelton for Mrs. Hill. He noted the purpose of the hearing was to give Mr. Lodsin the opportunity to show cause why the 12/4/07 enforcement order regarding wetlands violations on his property should not remain in effect.
Mr. Lodsin stated the 12/4/07 order had been issued in error. He said that he farms the property, an activity that includes clearing and mowing, that road runoff flows to his property from both Whittlesey Road and Rt. 202, and that the downstream beaver dams cause water to back up onto his property. He noted that although he had talked about these drainage problems at the last meeting, they had not yet been addressed.
Mr. Picton asked about the ditch Mr. Lodsin had dug below the culvert. Mr. Lodsin said he took out material so the runoff would have a place to go; noting he had not dug so near that it would be damaged. Mr. Picton noted that the state directs the runoff off the road and towards the wetlands. Mr. Picton said that by digging out near the culvert Mr. Lodsin had attempted to change the natural flow. Mr. Lodsin said he had to dig out below the culvert because the drain was clogged.
Mr. Picton noted for the record that Mr. Lodsin had ditched approximately 150 feet of marsh, work that went beyond the removal of beaver dams. When Mr. Lodsin said he had only removed the actual dams, Mr. Picton noted there were piles of organic matter along the trench, but no evidence of sticks from a dam. Mr. Lodsin again stated that he had dug up the beaver dams because they had caused water to back up 1000 feet onto his property.
Mr. LaMuniere stated that there was no evidence of a farming operation on the property. Mr. Lodsin said that three sections of trees had been planted and that one section had 15 ft. tall Christmas trees. Mr. Bedini asked if the trees had been deliberately planted. Mr. Lodsin stated that some were only healed in. Mr. Picton noted that an agricultural exemption does not mean that degradation of the wetlands is allowed.
Mr. Lodsin stated that the first work he had done on the property was to remove the junk vehicles that had been left by a previous owner. The commissioners thought there were still many rusty junk vehicles on site, but Mr. Lodsin said he would get them running. Mr. LaMuniere stated there were so many old vehicles that it was really an illegal junk yard, which was polluting the wetlands.
Mr. Picton asked Mr. Lodsin if he had read the enforcement order. Mr. Lodsin said he had and that it was all wrong. Mr. Picton explained it had been based on the observations of the Enforcement Officer and the five commissioners who had attended the site inspection. Mr. Picton again stated that the commission had found no evidence of a beaver dam in the vicinity where he had dug. Mr. Lodsin said he had taken out the dam on his property and the remaining dams were on downstream properties.
Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the site and said it was important to note there was no justification for the 150 ft. long trench dug down the marsh and/or watercourse. Mr. Lodsin said he had not changed the course of the water and had only excavated the dam.
Mr. Lodsin asked the Commission to help him maintain his property so that he can farm it. He then asked that the hearing be continued so that he could have an attorney present. Mr. Picton responded that the correct notification procedures had been followed and he thought that whether or not an attorney spoke on his behalf, the unauthorized activity was substantial enough so that the Commission would vote to keep the enforcement order in effect. He advised Mr. Lodsin that he could get his attorney involved in the following enforcement proceedings.
Mr. Lodsin said he would get the state involved. Mr. Picton said he looked forward to working together on the resolution of the violation.
MOTION: To close the show cause hearing for Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/to show cause why the 12/4/07 enforcement order issued for unauthorized excavation in wetlands should not remain in effect. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
At 7:10 p.m. Mr. Picton closed the show cause hearing.
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 7:11 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson. He welcomed new Alternate Stephen Wadelton.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: Other Business: B. Coville/14 Wheaton Road/Revision of Permit #IW-06-30/Addition of Deck and Stairs, C. Draft Procedure for Processing Applications, Communications: A. Approval of 2008 Calendar, and Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 11/28/07 Minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 2: Under Barnet: Change: "Mr. Charles" to "Mr. LaMuniere."
P. 2: Under Lodsin Site Inspection: 4th line: Change: "overgrown" to "heavily vegetated mounds."
P. 7: Under Bowles: Insert: "apparent" before "wetlands."
P. 7: The correct spelling of Janko and Drakeley were noted.
P. 8: 5th line from bottom: Change: "appraised" to "apprised."
P. 9: Under Peloquin: Mr. LaMuniere said he agreed with Mrs. D. Hill that this item should have been added to the last meeting's agenda since the EO was aware of the violation before the meeting.
P. 9: Under Citations: Correct the name to Mrs. J. Hill.
P. 10: 2nd paragraph: End of the last sentence: Add: "...once we have an understanding of the changes proposed."
MOTION: To accept the 11/28/07 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 12/4/07 Potter site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. D. Hill pointed out that the commissioners should not make decisions in the field. Mrs. J. Hill agreed, noting that due to the Freedom of Information Act, all decisions should be made at Regular Meetings unless properly listed on the agenda of the site inspection notice.
The Reinhardt-Cremona site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. The inspection date should have been 12/4/07.
MOTION: To accept the 12/4/07 Reinhardt-Cremona site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Barnet/32 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-07-52/Reconstruct Barn: Mr. Fenn, contractor, submitted a letter of authorization and presented photos of the site. The site plan, "Historic Barn Reconstruction," by CES Engineering, revised to 12/12/07 was reviewed. Mr. Picton noted that at the last meeting the Commission had requested more details on all proposed activities around the construction area in relation to the wetlands on site. Mr. Fenn pointed out the information that had been added to the site development map. 1) Further delineation and measurements for the upper parking area, which would also serve as the staging and work area, were added. 2) Mr. Fenn said the existing foundation would be raised 18" because it is now below road level and must be raised to prevent water damage. Mr. Picton noted that was not included on the plans. Mr. Fenn said the ZBA had approved a variance to increase the height of the foundation by 18" so he would be held to that figure. 3) The reconstructed barn would be 13' shorter than the original and a 13' wide patio was proposed in that area. 4) No changes in contours were proposed. 5) Mr. Thomson asked where the gutter downspouts would be located. Mr. Fenn said they would be installed at both sides of the barn, but Mr. Picton pointed out that the plan showed them at the corners of the patio. Mr. Fenn corrected this on the map. 6) Mr. Picton asked if the limit of disturbance line could be moved so it would be 5' beyond the edge of the patio. Mr. Fenn agreed as there would be no reason for any equipment beyond that line. The 528 contour and stonewall to the south would mark the limit of disturbance except for the proposed septic system shown on the plan. Mr. Fenn also noted that steps to the patio were proposed and shown on the plan. 7) Mr. Ajello noted the issue of underground storage tanks, air conditioners, generators, etc. was covered in Mr. Barnet's 12/11/07 letter. 8) Notes regarding maintenance of the meadow were added as requested at the last meeting. 9) Mr. Picton asked if the driveway would be top dressed with gravel. Mr. Fenn stated it would be topped with crushed stone, but would be maintained at approximately its existing grade. 10) Mr. Fenn noted that piers for the foundation would be dug within the existing walls of the foundation. Mr. Picton noted that the Commission had previously reviewed feasible and prudent alternatives and had determined that either they were not available or they were equally close to the wetlands and would have an equal potential for an adverse impact to the wetlands. It was noted that any changes to the plans as approved would have to come back to the Commission for review.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-52 submitted by Mr. Barnet to reconstruct a barn and convert it to a dwelling unit at 32 Sabbaday Lane per the map, "Historic Barn Reconstruction," by CES Engineering as revised to 12/12/07 by Mr. Fenn, application materials, and Mr. Barnet's 12/11/07 letter, subject to the following conditions: 1. there shall be no new fill below the stone retaining wall to the north of the barn except for the stone steps as shown, 2. the existing driveway and parking area to the south of the barn shall be maintained at the approximate present grade except for surface treatment, 3. the plans as approved show the full extent of the site work approved by the Commission, and 4. a revised map showing the changes made at the 12/12/07 meeting shall be submitted and shall be approved by the Wetlands Enforcement Officer prior to the issuance of the permit. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.
New Applications
BEC Holdings/204 Wykeham Road/#IW-07-65/First Cut: The map, "Septic System Feasibility Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 12/5/07, which included wetlands flagged by Mr. Temple, was reviewed. Mr. Ajello noted that although there were wetlands in the rear of the property, there were no activities proposed near them. Mr. Neff, engineer, agreed, saying there were no proposed activities for Parcel B and on Parcel A the area where activities were proposed was between two wetlands outside of the regulated area. Mrs. D. Hill asked if Clark Road was open and maintained by the Town. Mr. Neff said it was open as far as the proposed driveway, but was impassible to the north and was not maintained by the Town. Mr. Ajello said the application was for feasibility only, but Mr. Picton responded that perhaps a division as proposed would necessitate a regulated activity in the future. Mr. Neff thought the lots could be developed without any encroachments in the regulated area. Mr. Picton recommended a site inspection to confirm the conditions shown on the map. Mrs. D. Hill, however, noted that if the Commission voted based on this map with the details shown, if any changes were needed or if it was found to be incorrect, the approval would be invalid. Mr. Picton suggested a provision that no site work may occur without Commission review. There was a brief discussion regarding advisory reviews. Mr. Picton asked why Inland Wetlands would be required to sign a mylar for filing after an advisory review because by doing so it would appear that Wetlands approval had been granted. He will consult with Atty. Zizka on this matter.
MOTION: The Inland Wetlands Commission finds that it appears the first cut proposed by BEC Holdings at 204 Wykeham Road can be accomplished without adverse impact to the wetlands, but requires approval of a detailed site plan and an Inland Wetlands permit prior to any site development on the property. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/#IW-07-66/2 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented the map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 12/8/07. He noted proposed Parcel A was 63.39 acres with frontage on West Shore, Tinker, and Ash Swamp Roads and Parcel B was 21.56 acres with all of the existing buildings except the pump house. He said the plan was for feasibility only. The only activities shown within 100 ft of Lake Waramaug were the driveway cut and a portion of the driveway. He briefly discussed drainage on Sheet #4 of the plans, stating that there would be several cross culverts under the driveway. He said there was a relatively small drainage area that would flow down a rip rapped swale to the proposed catch basins, which would connect to the existing West Shore Road drainage system. Mr. Picton asked how the driveway might affect wetlands on the adjacent Stiteler-Giddins property and Mrs. D. Hill noted that there had been drainage concerns on the adjoining Weeks property as well. Mr. Picton asked if wetlands had been flagged below the driveway. Mr. Neff said the soils had been taken from the USDA and no on site testing had been done. Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the property along West Shore Road and had not observed any seeps there, but Mr. Picton said an inspection of the land within 100 ft. of the driveway route was needed. Mr. LaMuniere also recommended a site inspection, noting that the Commission had found wetlands on the adjoining Stiteler-Giddins property when it had inspected it. Mrs. D. Hill noted it would have been helpful to have a soil scientist's report with the application. When it was suggested that the wetlands be flagged at the time the driveway is installed, Mrs. D. Hill and Mr. Picton said that would be too late because approval now would lock in the proposed driveway route. It was noted there are two other accesses to the property although one would be steep and the other would be approximately 100 feet from wetlands. It was the consensus that the Commission would make a preliminary finding that the proposed subdivision would not adversely impact the wetlands if the WEO and a commissioner inspect the site and determine there are no apparent wetlands near the driveway or near the adjoining Stiteler and Weeks properties. Mr. Picton said the Commission would also stipulate that prior to any on site construction, detailed construction and stormwater management plans would have to be reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Ajello asked if the driveway could be moved upgrade if wetlands were found. Mr. Neff said that would require the revision of the proposed boundary line. Mr. Thomson noted the driveway cut would be only 60 ft. from Lake Waramaug and so he was concerned about impacts to the lake.
MOTION: The Inland Wetlands Commission finds that it appears the subdivision proposed by Klein-Cannizzaro at 285 West Shore Road per the map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 12/8/07 can be accomplished without adverse impact to the wetlands subject to a site inspection of the property by the Wetlands Enforcement Officer and one commissioner to confirm there are no apparent wetlands in the vicinity of feasible site development and that if upon inspection they have concerns, then soil testing in the vicinity of the proposed site development will be required before any site work may begin and a more complete plan for the site development and stormwater management will have to be reviewed by the Commission. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Colville/14 Wheaton Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-06-30/Add Deck and Stairs: Colville/14 Wheaton Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-06-30/Add Deck and Stairs: Mr. Colville presented the map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, revised to 4/7/06 on which he had drawn in an 8.5' X 8.5' area at the rear of the house, two 3' X 3' air conditioning units on the south side, a wall on the southwest side, and a reconfigured driveway-parking area to the west. He also submitted photos of the current site conditions and explained he needed the rear deck because he could not regrade to bring the ground level up to his sliding glass doors. He did not know the exact dimensions of the proposed back stairs and deck, but said they would meet the building code and would not exceed the 8.5 ft square shown on the map. Mr. Ajello stated that 1) runoff from the house site flows away from the wetlands, 2) all of the changes shown on the map would result in a slight decrease in the amount of impervious surface, and 3) there would be no adverse impacts resulting from the proposed revisions. Mr. Coville said the wall on the southwest side was needed due to the grade change, would be on the uphill side of the driveway, and would not be more than 3.5 ft. high.
MOTION: To approve the revision of Permit #IW-06-30 issued to Mr. Colville to include the construction of a rear deck and stairs, driveway reconfiguration, and front wall at 14 Wheaton Road per the undated hand drawn plans and the "Site Analysis Plan" by Mr. Alex revised by hand by the owner, both submitted at the 12/12/07 meeting. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Mello/183 Woodbury Road/#IW-07-V11/Unauthorized Bridge and Culvert Work: Mr. Hoffman, contractor, was present, but had no letter of authorization. Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the unauthorized work done along the streambank, explaining that the side walls had been moved out and in front of the culvert so that the sides were no longer flush. He was concerned that this would result in the restriction of the flow of the stream from the culvert. The commissioners read the letter from Mr. Szymanski, engineer, dated 12/12/07. Mr. Szymanski explained that the wing walls installed for the culvert were actually the most efficient way to allow water to flow through the culvert with the least amount of turbulence. He noted, however, that the culvert pipe installed was undersized. Mr. Picton asked if the height of the wall on top of the concrete foundation had been increased. Mr. Ajello said it had. Mr. Szymanski said this could possibly change the driveway height by 6 inches and would mean that a 25 to 50 year storm would probably top the driveway. It was noted the dam was both higher and longer than the original. Mr. Picton asked for flow characteristics and engineering data on the flood waters when they top the driveway. He said he did not want the bank to wash out, said the new wall would redirect the storm flow, and noted the stormwater would flow with some force due to the change in grade. Mr. Szymanski noted the watershed was over 400 acres and so a box culvert would be needed if a properly sized culvert were installed. Mr. Picton asked for a before and after site plan. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the overflow would impact Rt. 47 and asked for a report on how stormwater could be efficiently disposed of without major damage to either the streambank or to Rt. 47. Mr. Picton reminded Mr. Szymanski to bring authorization to the next meeting. Mr. Bedini asked if the Commission could demand that a 4' X 4' box culvert be installed. Mr. Picton said the property owner would have the opportunity to prove that the unauthorized work had not worsened conditions. Mr. Szymanski asked if the Commission would allow the owner to cut off the excess concrete in the wall foundation as he recommended per the drawing in his 12/12/07 letter. It was the consensus that this would be allowed. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to send the Mellos a citation.
Peloquin/1 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-07-V13/Unauthorized Clearing, Deposition of Material, and Stonework: Atty. Crowe represented Mr. Peloquin, but had no letter of authorization. Mr. Ajello presented photos of the violation and reported that the work had been stopped and the materials removed from the site. Atty. Crowe stated that the owner wanted to get the required Zoning and Inland Wetlands permits and that he now realizes his property is an ecologically sensitive area. He said his client wants to use the property commercially as a garden shop, wants to install a patio, which would cause no increase in stormwater runoff, and is aware of the septic issues on the property. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello if the disturbed soils had been stabilized. Mr. Ajello said that the disturbed area was contained within stonewalls, he had recommended revegetation of the area, and construction of a patio in this location would not be permitted by Zoning. Mr. Picton directed Atty. Crowe to follow Mr. Ajello's recommendation to stabilize and mulch the area, saying the more natural vegetation along the river, the better. He also asked Mr. Ajello to issue a citation. Atty. Crowe asked if the Commission would approve a landscaping plan combining plantings with some stone work as long as erosion controls were implemented during the installation. Mr. Picton responded that a low impact plan with stepping stones and low intensity landscaping with pervious surfaces would probably "work" for the Commission. Atty. Crowe said he realized such a small property could support only limited use and that he would work with the Commission to ensure that use would have a minimal impact on the river. To that end he suggested the installation of a drainage infiltration system. Mr. Ajello cautioned that it might not be a good idea to have groundwater freezing behind the streambank wall. Mr. Picton encouraged streambank buffer plantings to enhance the quality of the river.
Pending Applications
Getnick/237 West Shore Road/#IW-07-62/Repair Stonewall
Madoff/241 West Shore Road/#IW-07-63/Repair Stonewall: It was noted that the Commission was waiting for a report from Milone and MacBroom (M&M) re: walled vs. natural shorelines along the lake. Mr. Ajello said he had received a letter dated 12/11/07, which outlined the scope of the review and provided an estimate. This letter was reviewed by the commissioners. It was noted that per the 12/11 letter M&M would not answer questions regarding specific properties, but would inspect specific sites as examples. Mr. Thomson noted the letter said walls between the high and low water marks would be addressed, but he thought the Commission was also concerned about walls beyond the high water mark. Mr. LaMuniere objected to exclusion #4, saying that the Commission needs the consultant to review all the pending applications and enforcement matters and come up with specific recommendations for each. He said the courts would not accept generalities. Mr. Picton disagreed, saying that he thought the Commission needed general recommendations for the entire lakeshore so that the cumulative impacts of walls could be understood and that if the Commission was challenged on a particular site, it could get a specific report from a consultant at that time. Mr. Bedini thought general information could be used in decisions regarding specific sites, but Mr. Thomson thought that specific information would be required for each site for legal reasons. Mr. Thomson was not sure that the questions submitted to M&M were those that the Commission wanted to ask. It was the consensus that the $3700 estimate for the M&M report was high. Mr. LaMuniere thought the Commission should ask Dr. Kortmann for further comments. Mr. Bedini did not think the M&M proposed scope for its review specifically addressed the Commission's needs and he said he would consult with state and federal agencies such as the DEP and Army Corps of Engineers. He also thought the burden to prove that a proposed wall would not harm the lake should be the applicant's responsibility. Mr. Ajello was asked to contact Dr. Kortmann for further information and to contact M&M to ask if they could scale down their proposal to provide the Commission with more useful information for less money.
Lautier/56 June Road/#IW-07-64/Thinning, Erosion Controls, Planting: Mr. Ajello recommended that the planting plan discussed at the last meeting be approved. No concerns had been raised at that time.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-64 submitted by Mr. Lautier for thinning of trees, erosion controls, and planting at 56 June Road. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. D. Hill noted that to be consistent, Mr. Lautier should have been asked for a restoration plan under enforcement rather than for an application because violations should be handled differently than applications.
Enforcement
Anderson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Trenching in Wetlands: It was noted the Commission was still waiting for Land Tech's report. Mr. Picton asked for it as soon as possible, hoping that it would be in before the next meeting. It was noted that Land Tech had been able to conduct soil tests in the patio area where Mr. Beroz had said the soil was too compacted to test.
Brown/127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work Along Shoreline: It was noted the statutory period for an appeal had passed. Mr. Ajello will check to see if the notice of violation was filed on the Land Records.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road (141 Shinar Mt. Rd.)/#IW-04-V8/Repair of Retaining Wall: Mr. Ajello reported that the work has almost been completed and when done the owner would request the release of the bond.
Crumrine/106 Litchfield Turnpike/Shed: It was noted that an Agent Approval had been granted for the shed. Mr. Ajello said the Crumrines were waiting for the ground to freeze so that the shed could be moved on a skid to its new location.
Janko/11 June Road/#IW-07-V9/Unauthorized Stairs: Mr. Ajello said the hillside had been stabilized and this item could be removed from the agenda.
Kessler/103-105 West Mountain Road/#IW-06-05: Mr. Ajello said he had received a complaint about excessive clearing of the hillside, but when he inspected the site he found no evidence of excessive clearing.
Reinhardt and Cremona/Perkins Road/Execution of Approved Restoration Plan: Nothing more will be done at the site until spring. The planting will require monitoring for two years.
Steep Rock Assn./River Road/Clearing of "McKennee" Field: Mrs. D. Hill noted the field had not been mowed this year. It was also noted that there was no vernal pool on the property.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory: Mr. Ajello reported that the site inspection with Mr. Jontos of Land Tech had not been conducted and that Mr. Jontos did not want to proceed at this time of the year. Mr. Picton suggested that another consultant be hired so that progress could be made in resolving this matter. It was the consensus of the Commission that the scope of the restoration work should be narrowed down to the violation area. It will be decided at the January 9th meeting whether to hire another consultant.
Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-07-V12/Unauthorized Excavation in Wetlands:
MOTION: To keep in effect the 12/4/07 enforcement order issued to Mr. Lodsin for unauthorized excavation at 78 Litchfield Turnpike. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello if he had contacted the DMV and the DEP. Mr. Ajello said he had left two messages with the DMV, but had not yet contacted the DEP, and noted the enforcement order had been filed on the Land Records. Mr. Picton will consult with Atty. Zizka on the most efficient way to proceed. Mr. Bedini said he would inform the DEP about this matter when he contacts it for information on how walls impact the lakeshore.
Other Business
Potter/Hinkle and Sunny Ridge Roads/Lot Line Revisions: It was noted that a site inspection had been conducted and no wetlands issues were found. It was the consensus that the Commission make a finding that there were no apparent wetlands issues on the property.
Review of Subdivisions, First Cuts, Lot Line Revisions, Feasibility Plans: Mr. Ajello said he had learned that the Commission's role was advisory in these matters and so he thought it would not have to wait for the second meeting before it could approve these plans. Mrs. J. Hill noted, then, that they should not be applied for on regular application forms. It was thought that this should be addressed in the revision of the Regulations and that Atty. Zizka should be consulted about the proper procedure and correct language for the Regs. Mr. Bedini will contact Atty. Zizka.
Revision of the By-Laws: After a brief discussion it was the consensus that the following language would be voted on:
Section 5: An affirmative vote of at least 3 Members shall be required to approve any business.
Section 12: REMOVAL OF MEMBER FOR NON PARTICIPATION: If a Commission member's attendance at Regular Meetings falls below 50% of the scheduled events held over a six month period, without notification and justification satisfactory to the Commission for such absences being provided to the Commission's staff in a timely fashion or if a Commission member fails to complete the DEP's Municipal Inland Wetlands Commissioner Training Program within two years of appointment to the Commission, such Member may be recommended for removal from the Commission's roll by a majority vote of its remaining members. This recommendation shall then be forwarded to the Board of Selectmen for implementation.
MOTION: To approve revisions to the By-Laws: Sections 5 and Section 12 per the 12/7/07 draft and as revised at the 12/12/07 meeting. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Revision of Ordinance #711: Mrs. Hill noted in her 12/10/07 memo that this ordinance does not cover the Inland Wetlands Commission. Instead, the Commission has its own provisions for collecting consultants' fees for reviews for new applications listed in Section 20, Appendix C of its Regulations. Mr. Bedini suggested that the most efficient way to revise Appendix C so that consultants' fees could also be collected for reviews necessitated in cases of violations and enforcement proceedings would be the following: 1) Change the title, "Schedule of Filing Fees" to "Schedule of Fees." 2) Add under Consultant's Fee and Expenses in A. Upon submission of any of the foregoing applications, "OF IN THE CASE OF VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS" the Commission.... Mr. Ajello recommended that the language in Section 13 of the Regs match that in Section 20.
Revision of Ordinance #720: The Commissioners reviewed the current versus the proposed language for the Schedule of Fines in Mrs. J. Hill's 12/10/07 memo. She noted she had used the language from the Commission's motion passed in September 2007. Mr. Picton will forward the proposed language to Atty. Zizka for review. Once Atty. Zizka has approved it, Mrs. J. Hill will forward the proposal to the Board of Selectmen.
Revision of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations: It was the consensus that when the public hearing is scheduled and the proposed changes made available to the public, both the current text of the Regulations and the complete proposed text will be offered for review. There are so many revisions that can not be compared section by section that it will be impossible to show the proposed additions and deletions using the current text.
Approval of the 2008 Calendar: It was noted that if additional meetings were required during the summer, special meetings could be scheduled.
MOTION: To approve the 2008 Calendar as amended. By Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Application Review Process: Mr. Thomson asked why the checklist form for processing new applications was not being used. Mrs. D. Hill noted that in the past the Commission would not discuss incomplete applications. Mr. Picton thought the use of this form would save time at meetings. Mr. Ajello said he would begin using the checklist in 2008.
Assigned Task List: It was noted that Mrs. J. Hill had been keeping this list since October. It hangs in the Land Use Office and will be brought to each meeting for anyone who wants to review it. Mr. Ajello was asked to please keep the record for the completion of his assignments up to date.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 11:28 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: December 27, 2007 November 28, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere
Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Potter
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Lautier, Mr. Wadelton, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Neff, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hardisty
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Picton called the Meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson. Mr. Picton welcomed Mr. Wadelton, who would soon be appointed as an Alternate.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: Other Business: B.Renick/12 Green Hill Road/Revision of Permit #IW-07-47/Pour Concrete Wall, C. Potter/Sunny Ridge and Hinkle Roads/ Preliminary Discussion/Lot Line Revision, D. Revision of the Inland Wetlands Regulations, and IX. Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 11/14/07 Show Cause Hearing/Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 1 and 8: The correct spelling is Mr. Thompson.
P. 4: Under Fisher: #3: Add at the end of the sentence: "instead of the footbridge and deepened channel originally proposed."
P. 5: 5 lines up from the bottom of the first paragraph: Change: "big willow" to: "bushes just 5 feet east of the birch."
P. 9: 3rd line: Change: "sheer" to "shore."
P. 9: Under Myfield: 6th line: Change: "moving" to: "locating."
P. 9: Under Myfield: in the motion: after the permit # change to: "to encompass changes to the plans as revised to 10/22/07 for the affordable...."
P. 11: Under Andersson: last sentence: Change: "fine ordinance" to "citation ordinance #720."
P. 12: Under Revision of the By-Laws: first sentence: Change: "Mr. LaMuniere" to: "Mrs. Hill."
P. 13: Under Assignment Sheet: first sentence should state: Mrs. J. Hill....
MOTION: To accept the 11/14/07 Regular Meeting Minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 11/20/07 Getnick site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 11/21/07 Madoff site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
The 11/26/07 Lodsin site inspection minutes were accepted as amended. Mrs. Hill asked that the following sentence be added, "The piles of wood chips that were on site when the Commission made its last inspection are now overgrown and in the area just past the phone poles there was a wire fence in disrepair."
MOTION: To accept the 11/26/07 Lodsin site inspection minutes as amended. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Barnet/32 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-07-52/Reconstruct Barn: Mr. Hardisty, engineer, discussed the plans, "Historic Barn Reconstruction," by CES Engineering, revised to 9/28/07. It was noted he had no written authorization to represent the property owner. Mr. Charles noted the Commission wanted to know whether the existing foundation was strong enough for the new construction and whether there was a feasible and prudent alternate site with less impact on the wetlands. Mr. Picton noted the staging area was not indicated on the map, nor were the limit of disturbance and regrading lines, or eventual landscaping. Mr. Hardisty said the foundation was sound, but that sono tubes might be put in within its perimeter to provide additional support. He said the work would be done from the parking areas to the north and south of the building, but not from the rear, where the land drops off sharply. He noted the rebuilt barn would be 13 feet shorter than the original, so would be less obtrusive, and that a patio would be installed in this area. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the trees on the north side would be cut. Mr. Hardisty said there was no need to cut them and that the trees at the edge of the wetlands would also remain. Mr. Ajello noted erosion control notes and a sequence of construction had been submitted. Mr. Picton said the proposed activity was not just the reconstruction of the barn, but its reconstruction and conversion to a house. He said again, the Commission had asked for a discussion of alternative locations. Mr. Hardisty said the plan was to rebuild the barn on the existing foundation so there were no alternatives. He said there were no alternative locations for the septic system and that any other building site would have to meet zoning setbacks as well as wetlands setbacks and would require a wetlands crossing. Mr. Picton pointed out another house location within 30 feet of wetlands and said the Commission had to consider it to determine whether it would have less impact. Mr. Ajello said that site would require excavation and regrading. Mr. Hardisty noted rebuilding the barn on the existing foundation would require some regrading because the foundation must be raised 1.5 to 2 ft.. Mr. Picton noted this was not shown on the site plan. He also asked that the full extent of the parking areas, delineation of the work area, and site improvements and landscaping for the house be shown. Mr. Bedini pointed out ditching on the site plan. Mr. Hardisty said there would be a pipe from the house to the septic system and an underground line for utilities, but that neither would require regrading. He said he did not show the full extent of the parking area or regrading lines because no changes were proposed. Mr. Ajello said he had asked the applicant to show all underground tanks, overhangs, generators, etc., and since there were none shown on the map, he assumed none were proposed. Mr. LaMuniere noted that any other house location would be within the 100 ft. setback and would cause more disturbance than the proposed construction on the existing foundation, so the proposed reconstruction was OK with him as long as the Commission was sure that was all that would take place. Mr. Picton asked if the site plan was detailed enough and ready to approve. Mr. LaMuniere said the surface area of the gravel parking area to the north should be added. Mr. Thomson noted his concern about gutters and downspouts. Parking was discussed and it was noted there would be a three bay garage and parking on the south side as well. Mr. Picton asked that the south side driveway and parking configuration also be added to the map. Mr. Bedini noted this area would most likely be spread with crushed stone and so agreed that it should be indicated on the map. It was noted that some of the wetlands on the property are currently hayed, but there was nothing in writing to specify how this area would be maintained in the future. Mr. LaMuniere suggested it be mowed several times to kill the invasives and then mowed once per year. Mr. Hardisty was shown a copy of the Kessler/Nettleton Hollow Road site development plan to illustrate the type of detail the Commission expects on a site plan. Mr. Hardisty was asked to submit a detailed site plan, which would include the items mentioned above plus the patio, any paths or walkways, air conditioning units, generators, etc. and plans for how the wetlands will be protected from landscaping, and a letter of authorization. The Commission will act on the application at the next meeting.
Getnick/237 West Shore Road/#IW-07-62/Repair Stonewall: Mr. Picton read the 11/27/07 email from Mr. McGowan, which conveyed the professional opinion of Dr. Kortmann, limnologist, about stone and concrete retaining walls along the lake shore. Mr. Thompson, contractor, showed photos of the Getnick wall and shoreline. Mrs. D. Hill noted that the list of materials and amounts of each material to be used to repair the wall was identical to the one in Getnick's previous file. She did not think the existing wall was in such poor condition that it would take all of the materials listed to repair it. She also noted that the plan indicated that the topography behind the wall would be changed. Mr. Thompson said he would not change the grade, but would deposit gravel for drainage. Mrs. Hill noted that the map submitted did not refer to the work proposed in this application and that the length of wall specified to be worked on differed on the plan vs. the application form. Mr. Thompson said he would remeasure to make the numbers consistent. He said he would not excavate into the lake, but would build the wall up on the existing stones. It was noted that Milone and McBroom had been asked to comment on the construction of stonewalls along the lake shore. Mr. LaMuniere suggested that the Commission wait for its review before acting on the application and recommended that the consultant inspect the Getnick, Madoff, Adams, and Brown properties and comment on each site. Mr. Thompson proposed to rebuild the stonewall to match the section already rebuilt, noting he would use mortar. Mr. Picton noted that Dr. Kortmann had spoken of the benefits of a natural shoreline and said the consultant should be asked whether the wall should be loose or mortared. Further discussion was tabled.
Madoff/241 West shore Road/#IW-07-63/Repair Stonewall: Mr. Picton noted that the same comments made above regarding the Getnick application applied to this one. The one difference, he said, was that this property has a stretch of shoreline that looks more natural and he wasn't sure there had previously been a stonewall there. He said that the natural shoreline provided habitat and dissipated the waves; both functions with ecological significance. He was not sure that every rocky shoreline should be converted to a wall. He also noted the existing shoreline in this area was stable. Mr. Thompson said he would discuss this matter with the property owner. Mr. Picton suggested that only the existing walls be maintained, but said the Commission would wait for a report from its consultant before making a decision.
New Application
Lautier/56 June Road/#IW-07-64/Thinning, Erosion Controls, Planting: Mr. Ajello said when Mr. Lautier had begun tree work on the property, he had requested that he submit a stabilization and planting plan for the area near the intermittent stream. Mr. Lautier responded with a plan by Aspetuck Garden and an application that included placement of stabilization mats on the steep slopes. Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the property. He said there had been "borderline clearcutting" on the steep slope in a highly erodable area. He noted, however, that a canopy remained. Mr. Lautier said he would plant mountain laurel and dogwood as soon as possible in the spring, but would install erosion blankets and hay bales immediately. Mr. Ajello said he had asked the owner to spread leaf mulch and hay on the bare slopes and that he did not think a bond was necessary. Mr. Picton explained that the Commission could not act on the application until the second meeting, but asked that the stabilization measures be implemented as soon as possible. The commissioners will inspect the property on their own before the next meeting. Mr. Lautier described driveway improvements that he wants to make near the watercourse. Mr. Picton asked him to draft a design and then make an application to the Commission.
Other Business
Hackney-Holiman/125 West Shore Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-07-60/Buried Conduit: Mr. Ajello pointed out on the partial site plan dated 11/28/07 where the power line would be buried. At its closest point the trench would be 60 feet from the lake. Mr. Johnson, contractor, explained that the DOT doesn't allow trenching under the state road except under the "Call Before You Dig" guidelines, and added that a separate meter and transformer would be required if this was done. Mr. Ajello said he saw no problem with the plan as proposed.
MOTION: To approve the request to revise Permit #IW-07-60 issued to Mr. Hackney and Ms. Holiman to demolish and rebuild the studio and deck at 125 West Shore Road to include a buried conduit per the site plan dated 11/28/07. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Renick/12 Green Hill Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-07-47/Concrete Footing: Mr. Ajello reported that sloping ledge had been found under the wall and so a concrete footing was necessary. Mr. Neff, engineer, reviewed his plan, "Retaining Wall Replacement Plan," revised to 11/27/07. He explained that the 8" concrete footing would be pinned into the wall and would take the place of the lowest course of block. Mr. LaMuniere noted there had been a lot of work done recently to the house and he asked how the runoff is managed. Mr. Neff stated there is a splash pad and from there the runoff spreads out over the ground.
MOTION: To approve the request to revise Permit #IW-07-47 issued to Mr. Renick for a retaining wall at 12 Green Hill Road to include concrete footings per the plan by Mr. Neff revised to 11/27/07. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Potter/Sunny Ridge and Hinkle Roads/Lot Line Revision/Preliminary Discussion: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented the map, "Property/Boundary Survey, Lot Line Revision," by Mr. Alex, dated July 2007, revised to 10/15/07. He noted lot line revisions between existing separate parcels were proposed; there are now five lots and there will be five when they are reconfigured. Mr. Picton said that Mr. Potter must submit documentation that proves all of the lots are existing. Mr. Neff noted that the soil types were taken from the USDA maps and that the wetlands soils had not been flagged on site. Mr. Picton noted that the USDA information is often inaccurate and so the Commission did not know exactly where the wetlands were in relation to the proposed development. He said the Commission could not act on a plan showing development without knowing the exact location of the wetlands. He said building sites and possible wetlands crossings would concern the Commission. Mr. Ajello noted the application was for lot line revisions, not to build. Mr. Picton suggested then, that a map showing only the proposed lot lines be submitted to Wetlands. He asked Mr. Ajello if he had inspected the property. Mr. Ajello responded that Lg soils could not be detected by looking at a cornfield. Mr. Bedini agreed, adding that he had observed water on the cornfields and so thought the wetlands should be flagged. Mr. Neff noted that there are existing roads on all four sides of the property and so he felt certain that the Commission would see that there were no access problems once it conducted a site inspection. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. although Mrs. D. Hill noted none of the commissioners was a soil scientist certified to identify wetlands soils.
Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Trenching: Mr. Ajello stated that Land Tech had inspected the property earlier in the day and its report would be submitted soon.
Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road/Subdivision: Mr. Ajello inspected the property and confirmed there were no wetlands.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of the Understory: Mr. Picton asked what was holding up Land Tech's inspection of the property. Mr. Ajello said he had not yet been able to coordinate an inspection with Mr. DiBenedetto. Mr. Picton asked, then, that Mr. Ajello and Land Tech inspect the site on their own because for the last three months there had been no progress made on resolving this matter.
Brown/127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work Along Shoreline: Mr. Picton asked when the Milone and McBroom report would be submitted. Mr. Ajello responded that the estimate and proposal would be sent in soon. Mr. Picton asked if Mr. Ajello had assembled all of the Commission's questions in the letter requesting the review. Mr. Ajello said he would repeat each of the questions to the consultant. Mr. LaMuniere noted the review could not be generalized, specific comments were needed. Mr. Ajello noted the consultant would inspect the lake shore and the Brown, Adams, Getnick, and Madoff shoreline walls as the Commission had requested earlier in the meeting.
Janco/11 June Road/#IW-07-V9/Unauthorized Excavation, Stairs: Mr. Ajello recommended that erosion blankets be put down to stabilize the steep slope. Mr. Picton thought this work was overdue and asked Mr. Ajello to immediately send an enforcement letter to specify exactly what stabilization work must be done and to call the Jancos tomorrow to tell them that they would receive another citation if the restoration work was not completed within 10 days. He noted a request for a stabilization plan would not be sufficient.
Drakely/59 River Road/#IW-07-V1/Unauthorized Clearing: It was noted that Mr. Drakely had paid his citation, but otherwise had not responded to the enforcement letter sent to him. Mr. Bedini said that the Commission should establish a policy to fine people per day until the ordered restoration work is done. He noted that most property owners do not respond quickly to enforcement letters. Mr. Picton agreed that the Commission should discuss a change to the Ordinance. Mr. Picton directed Mr. Ajello to monitor the property to make sure the owner was allowing the vegetation to grow back.
Fowler/#IW-05-58/Remediation Per Order: Mr. Picton asked if another citation could be issued for failure to promptly restore the site, but Mr. Ajello responded that the permit was good for 5 years. He noted, too, that the Land Records had been attached. Mr. Picton said the permit specified the work was to be completed within the growing season, so Mr. Fowler was not in compliance with the permit. Mr. LaMuniere noted that specific time limits should be specified in future restoration orders. Mrs. D. Hill recommended that permits be valid for only 2 years, not 5.
Reinhardt-Cremona/Perkins Road/Execution of Approved Restoration Plan: Mr. Ajello said the planting was done and the new plants had been labeled. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to make sure that Mr. Childs had written a plan for the continuing maintenance of the site. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 3:00 p.m.
Kessler/Nettleton Hollow Road: Mr. Thomson asked if monitoring had been a condition of approval. Mr. Ajello said it was and that the process had begun today with a preliminary on site meeting. Mr. Kessler will soon post the required bond.
Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-07-V12/Excavation in Wetlands: Mr. Bedini recommended that the State Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and the DEP be sent copies of the site inspection and Regular Meeting minutes as there were many flagrant violations on site. Mr. Picton noted that Mr. Lodsin told the Commission that he was farming the property and that he was removing beaver dams, but said the Commission had found little evidence of a farming operation or of beaver dams. It was noted the Commission had approved a 30 ft. by 70 ft. area for the planting of seedlings, but Mr. Lodsin had never done the planting. Mr. Ajello said he had sent a notice of violation. Mr. Picton asked that this be followed up with an enforcement order to restore the property under the direction of the Commission and its consultant. He said he would consult with Atty. Zizka on the proper procedures and about securing the cost of the required restoration. It was the consensus that a cease and desist order would be sent and a show cause hearing held on December 12, 2007. Mr. Bedini recommended that the Commission hire a consultant to estimate the bond for the clean up work. Mr. Ajello said he would file the notice of violation on the Land Records. Mr. Thomson thought it would be a good idea to keep other Town organizations with funds to purchase open space appraised of the situation, but Mr. Bedini asked whether sending information to agencies with no jurisdiction would taint the Commission's legal standing. Mr. Picton will ask Atty. Zizka. Mr. Thomson noted his concern that contaminants from all of the junk on site were seeping into the groundwater.
Mello/183 Woodbury Road/#IW-07-V11/Unauthorized Bridge and Culvert Work in the Brook: Mr. Szymanski will attend the December meeting to report on whether the new culvert was properly sized.
Town of Washington/Titus Road/River Loop Property: The commissioners asked whether the soil stockpile on this property had been tested. Mr. Ajello said the soil had been trucked off site. It was not known where it was taken.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clearcutting: Mr. Moore had been directed to seed and mulch the disturbed areas, but had not yet reported that he had done so. Again, it was noted that the Commission had not specified a time limit in which the work had to be done and should be careful to do so in the future.
Rubler/240 Wykeham Road/Clearing and Driveway Washout: The Commission will hold the bond until all work is completed.
Peloquin/1 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-07-V13: Mr. Ajello said he would soon mail a notice of violation for unauthorized clearing, deposition of material, and stonework next to the Aspetuck River. Mr. Ajello said he had photos of the property taken last year so he would be able to determine what work had been done without permits. Mrs. D. Hill noted that this was a known violation with enforcement in progress and so should have been listed on the agenda.
Other Business
Revision of the By-Laws: The proposed language for Section 3 was reviewed and determined to be OK. The proposed new Section 12: Removal of Member for Non Participation, however, was further revised. The new wording will be mailed out prior to the next meeting. It was noted that the DEP Inland Wetland Commissioner Training Course is valuable for new Members and it was the consensus that they should be notified in writing at the time of appointment that completion of the course within 2 years is required.
Citations: It was noted a revision of the Town Ordinance would be necessary to increase the fine schedule. Mrs. Hill will send the proposal voted on at a previous meeting to the Selectmen's Office. This item will remain on the agenda.
Revision of the Regulations: Mr. Picton had reviewed the draft prepared by the subcommittee and noted his concern that the regulations wouldn't be as good and that clarity would be lost if the DEP model regulations were adopted. He gave the definition of clearcutting as an example, pointing out that the model regs say cutting of "all" trees, while the current Town Regulations say, "majority" of trees. He suggested that the Commission hire a consultant to make sure that the best of both regs are adopted. Mr. LaMuniere, however, noted this was the third time the Commission had begun to work on this project and urged that the subcommittee move forward. Mrs. D. Hill agreed that the model regs have less detail, but felt that would give the Commission more flexibility and discretionary power. She said it would be impossible to compare the two sets of regulations phrase by phrase, but thought additional subjects could be added to the model regs if needed. Mr. Thomson noted that the subcommittee was doing its best to reconcile the two, adding that Mr. Picton had brought up relevant points, which would be considered.
Mr. Bedini spoke briefly of the Primary School and how important it was for the Town to have accurate floodplain data. It was noted that whatever work is done to the Primary School, FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers, Bill Jenks as floodplain officer, the DEP, and the Inland Wetlands Commission would be involved. Mr. Bedini said the Building Committee was considering tearing up and reapplying blacktop, running stormwater runoff into the Shepaug, and putting in a new courtyard at the school. Mr. Picton said the Commission should provide the Committee with a list of concerns such as displacement of water, change in direction of the flow of floodwaters, increase in impervious surfaces, preservation of vegetation, changes in grade, etc.
MOTION: To go into Executive Session at 10:28 p.m. to discuss pending litigation. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end Executive Session at 10:40 p.m. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Ajello was asked to investigate whether the Inland Wetlands Commission is authorized to require performance bonds.
Mrs. J. Hill was asked to send the information from Dr. Kortmann to Atty. Zizka.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: November 25, 2007 November 14, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Thomson
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Picton
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Potter
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Wadelton, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Neff Mr. Johnson, Ms. Zinick, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Thomson, Mr. Haverly, Mr. Lodsin, Mr. Gitterman, Mr. Szymanski
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Brown/127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Stonewall Along Shoreline:
Mr. Bedini called the show cause hearing to order at 6:50 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Thomson. It was noted the purpose of the hearing was to provide Mr. Brown an opportunity to show cause why the enforcement order issued on 11/5/07 should not remain in effect.
Representing the property owner, Atty. Kelly noted that his client had already paid a fine and that this appeared to be the second enforcement order for the same offense. Mr. Ajello explained the order had been reissued because no hearing had been held for the first order.
Atty. Kelly stated the only expert opinion submitted was the 7/2/07 letter from Mr. Wilson, engineer, who said there was no evidence of any significant negative impact and that the construction of the stonewall had not impacted the water quality of the lake. Mrs. D. Hill said the issue was that Mr. Brown had done more work than had been approved in his permit, that the Commission did not have to prove adverse impact in such a case, and that the Commission required the unpermitted portion of wall to be removed. Atty. Kelly argued that the removal of the unpermitted portion of wall might be more harmful to the lake than its construction.
Mr. LaMuniere explained the Commission's policy to allow the edge of the lake to return to its natural condition whenever possible. He said the Commission recognized the owner's right to maintain his existing wall and anchor a dock to it, but had directed him to leave the remainder of the shoreline alone. The owner, however, had constructed a wall along the entire length of the property, disregarding his permit. If the unpermitted portion of the wall did not have to be removed, Mr. LaMuniere asked, then why have an Inland Wetlands permit process? Mr. Bedini agreed, saying if anyone could violate a permit and pay a fine to settle the matter there would be no reason for an application. He said Mr. Brown should have constructed only what had been approved in his permit.
Atty. Kelly reviewed the 5/23/07 WEO Report and disagreed that the work done was a blatant violation. He said the Commission must follow its violation procedure and had no authority to order restoration if there was no negative impact to the lake. He said the Commission was handling this matter in a punitive way and that restoration could cause more harm to the lake. He noted the 10/05 survey by Mr. Alex showed a stonewall along the lake front and a photo submitted by Mr. Wilson showed the wall had existed previously.
Mrs. D. Hill asked Atty. Kelly to submit written authorization to represent the property owner. Atty. Kelly agreed to do so.
Mr. Bedini noted the purpose of the hearing was only for Mr. Brown to show why the enforcement order should not remain in effect and the other issues being raised by Atty. Kelly would be discussed later in the meeting. Atty. Kelly asked what the Commission would rely on when it reviewed the matter because it was supposed to base its decision on evidence presented at the hearing. Mr. Ajello explained the narrow scope of show cause hearings and said the history of the violation would be discussed at the meeting.
Atty. Kelly said he disagreed with points raised in Mr. Ajello's 11/5/07 enforcement order. 1) He did not think the area should be restored to its "original" configuration and questioned what that meant. 2) He said the work in excess of the permit did not alter the function of the shoreline. 3) He said that only 30 feet in excess of the permit had been constructed; not 90 feet as indicated in the order. 4) He said the wall built was dry stone, which had been taken from an old wall that had collapsed into the lake. 5) He disagreed that his client had an obligation to provide any further evidence or a restoration plan. 6) He disagreed that the Commission had the authority to require that this matter be resolved before any other regulated activities could be permitted on site. He added that he would be happy to work with the Commission to reach a satisfactory solution, which would protect the lake.
MOTION: To close the show cause hearing for Brown/ 127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work Along the Shoreline. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4-0.
Mr. Bedini closed the show cause hearing at 7:14 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:14 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Thomson.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: IV. New Applications: B. Getnick/237 West Shore Road/#IW-07-62/ Repair Stonewall, C. Madoff/241 West Shore Road/#IW-07-63/Repair Stonewall and VI. Enforcement: Q. Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike /Unauthorized Excavation. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 10/24/07 Show Cause Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 3: 4th line under P. 16: Change: "is" to "as."
P. 7: 11th line under Oberndorf: Change: "to due" to "due to."
P. 10: 6th line under Brown: Insert: "enforcement" before "order."
P. 10: 7th line under Brown: Insert: "or third" before "citation."
P. 11: 1st line under Revision of By-Laws: Should state Mrs. J. Hill.
P. 11: 8th line under Revision of By-Laws: Insert: "on such grounds with justificatory evidence" after "removed."
MOTION: To accept the 10/24/07 Show Cause Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 3-0-1. Mr. Thomson abstained because he had not attended the meeting.
MOTION: To accept the 10/31/07 Washington Club, Inc. site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, passed 4-0.
The 10/31/07 Oberndorf site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. The correct spelling of Brian Neff's name was noted.
MOTION: To accept the 10/31/07 Oberndorf site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To accept the 10/31/07 Hackney-Holiman site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 4-0.
Pending Applications
Barnet/32 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-07-52/Reconstruct Barn: Mr. Ajello reported that Mr. Barnet requested the discussion of this application be tabled until the 11/28 meeting when he would be able to attend.
Fisher/66 Calhoun Street/#IW-07-54/Landscaping and Planting: Mr. Sabin noted that he had revised the map to reflect all of the concerns raised by the Commission at the last meeting. The map, "Proposed Wetland Garden and Pond Enhancement," by Mr. Sabin revised to 11/10/07 was reviewed. The following notes were added: 1) that the erosion at the concrete spillway structure would be repaired, 2) that there would be additional plantings around the edge of the pond, a buffer at the south end of the pond, and emergent plantings, and 3) that rocks would be placed as stepping stones across the channel and the water would be allowed to continue to flow between them. Mr. Sabin noted the erosion problem at the spillway was chronic, but would be repaired now by filling in and compacting the disturbed area.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-54 submitted by Ms. Fisher for landscaping and planting at 66 Calhoun Street per the map, "Proposed Wetland Garden and Pond Enhancement," by Mr. Sabin, revised to 11/10/07. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.
Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-07-55/Fence, Hedge, Stonewall: At the last meeting the Commission had said it had no problem with the proposed fence and hedge, but had indicated its concern about extending the stonewall beyond the existing section. Ms. Zinick, agent, presented the construction description and sequence for the proposed wall, dated 11/7/07 and the site plan by Ellsworth Studio, dated 9/26/07. She noted that the sheet specified the backfill material needed for the new sections of wall would be only 15 cu. yds. and that the grade would have to be modified only slightly. Ms. Zinick said there had previously been a stonewall along the shore in the proposed location, but it had fallen into the water. She argued it was an historic stonewall and that its construction would not be a significant activity and would not alter the natural and indigenous character of the shoreline. Mr. LaMuniere read the 10/24/07 minutes, which stated, "...that the stonewall was contrary to the position the Commission had taken on other applications and could potentially impact how the beach functions." He noted, too, there had been a consensus that there should be no new wall constructed where there were no remnants of a previous wall and that a shoreline garden should be considered instead. Ms. Zinick said the owner wanted the wall across the entire property for historic and aesthetic reasons and said the Regulations listed aesthetics as one reason an activity in a regulated area could be approved. Mr. Ajello noted that the Commission prefers the preservation of the natural shoreline of the lake and had been working to this end on several recent applications. Mr. LaMuniere said the Commission must be consistent. It was noted that the existing wall extends from the Getnick property to the big willow and that the Commission did not object to its maintenance. The site plan was marked by Mr. Ajello to indicate the portion of the stonewall that was existing and it was agreed that the rest of the area should remain in its natural condition.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-55 submitted by Mr. Adams for a hedge, cedar fence, and stonewall at 233 West Shore Road with the condition that only the existing portion of the stonewall as shown on the map, "Site Plan," by Ellsworth Studio, dated 9/26/07 and revised by hand to 11/14/07 may be repaired to its existing height and width, (no new wall may be built.) By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.
Oberndorf/151 West Shore Road/#IW-07-57/Demolish House, Construct New House: The map, "Septic System Repair Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 11/9/07 was reviewed. Mr. Neff, engineer, noted the revisions included: 1) a note that the valve box with wooden cover will be left in place, 2) corrected shoreline profile, 3) silt fencing around the existing catch basins, 4) corrected labeling of trees and deletion of those that had been cut, 5) the description of the work to be done was corrected from an addition to the demolition and reconstruction of the house, 6) the garage location was shown, 7) the proposed contours that tie into the existing retaining wall on the east side of the house were shown as requested, and 8) the temporary parking and staging area was shown. Mr. Neff noted the staging area would be seeded and mulched after the completion of the work. Mr. Johnson, contractor, said that vehicles would not be permitted to park on the existing lawn. Mr. Neff explained that the roof drainage would increase due to the proposed increase in the size of the house and would be piped to an infiltration system, which would handle a one inch storm. During larger storm events the system would overflow at the west end of the unit and sheet flow over the grass so there would be no erosion. Mr. Neff noted that the erosion control plan had also been revised to include job management notes and additional points in the construction sequence. Mr. Ajello recommended that a temporary fence or stakes be installed to keep parking off the lawn areas along the driveway and West Shore Road. Mr. Johnson agreed to do so. It was noted there were no wetlands on the property and no activities proposed within 100 feet of the lake. Mr. LaMuniere voiced his concern about the capacity of the infiltration system and asked if it could be increased. Mr. Neff said it could be lengthened. Mr. Ajello recommended that a bond be posted due to the potential risk of sedimentation into the catch basins.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-57 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Oberndorf to demolish the existing house and construct a new dwelling at 151 West Shore Road per the map, "Septic System Repair Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 11/9/07 and the "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 11/10/07 subject to the following conditions: 1. that fencing be installed along West Shore Road and along the driveway up to the curtain drain to prevent parking on the grass and 2. that a $2000 bond be posted. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4-0.
Washington Club, Inc./8 Golf Course Road/#IW-07-56/Dredge Pond: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented the map, "Pond Dredging Plan," by Arthur Howland and Assoc., dated 8/13/07, which, he said, had not been revised since the last meeting. He briefly reviewed the information that had been discussed at the last meeting; the dredged material would be trucked to an existing depression on the property, the pond would be dredged to a depth of 8 to 10 feet and used for the irrigation of the golf course, and there are no wetlands soils within 100 feet of the proposed activities. Mrs. D. Hill asked if a buffer could be planted around the pond. Mr. Szymanski said he could provide the Club with buffer guidelines and encourage that this be done. Mr. LaMuniere said the proposed activities presented no substantial threat to any wetlands or watercourses. It was noted that at the last meeting Mr. Picton had asked that only clear water be pumped from the pond. Mr. Szymanski said this was addressed in the construction sequence and he described the silt bag and rows of hay bales with filtered hay between that would be used to trap sediment.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-56 submitted by the Washington Club, Inc. to dredge the pond at 8 Golf Course Road per the plan, "Pond Dredging Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 8/13/2007. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.
Sargeant/28 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-07-58/Install Dry Hydrant: Mr. Ajello noted that this was the second submission, that a more accurate map had been submitted as requested, and that the Commission had found no problems with the first application.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-58 submitted by Mr. Sargeant to install a dry hydrant at 28 Tinker Hill Road as proposed. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.
Lecher/47 West Shore Road/#IW-07-59/Remove Concrete Dock, Cap Buttress: It was noted the deteriorating concrete dock would be removed and eventually replaced with a floating dock. The buttress that would anchor the new dock would remain. The hand drawn plan, "Pier Removal and Resurfacing Plan," dated 10/21/07 showed that a turbidity curtain would be placed around the dock while the work was in progress.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-59 submitted by Mr. Lecher to remove the concrete dock and cap the buttress at 47 West Shore Road per the plans submitted. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.
Hackney-Holiman/125 West Shore Road/#IW-07-60/Demolish, Reconstruct Deck and Studio: Mr. Neff, engineer, noted there had been no revisions to the map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 10/22/07 since the last meeting. He briefly described the work to be done; the deck and studio would be demolished, a new foundation would be installed, and the deck and studio would be reconstructed. Hay bales would be installed between the work and the existing stonewall to serve as an erosion barrier. The studio would be constructed on the same footprint, but the building would increase in height if a variance is approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Bedini noted the plans were well documented and the work needed to be done because the building was falling into the lake. Mr. LaMuniere asked if any pressure treated wood or harmful materials would be used. Mr. Neff noted that no pressure treated wood, only natural materials, would be used in the construction. Mr. LaMuniere asked if there would be a dumpster and noted no construction envelope was shown on the plans. Mr. Neff stated that the building would be demolished by hand to cause less disturbance and the dumpster would be located across West Shore Road and loaded by hand.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-60 submitted by Mr. Hackney and Ms. Holiman to demolish and rebuild the studio and deck at 125 West Shore Road per the plans, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 1-/22/07. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.
New Applications
Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road/#IW-07-61/2 Lot Subdivision: Atty. Fisher represented the applicant. The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 11/1/07 was reviewed. The commissioners noted that all of the wetlands and watercourses were on the existing lot, all of the proposed activities were on the proposed lot, all of the proposed activities were at least 250 feet from wetlands, and there were no wetlands issues. Atty. Fisher was informed that an application was not required because no regulated activities were proposed.
Getnick/237 West Shore Road/#IW-07-62/Repair Stonewall: Mr. Thomson, contractor, was present. Mr. Ajello said the existing shoreline stonewall connects with the Adams wall at 233 West Shore Road and needs repair. The hand drawn site plan, dated 3/2/90, profile, and sheet, "Description of Work," no date, no signature, were reviewed. Photos of the wall were circulated. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 3:00 p.m.
Madoff/241 West Shore Road/#IW-07-63/Repair Stonewall: Mr. Thomson also represented this property owner. A hand drawn map with no title, date, or signature, but marked received 1/7/03 and an unsigned, undated sheet listing construction materials, marked received 8/14/02 were reviewed. Mr. Thomson said he would rebuild the wall to its existing height and width, but said he might have to sheer up the base to make sure it would be stable. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2007 at 3:00 p.m.
Other Business
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-05-54: Mr. Gitterman, owner, and Mr. Neff, engineer, were present. Mr. Gitterman presented the map, "Site Layout," by Mr. Worcester, revised to 10/22/07 and compared it with the approved site development plan. The proposed changes he described included 1) moving one building to the other side of the driveway, 2) creating condo units, 3) moving the garages to connect with the houses, 4) planting trees in the field and making corridors of trees through sections of the property, 5) combining three of the units into one building, and 6) turning some of the houses to vary the view. He noted that although there would be a slight increase in roof area, there would be a decrease in the driveway area, which would result in an overall decrease in impervious surfaces of approximately 3000 sq. ft. It was noted there would be no change in the septic system or in the number of bedrooms proposed and that some of the structures would be moved farther from the wetlands. Mr. Gitterman stated that native plants would be used as often as possible. Mr. Ajello said the revised plan would result in a net reduction of wetlands impacts.
MOTION: To approve the request by Myfield, LLC. to revise Permit #IW-05-54 to revise the approved site development plan for the affordable housing project at 7 Mygatt Road. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, passed 4-0.
Enforcement
Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Excavation: It was noted that Mr. Lodsin was present to respond to the 11/7/07 notice of violation. Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the unauthorized work done on the property, some of it actually within a swamp or stream. Mr. Bedini asked what the purpose of the excavation was. Mr. Lodsin explained that the downstream beaver dams were causing the water level on his property to rise and this was killing the Christmas trees in his tree farm. He said that Steep Rock would not remove the dams. He complained that the silt washing onto his property from Whittlesey Road was causing severe problems and that drainage from Rt. 202 was bringing additional water onto his property. He said storm drains were needed along the state highway to help keep his property dry. Mr. Lodsin also complained that his upstream neighbor, Mr. Weiner, had installed several culverts along Meeker Swamp and Bee Brook and that these were affecting his property. He did not think it was fair that the state could dig out culverts, but that when he tried to dig channels to get the water to flow off his property, he was sent a notice of violation. He said he was attempting to dig out the old beaver dams, which had caused the stream to silt in and the water level to rise and cover what used to be pasture. Mr. Bedini advised Mr. Lodsin that he is required to apply for a permit before doing any work and that was the reason for the NOV. Mr. Bedini noted there were many issues for the Commission to consider and recommended a site inspection with representatives from all of the parties that might be contributing to the water and drainage problems on the property. It was decided the Commission would first inspect the site on its own on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. and that a second inspection with all of the other parties involved would be scheduled at a later date. Mr. Lodsin was told not to do any additional work in the meantime. Mrs. D. Hill noted that Mr. Lodsin had had previous violations on this property and so knew he needed a permit before doing any digging. She asked the commissioners to review the old enforcement files before inspecting the site.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road/#IW-04-V8/Repair of Retaining Wall: Mr. Ajello reported that work was underway and might be completed by the next meeting.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Clearing, Filling: Mr. Moore has not contacted the Commission as required, nor has he completed the planting of the disturbed areas. Mr. Ajello will write to him to warn that if does not complete the work, a third citation will be issued.
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Filling, Soil Disturbance: Mr. Ajello said the work had stalled and that he would contact Mr. Wright.
Steep Rock Assn./River Road/Clearing of "McKennee" Field: Mr. Ajello said he had discussed this matter with Mrs. Branson, who will get information on the vernal pool. Mr. Ajello said it had held water for six months this spring and so it might be a significant vernal pool. Mrs. Branson will contact Mrs. Corrigan to ask her to investigate.
Reinhardt and Cremona/Perkins Road/Execution of Approved Restoration Plan: Mr. Ajello said there had been no activity since Mr. Child's letter two weeks ago. He said he would inspect the property tomorrow and urged the commissioners to inspect it, also. He had asked Mr. Childs to consider fencing off the entire area to protect it from deer as Mr. LaMuniere had suggested. The Commission asked for a report from Mr. Childs by the next meeting.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory: Mr. Ajello noted he was trying to set up a meeting with Mr. Jontos and Mr. DiBenedetto to establish the property boundaries and the area to be restored.
Rubler/240 Wykeham Road/Clearing and Driveway Washout: Mr. Ajello reported that the steep driveway banks have been stabilized, but the pool is still under construction.
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-05-58/Remediation Per Order: There has been no progress on this matter.
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Trenching in Wetlands: Mr. Andersson has appealed to Superior Court and Mrs. J. Hill sent the entire file to Atty. Zizka. It was noted that Town Ordinance #711 authorizes the Commission to charge consultants' fees to property owners only for the review of applications. It was the consensus that the Ordinance should be modified as soon as possible so that the Commission may collect consultants' fees for the review of enforcement matters as well as applications. It was also noted that the fine ordinance should be revised to increase the amount of fines for violations.
Brown/127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work Along Shoreline: Mr. Ajello noted that Atty. Kelly had been right to question what was meant by requiring restoration to the original condition and said he would revise the order to specify that the shoreline should be restored to its pre application condition. The commissioners did not think they were being punitive when they asked the applicant to do only the work applied for and approved. Mr. Thomson noted that Atty. Kelly had referred to Mr. Wilson as an expert. While the commissioners did not think he was an expert in this field, they did not have expert testimony to counter his views. Mr. Thomson said that at both the CACIWC and wetlands commissioner training sessions he recently attended it was stressed that Commissions must get expert testimony rather than relying on the opinions of their members. Mr. Bedini recommended that the Commission hire an expert on lakes to determine how the construction of stonewalls along the shoreline affects wave action, water quality, drainage, etc. This documentation would be available at meetings and the consultant could be requested to attend a meeting if an applicant wanted to question him. Mr. LaMuniere thought the Lake Waramaug Assn. might be able to provide information on this matter, also. It was recommended that the firm of Milone and MacBroom be contacted. The commissioners were asked to email their questions to Mr. Ajello who would forward them to the consultants for their brief written opinion. Specifically, Mr. Thomson wanted to know what would be better for the lake; leaving the unpermitted section of the Brown wall in place or removing it and restoring the shoreline.
MOTION: That the enforcement order issued on 11/5/07 to Mr. Brown/127 West Shore Road for unauthorized construction of a stonewall beyond the scope and conditions of his permit remain in effect with one revision: the reference to the original condition of the property was changed to pre application condition. By Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 4-0.
Drakely/59 River Road/#IW-07-V1/Unauthorized Clearing: Mr. Drakely has not yet responded to his citation and time will soon run out.
Janko/11 June Road/#IW-07-V9/Excavation, Build Steps: Mrs. Janko paid her fine and has met with Mr. Palella of Aspetuck Gardens regarding planting to stabilize the disturbed slopes. Mr. Ajello hoped this matter would be resolved before winter.
Mello/183 Woodbury Road/#IW-07-V11/Unauthorized Bridge and Culvert Work: Mr. Ajello said he had asked the property owner for an application for this work some time ago. He noted he had mailed a notice of violation. All of the work done was within the state right of way. He was concerned that the new culvert installed was undersized and had been installed in such a way that the flow through it would be restricted. He said he had waited to send a citation until discussing this matter with the Commission.
Other Business
Revision of the By-Laws/Reduction of Quoroum to Three: Mr. LaMuniere stated that while he agreed that the quorum should be reduced to three, he also thought that three votes should be required for all approvals. This would eliminate 2-1 approvals. It was agreed that this was a good idea. Mrs. J. Hill will send the proposed language out to members in preparation of a vote at a future meeting.
MOTION: To revise Section 5 of the Inland Wetlands Commission By-Laws as follows: The Quorum necessary for a legally constituted meeting shall consist of three (3) members. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, passed 4-0.
Removal of Commissioner for Non Participation: Mrs. J. Hill reported that Mr. Sears told her he would bring this matter up at the next Selectmen's meeting. In the meantime, he recommended that the policy for the removal of a commissioner for non participation be included in the Commission's By-Laws. By doing so, a commissioner would be on notice at the time of his appointment that regular attendance of meetings is expected and under what circumstances he could be removed. The commissioners thought this was a good idea and said they would discuss it at the Special Meeting on revision of the Regulations to be held on November 15.
Revision of the Fine Schedule: Atty. Zizka had advised the Commission that this was governed by Town Ordinance.
Assignment Sheet: Mrs. Hill circulated the Assignment Sheet. Mr. Picton had requested that after each meeting she list the assignments and who was responsible for the completion of each. The responsible parties will sign off on this sheet as they complete each task. The master sheet will be available in the land use office and will be brought to each meeting so that the commissioners can keep track of how work is progressing.
Communications
Referral from the Planning Commission/Implementation of the Plan of Conservation and Development: Mrs. D. Hill said there was not too much that was applicable because only two items had been under the jurisdiction of the Inland Wetlands Commission and that the Inland Wetlands Commission always does its work to the best of its ability. Mrs. J. Hill said she will coordinate this remark with those from Mr. Picton and will submit them to the Planning Commission.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: November 2, 2007 October 24, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Potter
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Neff, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Johnson, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Lecher, Ms. Zinick
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Trenching
Mr. Picton called the show cause hearing to order at 7:02 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Picton. He noted there had been a technical deficiency in noticing the results of the previous hearing and, therefore, this would be the same hearing held again on the same matter. Mr. Ajello stated that all of the comments made at the last hearing as well as the hearing tape and minutes would be incorporated into the record of this new hearing. Atty. Fisher asked that all of the materials regarding this matter submitted to date also be incorporated into the record.
Mr. Ajello noted that when he reissued the enforcement order he had changed the wording to the language agreed upon at the last meeting.
Atty. Fisher again stated for the record that he believed the Commission was exceeding its authority granted both by state statute and its own Regulations by referring this matter to a consultant and requiring the property owner to pay for it. He said the request for a management plan for the property also was not under the Commission's authority. He said his client would appeal if the enforcement order continued to go beyond what the statutes and Regulations allow. He asked for an opportunity for Land Tech to review Mr. Sabin's mitigation proposal rather than to have Land Tech develop its own plan. He thought the referral to Land Tech was "overkill" and again said his client would not pay for it.
It was noted the purpose of the hearing was only to give the property owner the opportunity to show cause why the enforcement order should not remain in effect and that any other discussion would be held later during the Regular Meeting.
Mr. LaMuniere noted that the Commission had not asked for a management plan for the entire farm, but for a plan to manage the wetlands and watercourses on the property and said the Commission was concerned about the activities, which had occurred in the upland review area.
MOTION: To close the show cause hearing to consider the enforcement order reissued to Mr. Andersson on 10/22/07 for unauthorized activities at 35-45 Gunn Hill Road. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.
Mr. Picton closed the show cause hearing at 7:12 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 Meeting to order at 7:13 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Picton.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: New Application: Hackney-Holiman/125 West Shore Road/#IW-07-60/Reconstruct Deck and Studio. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 4-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 10/10/07 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 1 and throughout: The correct spelling is Mr. Tittman.
P. 3: Last sentence in first full paragraph: Change to: ...advise it on what would be appropriate for the restoration of this area."
P. 4: Motion to include subsequent business should specifically cite the following items: New Applications: D. Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-07-55/Relocate Pool, Install Fence and Hedge, Lengthen Stone Wall, etc., E. Washington Club, Inc./8 Golf Course Road/#IW-07-56/Dredge Pond, Other Business: C. Discussion Regarding Whether to Amend By-Laws Re: Quorum, and Communications: A. Notification from Kent Re: Proposed Activity Within 500 ft. of Town Line.
P. 5: Under Renick: Line 4: Change "shorn" to "shored."
P. 7: In the motion: Line 7: Change "curb" to "curve."
In the motion: Line 9: Delete the first "first."
Under Carron: Line 7 from bottom: Change to: ...removed and dewatered and 600 c. yrds. spread....
Under Carron: Line 5 from bottom: Change to: ...noted the rest of the material would be taken....
P. 11: Add just above motion: Mr. LaMuniere suggested that the portion of the field that was wetlands or wet meadow should be left as is and the other parts of the field used for hay production. Atty. Fisher said the possibility could be considered as part of a mitigation plan.
P. 15: Under Cornelio: Line 3: Change: "to the lake" to "near the lake."
P. 16: Last phrase under By-Laws: Delete: the last phrase, "...noting that ... political goals."
Under Revision of Fine Schedule: Mrs. Hill asked that the same terminology is in the Ordinance be used. Mrs. J. Hill will check the ordinance.
MOTION: To accept the 10/10/07 show cause hearing -Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To accept the 10/16/07 Barnet site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 3-0-1. Mr. Picton abstained because he had not attended.
MOTION: To accept the 10/16/07 Carron site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 3-0-1. Mr. Picton abstained because he had not attended.
The 10/16/07 Fisher site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. In the second line in the second paragraph, change "bride" to "bridge."
MOTION: To accept the 10/16/07 Fisher site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 3-0-1. Mr. Picton abstained because he had not attended.
MOTION: To accept the 10/16/07 Adams site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 3-0-1. Mr. Picton abstained because he had not attended.
Pending Applications
Stiteler/262 West Shore Road/#IW-07-43/Boathouse: This application was withdrawn.
Jackson/55 Old North Road/#IW-07-50/Single Family Dwelling, Driveway: Mr. Neff, engineer, said Mrs. Jackson had agreed to a smaller footprint for the house, deck, and greenhouse and to move the house farther to the south to keep it farther from the wetlands and from the steep slope on the north side and to reduce the area of disturbance. The reserve septic location was revised and the driveway also moved to a flatter area farther from the north slope. The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 8/10/07 was compared to the 10/22/07 revision. Mr. Picton asked if there were any drainage issues. Mr. Neff stated that a modified rip rap channel was proposed along the entire upper side of the driveway and would empty into a culvert. Mr. Picton responded that the Commission usually tries to disperse runoff rather than direct it all to one point. Mr. Neff did not think this would be a problem because the swale would be stabilized and the drainage area was small in size; only a fraction of an acre. Mr. Neff noted the erosion control plan included a construction sequence. Phasing of the project to limit the size of the disturbed area at any one time was discussed and agreed upon.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-50 submitted by Mrs. Jackson to construct a house and driveway at 55 Old North Road with the following condition: that the first half of the driveway up to the intermittent stream be graded, graveled, and stabilized and the first half of the swale on the upper side of the driveway constructed before work on the second half of the driveway begins, and work on both phases of the driveway construction be completed and all drainage measures fully installed before work on the house construction phase starts. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.
Carron/55 Gunn Hill Road/#IW-07-53/Dredge Pond: Mr. Picton recused himself. Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, noted he had submitted a map revised to 10/15/07 at the site inspection and he briefly reviewed the proposal and landscaping plan for those who had not attended. The stockpile/dewatering area was noted. Mrs. Hill noted he had agreed to leave a snag in place to the east of the pond and Mr. Sabin added this to the site plan and dated the map 10/24/07. Mr. Sabin detailed the planting of emergents at the pond's edge, noted the pond would have a 3:1 slope, and said there would be a 6 ft. buffer between the pond and the lawn on the north side of the pond.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-53 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Carron to dredge the pond at 58 Gunn Hill Road per the plans by Mr. Sabin revised to 10/24/07, including the handwritten notations made during the site inspection. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 3-0. Mr. Picton had recused himself.
Mr. Picton was reseated at 7:47 p.m.
Fisher/66 Calhoun Street/#IW-07-54/Landscaping and Planting: Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, presented his plan, "Proposed Wetland Garden and Pond Enhancement," dated 10/2/07. He noted that at the site inspection there had been evidence of erosion near the existing dam release structure, that Mr. LaMuniere had recommended that the soil in this area be compacted, and said he would do so. Mr. Picton noted that he had inspected the site on his own. There was a lengthy discussion regarding whether the proposed 18" - 24" deep trench would affect the water table. Mr. Sabin offered to make it a maximum of 18" deep. Mr. Picton thought that even so, a 60 ft. channel through the middle of the wetlands would alter the function of the wet meadow. He suggested that a path of stepping stones would accomplish the goal without impacting the wetlands. Mr. Sabin said that based on the large size of the watershed, the affect of the channel would be minimal. He proposed to naturalize the channel by adding native stone, but Mr. Picton thought the channel should not be dug and that the stones should be placed on the surface. Mr. Picton said that the practice of placing ditches in wetlands was difficult to control. Also proposed was dredging 20 to 30 cubic yards of material from the pond and planting around the edge of the pond. The Commission asked for revised plans that showed no excavation and no alteration of the grade in the wetlands and a natural slab at grade instead of the proposed bridge.
Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-07-55/Extend Wall, Plant Hedge, Install Fence: Ms. Zinick, agent, circulated an old aerial photo, which showed there previously was a stonewall in the location now proposed. The map, "Site Plan," by Mr. Cheney (no signature or seal,) revised to October 2007 was reviewed. It was noted the proposed stonewall would be 2' -2.5' above the existing beach and 8"-10" above the existing grade and that filling on the upper side would be required. Mr. Picton observed there were remains of an old stonewall to the west of the existing birch tree, but to the east there was a natural slope so that filling would be required to accomplish the profile. Mr. LaMuniere said he had no problem with the proposed hedge and fence, but that the stonewall was contrary to the position the Commission had taken on other applications and could potentially impact how the beach functions. He said it would not serve to protect the shoreline and had no other purpose. Ms. Zinick said the owner wanted to restore the historic residential look of the property. Mr. Picton noted that the previous wall may have prevented the shore from working in the most ecological and functional way. Ms. Zinick pointed out that the Commission had permitted the adjoining property owners to rebuild their shoreline wall. Mr. Ajello said this had been permitted 2 or 3 years ago, that the wall had only been repaired, and that not much fill had been needed. Ms. Zinick said the rebuilding of the wall would not disturb the lake, but asked that this matter be tabled to the next meeting so that she could find out how much fill would be required. Mr. Picton asked that the location of the large birch tree be placed on the map and noted trees would live longer if the grade wasn't altered and fill placed on top of their roots. He said the Commission permits the maintenance of stonewalls if built to the same height and length and in the same location as the existing walls, but that in this case the wall was not existing. It was the consensus that a wall should not be built on the slope down to the shoreline where there were no remnants of the old wall and that specifics for the repair of the wall were needed to complete the application. Mr. Picton asked the applicant to consider a shoreline garden as an alternate enhancement for the shore.
Washington Club, Inc./8 Golf Course Road/#IW-07-56/Dredge Pond: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, and Mr. Underwood, Club representative, presented the map, "Pond Dredging Plan," by Arthur Howland and Assoc., dated 8/13/07. Mr. Szymanski proposed to dredge the irrigation pond by the 4th hole and to deposit the 2300 cu. yards of excavated material in a depression large enough to hold 3000 cu. yards. elsewhere on the property. Doing so would ensure that that the spoils would not erode. He briefly reviewed the proposed construction sequence. The pond would not be enlarged and would be dug to a depth of 8 ft. The work would be done either in the fall or winter, would be done during dry weather, and would take less than a week. Mr. Szymanski noted the construction sequence included the following requirements: that he inspect after the deposition of the spoils to determine whether top dressing was necessary and that he report to the Commission after the work was completed and after the first rainfall. Mr. Ajello asked if the anti tracking section would be left as a hardened cart path. Mr. Underwood said it would. Mr. Picton asked if the Club had considered installing a sediment trap at the pond entrance so that it could be cleaned out more easily in the future. Mr. Szymanski responded that yearly maintenance would cause more disturbance than dredging the pond every 10 years. Mr. Picton noted that only clear water should be pumped from the pond. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.
New Applications
Oberndorf/151 West Shore Road/#IW-07-57/Demolish and Rebuild House
Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Johnson, contractor, discussed the map, "Septic System Repair Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 10/8/07. Mrs. D. Hill noted the map indicated there would be an addition to the dwelling in addition to its reconstruction. Mr. Picton noted the site plan was not clear about what was to be demolished, what was to be rebuilt, and what would be added. Mr. Ajello noted several concerns: 1) Would the concrete pad in the northeast corner of the property be removed? 2) The catch basins in the lawn and the road were not shown on the map. 3) A written job management plan was needed to due the constraints on site. Mr. Picton asked if there were wetlands on the property. Mr. Ajello said there were not, but that there were wetlands concerns due to the location of the catch basins and the steepness of the slope. Mr. Johnson noted they also proposed to replace an existing retaining wall with a poured concrete wall. Mr. Neff spoke briefly about regrading an elevated section behind the house and Mr. Picton asked that all grading lines be shown on the site plan. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 4:30 p.m.
Lecher/47 West Shore Road/#IW-07-59/Remove Pier, Cap Buttress: Mr. Lecher explained that although he had already been issued a permit to cap the existing 30 ft. X 9 ft. concrete dock, he now proposed to remove it and to apply for a floating dock at a later date. He proposed to cap only the buttress, which he would use to attach the future dock to the shore. Photos of the existing structure were circulated. Mr. Lecher noted a narrower floating dock would reach further into deeper water in the lake so that boats would not churn up the bottom so much. His sketch plan, "Pier Removal and Resurfacing Plan," dated 10/21/07 was reviewed. He explained that the concrete would be chipped into pieces, loaded into a truck, and hauled off site. It was noted this was a new application and could not be acted on this evening.
Lecher/47 West Shore Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-07-42/ Replace Wood Stairs with Stone Stairs: Mr. Lecher noted that there is an existing concrete slab under the stairs so it would not increase the amount of impervious surface to install stone stairs instead of the wooden stairs previously approved.
MOTION: To approve the request by Mr. Lecher to revise Permit #IW-07-42 to replace the wooden stairs with stone stairs at47 West Shore Road with the condition that they be installed in the same location. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.
Hackney-Holiman/125 West Shore Road/IW-07-60/Reconstruct Deck and Studio: Mr. Neff presented his plan, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," dated 10/22/07. He said the foundation of the building and deck was failing and sliding towards the lake, and therefore, the owners proposed to take them down, put a new foundation in, and rebuild to the same dimensions. The one change would be the roof line, which would increase the height of the structure. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 5:00 p.m.
Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Trenching in Wetlands: Mr. Picton reviewed the comments made by Atty. Fisher at the show cause hearing. First, he noted that Atty. Fisher did not think the Commission had the authority to refer the matter to an outside consultant and to require the property owner to pay for it. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to confirm that under Town Ordinance #711 the Commission has the authority to require property owners to pay for the Commission's consultants to resolve enforcement matters as well as to review applications. Then he noted Atty. Fisher's objection to being ordered to submit a management plan. Mr. Picton made it clear that the management plan was for the restored wetlands areas; not for all wetlands on the property and not for those unaffected by the unauthorized activities. He explained that the restored areas must be managed for a time to make sure that they regain their lost functions. Mr. LaMuniere noted that much of the unauthorized activity was done in wetlands that had already been altered, and that he thought the greater problem was the trenching in the front field as that could have downstream impacts. Mr. Picton read the 9/28/07 Land Tech proposal/list of work covered in its estimate, noting that it included a management plan for the restoration of the disturbed wetlands. He said that to the specifically listed items, the Commission would add the consideration of the owner's proposals in light of Land Tech's findings and recommendations. He said, however, that Land Tech would not be directed by the owner's mitigation proposal, which in some areas would not be a substitute for restoration. Mr. Ajello reported that he had spoken with Land Tech about the amount of the estimate, which it thought was reasonable, and about cooperating with the property owner, which it agreed to do if so requested by the Commission. Mr. Picton said Land Tech was to remain independent, but to work with useful information from the owner and to integrate that information into its review if it made sense and contributed to a professional approach to resolve the matter. Mr. Picton noted that Mr. Andersson was expected to post the bond requested, but said that because this was an enforcement matter the Commission could not wait any longer to resolve this matter and would ask Land Tech to begin its review. It was the consensus of the Commission that this was how the Commission should proceed.
MOTION: To keep in effect the enforcement order reissued on 10/22/07 to Mr. Andersson for unauthorized activities at 35-45 Gunn Hill Road. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.
New Application
Sargeant/28 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-07-58/Install Dry Hydrant: Mr. Ajello reported that a more accurate map had been submitted as requested along with the usual construction specifications for dry hydrants. Action on this application will be taken at the next meeting.
Barnet/32 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-07-52/Reconstruct Barn: Mr. Picton noted he had inspected the property on his own. The map, "Historic Barn Reconstruction," by CES Engineering, revised to 9/28/07 was reviewed. It was noted the barn had already been taken down and a 1200 sq. ft. house would be erected within the same footprint. Mr. LaMuniere said the Commission needed construction details for both the driveway and turnaround. He also said that measures should be taken to preserve the large tree that was not shown on the map. Mr. Picton stated that the map submitted was not a construction drawing and so the whole impact of the project could not yet be determined. He thought there were other locations on this property where a house could be built and so asked to see feasible and prudent alternatives. In addition, he asked for site work and construction details and for a construction sequence.
Enforcement
Reinhardt and Cremona/Perkins Road/Execution of Approved Restoration Plan: It was noted that Mr. Childs had reported to the Commission that there were good reasons for waiting to do the required planting until late in the season.
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road: Mr. Picton noted it was only the review by Land Tech, not the restoration work, that would begin before the bond was posted by Mr. Andersson.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road (141 Shinar Mountain Road)/#IW-04-V8/ Repair of Retaining Wall: Mr. Ajello reviewed the 10/17/07 letter from Mr. Hart of Milone and MacBroom, which contained the specific information requested by the Commission at the last meeting.
DiBennedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory: Mr. Picton asked if Land Tech had begun to work on this project. Mr. Ajello said he had discussed this matter with Mr. Jontos and it was not yet known whether the scope of the work would be the disturbed area or the entire property. It was also unclear where the boundary lines were. Mr. Jontos will reinspect the site and said whether the scope of work increases, it would not change the cost estimate already given to the Commission.
Janko/11 June Road/#IW-07-V9/Excavation, Construction of Stairs: Mr. Picton asked if Mr. Ajello had developed corrective measures to keep the slope stable. Mr. Bedini asked if a citation had been issued. Mr. Ajello noted that usually citations are issued when the work has been done in the wetlands or has impacted a wetlands or watercourse, but said so far there had been no impact. It was agreed that Mr. Ajello should write to the owner as soon as possible to warn that if corrective measures are not implemented immediately, a citation will be issued.
Matthews/Painter Ridge Road/Unauthorized Trench Through Wetlands: Mr. Ajello reported a citation had been sent.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clear Cutting: Mr. Picton asked if Mr. Moore had completed the restoration work ordered by the Commission. Mr. Ajello said that planting remained to be done and that there was still an outstanding fine to be paid.
Brown/127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work Along Shoreline: Mr. Picton noted the wall still had not been taken out as ordered. Mr. Ajello noted a show cause hearing would be held at the next meeting. Mr. Picton asked that in the future, enforcement orders be sent out earlier in the process. Mr. LaMuniere suggested that there be a specified period in which to comply with an order and if this was not done, a second citation should be issued automatically.
Other Business
Fine Schedule: The Commission was still waiting to hear from Atty. Zizka.
Revision of the By-Laws/Quorum: Mrs. Hill circulated her 10/24/07 memo with proposed language to decrease the quorum from 4 to 3 members. It was decided to leave the number of members needed to vote to amend the By-Laws at 4. The vote will take place at the next meeting. It was also noted that the Commission wanted to be able to remove members for non participation when they repeatedly missed meetings with no excuse. It was thought the Commission could recommend to the Board of Selectmen that a member be removed and the Board could then act to do so.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: October 21, 2007 October 10, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Potter
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Rebillard, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Andersson, Mr. Beroz, Mr. Sabin, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Neff, Mr. Carlson, Mr. Titman, Atty. Cava, Mr. Hart, Ms. Martin, Atty. Olson, Mrs. Janco, Mrs. Crumrine, Mr. Matthews, Residents
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Andersson/34-45 Gunn Hill Road/10/2/07 Enforcement Order
Mr. Picton called the show cause hearing to order at 6:45 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson. He then read pertinent portions of the 10/2/07 Enforcement Order, which listed the violations on the property.
Atty. Olson, representing Ms. Martin, adjoining property owner, submitted a copy of a Petition for Intervention, dated 9/23/07.
Atty. Fisher, representing Mr. Andersson, responded to each of the orders in the 10/2/07 document. #1: Atty. Fisher said originally the owner had totally ceased all actions as had been requested, but had since undertaken emergency farm maintenance, each time with the OK of the WEO. #2: Atty. Fisher objected that Mr. Andersson was being required to pay for the cost of the Commission's consultant, particularly because the cost of $7500 was too high. #3: A soil scientist had been retained to map the wetlands and watercourses, although he had not mapped all the areas on the property referred to in the order. #4: Atty. Fisher maintained this was not relevant to the Andersson property as there had been no steep slopes or streambanks involved, noted that this was the first time he had been informed that a long term plan for the monitoring of invasives was required, and strongly objected to the order that no rocks or soil could be disturbed because this was a farming operation requiring the disturbance of rocks and soil. Mr. Picton clarified that the Commission would discuss only activities in the wetland regulated area.
The alleged unauthorized activities were discussed. 1) Stone Patio: Atty. Fisher stated the stone patio had definitely been located within the regulated area and possibly on compromised wetlands soils. He agreed it should not have been installed without zoning and wetlands permits. 2) Clear Cutting: Mr. Anderson hired Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, and Mr. Beroz, soil scientist, to investigate the charge that he clear cut in wetlands. He stated he had selectively thinned some trees in an area that he was not convinced was wetlands. He said he had done all the work by hand, had used no heavy equipment, and that the existing farm road had nothing to do with the removal of these trees. 3) Trenching Wetlands: Mr. Andersson had dug out sediment by hand from the stream every year except 2006. In 2007 a worker had shoveled it out. He said the maintenance of the stream was part of the farming operation in this field, which had historically been used for agriculture. 4) Filling in Drainage Ditches: Mr. Fisher said that in what was now lawn area there had previously been washed out areas and several ditches that had drained into the pond. When he purchased the property, Mr. Andersson had placed pipes in these ditches and filled them in for easier maintenance of the area. Lawn had been planted and one ditch added in the corner. Currently the lawn is mowed and there is a vegetated buffer zone around the pond. 5) Removal of Material Near the Pond: Mr. Andersson said there had been two mounds of material to the east of the pond, both overgrown with invasives and that they had consisted of a combination of garbage and dredged material. These were removed with a tractor. The sediment was spread in a field and planted with wildflowers and the rocks were used for the patio and for repair of the stonewalls. He said neither he nor his employees knew this area was considered wetlands.
Atty. Fisher noted that at the last meeting the Commission had focused on a restoration plan. He argued that it did not make sense to restore the area adjacent to the pond to its pre 2000 condition because it was a compromised wetlands at that time. Mr. Picton agreed that it should not be restored to its pre 2000 condition, but he pointed out that the scope of the work went beyond where the old piles were, that there had also been disturbance on the north and possibly south side of the pond. Mr. Ajello agreed there had been soil disturbance, cutting, and wheel ruts on the north side. Mr. Picton said the Commission was interested in the restoration and maintenance of wetlands functions in this area.
Atty. Fisher said he had asked Mr. Sabin for an alternate proposal because he objected to a review by Land Tech because 1) it was too costly, 2) Land Tech was being involved based on inaccurate complaints, and 3) the work being requested of Land Tech was well beyond what was needed. Mr. Picton noted the language in the enforcement order could be modified, especially those sections that used standardized language. He said the purpose of this hearing was to determine whether the enforcement order should remain in effect and details about alternatives and language would be discussed during the meeting.
Mr. Andersson again detailed the work he had done by hand and pointed out the areas in which it was done on the map, "Property/ Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated October 1998 and revised to 1/25/2000. Mr. Picton said the Commission wanted its consultant to advise it about what kind of top coverage would be appropriate for the restoration of this area.
Mr. LaMuniere questioned whether the field where the trenching had been done had, indeed, been recently used for farming as there were rushes growing there. Mr. Andersson again said the stream had been cleaned out every spring and that Mr. Cherniske, a previous owner, had done so every year until the property was sold. He said the field had been used as a cow pasture, he had plans to use it as a hayfield, and he would keep cattle away from the stream to preserve the water quality.
Mr. Picton noted the Commission had asked the applicant to get recommendations from the USDA regarding which areas would be best for farming and which would be best left as wetlands. He said Mr. Andersson had previously agreed to work with the Commission to restore and enhance the wetlands, but had not followed through. Mr. LaMuniere pointed out a USDA plan had been requested by the end of June, but had not yet been received. Therefore, the Commission would now rely on its consultant, although Mr. Picton hoped that all parties would work together on a solution. Regarding the cost, Mr. Picton said that only necessary work would be done and that some of the bond would be used to cover restoration activities so he did not think that the amount should be reduced. He reviewed Land Tech's estimate of the work it would do and said it focused on the Commission's areas of concern.
Atty. Fisher said he would agree to keep the Enforcement Order in effect with respect to #1, but that he strenuously objected to the balance of the order because the Commission had not yet heard about the mitigation plan proposed by Mr. Andersson. Mr. Picton noted for the record that Atty. Fisher objected to #2 through #4 in the 10/2/07 Order.
MOTION: To close the Show Cause Hearing to consider whether the 10/10/07 enforcement order issued to Mr. Andersson for violations at 34-45 Gunn Hill Road should remain in effect. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton closed the hearing at 7:37 p.m.
This Show Cause Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 9/12/07 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 2: Paragraph under second motion: Change: "inclement weather" to "increasingly heavy rain."
P. 2: Under James Calhoun House: Line 15: Delete: "the change in location of the second pipe."
P. 8: 12 lines from bottom: Change: "referred" to "restored."
P.12: Under DiBenedetto: End of Line 3: Change: "a" to "the."
P.13: Motion under Fine Schedule: last phrase: Change: "Commission" to "Wetlands Enforcement Officer."
P.13: Change: "WEO Job Description and Addendum" to "Draft WEO Procedures" and throughout the paragraph change "addendum" to "draft."
MOTION: To accept the 9/12/07 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 9/18/07 Jackson site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-0-1.
Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not attended
The 9/18/07 Laffont site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. The correct address should be: 128 Calhoun Street.
MOTION: To accept the 9/19/07 Laffont site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1.
Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not attended
Pending Applications
Stiteler/262 West Shore Road/#IW-07-43/Boathouse: Atty. Kelly asked for an extension to November 21 to give the applicant time to comply with the requests made by the Commission at the last meeting. He noted the Zoning Commission would hold a public hearing on this application on October 22 and that when the zoning setback issued was resolved it might make the Wetlands application moot. Mr. LaMuniere reminded the applicant that flood elevation data is required.
Sargeant/28 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-07-44/Install Dry Hydrant: Mr. Picton noted that at the last meeting there had been almost no documentation on file. Mr. Ajello said he had asked the Fire Dept. for more accurate maps. Because the 65 day time frame in which to act on the application would expire before the next meeting, it was the consensus to deny the application and to inform the applicant he could resubmit when ready.
MOTION: To deny Application #IW-07-44 submitted by Mr. Sarjeant to install a dry hydrant at 28 Tinker Hill Road due to the lack of adequate information. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
Renick/12 Green Hill Road/#IW-07-47/Replace Retaining Wall: Mr. Neff presented the plan, "Retaining Wall Replacement Plan," dated 9/4/07, which included a sequence of construction. He said the existing wall would be shorn in place, used as a catchment wall during the hand placement of the new modular wall, and taken out when the new wall was complete. Construction details were discussed. Mr. Picton asked if the old wall had tipped out due to freezing or hydraulic pressure. Mr. Neff stated that the old wall had not been dug into the ground and that the new wall would be dry set with spaces for the ground water to flow through and with returns on both ends. He also noted there were footing drains around the building so there wouldn't be too much space for any water to collect. Mr. Picton asked if the installation would be supervised and Mr. Neff said it would. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello if the construction sequence was adequate, but Mr. Ajello said the map had just been submitted. It was the consensus that conditions of approval should be that Mr. Ajello should review all of the plans and that no loose soil should be placed down slope of the existing wall.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-47 submitted by Mr. Renick to replace the retaining wall at 12 Green Hill Road subject to the EO's review of the revised plans and materials, "Retaining Wall Replacement Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 9/4/07 and the 10/10/07 discussion with Mr. Neff and with the condition that no loose soil may be placed down slope from the existing retaining wall. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Sutter/251 West Shore Road/#IW-07-49/Renovate Lake House: It was noted the Commission had no questions at the last meeting, that all the proposed work would be on the existing shell, and that there would be no disturbed soil. Mr. Carlson, contractor, stated there would be no resurfacing of outside surfaces. A photo of the structure was circulated.
MOTION: To approve as submitted Application #IW-07-49 submitted by Mrs. Sutter to renovate the lake house at 251 West Shore Road. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Jackson/55 Old North Road/#IW-07-50/Single Family Dwelling: Mr. Neff, engineer, said the plans would be revised to make the house more compact and to keep the proposed development farther from the wetlands as was discussed at the site inspection. He noted, too, that the driveway route might be changed.
Laffont/128 Calhoun Street/#IW-07-51/Driveway and Conduits: Mr. Titman, architect, and Mr. Neff, engineer, were present. The map, "Proposed Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 8/30/07 and revised to 10/11/07 was reviewed and compared to previous maps dated 1/15/02 and 7/16/02. Mr. Picton said he wanted to determine how the existing driveway got so close to the wetlands. Mrs. D. Hill noted that the Commission had known the location of the wetlands when Mr. Beck had originally applied to create the lot and said the driveway had existed at that time. Mr. Ajello noted the older maps showed "approximate" wetlands locations and said the driveway had been installed closer to them than was shown. It was noted there had also been a lot line revision that appeared to have been approved by the Commission in June 2002 and that had affected the driveway location. The discussion ensued regarding whether the unapproved change in the driveway location adversely impacted the wetlands, and it was the consensus that it had little effect on wetlands protection. It was agreed that the changes in the driveway plans as listed below in the motion should be made conditions of approval. It was noted that 18 inch headwalls for the stream crossing had been previously approved and that the current application was very similar, but would extend them slightly on both sides of the culvert.
MOTION: To approve as submitted Application #IW-07-51 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Laffont to install a driveway and conduits at 128 Calhoun Street per the site plan by Mr. Neff dated 8/30/07 and revised to 10/5/07 subject to the following conditions: 1. the length of the driveway shall be paved from Calhoun Street to below the first curb and all sections with a grade over 5% shall be paved, 2. the first catch basin at the first curve shall have a 2 ft. deep sump, and 3. the revisions to the map shall be filed on the Town Land Records before the permit is issued. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Barnet/32 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-07-52/Reconstruct Barn: Mr. Ajello recommended a site inspection, which was scheduled for October 16 at 4:00 p.m. The plans and map, "Historic Barn Reconstruction," by CES Civil Engineering, revised to 9/28/07 were reviewed. It was noted the proposal was to reconstruct the barn to use as a dwelling and to pull it slightly back from the wetlands. The barn had been 55' X 30' and the proposed structure 42' X 30'. Mr. Picton asked if the owner had considered moving the barn to another location on the property farther from the wetlands. Mr. Ajello said there were zoning setbacks to consider, also. Mr. Picton thought both could be met elsewhere on the property by moving the building to a more conforming location.
Carron/58 Gunn Hill Road/#IW-07-53/Dredge Pond: Mr. Picton disqualified himself because the property owners were his clients. Mr. Bedini chaired this portion of the meeting. Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, presented his map, "Proposed Pond Maintenance Dredging," dated 10/3/07. He proposed to dredge the pond to the contours shown on the plan unless mineral soils were hit first. The north end of the pond would be deeper for cooler water. 1500 to 1600 cubic yards would be removed, dewatered, spread in the area northwest of the pond, and then planted with wetland vegetation. Mr. Sabin noted some material would be taken off site and he pointed out the temporary construction access. In addition, he proposed a dry channel with a bridge to oxygenate the water as it flows from the wet meadow to the pond. Some excavation for the channel through the meadow would be required. Mrs. D. Hill requested that the silt fence be labeled the limit of disturbance on the map. A landscaping plan, untitled, dated 10/3/07 was also reviewed and Mr. Sabin briefly described the landscaping proposed, which included a 6 ft. buffer around the meadow and selective thinning of trees. A site inspection was scheduled on 10/16 at 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Picton was reseated at 9:04 p.m.
Fisher/66 Calhoun Street/#IW-07-54/Landscaping: Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, presented the plan, "Proposed Wetland Garden and Pond Enhancement," dated 10/2/07. The plans included taking down the weeping willow, creating a stony channel to pick up the seeps in the area, planting native wetlands plants, creating a shrub swamp, providing an upland buffer on the uphill side of the pond, dredging the pond, placing rocks nearby to make it look more natural, and constructing a stone retaining wall. All of the work would be done by hand except the excavation of the channel. Mr. LaMuniere questioned whether the proposed channel would drain the wet meadow. Mr. Sabin said it would not be large enough to do so and that it would be fed from a large area. Mr. Picton said the Commission would look at this closely because no dewatering would be permitted. A site inspection was scheduled for 10/16 at 4:30 p.m.
Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-07-55/Extend Wall, Plant Hedge, Install Fence: Ms. Zinick represented the property owner. She pointed out the proposed locations of the 4 ft. high, 160 ft. long cedar picket fence and the 4 ft. high hedge on the map, "Site Plan," by Mr. Cheney (no seal), dated January 2007 and revised to October 2007. She said she had found an old photo that showed the stone wall was once extended as proposed. She presented a cross section of the dry wall, noted the stockpile location for materials, said only 5 to 10 yards of stone at a time would be brought to the site, and said it would take 2 to 3 weeks to rebuild. A site inspection was scheduled for 10/16 at 5:30 p.m. Ms. Zinick said she would have stakes up for the inspection.
Other Business
MOTION: To add to the agenda: Adams/Request to Revise Permit #IW-07-10 to relocate the inground pool at 233 West Shore Road because it was inadvertently left off the agenda. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Adams/233 West Shore Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-07-10/Pool Relocation: Ms. Zinick reviewed the site plan by Mr. Cheney, revised October 2007. She proposed to move the pool to the rear of the house, noting a retaining wall, stairs, and pool fence were included in the plans. She noted the pool equipment was located inside the house and added this note to the plan. She said the original pool location in front of the house would be returned to lawn. Mr. Ajello noted this would be an overall reduction in impervious surface.
MOTION: To approve the request submitted by Mr. Adams to revise Permit #IW-07-10 to relocate the inground pool at 233 West Shore Road per the plan submitted. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed
5-0.
Enforcement
Andersson/34-45 Gunn Hill Road/10/2/07 Enforcement Order: Copies of the 10/2/07 Order were circulated and the Commission discussed whether it should remain in effect and if so, whether it should be modified. Point #1 of the Order had already been agreed to by Atty. Fisher and Mr. Andersson. Atty. Fisher had objected to Point #2, saying that there was an alternate plan that would not require a costly review by Land Tech. Atty. Fisher said he had understood earlier in the meeting that Mr. Sabin would have the opportunity to present this alternative proposal before the Commission decided whether to modify the order and said he wanted Mr. Sabin's report entered for the record. He argued that referral to the Commission's consultant should not be included in the Enforcement Order and that only "reasonable" amounts could be charged to the property owner for this type of referral. Mr. LaMuniere noted that Mr. Andersson had been asked to submit a plan by June and since this hadn't been done, the Commission was now trying to move forward to resolve the matter. Regarding Point #3, the Commission agreed the base map was adequate, but a soil scientist was still required to map the areas of clearing and drainage disturbance and the wood road location. Therefore, #3 did not need modifications. It was agreed to modify the language in Point #4 to change "site" to "wetlands and upland review areas." The discussion returned to Point #2 because the property owner continued to object to its terms. Mr. Picton offered to send Mr. Sabin's full report to the consultant, but Atty. Fisher said he wanted the report on the record now. Mr. Sabin noted he had inspected the site twice, had discussed it with Mr. Beroz, soil scientist, and had studied the aerial photos. He said since the wetlands at the east end of the pond had been impacted for a long period and the area where the patio was built was compromised in terms of wetlands functions and values before it was built, he recommended mitigation. He said invasives were starting to grow in the area that had been thinned in the shrub swamp in the vicinity of wetlands flags #59 and #60. He thought the invasives could be removed and a deep pool created in the upland woods to offset the wetlands lost in other areas and that this mitigated area would exceed the quality of the area impacted. In the area where pipes had been installed and ditches filled he recommended the creation of a wider buffer of herbaceous growth along the wetlands fringe and restricting the mowing here to one or two times a year. He said this mitigation plan would work with the existing wetlands and would be a way for the farmer and Commission to work together to resolve the matter. He thought it would be more prudent and less expensive if this plan was reviewed by Land Tech rather than to have Land Tech develop its own plan. Atty. Fisher stated the owner was aware that the implementation of this plan would require an Inland Wetlands permit. Mr. LaMuniere said the mitigation proposal did not address the area where the hay field had been trenched. Mr. Picton agreed, and said the Commission wanted to hear from a qualified professional whether this field would have more value as a hayfield or as a restored wetlands. Atty. Fisher stated the Regulations allow this kind of agricultural use in wetlands. Mr. Picton responded that Mr. Andersson had stated his intent to work with the Commission and to protect wetland resources. Atty. Fisher then asked why the Commission thought the area to the north of the pond had been clear cut. Mr. LaMuniere noted there were cut stumps and evidence that machinery had been used there. Mr. Sabin said the trees had been thinned, not clear cut. Mrs. J. Hill suggested that the problem might be that everyone was not using the definition of clear cutting found in the Regulations and Mr. Picton then read that definition. Atty. Fisher said Mr. Andersson had not cut down the majority of the trees, nor had he destroyed the ecology of the area. Mr. Picton noted the commissioners' observations found that the area had been significantly altered and recommended that everyone read the Petition for Intervention as it mentions that two of the functions of the wet meadow were to retain and to store water and to provide continued water for agriculture on the property below. It was agreed that Mr. Sabin should work on more detailed plans to send to Land Tech who would use them in its review. Mr. Sabin asked that the owner submit the plan and Land Tech comment on it, but Mr. Picton said Land Tech would incorporate the plan in its review if it was useful and the two parties would work together. Atty. Fisher again argued that this was beyond the Commission's Regulations. He asked that all the material in the Andersson file going back to March including the photographs, the soil scientist's report, and Mr. Sabin's report and map be sent to Land Tech. Land Tech's cost estimate was reviewed. It was noted the $7500 estimate was low because it would bond only Land Tech's work and none of the restoration costs. Mr. Picton suggested a bond of $8000 to cover both. Atty. Fisher objected. Mr. LaMuniere noted the Land Tech review was necessary because the Commission never received the reports it requested from the owner and because there were issues that weren't addressed in Mr. Sabin's proposal.
MOTION: To keep in effect the 10/2/07 enforcement order issued to Mr. Andersson for violations at 34-45 Gunn Hill Road with revisions as discussed to narrow the definition of "site," to require the owner to post an $8000 bond to cover consulting fees and restoration, and to encourage the Commission's consultant, Land Tech, to receive input from the owner and work to achieve the most efficient solution possible. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
After the vote was taken, Mr. Sabin, who noted he had served on the Commission as well as appearing before it, commented that he thought the Commission had set a bad precedent by asking Land Tech to work concurrently with the owner's consultant to develop a plan because applicants are supposed to present data and the Town is supposed to review that data.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road (141 Shinar Mountain Road)/#IW-04-V8/ Repair of Retaining Wall: Mr. Hart, engineer, and Atty. Cava discussed the 10/1/07 report by Milone and MacBroom regarding the retaining wall on the Carter property. Mr. Hart summarized the report noting that the issue addressed was that the wall had not been constructed precisely as shown; it was more vertical than the stepped back wall in the approved plans. He noted that the upstream town culvert had been installed "askew" and was aimed at the east bank downstream, which had resulted in erosion problems. The report concluded that the existing wall does not appear to be adversely impacting flood management along Walker Brook, is adequately designed, and will prevent further erosion. Mr. Hart said that an early problem had been that there was not enough protection at the toe of the wall so large concrete blocks had been placed there. The report recommended that these be removed and replaced with natural 12 inch minimum cobbles to slow the flow and recreate a natural stream bottom. Mr. Picton asked him to be specific about which blocks were to be removed. Mr. Hart said that those that weren't tied in should be taken out. Mr. Picton asked for clear written instructions for the contractor and for the exact area where the stones were to be placed, how much stone should be used, what the optimum sizing would be, volume of the area to be filled, etc. He also asked that the work be monitored. The capacity of the channel and stream flow were discussed. Mr. Picton asked if the entire stream corridor had been examined and whether it had been determined there was ample room for the stream flow. Mr. Hart said it had and that no negative impacts had been found. A second recommendation of the report was that top soil should be added on top of the wall and shade tolerant grass planted. Mr. Ajello asked if the removal of the blocks and the deposition of the cobbles could be done from outside the channel. Mr. Hart thought probably not due the trees and branches on the east bank, but the Commission stipulated that if the work must be done from the brook, the contractor must come back to the Commission for another review. Atty. Cava suggested this could be done more efficiently through the Enforcement Officer and the Commission agreed. Mr. Hart noted that his company has observed more and more cases of streambank erosion caused by larger and more frequent storm events and so recommended the Town put the enlargement/replacement of the upstream Walker Brook culvert on its list of projects to do. After a brief discussion, the Commission set a bond of $3000 and a dead line for the completion of work by the end of 2007. Atty. Cava agreed to the deadline because the Commission said it would be willing to grant extensions if necessary. Atty. Cava also recommended that regarding the wall construction details that the original permit be amended to clear up the future record.
MOTION: Regarding Carter/292 Walker Brook Road (141 Shinar Mountain Road)/#IW-04-V8/Repair of Retaining Wall, to accept the wall as built and described in the 10/1/07 material submitted by Milone and MacBroom subject to the following conditions: 1. that the owner implement the recommendations by Milone and MacBroom and Mr. Pollack to the extent that their reports do not conflict, 2. that Milone and MacBroom shall provide more specific information regarding the stone size, volume, size of area of deposition, etc. of the cobblestones to be placed in the river, 3. that the owner post a $3000 bond to secure that the work will be properly completed by the end of 2007, and 4. that no excavating equipment shall operate in the channel. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Janco/11 June Road/Unauthorized Excavation, Stairs/#IW-07-V9: Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the work done. Mrs. Janco stated she was a first time home owner, had not realized an Inland Wetlands permit was required for this work, had put in new stairs because the old ones were unsafe, and presented photos of the unsafe conditions before the "repairs" were done. She said the poured concrete stairs had been repaired, but that platforms were added to store kayaks and for a future Jacuzzi. She also stated the stairs were necessary to get down the steep bank from June Road to the house. Mr. Picton noted a drawing of the proposed improvements and an accurate map were required. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to look through Town files for a map of the property and to make recommendations regarding stabilization measures. Mr. LaMuniere asked if a silt fence was needed. Mr. Ajello said he would inspect the site and make this determination.
Crumrine/206 Litchfield Turnpike/Shed/#IW-07-V5: Mrs. Crumrine stated that tenants had erected a 6' X 8' shed without her knowledge. She noted it was on blocks on the driveway and that the Health Dept. had advised her that as long as it was on blocks and under 200 sq. ft. it could go anywhere on the property. She presented the 9/10/07 site plan on which she had marked the small area on the property where a shed could be located in compliance with the zoning setback requirements. This did not include the present driveway location and all of the area was within 100 feet of a wetlands or watercourse. Mr. Picton asked if the area was in a flood plain. Mr. Ajello said it was not. He also stated there would be no impact to the wetlands if the shed was placed in this area. The Commission asked Mrs. Crumrine to make a diminimis application for the shed.
MOTION: Regarding Crumrine/206 Litchfield Turnpike/Shed/ #IW-07-V5, to authorize the WEO to sign off on a diminimis application for the relocation of the shed in the highlighted area on the map dated 9/10/07 on the basis that the shed is only 6' X 8', it will have no foundation, there will be no ground disturbance, it will not be located in a flood plain, and there will be no adverse impact to the wetlands. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Matthews/50 Painter Ridge Road/Unauthorized Excavation, Trench/ #IW-07-V8: Mr. Matthews explained that a cable TV trench had been dug through wetlands along the driveway, that the work was done in three hours, and that the disturbed area was seeded and hayed the same day. Mr. Ajello circulated photos. It was the consensus to send a citation.
Beck/132 Calhoun Street: It was noted that Mrs. Corrigan was satisfied that the invasives had been properly removed from the wetlands on this site. There was a brief discussion regarding whether the EO had the authority to return bonds. It was noted the EO should make a recommendation regarding whether the bond should be released and the Commission would then decide whether to return it.
Brown/127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work Along Shore Line: Mr. Picton noted there had been no change on site. Mr. Ajello said he would reissue the enforcement order and time it so the Show Cause Hearing could be held on 11/14/07. Mr. Picton did not think this should wait so long because by then it would be too late to remove the unauthorized work before winter. Later in the meeting this matter was discussed again. Mr. Ajello was asked to notify Mr. Brown immediately that the unauthorized stone wall would have to be removed and then to send the enforcement order out with the correct timing.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory: Mr. Ajello reported that Mr. DiBenedetto had posted a $10,000 bond; $6400 for Land Tech's work and the remainder to bond the restoration work.
Alldredge-Daly/300 West Shore Road/Rebuild Lake Shore Wall/ #IW-07-V6: Mr. Ajello and Mr. Thomson had inspected the site and had determined that the reconstruction of the wall was a regulated activity in a regulated area, that the wall had previously existed, and that it had been rebuilt in its original location. Mr. Picton asked if it had been built up by placing fill behind it. Mr. Ajello said it was top dressed only. A citation will be issued.
Howard/99 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Slope Disturbance and Construction of Stairs: Mr. Ajello said he sent Mr. Howard a second citation and that the enforcement order sent had requested that the stairs be removed. He recommended the order be filed on the Land Records and it was agreed that this should be done.
Drakely/59 River Road/Unauthorized Clearing/#IW-07-V1: Mr. Ajello said he had sent two letters, but had received no response. He will send a citation and if there is no response he will file the notice of violation on the Town Land Records.
Reinhardt/Perkins Road/Execution of Approved Plan: Mr. Ajello noted that Mr. Childs was not present as expected and had not sent a report. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to advise Mr. Childs that if the work was not done by the end of October, the Commission would hire another contractor.
Town of Washington/Titus Road/River Loop Property: Mr. Ajello reported that the Highway Dept. had flushed out its trucks on the gravel road that slopes down to the river and that the sediment had washed into the river. He recommended that the contaminated stone remaining in the driveway be scooped out and replenished with clean stone. Mr. Picton noted that this was an example of how hay bales don't filter out all harmful materials and asked Mr. Ajello to issue written corrective instructions to the Town.
Cornelio/101 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Excavation, Installation of Conduits/#IW-07-V10: Mr. Ajello circulated photos of several new unauthorized trenches dug to the lake. He said the property owner's contractor had gotten permission from the Health Dept. who had failed to notify him that he was also required to obtain an Inland Wetlands permit to redig the water lines. Mr. Thomson noted that the Commission routinely scrutinizes all work near the lake. It was also noted that the Commission had written to the Health Dept. once before to ask that it refer all property owners proposing activities within regulated areas to the Inland Wetlands Commission. A second letter will be sent, this time to the Director of Health with a copy to the First Selectman. The commissioners noted how important it is that all the departments in Town government work together. As for the property owner, Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to assess whether there had been any damage to the wetlands and to then make a determination about whether a citation should be issued.
Plourde/33 East Shore Road/Unauthorized Clear Cutting: Mr. Ajello said he had filed the notice of violation on the Land Records.
Steep Rock Assn./River Road/Clearing of "McKennee Field": It was noted the Commission had never received a report about whether there is a vernal pool on the property. Mr. Thomson asked Mr. Ajello to follow up on the Commission's previous request to send Steep Rock a letter to remind it that it is required to apply for permits for activities within regulated areas and that its cooperation would be appreciated.
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-05-58/Remediation Per Order: Mr. Ajello reported that the work had not yet been completed, but the enforcement order had been filed on the Land Records.
Town of Washington/Tunnel Road: Mr. LaMuniere reported that the Town had recently cut many trees along Tunnel Road within 10 feet of the river without getting a permit. He noted that Steep Rock was upset with this maintenance work.
Other Business
Revision of the Fine Schedule: It was noted that the motion made at the last meeting had been referred to Atty. Zizka for review. The wording of the motion was since amended and will be forwarded to Atty. Zizka.
Draft EO Procedures: Mr. Thomson said he had received no input from any of the commissioners since the last meeting. Mr. Ajello was directed to start following the procedures and using the forms. Revisions to the new procedures may be made in the future if it is determined they are needed.
Washington Primary School/School Street/Wetlands Issues: Mr. Bedini, Member of the Board of Education, noted the Primary School is located in the 100 year flood plain, a fact agreed upon by both FEMA and the DEP and confirmed by Mr. Szymanski, engineer, when he plotted its location. It was noted that any exterior work or site work for this school would require an Inland Wetlands permit and that the Commission would not rush through any application just because this is a school. Mr. Bedini asked if the Commission would require the applicant to consider feasible and prudent alternatives. Mr. LaMuniere responded that for the cost of the proposed renovation the school could be moved out of the flood plain, and said this should be considered.
Revision of the By-Laws/Quorum: Currently the By-Laws require four members for a quorum, but because the Commission is down to only five members and one alternate who rarely attends, and Mrs. D. Hill goes away during the winter, there was a general concern about having quorums for meetings during the winter. It was decided to decrease the quorum to three like most of the other land use commissions. It was also the consensus to revise the By-Laws to state that commissioners may be removed from office for non participation, noting that such a revision would not be used to manipulate political goals.
Communications
A referral was sent to the Commission concerning a Kent application for driveway improvements, a recreation area, and barn within 500 ft. of the Town boundary line at 72 Lake Waramaug Road, Kent. However, since no maps and no detailed description of the work was included, the Commission was not able to comment.
New Application
Washington Club, Inc./8 Golf Course Road/#IW-07-56/Dredge Pond: This application will be discussed at the next meeting and a site inspection scheduled at that time.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 12:10 a.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: September 20, 2007 September 12, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bedini
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Potter
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Wells, Mr. Neff, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Lasar, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Tittman, Ms. Zinick, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Beroz, Mrs. Daly, Mr. Egan, Mr. Greer, Mr. Howard, Mr. Rebillard
Mr. Picton called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: 1. New Applications: C. Laffont/ 128 Calhoun Street/#IW-07-51/Driveway and Conduits, 2. Other Business: E. McCuellers/18 Plumb Hill Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-07-21, 3. Communications: A. Referral from DEP/Application for Renewal of Lake Waramaug Country Club's Water Diversion Permit. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 4-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 8/15/07 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 2: 10 lines from bottom: Insert: "been" after "could have."
Last line: Change: "noted" to "note."
P. 5: 2nd line under Walsh: Change to: "Geothermal."
3rd line from bottom: Change to: "500 cubic yards."
P. 6: 8th line in Walsh motion: Should be: "1:3."
P. 7: Condition #6 in motion: Change: "condition #5" to "all conditions."
Last line of motion: Change: "Charles" to "LaMuniere."
P. 8: 15th line under James Calhoun House: Add: "of water discharge" after "efficiency."
6 lines from bottom: Insert: 'Regarding the drain from the parking area" before "Mr. Neff."
P. 9: 3rd line: Insert: "to" before "collect."
12th line under Aragi: Change "would have been" to "would be."
13th line under Aragi: Add: "in its natural state" after "site."
P.10: 10th line under Stiteler: Correct spelling is "Coploff."
P.16: 7th line under Adams: Insert: "apparent" before "adverse."
8th line under Adams: Change: "was" to "might be."
MOTION: To accept the 8/15/07 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To accept the 8/21/07 site inspection minutes for James Calhoun House, LLC., Palone, and Town of Washington as written. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr Thomson, passed 4-0.
It was noted the Reinhardt-Cremona site inspection also scheduled for 8/21/07 had not been conducted due to inclement weather.
Pending Applications
James Calhoun House, LLC./156 Calhoun Street/#IW-07-39/Drainage Improvements: Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted his map, "Drainage Improvements," revised to 9/10/07, which reflected the discussion during the site inspection. The revisions included: 1)relocation of the driveway piping including a catch basin with 2 ft. deep sump for sediment collection where the existing pipe ends, 2) the proposed pipe was changed to 24" perforated pipe surrounded by " gravel bedding, and 3) both a flared outlet at the end of the pipe and a rip rapped pad for transition to the channel were added. The location of the other pipe was moved to the north between the cottage and the pool, which was a safe location to discharge due to the root system of a nearby spruce. Mr. Neff noted there was 23 feet between the end of the proposed rip rap and the wetlands. Mr. Picton noted the revised driveway pipe would allow for some recharge and the change in location of the second pipe would move it farther from the wetlands, allowing more room for contaminants to filter out. Mr. Ajello noted the proposed trenching could disturb the roots of an old oak and so the Commission recommended that precautions be taken before the trench is dug.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-39 submitted by James Calhoun House, LLC. for drainage improvements at 156 Calhoun Street per the plans by Mr. Neff revised to 9/10/07 with the recommendation that the owner look into protecting the root structure of the existing old oak tree in the vicinity where the trench will pass it before beginning to dig the trench. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.
Stiteler/262 West Shore Road/#IW-07-43/Boathouse: Atty. Kelly presented a copy of Map #1737 filed in the Town Clerk's Office, an aerial photo of the property, and a portion of the 9/30/92 FEMA map with legend. Mr. Picton asked if the maps showed the exact location proposed for the structure. Atty. Kelly said they did not and read his 9/12/07 letter, which he said addressed this and other issues previously raised by the Commission. Mr. Picton asked if the landscape buffer plantings referred to in the letter were shown on the map (and later in the discussion asked that they be shown on the map.) Atty. Kelly said they were not, but that the Commission had a map in another file that showed the location of the landscape buffer. He explained the reason a specific location had not been indicated was because the building would be augered in place with a bicycle chain and there was an ongoing issue with the Zoning Commission about which setbacks, if any, would have to be met. Since no disturbance was proposed, he wanted to keep the location open subject to restriction from any areas specified by the Inland Wetlands Commission. Atty. Kelly advised the Commission that the entire property on the lake side of the road was in the 100 year flood plain. He said the Building Official had determined that the proposed structure met the Building Code, but he was not sure he had realized it was in a flood plain. Mr. Picton noted the 100 year flood elevation was not shown on the map. Atty. Kelly asked for the Commission's specific concerns. Mr. Picton said the following were needed so the application could be evaluated: 1) exact location of the building, 2) flood elevation in relation to the elevation of the land where the building was proposed, and 3) determination of whether there are any wetlands soils on site. He also noted that Mr. Ajello had been asked to contact Mr. McGowan of the Lake Waramaug Task Force to see if he had any relevant knowledge. Mr. LaMuniere said the Commission did not favor the use of pressure treated wood in the flood zone and he suspected there were wetlands soils on site because there were wetlands soils and springs across the street. Mr. LaMuniere also asked for specifics on the building materials. Atty. Kelly noted his letter stated that decay resistant wood would be used. It was noted the 8' X 10' boathouse now proposed was larger than originally proposed. Mr. Picton also asked the applicant to commit to a size. Mrs. D. Hill noted the Commission was concerned about the potential storage of fuels in the flood plain. Atty. Kelly said the applicant would accept a condition that no gas be stored in the boathouse, but said he did not think there would be a significant impact if 3 gal. of gas leaked into the lake during every 100 year storm. Atty. Kelly objected to the cost of preparing the application for such a "low key approach." Mr. Picton said the Commission requests the same basic information from every applicant and noted in addition, it would be good for the Commission to see what landscaping had been done and whether it differed from the approved landscaping plan.
Sarjeant/28 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-07-44/Install Dry Hydrant: Mrs. D. Hill asked if DOT approval was needed. Mr. Ajello stated if so, it would be up to the applicant to obtain it. Mr. Picton noted that the location map was very vague and that the Commission expects adequate documentation. The plan submitted was not to scale and did not show any boundary lines. Further discussion was tabled until adequate information is submitted.
Charvillat/96 Roxbury Road/#IW-07-45/Repair Dam: Mr. Neff, engineer, discussed his plan, "Dam Repair Plan," dated 7/22/07. The photos shown at the last meeting were circulated. Mr. Neff said the dam would be repaired, there would be no change in its height, location, configuration, or width, and he referred to the project narrative, which stated the existing dam would be repaired. He did not propose to install any new pipes. Mr. Ajello said track equipment would be used as the work site was near several intermittent streams. He noted the owner mows to the edge of the pond and so said long term maintenance was a concern. Mr. Ajello estimated that after sediment was removed from the pond it would be 10' X 12' as it is now, and 4 ft. deep. Mr. Picton asked if the excavated material would be spread more than 100 ft. from any wetlands or watercourse. Mr. Neff stated that it would. Mrs. D. Hill suggested the motion of approval include a recommendation that the growth of natural native wetlands vegetation be encouraged around the pond to improve water quality.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-45 submitted by Mr. Charvillat to repair the dam at 96 Roxbury Road as submitted subject to the following conditions: 1) only the accumulated sediment behind the dam may be removed; the basin may not be made larger, 2) the material to be removed may not exceed 20 cu. yrds, and 3) the dam shall be rebuilt to the existing height and water level and in the same location as the existing dam and with the recommendation that natural native wetlands vegetation be allowed to grow around the ponds and water- courses to protect water quality. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.
Palone/84 West Morris Road/#IW-07-46/Construct House and Driveway: Mr. Neff, engineer, noted that at the site inspection there had been a discussion about relocating the driveway, but the potential buyer did not want to do so. Mr. Picton stated that during the site inspection a feasible and prudent location, which was not within 100 feet of wetlands, had been identified. The proposed location, however, would require site work within 20 ft. of wetlands, could possibly cause erosion into the wetlands, and could possibly impact a vernal pool down grade of the driveway. Therefore, the Commission thought it was important to locate the driveway in the alternate site.
MOTION: To deny Application #IW-07-46 submitted by Mr. Palone for a driveway and house at 84 West Morris Road because the proposal would have potential impacts to wetlands and watercourses and feasible and prudent alternatives exist for the driveway location. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4-0. (Motion approved, Application denied)
Renick/12 Green Hill Road/#IW-07-47/Replace Retaining Wall: Mr. Neff, engineer, reported that the type of concrete block to be used to rebuild the wall had not yet been determined and so he did not have the final specifications or cross sections. He said whatever blocks were used, the wall would step back slightly as it goes up the hill. He said he would leave a wood retaining wall in place during construction and remove it afterwards. Mr. LaMuniere noted there was an erosion problem from water dripping off the deck and asked if it could be discharged elsewhere. Mr. Neff responded there would be additional problems if the discharge was concentrated elsewhere. Mr. LaMuniere asked how the wall would be anchored. Mr. Neff said it would be built on a layer of gravel, the blocks would interlock for stability, and the wall would have returns on both ends that would tie into the hill. The commissioners will inspect the site on their own before the next meeting.
Town of Washington/5 East Shore Road/#IW-07-48/Aesthetic Improvements: Mr. Picton noted this was a well detailed proposal and that all of the site conditions were shown on the site plan. The map, "Town of Washington, 5 East Shore Road, by Mr. Alex, revised to 6/6/07 and received 9/12/07 was reviewed. It was noted Mrs. Rabinowitz had specified on the map the areas where vegetation would be removed and Mr. Picton read the map key, which described the work to be done in each of the four areas. Mr. Picton said he did not want all of the vegetation to be removed from the steep slopes. Mr. Ajello said it would be cut at ground level, but the roots would not be removed. Mr. Underwood said a few saplings would be cut in Area B, but the other vegetation would remain. He asked that the approval also include maintenance for as long as possible and was told that permits are good for five years.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-48 submitted by the Town of Washington for aesthetic improvements at 5 East Shore Road subject to the following conditions: 1) the roots of the saplings shall remain in the soil to stabilize the slopes, 2) adequate vegetation shall remain on the slopes to stabilize the soil, and 3) areas A-E are the areas immediately surrounding the labels on the map, "The Town of Washington, 5 East Shore Road," by Mr. Alex, revised to 6/6/07, received 9/12/07. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.
New Applications
Sutter/251 West Shore Road/#IW-07-49/Renovate Lake House: Mr. Lasar, architect, presented two maps, "Map Showing New Highway Layout as Accepted Aug. 20, 1937," by Mr. Marsh, dated Aug. 1937 and an untitled map by Mr. Farnsworth, dated 10/17/88 with the location of the lake house drawn in by hand. A work sequence describing controlled site conditions, photos, and architect's drawings were also submitted. Mr. Lasar proposed to change the windows, reroof, and make interior renovations. He said the building would not be expanded, the roof would not be raised, and no excavation was proposed. A new flagstone surface was proposed for the top of the concrete buttress on the patio, but the stone access stairs would not be changed. Mr. Ajello said that Mr. lasar had already incorporated his recommendations into the plans. The commissioners will inspect the site on their own prior to the next meeting.
Jackson/55 Old North Road/#IW-07-50/Single Family Dwelling: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," dated 8/10/07 and the "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," dated 9/10/07. He said this was a difficult lot to develop because it has several watercourses with associated wetlands and steep slopes. He proposed to build the house in the southwest corner where there were more moderate slopes and no wetlands. The existing stonewall will remain to serve as a buffer for the wetlands and the owner agreed to limit clearing on the property. Mr. Picton recommended a site inspection because the building site was so constrained and asked that the center line of the driveway be staked. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, September 18, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.
Laffont/128 Calhoun Street/#IW-07-51/Driveway and Conduits: Mr. Tittman, contractor, and Mr. Neff, engineer, represented the applicant. The maps by Mr. Neff, "Proposed Site Plan," revised to 9/10/07 and "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," dated 9/11/07 were reviewed. Mr. Tittman noted the driveway across the wetlands would be completed and underground utilities installed and said otherwise the development of the lot would be away from the wetlands. Mr. Ajello said the roadbed would be elevated a few feet and the utilities installed as far from the wetlands as practical. Mr. Ajello explained stone headwalls would be constructed on both sides of the crossing as were required in the original driveway approval. Mr. Picton said the Commission would require a bond and noted that in cases where a proposed driveway crosses in or near wetlands the exact wetlands boundaries should be determined. Mrs. Hill asked if the 2 ft. increase in the height of the crossing was approved as part of the original permit. Mr. Neff stated that 3 ft. of fill had originally been approved. Mr. Picton asked that the original maps and plans be brought to the next meeting and suggested the current plans might need to be reviewed by the Commission's consulting engineer. He asked why the Commission had approved a driveway so close to the wetlands. Mr. Ajello responded that the driveway route was an established wood road and the map had indicated the wetlands were farther away. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, September 18, 2007 at 4:45 p.m. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Neff how the stormwater runoff along the driveway would be handled, noting that the Commission prefers multiple discharge points to dissipate and spread out the flow. He also asked the applicant to provide information regarding how close the soil disturbance, clear cutting, and landscaping will be to the wetlands.
Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Trenching, Clearcutting: Atty. Fisher, Mr. Beroz, soil scientist, and Mr. Rebillard, farm employee, represented Mr. Andersson. Atty. Fisher noted he was still waiting for the farm management plan by Mrs. Johnson and said he had hired Mr. Beroz to determine whether there were wetlands soils in the area around the pond. The best available map, which was taken from an old subdivision application file, "Gunn Hill Farm, LLC." by Mr. Alex, revised to 5/28/99 with wetlands flagging done by Mr. Temple in 1998, was reviewed. Mr. Picton noted the Commission was waiting for a map that shows the extent of the disturbance and the area of wetlands drained. Mr. Beroz explained he had hoped to determine whether there were wetlands soils under the filled material in the vicinity of the pond, but the material had been so compacted he could not excavate through it. Therefore, he researched aerial photographs and compared photos of the site from 1970, 1985, 1990, and 1996. He found evidence that vegetation had been stripped and the area regraded in 1990 and in 1996, but all of this work had taken place prior to Mr. Andersson's purchase of the property. Mr. Beroz noted the piles of fill were not shown by Mr. Temple on the 1999 map. He pointed out areas where he was relatively certain from studying the photos that wetlands soils existed under the regraded material and said he thought it would be reasonable to rely on the wetlands flagging from 1998. Mr. Ajello showed a color aerial photo from 2006, which showed that the piles of material had recently been leveled off. Regarding the trenched wetlands, Mr. Rebillard submitted the 9/10/07 letter from Mr. Cherniske, which stated that area has always been hayed, but Mr. Picton thought that for the last 10 years the mowing in this area was for aesthetic purposes. Mr. Thomson asked if the area where the patio had been constructed was regulated. Mr. Beroz said he did not know. Mr. Picton noted a restoration plan had been requested in June, but had not yet been submitted and so he thought it was time that the owner paid for the Commission's consultant to come up with the plan to restore the wetlands character and function. He recommended the consultant look at all of the disturbed areas and also report back on how they should be managed. Atty. Fisher asked to what point in time did the Commission expect the wetlands to be referred to. He noted farming activities had taken place on the property for a hundred years. Mr. Picton responded that the damage by the current owner's activities should be addressed. Atty. Fisher noted there had been piles of material in this area for years and argued that an order to restore it to the point prior to the spread of the material presupposed it had value as a wetlands. Mr. Picton noted it had been mapped as wetlands so he did suppose it had value. When the Commission noted that Mr. Andersson had also clear cut other areas of his property, Mr. Rebillard disagreed, saying that only dead trees were cut. Mr. Rebillard asked if Mr. Andersson would be within his rights to keep the drainage trench open in the hayfield. Mr. Picton said it had not been established that it was continually hayed in recent years.
MOTION: Regarding Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road: To request that Land Tech 1) develop a management and restoration plan for wetlands protection; 2) look at all recently disturbed areas and provide the Commission with recommendations for the restoration and management of wetlands; and 3) note that the owners want this evaluation done in the context of farming use and comment about whether that is a valid request and to require the owner to post a $10,000 bond to cover the cost of Land Tech's analysis and consultation and the cost of the required restoration work. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4-0.
Mr. Picton noted that an enforcement order should have been issued by this time and so asked Mr. Ajello to do so. The Show Cause hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 26, 2007 at 6:45 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Adams/233 West Shore Road/Discussion of Dock Violation: Ms. Zinick, agent, said the owner would pay the citation, but that doing so was not an admission of guilt. She noted that the Commission thought the resurfacing work on the dock exceeded the scope of the approved work, but that the applicant had noted on the record that the dock would increase slightly in size. Upon receiving the payment, Mr. Ajello said this matter could be taken off the next agenda.
Daly/300 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Rebuilding of Lake Shore Wall: Mr. Ajello noted he had sent a notice of violation and then circulated photos of the completed work. Mrs. Daly said one section of the wall had been in disrepair and was a safety hazard, she had not known a permit was required for the work, and so she had the wall rebuilt before notifying the Land Use Office. She showed photos of the wall both before and after it was rebuilt. She said in doing the work there had been no excavation and the wall had not been made higher. Mr. Picton asked if the wall had been straightened or made more vertical and compared the work done to the unauthorized work on Brown's wall at 127 West Shore Road. Mr. Ajello said the photos showed the new section of wall blended in with the height and location of the older surrounding walls. Mr. Picton feared it would set a precedent if the Commission "let this one go." Mr. Ajello will inspect the site before the next meeting to compare the old sections with the new section of wall and to look for evidence of soil disturbance. It was the consensus that to be consistent, a citation should be issued for unauthorized activity on the lake shore.
Other Business
Berger/392 Nettleton Hollow Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-02-07
Mr. Ajello reported that the applicant had submitted revised plans to Land Tech, who had completed its review. The map revised to address Land Tech's comments, "Drainage Plan," by CCA, LLC., revised to 9/7/07 and Mr. Allan's letter dated 8/30/07 were reviewed. Mr. Greer, engineer, briefly noted how the revised plans responded to each of Land Tech's concerns. Mr. Picton asked if the Commission's concern about how the capacity of infiltration in an open swale differs from piped runoff was addressed. Mr. Greer said it was covered in #4 by providing storage. Mr. Picton requested that Mr. Allan be asked if this was comparable because the Commission generally does not favor piping runoff when the water can be managed on the surface with a slower velocity. It was noted that all of the drainage work would have to be satisfactorily completed before a certificate of zoning compliance was issued and that final approval from Mr. Allan was required before any additional work could be done on site.
MOTION: To approve the request to amend Permit #IW-02-07 issued to Mr. Berger/392 Nettleton Hollow Road for changes to the drainage system pursuant to Mr. Allan's 8/30/07 review and the implementation of Land Tech's recommendations. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.
Adams/233 West Shore Road/Preliminary Discussion/Swimming Pool: Ms. Zinick, agent, proposed to move the inground pool from the front of the house where it had been approved, to the rear of the building. It was noted there would be both a decrease in the size of the pool and in the total coverage of the lot as the pool would be replaced by grass in the front yard. Mr. Picton noted that except perhaps for construction equipment, the relocation of the pool would not increase the impact to the wetlands; both locations were approximately 25 ft. from wetlands. The commissioners agreed that the relocation of the pool seemed feasible, but advised Ms. Zinick that the exact location of the pool equipment and fence would have to be shown on a revised map. Ms. Zinick also proposed a 4 ft. tall picket fence and hedge, both no higher than 2 ft. measured from the center line of the highway, along the beach side of the property and asked if a permit was required. Mr. Ajello said she could add the fence to her anticipated request to revise the current permit.
Enforcement
Howard Family Trust/99 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Wall and Work on Lake Shore and Possible Slope Failure: Mr. Picton noted that Mr. Howard had been instructed to remove the illegal stairs from the lake shore. He asked what needed to be done to stabilize the bank on the opposite side of the road. Mr. Ajello noted it had not failed since July and was now covered with loose bark mulch. He noted, too, that Mr. Howard had paid for his citation. Mr. Picton asked if a bond should be required for the bank stabilization. Mr. Howard said he had talked to a contractor and would install matting if the Commission thought it was a good idea. It was agreed the matting was a good idea and Mr. Picton suggested a $3000 bond to cover the cost. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Howard if he would remove the stairs. Mr. Howard responded that the new stairs had replaced narrower concrete stairs that had gone half way down to the water. The commissioners agreed that to be consistent a second citation should be issued for the second violation, the construction of the stairs.
McCuellers/18 Plumb Hill Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-07-21: The request was to cross the intermittent stream with an electrical trench to bring power from the road to the barn along the temporary driveway route. The map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/17/07 with the proposed location of a pedestal meter drawn in by hand was reviewed. Mr. Picton thought there would be less disturbance if poles were used for service. Mr. Ajello noted the temporary driveway area would be disturbed anyway and he recommended the work be done in time to plant this fall.
MOTION: To approve the request to amend Permit #IW-07-21 issued to Mr. McCuellers/18 Plumb Hill Road for the installation of conduits along the route of the temporary driveway, which is to be removed. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 3-0-1. Mrs. Hill abstained because she had not supported the original application.
Enforcement
Braverman/38 Barnes Road: Mr. Ajello stated he had approved the construction of a new garage and the demolition of the old one because the new one would be farther from the wetlands.
Crumrine/106 Litchfield Turnpike: A notice of violation was sent regarding the construction of an unauthorized shed.
Daly/300 West Shore Road: Mr. Picton said he hoped Mr. Ajello would find conclusive information about the previous stone wall when he inspects the property.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street: Mr. Ajello said he had written to Mr. DiBenedetto, but had not yet received a response. Mr. Picton suggested that either a second citation be issued or a notice of violation filed on the Land Records for failure to restore the area where the unauthorized activities had occurred.
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road: Mr. Fowler reported to Mr. Ajello that he was having difficulty using the original soil to refill the trench because of all the vegetation growing in it. Mr. Ajello informed him that he had no authority to amend the Commission's instructions.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Moore has completed the removal of all the illegally deposited fill. Instead of the 3:1 slope up to the log road that had been specified by the Commission, Mr. Moore lined the edge of the road with boulders.
Lecher/47 West Shore Road: Mr. Ajello did not know whether Mr. Lecher had posted the required bond before he started excavating. The commissioners voiced their concern because this had been a condition of approval. Mr. Picton asked that staff establish procedures to make sure that all conditions of approval are met before permits are issued.
Levande/137 West Shore Road: The 8/20/07 citation had not yet been paid.
Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Picton noted that water test results and maintenance reports would be submitted and this matter would be resolved over time.
Reinhardt/Perkins Road: The commissioners asked why the restoration work had not yet been completed. Mr. Ajello will call Mr. Childs to ask for his schedule. If Mr. Childs can not complete the planting before the cold season, the Commission will hire someone else.
Rubler/240 Wykeham Road: It was noted the Commission would keep track of this property until all disturbed areas are stabilized.
Gutierrez/13 Dark Entry Road: Mr. Gutierrez paid his fine, removed the unauthorized work, and this matter will be taken off the agenda.
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road: Mr. Ajello said there had been progress until mid summer, but no work has been done since then.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road/#IW-04-V8: Mr. Thomson said at the next meeting he would move to remove this entire matter from the agenda. He gave a brief history of the streambank stabilization work. Mr. Picton suggested the Commission could file a letter on the Land Records that the work had not been completed according to the Inland Wetlands approval. Mr. Ajello will call again, and said if there was no response by the next meeting he would file the letter as Mr. Picton requested. This will be discussed again at the next meeting.
Fine Schedule: Mr. LaMuniere said that after reading the last meeting's minutes he did not think the Commission had agreed upon high enough fines for violations. This was briefly discussed and the following schedule was approved. Mrs. Hill was asked to refer the proposal to Atty. Zizka.
MOTION: To amend the Inland Wetlands Commission fine schedule to allow fines up to $1000 for unauthorized work in the upland review area and fines up to $2000 for unauthorized work in wetlands, both at the Commission's discretion, and to allow the Commission to levy fines per day for ongoing violations. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4-0.
WEO Job Description and Addendum: Mr. Thomson circulated an addendum, which, he said, superceded the addendum previously discussed. He noted his was a draft and asked for feedback before the next meeting. He said the aim of the addendum was to make the application process more efficient for all involved. Mr. Picton said it outlined a simple framework that the EO and Commission should try out for a few months. It was noted that additional clerical help might be needed for the new procedures to run smoothly and Mrs. J. Hill noted that once the Land Use Offices have moved, there will be more staff hours available for the Inland Wetlands Commission.
Communications
It was noted that the Lake Waramaug Country Club had submitted an application to the DEP to renew its water diversion permit to draw water from Lake Waramaug for maintenance of the golf course.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Thomson.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 11:29 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: August 25, 2007 August 15, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere,
Mr. Picton
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Potter
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Reich, Mr. Kimball, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Neff, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Aragi, Mr. Clark, Mr. Egan, Mr. Lecher, Mr./Mrs. Gutierrez, Mr. Lufkin, Mr. Sears, Ms. Rabinowicz, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Wilson, Atty. Fisher,
Mr. George, Atty. Coploff, Residents
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Howard Family Trust/99 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Wall and Lake Shore Work
Mr. Picton called the Show Cause Hearing to order at 6:22 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Picton and Alternate Thomson for the vacant seat. Mr. Picton noted Mr. Howard had constructed stone stairs on the lake shore and had been ordered to remove them and to stabilize the bank. He reviewed the 8/9/07 enforcement order and explained the purpose of the hearing was to give the property owner an opportunity to explain why the enforcement order should not remain in effect. Mr. Howard was not present and it was noted he had not signed a certified mailing receipt. Mr. Ajello said the DOT had also contacted Mr. Howard because the unauthorized stairs were located in the state right of way. Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the work done. Mrs. D. Hill noted Mr. Howard had not yet paid his citation.
MOTION: To close the Show Cause Hearing for Howard Family Trust/99 West Shore Road/Unauthorized
Work Along Lake Shore. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton closed the hearing at 7:27 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/#IW-07-35/3 Lot Resubdivision/Con't.
Mr. Picton reconvened the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Picton and Alternate Thomson for the vacant seat. Mr. Picton read the list of documents, which had been submitted since the last session of the hearing.
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, described in detail all of the points in his 8/7/07 letter, which addressed Land Tech's 7/6/07 review of the application. These included measures to provide additional protection from potential erosion and sedimentation and clarification of construction details. Mr. Szymanski noted the conservation easement had been extended along the western and the northeastern boundary and he reviewed the Deed of Conservation Restriction, dated 8/10/07. Mr. Picton noted that the right to conduct agricultural activities such as planting vegetables and orchards, haying, and constructing barns and paddocks in the conservation easement area would be counter to the objective of preserving the wooded buffer. Mr. Szymanski deleted these uses and initialed the revisions. The commissioners agreed the other uses listed as permitted and prohibited in the conservation easement were appropriate. Mr. Szymanski said he added a note on the Record Resubdivision Map, R.1, regarding the water rights of others and had referenced the documents submitted by Mrs. Johnson's attorney. He also stated a detailed construction sequence, which includes a preconstruction meeting on site, had been submitted. Mrs. D. Hill asked if the Town had accepted the conservation easement. Mr. Szymanski said the Planning Commission would ultimately decide this matter. Mr. LaMuniere thought the conservation easement language should come back to the Inland Wetlands Commission for a final review after action by the Planning Commission. Mr. Picton stated the proposal included mitigation as well as protection from direct impacts to wetlands and said the Commission must consider whether that mitigation and protection were adequate. Mr. Szymanski discussed feasible and prudent alternatives. He said the 12 buildable acres of upland soils could be accessed only by crossing two watercourses. He said that two box culverts could have proposed, but instead a bridge would span the first crossing to lessen the chance of adverse impacts downstream. Mr. Picton pointed out, however, there still would be direct impacts to the wetlands. Mr. Szymanski responded that a seepage envelope had been proposed for the second crossing, the open space proposed was double the amount required by the Subdivision Regulations, the concerns of the downhill neighbors had been addressed, and the entire wetland area and steep upland areas were proposed to be protected. Mrs. D. Hill asked if a noted had been added to the map that there could be no activity within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Mr. Szymanski said this was covered in the conservation easement, but he offered to add a note: "See conservation easement language." Mr. Picton noted the map should be referenced both in the conservation easement language and the driveway agreement. He asked that the Site Development Plan be filed on the Land Records because that is the document that governs the use of the land. Mr. Szymanski agreed to file the following maps on the Land Records; SD.1, SD.2, D.1, and OSD.1 as well as the conservation easement and driveway agreement. Mrs. D. Hill asked if all of the maps show the 100 ft. line for the upland review area. Mr. Szymanski said they did. Mr. Kimball, adjoining property owner, asked if there were feasible and prudent alternatives to disturbing the wetlands. Mr. Picton said that had been discussed and there was not any other way to reach the buildable portion of this property. Mr. Kimball asked how much open space was proposed. Mr. Szymanski said 7.7 acres of the 18 acre parcel would be open space. Mr. Kimball asked how far from the boundary lines the new homes could be built. Mr. Szymanski pointed out the feasible building sites and Mrs. J. Hill noted that future owners could apply to locate the houses elsewhere. Mr. Kimball asked if a new house could be built 50 feet from his property line and he was informed this would be possible under the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Szymanski was asked again to add a note on the map that there may be no activity within 100 feet of wetlands without a permit from the Inland Wetlands Commission. He did so and initialed and dated the revision. Mr. Kimball said there was an intermittent stream flowing to the corner of his property that was not shown on the map. Mr. Szymanski and Mr. Ajello said they had walked the property and this was not so. Mr. Kimball gave Mr. Szymanski permission to inspect his property and it was agreed that if evidence of an intermittent stream or other wetlands was found, it would be added to the map. Mr. Papsin, downgrade property owner, asked who would determine whether the driveway required maintenance under the driveway agreement. Mr. Szymanski said it would be by mutual agreement of the two property owners. Mr. Picton asked if the detention basins along the driveway could be made permanent. Mr. Szymanski said this was possible and crossed out the references to temporary basins on the plans. It was noted the Commission wanted corrected maps and grantee approval for the file.
MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider Application #IW-07-35 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Abella for a 3 lot resubdivision at 44 Scofield Hill Road. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m.
These hearings were recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:28 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Picton and Alternate Thomson for the vacant seat.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: Other Business: G. Shepaug Realty, LLC./46 June Road/Request to Release Bond, H. Administration 1. EO Job Description, 2. Commission Objectives, and 3. Procedures for New Violations. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The July 11, 2007 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Throughout: The spelling of Mr. DiBenedetto's name was corrected.
P. 1: The spelling of emptying was corrected.
P. 2: 14th line: Change: "in spring" to: "in the spring season."
P. 2: The spelling of confirmation was corrected.
P. 2: Bottom paragraph: It was noted Ms. Purnell had not resigned; she had declined to be reappointed.
P. 4: Top motion: 4th line: Add: "passed" after the vote.
P. 4: Sullivan: Line above motion: Change: "berm" to "pond."
P. 5: Hochberg: 3rd line: Insert: "building" before "area."
P. 5: Allen: 4th line: Change: "being" to "is."
P. 6: Lecher: 5th line: Change: "to the brook" to "from the brook."
P. 6: Brown: 4th line: Insert: "new stone wall" before "work."
P. 6: Brown: 7th line: Insert: "for that slope" after "equations."
P. 8: Pasquale: 3rd line: Change: "proposed" to "proposal."
P. 8: Andersson: 6th line: Insert: "in wetlands" after "mowing."
MOTION: To accept the 7/11/07 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
The following site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected: 1) Aragi/7/16/07 - No time of departure was given. 2) Allen/7/16/07 - No time of departure was given and in paragraph 2, "agreed" was changed to "commented," 3) Lecher/7/16/07 - It was noted that in paragraph 2, "level with North Shore Road" should have been, "the north side of the property on West Shore Road." 4) Brown/7/16/07 - 5th line: "NE corner" should be "SE corner." Add the following sentence to the end of paragraph 1: "It was also observed that some of the fill placed behind the wall appeared to have eroded between the rocks and wall into the lake." 4th paragraph: 1st line: Change: "new wall" to "unapproved wall." 2nd line: Delete: "which." 3rd line: Change: "right edge" to "east edge."
MOTION: To accept the 7/16/07 Aragi site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 7/16/07 Allen site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 7/16/07 Lecher site inspection minutes as revised. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 7/16/07 Brown site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Walsh/95 Roxbury Road/#IW-07-32/Clean Out and Maintain Pond, Install Thermal Heating System: Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted plans revised to 8/10/07, which deleted the proposed thermal heating system. He explained the simplified proposal was to dredge the pond to 8 feet deep without expanding it in size. Mr. Picton asked if there were provisions for the maintenance of a biologically varied shoreline. Mr. Neff said a 1:3 side slope was planned so that natural vegetation would establish itself. Mr. Neff noted the 500 yards of excavated material would be dewatered in an area south of the pond and then trucked off site. He reviewed the work sequence and construction details, which included draining the pond first, installing a temporary settling basin at the west end, and capping off the inlet pipe. Mrs. D. Hill thought it was good that a planting plan was included, but questioned why only larger trees and no smaller understory were proposed. Mr. Picton suggested it would be better for the ecology of the pond if one third was left at the existing depth. Mr. Ajello recommended that one third of the shoreline be left in natural vegetation.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-32 as submitted by Ms. Walsh to Clean Out the Pond at 95 Roxbury Road per the plan, "Pond Cleanout Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 8/10/07 subject to the following conditions: 1. one third of the basin shall not be deepened and will only be cleaned of accumulated organic matter and the side slopes shall be no greater than 1: and 2. one third of the shoreline on the south side of the pond shall be left with native vegetation within 10 feet of the pond and there shall be no lawn in that area. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/#IW-07-35/3 Lot Resubdivision: Mr. Picton noted that Mr. Szymanski, engineer, would update the maps to reflect the changes made during the public hearing. It was noted that the grantee for the conservation easement was not known at this time, but that 1) if there was no grantee the conservation easement would not be valid and 2) if there was no satisfactory grantee, the Planning Commission would not approve the resubdivision application. Mr. Picton noted the following factors had been considered by the Commission as it had reviewed the application: 1) potential environmental impact, 2) feasible and prudent alternatives, 3) the relationship between short term and long term impacts, and 4) mitigation. He said the engineered plans minimized potential downstream damage, the proposal would not threaten other properties, wetlands, or watercourses, and the function of the stream corridor was protected by both the engineering and the conservation easement. Mr. LaMuniere agreed the engineering minimized the potential adverse impacts and noted that given the nature of the property, there were no feasible and prudent alternatives.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-35 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Abella for a 3 lot resubdivision at 44 Scofield Hill Road per the plans submitted by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., P.C., 11 sheets, EC.1 - dated 2/13/07, R.1 - revised to 5/7/07, OSD.1 - revised to 8/3/07 with additional revisions made at the 8/15/07 meeting, SD.1 - revised to 8/3/07 with additional revisions made at the 8/15/07 meeting, SD.2 - revised to 8/3/07, DR.1 - revised to 8/3/07, DR.2 - revised to 8/3/07, SES.1 - dated 2/13/07, D.1 - revised to 8/3/07, D.2 - revised to 8/3/07, and D.3 - dated 8/3/07 and per the Deed of Conservation Restriction, dated 8/10/07 and revised at the 8/15/07 meeting and the Driveway Easement and Maintenance Agreement, dated 8/10/07, and revised at the 8/15/07 meeting subject to the following conditions: 1) that the Deed of Conservation Restriction and the Driveway Easement and Maintenance Agreement shall be revised as agreed upon at the 8/15/07 meeting and the responsibility for the enforcement of the conservation restriction accepted by the Town of Washington, 2. a bond of $10,000 to ensure wetlands protection during construction shall be submitted prior to the commencement of construction, 3. 40 scale site plan drawings with construction details; OSD.1, SD.1, SD.2, and D.1, the revised Deed of Conservation Restriction, and the revised Driveway Easement and Maintenance Agreement shall be filed on the land records in the Town Clerk's Office, 4. the sediment basins shall be permanent features and this and other revisions agreed upon at the 8/15/07 meeting shall be included on the revised site plan, which shall be resubmitted to the Commission for final review, 5. the applicant's engineer shall reinspect the adjoining property to the east for wetlands and regulated features and if necessary, amend the maps accordingly, and 6. condition #5 must be completed before the permit is issued. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
Allen/158 Popple Swamp Road/#IW-07-38/Construct Pond: Mr. Neff, engineer, noted the repair of a 50 ft. section of a stone wall in the regulated area had been added to the application. He also proposed to add an indoor pool addition to the south side of the dwelling near the soil stockpile area. The addition was approximately 150 ft. from existing wetlands, but only 80 ft. from the proposed pond. Mr. Picton noted the Commission had only reviewed plans for the pond and had no details such as final grading lines, the amount to be excavated, and the extent of the construction activity for the addition.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-38 submitted by Mr. Allen to construct a pond and repair a 50 ft. section of the stone wall at 158 Popple Swamp Road per the plan, "Proposed Pond Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 7/20/07 with the condition that the proposed addition to the dwelling requires a separate application. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
James Calhoun House, LLC./156 Calhoun Street/#IW-07-39/Drainage Improvements: The plan, "Drainage Improvements," by Mr. Neff, revised to 8/13/07 was reviewed. Mr. Neff, engineer, proposed to replace the existing stone culvert that directs runoff from the road to the wetlands because it is partially collapsed. The existing stone box culvert would be removed and replaced with a similar sized culvert pipe, which would exit at the same point it does now. Mrs. D. Hill asked if this would accelerate the runoff. Mr. Neff said the runoff is not able to flow through the pipe now. Mrs. Hill asked if the runoff would cause erosion at the discharge point. Mr. Neff replied that the area is well vegetated. He noted the flow could be accelerated through the smoother pipe, but added the flow was dependent on the Town culvert. Mr. Picton noted the existing stone culvert creates an opportunity for recharge and that the goal should be wetlands protection, not efficiency. He asked whether measures such as a level spreader, rain garden, or infiltration system could be installed. Mr. Bedini asked why it was necessary to change rather than just repair the existing drainage system. Mr. Neff said there was a series of holes in the ground where the runoff comes up out of the ground. Mr. Picton noted the discharge point was only 12 feet from the wetlands and so asked that alternatives be considered. He also noted that the property owners had maximized their use of both the non regulated area and some of the regulated area. He recommended a site inspection so that the Commission could better understand the objectives of the proposal. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, 8/21/07 at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Neff noted there were two other places where the culvert could discharge; 1) above the manmade pond in the wetlands or 2) into the more natural wetlands area to the east. Mr. Neff described other work proposed. The driveway apron would be crowned to handle the runoff from the Town road and the driveway would be constructed with a more permeable material, a washed gravel bed with a pea stone cover, to allow as much infiltration as possible. Mr. Neff stated the driveway would need a catch basin and that it would have an oil separator collect oil and grease.
Aragi/9 Wilbur Road/#IW-07-40/8 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Aragi and Mr. Clark, engineer, were present. A site plan entitled, "Woodridge Estates," was reviewed. Mr. Clark reported the Planning Commission had expressed concern about the proposed layout and had denied the application without prejudice. Mr. Clark asked the Commission for recommendations on how to proceed. The commissioners noted they had not been able to see much on the site inspection due to the thick vegetation and because there were no precise markers on site. Mr. LaMuniere said they had found an intermittent stream that had not been shown on the map and he asked for more information on the proposed drainage system. Mr. Picton noted the applicant proposed to redirect water that would have been dispersed over the entire site and asked what the impact of concentrating the flow would be. He asked if any mitigation would be proposed. He also noted that an open space subdivision would impact less of the property. Mr. Ajello noted the current drainage problems on Couch Road and said work done on this property could have impacts down grade. Mr. Bedini asked the applicant to consider the use of rain gardens and rock lined swales for infiltration. Mr. Clark noted that many town road ordinances require curbing and don't permit open swales for drainage. The applicant said he would withdraw the current application in order to consider a different subdivision configuration. Mrs. J. Hill advised him the withdrawal must be submitted in writing. Mr. Picton said he appreciated the applicant's willingness to decrease the scope of the development footprint to leave more areas undisturbed, especially on steep slopes above wetlands.
Etherington/49 Wheaton Road/#IW-07-41/Dry Hydrant: Mr. Ajello reported the application was for a typical dry hydrant installation and that he found no problems with the proposal.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-41 submitted by Mr. Etherington to install a dry hydrant at 49 Wheaton Road on the basis of the WEO's recommendations and with the condition that the WEO supervise the work. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Lecher/47 West Shore Road/#IW-07-42/Garage Addition, Resurface Dock, Rebuild Stairs: Mr. Lecher reviewed his plans, "Proposed Three Car Attached Garage," revised to 8/15/07. The revisions included the addition of a swale behind the top retaining wall, arrows to show the direction of the drainage flow, and a stone diffuser at the discharge point. He said the diffuser would prevent the runoff from eroding the end of the wall. Mr. Bedini noted the Commission had previously asked for the following additional information: 1) depth, width, slope, and direction of water, 2) cross section of the swale, and 3) a detailed sequence of construction. Mr. Lecher said that all of this information except the cross section was already on the plan; he said he had not been advised that a cross section was required. Mr. Lecher left to draw the construction details that had been requested and said he would return later in the meeting.
Mr. Thomson left the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Stiteler/262 West Shore Road/#IW-07-43/Boathouse: Mr. Coploff represented the applicant. It was noted an 8 ft. X 8 ft. shed without a foundation to be anchored with two 24 inch augers and a bike chain was proposed. A portion of the map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated June 2007 with the boathouse drawn in by hand was reviewed. Mr. Ajello circulated current photos of the site and it was noted that they showed the approved planting plan had not been carried out. Mr. Picton noted that at the last meeting the Commission had asked for a more accurate plan. Mr. Copland said the owners wanted the shed to be located on the beach, but that it could be located anywhere and could be frequently moved. He said the owners wanted the boathouse located between two existing trees. Mr. Picton said there was a more detailed plan done for the 2000 landscaping application and asked that that map be reviewed to make sure that approval was properly carried out. The map, "Proposed Shore Front Improvements," by Mr. Sabin, dated 7/20/2000 was reviewed. Mr. Picton asked that the proposed location of the boathouse be shown on the map to scale. He noted that no disturbance of soil was proposed, but asked if the property was located in a flood plain. He said the Commission did not normally approve new buildings in wetlands or on land subject to flooding. Mr. Coploff said the shed would be on skids so there could be some flow underneath. Mr. Bedini noted the Commission was concerned about the use of pressure treated materials near the lake. Mr. Ajello noted that fuels might be stored in the shed and Mr. Picton thought this was a good reason why it should not be located in an area that floods. Mr. Ajello presented a photo dated 10/05 that showed the property flooded up to the road. Mr. Picton asked if there was a portion of the site not subject to flooding where the shed could be located. Mr. Ajello said there was a high water level along the entire property and asked if it could be built on stilts with free flowing water underneath. Mr. Bedini pointed out that the problem with stilts is that excavation would be required and he also noted that if the property is in a flood plain there are Town ordinances that would apply. Mr. Picton asked if the Lake Waramaug Task Force had any applicable guidelines and noted if a public hearing was held the Commission would have the opportunity to receive input from experienced residents. He recommended the Commission consult with Mr. McGowan of the Task Force and Mr. Frank of the Lake Waramaug Assoc. for guidance. It was noted that if a public hearing was held, it should commence at the September 12th meeting. Mr. Ajello suggested that the applicants request an extension of time for the scheduling of the hearing to give themselves time to provide all the necessary information. Mr. Bedini noted the information needed included: 1) exact location shown to scale on the map, 2) distance to shore, property lines, and road, 3) flood plain elevation in relation to proposed building elevation, and 4) specifics on the proposed building materials. Also needed was information about the Town Floodplain ordinance and a consultation with FEMA. It was noted this same information would be required for the zoning application. Mr. Coploff said he would not request an extension at this time because the applicant might decide to apply for a permanent structure instead.
Lecher/47 West Shore Road/#IW-07-42/Garage Addition, Resurface Dock, Rebuild Stairs/Con't: Mr. Lecher noted he added the following information to the plans revised to 8/15/07: 1) labeled the footing drain outlet, 2) added a note that the slope varies, 3) specified the slope for the retaining wall, and 4) provided specifications for the drainage swale; a) 12 inches deep, 18 inches wide, b) added a note that it follows the existing grade, c) added an arrow to indicate direction of flow. He initialed and dated all revisions and reviewed the construction sequence. Mr. Picton recommended a $3000 bond for erosion control protection.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-42 submitted by Mr. Lecher for a garage addition, dock resurface, and stair repair at 47 West Shore Road per the plan, "Proposed Three Car Attached Garage," by Mr. Lecher, as revised by hand at the 8/15/07 meeting with the condition that a $3000 bond be posted prior to the start of construction. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.
New Applications
Sarjeant/28 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-07-44/Install Dry Hydrant: Mr. Ajello noted the hydrant would be installed in the lake near an area where there is a natural spillway off the road. It was noted that no action could be taken until the next meeting.
Charvillat/96 Roxbury Road/#IW-07-45/Repair Dam: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his map, "Dam Repair Plan," dated 7/22/07 and submitted photos of the site. He proposed to repair the 18 ft. long, 2.5 ft. wide, 2 ft. 8 in. tall dam, saying the purpose was to create backwater to feed into a 4 inch pipe. A typical cross section was included in the plans. Less than 50 yards of material would be excavated and the pipe was already in place. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to make sure the application was complete and to inspect the site and report to the Commission at the next meeting.
Palone/84 West Morris Road/#IW-07-46/Construct House: Mr. Neff, engineer, noted the lot was an existing subdivision lot and presented the map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," dated 8/3/07. He reviewed the plans for a house to be located in a former sand and gravel pit and a driveway using the existing access, which is approximately 20 feet from wetlands. Photos of the site were circulated to show the area in the vicinity of the wetlands. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, 8/21/07 at 4:30 p.m.
Renick/12 Green Hill Road/#IW-07-47/Replace Retaining Wall: Mr. Neff, engineer, explained the existing pressure treated wood retaining wall next to the Shepaug River bridge is failing. He noted it was located in an area, which drops steeply and is very close to the river. A sketch map was reviewed. Mr. Neff proposed to leave the old wall in place, dig out behind it, install a 3 ft. high wall of small precast concrete blocks, and then take down the old wall. Mr. Neff noted there was a footing drain pipe nearby and a gutter drain that would be rerouted. He said all of the work would be done by hand. Mr. Picton asked for a cross section and for a detailed written description of the work to be done. The commissioners will inspect the site on their own prior to the next meeting.
Town of Washington/5 East Shore Road/#IW-07-48/Aesthetic Improvement: Mr. Underwood, agent for the Village Improvement Society, and Ms. Rabinowicz, soil scientist, were present. Mr. Underwood said he had consulted with Ms. Rabinowicz and Mr. Hayden of NCD to draft a plan to open up a view of the falls. The map, "The Town of Washington, 5 East Shore Road," by Mr. Alex, revised to 6/6/07 to show the location of the wetlands was reviewed. Ms. Rabinowicz submitted her "Soils and Wetland Delineation Report," dated May 2007, which included a baseline evaluation of the site and a plan for aesthetic improvements. Mr. Underwood pointed out on the map the extent of the proposed work; 1) removing invasives, 2) cutting off lower branches to provide a view of the falls, 3) planting native species, and 4) maintaining the work done. He noted a tree must be removed from the dam and that he hoped the maintenance work could be done as needed without having to reapply to the Commission. Ms. Rabinowicz explained that not all of the invasives would be removed because that would cause the slopes to erode. She said herbicides would be used by a licensed applicator only in areas that were not close to the water. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, 8/21/07 at 5:00 p.m. There was a brief discussion regarding whether a public hearing was required. A hearing was not set at this time.
Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Trenching in Wetlands: Atty. Fisher reported that Mrs. Johnson of NRCS had inspected the property four weeks ago, but had not yet submitted a report, and that the survey map would be updated and a soil scientist would investigate the areas about which the Commission was concerned. He said Mr. Andersson would conduct no further regulated activities until the matter had been resolved. Mr. Picton noted that both wetlands restoration and farm management plans were needed. He said, too, that if the plans were not received soon, the Commission would have to proceed independently.
Other Business
Brown/127 West Shore Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-06-25: Mr. Wilson, engineer, explained the request was to allow a portion of the unauthorized work, construction of a wall from the stone stairs to the east end of the property that had exceeded the work approved in #IW-06-25, to remain in place. He submitted photos of the completed work and described how the work actually done compared to what had been approved. The site plan, "Lake Wall Renovation," by Mr. Wilson, revised to 5/10/06 was reviewed. He noted that 65 ft. of the unauthorized work had been removed. Mr. Picton said he had observed that the new fill behind the new wall had eroded into the lake because the work had been done without an approved plan and no sediment barrier had been installed. Mr. Wilson stated there had been limited migration and that the new vegetation had not been established at the time the erosion occurred. Mr. Wilson said the unauthorized work that had been done was not in wetlands soils, was entirely above the water surface and, therefore, not subject to wave action, and the grade changes that resulted had flattened the slope, which would slow the velocity of any runoff. Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Bedini noted the lake was a sensitive area and that while building a dry wall on an existing foundation did not seem serious, the resulting sedimentation was an environmental concern. Mr. Picton noted the new wall did not duplicate the original sloped rough boulder shoreline, resulting in a different habitat and a change to the character of the watercourse. He recommended: 1) a new map be submitted showing both the dock base location and where the stairs were built and that 2) the lake shore east of the dock be restored to a rough bouldered, sloped shoreline. He noted this would mean that 44 ft. of stone wall could remain although only 30 feet had been approved. Mr. Ajello asked Mr. Wilson if he would consider mitigation. Mr. Wilson responded that extensive work was being done to the house across the street; that all roof water would be infiltrated and the driveway heated to eliminate the need for salt and chemicals, but there was no place for mitigation on the lake side of the property within 20 feet of the road. Mr. LaMuniere agreed the water dynamics of a straight wall differed from that of a natural shoreline and said the Commission must be consistent.
MOTION: To deny the request for a revision of Permit #IW-06-25 issued to Mr. Brown to rebuild a retaining wall at 127 West Shore Road and to instruct the EO to require the lake shore to be restored to its condition prior to this activity; the area to be restored runs from 5 feet east of the center of the dock to the east end of the property. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.
Mr. Ajello noted the previously issued enforcement order was invalid because a show cause hearing had not been held within 10 days of its issuance. Mr. Picton asked him to reissue the order, reschedule the hearing, and to work with the property owner in the meantime.
Enforcement
Gutierrez/13 Dark Entry Road/#IW-07-V1/Unauthorized Deposition: Mr. Ajello noted he had sent Mr. Gutierrez a notice of violation and he circulated photos of the site. Mr. Gutierrez presented a map of his property and pointed out the area behind his stone wall where there was a 2 foot drop and where he had deposited 2 or 3 yards of material. He said he removed the material when he received the notice of violation and did not propose to do any additional work. Mr. Ajello recommended the Commission issue a citation because although the work was minor, it had been done within 100 feet of a wetland. Mr. Picton noted that until now the Commission had only issued citations when the work was done in wetlands or when it had resulted in a direct impact to the wetland. It was agreed a citation would be issued. Mr. Gutierrez asked if he could extend his stone wall 20 feet. He was advised to submit an application.
Other Business
Berger/392 Nettleton Hollow Road/Request to Amend Permit#IW-02-07: Mr. Egan, contractor, and Mr. George, engineer, were present. The map, "Drainage Plan," by CCA, dated 8/13/07 was reviewed. It showed the work done on site did not comply with the approved permit. Mr. George noted that most of the driveway drainage work that had not been approved was out of the regulated area, although the drainage discharged into the brook. A retaining wall with yard drains discharging to a 12 inch pipe with a rip rapped apron was constructed along the east edge of the driveway and a small catch basin was installed. Also HVAC units were installed within 75 ft. of wetlands and retaining walls were constructed in back of the house. The approved drainage swale along the driveway was not constructed. The map of the work actually done was compared with the plan that had been approved. Mr. George pointed out an area where there is a minor erosion problem, but said this would stop when the driveway was paved. He submitted calculations regarding the velocity of the discharge from the pipe installed. Mr. Picton noted there would have been recharge in the approved grassed swale and a slower path to the stream. He recommended sending the revisions to Land Tech for review because the Commission was not qualified to judge whether the two drainage systems were equivalent in terms of water management, infiltration, increase in peak runoff, and other categories of water issues. Mr. Ajello noted resolution of this matter was holding up the C of O for the house. After a brief discussion about posting a bond, it was decided the revised plan would be sent to Land Tech to determine whether it was comparable to the approved plan.
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-05-54: Mr. Ajello explained the road design originally approved for this project included hardened shoulders with cellular block pavers, but crushed stone shoulders were installed instead. Mr. Picton noted the purpose of the pavers was to reduce the impervious surfaces as much as possible. The 8/9/07 letter from Mr. Neff, which stated the crushed stone was more absorbent, was read. Mr. Fowlkes, applicant, noted the road would remain processed gravel, the crushed stone would not pack, and that grass was already growing up through the crushed stone on the shoulders. It was the consensus that the crushed stone would function as well as the pavers.
MOTION: To approve the request by Myfield, LLC. to amend its Permit #IW-05-54 issued to construct 13 dwellings at 7 Mygatt Road to permit road shoulders of crushed stone. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.
Sears/43 Cook Street/Request to Revise Permit #IW-07-24: The map, "Brook Bank Stabilization Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 8/10/07 was reviewed. Mr. Sears reported that Mr. Neff, engineer, recommended that an additional 24 feet of blocks be installed along the streambank to prevent erosion behind the existing boulders. The new section of wall would tie in with the previously approved section. Mr. Bedini noted that during the site inspection the commissioners thought the wall should have been extended. Mr. Sears advised the commissioners that the disturbed area would be limited because it would be accessed from the existing driveway.
MOTION: To approve the request by Mr. Sears to amend Permit #IW-07-24 issued for streambank stabilization at 43 Cook Street to extend the work 24 feet. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.
Adams/233 West Shore Road/Resurfacing-Remodeling of Concrete Dock: Mr. Ajello circulated a photo to illustrate that the resurfaced dock was now larger than the Commission had anticipated. He said the plans indicated the dock overhang would vary, but did not specify there would be a large overhang on the float. Mr. Picton noted that while the Commission requires an applicant to build according to the permit issued, in this case there was no adverse impact to the lake, in fact, the additional shade was a good thing. It was the consensus that Mr. Ajello should send Mr. Adams a letter telling him he has exceeded his permit and issue a citation.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory: Mr. Ajello noted that Mr. DiBenedetto had paid the consultant's bill. He said he had discussed bond requirements with him, but there had been questions about the scope of the work the bond was to cover. He also noted that Mr. DiBenedetto had contacted the DEP and his own consultants and had learned that there are state grants available for removing invasives. Mr. Picton noted the bond would ensure the restoration per the approved plan and the supervision of the work by the Commission's consultant. Mr. Ajello thought the $8500 estimate from Mr. Jontos was for the development of the restoration plan, but did not include supervision or the work itself. Mr. DiBenedetto had also questioned the specific area to be covered by the plan. It was agreed that intensive management was needed and so the commissioners thought a $20,000 bond should be posted to secure the development of the restoration plan by their consultant, the restoration work itself, and the overseeing of the execution of that plan by the consultant. Mr. Ajello was directed to send an enforcement order to Mr. DiBenedetto to order him to correct the damage done. A show cause hearing was scheduled for 6:45 p.m. on 9/12/2007.
Howard Family Trust/99 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work on Lake Shore: It was noted a show cause hearing had been conducted earlier in the evening. Mr. Howard will be ordered to remove the stairs and will be issued two citations.
MOTION: To keep the enforcement order issued on 8/9/07 to the Howard Family Trust for unauthorized work on the lake shore in effect. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.
Enforcement
The following items are detailed in the 8/15/07 Enforcement Report:
King/14 New Preston Hill Road: Mr. Ajello said he did not identify any wetlands concerns and will make sure the owners take the proper precautions.
Drakely/59 River Road/Unauthorized Clearing/#IW-07-V1: The notice of violation was not claimed and so was mailed a second time.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Moore had removed half of the unauthorized fill, but has not yet paid his citation.
Tulkoff/48 Hinkle Road/Unauthorized Clearcutting/#IW-07-V2: Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the clearcutting. Mr. Picton noted the work stopped 70 ft. from wetlands, there is not much slope, and efforts to stabilize the area have already begun. Mr. Ajello recommended a citation and it was agreed it should be issued.
Reinhardt/Perkins Road: Mr. Ajello noted Mr. Childs has not returned his calls. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, 8/21/07 at 5:30 p.m.
Rubler/240 Wykeham Road: The owner will request a revision of his permit to eliminate the tennis court and put the pool where the court was going to go. The commissioners asked that this item remain on the Enforcement agenda.
LeVande/137 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Trench, Installation of Pipe/#IW-07-V4: Mr. Ajello circulated a photo of the unauthorized work. A citation was issued on Mr. Ajello's recommendation.
Administrative Issues
Mr. Picton noted due to the late hour these would not be discussed in detail at this time.
1) The revision of the fine schedule to increase fines was considered. Mr. Bedini recommended the schedule used by Roxbury; fines up to $500 for unauthorized work in upland review areas and up to $1000 for unauthorized work in wetlands. It was thought the Commission has enough good judgment and expertise to differentiate between major and minor violations and to set the fines accordingly. Atty. Zizka will be asked to review this proposal. Since the fines are governed by ordinance, the proposed revision would have to be approved at a Town Meeting.
MOTION: To pursue adoption of the Town of Roxbury model for fines; up to $500 for unauthorized work in the upland review area and up to $1000 for unauthorized work in wetlands. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.
2) The EO Job Description and Addendum were circulated. Mr. Bedini explained that the Job Description is a more general document requiring input, review, and approval by many Town officials, whereas, the Addendum included details pertaining to the Inland Wetlands Commission and could be more easily revised whenever the Commission thought it was necessary. Mr. Picton noted the Commission's past inability to effectively communicate to the EO what it wants done and how it should be done and thought the Job Description and Addendum would be helpful. Mr. Picton asked the commissioners to study these documents so they can be discussed at the next meeting.
3) Procedures for new violations are being worked out. The commissioners asked that orders be sent out immediately to violators to ask that violations be corrected rather than waiting for the Commission to discuss these matters first.
Shepaug Realty/46 June Road/Request for Release of Bond: Mr. Ajello will inspect the property with Mr. LaMuniere to determine whether the area is stable and the bond should be released.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 12:16 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: July 19, 2007 July 11, 2007
Members Present: Mark Picton, Charles LaMuniere, Tony Bedini, Dorothy Hill
Alternate Present: David Thomson
Alternates Absent: John Potter, Kathryn Coe
Staff Present: Mike Ajello, Pamela Osborne
Guests: Paul Szymanski P.E., Bob Papsin, Ray Reich, Edith Johnson, Ann Fisher, Esq., Bill Deacon, Greg Esker, Allison Rubler, Charles & Cathy Sullivan, Daniel Condon, Toni Fornasier, Dirk Sabin, Simon Aragi, Anthony DeBenedetto, Andrew Lecher, David R. Wilson, P.E.
PUBLIC HEARING
IW-07-35/ Abella/ 44 Scofield Hill Road/ 3 lot subdivision
Mr. Picton called the public hearing to order at 6:00pm, he seated regular members Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Bedini, Ms. Hill, himself and alternate David Thomson for the vacancy. Mr. Picton then read the public notice published in the Voices on June 27, 2007 and July 8, 2007.
Mr. Ajello noted that there was a list of (24) documents on file as of 6/29/07 and a letter from Land-Tech Consultants dated July 6, 2007 (received 7-10-07). Paul Szymanski P.E. of Arthur Howland Assoc. was present to represent this application. Mr. Szymanski began by stating that the driveway location has been revised as requested since the first application, they have added level spreaders and done a full scale drainage report. Mr. Szymanski had just received the Land-Tech report on July 10th and will be adding their recommendations to his plan and requested that the public hearing be continued. He went on to say that he had just met with the Conservation Commission and will be adding a buffer easement to lots #2 and #3 to prevent clear cutting. Mr. LaMuniere asked about a maintenance plan for proposed swales. Mr. Szymanski answered that language will be added to the common driveway agreement. Mr. Picton asked about swales on the uphill side of the proposed driveway and if there were any cross culverts to address runoff. Mr. Szymanski answered that there were grass swales on the uphill side of the drive and that the infiltration system would better address the runoff. Mr. Picton's concern was to keep the runoff water dispersed. Mr. LaMuniere asked about the conservation easement, Mr. Szymanski explained that he had agreed to add a 50' buffer conservation easement to the western side of lots #2 and #3 which would prevent clear cutting to the property line. Mr. Szymanski went on to state that up to 40% of the property will be under conservation easement, 20%-30% is required. Mr. Szymanski located the limit of disturbance line on the map; Mr. Picton asked that a note be added to the map regarding no activity within 100' of wetlands. Mr. Picton asked for comments or questions from the public. Bob Papsin of 30 Mygatt Road expressed concern with the driveway culverts empting into the swales, he stated that the soil below is hard pan and is concerned about more drainage problems down the hill. Mr. Szymanski stated that he will follow Land Tech's recommendations. Mr. Picton would like to see more culverts to keep the flow the same as it is now and is concerned with directing it to one point in the stream. He went on to say that the object is not to increase or decrease what presently occurs. Mr. Papsin expressed concern for continued maintenance along the driveway. Ray Reich of 28 Scofield Hill Road asked if work will be done before the sale of the lots. Mr. Szymanski answered that driveways to the lots will be done now. Mr. Reich then asked what will happen if the lots don't sell, Mr. Szymanski stated that they will be the owner's responsibility. Edith Johnson of 70 Scofield Hill Road addressed the commission stating that she has water rights to springs on the Abella property and was concerned with future septic systems. Mr. Picton stated that these rights should be located and noted on the map and asked Ms. Johnson to submit documents for the record. Mr. Ajello made note of verbal concerns to Janet Hill from Mr. Peterson on Scofield Hill Road who couldn't attend the meeting regarding water runoff: 1) large amount of water in stone swale that flows towards proposed crossing 2) very large amounts in spring 3) large amount from Popple Swamp that flows through the property where the subdivision is proposed. Mr. LaMuniere stated that this is why they have the corridor protection. Mr. Szymanski will work on the points made by Land Tech. Mr. Picton asked that the commission be provided with the text of the conservation easement and asked about official conformation that the Town of Washington will accept it. Ann Fisher Esq. attorney for Edith Johnson came forward with deeds, for the record referencing Ms. Johnson's spring rights, which Atty. Fisher stated were general with no map, there are existing pipes to be marked.
Motion: to continue the public hearing to consider application IW-07-35, Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/ 3 lot subdivision to August 8, 2007 at 6:30pm was made by Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Ms. Hill, passed 5-0.
While waiting to start the regular meeting Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Thompson stated that they would be out-of-town for the August 8th Inland Wetlands meeting. Members discussed this and realized that there was a very real possibility that there wouldn't be a quorum with the two members away and decided to change the August 8th meeting to August 15th. Pamela Osborne, acting secretary will look into posting and notification of this change.
Regular Meeting
Mr. Picton called the July 11, 2007 meeting of the Inland Wetlands Commission to order at 7:02pm and seated regular members Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Bedini, Ms. Hill, himself and alternate David Thomson for the vacancy.
Motion: to elect Mark Picton Chairman and Tony Bedini Vice-Chairman of the Inland Wetlands Commission for 2007-2008 was made by Ms. Hill seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 5-0.
Members noted the resignation of regular member Marguerite Purnell. They would like to see alternate member David Thomson moved to the vacant regular member spot and went on to briefly discuss the need for active alternate members.
Motion: to add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: New applications Andy Lecher/ 47 West Shore Road IW-07-42/ garage addition, resurface pier, John Stiteler/ 262 West Shore Road IW-07-43/ boathouse and discussion of policy on notices sent for violations/show cause hearings was made by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
Members made the following changes to the minutes of the June 13, 2007 Inland Wetlands meeting: page 3, line 19, remove the word four and the (s) from piles; page 5, line 15, remove the word new and the (s) from piles; page 5, line 16, remove the (s) from piles and change they to it; page 9, line 22, replace only with labeled; page 9, line 39, capitalize Eagle Scout; page 11, line 43&44, replace while the route behind the garage was not with: and it appears that an access uphill and straight in from Plumb Hill is possible; page 14, last line, replace lotus with locust; page 18, line 20, add Mrs. D. Hill pointed out that if an exemption is being sought and a completed exemption application form has been submitted than the proper form has been used; page 19, line 12, add at 11:45pm after meeting.
Motion: to accept the minutes of the June 13, 2007 meeting of the Inland Wetlands Commission as corrected was made by Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 4-0. (Mr. Thomson abstained; he had not read the minutes)
Members made the following change to the special meeting minutes for IW-07-27/Wykeham Partners LLC/ 240 Wykeham Road: under observations, line 5, replace failure with absence; to the special meeting minutes for IW-07-33/ Condon and Fornasier/ 57 Findley Road: under observation, line 18, add (s) to placement, line 21, replace footprint with lot coverage.
Motion: to accept the minutes of the special meetings for Capeci and Coghlan 6/26/07, Condon and Fornasier 6/26/07, Wykeham Partners LLC 6/26/07 and Sullivan 6/26/07 as corrected was made by Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
IW-07-22/ Merrill Clark/ 6 Romford Road/ remove culverts, replace second culvert. Bill Deacon of Arthur D. Deacon & Son Inc was present to represent this application. Mr. Deacon explained that they will be replacing an existing 36"x15" RCP with a larger (3'x8") concrete culvert box, will rip rap the swale, and has submitted an engineer report dated 27 June 2007 with 50-year storm frequency report. It was noted that the commission had asked for a 100-year flood frequency report. Mr. Picton asked about size and location of rip rap, Mr. Deacon made notations on the map. Mr. LaMuniere stated that it's obvious the existing pipe doesn't handle the water flow. Mr. Ajello interjected that they are tripling the size of flow area. Mr. Picton questioned the submission of a 50-year storm frequency report when a 100-year report was asked for. Mr. Bedini made the observation that on the other side of the culvert there would be flooding; Mr. Picton agreed that the special circumstances are that the whole streambed and valley on both sides is flat ground and floods in any unusual storm, that's how the flow is accommodated by flooding into the valley. Mr. Deacon also made a notation on the map of the area of the stream which will stay in "as is condition" and that the culvert will be set 2" into finish level of base material.
Motion: to approve application IW-07-22 submitted by Merrell E. Clark/ 6 Romford Road/ remove culverts, replace second culvert, per map on file of proposed box culvert revised 7/9/07 with notations made by William Deacon of Arthur D. Deacon & Son Inc was made by Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, by a 5-0 vote.
IW-07-27/ Wykeham Partners LLC/ 240 Wykeham Road/ pool, tennis court, site improvements. Greg Esker and Allison Rubler were present to represent this application. Mr. Esker submitted a new site plan map on July 6th and went on to say that the driveway along the retaining wall will be 2' higher and if it is prudent they will extent the retaining wall. Brian Neff addressed erosion control by changing the retaining wall to a dry lay wall (which Mr. Esker noted on the map) and planting on the steep bank. Mr. Picton questioned Mr. Esker on the manageability of doing Phase I & Phase II at the same time. Mr. LaMuniere is concerned about the wall and reminded everyone that they were brought to this property because of the runoff problem. Mr. Picton discussed stipulations limiting the amount of unstable soil.
Motion: to approve application IW-07-27 submitted by Wykeham Partners LLC/ 240 Wykeham Road/ pool, tennis court, site improvements per maps on file of site plan by De Nardis Engineering LLC dated 11 June 2007 marked received 7-6-07 with revisions made to date and with the following conditions: 1. planting on the steep slopes above the driveway be monitored for success and fortified under the guidance of the enforcement officer as necessary 2. additional stabilization at the north end of the long dry laid stone wall next to the driveway be considered as the project progresses 3. in lieu of completing phase I before phase II is started no more than one acre of soil is exposed and unstabilized on the entire property any one time 4. the bond remains in place until the commission is satisfied that the site is fully stabilized and the job is complete 5. Mr. Esker will submit written reports weekly on progress and Mr. Ajello will monitor the site regularly was made by Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.
IW-07-30/ Charles & Cathy Sullivan/ 56 Dark Entry Road/ repair pond, maintain pasture. Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan were present to represent their application. Mr. Bedini began by saying that after making the site visit he has no problem approving this application. Mr. LaMuniere agreed that this was a simple repair application. Ms. Hill questioned the proposed sandy beach. Mr. Picton felt this was OK as it was a manmade pond, but did add that during the work only clear water be pumped from the pond and the berm not be enlarged.
Motion: to approve application IW-07-30 submitted by Charles & Cathy Sullivan/ 56 Dark Entry Road/ repair pond, maintain pasture as presented with the condition that only clear water be pumped from the pond was made by Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.
IW-07-33/ Daniel Condon & Toni Fornasier/ 57 Findlay Road/ house addition. Daniel Condon and Toni Fornasier were present to represent their application. Mr. Ajello began discussion by stating that the existing patio is caving in and the proposed porch will be built on the same footprint with a walkout basement, there will be no increase in impervious surface, no more grading or filling. Mr. LaMuniere confirmed that the proposed addition will not be closer to the wetlands. Mr. Bedini felt they were improving a hazardous situation.
Motion: to approve application IW-07-33 submitted by Daniel Condon & Toni Fornasier/ 57 Findlay Road/ house addition as submitted was made by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 4-0. (Mr. Picton abstained because he was no t present at the June 13, 2007 meeting))
IW-07-34/ Edwin & Diane Hochberg/ 15 Couch Road/ driveway. Paul Szymanski was present to represent this application. Mr. Szymanski began by saying there were no wetlands within 200' of the area and that a feasible building site had been located on the map. Mr. Ajello noted that reports were on file about feasibility and alternatives with photos. Mr. Picton questioned Mr. Ajello about the file being complete.
Motion: to approve application IW-07-34 submitted by Edwin & Diane Hochberg/ 15 Couch Road/ driveway as per proposed sanitary disposal system plan map by Arthur H. Howland Assoc. dated June 11, 2007 showing proposed driveway and house site was made by Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.
New Applications
IW-07-38/Daniel Allen/ 158 Popple Swamp Road/ pond construction. Dirk Sabin was present to represent this application. Mr. Sabin began by saying this is a new construction surrounded by open meadows, an 86 acre parcel. The proposed pond is in a non-wetland area. Mr. Sabin described the terrain as flat and there being a rock with a cherry tree growing out of it which they want to become an island in the proposed pond. He went on to say the pond may be 8' deep, a detention basin for the houses roof leaders. Mr. Sabin added that grading would be within 10' of wetlands and noted the tree line on his hand drawn map. Members scheduled a site visit for Monday July 16th at 4:00pm.
IW-07-40/Simon and Edna Aragi/ 9 Wilbur Road/ 8 lot subdivision. Simon Aragi was present to represent his application. Members looked at a map showing an 8 lot subdivision. Mr. Aragi noted that Lot #7 was already developed. Mr. Ajello pointed out drainage issues on the parcel, a detention basin which crosses Wilbur Road. He felt an extensive site walk was needed and a public hearing scheduled. A second set of documents & maps is needed in the file. Mr. Ajello was asked to check into consultant fees and bond estimate. Members decided to do a preliminary site walk on Monday July 16th at 3:00pm and went on to discuss a date for the public hearing.
Motion: to schedule a public hearing to consider application IW-07-40 submitted by Simon & Edna Aragi for an eight lot subdivision at 9 Wilbur Road on Wednesday September 12, 2007 at 6:00pm in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall was made by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.
Enforcement
DiBenedetto/ 212-214 Calhoun Street/ Restoration of under story. Anthony DeBenedetto was present. Mr. DeBenedetto received the report from Robert Jontos, PWS of Land Tech Consultants Inc. Mr. DeBenedetto stated that he is looking for an end to this project and has tried spraying invasives to no avail. Mr. Picton reminded Mr. DeBenedetto that the stop work order is still in effect. Mr. Picton wants Robert Jontos involved in restoration activities and long term monitoring, he spoke about a bond for consultant's fees and restoration activities. Mr. Picton read from the Land Tech report. Mr. DeBenedetto stated that he would agree to the recommendations if they were for the larger area. Mr. Picton reiterated his thought that Robert Jontos, of Land Tech supervise the restoration and long term maintenance. He will want a written acceptance from Mr. DeBenedetto and bond established. Mr. DeBenedetto wants removal of invasives, clearing of dead trees, new planting and long term maintenance for the entire parcel, a defined area. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to contact Land Tech to have Mr. DeBenedetto's question on the defined area answered and reminded Mr. DeBenedetto to do no more work.
New Applications
IW-07-42/Andrew & Elizabeth Lecher/ 47 West Shore Road/ garage addition, resurfacing pier, rebuilding steps. Andrew Lecher was present to represent his application. Mr. Lecher began by explaining that he proposes to build an attached three car garage to his house, rebuild stairs that access his beach and resurface an existing pier. He located a brook and dam on the map. The garage will be 75' to the brook. Mr. Lecher went on to say that the proposed garage will cover some existing drive and walkway and a boulder retaining wall will need to be extended. He went into a brief description of the work to be done on the steps and pier. Members scheduled a site walk for Monday July 16th at 4:30pm.
Other Business
IW-06-25/ Robert & Angie Brown/ 127 West Shore Road/ rebuild retaining wall. David R. Wilson, P.E. was present to represent this application. Mr. Wilson began by admitting his client went beyond the original permits granted. He went on to say that they now want a modification to the original permit. Mr. Ajello stated that the work to the west side of the stairs has been removed; it has been restored and planted. The applicants want to retain the work done on the east side; no work has been done below water level. Mr. Wilson has submitted soil loss equations. Members scheduled a site visit for Monday July 16th at 5:00pm.
Pending Applications
IW-07-37E/ John B. Stiteler and Ellen Giddens Stiteler/ 262 West Shore Road/ boathouse. A letter from Mr. Ajello to the Stiteler/Giddens went out on June 20, 2007; on July 10, 2007 an Application for Permit was received.
IW-07-26/ Town of Washington/ Romford Road/ install drainage. Mr. Ajello noted that the work was being done in the vicinity of 201 Romford Road, Rumsey Hall School. He went on to say that at the last meeting it was suggested that deeper sumps be installed, there is a ledge problem in this area and they felt that enlarging the catch basin was better. Watershed calculations were submitted. Mr. Ajello stated that the drainage was needed for road and ground runoff, they are repairing an old established problem.
Motion: to approve application IW-07-26 submitted by Town of Washington/ 201 Romford Road/ drainage improvements as submitted with the condition that performance of the catch basin is monitored and alterations be made if insufficient was made by Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 4-0. (Mr. Picton abstained because he was no t present at the June 13, 2007 meeting)
IW-07-28/William H. Luers/ 44 Church Hill Road/ install dry hydrant. Mr. Ajello stated that this and the Bardel application were the same as others received and felt the Fire Department was doing a good job with the dry hydrants.
Motion: to approve application IW-07-28 submitted by William Luers/ 44 Upper Church Hill Road/ dry hydrant installation as submitted was made by Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 4-0 (Mr. Picton abstained because he was no t present at the June 13, 2007 meeting)
IW-07-29/ William and Penelope Bardel/ 166 Baldwin Hill Road/ install dry hydrant.
Motion: to approve application IW-07-29 submitted by William & Penelope Bardel/ 166 Baldwin Hill Road/ dry hydrant installation as submitted was made by Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 4-0 (Mr. Picton abstained because he was no t present at the June 13, 2007 meeting).
IW-07-31/ Cynthia Capeci & Robert Coghlan/ 196 Roxbury Road/ swimming pool installation. Members did a site visit and had no further questions on this application. Mr. Ajello said he wanted to see that access to the site be as close to the back of the house as possible and a construction barrier fence be installed between the pond and site work.
Motion: to approve application IW-07-31 submitted by Cynthia Capeci & Robert Coghlan/ 196 Roxbury Road/ swimming pool installation as submitted with the conditions: 1. that access to the site be as close to the back of the house as possible 2. a construction barrier fence be installed between the pond and site work was made by Mr. Bedini, seconded by Ms. Hill, passed 4-0 (Mr. Picton abstained because he was no t present at the June 13, 2007 meeting)
IW-07-32/ Winifred Walsh/ 95 Roxbury Road/ clean out and maintain pond, install thermal heating system. No further information has been received, discussion was tabled.
IW-07-36/ Pasquale J. Guliano/ 19 Winston Drive/ install basketball court. The proposed concrete slab for the 30x30 basketball court is 52' down grade from wetlands. Mr. Ajello stated that the area is grass and trees, he has no problem with the proposed. Members were concerned with grading work.
Motion: to approve application IW-07-36 submitted by Pasquale Guliano/ 19 Winston Dive/ installation of a basketball court as submitted with the condition that no soil disturbance or clearing of trees be done within 50' of the wetlands was made by Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.
IW-07-39/ James Calhoun House LLC/ 156 Calhoun Street/ drainage improvements. Members questioned why this work was being done; there are two areas of proposed work. There is pollution potential in the area of the driveway. Members requested an explanation and alternatives. They tabled further discussion.
IW-07-41/ Donald Etherington/ 49 Wheaton Road/ install dry hydrant. Mr. Ajello will make a site visit.
New Applications
IW-07-43/ John B. Stiteler and Ellen Giddens Stiteler/ 262 West Shore Road/ placement of boathouse. The applicant is proposing placement of an 8x8 shed. There were no construction details or map showing placement of the shed. The file was incomplete and discussion tabled.
Enforcement
Andersson/ 35/45 Gunn Hill Road/ unauthorized clearing, trenching wetlands. There were two letters added to the file both received today July 11th from: 1) Robert L. Fisher, Jr., Esq. of Cramer and Anderson 2) Edward V. O'Hanlan of Robinson & Cole LLP. Members are charged with protecting and enhancing wetlands and look for a restoration plan. The commission will need to hire it's own consultant and wants Mr. Ajello to send a letter reminding Mr. Andersson that there is to be no more work done including mowing.
Carlos Canal/ 142 Sabbaday Lane. Members briefly discussed the pesticide application that was submitted and withdrawn. DEP Pesticide Application is a regulated activity.
Howard Family Trust/ 99 West Shore Road/ unauthorized wall, possible slope failure and work on lake shore. Mr. Ajello started by stating that there has been a gross violation of the wetlands permit. He had pictures of the violations which included new blocking and masonry work in the water. Mr. Picton told Mr. Ajello to issue a citation and order to restore what was previously there and members also scheduled a show-cause hearing for August 15, 2007 at 6:15pm.
Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to speak with the First Selectman about increasing the fine schedule. There was a brief discussion about scheduling show-cause hearings and issuing citations for violations. Mr. Picton, speaking to Mr. Ajello stated that it needs to be done according to the regulations, procedure is to be followed.
AT 10:40pm Mr. Bedini left the meeting.
Drakeley/ 59 River Road/ unauthorized clearing. Mr. Ajello sent a notice of violation to Mr. Drakeley on June 18, 2007, there was unauthorized vegetation removal from the stream bed, replanting will need to be done. Mr. Picton felt that crafting recommendations for restoration might help.
Moore/ 25 Litchfield Turnpike/ unauthorized filling, clear cutting. Mr. Moore has not yet paid the fine and the enforcement order remains on the land records.
Caco/ 16 Flirtation Avenue/ unauthorized clearing, grading. This item can be removed from the enforcement list.
Wright/ 59 Scofield Hill Road/ unauthorized clearing, filling and soil disturbance. Mr. Ajello reports that Mr. Wright continues his work.
Reinhardt and Cremona/ Perkins Road. Mr. Ajello suggested scheduling a site walk.
Fowler/ 138 Nichols Hill Road/ remediation order. Mr. Ajello continues checking on this site.
Bransfield/ 21 Walker Brook Road/ unauthorized activities. This item can be removed from the enforcement list.
Other Business
DEP Aquatic Pesticide Permit Application Process/ Canal/ Sabbaday Lane. Mr. Ajello explained that what this pond needs is dredging; Mr. Canal withdrew his application for pesticide application. Members discussed a form letter to pond owners.
Revision request/ Sachs/ 35 Potash Hill Road/ IW-05-41/ pond maintenance. Mr. Ajello explained that the original application noted that dredged material would be removed from site; the applicant is requesting a change to a suitable location in the pasture/hayfield which is clear of wetlands and watercourses.
Motion: to approve revision request application IW-05-41 submitted by Arthur Sachs/ 35 Potash Hill Road/ pond maintenance as submitted was made by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Thomson, passed 5-0.
Communications
Letter from Roberta Smith Re: Plourde/ 33 East Shore Road. The commission received a letter date June 20, 2007 from Roberta Smith expressing her concern for the Plourde property. A notice of violation remains on the land records.
Motion: to adjourn at 11:05pm was made by Ms. Hill seconded by Mr. Picton, passed 5-0.
Submitted subject to approval,
Pamela L. Osborne, Acting Secretary
Posted: June 22, 2007 June 13, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Ms. Purnell
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Picton
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Potter
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Lyon, Mr. Solley, Mr. Sears, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Carey, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Brinton, Mr. Neff Mr./Mrs. Templeton, Mrs. Yourwith, Mr. Condon, Mr./Mrs. Lewinter, Mr. Nicholas, Ms. Fornasier, Mr. Cigal, Mrs. Rubler, Mr. Esker, Mr./Mrs. Sullivan, Ms. Zinick, Mr. Howard, Mr. Wilson
PUBLIC HEARING
Town of Washington/16 Titus Road/#IW-07-23/Clean Up, Install Walking Path
Mr. Bedini called the public hearing to order at 6:03 p.m. and read the legal notice published in Voices on 6/1/07 and 6/8/07. He seated Members Bedini, Hill, and LaMuniere, and Alternate Thomson for Mr. Picton.
Mrs. J. Hill noted the documents in the file:
1. Application form dated 5/22/07
2. DEP Activity Reporting Form
3. 5/23/07 letter of authorization to the Commission from Mr. Sears
4. 5/31/07 notification letter to adjoining property owners from Mrs. Hill
5. List of names and addresses of adjoining property owners
6. Map - "Preliminary Concept," by Mr. Sabin, dated 5/18/07
7. Assessor's Map 8-7 with property location noted
8. Notice of Special Meeting dated 5/24/07 by Mrs. Hill
9. Site Inspection minutes dated 6/5/07
10. "Existing Conditions Map," by Mr. Natale, dated 2/1/07
11. 5/23/07 minutes
12. Legal Notice published in Voices on 6/1 and 6/8/07
Mr. Sears noted the proposal was to clean up the site, create a meadow, and install a walking path. He gave a brief history of the property and a review of the existing conditions. The map, "Existing Conditions Map," by Mr. Natale, dated 2/1/07 was reviewed. He pointed out the locations of the stockpiles of stone and debris and said they would be removed from the property. He said the stockpile of road sweepings, which was mostly organic matter, would be used on site. He then described the walking path, which would connect with the existing greenway trail and loop around the property. He noted that the proposed work would improve the eroded areas on site, especially in the vicinity of the access ramp, the meadow area would be regraded, covered with top soil, and planted with grass, and invasive species would be cleared, but there would be little landscaping and planting initially. He noted, too, that the proposed work would not affect the current DEP abatement order and would not preclude any future uses for the property.
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, presented his plan, "Grading and Layout Plan," dated 6/7/07, 2 pages. He pointed out the existing drainage patterns, noted the location of the berm, and noted the area along the river is thickly vegetated. Plans for the site included the removal of the dead trees and control of invasives, especially in the middle of the site, and the installation of a silt fence along the limit of disturbance line and also hay bales where necessary. He said the regrading would be done in a controlled manner and he then reviewed the construction details. The existing material on site would be used to fill in the low spot and to grade the area adjacent to the berm. The proposed 3% grade would maintain the existing sheet flow. The path would be 5 to 8 feet wide, capped with stone dust, and located on top of the berm in the section along the river. He pointed out two appropriate spots for benches. The construction details included the installation of a turf cell apron at the existing fire truck access ramp to help stabilize this area. The existing parking area near Titus Road would remain. He noted the riparian buffer would be maintained along the quarter mile path, but that there would be ample views of the river.
Mr. Thomson asked if cars would drive to the river to launch canoes and kayaks. Mr. Sears stated that no vehicles would be permitted beyond the parking lot.
Mr. Sabin noted the shoulders along the path would be lawn and the meadow would be primarily grasses and a New England wildflower mix.
Mrs. J. Hill noted that an 8 ft. wide path seemed excessive. Mr. Sears responded that he had worked with the Park and Rec Comm. on the specifications, but said he was open to recommendations from the Commission and the public.
Mr. LaMuniere noted that on the site inspection Ms. Purnell had expressed her concern that any contaminants in the stockpile would be spread around on site and that Mr. Sears had said he would test this material. Mr. Sears said that was true, but that since then he had contacted Mr. Hayden of the NCD, Lenard Engineering, and Mr. McGuinness of the NW Ct. COG who all said there were no EPA pollutants in the stockpiled material and that street sweepings had been used for fill by the northwestern Ct. towns for many years. He said that the proposed work would prevent any contaminants from reaching the river and any fill would be capped with vegetation and he asked what specifically the Commission wanted the material tested for. He said there might be small pieces of blacktop in the pile, but that the town's engineer and NCD were OK with that. Mr. LaMuniere thought that whatever had been contained in the older stockpiles had already leached out, but said the Commission was concerned with the material in the four new piles. Mr. Sears said the material was not considered to be urban fill and he did not think there was a need for testing.
Mrs. D. Hill asked how often the meadow would be mowed. Mr. Solley said once in June and once at the end of September. Mrs. Hill noted some birds would use the field for nesting in June and Mr. Sabin said if birds were using the meadow the mowing schedule could be adjusted.
Ms. Purnell arrived at 6:47 p.m. and was seated.
Mr. Solley clarified that all the piles of street sweepings were 90% mineral or organic matter from the edge of the roads and that any salt had already leached out by the time the material was stockpiled. Mr. Smith of the Highway Dept. noted the road sand is 6 parts sand to 1 part salt so there is minimal salt to begin with and by spring it has dispersed.
Mr. Templeton of Golf Course Road noted there were historically significant vestiges of industrialization on the property and asked if they would be preserved. When Mr. Sabin said there was nothing concrete on the property, Mr. Templeton offered to point them out to him on site.
Mr. Carey made the following comments on behalf of the Planning Commission, which had reviewed the plans and inspected the site: 1) Wherever possible the pathway should be moved closer to the river and kept out of the meadow. 2) The path should be no more than 5 ft. wide and kept as simple as possible. 3) In the existing berm there is a lot of rubble, which should be mixed in and buried. 4) The two large maples at the edge of the river should be preserved. Mr. Sabin responded that he had revised the plan slightly so that most of it was now at the top of the embankment. He described the river and explained how he had located the path to use the terrain and space to offer a varied experience of rises and falls, trees and wide open spaces, shade and sun, etc.
Mr. Sabin briefly talked about landscaping. The burning bush would be removed and the gazebo on the adjoining property screened with shrubs along the northern boundary line.
Mrs. Brinton asked if the recycling center would be moved to the dump. Mr. Sears said this would be done by July 1.
Mrs. Brinton asked why the old building would remain. Mr. Sabin stated that once the site was stabilized the Town would decide what to do with the building.
The map, "Grading and Layout Plan," by Mr. Sabin, dated 6/7/07 was reviewed. Mr. Sabin explained how the Town would commit to long term invasive species control.
Mr. Bedini asked if during high water the meadow would flood. Mr. Sabin said it would during a 100 year storm, but said the meadow would withstand the flow.
Mr. Ajello noted that a lot of the drainage now goes down along the ramp and so asked why a curtain drain was not proposed in this area. Mr. Sabin said there would be sheet flow to a grassy swale.
Mrs. D. Hill noticed old tires in the berm and asked if they would be removed. Mr. Sabin said this would be assessed and if they were to be removed, it would be done before the silt fence was installed.
Mr. Sabin noted the first step in the sequence of construction was for Mr. Ajello and Mr. Smith to meet on site to review the approved plan.
Mr. Sears said the Town wanted approval as soon as possible so that the meadow could be grassed by the fall and all the work completed before it snowed.
Ms. Purnell asked if the stockpiled material had been tested. Mr. Bedini said it had not and that the Commission would decide whether that would be required. Ms. Purnell noted the state DEP has specific guidelines for the use and reuse of materials. She said contaminants are often bound to fine grain materials and that this could be a problem on this site due to the proximity to the leaky berm. Mr. Bedini asked if there were specific things that the material should be tested for. Ms. Purnell referred to the January 2005 DEP document, "Guideline for Municipal Management Practices for Street Sweepings and Catch Basin Cleanings" regarding what to test for and remediation standards.
Ms. Purnell asked if a cross section for the ramp improvements and flow calculations had been provided. Mr. Sabin said that details for the ramp had been submitted but that flow calculations had not been done because they were insignificant.
There was a discussion about whether or not to require that the materials in the piles to be used on site be tested for contaminated material. Mr. Solley reiterated that the edging material was mostly organic and that Mr. McGuinness and Mr. Hayden said that testing was not necessary. He asked what the Commission would be looking for specifically. Ms. Purnell said that heavy metals such as copper, zinc, lead, and arsenic, semi volatile organic compounds, and materials such as antifreeze and asbestos should be tested for. Mr. Sears noted that the Town's consultant from Lenard Engineering did not share Ms. Purnell's concerns. Mr. LaMuniere again stated he was not concerned about the old stockpiles, but was concerned about possible pollutants and seeds from invasive species in the new piles. He did not think the new piles should be used for fill on site if they were not tested. Mr. Bedini asked hypothetically, how the project would be impacted if the street sweepings could not be used on site. Mr. Sears said the Town would use this material elsewhere over time and that the stockpiles would not be gone from the site by the time the meadow was planted.
The commissioners briefly discussed whether to close the hearing or to hold it open in order to receive test results. Mr. Sears stated he was satisfied with the opinions of his engineer and highway director that the proposed work would decrease the potential for contaminants and pollutants getting into the river from this site, but left the final decision up to the Commission.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider Application #IW-07-23 submitted by the Town of Washington for clean up and installation of a walking path at 16 Titus Road. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0-1. Ms. Purnell abstained because she had not been present for the entire hearing.
Mr. Bedini closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Bedini called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Purnell and Alternate Thomson for Mr. Picton.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: New Applications: E. Sullivan/56 Dark Entry Road/ #IW-07-30/Repair Pond, Maintain Pasture, F. Capeci and Coghlan/196 Roxbury Road/#IW-07-31/ Swimming Pool, G. Walsh/96 Roxbury Road/#IW-07-32/Clean Out, Maintain Pond, H. Condon and Fornasier/57 Findley Road/#IW-07-33/House Addition, I. Hochberg/15 Couch Road/#IW-07-34/ Driveway, J. Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/#IW-07-35/3 Lot Resubdivision, K. Guliano/19 Winston Drive/#IW-07-36/Basketball Court, and L. Stitler and Giddens/198 Tinker Hill Road (262 West Shore Road)/#IW-07-37E/Boathouse and Other Business: B. Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-07-10/Remodel Dock and C. Corbo/40 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-06-34/Request for Release of Bond. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 5/23/07 Regular Meeting/Public Hearing minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 3 and elsewhere: Correct spelling is McCullers.
Page 11: Under Reinhardt: 1st sentence: Shrubs were planted, not trees.
MOTION: To accept the 5/23/07 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0-1. Ms. Purnell abstained because she had not read them.
MOTION: To accept the 5/29/07 McCullers site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 5/29/07 Clark site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 5/29/07 Sears site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
It was noted in the 5/30/07 site inspection minutes for the Town of Washington/16 Titus Road, the date of the inspection should be included.
MOTION: To accept the 5/30/07 Town of Washington site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Clark/6 Romford Road/#IW-07-22/Remove Culverts, Replace Second Culvert: Mr. Thomson noted that at the 5/29/07 site inspection the Commission had asked for flow calculations for a 100 year storm and an evaluation of whether the proposed box culvert would accommodate that flow. Mr. Ajello reported that this information had not been submitted and he was asked to follow up with the contractor. Ms. Purnell noted that the contractor had agreed to sink the culvert 2 inches below the level of the streambed to provide a natural bottom. Further discussion was tabled until the information requested is received.
MOTION: To put off discussion of Application #IW-07-23 submitted by the Town of Washington for clean up and installation of a walking path at 16 Titus Road to accommodate those present. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
Sears/43 Cook Street/#IW-07-24/Streambank Stabilization: Mr. Ajello presented photos he had taken of the site and Mr. Sears circulated others that showed stakes where the armoring was proposed. Mr. LaMuniere understood the need to stabilize the streambank, but worried this would increase the velocity of the water and cause adverse impacts downstream. He noted no calculations addressing increased velocity had been submitted and he asked if there were any plans to protect the weak points downstream. Mr. Sears explained that the channel had been man made with banks of layered stone, which had washed out in large part in 1994. He noted Mr. Neff's plans called for the placement of pre cast concrete blocks along 50 feet of the streambank, but said he was not certain that 50 ft. was enough to completely restore it. He suggested it should be extended another 10 to 20 feet north. Mr. Bedini asked if he was proposing to take some of the rocks out of the stream to rebuild this 10 to 20 ft. section and to connect it with the proposed block section. Mr. Sears said he was. Ms. Purnell stated that normally the Commission would prefer a natural streambank, but in this case the brook had already been channelized and no additional encroachment was proposed.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-24 submitted by Mr. Sears to stabilize the streambank at 43 Cook Street per the map, "Brook Bank Stabilization Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 4/23/07 with the condition that in the section of the streambank not to exceed a 20 ft. length to the north of the engineered section indicated on the map, stones may be hand placed to stabilize the bank. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 5-0.
Yourwith/259 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-07-25/Drainage Swale: Mrs. Yourwith explained that she needed the proposed swale to handle the water being pumped out of her basement. Mr. Ajello asked if she had any more information about the proposed plantings. She said she did not, but would work with him on the planting plan. Ms. Purnell noted the pipe from the basement would empty into the swale. Mrs. Yourwith said she was trying to redirect and renovate the water before it reached the river and noted the swale would be mainly grassed except for the end nearest to the river, which would be armored. Ms. Purnell asked if there was such a large quantity of water being pumped that an infiltration system should be considered. She also said she was not sure renovation was needed as the water should be cold when it entered the river. It was not known for sure whether or not the water in the basement was spring water. Ms. Purnell noted there were different solutions for handling spring water vs. other water. Mr. Thomson noted the application had been under consideration for quite some time, said that Mrs. Yourwith had worked to develop a plan as she had been directed to do by the Commission, and did not think there was any reason to delay action. Mr. LaMuniere thought the proposal was reasonable.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-25 submitted by Mrs. Yourwith to install a drainage pipe and swale at 259 New Milford Turnpike as presented. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Town of Washington/Vicinity of 201 Romford Road/#IW-07-26/ Drainage Improvements: The map, "Preliminary Drainage Design," by Buck and Buck, LLC., revised to 5/25/07 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello noted the proposed work went beyond normal road maintenance. He explained that a new drainage system would be installed running from the intersection of the Big Top driveway and Romford Road to the Bantam River. Catch basins would be installed along the side of the road and these would be directed to a sediment basin, and then into a rip rapped swale, which would empty into the river. The work would be on the Town right of way, but paid for by Rumsey Hall School. Mr. Ajello said the new catch basins would be on a maintenance plan and would be cleaned out a few times per year. Ms. Purnell asked if a watershed analysis had been done. Mr. Ajello assumed so because the plan had been engineered. Ms. Purnell noted the Commission had to know the amount of increase in impervious surface and asked for this information as well as the watershed analysis. Other information requested was the depth of the sumps and more information on the sediment basin, such as its capacity and a cross section detail. Ms. Purnell thought possibly less catch basins would be needed if the depth of the sumps was increased. Mrs. D. Hill noted the plan was only preliminary. The commissioners will inspect the area on their own prior to the next meeting.
Luers/44 Upper Church Road/#IW-07-28/Dry Hydrant: It was noted the fee would be waived because while the proposed hydrant would be on the Luers property, the application was for the Washington Fire Dept. Mr. Bedini read the proposal for the hydrant, which included excavation below the frost line. Mr. Ajello noted the pond might not be accessible in the winter. Ms. Purnell asked if additional work would be required for the access. Mr. Ajello noted there was an existing barway. Ms. Purnell thought there would be no impact as long as the erosion and sedimentation controls were properly installed. It was decided a site inspection was not necessary.
Bardel/166 Baldwin Hill Road/#IW-07-29/Dry Hydrant: Mr. Bedini reviewed the application for a dry hydrant at the intersection of Baldwin Hill and Scofield Hill Roads. It was noted this was an eagle scout project that would be completed in one day. Mrs. D. Hill noted that there were specific requirements for fire ponds in the Regulations and she did not know whether this one would qualify because it was so small. The commissioners will drive by the site prior to the next meeting.
Condon and Fornasier/57 Findley Road/#IW-07-33/House Addition: The applicants proposed to rebuild the existing porch, repair a retaining wall, install underground utilities, and add a screened porch and foyer. The map, "Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 6/6/07 was reviewed. Mrs. D. Hill noted the proposed screened porch was only 52 ft. from a watercourse. It was noted the underground utilities trench would go to the pole at the edge of the wetlands and that the limit of disturbance line, stockpile area, and erosion controls were indicated on the map. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.
Pending Application
Lewinter/86 Roxbury Road/#IW-07-12/Construct Barn: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented the "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/10/07 to provide a perspective of the entire property and the "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," revised to 6/11/07 to show that the proposed location for the barn had been moved farther from the wetlands. He said this was the alternative location suggested by the Commission during the site inspection. He said, too, that there was no grading proposed between the proposed barn and the wetlands and he detailed the drainage plans for the north side of the property. A 4 ft. wide, 1 ft. deep grassed swale with turf mat lining would discharge to a relatively flat lawn area adjacent to the barn and from there the runoff would sheet flow to the wetlands. It was noted a partial retaining wall would be constructed at the east end of the barn. Mr. Neff noted the stockpile area would be located in the driveway, which was further from the wetlands than had been originally proposed. Any excess soil would be taken off site. Ms. Purnell asked how the eroded driveway would be handled. Mr. Neff said it would remain a natural gravel surface. Ms. Purnell asked if a feasibility analysis had been submitted. Mr. Neff responded that the site plan reflected all the accessible areas and all of the identified wetlands on the property. It was noted that the stockpile area had been moved to where it would not impact the wetlands and the barn had been rotated and moved 30 ft. upgrade so that only the disturbed area would encroach slightly on the regulated area. Ms. Purnell suggested that the area between the barn and the wetlands be turned into a meadow, but Mr. and Mrs. Lewinter said they wanted it to remain lawn.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-12 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. LeWinter to construct a barn at 86 Roxbury Road per the "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/10/07 and the "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 4/6/07 and revised to 6/11/07. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
McCullers/18 Plumb Hill Road/#IW-07-21/Reconstruct Barn, Temporary Access: The map, "Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 6/1-/07 was reviewed. Mr. Neff pointed out that the location for the underground utilities had been moved out of the regulated area. Ms. Purnell asked if the driveway could be installed without a wetlands encroachment. Mr. Neff said that would be difficult due to the topography of the site. It was noted the driveway was already in. Mr. Neff recommended a double walled 12 in. corrugated pipe for the driveway culvert. Mrs. D. Hill asked if a permanent driveway was proposed because the Commission had understood it would be temporary. Mr. Neff stated it would be a permanent access. Ms. Purnell suggested that moving the access behind the garage would make it shorter and would have no impact on the wetlands. Mr. Neff said a driveway in that location would require cuts and fills. However, Ms. Purnell pointed out that it would have less of a long term impact to the connected wetlands. Mrs. D. Hill asked if there was a survey of the property and noted some errors on the current map. She asked who flagged the wetlands. Mr. Neff said that had been done by Mr. Temple. The wetlands sketch map was reviewed. Ms. Purnell noted it did not show the location of the garage. Mr. LaMuniere noted the driveway was a violation, but asked whether moving it would have more impact than keeping it where it was. Ms. Purnell stated that the driveway had been put in without a permit and that if it had been applied for the Commission would have considered alternate locations with less potential impact. Mr. Cigal said if the Commission would allow the existing driveway to be used to get the barn built, he would remove it and restore the area to its original condition once the barn was done. Ms. Purnell asked if the pre existing conditions had been documented. Mr. Cigal offered to remove all of the gravel, replace the top soil, and return the area to grass. Mr. Bedini suggested this be made a condition of approval and recommended that the applicant post a bond to ensure the area would be returned to its original condition. Mrs. D. Hill noted this must include the removal of the culvert. Mr. Cigal agreed. Mrs. D. Hill did not support the location of the existing driveway even for temporary access because she said it was entirely within 100 ft. of wetlands, while the route behind the garage was not. Ms. Purnell asked what the duration of the project would be and whether the proposed culvert could be crushed by the concrete trucks. Mr. Cigal said it would take 5 months and that he would install a heavy duty culvert.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-21 submitted by Mr. McCullers to reconstruct a barn and to install a temporary access driveway at 18 Plumb Hill Road subject to the following conditions; 1) that the driveway be extended to the barn-studio as shown on the map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 6/10/07 on a temporary basis, 2) that at the end of construction the driveway, gravel, and all culverts shall be removed and the disturbed areas grassed over and returned to their original condition, 3) that at the time of their removal the WEO shall witness the work to make sure it is properly completed, 4) if there is additional damage to or sedimentation in the watercourse it shall be restored to its pre construction condition, 5) that all restoration shall be completed within 6 months of approval of the application, and 6) a $5000 bond shall be posted. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-1. Mrs. Hill voted No because she thought there was a more appropriate alternate location for the driveway.
New Applications
Wykeham Partners, LLC./240 Wykeham Road/#IW-07-27/Pool, Tennis Court, Site Improvements: Mr. Neff, engineer, noted the new application included detailed plans for a pool, driveway work, tennis court, walkways, drainage work, and retaining walls. Ms. Purnell asked Mr. Ajello if he had reviewed the plans, but he said he had not been able to because they had just now been submitted. When Mr. Bedini said the Commission needed time to review the plans before discussing them Mrs. Rubler complained that she had answered all of the questions raised at the last meeting, there were no wetlands on the property, and she wanted to begin work on her pool. Ms. Purnell explained that the Commission had previously been following up on the violation and enforcement action, the formal application procedure must be followed, and by state law the new application could not be acted on for 14 days. She also explained that actions far from wetlands and watercourses can adversely impact them. Mr. Neff asked if the proposed activities were regulated, noting that the driveway washout and impact to wetlands was not the normal circumstance. Ms. Purnell noted impacts to the wetlands from work on this property were more than possible because it had already happened. The stabilization of the steep banks along the driveway and long term driveway drainage plans were briefly reviewed by Mr. Neff. Mr. Esker asked if work could begin on the pool area, which he said was the least impact area. He said he would install a silt fence and that the prep work would take at least 4 weeks. A lengthy discussion followed.
MOTION: Regarding Application #IW-07-27 submitted by Wykeham Partners, LLC. to install a pool and tennis court, and site improvements at 240 Wykeham Road, because the site is more than 100 feet from wetlands and watercourses, the driveway is now stable, and the plans call for erosion and sedimentation controls to be installed prior to the commencement of work, the applicant is permitted to begin work only on the pool, pool terrace, and retaining walls to the east of the existing house prior to the approval of the full application. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Ms. Purnell said that all work should be tightly controlled. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 4:45 p.m. Mr. Neff was asked to stake the location of the proposed tennis court.
Sullivan/56 Dark Pasture Road/#IW-07-30/Repair Pond, Maintain Pasture: Mr. Neff submitted his plan, "Pond Repair Plan," dated 5/17/07. He listed the major issues to be addressed: 1) seepage through the pond embankment. He proposed to repair this by putting down a clay lining. 2) pond maintenance. Mr. Neff explained that the pond would be dredged to deepen it and the back side of the berm would be reinforced. The area of the pond would not increase. A sand beach was proposed at one end. Mr. Neff said he would provide a cross section for the next meeting. 3) replacement of culverts. Mr. Neff stated that the existing 12 in. culvert pipes adjacent to Dark Entry Road were undersized and silted in and would be replaced with two larger pipes. 4) pasture. The pasture area would be maintained and the drainage improved. Ms. Purnell asked Mr. Ajello to provide the applicants with information on best management practices and advised them to consult with NRCS. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 5:15 p.m.
Capeci and Coghlan/196 Roxbury Road/#IW-07-31/Swimming Pool: The map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 6/5/07 was reviewed. Mr. Neff noted the location of the wetlands on the property and said he had considered feasible and prudent alternatives. He stated that 1) there would be no danger to the wetlands due to the topography of the site; the wetlands were located upgrade of the pool location, 2) there would be only coping and a safety fence around the pool, 3) the pump and filter would be located on the west side of the house, and 4) a non discharging filtration system would be installed. A site inspection was scheduled for June 26, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.
Walsh/96 Roxbury Road/#IW-07-32/Clean Out, Maintain Pond: Mr. Neff, engineer, stated the applicants proposed to clean the organic material from the pond and install a geothermal heating system. The map, "Pond Cleanout Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 5/10/07 was reviewed. Ms. Purnell asked what thermal changes would result in the pond. She asked for calculations for how much heat would be put in the pond and whether it would increase the growth. Mr. Bedini asked for engineering specs regarding the maximum capacity of the proposed unit. Ms. Purnell asked if the heated overflow would impact the downstream watercourse. Mr. Neff stated there was a 4 inch pipe at the outlet to the brook and that the majority of the flow was from springs below. He added that the pond would not change in size and that the applicants were working on a planting plan. Mr. Ajello asked about the construction access. Mr. Neff responded that equipment would come through the existing gate, that a tracking pad would be installed onto Roxbury Road, and that the excavated material would be stockpiled on the north side of the pond and then taken off site. The commissioners will drive by the pond before the next meeting.
Other Business
Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-07-10/Remodel Dock: Ms. Zinick, agent, presented the plans, "Dock Renovations at Birch Hollow," by Churchill Brothers, LLC., dated 5/21/07, noting that the amount of pressure treated wood to be used had been significantly reduced since the last meeting although the size of the dock had not decreased. The plans noted that either mahogany or locust would be used. The Commission declined to specify a preference.
MOTION: Regarding Adams/233 West Shore Road/ #IW-07-10/Remodel Dock, to approve the final dock plans with the notation re: lotus or mahogany wood dated 5/21/07 and initialed by Ms. Zinick. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Ms. Zinick then asked the Commission for advice on three other issues. 1) Where the lattice work was stripped from the existing boathouse, could it be replaced with stone veneer over the concrete if the work was done during low water and the turbidity curtain was in place? The Commission did not object. 2) Could 10 to 15 yards of sand be brought in to create a beach? Ms. Purnell said the only place where the Commission allowed the deposition of sand was at the Town Beach where it would serve the public. 3) The owner would like 30 to 40 everblooming native shrubs planted between the grass edge and the roadside. Was the approval of a landscaping plan required? Mr. Ajello noted the Zoning Commission has requirements that must be met for hedges over 2 ft. tall, but as for the Inland Wetlands Commission, the permit could be revised. Mr. Thomson noted a description of the plants would be needed. Ms. Purnell recommended the owners look at the buffer planting along the Lecher shore as a good example of what to plant.
Enforcement
Brown/127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work Along Shoreline: Mr. Ajello noted that an enforcement order had been sent to the property owner and that the Commission had asked him to work with Mr. Wilson, engineer, to restore the shoreline to its original condition (except for the area where work had been approved.) Mr. Wilson presented photos of the shoreline wall before and after a section of it had been restored. He also showed a photo taken in 1908 to prove there had once been a wall along that entire section of shoreline. He pointed out a 50 ft. section of wall that had been worked on in excess of what had been permitted, said that none of the rocks below the water line in this section had been touched, and asked to modify the permit to leave that portion of the reworked wall in place. He thought it would cause more disturbance to the lake to take the wall out at this point. Mrs. J. Hill asked if a letter requesting the revision of the permit and a $25 fee had been submitted. Mr. Wilson said he was here to find out if he could do so. It was the consensus that Mr. Wilson should submit a specific request for the revision of the permit for the next meeting. Ms. Purnell urged that there be more supervision of workers on any future projects.
Howard Family Trust/99 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Wall Construction: Mr. Ajello noted he had sent Mr. Howard a notice of violation and circulated photos of the unauthorized work. He said there had been sediment on the road after the last storm and that only work to the south of the stairs had been approved, none of the work on the north side was permitted. Ms. Purnell said she had not realized so much vegetation would be removed for the approved driveway and retaining wall work and noted clearing of additional vegetation was not included in the permit. Mr. Howard responded that more than was necessary had been cleared to the south of the stairs due to a communication problem with his workers. Even though the photos showed the hillside was sparsely planted, Mr. Howard said it would not erode because there had been rods hammered in "to firm it up," of an inch of wood chips had been spread, and the junipers planted would spread. Mr. Howard stated the root system of what had been cut was still there, but Mr. Ajello said it looked like it had been grubbed. Mr. Bedini noted that in the enforcement letter sent, Mr. Ajello had requested the immediate stabilization of all disturbed soil and asked if this had been done. He asked Mr. Ajello to reinspect the site to make sure, although he noted that long term stabilization could still be a problem. The Commissioners noted they would have specified that stabilization fabric be placed on the steep hillside with the plants inserted into it and that larger and a greater number of plants be used had Mr. Howard applied first for the clearing. Mr. Howard was directed to install a silt fence at the bottom of the hill, to contact Mr. Sabin or NCD about a long term restabilization plan, and to submit that plan for review at the next meeting. It was not decided whether or not to issue a citation.
Pending Application
Town of Washington/16 Titus Road/#IW-07-23/Clean Up, Install Walking Path: Mr. Bedini noted the Commission would consider whether to require the Town to test the recently stockpiled material per the DEP recommendations that Ms. Purnell had presented. Mrs. D. Hill said this could be done as a condition of approval, but otherwise, no new information could be accepted because the public hearing had been closed. Mr. Thomson said the compromise solution of burying the mound in question and covering it with top soil should also be considered. Mr. LaMuniere said this would take care of the invasives, but would not address his concern about contaminants. Ms. Purnell noted the proposed design was for a leaky berm that material could pass through, so she asked if buried, could it be done far enough away from the berm so that contaminants would not reach the river. She noted that if the material were tested and found to contain contaminants, the project could still proceed, it would mean only that that material could not be used on site for fill. After a lengthy discussion it was decided to make the testing of the big, central, most recent pile of sweepings a condition of approval. Also, a condition of approval that the meadow be mowed only once a year was discussed. Mr. Sears asked how this was under the jurisdiction of the Commission. He was told that more frequent mowing would affect the habitat, surface runoff, and the amount of pollution reaching the river. Mr. LaMuniere opposed this condition, but Mrs. D. Hill noted the area was to be maintained as a meadow, not a playing field. Ms. Purnell noted the meadow was proposed for Phase I of the development of the site and the Commission understood there might be subsequent changes in future plans.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-23 submitted by the Town of Washington to clean up and install a walking path at 16 Titus Road subject to the following conditions: 1) that a sample of the material from the sweepings pile on site be tested per the reuse options listed on page 5 of the Ct. DEP's, "Guideline for Municipal Management Practices for Street Sweepings and Catch Basin Cleanings," dated January 2005, 2) the material tested must meet those guidelines or it may not be used on site, and 3) the meadow shall be mowed only once per year at the end of the growing season. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0-1. Ms. Purnell abstained because she had not been present for the entire public hearing.
New Applications
Hochberg/15 Couch Road/#IW-07-34/Driveway: Mr. Ajello noted the application had been resubmitted and that Mr. Szymanski would make a presentation at the July meeting.
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/#IW-07-35/3 Lot Resubdivision: This application was resubmitted and a public hearing scheduled for July 11, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.
MOTION: To schedule a public hearing to consider Application #IW-07-35 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Abella for a three lot resubdivision at 44 Scofield Hill Road on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed
5-0.
Guliano/19 Winston Drive/#IW-07-36/Basketball Court: Mr. Ajello noted there had been errors on the maps submitted so they were being redone. The application will be presented at the July 11 meeting.
Stiteler-Giddens/262 West Shore Road/#IW-07-37E/Construct Boathouse: The application was for an exemption to construct a boathouse 25 ft. from Lake Waramaug. It was the consensus that the proposal did not qualify as an exemption. It was noted that while recreational uses were exempt, structures were not exempt and that the Commission had required permits for recreational structures such as tennis courts, swimming pools, and boathouses in the past. Because the applicants had not applied on the correct application form, further discussion was tabled. Mr. Ajello was asked to call their representative, Atty. Kelly, to ask that he apply for a permit on the proper form.
Other Business
Corbo/40 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-06-34/Request for Release of Bond: Mr. Ajello reported that he had inspected the site and all disturbed areas had been stabilized.
MOTION: To approve the release of the bond for Corbo/ 40 Nettleton Hollow Road/Permit #IW-06-34. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Trenching in Wetlands: Resolution of this violation was still pending while Mr. Andersson gets all the information the Commission requested.
Bransfield/21 Walker Brook Road/Unauthorized Activities: Ms. Purnell had noted she had driven by and had been concerned because additional clearing had been done. Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the property last year when there had been a complaint from New Milford and that no more clearing had been done since then. Ms. Purnell asked that Mr. Ajello research the file because Mr. Bransfield had been directed some time ago not to cut any more trees. She asked Mr. Ajello to compare the photos in the file with the current conditions on site.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory: Mr. Jontos, consultant from Land Tech, sent an estimate of $6800 in contract form with a description of the work he would do for that amount. Ms. Purnell asked for a copy. Mr. DiBenedetto has not yet received a copy.
Communications
It was noted there will be an introductory training course on GPS on June 28 and June 29 sponsored by UConn. Mr. Ajello and Ms. Purnell will attend.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Bedini.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: June 6, 2007 May 23, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms.Purnell
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bedini
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Potter
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Papsin, Mrs. Johnson, Mr. Neff, Mrs. Yourwith, Mr. Wilson, Mr. DiBenedetto, Ms. Zinick, Mr. Esker, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Sears, Mr. Deacon
PUBLIC HEARING
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/#IW-07-06/3 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 6:31 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Thomson for Mr. Bedini.
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, noted that the applicant had paid the estimated fee for the review by Land Tech. He then stated the application would be withdrawn due to the discrepancy in the notification the applicant had mailed the adjoining property owners regarding the time of the hearing and because it was at the end of the statutory time limit in which to consider the application. He said he hoped to resubmit in June so that a public hearing could be rescheduled for July.
Mrs. Johnson advised the Commission that her attorney had checked and it was clear that she had water rights, which were not indicated on the resubdivision map. Mr. Szymanski disagreed, saying his surveyor had researched the matter and said the water rights had been lost. Mr. Picton noted this was a legal issue that should be addressed by the attorneys involved. He said if it were determined it was an inland wetlands issue, it would be taken up by the Commission at the July public hearing.
Mr. Ajello noted that one of the reasons for the time limit running out had been bad weather that kept delaying the site inspection. He asked if the Commission would waive the fee when the application was resubmitted. Ms. Purnell noted there had been expenses associated with the public hearing.
Ms. Purnell noted for the record that she had listened to the tape of the 5/9/07 hearing.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider Application #IW-07-06 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Abella for a three lot resubdivision at 44 Scofield Hill Road. By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton closed the hearing at 6:40 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 meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell and Alternate Thomson for Mr. Bedini.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 5/9/07 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Add Mr. Anderson under Also Present.
Page 2: End of 4th paragraph down: Change: "sides of it" to: ends of the bridge.
Page 7: End of 11th line: Change: "to determine" to: and determining.
Page 7: 13th line: Change: "impact on" to: impact to.
Page 9: 14th line: Change: "22% to 17%" to: the existing conditions of 22% to 17% proposed.
Page 9: At the beginning of the sentence beginning in the 6th line from bottom of the paragraph: Insert: Regarding the concrete pier before "Mr. Picton...."
Page 9: 2nd line from bottom of paragraph: Add: over the pier after "deck."
Page 9: Last line of paragraph: Change: "dock" to: pier.
Page 13: Under Andersson: Atty. Anderson should be Mr. Anderson.
Page 15: Under Yourwith: Change: "NCR" to NCD.
MOTION: To accept the 5/9/07 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: New Applications: 1. Sears/43 Cook Street/#IW-07-24/ Streambank Stabilization, 2. Yourwith/259 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-07-25/Drainage Swale and Other Business: 1. Adams/233 West Shore Road/Dock Construction Plan. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/#IW-07-06/3 Lot Resubdivision: The Commission accepted the withdrawal of the application with the understanding it would be resubmitted.
LeWinter/86 Roxbury Road/#IW-07-12/Construct Barn: Mr. Neff, engineer, noted he would meet soon with the owners to discuss alternate locations for the proposed barn and/or the possibility of adding on to an existing structure in lieu of a new building. He submitted the 5/23/07 letter to the Commission requesting a 65 day extension of time in which to consider the application and said he would submit a revised overall site plan at the next meeting. Ms. Purnell asked that the alternatives analysis be amended, too.
The order of the Agenda was changed to accommodate those present.
New Applications
McCuellers/18 Plumb Hill Road/#IW-07-21/Reconstruct Barn, Temporary Access: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," dated 5/17/07. He explained that when work was begun to convert the existing barn to a guest house a temporary driveway was cut in. Later it was determined that this access was too close, within 20 feet, of a wetland on the north side and an intermittent watercourse and the wetlands to the south into which it drains. Ms. Purnell asked for a map of the entire property so that alternatives could be considered. Mr. Ajello said this was a temporary construction access, but Mr. Neff noted it might be used in the future to service the building. Mr. Picton asked how far the building and septic system were from the wetlands. Mr. Neff said they were more than 100 ft. away except for part of the reserve system. Mr. Picton asked if there could be a temporary access that did not cross wetlands and Mr. Neff said it might be possible to locate it closer to the dwelling. Mr. Picton said the Commission should consider a citation and fine if wetlands had been impacted without a permit. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, May 29, 2007 at 4:45 p.m.
Pending Application
Fisher/66 Calhoun Street/#IW-07-19/Install Curtain Drain: Mr. Fisher submitted a revised sketch plan dated 5/21/07. He stated that 1) the curtain drain was needed to prevent flooding in the basement, 2) it would discharge 20 ft. from the wetlands, and 3) he had put the runoff from the gutters in the same trench, but at a higher elevation and discharging 50 ft. from the wetlands as the Commission had requested at the last meeting. It was noted there was ongoing construction work on the existing garage and Mr. Picton asked how far it was from the wetlands. Mr. Fisher said it was more than 100 ft. away. Mr. Picton noted the land was flat and grassed between the garage and the wetlands so this construction was not a wetlands issue. Mr. Fisher noted the proposed outlet would be grassed and Ms. Purnell recommended it be looked at over time to see if any armoring was necessary.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-19 submitted by Mr. Fisher to install a curtain drain at 66 Calhoun Street per the revised and initialed drawings submitted at the 5/23/07 meeting with the condition that the owner adaptively manage the outlet and if he finds there is scouring, he will apply for a permit to rip rap the outlet. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Sears/43 Cook Street/#IW-07-24/Streambank Stabilization: Mr. Neff submitted his map, "Brook Bank Stabilization Plan," dated 4/23/07 and photos of the erosion along the banks of Canoe Brook adjacent to the existing garage. He proposed to install a precast concrete wall along the streambank. Mr. Picton asked why natural rock could not be used instead. Mr. Neff said the rock that had been on the banks had washed downstream. Mr. Picton noted that the rocks used had been too small. Mr. LaMuniere noted that whatever work was done on this property would have downstream impacts. Mr. Neff noted the banks below looked stable. He said the advantage of using the blocks was that they would be installed more quickly than rocks that would take time to pack. Ms. Purnell stated this type of erosion could result in cumulative impacts and said it would be in the Commission's best interests to hire Mr. MacBroom to first address upstream issues. Mr. Thomson asked if the plans were approved as submitted, would Mr. Neff supervise the installation. Mr. Neff said he could, although it was not now noted on the plan. Mr. Thomson and Mr. Picton thought he should supervise the work to ensure that the approved plan was followed exactly. Mr. Picton noted, too, that the Commission has experienced problems when vertical concrete walls were installed rather than a natural streambank. A site inspection was scheduled on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 at 5:30 p.m.
Pending Application
Peloquin/15 East Shore Road/#IW-07-20/Construct Wall, Stain Deck: Mr. Spelman, agent, proposed a block wall faced with stucco with a picket fence in front. He said he did not have a site plan, but wrote on the rough sketch of the site that the proposed wall/fence would be 23.5 ft. long, 3.5 feet high, gradually sloping down to tie in with the existing guard rail, and 16 to 18 inches deep. Behind this wall, he said, was the river with its 10 ft. retaining wall, which was in good condition. Mr. Picton had inspected the wall and had found very little undermining. Ms. Purnell noted since the river was already walled it did not have much connection with the riparian area. Mr. Picton asked for specs for the foundation of the wall. Mr. Spelman said the wall would be about 1 ft. from the top of the retaining wall. Mr. Picton said there was not enough information to consider the proposed concrete wall and again asked for a drawing that showed the exact location of the existing and proposed walls, the depth of excavation, etc. Mr. Spelman said then that he would install only a stockade fence and Mr. Picton asked that he amend the application. Ms. Purnell noted that was an alternative with less impact and asked if plants would have to be removed to install it. Mr. Spelman said, no, because he would use the existing fence holes. He wrote on one of the photos submitted that he proposed a stockade fence, 23.5 ft. long and 3.5 ft. high and that there would be no soil disturbance and dated and initialed it. Ms. Purnell asked if the work would be done on his property, noting the right of way issue could not be resolved because a map had not been submitted. Mrs. D. Hill reviewed the application and noted the installation of new doors had not been discussed. Mr. Ajello noted this work and staining the deck could be done if a tarp was put down first. Mr. Picton and Ms. Purnell objected that such an incomplete application had been brought before the Commission.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-20 submitted by Mr. Peloquin to construct a wall, stain the deck, and install doors at 15 East Shore Road with the following conditions: 1. approval is for the replacement of the existing fence with a new fence 3 ft. tall and 23.5 ft. long per the drawing dated 5/23/07, 2. no other work on the wall or in the yard is approved, and 3. the EO shall supervise any other maintenance and repair work on the building as long as it does not impact the stream. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. D. Hill, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Clark/6 Romford Road/#IW-07-22/Remove Culvert, Replace Second Culvert: Mr. Deacon, contractor, represented Mr. Clark. The site plan, "Proposed Box Culvert," by G.D.D., and dated 5/16/07 was reviewed and photos of the existing erosion were circulated. Mr. Deacon explained the existing culverts were seriously undersized so that flooding problems often occurred. He proposed to remove the existing 15 and 36 inch pipes and replace them with a 3 ft. by 5 ft. square box culvert. Calculations showed this culvert would accommodate 20% more flow than two 36 inch pipes. Ms. Purnell asked if the culvert could be sunk below grade so there could be natural sediment on the bottom. Mr. Deacon said he wanted it to be 99% open. Ms. Purnell asked if he would consider sinking a 4 ft. by 6 ft. one foot, but Mr. Deacon thought that would increase the cost by a third. When Mr. Picton explained that the Commission wanted to maintain the natural stream bottom, Mr. Deacon offered to sink it a few inches, but again stated he did not want to diminish its capacity. Mr. Picton asked if wing walls would be needed. Mr. Deacon said, no. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, May 29, 2007 at 5:15 p.m.
New Application
Town of Washington/16 Titus Road/#IW-07-23/Clean Up, Install Walking Path: Mr. Sears, First Selectman, presented the maps, "Existing Conditions Map," by Mr. Natale, dated 2/1/07 and "Preliminary Concept," by Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, revised to 5/23/07 and stated the activities proposed were the restoration of the property and the installation of a walking path along the river. He pointed out the temporary parking area and the access to the river for fire trucks and explained that Mr. Sabin was working on plans to restore the land to meadow and to make a river loop path off the existing greenway trail. Mr. Sears said an engineer was working on a plan that would show regrading to make the meadow with a 3% slope and said no material would be brought in except for top dressing. The existing stockpiled material might have to be trucked off site, but he did not yet know for sure because it has not been sampled. He proposed the property be used for recreational purposes by the public with the hard packed path for walking along the river and the fire truck access for launching canoes. Details such as installation of turf pavers for the river access and the cross section of the berm and walking path were reviewed. Ms. Purnell asked if the plans included tree removal. Mr. Sears said invasives would be removed and more trees planted. Ms. Purnell asked if the plans included consideration of both the floodway and the stream channel encroachment line. She noted the floodway differed from the flood plain shown on the FEMA maps. Mr. Sears will ask Mr. Szymanski, engineer, to investigate. Mr. Picton asked that the floodway information be added to the map as soon as possible. He noted if changes to the berm that would change the flood characteristics were proposed, additional information would be required. He also asked for information on the preservation of the natural riparian buffer. He said the Commission looks for a variety of heavier vegetation, not lawn, along streams. Ms. Purnell pointed out that Mr. Picton, who owns adjoining property, and Mr. LaMuniere, who serves on a committee that helped work on this plan, might have conflicts of interest. Mrs. D. Hill did not think this would apply in this case since it is public property that belongs to everyone in Town. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, May 30, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.
MOTION: To schedule a public hearing to consider Application #IW-07-23 submitted by the Town of Washington to clean up and install a walking path at 16 Titus Road on June 13, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Yourwith/259 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-07-25/Drainage Swale: Mrs. Yourwith noted her basement floods so it must be pumped out and that was the reason she needed the drainage swale. Ms. Purnell pointed out this had been a violation because the drainage had been ditched to the stream without a permit. Mr. Ajello explained that in addition to the swale Mrs. Yourwith proposed to reduce the size of the parking area and to plant a rain garden/buffer area. He said this would renovate the water before it reached the river and that armoring would be needed only for the last few feet. Mrs. Yourwith showed on the sketch plan the area along the East Aspetuck where she would create the buffer. Mr. Ajello read the information on the application form and Mrs. Yourwith reviewed her sequence of construction entitled, "Drainage Swale" and the proposed route for the swale. Mr. Ajello noted there would be a pipe installed under the berm that would separate the swale from the lawn and that the buffer area would be 14.5 feet wide. Ms. Purnell reviewed the list of possible ground covers and advised the applicant not to plant crown vetch because it is invasive.
The commissioners will inspect the site individually before the next meeting.
Enforcement
Rubler/240 Nettleton Hollow Road/Clearing and Driveway Washout: Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Esker, contractor, were present. Mr. Neff said the $10,000 bond would be delivered on Tuesday and that Mr. Rubler had paid the citation. Mr. Picton asked if Mr. Neff was working on a plan to stabilize the steep slopes. Mr. Neff presented photos of the site and said a surveyor had been back out there and had determined the slopes were 1 in 2. He said grass was growing on the hillsides and he thought they were fairly stable. The cross sections of the proposed retaining wall were reviewed. Mr. Neff said the grades would not change for the wall and that the area below the wall was stable. Mr. Picton noted it would be stable as long as water was not directed over it and Mr. Neff responded that the retaining wall would direct the runoff away. Mr. Neff asked if the Commission wanted an application for the rest of the proposed work. It was the consensus that although the activities would be far from any wetlands, previous work had adversely impacted them and so an application would be required. Mr. Picton noted his concern about the extensive reworking of the landscape at the top of steep slopes, the hardening of surfaces, and the resulting runoff towards wetlands. Mr. Ajello noted he was concerned with the slope below the driveway and how to stabilize it. Mr. Esker said it would be planted. Mr. Esker said plans for the proposed pool, tennis court, retaining walls, etc. would be finalized soon. Mr. Picton asked if the peak runoff from the site would increase. Mr. Neff said he would include an under-ground recharge system to handle the roof drains. He also noted he was investigating ways to dissipate the runoff. When Mr. Esker noted that the cuts and fills required for the tennis court would affect the drainage, Mr. Picton advised him to look for ways to infiltrate and retain the water. Mr. LaMuniere advised the applicant to submit a detailed construction sequence for each project. Mr. Picton encouraged the applicant to apply for one comprehensive plan with phases rather than applying for each activity separately.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road/#IW-04-V8/Repair of Retaining Wall: There was no new information.
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Trenching, Clearing in Wetlands: Mr. Picton asked if the Commission would issue a citation as it was clear that Mr. Andersson had worked without a permit in wetlands and said that none of the work had been related to agriculture. Mr. LaMuniere said the work had a major impact on the wetlands. Ms. Purnell, however, thought that some of the work might have been agricultural and suggested the Commission first differentiate between the agricultural and non agricultural work done. Mr. Thomson noted the patio constructed on the pond was not agricultural. Mr. LaMuniere and Ms. Purnell thought the Commission should be consistent and if non agricultural work was done in or impacted wetlands, a citation should be issued. It was the consensus to issue the citation. The commissioners considered whether there should be an interim order to partially restore the wetlands. Mr. LaMuniere noted wetlands may be cultivated, but not drained for agricultural purposes. It was noted that it was up to Mr. Andersson to apply for an agricultural exemption. The Commission will wait for comments from Mr. Hayden before issuing an order to restore. Ms. Purnell noted Mr. Andersson had been given until June 30th to submit a plan for the property.
Brown/127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work Along Shoreline: Both Mr. Ajello and Mr. Wilson, engineer, submitted photos of the work done. Mr. Picton noted that 30 feet had been approved, but that the photos showed the entire length of the shoreline had been worked. The map, "Site Plan," by Mr. Wilson, revised to 5/10/06 showing what the Commission had approved was reviewed. It was noted the following had been approved: rebuilding of steps, installing two dock attachments, and repairing of 30 ft. section of wall. Mr. Wilson stated he had not monitored the work and there had been no filling out into the lake. It was the consensus a citation, enforcement order, and restoration order would be issued. Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, and Ms. Purnell thought the unauthorized work should be removed. Mr. Picton asked Mrs. J. Hill and Mr. Ajello to investigate what procedure must be followed to increase the fine schedule. Mr. Picton felt that serious violations such as this one merit larger fines, but this was not possible under the current ordinance. Mr. Ajello was asked to compare the approved plan and motion for #IW-06-25 with the work actually done. Mr. Picton stated that the work approved under Permit # IW-07-02 for the same property should not be done until this matter is resolved. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to label all the photos submitted.
Other Business
Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-07-10/Remodel Dock: Ms. Zinick, agent, presented plans and a cross section of the proposed dock. She stated code compliant pressure treated wood would be used to cover the existing concrete dock and asked the Commission which type of lumber it preferred. She read the notes on the plans regarding the differences between the various types of lumber. The construction plans were briefly discussed. Mr. Picton thought that since the existing dock was concrete not much pressure treated lumber would be needed, but Mr. Ajello said the entire dock would be covered. Ms. Zinick stated that the dock was pre existing and that the materials used would comply with Section 6.6.10 of the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Picton noted the concrete dock was pre existing, not the proposed pressure treated wood covered dock. Mrs. D. Hill noted the pressure treated wood would be sitting on the concrete dock and not on the water. Ms. Zinick added that the wood would be pre stained on the asphalt driveway. Mr. Picton suggested that due to its large size the dock be patched and flagstone put down or that cedar be used. He asked if the Zoning Commission would routinely permit an 8' by 62' dock with a 20' by 16' landing at the end. Mr. Ajello said it would not; the existing dock was pre existing. Mr. Picton asked the applicant to consider redrawing the plans to avoid the use of pressure treated wood or to significantly reduce the amount to be used.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory: It was noted that the draft report by Mr. Jontos dated 5/15/2007 had been emailed to the commissioners. Ms. Purnell was surprised the report was not more detailed and did not include more consideration of wetlands characteristics. Mr. Ajello said this was the initial review only and he expected a long term plan would be developed for the eradication and management of invasives as this had been discussed at length on site. Mr. Picton noted the Commission had requested a professional monitoring/management plan for the control of invasives over time, a review of Mr. DiBenedetto's compliance with that plan, and estimates of the consultant's fee and of the cost to restore the property. He asked that questions, comments, and points of clarification from the commissioners be submitted as soon as possible so that Mr. Jontos could address them in his final report. Mr. DiBenedetto said the on site meeting with Mr. Jontos had gone well, but said for the record he said he would not agree to any punitive measures and he thought the site inspection minutes were inaccurate. He said the work done on his property had been positive and he would invest more to rid the area of invasives without damaging the environment. He again stated he was at the meeting to cooperate, not to be punished. Mr. Picton said the plan to be drafted by Mr. Jontos would not be punitive, but would be a productive plan to restore the wetlands. Mr. DiBenedetto submitted information on carbon emissions from dead trees. Mr. Ajello noted the citation had been paid. Mr. LaMuniere noted that it was evident from the last paragraph of the Jontos report that information was still missing and said he hoped it would be submitted by the next meeting.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clear Cutting: Mr. Ajello reported there had been progress as detailed in his 5/23/07 report.
Reinhardt/Perkins Road: Mr. Ajello reported that Mr. Childs had planted the trees and would tag them. There is still a large amount of wood on the ground and there is contingency money to remove it if needed.
Spring Hill Farm. LLC./69 Whittlesey Road: The owner has agreed to remove the phragmites and leave the cat tails, but it was not known whether it was actually possible to accomplish this.
Steep Rock Assn/River Road/McKennee Field: It was noted it had been several months, but Mrs. Corrigan still had not inspected the wet area to determine whether it was a vernal pool. Mr. Thomson and Ms. Purnell will conduct an inspection and report back at the next meeting.
Plourde/33 East Shore Road/Unauthorized Clear Cutting: It was noted the violation had been filed on the Land Records.
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-05-58/Remediation Per Order: Mr. Ajello noted he had not sent the letter as he had been directed to at the last meeting because Atty. Kelly had come in for a Start Card. It was noted the approval requires the ditch to be filled in. Atty. Kelly informed Mr. Ajello that he will contact the Selectmen's Office about the drainage problems on this property.
Bransfield/21 Walker Brook Road: Ms. Purnell noted Mr. Bransfield is under an enforcement order issued by the state for two stone dams he constructed in the brook. Mr. Ajello was asked to compare what had been permitted in past applications to what now exists on the property.
Other Business
Revision of the By-Laws: There was a brief discussion regarding whether to delete the term limit for officers or to allow the Commission to vote for an extension beyond the normal three year limit. Ms. Purnell was the one commissioner against the elimination of the section as she said the Commission has had problems in the past "getting rid" of a poor chairman and she thought the elimination addressed only the current problem rather than considering all potential problems.
MOTION: To approve the revision of the Inland Wetlands Commission by-laws to delete Section 3 regarding term limits. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. D. Hill, and passed 4-1. Ms. Purnell voted no because she favored an amendment that would permit the Commission to extend an officer's term beyond the 3 year limit rather than deleting the limit entirely.
Communications
It was noted the Verizon cell tower hearing would be held on June 21, 2007. Mr. Picton asked if there were any wetlands issues. Mr. Ajello said there were none.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Thomson.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: May 19, 2007 May 9, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Potter
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Abella, Mr./Mrs. DeJulia, Mr. Papsin, Mrs. Johnson, Atty. Fisher-Bruzzi, Mr. Neff, Mr. Charles, Ms. Zinick, Atty. Fisher, Atty. Anderson
PUBLIC HEARING
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/#IW-07-06/3 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Picton called the public meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Picton and Alternate Thomson for Ms. Purnell. He read the legal notice published in Voices on 4/25/07 and 1/2/07. He noted a site inspection had been conducted 3/21/07 and a recommendation had been made to the applicant at that time to reconfigure the driveway to reduce the impact on the wetlands and watercourses.
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented the map, "Overall Site Development Plan," by Mr. Szymanski, revised to 5/7/07. He briefly summarized the proposal for two additional lots with house sites on the north side of the watercourse. The feasible house sites shown were at least 200 feet from adjoining properties. The revised map showed a new driveway route further east than had originally been proposed, which, he said, would result in less impact to the wetlands and watercourse. Two wetlands crossings were proposed. The first would cross a 6 to 8 ft. channel with a clear span bridge with concrete abutments. The second crossing proposed was a concrete box culvert set 1 ft. below the existing watercourse with the bottom foot filled with native stream material. Both crossings had been designed to accommodate a 100 year storm. Mr. Szymanski stated he had addressed the downhill neighbors' concerns about increased stormwater runoff. He noted that 75 feet in on the lower side of the driveway, a swale would catch surface runoff and direct it to a modified energy dissipater to slow its velocity to make it less erosive. He also proposed a swale on the upper side. He noted runoff from the driveway to Lot #3 would sheet flow to the existing wetlands. The proposed driveway grades would reach the maximum 15% allowed for a short length, but in several areas had been reduced to minimize potential erosion. Mr. Szymanski also stated the driveway cuts and fills had been reduced to decrease the potential for erosion during construction. He detailed the significant erosion control measures proposed. To help prevent driveway washouts, he proposed 9 inch water bars to redirect the runoff to the sides of the driveway where staked hay bales would be installed. He noted specifications and a detailed construction sequence had been included in the plans.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the swale would direct runoff to the stream. Mr. Szymanski said it would, but noted rip rap would be installed to slow the flow.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if specifications for the bridge had been provided. Mr. Szymanski said they had, noting it would be steel beam construction with concrete decking. No pressure treated wood would be used.
Mr. Picton noted some storms exceed the 100 year storm event and asked how the overflow would be handled in those cases. Mr. Szymanski said the bridge would be the overflow path and agreed to add a 20 ft. paved apron on both sides of it.
Mr. Picton noted the Commission prefers to keep runoff spread out and not concentrated as in the proposed swale. He asked if it could empty at frequent intervals. Mr. Szymanski thought the swale would best address the concerns of the downhill neighbors and said a swale with one outlet would be easier to maintain. Mr. Picton said concentrated flows increase velocity and asked Mr. Szymanski if he would look into a driveway drainage plan that would accomplish both objectives.
The proposed conservation easement area was discussed. Mr. Szymanski pointed out the wetlands on the property and asked for guidance regarding suitable mitigation. Mr. Picton noted that the Comm. has considered conservation easements to be mitigation and said it was important to protect the natural wooded buffers along streams. He said even though the Conservation Commission does not want conservation easements to include wetlands, which are already protected, the Inland Wetlands Commission considers the inclusion of wetlands in conservation easement areas a valuable second layer of protection. Mr. Szymanski offered to extend the easement to the stone wall to the south. Mr. LaMuniere asked if land along the northern boundary could be included in the easement to increase the width of the buffer along the deeply cut stream. Mr. Picton agreed this would be important stream protection. Mr. Ajello read a portion of the 4/4/07 Conservation Comm. minutes, which recommended a fee in lieu of open space. Mr. Picton thought it was worthwhile to protect wetlands to a greater extent than they are currently protected. Mr. LaMuniere agreed that it was extremely important to protect wetlands.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the pipe on the east side of the existing septic system on Lot #1 would be removed. Mr. Szymanski said it would remain and would be tied in to the swale. Mr. Picton asked that the flow from the pipe be spread out, infiltrated, and dissipated.
Mr. LaMuniere suggested a condition of approval that no clearing would be allowed within 50 feet of the wetlands and watercourses. Mrs. D. Hill noted, however, that open fields that are mowed only once a year can be valuable habitat, too.
Questions and comments from the public were taken.
- Atty. Fisher-Bruzzi asked if there were any provisions for the spring rights of the adjoining property owner. Mr. Szymanski stated a title search did not find any spring rights. Atty. Fisher-Bruzzi said she would send him a copy.
- Mrs. Johnson, Scofield Hill Road, stated there is a pipe running along the brook, which connects her property to the spring. She was concerned the construction of the bridge might damage it.
- Mr. DeJulia, Mygatt Road, said the stream at the north end of the property has washed out Mygatt Road three times. Mr. Picton noted there was no work proposed in the vicinity of that stream. Mr. DeJulia explained he was concerned because he has watercourses on both sides of his property that have been affected by uphill development. Mr. Picton answered that was the reason the Commission wanted to keep the water dispersed instead of concentrating it into new channels.
- Mrs. DeJulia said the new lawns that would be put in would have an adverse impact on the downhill property owners and gave the impact a new lawn on Scofield Road had on several downhill Mygatt Road properties as an example. Mr. Szymanski said the sheet flow would be to the west, not to the north towards the DeJulia property. Mrs. DeJulia said it would wash out the stand of pines to the west. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Szymanski to address how extensive the clearing, landscaping, and installation of lawn would be and how much of the lots would remain woodland. Mr. LaMuniere agreed this was important because much of the current runoff is absorbed by the existing vegetative cover. He also noted the velocity of the runoff should not increase.
-Mrs. DeJulia asked that the public hearing be continued. She said the Abella property was a habitat for flying squirrels, which are protected by the state. Mr. Picton said squirrels were not a wetlands issue and asked Mr. Szymanski if he had checked the Natural Diversity Data Base. Mr. Szymanski responded he had and there was nothing about squirrels on it. Mr. LaMuniere asked for some documentation that the state requires this habitat to be protected.
- Mr. Ajello read part of the 4/26/07 letter from the Conservation Commission in which it opposed the inclusion of wetlands in the fulfillment of the subdivision open space requirement and voiced its concern about this proposed development on the steep hillside.
- Mr. DeJulia stated the area proposed as Lot #3 was a shrub ecosystem that would be affected by runoff and clearing. He said it was valuable because it was the only ecosystem of this kind in the area. Mr. Picton noted that except for how it affects the physical quality of the wetlands, this was not under the jurisdiction of the Commission.
- Mr. DeJulia noted there were wetlands downgrade of the resubdivision, which were not indicated on the map. He asked Mr. Abella what kind of houses would be built and whether they would fit in with the area. Mr. Szymanski the feasibility plan showed 4 BR houses, 35' X 60', with garages. Mr. Picton advised Mr. DeJulia that the Commission would review any future changes to the plans.
- Mr. DeJulia recommended that the Commission inspect the wetlands to the north of the stone wall along Lot #3. Mr. Szymanski noted the plans respect the upland review area in this vicinity. Mr. DeJulia gave the commissioners permission to walk his property.
- Mr. Papsin, Mygatt Road, asked if the driveway swale would be maintenance free or if it would fill up over time. He noted how he must dig out silt by hand from the swale on his property whenever there is one inch of rain. He gave the commissioners permission to walk his property during a storm. He also noted how wet the Abella property gets when there is one inch of rain. Mr. Picton asked that provisions for maintenance of the swale be added to the plans.
- Mr. Papsin and Mr. DeJulia were skeptical that the proposed swale and culvert were adequately sized to handle the stormwater runoff. Mr. Papsin noted the Town has a grant to repair Mygatt Road and asked if an increase in runoff could affect these repairs. Mr. Picton said it would not if the peak flow did not increase. Mr. Szymanski noted 18 acres would drain to the box culvert and 120 acres to the bridge.
-Mr. DeJulia noted the problems he has had with the maintenance of his shared driveway and asked if this had been addressed.
- Mr. Thomson asked if there would be further development on Lot #1. Mr. Szymanski said there would not.
- Mr. DeJulia noted when the Armstrong house on Mygatt Road had been built, they had hit "arctic clay," which resulted in a "mess." He asked if this clay had been found at the proposed development sites. Mr. Szymanski said test pits had been dug and no clay was present.
Mr. Picton noted the Conservation Commission's opinion that the open space should not include any wetlands, but said he did not think it would object so strongly if the open space also included some of the upland review area.. He asked for a comprehensive plan for a conservation easement that would protect the wetlands and contribute to the ecological balance of the site. Mr. LaMuniere said the wetlands and two watercourses on the property were very important to protect. Mr. Picton agreed a good conservation easement would add protection over and above the Inland Wetlands Regulations.
It was noted the application would be referred to an engineer for review. Mr. Szymanski asked that his comments be in a week prior to the next session of the hearing so that he would have adequate time to address them.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider Application #IW-07-06 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Abella for a 3 lot resubdivision at 44 Scofield Hill Road to Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
At 7:02 p.m. Mr. Picton continued the hearing to 5/23/07 at 6:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
This public hearing was recorded on tape, which is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
Ms. Purnell arrived at 7:02 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Picton called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: New Application: Peloquin/15 East Street/#IW-07-20 Construct Wall and Enforcement: Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Trenching and Clearing of Wetlands. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 4/25/07 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Under DiBenedetto: End of 1st paragraph: Add: and watercourses after "wetlands."
Page 2: Beginning of 3rd paragraph: Add: regulated before "activities."
Page 2: 3rd paragraph: 2nd line: Delete: "...he had not used heavy equipment..." and insert in its place: in implementing his approved pilot program he had not cut down....
Page 4: 1st paragraph: Put quotation marks around "no" and "indication."
Page 9: Under Walsh: 6th line: Change: "too bad" to: very disappointing.
Page 10: Under Parsell: 8th line: Insert somewhat before "poorly drained...."
Page 11: Under Paggioli: 12th line: Change: "stated" to suggested.
MOTION: To accept the 4/25/07 Show Cause Hearing -Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 5/3/07 Malamed site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 5/3/07 Andersson site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/#IW-07-06/3 Lot Resubdivision: It was noted the public hearing had been continued to 5/23/07 at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Picton asked that the minutes be sent to Land Tech so the Commission's consultant will address the questions raised as well as do a normal review of the application.
Hochberg/15 Couch Road/#IW-07-09/Driveway: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented his revised map, "Proposed Driveway Plan," 3 pages, revised to 5/2/07 to include a note regarding the seepage envelope and specifications. He noted that an over flow pipe that would drain onto the Hochberg property was also proposed and said the hydrological character of the area would be maintained. He noted, too, that the wetlands disturbance near wetlands flags #10 and #11 had been reduced and a note had been added regarding the limit of disturbance and limit of clearing. He pointed out that erosion control measures would be installed on the down hill side of the driveway with checks at an angle every 15 feet to slow the runoff. Mr. Picton noted the reason for the driveway was to serve a separate lot, so said the applicant must demonstrate the second lot was viable. Mr. Szymanski indicated the location of the proposed lot line and said the Health Dept. had signed off. He said, however, that because no building was proposed at this time, a site development plan had not been done. Ms. Purnell stated the Comm. had to consider feasible and prudent alternatives such as building on the portion of the property near Rt. 202 to determine whether there are ways to achieve what the applicant wants to do with less impact on the wetlands. She said the current proposal with a potential house site above the head waters of Bee Brook would impact the wetlands in perpetuity and that it was difficult to approve an application that was speculative. Mr. Picton noted the proposed lot line revision made the wetlands crossing necessary even though a building lot was not proposed. Mr. Szymanski said Mr. Hochberg wanted to access his rear property. Mr. Picton responded that if the lot line revision were not proposed, there would be another access available that would not require the crossing. Mr. Szymanski said 1) the owner did not want to go to the expense of developing plans until it was proven the lot could be accessed, 2) Mr. Hochberg intended to retain the house and sell the rest of the land, 3) he did not intend to put in the driveway himself, and 4) he could not show the house site because he did not know the location the future owner would select. Mr. Picton stated the applicant had opted for a lot line configuration that requires a wetlands crossing even though there were alternatives so it was required that he show a purpose for the crossing, such as it was the only way to access a particular building site. He said the Commission was not authorized to approve a crossing when there were alternatives. Ms. Purnell stated the Comm. was charged with eliminating impacts to wetlands and watercourses, making approval of the current proposal difficult because there were other locations where a house could be placed that would result in less impact to wetlands and with less environmental impact to the property. Mr. Szymanski argued there were court cases that held that just because you have an alternate site, you aren't prevented from using the rest of your land. Several of the commissioners thought potential buyers could view the rear property without the construction of a driveway. Mr. LaMuniere did not think the crossing would damage the wetlands as they were already mowed three times a year. He also said the Commission had previously allowed owners to access lots for sale. The discussion continued at great length. While he said Mr. Szymanski had done a good job to minimize the impacts due to the crossing, Mr. Picton noted if the driveway was installed first and then it was proven the lot was not feasible for development, the wetlands would have been disturbed for no reason. He asked for plans showing house and well locations and the feasibility of soils for a septic system. Ms. Purnell thought a subdivision application should be required. Mr. LaMuniere noted the Comm. had asked for feasible and prudent alternatives, the applicant had written there were none for the proposed lot, and so thought the Comm. should approve the application. Mr. Szymanski noted the area where a house could potentially be located was at least 200 ft. from wetlands flags and so asked for a letter from the Comm. to the applicant to explain exactly what is required.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-09 submitted by Mr. Hochberg to construct a driveway at 15 Couch Road as submitted per the plan, "Proposed Driveway Plan, by Mr. Szymanski, dated 3/12/07 and revised to 5/2/07, 3 Sheets. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere. Vote: 1-4 Application denied Mr. Picton voted No because it had not been sufficiently demonstrated with a feasibility plan that there was a need for the wetlands crossing Mrs. Hill voted No because there was apparent access elsewhere to a building site and she wanted more concrete plans to show where the house would be located and that it would work there. Ms. Purnell voted No because there was another location for a house site with lesser impact than the proposed crossing and she was concerned about the potential long term impacts to the area due to the scope and scale of the proposed development. Mr. Bedini voted No for the reason given by Mr. Picton.
Mr. Szymanski asked if the application were resubmitted, if the fee would be waived. Mr. Picton said yes because the denial had been due to insufficient information.
Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-07-10/Renovations, Reconfigure Driveway, Inground Pool, Etc.: Mr. Neff, engineer, and Ms. Zinick, agent, were present. The map, "Grading and Erosion Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/7/07 was reviewed. In addition to the map, Mr. Neff noted he had revised the sequence of construction to add the replacement of the sumps. The existing sumps were only 6 inches deep and 2 ft. deep sumps are usually recommended. Mr. Neff said the owner was not willing to install a rain garden in the NE corner of the property where the runoff ponds, but said the lawn would continue to act as a sediment trap. Ms. Purnell noted that without the rain garden, fertilizers and herbicides would wash into the catch basin and into the lake. She asked for a lawn that was not manicured. Mr. Neff said lawn maintenance had not been discussed. Mr. Picton said since the proposed activities would not result in new adverse impacts and the temporary impacts would be dealt with using erosion controls and a settling basin, he did not think mitigation was necessary. It was noted with the latest revisions, the percentage of impervious surface on site had been reduced from 22% to 17%. The driveway construction was discussed. Mr. Neff said a cross section had been provided and there would be no fill on the down hill side nearest to the water. Also a note had been added to the map that the area between the driveway and the eastern stream would remain a wooded buffer. Regarding the stockpiling of stone on site to use for emergency stabilization work, Mr. Neff said a note had been added that the stockpile would be maintained through all phases of the project. Construction of the boathouse deck was discussed. Ms. Zinick read an undated document containing information on construction materials, procedure, and sequence. Ms. Purnell asked what "compliant" pressure treated lumber was and Ms. Zinick said it was not CCA treated lumber. Ms. Purnell was concerned about chemicals from the lumber leaching into the lake. Mr. Ajello recommended the lumber used on the deck be pre treated with an alkyd stain off site or on the asphalt area of the property. Mr. Picton asked if pressure treated wood would be used over the entire pier, but Ms. Zinick was not sure if it would or if it would only be used for the one section that would be leveled. After a brief discussion regarding the construction specifications for the deck, Mr. Picton asked that a drawing be submitted to the Comm. for review before the dock was repaired.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-10 submitted by Mr. Adams for renovations, driveway reconfiguration, inground pool, etc. at 233 West Shore Road per the map, "Grading and Erosion Control Plan," by Mr. Neff revised to 5/7/07 and per the "Proposed Sequence of Construction," by Mr. Neff, submitted on 4/23/07 and revised to 5/8/07 subject to the following conditions: 1. a stockpile of 1.25 inch stone must be maintained through all phases of construction to use for erosion control measures if necessary, 2. a $5000 bond shall be posted with the Town, 3. the pressure treated members of the boathouse deck shall be prestained with alkyd sealer off site or on the asphalt on the opposite side of the boathouse; the Commission encourages the applicant to seek alternatives to the use of pressure treated lumber in areas adjacent to or over the lake, 4. before work on the concrete pier is approved, a construction plan with specifications for the decking that show the use of pressure treated wood has been minimized shall be submitted and approved by the Commission, and 5. the mature trees growing along the waterfront shall not be cut down except for the one on the Getnick border that was allowed to be cut at the 4/25/07 meeting. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Lewinter/86 Roxbury Road/#IW-07-12/Construct Barn: Mr. Neff noted Mr. Temple, soil scientist, had reevaluated the wetlands on the property as requested and did find there were wetlands closer to the proposed building site than he had originally thought. His report dated 5/8/07 was submitted. Mr. Neff said he would continue to look for alternate sites for the barn.
Paggioli/1 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-07-15/Replace Floating Dock: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his plan, "Floating Dock Replacement Plan," revised to 5/7/07. Notes had been added regarding the sealing of pressure treated wood and keeping it out of continuous contact with the water. He circulated a photo of the type of dock to be constructed to show the elevation above the water line. Mr. Picton noted it was clear from the photo that no pressure treated wood would be sitting in the water.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-15 submitted by Mr. Paggioli to replace the floating dock at 1 Tinker Hill Road per the plans. "Floating Dock Replacement Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/7/07 with the condition that the dock construction be similar to the photo submitted, which shows the pressure treated wood above the water. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Steep Rock Assn./147 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-07-16/Replace Culvert: Mr. Gifford and Mr. Neff, engineer, were present. Mr. Ajello said it was clear that rocks had fallen and had blocked the culvert. He had seen no evidence of soils or sediments, but he recommended a plunge pool be installed. Mr. Neff said there was already a basin there to collect sediment. Mr. Ajello also recommended some heavier stone be brought in to cover the new pipe. Mr. Neff agreed to do so. Ms. Purnell asked that care be taken to make sure it was only stone and no soil with contaminants that would be placed over the culvert.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-16 submitted by Steep Rock Assn. to repair a culvert at 147 Sabbaday Lane based on the recommendations of the WEO and with the stipulation that 2 inch stone be used to lock in and fill over the pipe. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Anderson/15 River Road/#IW-07-17/Reconstruct House: The map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 4/23/07 was reviewed. Mr. Neff, engineer, said there had been no revisions since the last meeting. The proposal was to take the existing house down to the foundation and to rebuild a slightly smaller house. He pointed out the existing driveway, which, he said, would provide adequate access for construction vehicles, and the limit of disturbance line. Erosion control measures were proposed between the work site and Canoe Brook.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-17 submitted by Mrs. Anderson to reconstruct the house at 15 River Road per the plan, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 4/23/07 as submitted. By Mr. Piction, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Malamed/115 River Road/#IW-07-18/Inground Pool: Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted his map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," revised to 5/7/07, which included a note requiring water bars and a temporary hay bale barrier near the entry of the construction access because he was concerned about the potential for runoff onto River Road. Ms. Purnell asked if the access would be hardened. Mr. Neff said it would be gravel. Ms. Purnell asked how much vegetation would be cut. Mr. Neff responded a 16 ft. strip, an 8 ft. wide access with a 4 ft. shoulder on each side, along the route to the pool site would be cut. Several commissioners thought this was overly wide. Ms. Purnell said she would abstain from voting because she had not attended the site inspection.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-18 submitted by Mr. Malamed to install an inground pool at 115 River Road per the plan, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff dated 4/23/07 and revised to 5/7/07. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 3-0-1.
New Applications
Fisher/66 Calhoun Street/#IW-07-19/Basement Drainage: Mr. Fisher was present. It was noted the property was located just north of the Cohen property. Mr. Ajello explained the owner proposed a curtain drain that would empty into an upland review area. Mr. Fisher said in order to get the right pitch, it would extend to a point 20 ft. from the wetlands. Ms. Purnell asked if contaminants from the driveway could make their way to the curtain drain. Mr. Fisher said the portion of the driveway nearest to the proposed drain was paved. Ms. Purnell asked if a subsurface spreader had been considered. Mr. Ajello noted the roof drains would also run to the curtain drain. Mr. Picton said it was conventional wisdom that roof drains should not be tied into curtain drains because that would increase the amount and velocity of the flow. He said roof drains should be shallower than curtain drains and that the water should be directed further from the wetlands. Mr. Fisher was not sure this would be possible because there were other wetlands on the property. Mr. Ajello recommended the roof drains use the same trench, but be installed at a higher level. Ms. Purnell said she would inspect the property and check for vernal pools before the next meeting.
Peloquin/15 East Street/#IW-07-20/Construct Wall: Mr. Picton asked if the application was complete. Mr. Ajello said it was not. Mr. Ajello noted the location of the property on the corner across the street from the Boys Club and said the proposal was to build a wall where the existing picket fence is and to stain the rear deck. Mrs. J. Hill asked if the proposed work was in the state right of way. Mr. Ajello said it would be along New Preston Hill Road. Mr. Picton noted there had not been a lot of information submitted. He asked Mr. Ajello to make sure the application was completed and scheduled a site inspection for Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. The applicant will be asked to stake out the proposed location of the wall and to complete the application prior to that date or the site inspection will be cancelled.
Enforcement
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Unauthorized Clearing: Mr. DiBenedetto submitted two maps; 1) "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated April 2000 to which he added color coded symbols to represent wetlands, intermittent streams, seeps, and upland review areas and 2) the same map showing the pilot area, the area just cleared, and the area where clearing is proposed in the future and the locations where the photos submitted at the last meeting had been taken from. He also submitted a series of photos dated 5/8/07, which showed the regrowth of both native and invasive plants in the cleared areas and invasives in the areas that had not yet been cleared. He said they also showed that live trees were not cut. Mr. Picton asked that the photos be indexed. It was noted Mr. Jontos, the Commission's consultant, had inspected the site and it was hoped a report would be ready for the next meeting. Mr. DiBenedetto said Mr. Jontos was very knowledgeable and thought this would be a good opportunity to develop a working plan for the property, which would satisfy both the owner and the Commission. He noted what a massive project the elimination of all invasives would be. Mr. DiBenedetto said there had been an informative article in the Litchfield County Times on the removal of invasives. Mr. Picton commented that the correct method is to remove the invasives selectively, leaving the native species in place.
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Trenching and Clearing of Wetlands: Mr. Ajello passed out copies of a brochure about agriculture and wetlands protection in Ct. and the 5/3/07 and 5/8/07 letters from Atty. Hanlan. Atty. Fisher represented Mr. Andersson and Atty. Anderson represented the adjoining property owner. Atty. Fisher stated that Mr. Andersson already grows hay and corn and that he intends to restore the property to a productive farm. He said that the next step would be to remove rocks from the fields not near wetlands so they can be mowed and cows pastured there. Atty. Fisher said he had reported the comments made at the site inspection to Mr. Andersson who intends to come up with a farm plan as requested. He also stated that no fill had been brought in for the new patio/fire pit built near a wetlands; an old farm dump in that vicinity had been cleaned up and the rocks used for the patio had come from the dump. He admitted, however, the patio/fire pit was not part of the farming operation and it had been installed without a permit. He also noted Mr. White had inspected the site and had found no evidence of silt flowing from the new trenches to Weantinogue property. Ms. Purnell was concerned there might be changes to the hydrology resulting from the grading for the patio area. Mr. Bedini listed the activities done without a permit: 1) patio, regrading, and fire pit, 2) new fences, 3) clear cutting in wetlands, 4) tracking through wetlands to reach areas of more clearing, and 5) trenching. He asked why no permits had been applied for. Atty. Fisher responded that it had not occurred to Mr. Andersson that wetlands permits were required. He added that the trenching was done in a field that had been hayed for years and Mr. Andersson's goal was to keep the area drained so it could continue to be hayed. Mr. Picton asked for documentation that the field had always been hayed as the adjoining property owner had said this was not so and the wetlands vegetation growing there was well established. Mr. LaMuniere agreed that it takes decades for a wetlands to establish itself. Ms. Purnell noted it would be possible for Mr. Andersson and the Commission to work together and she suggested a compromise where the focus of the farming operations would be away from the wetlands. Mr. Picton noted Atty. Hanlon's letters provided clarification that there are constraints to the adverse impacts to wetlands that may be caused by agricultural activities and that the draining of wetlands was excluded from the list of permitted agricultural activities. Ms. Purnell explained that Mr. Andersson should have applied for an agricultural exemption. Mr. Thomson and Mrs. D. Hill pointed out that there were major problems such as clearing in and the filling of a swamp that must be addressed. Atty. Fisher noted Mr. Andersson offered to contact NCD who would help him draft a plan for both farming and the preservation of the wetlands that could then be reviewed by Land Tech. Ms. Purnell recommended that Mrs. Johnson of NRCS also be consulted. Mr. Picton encouraged Mr. Andersson to contact both agencies to develop both an agricultural plan and a plan for wetlands protection and restoration. Atty. Anderson noted his client did not want to restrict farming on the Andersson property, but did want the following issues to be addressed: 1) determination of the extent of the regulated areas, 2) determination of exactly what disturbances/violations have occurred, and 3) determination of what is needed to restore the disturbed areas. Mr. Picton said Mr. Hayden, a soil scientist from NCD, would be consulted as it appeared wetlands had been filled. He will be asked to investigate recent apparent and possible filled and altered wetlands and to make recommendations on their management and restoration. Mr. Picton and Mr. Thomson noted there was evidence of subsurface drains north of the pond where they saw a drain pipe, filter fabric, and new grass. Mr. LaMuniere thought a new channel had been dug on the east side of the pond. A letter will be sent to both NCD and NRCS to request their involvement and it will include the site inspection minutes, Atty. Hanlon's letters with reference to the third paragraph on page 2 of the 5/8 letter, which gives suggestions on how to work productively to address this matter, and all other letters in the file. Ms. Purnell asked whether the wetlands would be reflagged or redelineated. Mr. Picton said they would be redelineated. He asked the property owner for copies of the property survey for the consultants to work with. Mr. Picton asked that Mr. Andersson refrain from any more clearing in the marsh until the studies requested have been completed. It was agreed that Mr. Andersson should have his agricultural plan prepared by June 30th.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road/#IW-04-V8/Repair of Retaining Wall: It was noted Mr. MacBroom, a fluvial geomorphologist, had been hired by Mr. Carter.
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-05-58/Remediation: Ms. Purnell asked if Atty. Kelly was encouraging his client to complete the restoration work this year. Mr. Ajello said Atty. Kelly would not let the Commission tell him the work had to be done this year. Mr. Ajello read the permit letter that had been sent to Mr. Fowler informing him that he had 5 years in which to complete the work. It was the consensus that Mr. Ajello send Atty. Kelly a letter to encourage Mr. Fowler to complete the required work, filling of the ditch and planting of vegetation, as soon as possible.
Greenfield/12 Ives Road/Invasive Plant Control: Mr. Ajello recommended a long term comprehensive management plan be submitted to the Commission for review.
Hochberg/15 Couch Road: Mr. Ajello will send a letter as soon as possible to advise Mr. Hochberg of the minimum information required to prove he has a legitimate building site on the proposed new lot.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clear Cutting: It was noted that progress was being made on the resolution of this violation.
Spring Hill Farm, LLC./69 Whittlesey Road: It was noted the EO had approved a minor revision to the approved plan. A fireplace will be moved away from the pond and placed next to the patio.
Steep Rock Assn./147 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-07-16/Replace Culvert: Ms. Purnell asked if crushed stone would be deposited in the streambed. Mr. Ajello said it would fill in around the pipe.
Yourwith/259 New Milford Turnpike/Unauthorized Excavation and Installation of Drain: Mr. Ajello reported that Mr. Hayden of NCR will meet soon with Mrs. Yourwith.
CaCo/16 Flirtation Avenue/Unauthorized Clearing, Filling: Mr. Ajello said he had not yet called Mrs. Caco, but planned to do so and walk the watercourse in the near future.
Steep Rock Assn./River Road/Clearing of "McKennee" Field: Mr. Ajello said Mrs. Corrigan had not yet inspected the site to check for vernal pools. Mrs. D. Hill noted the Comm. had been waiting for months and asked if there was someone else who could make the inspection.
Reinhardt-Cremona/Perkins Road/Restoration of Disturbed Areas: Mr. Ajello said he had asked Mr. Childs for estimates so that purchase orders could be submitted to the Selectmen's Office, but he had not heard from him. Mr. Picton noted the work must be done as soon as possible and asked Mr. Ajello to contact Mr. Childs to ask him if he will actually be able to accomplish the work that needs to be done.
Feola/84 Carmel Hill Road/Restoration of Vernal Pool: Mr. Ajello reported that the Feolas had not paid their citation and their Land Records had been attached.
Bransfield/21 Walker Brook Road: Ms. Purnell reported Mr. Bransfield had done additional clearing without a permit. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to compare the site conditions from previous files with the existing site conditions to determine whether unauthorized work had been done.
Other Business
DEP Aquatic Pesticide Permit Application Process: Mrs. J. Hill sent a letter to the DEP to inform it that Washington now requires a local permit for this activity.
Revision of the By-Laws: After a brief discussion it was the consensus to eliminate Section 3 regarding term limits for Comm. officers. A notice will be sent to all commissioners 5 days prior to the next meeting and this item will be placed on the 5/23 agenda so a vote may be taken. Mrs. D. Hill also noted that Section 7 should be amended to include June.
Revision of the Regulations: It was agreed this committee would resume work as soon as possible.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Picton.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: May 6, 2007 April 25, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Potter
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Szymanski, Mr./Mrs. Parsell, Mr. Neff, Mr. DiBenedetto, Atty. Fisher, Ms. Zinick, Mrs. Tompkins, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Gambino, Mr. Baker, Mr. Charles, Mrs. Branson, Mr. Gifford
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Picton called the Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell.
MOTION: To include the following subsequent business on the Agenda: 1. New Applications: A. Steep Rock Assn./147 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-07-16/ Replace Culvert, B. Anderson/15 River Road/ #IW-07-17/Reconstruct House, C. Malamed/115 River Road/#IW-07-18/Inground Pool, 2. Enforcement: A. Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Trenching in Wetlands, 3. Other Business: A. Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-05-54/ Overflow Pipe. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Unauthorized Clearing
Mr. Picton opened the show cause hearing at 7:03 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell. Mr. Picton summarized the 4/18/07 enforcement order for unauthorized clear cutting and use of equipment in a watercourse.
Mr. DiBenedetto apologized for his demeanor at the last meeting, but said the enforcement order was punitive in nature and he had been standing up for what he believes is right. He admitted he had done work on his property, but said the massive destruction due to invasive plants had made it necessary. He submitted 600 photos, which he said would document his assertions. He said he wanted to spend his money on revegetation rather than on the maps and consultants requested by the Commission.
It was noted the photos were not marked as to where on the property they had been taken or what direction they were looking towards. Ms. Purnell asked him to number them, place the number of each on the site plan in the location where it was taken, and use an arrow to show the direction he was facing when taken. Mr. DiBenedetto agreed to do so.
Mr. DiBenedetto did not dispute that activities had taken place, but he argued that he had not used heavy equipment, had not cut down all the dead trees, and had replanted more than the Commission had required. He claimed other states would have told him to take out the invasives and said he had called the state DEP, who will assist him with his next application. He said he was prepared to move forward with both an application and litigation.
While it was generally agreed it was good to remove invasive species, Ms. Purnell pointed out that had he applied, he might not have received a blanket approval and it would have been pointed out that there are better ways to accomplish their removal. She noted the previously approved pilot program was a "dismal failure" because the forest functions had not been replicated. For the record, she briefly noted what had occurred to date: Mr. DiBenedetto had applied for and had received approval for a pilot program to remove the invasives in one section of his property. The work had been done, the Commission had reviewed it, and had found it had not been completed as had been expected it in terms of what had been permitted to grow back. She said Mr. DiBenedetto had not yet demonstrated that the lost functions had been restored in this area. Later, when he applied to remove invasives from a second area, the Commission denied the application because there still had been no satisfactory results in the pilot section. Mr. DiBenedetto then did the work without the required permit.
Mr. DiBenedetto said that the natural understory had not been growing in the areas he had cleared and that the health of the wetlands had been the issue.
Mr. Picton asked whether it had been established that Mr. DiBenedetto had conducted regulated activities without the required permit. All agreed he had. He then suggested the Commission hire a consultant to report on 1) the state of the land where the unauthorized activity had occurred, 2) whether the work done in the pilot area had been done in conformance with the permit issued, and 3) what recommendations he would make regarding the restoration of the areas. He suggested the Commission put off the order to have the wetlands reflagged and the area revegetated until the consultant's report was received. Mr. DiBenedetto thought that was fair.
MOTION: To close the Show Cause Hearing to consider the 4/18/07 enforcement order issued to Mr. DiBenedetto for unauthorized clearing at 212-214 Calhoun Street. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed
5-0.
Mr. Picton closed the show cause hearing at 7:21 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
Consideration of the Minutes
The 4/11/07 Regular Mtg. minutes were accepted as corrected.
P.5: 8th line: Change below ground to below stream level.
P.5: 17th line: Change bank above to bank between the stream and the driveway.
P.5: 27th line: After "watercourses" insert: , alternatives to the east driveway cut be explored, and the area....
P.5: 11th line from the bottom: After "area" insert: in the northeast corner of the property.
P.7: 15th line, under #5: After "used" insert: at the Van Alstyne building site....
P.8: 8th line from bottom: Change the sentence beginning in this line to: Ms. Purnell was concerned that the sheetflow off the road would be affected.
P.10: 12th line under DiBenedetto: Change: "sodded" to sowed.
P.12: 9th line" After "opening" insert: crossing the lower end of the driveway and asked him to make sure it was sized and functioning....
MOTION: To accept the 4/11/07 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
The 4/18/07 Lewinter site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. Ms. Purnell noted it was the proposed location, not the current location, that had not been staked in the field.
MOTION: To accept the 4/18/07 Lewinter site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
The 4/18/07 Parsell site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. Three lines from the bottom, insert no before indication.
MOTION: To accept the 4/18/07 Parsell site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Tompkins/37 Tompkins Hill Road/#IW-07-05/Construct Driveway: Ms. Purnell recused herself and Mr. Thomson was seated. Mrs. Tompkins submitted the map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, revised to 8/5/03 on which she had drawn the driveway in pencil and proposed stabilization measures and a specifications sheet which described the proposed features on the map. She pointed out on the map where the potential runoff problems were. Mr. Picton briefly reviewed the spec sheet. Mrs. Tompkins explained the entire driveway would be top dressed and compacted. The material that had been deposited to bring the driveway into compliance with the 15% grade requirement was presently planted with grass, which had held during the recent storms, but she proposed to plant it with native wildflowers. She reviewed the drainage system. Mr. Picton noted the plans would result in the dissipation of the runoff before it accumulated. He asked if the driveway was crowned. Mrs. Tompkins stated it was somewhat crowned and banked to the inside. Mr. Ajello said the application was complete and he recommended the work be completed by July 1, 2007. He added this requirement to the spec sheet.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-05 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Tompkins to construct a driveway at 37 Tompkins Hill Road as presented. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Ms. Purnell was reseated.
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/#IW-07-06/3 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, was present. It was noted a public hearing had been scheduled for May 9th. Mr. Szymanski submitted a draft map, "Overall Site Development Plan," revised to 4/18/07 and noted that based on the new driveway location that had been recommended at the site inspection, the maximum driveway grade had been decreased from 15% to 12.8%, cuts and fills had been reduced, and the driveway profiles had been revised. He said the new route was farther from the wetlands and with the decrease in the cuts and fills there would be minimal erosion and sedimentation potential. Mr. Picton noted the Commission had also discussed the configuration of the conservation easement area and had recommended it include more than just the wetlands, which were already protected. The application has been referred to the Conservation Commission for comment. Mr. Picton also noted the bridge details had not yet been submitted.
Hochberg/15 Couch Road/#IW-07-09/Driveway: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, and Mr. Hochberg were present. The map, "Proposed Driveway Plan," by Mr. Szymanski, revised to 4/20/07 was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski referred to his 4/23/07 written analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives and noted even though the alternative driveway route from Rabbit Hill Road to the 20 acres of useable uplands had been laid out along the contour lines, it would require average cuts of 10 to 15 feet and maximum cuts of 20 to 25 feet.. Mr. Picton noted a boundary line revision would be proposed and said the application would be easier to evaluate if the proposed new line was indicated on the plan. Ms. Purnell noted there was a valid building area along Rt. 202 and said if there was a feasible and prudent alternative the Commission was required to take it. Mr. Szymanski responded that the owner needed to access his 20 acres of upland area that the statutes allow him to use. Ms. Purnell said she did not agree that everyone gets to use his land to the maximum extent allowed by Zoning, especially if doing so would necessitate numerous wetlands crossings. Mr. Picton noted if the lots were not to be reconfigured, access to the 20 acres could be through the yard along the stone wall, but the reason for the proposed access was that the owner wanted an additional lot. He asked for information about the planned building site. Ms. Purnell noted the proposed house site would be in an area where numerous seeps and springs had been identified, whereas the building site along Rt. 202 did not have any wetlands. She noted the entire property is at the headwaters of Bee Brook and so it was important to guard against cumulative degradation of the wetlands. She said the proposed driveway would not be to "nowhere" so the potential development impacts should be considered. Mr. Szymanksi said the proposed driveway was 800 ft. long with an 1800 sq. ft. wetlands crossing, and only 4 ft. cuts required, while the alternative was 1700 feet long, 1100 ft. of that with 15% grades, and requiring 20 to 25 ft. cuts. Mr. Szymanski noted he had decreased the amount of fill over the proposed pipe and noted it was not a pristine wetlands that would be crossed; it was mowed three to four times a year. He noted, too, he would add a seepage envelope to the plan. Ms. Purnell suggested that since the commissioners had not had an opportunity to review the newly submitted material that they do so before the next meeting. The WEO was asked to review the application to make sure it is complete and can be voted on at the next meeting.
Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-07-10/Renovations, Driveway Reconfiguration, Inground Pool, Etc: Ms. Zinick, agent, and Mr. Neff, engineer, were present. Ms. Zinick submitted plans revised to 4/24/07 and said the future tennis court had been deleted as requested by the Commission. Mr. Neff noted, too, that the driveway to the carriage house had been moved 25 feet from the watercourse with a retaining wall between the driveway and the main building. This resulted in a slightly smaller parking area. Also, the proposed patio was pulled back from the western watercourse to allow for a 10 ft. vegetated buffer. He noted both of these changes resulted in a more compact proposal. He said Mr. Temple had reevaluated the soils and he submitted his report, dated 4/25/07, which stated a second site inspection confirmed there were no wetlands soils on the property. Mr. Neff noted the naturally low area where the runoff ponds allows some of the sediment to settle out before it reaches the lake. Ms. Purnell asked how the above revisions affected the amount of impervious surface on the property. Mr. Neff said there would be a net reduction. Ms. Purnell asked for the exact figures because the property was over the maximum coverage allowed; 10% coverage being the thresh hold at which there begins to be impacts to water quality and the perpetual potential for the degradation of the lake. Ms. Zinick said the proposed coverage had decreased from 22% to 20.2%. Mr. Neff submitted the "Proposed Sequence of Construction" dated 4/23/07, which included phasing so that there would be smaller work areas that would be stabilized before moving on to the next phase. He described each phase. Mr. Picton noted there was a rip rapped swale proposed along the new driveway. Mr. Neff said the swale would be armored for stabilization and would empty into the catch basin. Mr. Picton asked if the rip rap would be placed in the swale at the beginning of that phase of the work. Mr. Neff said it would. Mr. Neff pointed out the areas of fill for the proposed driveway, which, he noted had a 13% grade. Mr. Picton asked if the rip rapped swale would be installed before the fill was deposited. Mr. Neff responded the fill would be put in first, but it would be compacted in 6 inch lifts to control erosion. Ms. Purnell noted there was a lot of activity proposed for such a constrained area and said she wanted to study the plans before the next meeting. She recommended the ponding area in the northeast corner of the property be planted as a landscaped buffer for mitigation. She said this would help to filter the runoff before it reached the lake so it would have less impact. Mr. Neff said he would discuss this with the property owner. Mr. Picton thought the revised plans were an improvement, but noted there was no cross section of the driveway and the height of the retaining wall had not been specified. Mr. Neff said the wall sloped from 0 to 7 feet tall and he would provide the driveway cross section. Mr. Picton asked if the limit of disturbance line could be pulled back so it would not be within 2 to 3 ft. of the western stream. Mr. Neff said he would pull it back closer to the patio. It was noted if this were not such a constrained property, the Commission would lobby for at least 15 to 20 ft. between the streams and the limit of disturbance lines. On the other side of the property, Mr. Picton noted there was no vegetation proposed between the work area and eastern stream. Mr. Neff stated there were large trees and boulders existing in this area. Mr. Picton asked that the specs be added to the plans regarding how the buffers would be maintained as heavily vegetated stream buffers. Mr. Picton asked if the applicant could have a pile of crushed stone on site during construction to harden runoff paths if necessary to deal with temporary erosion problems. Mr. Neff said he would add a note to the plans. Ms. Purnell asked that this stone be removed post construction. Mr. LaMuniere asked where the pool equipment would be located. Mr. Neff said it would be in the basement of the main building. Mr. Picton reminded Mr. Neff to include notes on the map regarding the driveway surface and all other relevant information discussed. He asked if a bond was necessary. Ms. Purnell thought it would be appropriate due to the scope and scale of the project and its proximity to the lake. It was the consensus that $5000 would be sufficient. Mr. LaMuniere noted the applicant had to come back to the Commission to apply for decking on the boathouse and the cutting of trees along the lake, although he thought they were healthy and should not be cut. Ms. Purnell agreed, noting the Commission encourages native vegetated buffers. Mr. Picton asked if the Commission was prepared to act on the carriage house work if there was no change in its shape, no earthwork, and the footprint did not change. Ms. Purnell asked where stockpiled materials would be placed. Mr. Neff said the existing paved driveway would be used. Ms. Zinick asked that any motion of approval for the carriage house also include permission to clean out the catch basins.
MOTION: To approve in part Application #IW-07-10 submitted by Mr. Adams for renovations, driveway reconfiguration, and inground pool at 233 West Shore Road to allow: 1. cleaning out the sumps of the bottom five catch basins in the vicinity of the main building provided that if a situation is encountered where siltation occurs, the process is discontinued and the cleaning plans modified, 2. construction on the carriage house as long as there is no change in the footprint, ground size, or shape of the building, 3. removal of the large partially rotted maple tree located close to the Getnick boundary line. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 3-2. Mrs. Hill and Ms. Purnell voted No because they did not approve of the partial approval of applications.
Ms. Zinick submitted a letter dated 4/25/07 requesting a 65 day extension for consideration of the application.
John Dorr Nature Lab/220 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-07-11/Demolish and Reconstruct Building, Additions to Dorm, Demolish Accessory Buildings: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, and Mr. Talbot, architect, were present. The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Szymanski, revised to 4/11/07 was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski noted that at the last meeting he had submitted a detailed construction sequence, which included phasing. Since then he added a provision that the cabins would be removed and the disturbed areas stabilized one by one to respond to the concerns raised by the Commission. Mr. Picton stated the strategy of the plan met the objective of protecting the wetlands in that the disturbed areas would be kept to a minimum at any one time and the new, enlarged building would be moved further from the stream than the existing lodge. It was the consensus that no public hearing was required and no additional information was needed. Bonding was discussed. Even though the lodge building would be 450 ft. from the watercourse and on level land, it was the majority opinion that a $5000 bond would be required so that the erosion and sedimentation controls could be replaced and remediation done in a worst case scenario. It was noted O and G would supervise the job daily, Mr. Talbot would be on site several times a week, and Mr. Szymanski would report on the installation of the erosion control measures.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-11 submitted by the John Dorr Nature Lab at 220 Nettleton Hollow Road per the plans dated 2/23/07 and amended to 4/11/07 with the following stipulations: 1. the engineer shall report to the Commission prior to the commencement of construction for each phase on the proper installation of all the required erosion and sedimentation control measures shown on the plans, 2. a $5000 bond be posted before work begins on Phase 3, the demolition of the lodge and regrading. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Ms. Purnell noted the approval had been granted because the existing uses immediately next to the watercourse were being removed and pulled further away. The applicant had done a great job addressing the short term impacts and since the uses were being moved further from the watercourse there would be a net benefit to the environment.
Lewinter/86 Roxbury Road/#IW-07-12/Construct Barn: Mr. Neff, engineer, noted that since the site inspection Mr. Temple, soil scientist had been asked to recheck the areas the Commission questioned, but had not yet had time to do so. He said he would wait for this report before making any revisions to the plans. Mr. Picton noted that originally Mr. Neff had thought the proposal posed little threat of impact to any wetlands or watercourses, but since there were many runoff swales on the property, he asked that Mr. Neff address feasible and prudent alternatives such as attaching the barn to the existing garage.
Walsh/95 Roxbury Road/#IW-07-13/Build Stone Wall: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his map, "Roadside Stonewall Plan," revised to 4/19/07. He explained he had added an opening at the wall base to accommodate the drainage coming from the road. He said although there was no watercourse the water would eventually reach the pond. Ms. Purnell recommended a small planted basin be installed just beyond the opening and said it was too bad there was no vegetation surrounding the pond. Mr. Neff said the owners were working on plans to dredge the pond and to install heat exchangers and he would talk to them about doing some planting when those activities were completed. Mr. Picton noted if the pond was better buffered and shaded it would make it a better air conditioning source in the summer. Mr. Picton voiced his concern that with only one opening in the wall, the sheetflow runoff would be concentrated, and he suggested a total of three openings spaced approximately 50 ft. apart in addition to the 12 ft. wide opening already there. He thought the construction of the wall would not impact the pond so there would be no reason to require additional buffer planting at this time.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-13 submitted by Ms. Walsh to build a stone wall at 95 Roxbury Road as proposed with the condition that between the 12 ft. wide opening and the south end of the wall there be three equidistantly spaced openings at the base of the wall. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Parsell/13 Top Pasture Road/#IW-07-14/Accessory Apartment and Kitchen Additions and Installation of Septic System: Mr. Baker, engineer, noted he had submitted a letter dated 4/25/07 to discuss feasible and prudent alternatives and the on site constraints, which governed the location of the septic tank and pump chamber. The map, "Proposed Subsurface Sewage Disposal System, revised to 4/11/07 was reviewed. Mr. Baker said he did not retest the soils on site, but confirmed his original delineation, saying while they were not wetlands soils, they were poorly drained. It was noted that at most, one ft. of fill would be needed in the construction areas. Ms. Purnell asked if the removal of all vegetation would be required to install the leaching galleries and asked that this area be kept as narrow as possible. She said if too much vegetation was removed, there would be more water in the area and the curtain drain would be overworked. Mr. LaMuniere agreed. Mr. Baker noted that although the width of the curtain drain was 1.5 ft., the excavator used for the work would create a 7.5 to 8.5 ft. cleared swath. Ms. Purnell asked if a smaller piece of equipment could be used. Mr. Baker agreed to clear only 3 to 4 ft. Mr. Picton asked that a substantial vegetated buffer be maintained and/or restored between the curtain drain and the property line. Mr. Thomson asked where the stockpile area would be and asked that this be added to the map. Mr. Thomson asked what would be done with the material taken off the driveway. Mr. Baker said 150 yards would be removed and trucked directly off site.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-14 as submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Parsell to install a septic system, enlarge the garage, and construct a detached accessory apartment and kitchen addition at 13 Top Pasture Road subject to the approval of the Health Department and with the following stipulations: 1. that the stockpile area be added to the plan,
2. that the stockpile area be outside the upland review area and the wetlands, and 3. that the brushy and/or wooded vegetated buffer be maintained and/or restored between the curtain drain above the septic and the western boundary line. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Paggioli//1 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-07-15/Replace Floating Dock: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his plan, "Floating Dock Replacement Plan," dated 4/16/07. He explained the existing float is tied to a pipe that sticks out of the bank. He proposed to drill two holes in a large boulder and put in eye bolts to anchor the new float and to take out the pipe. He noted the new 10 ft. by 10 ft. float would meet both the Zoning requirements for size and materials. Mr. Picton read the note on the plan, which stated naturally rot resistant materials would be used and pressure treated wood could be used only for framing and structural supports. After a brief discussion about the use of pressure treated wood in and over the water, Mr. Picton stated the float would be allowed as specified as long as the pressure treated wood would not be in continuous contact with the water. He asked Mr. Neff to submit construction details that would show that the structural wood would not be down in the water and that a sealer would be used. Mr. Ajello said he would like the Inland Wetlands Commission to act consistently with the Zoning Regulations regarding construction materials for docks and floats. Ms. Purnell said this should be discussed as a general policy issue and not in regard to a specific application. Mr. Picton asked if the pipe to be taken out had a function. Mr. Neff said it did not.
Steep Rock Assn./147 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-07-16/Replace Culvert: The applicant proposed to replace an old stone culvert on the main access road to Hidden Valley with a plastic pipe. The culvert had washed out in the last storm. Mr. Picton recommended the commissioners inspect the site on their own before the next meeting. A hand drawn sketch plan, undated, unsigned, was reviewed and Mr. Picton summarized the 4/24/07 letter from Mrs. Branson, which detailed the proposal.
Anderson/15 River Road/#IW-07-17/Reconstruct House: Mr. Neff presented the map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 4/23/07. It was noted the house would be reconstructed on the existing foundation, but not enlarged. Mr. Ajello noted the limit of disturbance line was near the brook due to the clean up operation. Mr. Picton noted the property was level and recommended individual site inspections because there would be no soil disturbance. He asked Mr. Ajello to review the application and have recommendations ready for the next meeting.
Malamed/115 River Road/#IW-07-18/Inground Pool: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," dated 4/23/07. Ms. Purnell noted there was a substantial instream pond on the property. Mr. Neff said the proposed pool site was beyond the 100 ft. setback, but the temporary construction access and conduits would be within 100 ft. of wetlands. A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.
Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Trenching in Wetlands: It was noted Mr. Andersson had not been able to attend the site inspection scheduled at the last meeting and so had asked that it be conducted on another date. The inspection was rescheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. Mr. Picton stated that it appeared the ditch had been dug to drain the wetlands, which was an activity the Commission usually tries to prevent. Mrs. D. Hill noted Mr. Andersson said the property would be a farm. Mr. Ajello said he had asked the applicant's attorney to submit a report to show a record of a valid farm operation. Mr. Picton explained that even on a valid farm permits are required; that farms do not have blanket authority to adversely impact wetlands and watercourses. Ms. Purnell agreed and said she would research the issue and circulate copies of a recent court decision that found even for valid farms, an inland wetlands permit is required for regulated activities. She said adverse impacts could be minimized for agricultural uses.
Other Business
Discussion with Mr. Gambino re: DEP Aquatic Pesticide Permit Application Process: Mr. Gambino circulated his resume and the document, "Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation Management" and said he has done pond weed control since 1972 and also does invasive weed control. Mr. Picton asked if invasives can be removed without the removal of the entire forest understory. Mr. Gambino said they could. Mr. Gambino reviewed the application process for pesticide applications, saying each application is reviewed by the Ct. DEP Pesticide Division and the departments of Fisheries and Health. When he noted he had been able to obtain a permit last year for the Mnuchin pond even though there were Jefferson salamanders in the vicinity, the Commission expressed its surprise that it had not been notified of the application. Mr. Picton noted the Commission has valid concerns about pesticide use in instream ponds. Ms. Purnell said the Commission tries to work with property owners to "treat the disease, not the symptoms" by cutting down on the use of fertilizers and encouraging buffer plantings around the pond perimeter. Mr. Gambino said he, too, tries to work with property owners to restore the balance when problems result from landscaping, fertilizing, and faulty septic systems. He felt the DEP review was thorough, but Ms. Purnell said the DEP's local knowledge is limited and material such as the Natural Diversity Data Base is only as good as the data that gets put into it. Mr. Gambino responded that the DEP welcomes comments from the Town and he referred to the undated memo the Commission had received from the DEP Pesticide Program. Mr. Gambino thought it was not necessary for local commissions to require duplicate applications. He recommended 1) streamline the application process by reducing duplication, 2) have the WEO review the DEP pesticide applications as they are sent in by certified mail, 3)have the WEO notify the Commission chairman and the applicant, not the property owner, if he finds a problem when reviewing these applications, and 4) in those cases, hold the application until the local agency determines what should be done. It was noted Mr. Gambino would need a letter of authorization from the property owner if he was to be notified of any problems with the application. He also asked that the local fee be waived because there is already a $100 application fee to the state. Mr. Picton noted the Commission's fees cover office expenses and the EO's time. Mr. Gambino noted the Commission had notified the property owners, but not the DEP that it was now equiring a local application. The DEP will be notified that the Commission wants to be part of the application process and this matter will be discussed again at the next meeting.
Myfield/7 Mygatt Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-05-54/Overflow Pipe: Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted a letter dated 4/24/07, which proposed to change the 2 ft. deep X 8 ft. wide grassed stormwater detention basin emergency overflow channel to an enclosed piping system. The Commission thought the request was premature because less than half of the proposed impervious surfaces on site had been built. It was thought when the construction was complete there could be a greater concentration of runoff. It was the consensus that the applicant could reapply after it has been determined how the stormwater management system will function upon the completion of the project. The $25 fee will be returned.
Enforcement
Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-07-10/Renovations, Driveway Reconfiguration, Inground Pool: Ms. Purnell said she wanted the ponding area to remain and that a planted rain garden could be required in this area because it would ameliorate the impacts of the proposed development. For the next meeting Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to draft a motion of approval with specific conditions that address all of the concerns raised by the Commission.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road (141 Shinar Mt. Rd.)#IW-04-V8/Repair of Retaining Wall: Ms. Purnell submitted photos she had taken, which, she said, showed that the wall directs the erosive force of the water towards the streambank. The last photo, in particular, showed evidence of erosion on the west bank. She noted her concern about the higher velocity of the flow and the resulting erosion and said sediment deposits downstream were also a concern. Mr. Ajello noted the Commission is still waiting for a report from the consultant. Mr. Picton recommended that Mr. Carter post a bond to cover any remedial measures needed and said if a response was not received from the consultant, the Commission would have to propose a resolution.
Bransfield/21 Walker Brook Road: Ms. Purnell said there were unauthorized activities on this property that should be investigated.
Collins/323 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Clearing and Soil Disturbance: Mr. Ajello noted that Mr. Collins had paid his citation and this item could be taken off the agenda.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Unauthorized Clearing, Restoration of Understory: It was noted Mr. Jontos, consultant, would inspect the property to investigate the potential impacts from the work done in the pilot area and in the newly cleared areas. He will be asked to compare the work done with that approved in the pilot area permit and to make simple recommendations regarding remediation measures for the other areas. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to make sure Mr. Jontos received copies of the enforcement order, site inspection report, and all pertinent minutes so it would be clear to him what the Commission's concerns are. Ms. Purnell also recommended that Mr. Jontos look at the "before" photos in the file so he would know what had been lost on the property.
MOTION: To uphold the 4/18/07 enforcement order issued to Mr. DiBenedetto for unauthorized clearing at 212-214 Calhoun Street but to suspend the requirement to reflag the wetlands and to restore the understory until after a report is received from the Commission's consultant. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 4-1. Ms. Purnell voted No because she thought the reflagging of the wetlands should be the first step in the enforcement process.
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-05-58/Remediation Per Order: Mr. Ajello noted that Atty. Kelly had advised him that Mr. Fowler's permit says he has five years in which to conduct and complete the restoration. Mr. Picton noted however, that the Commission had been clear in stating the restoration work should be done as soon as possible, and that it had been reasonable to expect it would have been done in the next growing season. He noted the Commission had specified at the last meeting that it wanted an enforcement letter sent to Mr. Fowler to make it clear the restoration work must be done by the end of June 2007.
Reinhardt and Cremona/Perkins Road: Mr. Ajello reported that Atty. Kelly wanted either the authority of consent and waiver over every aspect of the job or for the Commission to follow all municipal procedures. He said according to the consent order, Atty. Kelly had no right to expect this authority. The Commission asked Mr. Ajello to advise Atty. Kelly that for the record, the Town was interested in getting the restoration work done as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
Rubler/240 Wykeham Road/Driveway Washout: The applicant wanted to proceed with the well relocation only. It was noted the citation had not yet been paid, nor had the slope stabilization information been received. New activities may not begin until all of the documentation requested has been received.
Yourwith/259 New Milford Turnpike/Unauthorized Excavation and Installation of Drain: Mr. Picton noted this is a violation and so a remedy is needed, not an application. Mr. Ajello said Mr. Hayden from the Conservation District would be helping Mrs. Yourwith to draft a plan.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clearing: Mr. Ajello reported the violation had been filed on the Land Records and Mr. Moore had been fined.
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Filling, Soil Disturbance: Mr. Ajello said the job was half done, but that more rip rap was needed. Ms. Purnell noted the runoff from private properties was causing problems on the town road.
Plourde/33 East Shore Road/Unauthorized Clearcutting: Mr. Ajello noted the Land Records had been attached and said this item could be taken off the agenda. Mr. Picton asked why Mr. Plourde had not been fined. Ms. Purnell stated the work had not been done in wetlands and had not resulted in an evident direct impact to the wetlands.
Steep Rock Assn./River Road/Clearing of "McKennee" Field: Mr. Ajello will inspect the site with Mrs. Corrigan to investigate the possibility of a vernal pool.
Feola/84 Carmel Hill Road/Restoration of Vernal Pool: It was noted the Feolas had been sent a repeat enforcement order, but had not paid their fine. Mr. Ajello said it had been sent certified mail, but they had not picked up the letter. He was asked to send another letter to inform them that if they do not pay this fine, they will be issued a third citation. Their Land Records have been attached.
Caco/16 Fliftation Avenue/Unauthorized Clearing, Grading: Mr. Ajello had not contacted Mrs. Caco.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 11:22 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: April 18, 2007 April 11, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Potter
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello and Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Neff, Mr. DiBenedetto, Mr./Mrs. Parsell, Mr. Baker Mr. Andersson, Mr. Esker, Mr. Sherrat, Residents
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Picton and Alternate Thomson for Ms. Purnell.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: Other Business: Fowler/139 Nichols Hill Road/Remediation Order/Amendment of Order and Andersson/Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Draining of Wetlands. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
Mrs. D. Hill abstained for the votes on all of the following minutes because she had not been present for these meetings.
The 3/28/07 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 5: 3rd line from bottom: Change to Ms. Zinick.
There was a brief discussion regarding when citations should be issued. Mr. LaMuniere noted that although Ms. Purnell had stated the Commission issues these when unauthorized work has been done in the wetlands, he thought they should also be issued when unauthorized work in the upland review area adversely impacts the wetlands or a watercourse.
MOTION: To accept the 3/28/07 Regular Meeting minutes as written with one correction. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4-0-1.
MOTION: To accept the 4/4/07 John Dorr Nature Lab site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1.
The 4/4/07 Rubler site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 1: Under Also Present add: Mr. Esker
P. 2: 2nd Paragraph, 4 lines from bottom: At the end of the sentence add: ..."should be provided by the applicant."
MOTION: To accept the Rubler 4/4/07 site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Thomason, and passed 4-0-1.
Ms. Purnell arrived at 7:11 p.m. and was seated.
MOTION: To accept the DiBenedetto 4/4/07 site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-0-1.
MOTION: To accept the Abella 4/5/07 site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-0-1.
MOTION: To accept the Hochberg 4/5/07 site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-0-1.
MOTION: To accept the 4/5/07 Adams site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1.
Pending Applications
Tompkins/39 Tompkins Hill Road/#IW-07-05/Driveway: Ms. Purnell recused herself and Mr. Thomson was seated. Mr. Picton noted that a drainage plan and additional information on the driveway surface had been requested, but had not yet been submitted. He thought it would be useful for the Commission to draft a standard sheet of driveway specifications that could be handed out to applicants to guide them so they would provide adequate information on driveway applications. Mr. Ajello said this information was already available in the Land Use Office and could be copied for applicants. Mr. Picton asked if the driveway surface would continue to erode if not treated. Mr. Ajello stated Mr. Tompkins was working with his neighbor on plans and had posted a driveway bond. Mr. Picton noted, however, the bond was posted in the Selectmen's Office for the driveway apron, while the Commission is concerned with its entire length. Mrs. D. Hill noted the time limit for this application would expire before the next meeting (4/21).
MOTION: To deny without prejudice Application #IW-07-05 submitted by Mr. Tompkins for a driveway at 39 Tompkins Hill Road because insufficient information was submitted for review with the provision that if a request for an extension is received before the current time period expires, the time period will be extended and the application will be considered at the next meeting. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Ms. Purnell was reseated.
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/#IW-07-06/3 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, was present. He noted he had not yet had time to respond to the issues raised at the 4/5/07 site inspection. These outstanding issues included a written analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives and details on how the outlet of the curtain drain that runs in back of the existing house would be dealt with. Mr. Picton noted that details for the proposed bridge were also needed. The proposed conservation easement was briefly discussed. Mr. Picton noted the easement could be considered mitigation for the impact of the proposed crossing. Ms. Purnell said the state statutes and Town regulations already provide protection for the wetlands, and so suggested another configuration of the easement might provide additional protection. She asked that the application be formally referred to the Conservation Commission for review. Mr. Picton noted the proposed activity was likely to have a significant impact on the wetlands and watercourse and public interest had been shown.
MOTION: To schedule a public hearing to consider Application #IW-07-06 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Abella for a three lot resubdivision at 44 Scofield Hill Road on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Brown-Carroll/41 Buffum Road/#IW-07-07/2 Lot Resubdivision: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, noted that at the last meeting the Commission had asked him to move all proposed activities back at least 100 feet from the lake and he submitted his map, "Overall Site Development Plan," revised to 4/9/07 to show he had done so. It was noted the site is very flat and so Mr. Picton stated that keeping the limit of disturbance at least 100 ft. from the lake would be an adequate buffer. He asked Mr. Szymanski if the limit of disturbance was also the limit of clearing. Mr. Szymanksi said it was and added this note to the map. Ms. Purnell noted this was feasibility approval only; the applicant would have to return to the Commission for final approval for specific site development plans.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-07 submitted by Brown-Carroll for a 2 lot resubdivision at 41 Buffum Road per the plans, "Overall Site Development Plan," by Mr. Szymanski revised to 4/9/07 subject to the condition that specific site development plans must be approved by the Commission prior to construction. By Ms. Purnell, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Hochberg/15 Couch Road/#IW-07-09/Driveway: Mr. Szymanski stated he had received the site inspection comments and would respond at the next meeting. Mr. Picton asked him to explain why a wetlands crossing was proposed for the back lot when it was not necessary to do so. Mr. Szymanski stated the owner wanted reasonable use of the rear 20 acres. Ms. Purnell noted a lot line revision was proposed and it was pertinent to the discussion to know where the boundary line would be. The application will be discussed further at the next meeting.
Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-07-10/Renovations, Reconfigure Driveway, Inground Pool, Etc.: Mr. Neff, engineer, was present. The map, "Grading and Erosion Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 4/9/07 was reviewed. He noted the following information had been added to the plan: 1) cross sections of both sides of the property, 2) limit of disturbance line, and 3) notes regarding cleaning out and maintaining the existing catch basins. Mr. Neff noted silt sacks would be installed in the driveway catch basins and staked hay bales installed around the West Shore Road catch basins during construction. Maintenance of the catch basins was reviewed. Mr. Picton noted the line of disturbance showed as little as 3 ft. of undisturbed area between the proposed patio and the watercourse. Mr. Neff noted the proposed buffering would be planted after the area had been stabilized and the erosion control measures were taken out. Mr. Picton asked if the undisturbed area could be increased and Ms. Purnell responded that yes, it could with a smaller patio. Mr. Picton noted that on the other side of the property, excavation was proposed below ground to within 3 ft. of the stream when there was already an existing driveway to the building to be served. He asked: 1) whether an engineer should review the plans, 2) whether the cross section showed the deepest excavation proposed near the stream, and 3) whether alternatives should be considered. Mr. Picton read from the site inspection minutes, which stated grading would be within 2 ft. of the watercourse and he noted that the boulders proposed in this area would not be a continuous barrier. Mr. Picton also questioned how the bank above the stream would hold up. Ms. Purnell asked for a written analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives for the driveway. Mr. Neff said the owners want a terrace where the driveway is now located and would take up the pavement in back of the main building. Mr. Picton suggested that a driveway route straight up the hill would stay farther from the watercourse, but Mr. Neff said that would be steep and would eliminate the proposed parking area. Mr. Picton asked for a watershed analysis. Mr. Picton recommended that all construction be pulled back 10 feet from the watercourses and the area of disturbance limited, noting the Commission generally looks for improvement in marginal situations. He asked for information about what happens to the watercourse on the west side of the property when it flows under the road. The soil scientist report was briefly reviewed and it was noted it stated there were no hydric soils, but Mr. Picton asked that it be noted for the record that on the north end of the property on the uphill side of the drainage ditch it looked like hydric soils were present. Ms. Purnell noted that was where the future tennis court was proposed. Mr. Picton asked that the soils be rechecked, especially near the drainage ditch and the ponding area. He asked, too, for additional information on how the disturbed surfaces would be controlled during construction. Mr. Neff said if hay bales were placed around the catch basins, they would direct the flow elsewhere, so he proposed silt sacks in the basins as all flow is already directed towards them. He also noted that water now tends to pond in a flat area along West Shore Road and sediment would tend to collect there, but Mr. Picton questioned whether this area was wetlands. Mr. Picton did not think hay bales and silt sacks would be sufficient during a heavy storm. Other erosion and sedimentation control methods such as putting down a tarp, adding stone over the flow paths, and phasing the project were briefly discussed. Ms. Purnell favored phasing because she said there was a tendency to leave hardened surfaces in place post construction. Mr. Neff agreed to draft a sequence of activities to limit the amount of exposure at any one time. Mr. Picton said the Commission's engineer would review it when it is completed. The replacement of the outside deck on the boathouse would have been considered but there were no specifications in the file. Replacement of the siding and roofing was discussed. Mr. Picton thought the turbidity curtain proposed would be adequate protection. It was not known whether copper would be used on the roof or whether the cedar shingles were treated and the commissioners again noted the application lacked sufficient detail. It was noted the proposed work on the siding and roofing would not be not directly over the water.
MOTION: To approve in part Application #IW-07-10 submitted by Mr. Adams for renovations, reconfiguration of the driveway, inground pool, etc. at 233 West Shore Road for interior and exterior renovations to the boathouse only which do not change its size or shape and do not include reconstruction of the deck for which there is inadequate detail at this time; the boathouse renovations are approved as long as no copper is used on the roof due to its potential toxicity; and the asphalt cover over the septic tank may be removed and replaced with a cast iron cover as proposed. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 4-1.
Mrs. Hill voted No because she did not think piecemeal approval should be granted.
Mr. Picton noted the owners propose to cut trees along the shoreline, but that they weren't indicated on the map. He said the existing birch and alders are healthy and contribute to the shade canopy, which helps to preserve the water quality. Mr. Ajello noted the one large substantially rotted tree proposed for removal might not be entirely on the property. Ms. Purnell asked the applicant to either reconsider the removal of the healthy trees or to assess and evaluate their function and propose mitigation for that function. It was noted that in the past the Commission has routinely encouraged buffering along watercourses. Regarding the proposed pool, it was noted there needed to be a greater distance between it and the stream and that the pool equipment had not been shown on the plans.
John Dorr Nature Lab/220 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-07-11/ Demolish and Reconstruct Building: Mr. Talbot, architect, Mr. Sherrat, and Mr. Szymanski, engineer, were present. Mr. Szymanski presented the map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," revised to 4/11/07, which he said included the changes to address concerns raised at the 4/4/07 site inspection. He noted that 1) Twenty stone check dams had been added to protect the catch basins during construction and specifications for them were included. 2) Construction equipment would not be allowed on the east side of the Van Alstyne building. 3) Underground rechargers with filter fabric and stone placed above them were provided for additional protection even though the drainage system had been designed for a 100 year storm and their specifications were provided. 4) The limit of disturbance was modified. 5) No large machinery will be used because there had been concern about the tree roots. Ms. Purnell noted it was important to protect the trees holding the streambank and Mr. Szymanski responded that activities would be kept 35 to 40 feet from the bank. Mr. Picton noted that in general, five older structures close to the stream would be replaced with new ones further away; an improvement from the view point of wetlands protection. The old lodge was entirely within 100 ft. of the stream, but while the new lodge would have a footprint two times the size of the old one, it would be 450 ft. from the stream. Mr. Szymanski pointed out the site for the lodge had been chosen due to its moderate grades. Ms. Purnell requested a written phasing plan to limit the size of the disturbed area at any one time. Mr. Szymanski said he could remove the structures one at a time, but it could all be done and mulched in one day. He said the plan now had three phases, but he would add details for the next meeting. Mr. Ajello was asked to review it to make certain it contained all necessary details. Ms. Purnell was concerned about the demolition of the existing lodge, keeping the equipment in the tight construction envelope, and properly installing and maintaining the erosion controls. If the Commission could be assured these could all be accomplished, then she did not think a professional review would be needed. Mr. LaMuniere said a detailed construction sequence was needed. It was the consensus a public hearing was not required. Mr. Szymanski and Mr. Talbot discussed the feasible and alternate alternatives. Mr. Szymanski noted there would be a future application for a faculty residence that would require a wetlands crossing. Mr. Talbot noted this application also included the enlargement of an existing shed to house equipment.
New Applications
LeWinter/86 Roxbury Road/#IW-07-12/Construct Barn: Mr. Neff, engineer, noted a previous application had been withdrawn. He presented the map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 4/6/07 and noted the size of the barn had been altered and the orientation of the building rotated so it would be further from the wetlands and the intermittent watercourse; 103 ft. from the wetlands and 66 ft. to the watercourse. The map included erosion control details and a sequence of construction. Ms. Purnell asked why the barn could not be attached to the existing house or garage. Mr. Neff stated the new barn would not impact the wetlands or watercourse although it was within the 100 ft. setback area and had been sited to limit the area of disturbance. He also stated the cutting required would be at least 50 ft. from the watercourse. Mr. Picton noted there was no driveway proposed around the barn, but asked why the limit of disturbance had been extended. Mr. Neff responded that access for construction vehicles had been provided on the flattest area on site on the back side of the building. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to review the application for completeness and to make a checklist of items missing. Mr. Picton noted there was also a spring on the property and asked what the distance was between it and the barn. Mr. Neff noted no drainage was proposed around the barn. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.
Walsh/95 Roxbury Road/#IW-07-13/Build Stone Wall: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented the map, "Roadside Stonewall Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 4/6/07. The owners proposed to extend the stone wall from the existing driveway south along Roxbury Road. The wall would be within 100 ft. of the pond and the existing watercourse south of the pond. Ms. Purnell noted there is a lot of erosion resulting from road runoff along the southern boundary line. Mr. Picton asked if any regrading was proposed. Mr. Neff said, no, except for digging down 18 inches for the base of the wall. Ms. Purnell asked if there were plantings proposed for mitigation and said plants around the pond would be beneficial. Mr. Neff said there was not and added no trees would be cut. Mr. Picton wanted to ensure that the work proposed would not change the drainage pattern or the existing grade. Mr. Neff responded that the flow off the road would not change. Ms. Purnell was concerned that the outflow from the road culvert that now sheet flows would be affected. Mr. Neff pointed out the flat area that would take the flow through the wall. Mr. Picton suggested a way to prevent a concentrated flow would be to make large enough openings in the wall so the sheet flow would not have to be redirected. He asked Mr. Ajello to review this with Mr. Neff before the next meeting. Mrs. D. Hill asked for a copy of Mr. Temple's soil report for the file and agreed with Ms. Purnell that mitigation around the pond would be beneficial.
Parsell/13 Top Pasture Road/#IW-07-14/Addition to Existing Dwelling and Installation of Septic System: Mr. and Mrs. Parsell and Mr. Baker, engineer, were present. The map, "Proposed Subsurface Sewage Disposal System," by Curtis Jones, revised to 4/11/07 was reviewed. Mr. Baker noted that wetlands had been flagged along the southern property border, at the culvert outlet beyond the northern boundary line, and on the adjacent property to the west. He proposed a 2 bedroom apartment addition with breezeway and enlarged garage and the installation of an additional septic system. Ms. Purnell asked if the septic tank and pump chamber could be moved out of the 100 ft. upland review area. Mr. Baker noted the limitations on the property due to the required setbacks from the proposed building and the existing septic system and well. He also noted the grade runs west to east so that if the tank were moved it would be upgrade of the fields, which would increase the required setback and make it more difficult to maintain. Ms. Purnell asked for a written analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives such as siting the addition on the side of the property away from the wetlands. Mr. Ajello noted a kitchen addition to the existing house was also proposed, but was not shown on the map. Mr. Baker submitted a copy of the soil scientist's report. A site inspection was scheduled for April 18, 2007 at 4:45 p.m.
Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Trenching of Wetlands: Mr. Andersson, owner of the farm, was present. Mr. Picton noted Mr. Ajello had stopped the ditching in the wetlands and said the Commission would protect them from being drained. Mr. Andersson presented some photos of the fields and described the measures he had taken over the years to control the invasive species on the property. He said his goal was to keep the meadow dry so that it can be mowed once a year with a brush hog. Ms. Purnell suggested a sickle mower could be used instead. Mr. Picton noted the clearing of invasives in and around wetlands, the ditching to keep the meadow dry, the soil disturbance below the big pond, and the clearing farther back on the property closer to the larger wetlands in the rear appeared to be regulated activities and the Commission was justified in checking them out. Ms. Purnell asked if Mr. Andersson had received a citation. Mr. Ajello said he had not. Mr. Picton stated if the areas in question were found to be wetlands and the work had been done without permits, it was likely a citation would be issued. A site inspection was scheduled for April 18, 2007 at 5:15 p.m.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory: Mr. DiBenedetto said he disagreed with the first paragraph of the 4/4/07 site inspection minutes and he submitted several sheets of undated, unlabeled photos. He said for the record the site report was inaccurate and not factual. Mr. Picton noted, however, that five commissioners had approved it. Mr. DiBenedetto said there were piles of debris where the Commission said there were none and that he had left eight dead trees uncut. He said the Commission's claim that he removed the understory and cut down saplings was not true. He also stated it had been the recommendation of the Commission to use seed to stabilize the disturbed areas. He said he removed the invasives by hand, sodded the area, and then mowed it. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello if the permit for the pilot area specified how the wetlands area was to be treated. Mr. Ajello said a rough and varied border around the wetlands was to remain, a buffer was to be left around the intermittent stream, and 10% of the dead trees were to remain. A colored site plan showing the flagged wetlands was reviewed. Ms. Purnell read the 2/03 approval, which included provisions that no work should be done in the marked wetlands, the buffer areas were to remain, the trees to be removed first had to be OK'd by Mr. Ajello, and the Commission would evaluate the effectiveness of the work done. She also read from the 3/03 enforcement report and noted that although photo documentation had been required throughout the project, there were only before photos in the file. Mr. DiBenedetto said vines were removed from the trees and the trees were pruned and fed and added he had the right to express his opinion, which was based on scientific data. Mr. Picton agreed the Commission permitted the removal of invasives in the pilot area, but asked if it had approved the planting of grass. Mr. Ajello said the Commission did not recommend planting grass and Ms. Purnell pointed out the wetlands plants in that area in the before photos. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello if he had confirmed that Mr. DiBenedetto had done no work in the wetlands areas shown in red on the map. Mr. Ajello said he had been unable to do so because it was difficult to determine where the wetlands were on site. Mr. Picton said it was obvious from the photos taken that the streambelt had not been left uncut. Ms. Purnell suggested several times that the first step in the enforcement process should be the reflagging of the wetlands. Mr. Picton noted there had been new clearing in the interior of the property. Mr. Bedini noted the problem with the photos taken by Mr. DiBenedetto was that they did not indicate where they were taken from or what direction they were facing and so he suspected the Commission and Mr. DiBenedetto were not talking about the same areas. Mr. Picton read from the 4/4/07 minutes regarding the condition of the interior of the property where almost all of the understory and wetlands species had been cut along several intermittent streams. Ms. Purnell pointed out these were areas #9, #8, and #6 on the map. Mr. DiBenedetto maintained he had cut only dead ash trees in these areas. The commissioners maintained they saw evidence that large live trees had been cut and also many plants in addition to invasives. Mr. Picton suggested the Commission retain a consultant to advise it how the wetlands areas should be restored to maintain their function and quality and how to restore the understory according to the objectives of the pilot program. He said the restoration work would be bonded. He advised Mr. DiBenedetto that no more work could be done until this matter had been resolved and that the Commission's consultant would be hired at the owner's expense. Mr. DiBenedetto said he would hire his own consultant and "go further if need be." The Commission said it was prepared to do the same. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to contact a consultant to evaluate the work done, to determine whether the work done complied with the permit granted, and to determine the restoration work to be required and the amount of the bond that should be posted to cover the cost of the work to be done. Ms. Purnell pointed out that in terms of orientation it was imperative to replace the wetlands flags in the field so that exact locations could be identified. She then noted that only two of the current commissioners had seen the site before the pilot project began. She said the character of the understory was very different now; that it used to have a thick duff layer and that Mr. DiBenedetto had extended the clearing into area #4. Mr. DiBenedetto again said his only activity had been to remove invasives and he had done nothing improper. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to issue a legal enforcement order so that a show cause hearing could be held at the next meeting. Mr. Ajello said the order would include the requirement that the wetlands be reflagged. Mr. LaMuniere and Mrs. D. Hill stressed that the soil scientist hired must be respected by the Commission. It was the consensus that Mr. Jontos should be hired and that he should be asked to flag the wetlands and address wetlands character and function issues.
Rubler/240 Wykeham Road/Driveway Washout: Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Esker, contractor, were present. The map, "Site Drainage Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 4/10/07 was reviewed. He detailed the additions to the plan; a cross section of the proposed swale, a note that the inside driveway embankment is to be stabilized with vegetation; planting plan to be prepared later, and details of the proposed retaining wall on the east side of the house. He said he was revising the drainage calculations and was working on drainage plans on the south side of the house. He also noted that progress was being made with the stabilization of the site and that the washout had occurred under unusual weather conditions.
He explained some of the driveway would be narrowed, a crown would be installed so runoff would not channel down the center, and a swale would be installed on its south side. Mr. Picton asked for a construction narrative on how the swale would be constructed without additional disturbance during storms. He asked if Mr. Neff had found the culvert opening and asked him to make sure it was functioning properly. Mr. Picton observed it looked like the proposed terraces were to extend the yard rather than to reduce the grade of the slope. Mr. Neff said the grades existed prior to the Rubler's purchase of the property, the excavation had occurred at the top of the slope, and silt fence had been installed at the bottom. Mr. Picton said the question of how to stabilize the 2:1 slope had to be addressed because the large cracks in the new material were indicative of slope failure. He recommended that a bond be posted to ensure the stabilization work would be done without mishap. Mr. Esker, new project manager, said the previous problems were due in part to lack of supervision, which he would now provide, so asked that be considered in lieu of a bond. Mr. Picton explained bonding is routine, is not punitive, and secures the proper completion of the work. It was the consensus to require a $10,000 bond.
MOTION: To set a $10,000 bond for Rubler/240 Wykeham Road. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. D. Hill read the 4/11/07 letter from Mr. Rubler in which he disagreed with Mr. Ajello's assessment of the situation. Mr. Picton asked for details of the proposed swale and how it would be stabilized until the grass grows. Mr. Neff stated turf reinforcement matting would be used. Mr. Picton asked for information on the anticipated flow through the swale so the Commission could determine whether the matting would be adequate. He also asked for an application once the bond has been posted. Mr. Esker agreed to work on the stabilization of the site first and then to apply for the additional activities proposed. He said a well driller would soon be ready to begin drilling for the relocation of the well and that he wanted to begin work on that and repiping the water to the house as soon as possible. Mr. Picton asked for plans on how the drilling mud will be controlled. Mr. Esker asked if Mr. Ajello could approve the plans. Mr. Picton noted the out of control soil conditions on site and asked that the proposed stabilization measures be drawn on a plan to be reviewed by the Commission at the next meeting. Mr. Ajello noted there was no letter of authorization from the Rublers for either Mr. Neff or Mr. Esker. Mr. Picton stated if there were still outstanding issues at the next meeting, he would recommend that the plans be referred to a consulting engineer.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clearing: Mr. Ajello noted Mr. Moore had submitted the required $400 bond and had signed a letter to ensure his cooperation with the work ordered. He also informed the Commission that he had attached the Land Records and had issued a $500 citation. Mr. Bedini asked if any of the required work had been done yet. Mr. Ajello said he was waiting to find a soil scientist to oversee the work, which would have to be done around his schedule. He asked the Commission to recommend a soil scientist. He was advised to call someone with no potential conflict of interest and who doesn't appear often before the Commission.
Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-05-58/Remediation Per Order: Mr. Picton noted Atty. Kelly had been correct when he said at the last meeting that Mr. Fowler had been granted a permit, which stated that he had five years to complete the work applied for. It was the consensus of the commissioners, however, that the remediation should have been done during the last growing season. Mr. Picton suggested a bond be posted so that if the work were not done this year, the Commission could have it completed. Mr. Ajello noted the letter, which served as Mr. Fowler's permit, did not specify when the work had to be done.
MOTION: To direct Mr. Ajello to send a letter to Mr. Fowler/138 Nichols Hill Road to reiterate the original enforcement order and to direct him that the restoration must be completed by the end of June 2007. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Picton did not think a show cause hearing would have to be conducted as this was ongoing enforcement of a previous order. Ms. Purnell suggested the letter state that the Commission had expected the work would be done last year, but was holding off on further enforcement action at this time.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road(141 Shinar Mt. Rd)#IW-04-V8/Repair of Retaining Wall: No additional information had come in since the last meeting.
Collins/323 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Clear Cutting and Soil Disturbance: Mr. Ajello said the citation had been issued and the letter to Mr. Collins written as requested at the last meeting.
Corbo/Nettleton Hollow Road/Driveway: Mr. Ajello said he anticipated a request to release the driveway bond soon. Mr. Picton said it would not be released until the vegetation had grown in and the disturbed areas were stabilized.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory: It was regretted that earlier in the meeting the discussion of this matter with Mr. DiBenedetto had become confrontational. In the future Mr. DiBenedetto may attend the meetings, but not participate in the Commission's discussion. It was noted the Commission would make the determination what must be done and then send him an order to do so. It was the consensus that the photos submitted by the property owner had to be properly identified; the location where they were taken and the direction they were pointing must be marked on the site plan. Ms. Purnell noted it was critically important to have photo documentation, which was currently missing from the file. It was also agreed that the reflagging of the wetlands on site was a priority. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to draw up the list of questions and issues for the consultant to address. The consultant will also set the amount of the bond to be posted.
Feola/84 Carmel Hill Road: There were no further enforcement actions to be taken at this time.
Reinhard and Cremona/Perkins Road/Restoration Plan: Mr. Picton asked if the restoration work had begun. Mr. Ajello said he had obtained permission from Mr. Cavallaro to enter the Reinhardt property through his if necessary. He was also working on getting purchase orders to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Childs will act as the project manager.
DEP Aquatic Pesticide Permits: Mr. Ajello reported that Mr. Gambino, pesticide applicator, will address the Commission on this subject at the next meeting. A letter was also received from Mr. Robinson who thought the treatment of his pond should be grandfathered because he had signed a multi year contract with the pesticide company. It was the consensus that he was not grandfathered and must apply for an Inland Wetlands permit prior to each pesticide application. Mr. Ajello noted that four property owners had been notified that they must apply, but no applications had been received.
Plourde/33 East Shore Road/Unauthorized Clear Cutting: None of the information requested by the Commission at the last meeting had been submitted. Mr. Ajello was asked to file the enforcement order on the Town Land Records.
Steep Rock Assn./River Road/Clearing of "McKennee" field: Mr. Ajello is still trying to set up a meeting with Mrs. Corrigan on site.
Puertas/72 Horse Heaven Road/Unauthorized Clearing: Mr. Ajello said a map that clearly defines the cleared area had been submitted as requested by the Commission.
Other Business
Mr. Picton noted Verizon's cell tower application to the Ct. Siting Council is on file for anyone who wants to review it.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Picton.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: March 21, 2007 March 14, 2007
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./Mrs. Rubler, Mr. Plourde, Mr. DiBenedetto, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Woodward, Mr. Horrigan, Mrs. Matthews, Mr. Reich, Mr. Neff, Mr. Beardsley, Ms. Zinick, Mr. Swanson
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Rubler/240 Wykeham Road/Clearing, Driveway Washout
Mr. Picton called the hearing to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, and Picton and Alternate Thomson for Mrs. Hill. He noted the purpose of the hearing was to provide the property owner with an opportunity to show cause why the 3/5/07 enforcement order should not remain in effect.
Mr. Ajello noted the commissioners all had copies of the order and photos of the site he had taken on 2/22/07 and 3/2/07 were presented to the Commission for review.
Mr. Rubler made a brief statement noting his interest in the environment, apologizing for and explaining the circumstances which resulted in the driveway washout, and offering to work under the direction of Mr. Neff, engineer, and the Commission to resolve the matter as quickly as possible. He also noted temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures had been installed.
Ms. Purnell arrived and was seated.
Mr. Picton asked if there were also problems associated with the clearing done above the driveway. Mr. Ajello said clearing had been done in upland areas, the cleared areas had no leaf or mulch protection, and the soil stockpiles had also been unprotected. Mr. Rubler noted the clearing had been in preparation for a tennis court and that Mr. Neff did not think it had contributed to the driveway problem.
Mr. Picton stated the enforcement order had been justified, the property owner should submit a remediation plan for the Commission's approval, and once approved, the plan should be carried out as soon as possible. Mr. Rubler restated his commitment to work in accordance with the Regulations, but was concerned that the Commission would not let him proceed immediately with the driveway repair work under Mr. Neff's supervision. Mr. Bedini asked if Mr. Neff was preparing a plan. Mr. Rubler said he was. Ms. Purnell noted the temporary erosion controls had to stay in place and the enforcement order would remain in effect until a plan was submitted and approved.
Mr. Beardsley, contractor, submitted photos of the silt fence that, he said, had been installed at the toe of every slope before the driveway repair work had begun and of the temporary erosion control measures that had been installed after the issuance of the order. Mr. Picton asked if Mr. Ajello had inspected the temporary erosion controls. He had not. Mr. Beardsley said the final grading had been held up due to the weather and that the plowing had created an ice dam, which channeled the runoff down the driveway, and resulted in the washout. He said he was offended by the wording of the enforcement order.
Mr. Picton asked Mr. Rubler to coordinate emergency stabilization measures with Mr. Ajello. He said that was all that could be done now; that the driveway work could not continue at this point.
At 7:30 p.m. Mr. Picton closed the show cause hearing.
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 7:31 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, Picton, and Purnell, and Alternate Thomson for Mrs. D. Hill.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: New Applications: 1) Matthews/ 50 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-07-08/Addition to Dwelling, 2) Hochberg/15 Couch Road/#IW-07-09/ Driveway, and 3) Adams/233 West Shore Road/ #IW-07-10/Renovations, Reconfigure Driveway, Inground Pool, Etc. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
Ms. Purnell asked that when applications are submitted after the agenda has been prepared that the date of submission be included in parentheses. Mr. Ajello noted he could not do a review for compleness on applications submitted the day before a meeting.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 2/28/07 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: 3rd Motion: Change: Mr. Charles to Mr. LaMuniere.
2nd line from bottom: Change: stumps to trees.
Page 3: Delete the last sentence.
Under Rising/191 West Shore Road, Mr. LaMuniere suggested that Mr. Ajello send a letter to Mrs. Rising to summarize the Commission's position.
Page 4: Under Tompkins: 2nd sentence: Delete: she thought.
Under Plourde: Correct spelling is Plourde.
12th line: Insert old before foundation.
Page 6: Under Hardy-Gill: Lines 4-5: Should state: he tested for additional wetlands in two areas and found wetlands in one; the heaved pocket down hill of the proposed septic system.
Page 9: Under Steep Rock: Add to the third sentence from the end: ...and it was done under the presumption of clearing a field to its original boundaries on flat land.
Add to the end of the last sentence:
...around the pool.
MOTION: To accept the 2/28/07 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Hardy-Gill/211 Baldwin Hill Road/#IW-07-03/Single Family Dwelling: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented his 3/13/07 letter regarding the prudent and feasible alternative analysis requested by the Commission and the map, "Proposed Plot Plan," by Mr. Szymanski revised to 3/13/07. He summarized five alternative plans using the maps, "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System, Alternative #1, #2, and #3" by Mr. Szymanski dated 12/12/05, 6/7/06, and 1/4/07, and the two versions of the plot plan dated 2/6/07 and 3/13/07. After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Szymanski said he proposed Alternative Plan #5, which addressed many of the comments made by the Commission at previous meetings. Ms. Purnell asked if there would be unanticipated impacts to the wetlands due to the proposed regrading. Mr. Szymanski said there would not because there was an existing stone wall and hundreds of feet between the area to be regraded and the resource. Mr. Picton asked if the length of the driveway could be decreased. Mr. Szymanski again noted the great distance to the wetlands and said he did not think doing so would decrease the impact on the wetlands. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the canopy would be removed. Mr. Szymanski said the canopy would be cut only within the limit of disturbance and said he would add a note on the map that the limit of disturbance line was also the limit of clearing. Ms. Purnell also asked that this be included in the legend and that a note be added that additional clearing of trees or of the understory would require a separate permit. Mr. Picton asked if runoff would be channeled into the wetlands. Mr. Szymanski noted full driveway specs had been submitted and said the runoff would spread out from several relief points; it would not be channelized. Ms. Purnell and Mr. Picton voiced their concern that the notes on the maps were not adequate enough to ensure the drainage system would be constructed so that it would properly function. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to review the technical plans and to make recommendations to the Commission. He wanted to make sure there were specific plans to handle the water both during construction and permanently. Mr. Hardy complained that questions about the driveway hadn't been raised at any of the earlier meetings. It was noted the 65 days in which to consider the application would be up on 3/16 and a request for an extension was needed. Mr. Picton stated he thought Alternative #5 was an improvement over the plans previously reviewed by the Commission.
Tompkins/39 Tompkins Hill Road/#IW-07-05/Driveway: Ms. Purnell recused herself. Mr. Picton said he had driven by the site and had noted there was a lot of fill deposited within 60 feet of the wetlands. Although the fill was stable, water was draining down and carrying mud onto Tompkins Hill Road and to the west. He said, therefore, the details for the driveway surface were very important. Mr. Ajello agreed the fill was stable. Mr. Picton said the driveway runoff had to dissipate, not run in a concentrated channel down the driveway. He also stated the slope below the leak off should be dealt with so there would be no erosion problems. He recommended Mr. Ajello inspect the site and discuss additional measures with the property owner. Mr. LaMuniere noted that any requirements Mr. Ajello thought were necessary would become part of the application. Mr. Picton agreed, but said they had to be drawn on the plan. He noted recent driveway drainage problems in Town and said highly detailed plans for water management should be an automatic requirement for Inland Wetlands applications.
Ms. Purnell was reseated.
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/#IW-07-06/3 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, was present. It was noted the site inspection had been cancelled and was rescheduled for Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Ajello noted a neighbor on Mygatt Road had submitted a letter for the file, citing how his property had suffered from development on Scofield Hill during the past ten years. Mr. Picton noted development can cause downhill impacts and so said the Commission would carefully consider the proposed plans.
New Applications
Brown-Carroll/41 Buffum Road/#IW-07-07/2 Lot Resubdivision: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, pointed out the location of the property on the map, "Overall Site Development Plan," by Mr. Szymanski, revised to 1/24/07. He noted there was a mistake in scale on this map and that almost all of the proposed development was farther than 100 ft. from the watercourse. Mr. Picton asked for the contours downhill of the development area. Ms. Purnell noted the length of the driveway and asked if there was any other configuration that could be used to lessen the impact. Mr. Szymanski responded the driveway had to use the existing access. Mr. Ajello said he had not yet inspected the property. Mr. Picton asked him to check the site, look for nearby wetlands off site, and to determine whether any additional information was needed before the Commission discussed the application. He also noted a site inspection would be deferred until Mr. Ajello had first inspected the property.
Matthews/50 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-07-08/Addition to Dwelling: There was a brief discussion about whether incomplete applications like this one should be added to the agenda or discussed at meetings. Mr. Ajello said since the application had been submitted the day before, he had not yet inspected the site or identified any concerns. The map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 3/8/07 and the existing and proposed site plans by John A. Matthews, dated 1/29/07 were reviewed. Mr. Ajello noted the site was in the vicinity of the Fowler property; an area of complex wetlands. The addition was proposed 55 ft. from flagged wetlands. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to inspect the property, check whether the wetlands were adequately flagged, and prepare a thorough report before the Commission reviewed the application. He said he would not know whether additional information would be required until after the report was completed. Mrs. Matthews complained that the Commission did not schedule a site inspection, but Mr. Picton responded the Commission was attempting to handle applications in an efficient manner.
Hochberg/15 Couch Road/#IW-07-09/Driveway: Mr. Ajello said he had not inspected the property. The map, "Proposed Driveway Plan," by Mr. Szymanski, dated 3/12/07 was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski noted he had submitted a written review of feasible and prudent alternatives and said the proposed plans stopped at the point the driveway leaves the regulated area because there were no plans to extend it beyond that point at this time. Further discussion was tabled until Mr. Ajello has reviewed the application for completeness and conducted a site inspection.
Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-07-10/Renovations, Driveway Reconfiguration, Inground Pool, Etc.: Ms. Zinick, agent, and Mr. Swanson, contractor, were present. It was noted that a preliminary discussion had been held a few weeks ago and that Mr. Ajello had not yet inspected the property. The map, "Site Plan," by Mr. Cheney, dated January 2007 was reviewed. The location of the intermittent watercourses, deck to be demolished, and proposed retaining walls were noted. Ms. Zinick noted the tennis court was not included in the current application. Plans for the driveway were discussed. Ms. Zinick said the replacement of the existing catch basins, reconfiguration of the driveway to curve it around to the east to access the new bays under the carriage house, and the removal of approximately 100 c. yrds. of material and its deposition behind the main building where the existing driveway would be taken out. Mr. Picton said the topos and grading plan had to be shown on the map. Ms. Zinick said the proposed driveway route would come within 6 ft. of the eastern watercourse, but that the applicant planned to place large boulders along the top of the bank to protect it. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to review the plans to determine whether a soil scientist would be required. Ms. Zinick stated a soil scientist had already been on site, but had not yet submitted his sketch map. She said only the watercourses were found; there were no associated wetlands. Renovation of the existing buildings was briefly discussed. The windows and doors on the main building would be replaced. The deck on the boathouse would be rebuilt and a turbidity apron would be installed to protect the lake during this work. It was also noted the existing concrete dock would be covered with mahogany and a large oak tree near the lake would be taken down. She noted all of this work was described in the text accompanying the application form. Ms. Purnell noted the existing coverage is 22.2% and the proposed coverage was less. She asked if the proposed coverage included the future tennis court. Ms. Zinick said it did. Ms. Purnell asked for a copy of Mr. Cheney's coverage calculations. Mr. Picton and Mr. LaMuniere thought detailed information such as the proposed grading should be submitted before a site inspection was scheduled. Ms. Zinick said she would have Mr. Neff provide the contours, but did not think driveway considerations should hold up plans to renovate the boathouse or main building. Mr. Thomson suggested the boathouse be applied for under a separate application. He also asked if power lines or the well would be replaced, what protection measures would be utilized, and what the distances from the proposed work to the watercourses were. He noted the applicant had had just submitted several pages of specifications that the Commission had not yet had an opportunity to review. After a brief discussion it was decided to schedule a site inspection on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. for a quick look at the whole site and a careful look at the boathouse in particular. Mr. Picton said there would be no questions for Mr. Swanson until a comprehensive plan with specific details, proposed areas to be regraded, water runoff management plan, etc. had been submitted.
Enforcement
Plourde/33 East Shore Road/Unauthorized Clearing: Mr. Plourde submitted a letter dated 3/8/07 with attached map indicating where he proposed to plant two red maple trees for remediation. He also presented a copy of a photo, which showed the building that had been on the old foundation on the property. He proposed red maples because he had been advised they do well in wet conditions and they would provide a shade canopy. Mr. Picton read the letter, which also stated the owner would like permission to resume the clean up of debris on the property. Mr. Picton noted the Commission had asked for a restoration plan including the number, size, type, and location of the vegetation to be planted and specifics about how the clean up would progress. Mr. Plourde said he would only remove the stumps that were located within the foundation, there would be no excavation, and he would not expose any soil. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to review the plan and to advise Mr. Plourde if there was anything missing. Ms. Purnell voiced her concern that it would take many years for the canopy to be restored. Mr. Picton asked if the clean up would be done by machine or by hand. Mr. Plourde said he would add to his letter that no heavy equipment would be used on site. Mr. Ajello suggested Mr. Plourde contact Mr. Hayden at NCD to help develop the restoration plan. Mr. LaMuniere asked Mr. Plourde to provide details in his letter and to show the foundation on the site plan. Ms. Purnell said the Commission wanted the function lost to be restored; that larger trees had been cut down and the proposed replacement plantings were not comparable. Mr. Plourde said it would take time for the trees to grow and that he did not plan to plant them until his new building was up so they would not be disturbed by the construction. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to determine whether the two trees proposed in the location on the site plan would be adequate mitigation. When Mr. Plourde objected to Mr. Ajello reviewing his plans, Ms. Purnell volunteered to review the plans and letter and inspect the site before the next meeting.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory, Unauthorized Clearing: Mr. DiBenedetto submitted seven sheets of photos, which, he said, showed the clearing done was not as bad as the enforcement officer had reported. He said he had taken down 35 dead ash trees and had removed invasive species. Ms. Purnell asked if the area under the notice of violation was the same area where there had been previous enforcement action. Mr. DiBenedetto said the current area was closer to the road. He submitted material from the United States National Arboretum, dated 3/14/06 and the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources, undated, regarding invasive species. Mr. Picton said the Commission agreed invasive plants should be removed, but not the entire understory. Mr. DiBenedetto noted he had done a pilot program for the removal of invasives, but the Comm. had told him since he had replaced the invasives with grass, he could not continue. Ms. Purnell said the plan had been to let the natural understory grow. Mr. DiBenedetto argued that it was his land and he had already spent thousands on landscaping. He said the trees cut would be replaced with shadblow and other good canopy trees. The Commission requested a detailed map. Ms. Purnell asked if trees in the wetlands had been cut. Mr. Ajello presented a section of a survey map on which he outlined the cut area and nine photos he had taken on 3-8-07. That area included both wetlands and the regulated area. Ms. Purnell voiced her displeasure as Mr. DiBenedetto knew he was conducting a regulated activity, but did not apply for a permit. She said the ecological functions were slowly being encroached upon and the Commission had been correct in denying Mr. DiBenedetto's last application. Mr. DiBenedetto stated he had not disturbed the wetlands with any equipment. Mr. Picton noted in the pilot project area the natural native forest understory had not been restored as required. He asked Mr. Ajello to investigate the compliance of the pilot project with the permit granted. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 5:15 p.m. Mr. Picton advised Mr. DiBenedetto not to do any more work in wetlands or within 100 ft. of wetlands without a permit. Mr. DiBenedetto said he would work on a remediation plan. Mr. Picton asked that the leaf litter and soil cover be left in place so the forest understory could regrow.
Rubler/240 Wykeham Road/Clearing and Driveway Washout: Mr. Picton summarized what had been agreed upon at the show cause hearing: 1) Mr. Neff would work on a permanent water management plan, 2) There would be no further work until the Commission approved that plan, and 3) Installation of temporary stabilization measures would be the only activity that could be done prior to the approval of Mr. Neff's plan. Mr. Rubler complained that his driveway was covered with hay bales and mud. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Neff for a list of both short term and long term recommendations on how to reconfigure the driveway so that runoff no longer channels water and for a management plan that would work whether or not there is snow. Ms. Purnell also asked for plans to stabilize the steep slopes that had been disturbed. Mr. Ajello will review the recommendations before they are considered by the Commission.
MOTION: To uphold the 3/5/07 Enforcement Order issued to Mr. Rubler for erosion and sedimentation at 240 Wykeham Road. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road (141 Shinar Mt. Rd.) #IW-04-V8/Repair of Retaining Wall: It was noted Mr. Pawlak's 2/19/07 report had been circulated at the last meeting. Ms. Purnell said Mr. Pawlak's field was not riparian restoration, his report did not address the specific questions raised by the Commission, and she thought a fluvial geomorphologist should be consulted. Mr. Picton and Mr. LaMuniere agreed. Mr. Thomson did not think the Town culvert should be aimed at the Carter streambank. Ms. Purnell asked if Mr. Pawlak had received a copy of the Commission's letter as he made no reference to the questions raised and asked that he submit a resume. It was agreed Mr. Pawlak should be sent a copy of the letter so that he could answer the questions or state that he is not qualified to do so. Mr. Picton discussed the property owner's liability for future adverse impacts resulting from the improper construction of the retaining wall. He suggested the Commission consider requiring a bond and/or filing a letter on the land records that the wall had not been built in compliance with the permit issued. Ms. Purnell advised him to consult with Atty. Zizka on the proper legal procedure since the Commission had not enforced what it permitted.
Feola/84 Carmel Hill Road/Restoration of Vernal Pool: Mr. Ajello noted Mr. Feola had not paid the second fine and a notice had already been posted on the land records.
Puertas/72 Horse Heaven Road/Unauthorized Clearing: Mr. Ajello reported he had sent a letter requesting the information that the Commission indicated was needed at the last meeting.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clear Cutting: It was noted Mr. Potter had not contacted Mr. Moore and Mr. Ajello had not sent him the letter requested by the Commission at the last meeting. Mr. Picton noted at the last meeting it had been decided that if there was no written agreement by Mr. Moore and if he had not posted a bond by tonight's meeting, a third citation would be issued and a notice posted on the land records. It was the consensus to put this off until the next meeting as the letter had not been sent.
Reinhardt and Cremona/Perkins Road: Mr. Ajello passed out copies of Mr. Childs' review and estimates and said Mr. Childs would attend the next meeting to answer the Commission's questions. The Commissioners will read the review before the next meeting and will discuss it then. Questions for Mr. Childs should be sent in before then. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to analyze the report for the next meeting.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street: Mr. LaMuniere thought the photos presented earlier by Mr. DiBenedetto showed that more than dead ash trees had been cut. Mr. Thomson noted Mr. DiBenedetto agreed to work on a restoration plan, and asked if the Commission should direct him to qualified professionals. Mr. Ajello thought the Commission should instead ask a qualified professional to review the plan when it is submitted. Mr. Picton discussed possible measures the Commission could take such as requiring the restoration to be done under the supervision of a professional such as Mrs. Corrigan or Mr. Childs, requiring the mapping of all the wetlands on the property, and requiring a bond for the restoration work. The commissioners will consider these possibilities after conducting the site inspection. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello for a written analysis of if and how what the Commission permitted for the pilot program differs from the work Mr. DiBenedetto actually did on site and that he complete this review before the 3/21 site inspection.
Steep Rock Assn./River Road/"McKennee" Field: Mr. Thomson noted the line of trees cut along the edge of the field were large enough so that it was evident the farm field had not extended that far in recent memory. He thought Steep Rock should be held to the same standards as everyone else in Town. Mr. Picton asked that Steep Rock be advised that it must apply to the Commission for any activity within 50 ft. of a watercourse and that Mr. Ajello include this in the letter to Steep Rock he had been asked to send at the last meeting.
Other Business
Aquatic Pesticide Permit/Robinson/Clark Road: Ms. Purnell asked Mr. Ajello if he had distributed the undated DEP memo re: aquatic pesticide permit applications and asked again that he do so. She read a section of this memo, which said that the DEP was interested in obtaining local knowledge and that municipalities may require Inland Wetlands applications for this activity. The Robinson herbicide application was discussed. It was noted there was a "wetland complex" on the Clark Road property. Ms. Purnell voiced her concern that the pond was connected with other wetlands on the property. Mr. Picton noted in the past the Commission had made the distinction between ponds in the flow of a stream vs. isolated ponds. Mr. LaMuniere agreed he would not favor the use of an herbicide in any pond that is part of a wetlands network. Mr. Ajello recommended this be added to the Regulations when they are revised. Ms. Purnell said property owners should be advised to work on the causes of algae problems instead of on the symptoms. It was noted this was a matter that should be included on the policy list that Mr. Bedini and Ms. Purnell are drafting and that any policy statement should be backed up with sources.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Thomson.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: March 8, 2007 February 28, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Ms. Purnell
MEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. D. Hill
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Potter
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Thomson
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Alabiso, Mrs. Smith, Mr. Plouride, Mr. Szymanski
Mr. Bedini, acting chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, and Picton and Alternate Potter for Mrs. Hill.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: 1) New Application: Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/#IW-07-06/3 Lot Subdivision and 2) Other Business: Memo from Conservation Commission re: Town Initiated Open Space Preservation. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Potter, and passed 4-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 1/24/07 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Potter, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To accept the 1/30/07 72 Horse Heaven Road site
inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Charles,
seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To accept the 1/30/07 Steep Rock Assn. site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 4-0.
Mr. Potter noted for the record concerning the Steep Rock site inspection minutes, that normally tree stumps are not measured at ground level, so he thought the stumps were actually 6 inches in diameter at most.
Other Business
Report on 1 Green Hill Road Soil Contamination Clean Up: Ms. Alabiso from Groundwater and Enviromental Services, Inc. answered questions from the commissioners.
Mr. Picton: Is there a site plan?
Ms. Alabiso: There was no formal survey yet.
Mr. Potter: How close will the excavation be to the river?
Ms. Alabiso: The excavation would be approximately 200 ft. away, however, treated water would be discharged through the catch basin directly to the Shepaug. Before discharging into the Shepaug, the water will be run through a sediment filter and three carbon vessels in series. She thought this was overkill to treat all contaminants found in the initial samples, which included VOC's, petroleum hydro carbons, metals, and PAH's normally associated with kerosene and waste oils.
Mr. Potter: How deep were the contaminants found?
Ms. Alabiso: They were found 12 ft. below the ground soils and 22 ft. down in the water test. She noted all the data was draft information at this point.
Mr. Picton: Will the building be taken down first?
Ms. Alabiso: The lifts and floor drains will be removed, but the building will remain. When the excavation is completed, it will be backfilled, concreted, and sealed. The tanks and pump islands will also be removed.
Mr. Picton: Was the groundwater contaminated below 12 ft?
Ms. Alabiso: From 12 to 22 ft. down VOC's were found. She then detailed how the carbon filters would work. The treatment system was designed to remove all of the contaminants. Water samples will be collected between each carbon filter and after the water has run through the complete system and it will not be discharged into the catch basin until the test results have been reviewed. If it is found that all of the contaminants have been removed, the water will be released at the rate of 10 gal/min. Tests will be taken every 24 hours for the first 5 days and then every other day for 2 weeks. She did not expect to encounter any floating gas, but said the catch basin would be monitored for odors and if found, the discharge would be discontinued.
Mr. Bedini: How long would the water be pumped?
Ms. Alabiso: She was not sure of the vertical and horizontal extent of the plume, so she was not sure how long the pumping would continue. She said ORC would be pumped in to help activate the bio remediation.
Ms. Purnell arrived at this point and was seated.
Ms. Alabiso: She stated there would be no contaminants whatsoever when the water was discharged to the catch basin and that it would be drinkable.
Ms. Purnell: What will happen if you find elevated levels of the contaminants?
Ms. Alabiso: She did not expect this would happen, but said if it did, the discharge would cease and more filters or a larger filter would be brought in.
Mr. Picton: He stated he assumed the proposed treatment system could be modified to treat any other contaminants if they were discovered later in the process.
Mr. Ajello: What would happen if pipes, drains, or conduits were encountered during the excavation?
Ms. Alabiso: Initially all soils would be removed and the pipe or drain would have to be taken care of later.
Ms. Purnell: Has the DEP granted the permit?
Ms. Alabiso: The DEP discharge permit is automatic when the application is turned in. The ORC application was submitted to the DEP on 2/1 and usually takes 2 to 3 months to process.
Mr. Ajello: Were the wells in the area tested for base line data?
Ms. Alabiso: She thought this might be a DEP requirement; she was not sure.
Mrs. Hill: She noted someone from the DEP had been to the Health Dept. researching the wells in the immediate area.
Ms. Alabiso: She said ground would be broken inside the building the next day (3/1) and the dewatering system would be delivered next week. She said when the outside work begins the ground and stockpiles would be covered with poly sheeting, but for the most part the excavated material would be loaded directly to trucks. The excavated areas would be filled with a compacted bank run gravel.
Mr. Bedini thanked Ms. Alabiso for attending the meeting to answer the Commission's questions.
Pending Applications
Rising/191 West Shore Road/#IW-06-46/Repair Septic System: Mr. Ajello said he had spoken with the engineer and there would be no additional information submitted and no further work done. It was noted the Commission had raised specific questions, but had received no answers. Ms. Purnell recommended since there was insufficient information submitted, the Commission deny the application without prejudice. It was also noted in this case conservation would be a feasible and prudent alternative.
MOTION: To deny without prejudice Application #IW-06-46 submitted by Mrs. Rising to repair the septic system at 191 West Shore Road because insufficient information was submitted; the applicant had been asked specific questions, which were not addressed. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Tompkins/39 Tompkins Hill Road/#IW-07-05/Driveway: Mr. Ajello noted this was an after the fact application. Ms. Purnell recused herself because she thought the applicants had been "uncomfortable" with her participation in a previous application. Mr. Ajello said he had originally told the property owners they did not need an application because the map they presented showed an existing wood road 100 ft. from the wetlands for the driveway location. However, Mr. Tompkins had deposited more fill than had been anticipated to build up the driveway, which brought the base of the slopes to within 60 ft. of wetlands. He noted the slopes were seeded and mulched and would be planted with non invasive species. He saw no impact to the wetlands. Mr. Potter thought it would cause far more disturbance if the fill had to be dug out now. Mr. Bedini asked the Commissioners to drive by on their own before the next meeting and tabled further discussion until that time.
Ms. Purnell was reseated.
Enforcement
Plouride/33 East Shore Road/Unauthorized Clear Cutting: Mr. Plouride was present. Mr. Ajello stated no new information had been submitted for the file, although Mr. Ajello had issued an enforcement order that had detailed what the Commission had requested. The 1/16/07 enforcement order was reviewed and it was noted the following had been requested by 2/21/07: 1) a map with all pertinent information, 2) a restoration plan by a qualified expert, 3) an erosion and sedimentation control plan, and 4) clean up of the debris on site. Mr. Ajello noted a show cause hearing had been conducted, but Mr. Plouride had not attended. Mr. Plouride stated the work he had done had been to cut down trees leaning over his driveway and foundation and to clear the brush to reach those trees. He thought he was making improvements to the property and said the debris would have been cleaned up by now if he had not received the cease and desist order. He said he was not clearcutting and some of the trees removed were already dead. Mr. Potter asked if he had cut between the river and the driveway. Mr. Plouride said he had not. Ms. Purnell asked why a restoration plan had not been submitted. Mr. Plouride said he had no problem with planting a few replacement shrubs and trees. Ms. Purnell said restoration of the canopy, soil stabilization, and buffer issues had to be addressed. Mr. Picton agreed. Mr. Plouride asked if he could plant fruit trees. Mr. Ajello said these would not restore the high canopy that had been lost. After a brief discussion it was agreed replacement with deciduous trees would be acceptable. Mr. Picton asked for a written restoration plan, which would include the number, type, size, and location of the trees to be planted. Ms. Purnell asked that Mr. Plouride be provided with native plant information. Ms. Purnell noted the enforcement order would remain in effect until the Commission approved a restoration plan. Mr. Plouride said he understood.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road/#IW-04-V8/Repair of Retaining Wall: The 2/19/07 report from Mr. Pawlak of Ct. Ecosystems, LLC. was distributed to the commissioners. It will be discussed at the next meeting. Ms. Purnell questioned whether Mr. Pawlak had the proper credentials to address the physical stream flow questions raised by the Commission.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Clearcutting, Deposition: Mr. Ajello had not heard from Mr. Moore since the last meeting and Mr. Potter had not discussed the matter with him. Ms. Purnell noted Mr. Moore had previously agreed to the procedure outlined in Mr. Ajello's 11/6/06 enforcement letter. Mr. Ajello thought the Commission should be consistent and require a soil scientist be present to direct the work like it would require for any property owner in Town. Ms. Purnell noted it was important to require a soil scientist because attorneys often question the Commission's expertise, so a certified expert would be needed if this matter should go to court. Mr. Ajello noted the Commission had been focusing on one section that had been filled, but said Mr. Moore had deposited additional fill since he had first been made aware of the violation. The map, "Site Analysis Plan," (portion only) showing the difference between the July 2006 vs the August 1999 flagged wetlands was reviewed. Mr. Ajello pointed out an area of concern between wetlands flags #41-47 in the vicinity of the pig pen as well as other areas of discrepancy. Ms. Purnell noted that the original flagged wetlands were further to the NE than had been shown on the 2006 map by Nutmeg Soil Services. The commissioners discussed whether it was necessary for a soil scientist to stake the areas where the fill is to be removed and to determine to what depth it will be removed. It was the consensus a soil scientist was necessary and that Mr. Moore should post a bond to cover the cost. It was also decided that if Mr. Moore had not agreed in writing to the procedures outlined in Mr. Ajello's letter and had not posted the bond by the next meeting, a notice of violation would be placed on the Town Land Records and a second citation issued. Mr. Moore will be notified by certified mail of this decision.
MOTION: Regarding Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: To require that by the March 14, 2007 meeting Mr. Moore 1) post a $400 bond and 2) sign an agreement to proceed with the restoration process outlined in Mr. Ajello's 11/6/06 letter with the understanding that failure to do by that date will result in 1) the filing of the enforcement letter on the Town Land Records and 2) the issuance of a second citation to Mr. Moore. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Hardy-Gill/211 Baldwin Hill Road/#IW-07-03/Single Family Dwelling:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented the map, "Proposed Plot Plan," by Mr. Szymanski, revised to 2/6/07. He noted that since the last meeting Mr. Temple, soil scientist, had reexamined and had found wetlands in two areas; 1) the vicinity of the footing drain outlet and 2) the heaved pocket down hill of the proposed septic system. Therefore, the septic system had been moved back up the hill where it would be 77 ft. from the wetland pocket. The reserve system would be 63 ft. from the wetlands. Fifty feet had been maintained between the wetlands and the proposed limit of disturbance. Mr. Szymanski had added a note to the map that the limit of disturbance was to be staked in the field and inspected by the WEO prior to the start of construction. It was noted the house location was unchanged, the septic system would encroach 50 ft. into the upland review area, and the regrading necessary for the house would encroach 55 ft. Ms. Purnell asked if feasible and prudent alternatives had been considered. Mr. Szymanski said the house could be located further up the hill, but then a serpentine driveway would be needed to comply with the 15% maximum grade requirement. Ms. Purnell noted almost all of the proposed development was within the regulated area. Mr. Picton asked why the house and driveway could not be moved to the widest non regulated section of the lot. Mr. Szymanski stated the soils were not as good there, the disturbed area would then be increased due to a higher water table, and the septic system had to meet a 10 ft. setback from the boundary line, which would bring it further down the hill, closer to the wetlands pocket. Ms. Purnell noted the Commission was concerned about the long term effects of the development envelope so close to the watercourses and seeps on both sides of the property. Mr. Potter saw no problem with the proposal as it was an engineered plan, but Ms. Purnell and Mr. Picton noted engineers don't always make their plans from a wetlands point of view. Ms. Purnell asked for the usual written analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives. Mr. Picton asked if the development envelope could be compacted. Alternative locations for the soil stockpiles were discussed. Mr. Szymanski noted if the development was moved to the north, the grading would get steeper and he could not grade over the property line or have a cut 50 ft. downhill of a septic system per the state heath code. Mr. LaMuniere asked where the trees would be cut. Mr. Szymanski said they would be cut only within the limit of disturbance. Ms. Purnell asked for a note on the map that there would be no landscaping outside the limit of disturbance. Mr. Szymanski agreed to put this on the map. Mr. Potter pointed out the plans had been revised to include all the wetlands on the property and all proposed development was at least 50 ft. from them. He made a motion to approve the application as presented, but there was no second. Mr. Picton thought an alternate plan moving the septic system upslope of the wetlands pocket and altering the driveway route would be possible. He asked that more thought be given to moving the development away from the down slope wetlands. Mr. LaMuniere was not sure that modification would result in better protection of the wetlands. Ms. Purnell asked if the septic galleys could be shortened. Mr. Szymanski warned he might have to increase the size of the house to five bedrooms to recoup the cost of any additional septic testing that would be required. Given the nature of the wetlands and constraints on the property, Mr. Ajello pointed out two feasible and prudent alternatives: 1) decreasing the size of the house to three bedrooms and 2) shortening the driveway to enter a front facing garage. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Szymanski to take a second look at the proposal and explain in writing why it can not be changed, if it, indeed, can't be changed.
New Application
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/#IW-07-06/3 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Szymanski presented the map, "Overall Site Development Plan," dated 2/27/07, by Mr. Szymanski. He noted a watercourse flows through the central section of the property and there were seeps in both the center and northeast corner of the property. Two wetlands crossings were proposed for the two proposed interior lots. The first crossing would have a bridge so there would be no direct impact to the wetlands. For the second crossing an oversized concrete box culvert was proposed. He indicated he had considered a more serpentine route, but that would have increased the amount of disturbance within the upland review area. He noted the driveway grade would be 15% in some locations and said he would provide more details for the proposed cuts. The 2004 Stormwater Management Guidelines would be followed and a 1 ft. wide X 1 ft. deep grass lined swale would be installed on the downhill slope of the driveway and within 20 ft. of the modified rip rap outlet. Ms. Purnell asked if a "softer" alternative to the rip rap could be used. Mr. Szymanski said he would specify a non limestone lining be used. He also said he would provide a full construction sequence. He noted he would propose a seepage envelope where there would be excavation in the wetlands. He said this would help to provide a stable base for hydro connectivity. Ms. Purnell questioned whether the proposed open space was appropriate since much of it was wetlands, which were already protected. It was decided to inspect the site before determining whether a public hearing should be held. The site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, March 13, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.
Enforcement
Caco/16 Flirtation Avenue/Unauthorized Clearing, Grading: Mr. Ajello had not contacted Mrs. Caco.
Collins/323 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Clearcutting, Soil Disturbance: Mr. Ajello noted he had sent a letter to Mr. Collins. Mr. Picton noted there had been clearcutting and operation of equipment in the wetlands, but no citation had been issued as is usually done when there is work in actual wetlands. Mr. Picton said the reason a citation had not been issued was because the property owner had said he would submit a restoration plan. However, the plan had not been submitted. Mr. Ajello was requested to issue a citation and to send a letter stating the reason for it and to request that the owner let the understory grow back.
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Soil Disturbance, Filling: Mr. Ajello said there had been no progress; that Mr. Wright and the Town Road crew had not been working together to resolve the matter, although it was not the right time of year to do the required work. Mr. Picton asked him to remind Mr. Wright the agreed upon work must be completed.
Yourwith/259 New Milford Turnpike/Unauthorized Excavation and Installation of Drain: Mrs. Yourwith discussed with Mr. Ajello the possibility of either installing a rain garden or extending the swale parallel to the stream to use for infiltration. Mr. Ajello had suggested she consult with NCD or some of the local contractors. She will draft a basic plan and hopefully do the work in the spring. Mr. Ajello said she had been willing to shorten the pipe.
Puertas/72 Horse Heaven Road/Unauthorized Clearing: Atty. Fisher had represented Mr. Puertas at the last meeting, but could not be present tonight. Mr. Ajello noted Mr. Puertas was currently under a notice of violation and asked how the Commission would proceed now that it had conducted a site inspection. Mr. Bedini noted the area cleared was not in clear view of the proposed house site. After a discussion it was the consensus of the commissioners to approve the following motion:
MOTION: To instruct Mr. Ajello to issue a citation to Mr. Puertas for the clearing of wetlands at 72 Horse Heaven Road and to inform him by letter to 1) leave the stumps in place, 2) not to widen the cleared area, 3) to leave the low shrubby vegetation in place, and 4) to submit a map showing the extent of the clearing and mitigation. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Steep Rock Assn./River Road-"McKennee Field"/Clearing: Mr. Ajello thought clearing around a potential vernal pool might be a more serious violation than the cutting along the streambank. He said he had asked Mrs. Corrigan to determine whether a vernal pool existed, but due to the weather, she had not yet done so. Mr. Potter noted they had cut around the pool, not in it. Mr. Potter recommended the Commission establish a policy regarding cutting on historical lands that have been cleared in the past. He did not think property owners should have to come in for permits for the once a year maintenance of fields. Mr. LaMuniere noted the Commission has always required a permit for mowing within 30 ft of wetlands, but said as part of the approval, the owners were told they may mow once a year. Mrs. Hill noted in this case, Mrs. D. Hill had been concerned that the field was being extended toward the river. Ms. Purnell stated Steep Rock has management plans and so recommended the Commission consult with the Assn. to learn of its plans for this area. Mr. Picton did not think the work done merited a citation because although the cutting had occurred in the streamside buffer, it was 30 ft. from the river. He recommended that Steep Rock be advised about the importance of enhancing streamside buffers. He asked for a management plan for the vernal pool area if it is found to be a vernal pool and possibly the replanting of the cut buffer.
MOTION: To send Steep Rock Assn. a letter on streamside buffer enhancement practices and to advise it that the Commission is investigating the possibility there is a vernal pool on the River Road, "McKennee field" property, and if it is determined this is so, Steep Rock will be required to submit a management plan to the Commission for review. By Mr. Potter, seconded by Ms. Purnell, and passed 5-0.
Reinhardt and Cremona/Perkins Road: Mr. Ajello said he had not received a report from Mr. Childs. Mr. Picton said progress was quickly needed or else another consultant would have to be hired. He requested that the outline and estimate be submitted by the next meeting. Mr. Ajello will contact Mr. Childs.
Feola/84 Carmel Hill Road/Restoration of Vernal Pool: Mr. Ajello said he had sent another letter and a second citation.
DiBenedetto/213 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory: Mr. Picton noted this had been discussed at the last meeting and Mr. Ajello had been asked at that time to check for compliance with the permit granted. It was not thought that converting the understory to lawn had been permitted. Ms. Purnell agreed that what now existed on site bore no resemblance to what had been permitted.
Spring Hill Farm, LLC./69 Whittlesey Road/#IW-05-74: Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello if he had inspected the site as had been requested by the Commission. Mr. Ajello said he had and noted he had met with the new contractor. Mr. Picton and Ms. Purnell asked him to write reports of his inspections and his findings for the file.
Other Business
Lake Waramaug Task Force Report re: Invasive Weed Eradication Program: Mr. Ajello had received an email dated 2/28/07 from Mr. McGowan explaining that 1) the invasive weeds in question were mainly in Warren and Kent, 2) the Task Force would try other methods of removal such as laying down bottom barriers, hand pulling, and using a hand held suction harvester before the application of an herbicide, 3) the Commission would be kept posted regarding future action.
Revision of the Regulations: There was a brief discussion regarding whether to resume work on this project before Mrs. D. Hill returned. As Ms. Purnell also was not available for the immediate future and Mrs. Hill had the notes of the last meeting, it was decided to resume work after April 8th.
Ct. Bar Assoc. Seminar: The commissioners were reminded this general land use seminar would be held on March 17th. Ms. Purnell said she had signed up and Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Picton said they would also like to attend.
Inland Wetland Commissioner Training: Mr. Ajello noted the Town would soon receive sign up information about the upcoming program. He noted each Commission is entitled to one free participant and urged Mr. Potter to attend as he is the newest Commission member. Mr. Potter said to sign him up and he would attend if possible.
Members/Alternates: Mr. Ajello urged Mr. Picton to contact Ms. Coe to find out if she would continue to serve as an Alternate. She was considered to be a valuable commissioner, but has not been able to attend meetings for several months.
Policies and Procedures: Mr. Picton noted Ms. Purnell has been working to update the Commission's policies and procedures, which when completed, will help the Commission to deal with issues in a consistent manner.
Communications
Mr. Picton reported Mrs. Payne had circulated a document concerning procedures for the evaluation and acceptance of conservation easements. This matter will be discussed at the next meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Picton.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: January 31, 2007 January 24, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr LaMuniere, Mr. Picton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Potter, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Ms. Coe
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Smith, Mr. Watson, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Palella, Mr. Shapiro, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Neff, Ms. Zinick
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Plourde/33 East Shore Road/Unauthorized Clear Cutting
Mr. Picton called the hearing to order at 6:55 p.m. and seated Members LaMuniere and Picton and Alternates Thomson for Mrs. Hill and Potter for Ms. Purnell.
Mr. Ajello noted the purpose of the show cause hearing was to give Mr. Plourde the opportunity to explain why the enforcement order issued to him should not remain in effect. The 1/16/07 order was sent to Mr. Plourde by certified mail.
Mr. Picton noted the clearing had been a regulated activity and the enforcement order had been warranted. He noted Mr. Plourde was not present.
Mr. Ajello suggested the Commission continue the hearing in case Mr. Plourde had not received his notification. It was the consensus to complete the hearing this evening. Mr. Picton said Mr. Plourde could make a request for a second hearing if there was good reason.
MOTION: To close the Show Cause Hearing for Plourde/33 East Shore Road/Unauthorized Clear Cutting. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4-0.
Mr. Picton closed the hearing at 7:00 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 Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and seated Members LaMuniere and Picton and Alternates Potter and Thomson.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent items to the agenda: 1) Consideration of the Minutes: C. Brown/1/16/07/Site Inspection, D. Gill-Hardy/1/16/07 Site Inspection, 2) Other Business: B. Preliminary Discussion/Adams/223 West Shore Road, and 3) Enforcement: N. Reinhardt and Cremona/8 and 10 Perkins Road. By Mr. Potter, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 1/10/07 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 4: 4 lines from the bottom: Insert "probably" before would have approved.
Page 6: Last line: Change "violation" to enforcement order.
Page 7: Under Yourwith: Add to the end of the last sentence: and recommended Mr. Ajello formulate a plan of action.
MOTION: To accept the 1/10/07 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To accept the 1/16/07 Young Elliot's Farm,.LLC. site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.
The 1/16/07 Brown site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. The correct spelling of Mr. Palella's name was noted.
MOTION: To accept the 1/16/07 Brown site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To accept the 1/16/07 Hardy-Gill site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4
Plourde/33 East Shore Road/Unauthorized Clear Cutting: Mr. Watson submitted an undated document from Mr. Hayden of the Northwest Conservation District, which described how the clear cutting could adversely impact the East Aspetuck River by putting more algae and temperature pressures on the stream and suggested the Commission could require mitigation. Mr. Watson voiced his concern about the removal of the canopy, exposure of the soil, disturbance of vegetation, and the removal of the riparian buffer between the river and Rt. 45. Mr. Picton noted the canopy had been cut within 20 to 30 feet of the river; close enough so that it would have provided shade and well within the recommended width for the riparian buffer. He also noted Mr. Ajello had sent Mr. Plourde a complete and detailed letter requesting comprehensive plans for the restoration of the property.
MOTION: To leave the 1/16/07 enforcement order in effect for Plourde/33 East Shore Road/Unauthorized Clear Cutting. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4
Pending Applications
Rising/191 West Shore Road/#IW-06-46/Repair Septic System: Mr. Ajello reported no new information had been received and the Commission had until the next meeting to act.
Coleman/112 Walker Brook Road/#IW-07-01/Clean Out Pond: Mr. Ajello inspected the property and said he was comfortable with the activity proposed. He noted in addition to cleaning out the pond the buffer surrounding it would be increased. A portion of the survey map of the property with the access, pond, and deposit areas sketched in by hand was reviewed. Mr. Ajello said he had observed the proposed deposit areas were dry depressions in the woods.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-01 submitted by Mr. Coleman to clean out the pond at 112Brook Road as submitted. By Mr. Potter, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4
Brown/127 West Shore Road/#IW-07-02/Planting and Fence: Mr. Palella, agent, submitted a list of plant material to be used and pointed out the location of the drainage pipe on the map, "Shoreline Plan," by McCobb & Associates, dated 11/2006. He said instead of digging out the dirt, he would use a sod cutter and remove the sod by hand only in those areas where the low growing bushes were to be planted. Mr. Potter suggested Mr. Palella use Round-Up to kill the sod rather than disturbing the ground. Mr. Picton did not think the Commission had ever recommended the use of an herbicide within 100 feet of wetlands. Mr. Potter said Round-Up was benign and Mr. Palella noted it had worked well elsewhere in the past when he had applied it and immediately mulched over it. Mr. Picton said he did not want to go on record recommending the use of Round-Up. Possible conditions of approval were discussed in detail.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-02 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Brown for planting and a fence at 127 West Shore Road subject to the following conditions:1. the planting area shall be prepared without the removal of more than 50% of the existing sod and the bare soil shall be mulched,2. the invasive plants along the lake front shall be removed and the native species shall remain,3. the soil in the runoff path from the drainage pipe overflow shall not be exposed, or if exposed, erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be installed,4. the tree to be cut shall be replaced by the sapling now growing or by the planting of another shade tree.By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.
Hardy and Gill/211 Baldwin Hill Road/#IW-07-03/Single Family Dwelling: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, submitted the 7/7/05 - 1/21/06 soils report by Mr. Temple, but said there were a few locations that still had to be studied more closely. He asked that discussion be continued to the next meeting. Mr. Picton noted that the Commission had conducted a site inspection and that Mr. Ajello had found some wetlands at the SE corner of the property. Mr. Ajello also thought the 100 ft. setback lines in the SW corner of the lot would have to be adjusted. Mr. Picton said there was another possible wetlands area within 30 feet of the proposed house site. He advised Mr. Szymanski to read the 1/16/07 site inspection report, which listed all of the questions raised.
Young Elliot's Farm, LLC./110 Calhoun Street/#IW-07-04/2 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Neff, engineer, noted that based on the 1/16/07 site inspection minutes he had revised the proposed site plan and erosion and sedimentation control plan. The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/22/07 was reviewed. Drainage was discussed in detail. Mr. Neff explained that he had added two catch basins and a pipe on the east and west sides of the watercourse to allow runoff to flow under the driveway and into the wetland area. He said these had been located as proposed, because if they were installed further down the hill the rip rap apron from the discharge pipe would be in the wetlands. Mr. Neff noted he had also added cross sections of the driveway and driveway catch basin sections to the plans. Mr. Neff explained the proposed stream crossing, noting he had tried to match the size of the pipe to the size of the channel. An elliptical pipe 4 ft. wide and 2 ft. deep would be sunk into the channel to provide a natural conduit for wetland life. The bottom of the pipe would be 6 inches below the surface of the streambed. The maximum depth of fill above the pipe would be 2 ft. The length of the stone headwall was increased to 30 ft. and the area of fill would be boxed in so that it would not spill out into the wetlands. He noted the driveway followed the path of an old farm road. Mr. Neff noted the plan narrative included a note that the service conduits shall be installed at the same time as the driveway. Mr. Picton noted his concern that the existing flow patterns might be altered. Mr. Neff did not think they would be. He noted the application was for feasibility only and that the future owner would have to apply for the exact driveway. Mr. Picton asked if the Commission should require a bond. Mr. Ajello thought the proposed stream crossing would have limited impact and he encouraged the maintenance of native wetlands vegetation within 30 ft. of the stream. It was noted any changes to the approved plan must be submitted to the Commission for approval.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-04 submitted by Young Elliot's Farm, LLC. for a two lot subdivision and wetlands crossing at 110 Calhoun Street as submitted. By Mr. Potter, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.
Enforcement Report
The Commission's policy of requiring all changes to approved site plans to be reapproved by the Commission was briefly discussed. It was decided to keep the wording in the approval letter as is. Mr. Potter suggested that Mr. Ajello be permitted to approve such changes administratively.
Beck/Calhoun Street: Mr. Ajello stated the monitoring for invasive species was progressing as it should.
Di Benedetto/Calhoun Street: Mr. Picton noted the Commission had ordered the restoration of the forested understory, but this area was now lawn. Mr. Potter asked if this was necessarily a bad thing and Mr. Picton responded it was if the natural character of the wetlands had been changed. Mr. Ajello did not think it was bad if an area surrounding a house was converted to lawn as long as it was not a large portion of the property.
Brown/West Shore Road: Mr. Ajello said the reconstruction of this house was borderline as to whether it should have come to the Commission for approval, although he tended to have the Commission review all proposed activities on East and West Shore Roads. Mr. Picton asked him to be more conservative in the future when making this determination. Mr. Potter suggested the Comm. should send a letter to property owners within 1000 ft. of the lake to remind them to contact the Commission before doing any work on their properties. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to draft the letter. It was thought that the Lake Waramaug Assn. might help send it out. Mr. Potter also thought it would be a good idea to send a similar letter to property owners along the East Aspetuck River.
Carter/292 Walker Brook Road: Mr. Ajello noted that today he had sent a firmly worded enforcement letter to inform Mr. Carter that if he did not respond by the next meeting, the Commission would hire its own consultant. Mr. Picton noted the Commission had originally set the deadline for 1/24, but Mr. Ajello asked for 3 extra weeks. Mr. Picton agreed to give him 3 additional weeks.
Feola/84 Carmel Hill Road: Mr. Ajello said he had filed the notice of violation on the Land Records today. It was noted the vernal pool had not yet been restored as had been ordered by the Commission. It was the consensus to issue a second citation.
MOTION: To instruct Mr. Ajello to issue Mr. Feola a second citation for the ongoing violation at 84 Carmel Hill Road. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 3-0-1. Mr. Potter abstained because he thought filing the notice of violation on the Town land records was adequate.
Puertas/72 Horse Heaven Road/Unauthorized Clearing: Atty. Fisher represented the property owner. Mr. Ajello noted a narrow swath had been cleared near the pond and said he had sent a notice of violation to prevent further work from being done. Atty. Fisher stated Mr. Puertas had not known a permit was required for the clearing. It was noted the Klauer house would soon be moved to this property. Mr. Picton asked for a site plan showing the proposed house site, wetlands, and the limitation of clearing. The map, "Subsurface Sewerage Disposal System," by Mr. Neff, dated 10/24/06 was reviewed. Mr. LaMuniere noted for violations such as this one where the unauthorized work was actually done in wetlands, the Commission always asks for detailed soil information and he recommended a site visit. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Thomson noted the Commission had not received an application for moving the house onto this property. Mr. Ajello said this was because the wetlands were 150 feet from the proposed house site.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Ajello said he thought Mr. Moore had agreed to post a bond for the soil scientist who would determine the depth to which the fill had to be removed and then to do the removal work himself, but Mr. Moore had recently been uncooperative. Mr. Picton noted the next step would be to issue a second citation and to file the notice of violation on the Town Land Records. It was the consensus that since the Commission and property owner had agreed upon a course of action to restore the wetlands and Mr. Moore had put his agreement in writing, that the bond should be posted and the work started by the next meeting. Mr. Ajello stressed a soil scientist was needed to identify the wetlands soils, determine how deep the fill was over these soils, and to stake the areas where the fill was to be removed. Mr. Potter said he would try to contact Mr. Moore to discuss the resolution of this matter.
MOTION: Regarding Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike, if there is no progress (posting of a bond and initiation of the ordered work) by the date of the next Commission meeting, Mr. Ajello is instructed to post the notice of violation on the Town Land Records and to issue a second citation to Mr. Moore. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 3-0-1. Mr. Potter abstained.
Reinhardt and Cremona/8 and 10 Perkins Road: Mr. Ajello said he expected Mr. Childs would soon have a restoration plan prepared. Mr. Picton asked that Mr. Childs use both the Commissions' guidelines and his own judgement in drafting it.
Spring Hill Farm, LLC./Whittlesey Road: Mr. Ajello had not inspected the site as he had been requested to do at the last meeting. Mr. Picton asked again that he make a site inspection to check for compliance with the permit granted.
Sunset Ridge Farm/Painter Hill Road: Mr. Ajello noted Ms. Purnell had read the enforcement report and had advised him that reed canary grass was potentially invasive. Mr. Potter briefly explained the planting process and said reed canary grass was the kind of grass you would want to use for forage. Mr. Picton stated the field was more than 100 ft. from wetlands and the Commission would discuss the pros and cons of canary grass in instances when it was proposed within 100 ft. of wetlands.
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road: Mr. Picton noted there had been no further restoration work done. Mr. Ajello said Mr. Wright must work with the Town to armor the swale as the Commission had required. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to monitor the progress and to make sure the rip rap stabilization work is properly completed.
Steep Rock Assn./River Road: Mr. Ajello reported he had received the 1/22/07 letter from Mrs. Branson, Steep Rock director, explaining what work had been done and why. Brush had been cleared to the top of the riverbank, but a 25 ft. buffer between the field and the Shepaug had been left. There was a brief discussion regarding whether this had been acceptable maintenance work or whether it had gone beyond that and Steep Rock should have applied for a permit. Mr. Thomson thought it was important that the Commission consistently address complaints received about clearing near streambanks and noted clearing as little as 10% of riparian buffer can have an adverse impact on the watercourse. . A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 4:30 p.m.
Steep Rock Assn./Sabbaday Lane/Hidden Valley Timber Harvest: Mr. LaMuniere noted Mr. Branson, forester, had not met the conditions of the permit issued. Mr. Picton noted there was a slash pile in standing water and asked Mr. Ajello to advise Mr. Branson to keep the operation away from apparent wetlands.
Other Business
Adams/223 West Shore Road/Preliminary Discussion: Ms. Zinick, agent, presented an old survey map of the property and detailed the work planned. 1) Lakeside: The boathouse deck and some of its supports will be rebuilt on the same footprint. The interior floor plan will be modified. Mr. Picton asked if the change would intensify the use. Ms. Zinick stated it would not and said she would submit a letter from Atty. Miles that would address this matter. The existing concrete dock will be covered with mahogany decking. 2) Driveway: The width of the existing driveway will be decreased to 10 ft. 3) Inn: Dormers will be constructed and new windows and doors installed. There will be no change to the footprint of the building. 4) Carriage House: This building currently has 6 rooms and will be converted to a 4 bay garage. Excavation will be required to bring the driveway up to the bays. Ms. Zinick noted all the decking had been removed from the building and Mr. Picton advised her that this work required a wetlands permit because it had been within 40 ft. of an intermittent stream. It was noted there was also a stream on the other side of the property so that probably most exterior activities would be within 100 ft. of a watercourse. Ms. Zinick said the owners might also want to bury the utility lines, landscape, and cut a mature tree near the lake. Mr. Picton asked for a comprehensive site plan. Ms. Zinick invited the commissioners to inspect the property if they happen to be driving by.
Enforcement
Yourwith/259 New Milford Turnpike: Mr. Ajello will contact Mrs. Yourwith again.
Tompkins/Tompkins Hill Road: Mr. Ajello said Mr. Tompkins will submit an after-the-fact application for the work done. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to confirm the work done did not impact the wetlands.
Other Business
Revision of the Regulations: Mr. LaMuniere reported that work is continuing.
HVA brochures on preserving water quality were circulated. Mr. Picton asked that copies be made and passed out to all applicants.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 9:23 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: January 17, 2007 January 10, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. Picton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. LaMuniere, Ms. Purnell
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Coe, Mr. Potter
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Szymanski, Mr. and Mrs. Tompkins, Mr. Neff, Mr. Moritz, Mr. Palella
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, and Picton and Alternate Thomson for Mr. LaMuniere.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: New Applications: 1) Hardy and Gill/211 Baldwin Hill Road/#IW-07-03/Single Family Dwelling, 2) Young Elliot's Farm, LLC./110 Calhoun Street/ #IW-07-04/2 Lot Subdivision and Consideration of the Minutes: 12/19/06 Plourde Site Inspection. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. D. Hill, and passed 4-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 12/13/06 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 3: Under Rising: 4th line: Change: "address" to addresses.
Page 3: Under Town of Washington: 4th line: Change: "explained" to given.
Page 6: Under John Dorr Nature Lab: 18th line: Capitalize Bobcat.
MOTION: To accept the 12/13/06 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To accept the 12/19/06 Plourde site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 4-0.
Pending Application
Rising/191 West Shore Road/#IW-06-46/Repair Septic System: Mr. Ajello noted Mr. Hayden of the NCD recommended in his report dated 12/29/06 that instead of piping the stormwater runoff to the catch basin that empties directly into the lake, that it be diverted to another intermittent stream on the east side of the property where the water could be renovated before reaching the lake. Mr. Ajello said he had asked the Rising's engineer to discuss this recommendation with them. Mr. Picton said the Commission would consider this alternative if the stream could handle the additional flow without causing new scouring, but said engineered plans would be required and that a professional would have to state that scouring would not result before a decision could be made. He also noted Mr. Hayden had not addressed the questions previously raised by the Commission such as what are the watershed calculations, what size rip rap is proposed and what are the specifications for the rock lined channel, etc. The map, "Plan Showing Code Complying Septic System," by Mr. Trottier, revised to 9/7/06 was reviewed. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to contact the Rising's engineer to get answers to these questions. He said he would be inclined to deny the application due to insufficient information if an additional engineering review was not submitted.
New Applications
Coleman/112 Walker Brook Road/#IW-07-01/Clean Out Pond: Mr. Moritz, arborist, represented the property owner. Mr. Ajello said the application was complete and recommended the Commission conduct a site inspection. Mr. Moritz submitted a portion of a survey map, no title, no date, showing the location of the pond the access to it, and the spoils deposit areas and the document, "Procedures for Coleman Pond Clean-up." Mr. Moritz stated approximately 60 yards of leaves would be removed from the pond, loaded into a small dump truck, and deposited in depressions on a dry part of the property. It was noted the pond was built in 1989 and was 12 feet deep. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello if he had inspected the depressed areas. Mr. Ajello said he had not. Mr. Moritz said he would not change the slope around the pond and would replant the banks. Until the spring when replanting was possible, he proposed to lay down landscaping fabric on the disturbed areas so they would not erode. He also said he would consider replanting one third of the area around the pond with natural vegetation. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to inspect the site to determine whether there were any unforeseen problems, and if so, to notify the commissioners so they can look at the property on their own before the next meeting.
Brown/127 West Shore Road/#IW-07-02/Planting and Fence: Mr. Palella represented the property owner. The map, "Shoreline Plan," by McCobb and Assoc., dated Nov. 2006 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello noted the Commission had previously considered an application to repair a shoreline wall on the same property. Mr. Palella pointed out the areas proposed for planting and the tree that would be taken down and noted the fence would be erected on the side of the property opposite the lake. Mr. Ajello asked if a gate was proposed for the lake side of the property. Mr. Palella did not know. Mr. Picton asked if the area proposed for planting was currently a valuable buffer area. Mr. Ajello said it was now lawn. Mr. Ajello read Mr. Pollock's 12/12/06 letter concerning the poor health of the tree. He noted the stump would not be removed. Mr. Ajello suggested another tree be planted for mitigation. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.
Hardy and Gill/211 Baldwin Hill Road/#IW-07-03/Single Family Dwelling: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, represented the property owners. The map, "Proposed Plot Plan," by Arthur H. Howland, dated 1/4/07 was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski noted the 12 acre parcel has watercourses on both the south and north sides and slopes downhill from the road. He said there were no species of special concern noted on the Natural Diversity Data Base Map. He also noted there would be almost no regrading required for the proposed four bedroom house, that the driveway had been located to minimize cuts and fills, the septic had been located as far from the wetlands as possible, and there was maximum stormwater treatment proposed before any runoff would reach the wetlands. Alternate driveway routes had been considered but they would require more driveway surface closer to the wetlands. Mr. Szymanski stated the top soil stockpiles were located