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