The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Inland Wetlands Commission - 2009
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Inland Wetlands Commission - 2009 |
|
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 22 •December 9 •November 24 •November 10 •October 28 •September 23 •September 9 •August 26 •August 12 •July 8 •June 10 •May 27 •May 13 •April 22 •April 8 •March 25 •March 11 •February 25 •February 18 •February 11 •February 4 •January 14 Previous years: 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: December 29, 2009 December 22, 2009
Special Meeting
5:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bedini
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. and Mrs. Solomon, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Sonder, Mr. Lyon, Mr. CharlesMr. Wadelton called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. and seated Members Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
Mr. Wadelton explained that Ms. Purnell’s review had been submitted at the last session of the public hearing, it had been sent to the Commission’s consultant for review, and the consulting report had then been referred to Atty. Zizka, who reviewed it to make sure it did not include any new information that could not be considered after the close of the hearing. He read the letter from Land Tech dated 12/21/09.
Mr. LaMuniere read his prepared statement in support of the application, which he said was based on his review of this file and general knowledge from previous applications for this property. He concluded by recommending several conditions of approval. (See attached statement.)
Mrs. Hill agreed, saying that the Commission’s consultant had concluded the project could be completed without permanent damage to wetlands and watercourses and that appropriate measures were proposed to cope with temporary impacts. To deal with possible negative impacts to Kirby Brook, she recommended as a condition of approval to require water quality testing both just above and below the site, taken before, during, and for several years after the completion of work. Mr. LaMuniere agreed and also thought it was important to conduct this monitoring after the sediment basins were functional. Mrs. Hill thought the testing should be done in a similar manner to the testing that had been required for the Montessori School permit. Mr. Ajello agreed the sample sites just above and below the property were critical, pointed out that the tests should be conducted at the same time each year, and noted that such testing would not take into account any impacts to wetlands along the boundary line. Mr. LaMuniere noted that prior to the commencement of construction, the entire stormwater drainage system was required to be in place, and said he did want testing while there was ongoing construction. Mr. Ajello did not think short term testing would be meaningful, but that it was the monitoring for long term impacts that was important. Mr. LaMuniere suggested that a bond be posted for a period of three years, similar to what had been required of the Montessori School, and returned to the property owner after monitoring had proven the system was working effectively.
Erosion and sedimentation control measures were briefly discussed. Mr. Bohan noted there would not be a lot of disturbance and Mr. LaMuniere pointed out these areas on the site plan revised to 11/3/09. Mr. LaMuniere thought the specific plans for the end of the drainage system were well done, but said they must be properly installed and the disturbed areas grassed. Mr. Ajello stated the proposed erosion controls would protect the site and would handle even the short term impacts of access by construction vehicles. Mr. Bohan said he was satisfied with the proposed erosion controls and sequence of construction.
Mr. Wadelton objected to a condition of approval for water quality testing unless the Commission established what would be tested for at which locations, how often, under what conditions, what company would be used, etc. He argued it could not include an open ended condition in the approval because it would not be fair to the applicant. He also noted that long term analysis of the data collected would be necessary in order to interpret any “spikes” in the test results. He noted his experience in the field of air and water quality and said it was too late to develop meaningful baseline data. Mr. LaMuniere pointed out that the Commission already had some information from Ms. Chase in a previous application that found Kirby Brook was healthy. Mr. Wadelton objected, saying her conclusion had not been based on monitoring, but had been a presumption. Mrs. Hill stated that a lab such as Hydro Technologies would know what to test for and where the testing should be conducted and she disagreed with Mr. Wadelton that it was too late to gather baseline data. She recommended that the Commission consult the Montessori file to determine what should be tested for. Mr. Wadelton objected, saying the two sites had nothing in common. Mrs. Hill pointed out what they had in common was the waters of Connecticut and the potential for impact to those waters. Mr. Wadelton stressed that if an exact condition of approval was not specified, the condition would not be valid. Mr. LaMuniere said he supported a condition requiring water quality monitoring, but said he would be more concerned if DEP approval of the septic system was not required. Mr. Wadelton responded that approval of the septic system was not under the Commission’s jurisdiction. Mr. LaMuniere and Mrs. Hill thought water quality monitoring would be an additional safeguard for the public, but Mr. Wadelton again stated that such a condition must specifically list all that the applicant would be required to do.
Mr. LaMuniere recommended a $15,000 bond.
MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-39 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. for affordable housing at 101 Wykeham Road per the set of plans submitted and supporting technical data, 24 sheets, prepared by Arthur H. Howland and Associates, entitled, “Wykeham Terrace,” dated 7/10/2009 and revised to 11/3/09 subject to the following conditions:
1. no work is to start on site until the Commission has received written notification that DEP has approved the septic system as is or with required modifications and that the driveway traversing it to give access to the southern part of the property is not detrimental to, and will not endanger its functioning over the long term,
2. a cash bond in the amount of $15,000 shall be posted before the start of the project and it shall be returned when the project’s basic infrastructure including the driveway extension, sedimentation basin, and other erosion and drainage and stormwater control elements are in place and all disturbed areas have been stabilized,
3. any further modification to the present application shall be returned to the Commission for review, and
4. the duration of the permit shall be 5 years.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.MOTION
To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.The Meeting was adjourned at 5:47 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: December 17, 2009 December 9, 2009
Regular Meeting
7:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Solomon, Mr. Sonder, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Charles, Mr. Delancy, Mr. Riefenhauser, Mr. Neff, Mr. Auth, PressMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business not already posted on the agenda:
V. New Applications:
A. Steep Rock Assn./79 Carmel Hill Road/#IW-09-50E/WHIP Grant for Invasives Removal,
B. Auth/329 West Shore Road/#IW-09-51 Utility Trench,
VII. Other Business:
B. Donovan (Biddle)/53 Kinney Hill Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-08-37/Add Deck,
VIII. Administrative Business:
A. Approval of 2010 Calendar,
B. Site Inspection Minutes Procedures.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 11/24/09 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 4: Under Straw Man, LLC. site inspection minutes: Mr. Wadelton should not have been listed as present because he had recused himself and was not there for the site inspection.
P. 4: Under Straw Man, LLC.: First sentence: Mr. Wadelton asked that it also state that he left the table.
P. 7: Under Walker Brook Subdivision: Line #2: Change “would” to “could.”
P. 8: Under Slaymaker: It was noted that even though it was not said as part of the motion, it was the understanding of the Commission that the remainder of the bond would be returned to Mr. Slaymaker when the dead and failing trees are replaced. It was agreed it would not be proper to change the motion at this time.MOTION:
To accept the 11/24/09 Public Hearing/Regular Meeting minutes as amended.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 12/2/09 Long site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 12/2/09 Spring Hill Farm, LLC. site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-39/Affordable Housing:
Mr. Bedini explained that after the last meeting the Commission had sent several procedural questions to Atty. Zizka, who had only recently responded in his letter dated 12/8/09, so the commissioners had not yet had time to review his advice. Mr. Bedini said the Commission had the option to send Ms. Purnell’s document to its consultant for review, but that the consultant could not bring up any new information in the review. He thought it would help the Commission if the consultant pointed out whether any of the issues raised by Ms. Purnell were relevant. He suggested a short Special Meeting be scheduled later in the month to give the Commission time to hear from its consultant and then act on the application. He also noted that one issue raised in Ms. Purnell’s letter was that the application had not been referred to the local water company as required. Scheduling a Special Meeting would also give staff the opportunity to check on whether the state statute governing notification of water companies had been met.Mrs. Hill agreed a Special Meeting should be scheduled. She noted that Land Tech, the commission’s consultant, looks at both engineering and environmental issues. Mr. Ajello agreed this was so, noting that Land Tech has several wetland scientists on staff.
Mr. Bedini stated that although Ms. Purnell’s document had been submitted to the file, the IWC could decide whether to consider it or not.
Mr. Szymanski asked if the Town would pay for the consulting review and Mr. Bedini said it would.
A Special Meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Bedini stated that under Administrative Business he would like to discuss “ground rules” for consultants.
Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road (Juniper Meadow Road)/#IW-09-44 Driveway and Bridge:
Mr. Sonder voiced his concern that the comprehensive review to be done by Milone and McBroom would not be ready for the start of the public hearing. Mr. Bedini explained the staff would forward Mr. Trinkaus’s response to its consulting engineer as soon as
1) it has been submitted to the Land Use Office and
2) the applicant has posted the consulting bond.
But if the report was not received in time for the start of the hearing, Mr. Bedini explained the options, which included
1) opening the hearing, immediately closing it, and denying the application based on insufficient information and
2) opening the hearing and continuing it.
He said the applicant may request extensions totaling up to 65 days.Mr. Sonder circulated copies of the 11/22/09 Lenard Engineering review.
Mrs. Hill noted the Commission was not following its usual procedures because it was conducting a lot of pre hearing discussion on this application. She reminded the Commission to make sure that all of the comments made to date were made again for the record at the hearing.
Mr. Bedini noted the public hearing was scheduled for January 13, 2010 at 5:00 p.m.
Kott/14 Wheaton Road/#IW-09-47/Addition to Existing Dwelling:
Mr. Neff, engineer, reviewed his revised plan, “Proposed Site Plan,” revised to 12/4/09 to show a smaller addition and a planted hedge buffer. He explained the size of the addition had been cut by 25% by cutting off 2 ft. from the back, which increased the distance from the wetlands to 27 feet. He also added a 40 ft. long buffer of native shrubs along the northwest side of the property nearest to the wetlands.Mr. Ajello asked if there would be a gutter drain. Mr. Neff said there would not because the increase in runoff would only be from a 6 ft. section of the roof.
The proposed hedge was discussed in detail. Mr. Bedini recommended the plants be planted close together.
Mr. LaMuniere was concerned the hedge could not be established due to the location of large rocks in the area. Mr. Neff noted that the hedge did not have to be a straight line and said the plants could grow up between the rocks.
Mr. Bohan asked if the addition would be on piers. Mr. Neff said it would.
Mr. LaMuniere and Mrs. Hill said they had hoped the owners would propose shortening the length at the north end of the addition rather than its width. Mr. Neff said this had been discussed, but the owners did not see how they could reduce the area of the porch at the northeast corner.
Mr. LaMuniere noted the previous owner had not installed plantings as had been a condition of approval and asked how the Commission could be assured the proposed hedge would be planted. Mr. Neff said the hedge was included in both the erosion control plan and sequence of construction and the WEO would not sign off on the completion of the permit if it was not planted.
Mr. LaMuniere asked whether hay bales or silt fence was the better option for the erosion controls. Mr. Neff recommended silt fence.
Mr. LaMuniere suggested a bond be posted to guarantee the planting would be done. Mr. Ajello instead recommended that the Commission specify a minimum size of 2 to 3 ft. tall for the bushes to be planted.
Mr. Bedini noted that while the hedge would not stabilize the bank, it would create a barrier so that the disturbance would not extend closer to the wetlands.
MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-47 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Kott for an addition to the existing dwelling at 14 Wheaton Road per the proposed site plan by Mr. Neff, revised to 12/4/09 with the condition that the shrubs for the required buffer be a minimum 2 ft. tall and planted sufficiently close to cause a retention hedge along the edge of the cliff.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, passed 5-0.
Long/243 Bee Brook Road/#IW-09-47/Addition to Existing Dwelling:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, represented the applicant. The plan, “Site Development Plan,” 2 sheets, by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 12/9/09 was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski described the revisions to the plan he had made based on the recommendations made during the site inspection:
1) a double line of erosion controls, silt fence backed by staked hay bales was now proposed,
2) any trees to be cut shall be approved by the WEO,
3) three hay bale check dams were added, and
4) #8 of the construction sequence now stated the clean up in the stream would be coordinated with the WEO and that all debris would be taken off site. Mr. Bedini noted that leaves should not be raked into the stream and Mr. Szymanski responded that the contractor would be told not to do that again.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-48 submitted by Mr. Long for an addition to the existing dwelling at 243 Bee Brook Road per the site plan by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 12/9/09.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.It was noted that all permits are now valid for two years unless otherwise specified by the Commission.
Spring Hill Farm, LLC./69 Whittlesey Road/#IW-09-49/Driveway, Drainage Improvements, Conduit, and Hillside Stabilization:
Mr. Riefenhauser, engineer, submitted revised plans based on the site inspection discussion. These included
1) permanent measures for the plunge pools,
2) a maintenance schedule,
3) landscape plans for the wetlands buffer, and
4) the addition of details for the stone headwall and outlet.He noted an additional matter that had not been discussed was the installation of the underground utilities. He said an exact location had not yet been decided upon and presented the plan, “Site Plan – Electrical,” Sheet E100, by Kohler Ronan, LLC., dated 7/24/09. This plan contained a note that it was “schematic only.” The plan, “Cover Sheet, Overall Site Plan for Proposed Driveway,” 5 Sheets, by Smith and Co., revised to 12/9/09 was reviewed. Mr. Riefenhauser said he did not want the utility conduit to cross to the east of the farm road due to concerns about the steep grade there and said he would try to keep it in the same regulated area as the driveway in order to limit the disturbance near the wetlands. He said he could not provide the exact location because he had not yet spoken with the electrician and he did not know which pole would be used.
Mrs. J. Hill pointed out two items missing in the application:
1) on the application form, P. 3, #2, the amount and type of materials to be deposited, and
2) a note on the construction sequence that the WEO will be notified at least 48 hours prior to the start of work so that the erosion control measures can be inspected and approved.Mr. Riefenhauser said a well graded, granular material would be used for the driveway and that approximately 200 yards of material would be deposited. He then modified the construction sequence to state the WEO would be given 48 hours notice.
Mrs. J. Hill reminded him that the contractor must receive a copy of this amended plan.
Mr. Johnson asked how cutting trees fit in with the construction sequence. Mr. Ajello recommended that the trees be cut first so that this activity would not damage the silt fence, but to let him know beforehand when the tree cutting will begin.
Mr. LaMuniere commented that the construction sequence was a good one.
MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-49 submitted by Spring Hill Farm, LLC. for a driveway, drainage improvements, stabilization of the hillside, and installation of conduits at 69 Whittlesey Road per the documents prepared for Spring Hill Farm, LLC., 5 sheets, by Smith and Company, dated 11/19/09, and revised to 12/9/09 with the condition that the ultimate location of the conduit be submitted to the Commission for the record.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Auth/329 West Shore Road/#IW-09-51/Utility Trench:
Mr. Auth explained his reasons for proposing electric service and a pedestal that would require a 14 foot long, 2.5 ft. deep service trench. He thought the proposed location near a stonewall would make it as inconspicuous as possible and not ruin the view of the lake. He asked for a quick approval or for the WEO to be authorized to sign off because the purpose of the service was to install a bubbler so the lake would not freeze near his dock. He noted that digging the trench and installing the service would take only one day and that he would seed and mulch all disturbed areas. His hand drawn sketch plan was reviewed.Mrs. Hill asked if the property sloped towards the lake. Mr. Ajello said the slope was slight.
Mr. LaMuniere and Mrs. Hill did not think the proposed activity would threaten the lake if the trench was dug by hand.
Mrs. Hill and Mr. Wadelton thought the WEO could be authorized to sign off as the applicant would have to wait for at least 14 days if the Commission handled it as a regular application. Mrs. J. Hill, however, noted that the Town of Kent must be notified of the application per state statute.
MOTION:
Regarding the application submitted by Mr. Auth to install a utility trench at 329 West Shore Road, to authorize the Wetland Agent to act on the application.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he thought the Commission should work within the framework of its Regulations and he was concerned this might set a precedent.Mr. Ajello noted that different paperwork is required for an agent sign off, and left the Meeting with Mr. Auth to begin processing the new application form. Mrs. Hill said she appreciated Mr. Ajello’s efforts to carefully control activities around Lake Waramaug.
Steep Rock Assn./79 Carmel Hill Road/#IW-09-50E/Remove Invasives:
Mr. Bedini read the 12/8/09 letter from Mrs. Branson, in which she proposed to remove invasives from 7.4 acres of the 73 acre property. The plants would be cut by hand and their cut surfaces treated with an herbicide and the work would be done before the end of the year. He reviewed the application form.Mrs. J. Hill asked if this was the proper time of year to apply the herbicide now that the plants were dormant.
Mrs. Hill asked if there were any wetlands near the invasives to be removed. Mr. Bedini responded this was a conservation activity and no wetlands or watercourses would be impacted.
Mr. LaMuniere read from page 12 of the Regulations regarding uses as of right and non regulated activities.
Mr. Ajello noted there were two vernal pools located within 40 feet of the road, but said all of the work would be done by hand.
Mr. LaMuniere stated the removal of invasives was a legitimate activity that the Commission should support, but noted the plants were now frozen, and so he also questioned whether this was the time of year to carry out this project.
Mr. Bedini noted that if the Commission approves the activity as an exemption, it can not place conditions on that approval. Instead, it was the consensus to approve the application as an exemption, but to formally question the applicant as to whether it was the proper time of year to apply the herbicide.
MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-50E submitted by Steep Rock Assn. for the removal of invasives at 79 Carmel Hill Road and to ask Steep Rock whether this is the right time of year to conduct this work.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Donovan/53 Kinney Hill Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-08-37/Add Deck to New Dwelling:
Mr. Bedini read the letter from Mr. Zook dated 12/8/09 and the map on sheet #A0.01 was reviewed. It was noted the proposed deck was located 75 feet from wetlands at its closest point and that two decks, not one, were described in the letter. Mr. LaMuniere noted the plans called for a single line of 4 ft. posts placed 8 ft. apart and he saw no problem with the proposal.MOTION:
To approve the request by Donovan-Biddle to amend Permit #IW-08-37 to add a deck to the house under construction at 53 Kinney Hill Road with the condition that the fee is paid.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Delancy/79 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-08-V6:
Mr. Delancy presented a hand drawn site plan, two application forms, and a conservation easement form. He asked for a declaratory ruling under Section 7.06 for his proposed activities, said he believed that he did not need a permit as he qualified for an agricultural exemption under Section 22a-40 of the state statutes, and asked for clarification on whether a permit was required for the firewood work he proposed.Mr. Wadelton noted for an exemption to apply, the firewood had to be from the Delancy property, not from off site. Mr. Ajello said that firewood operations differ from timber harvesting and that an agricultural exemption might apply for future activities planned by Mr. Delancy, but not for those done to date.
Mr. Delancy stated that the statutes do not require him to have a working farm to qualify for an agricultural exemption; that a hobby qualifies. He reviewed his site plan, pointing out the areas where he would remove invasives, plant a blueberry garden, and do a general clean up on the east side of the driveway. He noted he would not clear the non invasive vegetation near the stream, but would take down the damaged trees. He also noted he had already reinforced an eroded bank near the driveway with stones and would do no additional work with vehicles in the wetlands.
Mr. Bedini asked if he had a written proposal. Mr. Delancy said he had filled out the application form and had provided notes on the map. Mr. Bedini asked how the invasives would be removed and when this work would begin. Mr. Delancy said he would either cut them down or yank them out by hand in the spring. However, he had no immediate plans to cut down the damaged pine trees.
The commissioners questioned whether a garden could be established under the existing canopy.
Mr. LaMuniere referred to a paper by Atty. Brooks, who wrote that applicants have the burden to prove to the commission’s satisfaction that they qualify for an agricultural exemption.
Mr. Delancy said that blueberries will grow in shade and acid soil and that he planned to fence a 50’ X 50’ area and put in the plants this spring.
Mr. Bedini asked for a written proposal, which would include an operational sequence especially for any work proposed near the stream, timeline, how the work will be done, how many plants will be planted, etc. Mr. Delancy thought this request was beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction, but Mr. LaMuniere explained the Commission must be sure that he proposes a serious and significant agricultural operation; planting three bushes would not qualify.
Mr. Bedini also asked for written information on erosion controls and a more specific, detailed site plan delineating the various work areas, labeling which trees will remain, etc.
Mr. Delancy said he would propose gardening rather than an agricultural operation. He asked if wild grass could be used for stabilization. Mr. Bedini explained that if plants were pulled out by their roots and the soil was disturbed, the erosion control measures would have to be adequate to prevent sedimentation into the stream.
Mr. Bedini asked for a complete application by the next meeting.
Other Business
Possible Impact of Rt. 109, New Milford, Walker Brook Subdivision on Walker Brook:
Mr. Ajello reported he had contacted two environmental labs; Aqua Environmental that estimated it would cost $794 each time tests for water quality of Walker Brook were conducted and Hydro Technologies that advised him that Mr. Coleman had already paid for base line tests conducted on 11/3/09 at four locations along the brook. Hydro Technologies recommended one additional upstream test. It was noted the lab had picked the sample sites and that it would cost approximately $200 to test for seven categories at each location.The following questions were raised:
1) Should the IWC pursue continued testing?
Who would pay for the tests?
How much would it cost?
How often should the samples be taken?
It was the consensus that long term testing should be done.
Mr. Wadelton noted that if the IWC decided to periodically monitor the brook, a professional would have to draft a comprehensive plan for the long term. Mr. LaMuniere recommended Mr. Bernard for this work.
Mrs. J. Hill will contact the Conservation Commission to find out whether it handles water quality monitoring in Town, and if so, if it would be willing to add Walker Brook to its list.
The IWC will wait for this information before deciding on a course of action.
Enforcement
Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-V5/Unauthorized Clearcutting, Patio, Stairs, Wall:
Mr. Ajello had met with Ms. Brose since the last meeting to discuss removal of the patio and stairs and restoration of the clearcut and disturbed areas and he reported on the results of that meeting. The colored map, “Proposed Wetland Restoration (Presentation),” by Land-Tech Consultants, Inc., dated 6/9/09 was used to facilitate the discussion. Mr. Ajello said he had asked Ms. Brose to focus on plans to restore the wetlands areas, not the upland sections, and to submit a written proposal that would retain basic components from her originally proposed remediation plan such as the planting guidelines and grass seed mix.The written proposal had not been submitted, but Mr. Ajello detailed what he understood Ms. Brose had agreed to do.
1) The patio would be completely removed, all materials to be taken off site, and the disturbed area restored to meadow using the seed mix from the original plan.
2) The wall at the north corner of the house and the semi circular stone planters would remain.
3) The stairs down to the patio would be removed to the point where the wall begins. This would leave some stone stairs at the top of the hill.
4) She would not plant trees or bushes in the upland hillside planting area or upland transition area, but would sow the seed mix in both areas.
5) In the wetland/brookside area she would plant fewer trees and shrubs than originally proposed.Mrs. J. Hill asked what percentage of the cut trees and plants would be replanted and said she was concerned about whether there would be sufficient density of replanting in the wetland corridor. Mr. Ajello noted the list of the number and types of trees and plants to be planted there.
It was noted there would be approximately 46 fewer trees and shrubs planted in the combined upland and transition areas and that she proposed to cut the replanting plan in half.
Mr. Bedini asked if the grass seed mix would be sufficient.
Mr. LaMuniere was concerned that the disturbed areas would be taken over by invasives if not enough trees were replanted. He requested that Ms. Brose also submit an invasive control plan for the upland review areas.
Mr. Ajello suggested the Commission could require a bond for the invasives control.
Mr. Bedini asked if the Commission would be willing to give up some of the original restoration plan in return for Ms. Brose’s agreement to remove the patio and stairs.
Mr. Wadelton said he was willing to be reasonable in the upland areas, but said the Commission had to be assured the proposed replanting would sufficiently restore the disturbed areas.
Mrs. Hill was not sure Ms. Brose’s proposal would provide enough cover in the stream corridor.
Mr. LaMuniere compared this violation with that on the DiBenedetto property, and noted how well the DiBenedetto replanting was progressing.
It was the consensus that
1) the grass seed mix alone would be OK for the upland areas,
2) an invasives control plan was required,
3) the number of trees and shrubs to be replanted in the wetland and brookside corridor area should not be reduced from the number originally proposed,
4) the patio area should be restored to meadow,
5) a bond would be required and the restoration work monitored for a three year period,
6) any replanted plants that die must be replaced, and
7) the restored areas should not be mowed, but there should be selective cutting of invasives.Mr. Ajello will discuss this again with Ms. Brose.
Weaver/176 East Shore Road/Clearcutting Along Shore:
Mr. Ajello said he had sent a notice of violation, but the property owner had not yet had a chance to respond.Molinari/59 South Fenn Hill Road/Encroachment in Conservation Easement Area:
In response to the notice of violation sent, Mr. Molinari said his contractor had not been aware of the deed restrictions and that he would submit a maintenance plan for the Commission’s review.Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-07-V12/Unauthorized Excavation:
Mr. Ajello said Mr. Lodsin will be served by a marshal and any new equipment on site will be confiscated for taxes.Moriniere/22 Wheaton Road:
Reconstruction of the house has begun, but the exact locations of the septic tank and service lines are still unknown.
Administrative Business
The 2010 Calendar was discussed. The normal meeting date in September would have fallen on Rosh Hashanah, so that date was changed to the first Wednesday of the month, 9/1/10. It was the consensus to approve the calendar with that one change.
Site inspections procedures were discussed. Mrs. Hill said that draft minutes should not be circulated. She also asked commissioners to pass out minutes prior to the meeting so that the members would have time to review them beforehand.
Mr. Bedini noted that he had spoken with several attorneys regarding the receipt of material near the close of the public hearing. He said that most of those consulted said that the Commission must accept material while the hearing is still open, but that whether to use the material or not was at the Commission’s discretion. Several commissioners noted that the state grants the Commission the authority to adopt its own Regulations and thought it was the local regulations that should be adhered to over the state statutes, especially since the Commission’s attorney had reviewed Washington’s Regulations and said they were OK. Others thought the Town Regs should be based on the state statutes and revised accordingly. There was no decision about whether to amend the local Regulations.
MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Wadelton.Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 11:04 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: December 4, 2009 November 24, 2009
Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Speck, Mrs. Hardee, Mr. Szymanski, Mr./Mrs. Solomon, Ms. Purnell, Mr. Charles, Mr. Adams, Mr. Parker, Mr. Boling, Mr. Sonder, Mr. Trinkaus, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Riefenhauser
PUBLIC HEARING
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-39/Affordable Housing, Con’t.
Mr. Bedini reconvened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton. He noted there was one new document in the file, the 11/23/09 final review letter from Land Tech.
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, briefly reviewed the consultants’ letter, noting he had revised the plans according to Land Tech’s recommendations as well as per a request made by Mr. LaMuniere for additional erosion controls. Mr. Szymanski stated the plans as drawn would have no long or short term impacts on the wetlands.
There were no questions or comments from the Commission.
Ms. Purnell noted she had written a review, which dealt with larger issues regarding the proposed development such as impervious cover, the change from seasonal to year round use of the property, and the repercussions of on and off site wetlands impacts. She also stated that the soil characteristics on site were problematic and she questioned whether the proposed stormwater basins would function properly.
Mr. Szymanski responded, and made the same point several other times during the discussion, that all comments were supposed to have been submitted by November 3rd. He read Section 10.06 of the Regulations aloud. He stated that since submission of this document was at the end of the statutory time limit, neither the applicant nor the Commission’s consultant would have an opportunity to respond. He also stated the applicant would not grant an extension. He asked that the commissioners not read Ms. Purnell’s review.
The Commission was not sure how to proceed. While Section 10.06 states it may refuse to receive any information if there is not sufficient time for the applicant, commissioners, and staff to review it, the public hearing was still open and its purpose was to receive input from the public. A very lengthy discussion ensued. The commissioners also considered whether to continue the hearing to a special meeting date so they could consult with the Commission’s attorney.
Ms. Purnell urged the Commission to accept her document, saying it should be the Commission’s intent to ensure the best decision possible as once a property is developed it is developed in perpetuity. She thought the present configuration of the proposed development would result in permanent impacts to Kirby Brook. She also noted the commissioners did not have to send her review to a consultant, but could render a decision on their own based on their training and expertise.
Mrs. Solomon stated that substance should be more important than a procedural point and so thought the Commission should consider Ms. Purnell’s review. She and Mr. Parker thought to be considered a valid public hearing, the public’s comments had to be accepted. Mr. Szymanski stated the proposed development was downhill from the Solomon property and so would not impact it.
It was noted that Section 10.06 states the Commission “may” refuse to accept information late in the process, not that it “shall” refuse to accept it.
Other comments made during the discussion included:
Mr. LaMuniere thought the Commission should follow its Regulations, close the public hearing, and not accept Ms. Purnell’s review.
Mr. Ajello said to accept Ms. Purnell’s review at this time would “taint” the process and leave the Commission vulnerable to legal action.
Mr. Bedini questioned whether if accepted at this late date, it would be proper for the Commission to consider the content of the document. He thought her review must be accepted because the public hearing was still open. Mr. Wadelton thought at this point the public could comment only on information already in the record.
Ms. Purnell suggested the Commission had not “picked up” on the fact that the soil types on site are severely restricted as far as septic capabilities.
Mr. Szymanski noted the septic plans had been submitted to Land Tech who had confirmed it had no concerns about the septic system. Mr. Bohan and Mr. Wadelton agreed with Mr. LaMuniere that the Regulations should be followed and it would not be fair to the applicant to accept Ms. Purnell’s letter at this time.
Mrs. Hill favored continuing the hearing to a special meeting date so that Atty. Zizka could be consulted.
Ms. Purnell did not think the Commission could disallow a document presented while the public hearing was open.
Ms. Purnell submitted her document dated 11/24/09.
MOTION:
To close the public hearing to consider Application #IW-09-39 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. for affordable housing at 101 Wykeham Road unless there are comments from the public on anything already in the file.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 3-2. Mrs. Hill and Mr. Bedini voted No because they wanted to leave the hearing open to allow the Commission time to consult with its attorney regarding the proper procedure to handle the receipt of Ms. Purnell’s review.The public hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:22 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton. There was no subsequent business to add to the agenda.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 11/10/09 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 3: First motion: Change: Mr. “Charles: to Mr. “LaMuniere.
P. 3: Third motion: Mrs. Hill noted the minutes were correct, but said she should have said she was recused rather than that she was abstaining.
P. 4: Straw Man, LLC.: Insert new first sentence: Mr. Wadelton recused himself.
P. 4: Straw Man, LLC.: Second line: Insert: “owner” after: “Ms. Canning.”
P. 4: Straw Man, LLC.: 10th line from bottom of page: Change: “required” to “submitted” to read, “…soils report would be submitted.”
P. 9: Administrative Business: First line: Change: “Mrs. Hill” to: “Mrs. J. Hill.”MOTION:
To accept the 11/14/09 Public Hearing – Regular Meeting minutes as amended.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 5-0.The Straw Man, LLC. 11/16/09 site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 1: Add to Others Present: David Battista, P.E., Linda Frank, Conservation Commission, Atty. Jennifer Yoxall, and Peg Duus
P. 1: Add: Mrs. Hill did not participate in the portion of the site inspection on the other side of the stream.MOTION:
To accept the Straw Man, LLC. 11/16/09 site inspection minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0. Mr. Wadelton had recused himself.MOTION:
To accept the Kott 11/16/09 site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-39/Affordable Housing:
This application will be discussed at the next meeting after the Commission has consulted with its attorney.Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road (Juniper Meadow Road)#IW-09-44/ Driveway and Bridge:
Mr. Wadelton recused himself.Mr. Charles and Mr. Boling, agents, and Mr. Trinkaus, engineer, represented the applicant. Mr. Trinkaus noted the 11/22/09 review by Lenard Engineering and Mr. LaMuniere’s written concerns and said he would provide a written response two weeks prior to the public hearing. The plan, “Wetland Crossing for Access Driveway,” by Mr. Trinkaus, dated 10/12/09 was reviewed. Mr. LaMuniere noted a vegetated swale sized for a 100 year storm was proposed to run in a northwesterly direction, but he worried that due to the heavy storms this area has experienced, there would be an erosion problem at the outlet into the wetlands. He asked if rip rap was needed. Mr. Trinkaus did not think this would be a problem because the driveway would not generate much runoff, a series of check dams would slow down the runoff from the hill, and the outlet into the wetlands was in a level area, which would also slow the velocity. He offered to install rip rap for extra protection. Mr. Sonder also expressed concern about the point of discharge saying the same wetlands would receive all the flow from the diversion swale as well as the underdraining. Mr. Trinkaus said there would be sheet flow to the wetlands; not a single discharge point, and that the groundwater in the underdrain already flowed in that direction. He also noted there were well drained soils on site. Mr. Sonder asked several of the questions raised in the Lenard report and Mr. Trinkaus assured the Commission he would address each in writing before the hearing. The soils report was briefly discussed. Mr. Charles stated two soils reports were already on file and he did not understand why they were not acceptable. Mr. Bedini responded that those reports were 10 and 20 years old, that areas can change in that length of time, and a report that ties all of the information and map together was required. Mr. Bedini noted a public hearing would be held because 1) a petition had been received and 2) given the steep slopes in the area there was a possibility there could be significant impacts to the wetlands and watercourse. Because of this, he advised the applicant that feasible and prudent alternatives must be considered. Mr. Sonder and Mr. LaMuniere pointed out areas where they thought there should be additional erosion control measures installed and Mr. Trinkaus again said he would respond in writing to all concerns. Mr. LaMuniere said he did not think the plans as submitted adequately protected the stream from impact from the bridge construction. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Sonder if he had prepared a list of concerns to send with the application to the consultant. Mr. Charles said he thought Milone and McBroom’s estimate was high and asked for a second estimate from another firm. Mr. Trinkaus stated that Lenard had done a very thorough review and suggested that he be given an opportunity to respond to it before the Commission decides whether a referral to Milone and McBroom is necessary. Mr. Charles thought this was fair, while Mr. Sonder objected, saying the Commission should follow through with the referral to Milone and McBroom now that the site inspection has been conducted and that it was not proper to think that the Bee Brook Condo Assn. has done all of the review work, so now no other engineering review is needed. Mr. Bedini said the Commission would wait for Mr. Trinkaus to address all of the concerns raised before sending the application to Milone and McBroom. After a brief discussion it was decided to schedule a public hearing on January 13, 2010 if the applicant would grant an extension of time in which to commence the hearing. Mr. Boling submitted the 11/24/09 letter to request the extension. Mr. Bedini noted that the January 13th date would give Mr. Trinkaus time to address the Lenard report and Mr. Sonder time to respond prior to the start of the hearing. Mr. Trinkaus said he would submit his response by December 16. Mr. Bedini noted this application would not be discussed at the December 9th meeting.
MOTION:
To schedule a Public Hearing to consider Application #IW-09-44 submitted by Straw Man, LLC. to construct a bridge and driveway at 135 Bee Brook Road (Juniper Meadow Road) on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0. Mr. Wadelton had recused himself.Kott/14 Wheaton Road/#IW-09-47/Addition to Existing Dwelling:
It was noted that Mr. Neff, engineer, is working on revisions to reduce the scope of the addition. This application will be discussed on December 9th.
New Applications
Long/243 Bee Brook Road/#IW-09-48/Addition to Existing Dwelling:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented the plan, “Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., dated 11/10/09. He explained an addition to connect the house and garage was proposed and pointed out the location of a wetland and watercourse and the rain garden proposed to handle the increase in runoff. Mr. Ajello asked if the stockpile area would be adequate. Mr. Szymanski said it would because all but the top soil would be trucked off site. Mr. Szymanski also said there would be regrading behind the addition and the reserve septic system would not be installed at this time, and he pointed out the limit of disturbance line. Mr. Bedini noted the addition would be 70 feet from the stream. A site inspection was scheduled on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.Spring Hill Farm, LLC./69 Whittlesey Road/#IW-09-49/Driveway, Drainage System, Hillside Stabilization:
Mr. Riefenhauser, engineer, presented the plan, “Overall Site Plan for Proposed Driveway,” 5 Sheets, by Smith and Company, dated 11/19/09. Sheet #2 was reviewed for details of the driveway crossing. The proposed driveway is 1300 feet long and would cross a small wetlands. Mr. Riefenhauser pointed out the location of the wetlands on the property and the current drainage flows. He indicated an alternate driveway route, but said the sight lines were not adequate there. Mr. Bedini asked if the driveway would be paved. Mr. Riefenhauser said it would be 12 feet wide and paved. Due to the steep grades and severe erosion problems on the hillside, Mr. Riefenhauser proposed a series of plunge pools to slow the runoff and protect the slope from further erosion. A site inspection was scheduled for December 2, 2009 at 3:30 p.m.
Other Business
Discussion of 11/19/09 Letter from Mr. Kessler:
Mr. Wadelton read the letter and attached email. Mr. Kessler objected to the closing out of his permit when the Commission returned his entire bond. The Commissioners, however, thought if the bond was returned the permit should be closed and suggested Mr. Kessler could reapply when he was ready to proceed with the construction of the second dwelling. Mr. Ajello noted the original permit had been for activities on two separate properties and said that two separate permits should have been required; one for each street address. Mr. Bedini stated he believed the Commission had acted properly because a condition of approval of the original permit had been the posting of the performance bond. Mrs. Hill agreed that if Mr. Kessler was not finished with his proposed work, the bond should have remained in place. Mr. Bedini suggested a letter be sent to Mr. Kessler to explain that if he decides to build exactly what he applied for in the original application, the approval process would not be as lengthy as for the first permit or if he wants the permit to remain open, he must return all of the bond. The commissioners agreed to proceed in this way. Mr. Bedini said he would ask Atty. Zizka if this was a wise and legal approach.Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road/#IW-09-49:
Mr. Charles noted the report from Lenard Engineering referred to documents it received from the Bee Brook Condo Assoc., which had not been submitted to the file.Possible Impact of Subdivision on Rt. 109, New Milford on Walker Brook:
Concerned that jurisdiction over this project rests with New Milford and that the ongoing construction would adversely impact Walker Brook, Mr. LaMuniere recommended that a base line water quality study be completed. He said that testing two or three times a year as a protective measure would ensure that the brook would not suffer long term impacts. Mr. Ajello said the Town of New Milford should be responsible for getting base line data and ongoing monitoring. Mr. Bedini asked him to find out what the cost would be for water quality monitoring and said if the Commission decided to implement such an operation, it would inform New Milford it was doing so. Mr. Ajello will consult with the New Milford Health Department and Mr. Bernard from Hydro Technologies.
Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello read the 11/23/09 letter from Atty. Fisher, which stated that due to this year’s weather, the site had never dried out and so the required planting had not been done. He requested an extension of the deadline for planting to the spring of 2010. Mr. LaMuniere thought April should be targeted so the extension would not be so open ended.Brown/127 West Shore Road:
Deposition papers have been received, but Atty. Zizka’s office said it would notify the Commission if and when it must respond.Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-07-V12:
Mr. Ajello and Mr. LaMuniere reported on their inspection of the property. They found additional equipment had been brought to the site. Mr. Ajello said he had taken photos.Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/#IW-07-V14:
Mr. Ajello recommended that most of the bond be returned as the planting plan had been implemented except for a few trees that had died. He thought they should be replaced with trees more suitable for wet areas such as red maples and river birches.Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-V5:
Mr. Ajello will meet with Ms. Brose on Monday, November 30.
Enforcement Report
Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/#IW-07-V14:
Mr. Ajello said he had copies of invoices that showed what Mr. Slaymaker had paid for the plants. It was the consensus to return $4000 of the $5000 bond.MOTION:
Regarding Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/ Violation #IW-07-V14: to return $4000 of the performance bond and retain $1000.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Delancy/79 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-08-V6:
Mr. Delancy said he would submit an application to correct a violation for the 12/9 meeting.Schein/245 West Shore Road/#IW-08-V7:
Mr. Ajello will forward the citation to Mrs. Schein’s daughter who will be the new property owner. The new owner will contact Mr. Ajello about the required planting.Angell/47 West Shore Road/#IW-09-V1:
The citation sent was returned marked, “undelivered.” Mr. Ajello will check the mailing address.Showah/311 Bee Brook Road/#IW-09-V2/Unauthorized Driveway:
Mrs. Hill asked if Mrs. Showah had contacted the DOT for approval of the driveway cut. Mr. Ajello said he would soon send a notice of violation. He said he had inspected the site and had seen standing water, a defined channel and banks, and water flowing into the wetland area.
Administrative Business
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-39/Affordable Housing:
Mr. Bedini said he would consult with Atty. Zizka regarding the handling of tonight’s public hearing and whether Section 10.06 is legal. Mrs. Hill stated that Ms. Purnell’s letter had been submitted and was in the record and that the Commission could review it on its own if it did not refer it to a consultant. She noted, too, that Section 10.06 said the Commission “may” refuse documents submitted late in the hearing, not that it “shall” refuse them. Mr. Bedini noted the Commission now has 35 days in which to consider the entire record and to act on the application. He said Mr. Szymanski could complain that he did not have an opportunity to respond to Ms. Purnell’s document, but added that he could have asked for an extension, but refused to do so. There was a discussion about when new information may be submitted at public hearings. Although the Commission tried to get all information in early so that all parties would have the opportunity to review it and comment prior to the close of the hearing, Mr. Ajello noted per state statute, no new information may be received after the close of the hearing except for clarification by consultants and staff. Mr. Ajello and Mr. Wadelton thought Ms. Purnell could have either read her letter or asked questions that Mr. Szymanski could have answered while the hearing was still open.There were no other communications and no reason to hold an executive session.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Bohan
Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 9:36 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Posted: November 19, 2009 November 10, 2009
Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
5:30 and 7:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill (absent for public hearing), Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Sonder, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Neff, Mr. WoodwardPUBLIC HEARING
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-39/Affordable Housing/Con’t.
Mr. Bedini reconvened the public hearing at 5:31 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, LaMuniere, and Wadelton. Mr. Bedini noted the review from Land Tech had not yet been received due to problems with the postal service.
Mr. LaMuniere noted the plans revised to 11/4/09 now showed the network of underground pipes and how the drainage system connects with the catch basin, but still did not show erosion and sedimentation controls at the bottom of the embankment near the tennis court as he had requested. He noted there were only four discharge points for the entire drainage system.
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, arrived at 5:37 p.m. He said he had responded to the Commission’s requests to
1) show the existing underground piping,
2) address wetland pond #2 and how its runoff will be handled, stating its outflow pipe was sized for a 100 year storm event and the runoff would discharge to a level spreader with a non erosive downhill outlet,
3) the outlet to Kirby Brook near wetlands flags #1, #2, and #3 had been reexamined and the outfall to the edge of the brook was increased in size to 4 ft. wide X 1 ft. deep, resulting in 576 sq. ft. of disturbance in the wetlands,
4) a list of the proposed activities within the Commission’s jurisdiction was submitted in his letter dated 11/3/09, and
5)the restoration requested by Land Tech at wetlands flag #14 was included in the plan.He noted that he had received a copy of the notice of intervention by Mrs. Federer and he briefly addressed each of the points raised in this document. For most of these points he stated that Mrs. Federer had not provided documentation to prove the plans were inadequate.
Mr. LaMuniere again noted that the erosion and sedimentation controls he had requested downhill of the tennis court and uphill of the vegetated swale to wet pond #1 had not been included as he had requested. Mr. Szymanski promised to submit a revised Sheet OSD.1 to address these concerns.
Mr. LaMuniere also stated there were only four discharge points to Kirby Brook and so he thought that unless there was a major storm event, the brook would not be adversely impacted. Mr. Szymanski said he had demonstrated that the proposed drainage system would adequately handle a 100 year storm.
There were no other questions or comments from the commissioners or from the public.
At 5:50 p.m. Mr. Bedini continued the public hearing to Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Bedini called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
MOTION:
To include the following subsequent business not already posted on the agenda:
V. New Applications:
A. Kott/14 Wheaton Road/ #IW-09-47/Addition to Existing Dwelling,VI. Other Business:
A. Request to Amend Harrison/ 19 Kielwasser Road/#IW-09-10/1) driveway extension, 2) enlargement of garage addition,
B. Request to Release Bond/Rubler/240 Wykeham Road,
C. Bubblers on Lake Waramaug,
D. Walker Brook Subdivision, New Milford. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 10/28/09 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.Page 2: End of line 12: Change to: “Mr. LaMuniere agreed with Land Tech that the plans must show how the catch basins and the underground network of pipes connect and whether there are other discharge points besides the two discharging into Kirby Brook shown on the plan. The Commission needs to understand how the overall site’s drainage system functions. He also stated that to prevent further erosion at the discharge point at the northeast corner of the existing tennis court, rip rapping or other measures should be considered to control runoff velocity. Mr. Szymanski….”
Page 2: End of line 25: Change to: “Mr. LaMuniere stated that he had inspected the location of the proposed extremely steep embankment on the west side of the proposed tennis court….”
Page 8: Line 13: Insert: “remediation” to read, “The presentation (remediation) plan was reviewed.”
Page 8: Line 17: Change to: “It was the consensus to require
1) two applications to correct a violation; one for the upper wall and planters and the second to remove the illegal structures and
2) to require execution of the proposed planting plan.Page 10: Line 16: The correct spelling is “Andersson.”
MOTION:
To accept the 10/28/09 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.The 11/3/09 Dubuque site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected.
In the last paragraph, the spelling of “vegetation” was corrected.MOTION:
To accept the 11/3/09 Dubuque site inspection minutes as corrected.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 11/3/09 Saharek site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0-1. Mrs. Hill abstained.MOTION:
To accept the 11/3/09 Laus site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-39/Affordable Housing:
The public hearing was continued to Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road (Juniper Meadow Road)/#IW-09-44 /Driveway and Bridge:
Copies of the 11/7/09 letter from Ms. Canning requesting that her engineer be given the opportunity to present the construction plans to the Commission and that the Commission conduct a site inspection of the property prior to deciding whether to forward the application to Milone & McBroom for review was circulated.Mr. Charles, agent, said he thought the proposed cost of the consultant’s review was high considering that the Commission had previously approved a culvert crossing for this site, this proposal implements limited impact development practices, there are no feasible and prudent alternatives, and the estimate did not include a cap for the cost. He, too, recommended that a site inspection be scheduled soon so the Commission would be familiar with the area.
The revised plans, “Wetlands Crossing for Access Driveway,” 4 sheets, by Mr. Trinkaus, dated 10/12/09 were reviewed.
Mr. Charles pointed out the wetlands flags, wetlands soils, seepage envelope, right of way, driveway route in the regulated area, etc. He noted that due to the location of the right of way the driveway must cross the wetlands. He said the proposed location minimizes the cut through the wetlands and that there was no alternative. It was noted that the soils shown on the sketch maps from previous applications did not exactly match those on Howland’s survey map.
Mr. LaMuniere thought the Commission should inspect the site and come up with technical questions about the impact of the bridge construction on the wetlands so that these could be referred in a timely manner to the consultant.
Mr. Ajello recommended the plans be reviewed by the consultant prior to the commencement of the public hearing.
Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Sonder if he had prepared a list of concerns for the consultant to review. Mr. Sonder said he had not, but hoped to have it ready for the next meeting.
Mr. Sonder noted one question he had was whether there were more prudent ways to access the property.
Mr. Bedini stated the Commission usually tries to have the site inspection conducted and the consultant’s report in before the start of the public hearing.
Mr. Charles thought it would be helpful to schedule the site inspection before referring the application to the consultant to help the Commission zero in on its concerns.
Mrs. Hill thought a review by the Commission’s consultant was necessary because it had been 20 years since the original application had been approved.
A site inspection was scheduled for Monday, Nov. 16, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.
Mr. Sonder asked if a new soils report would be required. Mr. Charles noted there were already two soils reports and two soils sketch maps in the file, said the wetlands had been flagged for the current application, and so asked if another soils report was necessary.
Mrs. Hill thought the current map accurately showed the location of the wetlands flags.
Mr. Sonder asked if the Commission’s consultant was authorized to begin his review.
Mr. Bedini said he would not be authorized to begin until Mr. Sonder’s list of concerns had been submitted.
Mr. Sonder asked when the applicant’s engineer would make his presentation.
Mr. Charles said this would be done at the public hearing.
Mr. Ajello asked why the Commission would hold up on the consultant’s report and Mr. Bedini responded that until Milone & McBroom had the list of concerns to address, the scope of the review and the estimated cost could not be determined.
Mr. Ajello responded that was the reason the applicant was required to post 150% of the estimated cost for the consultants’ bond.
Mr. Bedini said the Commission would get its list of concerns to Milone & McBroom soon after the site inspection. Mr. LaMuniere recommended the commissioners also review the previous files for this property.
Laus/22 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-09-45/Subdivision and Site Development:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, compared the plan, “Site Development Map,” by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., revised to 11/10/09, which showed the proposed change in the driveway location, to the original plan dated 10/1/09. He noted that on the site inspection the commissioners had asked if the driveway route in the northeast corner of Lot #1 could be shifted to the other side of the existing stonewall to increase the separation distance from the wetlands. Therefore, he had modified the plan to provide a 60 ft. buffer from the wetlands. He also modified the limit of disturbance line and the erosion control measures accordingly.Mrs. Hill asked if Mr. Myles’ wetlands report had been submitted. Mr. Szymanski stated a note had been added to the plan that the wetlands delineations had been done in the field by Mr. Myles and he would send in Mr. Myles’ report.
Mrs. Hill asked if the other commissioners had concerns about the rip rapped pad for the footing drain outlet. They did not.
Mr. LaMuniere noted the change in the driveway location was an improvement.
MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-45 submitted by Ms. Laus for a subdivision and site development at 22 Nichols Hill Road per the plan, “Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., revised to 11/10/09.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 5-0.
Saharek/220 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-09-46E/Install Driveway, Remove Stumps, Plant Christmas Trees:
Mrs. Hill recused herself.Mr. Bedini noted there had been no issues raised at the last meeting and he reviewed possible conditions of approval.
Mr. Wadelton questioned the validity of placing conditions on an agricultural operation.
After a brief discussion it was the consensus to include conditions due to the soil disturbance that would result from the stump removal and regrading.
MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-46E submitted by Mr. Sarharek for an agricultural exemption to install a driveway, remove stumps, and plant Christmas trees at 220 Old Litchfield Road subject to the condition that erosion and sedimentation controls be installed within 50 feet of all wetlands and that this line constitute the limit of disturbance.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 4-0.
Mrs. Hill was reseated.
New Applications
Kott/14 Wheaton Road/#IW-09-47/Addition to Existing Dwelling:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his plan, “Proposed Site Plan,” dated 10/22/09. He explained an 8’ X 21’ addition was proposed on the rear of the dwelling, that the addition would be close to the side yard boundary lines and only 21 feet from the wetlands, and there were no new bedrooms proposed so no changes to the existing septic system would be required. Concrete piers were proposed so minimal foundation work would be required. Mr. Neff also noted that the area behind the house is flat and not prone to erosion, but that he had also submitted an erosion and sedimentation control plan. He said there would not be much excavation work and that any excess material would be taken off site.Mrs. Hill asked if hay bales would be placed in the stream. Mr. Neff said they would be installed at the edge of the property, not in the stream.
Mr. LaMuniere stated that the Commission had required a buffer of vegetation be planted at the hilltop above the wetlands to prevent erosion. Mr. Neff showed some photos of the yard, but it did not look like the required vegetation had been planted.
Mrs. Hill asked Mr. Ajello to research the old file and make sure all of the required planting had been done.
A site inspection was scheduled for Monday, 11/16/09 at 4:00 p.m.
Other Business
Request to Amend Harrison/19 Kielwasser Road/#IW-09-10 to Include Driveway Extension and Enlargement of Garage Addition:
Mr. Neff, engineer, reviewed the revised plan, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 11/7/09, pointing out the proposed driveway location and the increase in size of the garage from 12’ X 19’ to 19’ X 19’. No changes to the septic system were proposed. Mr. Neff noted that although the extension would bring the driveway closer to the wetlands on the south and east sides of the property and to the watercourse to the south, the wetlands were not directly downgrade and the watercourse was upgrade so they would not be impacted by the proposed construction.Mr. LaMuniere asked if the driveway would have an impervious surface. Mr. Neff responded that it would match the existing asphalt surfaced driveway.
Mr. Ajello voiced the following concerns:
1) The soil stockpile area was not sufficiently sized for such a constrained site with so much excavate material. He asked that the site plan be amended to show an adequate stockpile area.
2) The proposed installation of a propane tank was a regulated activity, but had not been shown on the site plan.
3) The additional work on the garage foundation was a change to the permit, but had not been reported to the Commission as required.
4) The conduit trenches that had been dug through wetlands were a regulated activity, but had not been applied for or shown on the site plan.Mr. Neff said there was not room for all of the excavated material and so some would be trucked off site.
Mr. Bedini asked for a note on the plan to specify any unused material would be taken off site.
Mr. Woodward, contractor, said Wright Electric had installed silt fence and had put in the trenches, but he took responsibility for not checking to make sure Inland Wetlands approval had been granted.
It was the consensus that the utility trench dug through the wetlands was a violation and Mr. LaMuniere thought that a citation should be issued.
Mr. Ajello said he would talk to Wright Electric.
Possible conditions of approval for the request to amend the permit were discussed.
MOTION:
To approve the request to amend Permit #IW-09-10 issued to Harrison/19 Kielwasser Road to extend the driveway and enlarge the garage addition subject to the following conditions:
1) the plan be revised to show the locations of the service trench and the proposed propane tank,
2) a note shall be added to the plans that all unused material shall be trucked off site, and
3) the applicant must check to determine whether the stockpile areas shown on the plan are sufficient in size to accommodate the excavated materials.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Request for Release of Bond/Rubler/240 Wykeham Road:
Mr. Ajello said there was no longer any reason to hold the bond and that the application for the tennis court and pool had expired.MOTION:
To return the bond posted for Rubler/240 Wykeham Road.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Bubblers on Lake Waramaug:
Mr. Ajello reported there are many bubblers on the lake that keep the water free of ice all year long. He said this attracts geese and increases the nutrient load in the water. Some of these installations, he said, include electrical service to the waterfront, adding that if the service requires more than just a post in the ground, an Inland Wetlands permit is required. Mr. Ajello was concerned because he thought meter boxes along the waterfront are ugly and bubblers are outside the Commission’s jurisdiction because they are installed in state waters.Mr. Bedini said the Assessor’s position is that the Town of Washington owns the lake bottom.
Mr. Ajello asked if the Commission wanted to try to curb the use of bubblers.
It was the consensus to let the Lake Waramaug Assoc. and Dr. Kortmann handle this issue.
Walker Brook Subdivision/Rt. 109, New Milford:
It was noted that since the start of work on this project, sediment has been observed in Walker Brook.Mr. Nichols, Walker Brook Road, asked if the Town of Washington would request that New Milford keep it “officially in the loop” for all enforcement communications.
The Commission asked Mr. Ajello to drive by the site two or three times a week and to call New Milford whenever he noticed any impact to the brook.
Mr. Bedini said Mr. Nichols could contact the First Selectman if he wanted the Town to take any further action.
Enforcement
Charvillat/96 Roxbury Road:
Mr. Ajello wrote the property owner as the Commission requested, but to date there has been no response.Dubuque/231 Baldwin Hill Road/#IW-09-V02/Clearing, Excavation:
Mr. Bedini reported that the Town will install and maintain plunge pools near the road and the driveway culvert to slow the velocity of the runoff and act as sediment basins. In addition, Mr. Dubuque will line the swale along the driveway with rip rap. It was noted the Commission considers this to be a regulated area and that Mr. Dubuque said he would revegetate the disturbed areas in the spring.Schein/245 West Shore Road/#IW-08-V7/Unauthorized Work on Shoreline:
Mr. Ajello will send another letter and reissue the citation.Harrison/19 Kielwasser Road/Unauthorized Activity in Regulated Area:
There was a brief discussion about whether to issue a citation for this violation. It was the consensus to send the citation to the contractor.
Administrative Business
Mrs. Hill passed out the following documents:
1) “Roles and Responsibilities of Local Land Use Officials – Inland Wetlands Commission,” by the Land Use Academy, revised 9/09,
2) “Public Hearing Procedures,” by Atty. Branse, and 3) “Working to Keep Land Use Decisions Legal, Summary of 9/26/09 Land Use Academy Workshop,” by Mrs. Hill.She asked the commissioners to review them and said if there were any questions, they could be discussed at the next meeting.
MOTION: To enter Executive Session at 9:43 p.m. to discuss pending litigation: Brown/127 West Shore Road. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end Executive Session at 9:48 p.m. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:49 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Posted: November 10, 2009 October 28, 2009
Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
5:00 – 6:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.
Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Collum, Mrs. Friedman, Mrs. Solomon, Mr. Hileman, Ms. Purnell, Mr. Charles, Mr. Sonders, Mr. Dubuque, Mr. Lyon, Ms. Zinick, Mr. Lasar, Mr. Saharek, Mr. Swanson, Mr. Boling, Mr. DelancyPUBLIC HEARING
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-39/Affordable Housing
Mr. Bedini called the Public Hearing to order at 5:04 p.m. and read the legal notice published in Voices on 10/17/09 and 10/24/09.
Mrs. Hill arrived at 5:07 p.m. Mr. Bedini seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
Mr. Bedini read the list of all of the documents in the file, noting that the previous application, #IW-09-23, was included in the current file.
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, submitted certified mailing receipts for the notification of property owners within two hundred feet of the site. The “Overall Site Development Plan,” Sheet OSD.1, by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 10/6/09 was reviewed.
Mr. Szymanski noted the proposed affordable housing project would use most of the existing infrastructure. He briefly addressed the points raised in Land Tech’s 10/27/09 letter to the Commission. He noted the proposed regulated activities:
1) The existing tennis court near wetlands flags #13 and #8, #9, and #10 and the retaining wall on its downhill side will be removed, the area restored with natural vegetation, and buffer plantings put in along the stream. 2) At the request of Land Tech, a small area of wetlands will be regraded near wetland flag #14 where there is an eroded gulley.
3) A few hundred square feet of pavement associated with existing buildings #4, and #6 will be removed.
4) Erosion controls will be placed near wet pond #1 and a level spreader constructed in the upland review area per request of Land Tech.
5) The existing accessway from Bell Hill Road will be top dressed.
6) Modified rip rap aprons will be added on the easterly downhill side of both existing outlet pipes.
7) A vegetated swale on the downhill side of wetland flag #65 and #66 will be installed.He reviewed the outstanding comments from Land Tech’s 10/27/09 letter:
1) He agreed to revise the plans to include a temporary barrier fence to prevent wetlands disturbance in the vicinity of wetlands flags #65 and #66.
2) Regarding pond #1 and Pond #2, minor regrading will be added to provide vehicular access to both ponds.
3) He agreed to show the existing pipe from pond #2 on the east side of building #5 from the existing catch basin to the point where it discharges.Mr. Szymanski stated now that he had the site inspection comments, he would submit a written description of all of the proposed activities.
Mr. LaMuniere agreed with Land Tech that the plans must show the catch basin and the two discharge points above Kirby Brook, how the underground network of pipes is connected, and whether there are any other discharge points in order that the Commission understand how the site’s drainage system functions. He also stated that to prevent further erosion at the southeaster corner of the tennis court, baffles should be installed or other measures should be taken to control the runoff velocity.
Mr. Szymanski said he was not adding any drainage flow to that area and so did not propose any improvements there, although he said he would consider some kind of mitigation in the vicinity of wetlands flag #3. Sheet #D.3 revised to 10/6/09 was reviewed and, the skimmer assemblies that would connect into the outlet control structures were noted.
Mr. LaMuniere stated that he had inspected the extremely steep embankment on the north side of the proposed tennis courts and had determined that silt fence, hay bales, or other erosion control measures must be installed and maintained until vegetation comes up through the erosion control blanket to prevent sediment from washing into the swale leading to wet pond #1. Mr. Szymanski agreed.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if there would be any changes to the construction sequence due to the latest revisions. Mr. Szymanski said the construction sequence was complete.
Mr. Bedini asked if the public had any questions about wetlands concerns.
Ms. Purnell asked if the public hearing would be continued. Mr. Bedini said it would because a final plan had not yet been submitted. Ms. Purnell said she would submit written comments.
It was the consensus to continue the hearing to November 10. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Szymanski and Ms. Purnell to get their documents in three or four days ahead of time so there would be adequate time to review them.
MOTION:
To continue the Public Hearing to consider Application #IW-09-39 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. for affordable housing at 101 Wykeham Road to Tuesday, 11/10/09 at 5:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.At 5:40 p.m. Mr. Bedini continued the Public Hearing per the above motion.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the agenda:V. New Applications:
A. Laus/22 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-09-45/2 Lot Subdivision and Site Development,
B. Saharek/220 Old Litchfield Road/ #IW-09-46E/Install Driveway, Remove Stumps, Plant Christmas Trees,
VII. Enforcement:
Q. Dubuque/231 Baldwin Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing and Excavation/#IW-09-V02,
VIII. Administrative Business:
B. CACIWC Annual Meeting and Environmental Conference,
C. Discussion re: Authority to Issue Citations.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 10/14/09 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 5: Line 4: Change to Plumb “Hill” Road.
P. 6: Line 9: Change “problem with” to “problem when”
P. 7: Line 11: Change “series of swales” to “series of baffles”MOTION:
To accept the 10/14/09 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 10/20/09 Lloyd site inspection minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 10/20/09 Potolsky site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 10/27/09 Wykeham Rise, LLC. site inspection minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Early/52 Carmel Hill Road/#IW-09-37/Renovate Existing Dwelling:
Ms. Zinick, agent, noted that she had submitted a more complete map since the last meeting and a statement that the upgrading of the service trench was no longer included in the application. The map, “Proposed Site Development Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/3/08 with handwritten notations by Ms. Zinick was reviewed. She explained a portion of the roof would be rebuilt, but the footprint of the house would not change and would remain 74 feet from the pond. She noted the limit of disturbance, the stockpile area, the location of the silt fence, and parking for workers on the existing driveway.MOTION:
To approve as amended Application #IW-09-37 submitted by Ms. Early to renovate the dwelling at 52 Carmel Hill Road per the site development plan revised to 10/21/09 with the conditions that it is for the roof work only and that silt fencing will be installed.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-39/Affordable Housing:
The Public Hearing was continued to Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.Town of Washington/Plumb Hill Road/#IW-09-41/Install Drainage System:
Mr. Lyon, First Selectman, said there had been no changes to the plans since the last meeting and that work had started on the installation of the catch basins and cross culverts at the end opposite the wetlands. It was the consensus that the application had previously been thoroughly discussed and there were no other questions.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-41 submitted by the Town of Washington to install a drainage system on Plumb Hill Road per the plans, “Drainage Improvement, Town of Washington, Plumb Hill Road,” by Lenard Engineering, Inc., dated 3/13/07.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Lloyd (Cornell)/ Whittlesey Road/#IW-09-42/Road Drainage Improvements:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, reported that the Town had required a minor revision to the plan, so a catch basin had been added in the road shoulder as had been discussed on the site inspection. Other revisions since the last meeting were: 1) the length of pipe to the outlet was increased from 60 ft. to 80 ft. and 2) a note was added to the plans that the WEO would be notified 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so that the erosion controls could be inspected. The Plan, “Proposed Drainage Improvements at 149 Whittlesey Road,” by Mr. Sabin, revised to 10/26/09 drawn on the “Property/Boundary Survey,” by Mr. Alex dated November 2005 was reviewed. Mr. Bohan asked if the proposed 6 inch pipe would be adequate and Mr. Sabin said it would.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-42 submitted by the Lloyds for drainage improvements at ___ Whittlesey Road per the plan, “Proposed Drainage Improvements at 149 Whittlesey Road,” by Mr. Sabin, revised to 10/26/09 based on the November 2005 survey by Mr. Alex.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.Potolsky/131 West Shore Road/#IW-09-43/Relocate Driveway, Construct Addition to Existing Dwelling:
Mr. Lasar, architect, presented revised plans; “Site Analysis Plan,” by Mr. Lasar, dated 10/14/09 on the “Property/Boundary Survey,” by Mr. Alex, dated February 2006. Mrs. Hill pointed out the plan now included Mr. Neff’s proposed drainage system and infiltration system just north of the 100 foot wetlands setback line. Mr. LaMuniere thought the plan now contained all necessary details and that no additional information was needed.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-43 submitted by Mr. Potolsky to relocate the driveway and construct an addition to the existing dwelling at 131 West Shore Road per the site plan by Mr. Lasar revised to 10/21/09.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Dubuque/231 Baldwin Hill Road/#IW-09-V02:
Mr. Ajello circulated photos that showed an area with intermittent streams had been cleared and excavated. It was noted that although the maps on file show watercourses, Mr. Dubuque had had a 1990 soils report by Mr. Mueller, which stated there were no wetlands on site. Therefore, he had not realized he needed a permit for the work he had done.Mr. Ajello said that in 1995 the state changed its definition of intermittent watercourse, which explained why the Commission now has jurisdiction over activities in this area. Mr. Dubuque noted that before Saturday’s storm he had spread hay over the disturbed areas and had installed five hay bale check dams to slow the velocity of the runoff. He explained the work he did had been necessary because road drainage was destroying his property and driveway. He had dug a swale to divert the runoff, had connected it to a gulley to direct it, and had regraveled his driveway. He said he had completed the excavation work. He noted he still had to hand rake the disturbed areas and rip rap the swale and said he would plant the disturbed areas in the spring. Mr. Ajello agreed the hay bale check dams would slow the runoff and reduce erosion.
A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.
Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/Unauthorized Stream Work and Clearing/#IW-08-V2:
The 10/20/09 letter from the Army Corps of Engineers to Mr. Rosen was reviewed. This letter threatened further enforcement action if Mr. Rosen did not respond to the Corps’ requests.
New Application Saharek/220 Old Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-09-46E/Driveway, Remove Stumps, Plant Christmas Trees:
Mrs. Hill recused herself because she is related to the applicant. Mr. Ajello explained this was an application for an agricultural exemption and noted the wetlands had been flagged by a previous property owner. Mr. Saharek proposed to stump, regrade, and seed the disturbed area, install a driveway, and plant Christmas trees. He said he had to get approval from the state DOT for the driveway cut and that the driveway would be approximately 300 feet long. Mr. LaMuniere stated there was a gentle slope so there would be no drainage problems. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 3:30 p.m.Mrs. Hill was reseated.
Laus/22 Nichols Hill Road/#IW-09-45/2 Lot Subdivision and Site Development:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented the plan, “Site Development, 22 Nichols Hill Road, Town of Washington,” 7 pp., by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., dated 10/1/09. He noted briefly a two lot subdivision was proposed on the 17.6 acre parcel, the plans included the feasibility of the construction of a house on the new lot, and a driveway crossing was proposed over the narrowest point of the wetlands. A seepage envelope that would allow continued conductivity was proposed for the crossing. He noted that the length of the driveway within the wetlands and regulated area was 40 feet and that the wetlands had been flagged by a soil scientist. Elsewhere on the property, a stonewall to serve as a sediment barrier would be constructed between the driveway and the wetlands.Mr. Szymanski addressed the points raised in the 10/28/09 Application Review by Mrs. J. Hill:
1) He said the soil scientist would submit his report.
2) He submitted the USGS quad map.
3) He said he would notify the Commission who the contractor would be and who would be responsible for the daily inspection of the erosion controls.
4) Mrs. Laus would sign the application form.
5) Sheet SES.1 had been revised to state the crossing would be installed during a dry period.
6) The construction sequence had been amended to state the crossing would be installed prior to the commencement of work related to the lot development/ house construction.
7) The limit of disturbance was more clearly indicated on the plan.A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 2:00 p.m.
Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road (Juniper Meadow Road)/#IW-09-44/Driveway and Bridge:
Mr. Wadelton recused himself because he is an adjoining property owner.
Mrs. J. Hill noted that a petition requesting a public hearing had been submitted and intervenor paperwork filed. Mr. Bedini noted that he wanted as much information as possible to be submitted prior to the start of the hearing, including the review by Milone and McBroom. Mr. Charles submitted two soils reports for this site from a previous application. These will be forwarded to Milone and McBroom who will determine whether they are adequate. Hopefully the estimate for the consulting work will be received before the next meeting. It was noted a site inspection would be scheduled after the Milone and McBroom report is completed. Mr. Wadelton was reseated.
Enforcement Brose/213 Roxbury Road/Unauthorized Clearing and Structures/ IW-08-V5:
The plans, “Proposed Wetlands Restoration,” by Land Tech, dated 6/8/09 and “Proposed Wetlands Presentation,” by Land Tech, dated 6/9/09, both with handwritten notes by Ms. Brose and the 10/27/09 letter from Ms. Brose to Mr. Ajello were reviewed.
In her letter Ms. Brose proposed to
1) remove the patio, wall, and stairs as indicated by hand on the above plan (approximately half the stairs would be removed,
2) restore the patio area per “Plan 2” to a “meadow planting area,”
3) let the clearcut areas restore naturally without additional plantings, and
4) begin all work in the spring of 2010.Mr. Ajello noted that proposal did not address the unauthorized wall by the house, which had been constructed 32 feet from the wetlands without a permit. He recommended that all structures within 50 feet of the wetlands be removed.
Mr. LaMuniere said he wanted to focus on the major violation and asked if the wall by the house impacted the wetlands. He also noted that Ms. Brose now proposed no plantings to restore the cut areas.
Mrs. J. Hill suggested an application to correct a violation be required for the wall near the house and the other violations handled under enforcement. Mrs. Hill asked if Ms. Brose had begun any of the restoration planting and Mr. Ajello responded she had not.
Mr. Wadelton stated, and Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Bedini agreed, that all structures beyond the limit of disturbance line should be removed because Ms. Brose had ignored that condition of approval in her original permit.
Mr. Ajello thought that for the health of the trees previously planted on the hillside that the planter retaining walls should remain. It was the consensus that these could be added to the application to correct the violation.
The presentation plan was reviewed. Mr. Bedini noted that the proposed planting was mitigation for the clearcutting and not for the construction of the unauthorized structures. Mr. LaMuniere agreed, adding that if the area was not planted, invasives would take over.
It was the consensus to require both
1) an application to correct a violation for the upper wall and planters and
2) planting per Land Tech’s above referenced remediation plans to restore the damaged wetlands.Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Ajello to write to Ms. Brose to inform her of these requirements.
Delancy/79 Litchfield Turnpike/Clearcutting/#IW-08-V6:
Mr. Delancy attended the meeting because he had received a citation, could not get an appeal form from the Land Use Office, but wanted to make an appeal. It was noted that appeal forms are available in the Selectmen’s Office. Mr. Delancy said the letter sent by the Commission on 9/16/09 told him an application was required, but did not give him a deadline, but the citation letter specified that 10/14/09 had been the deadline. He reviewed the remedial work he had done on his property to date and said he had not had time to make an application for the rest of the activities he proposed.Mr. Bedini responded that he should have contacted the Commission that there would be a delay in submitting the application, rather than ignoring the letter like he did.
Mr. Delancy reviewed the sketch map he had presented at the 9/9/09 meeting. Mr. Bedini advised him to add dimensions and the stream to the map and provide a written description of all activities proposed.
Mr. LaMuniere noted that at the 9/9/09 meeting, Mr. Bedini had given Mr. Delancy a list of eight actions be carried out to clean up the violations on his property, that since then two letters had been sent, and it was now time that Mr. Delancy follow through with the required application.
Mr. Delancy complained the application form was intimidating. Mr. Bedini noted that to be helpful the Commission had told him it would not require an A-2 survey, had provided him with the list of items to address, and had the Conservation District report on the soils on site so he did not have to hire a soil scientist. Mr. Delancy asked that the citation be withdrawn. Mr. Bedini said the Commission would discuss it and let him know, but noted the application was still due and there were regulations to follow. Mr. Delancy asked if the citation deadline could be extended. Mr. Ajello agreed to extend it. Mr. Delancy asked that the application fee be waived. Mr. Bedini said there was no reason to waive the application fee and to do so would set a bad precedent. Mr. Delancy asked if he could stack firewood at the corner of the roadbed and the driveway. Mr. Bedini advised him to show it as a proposed activity on his sketch map and the Commission would then consider it.
Mr. Ajello noted the violations on the property had included storage of materials from off site in the wetlands and operating equipment in the wetlands. Mr. Delancy said the location where he proposed to stack firewood would be good because the machinery could be operated from the driveway and reach the wood without going into the wetlands. Mr. Bedini noted the Commission would not allow machinery to be operated in the wetlands.
Enforcement Report
Angell/47 West Shore Road:
A notice of violation and a citation have been sent.Bardell/169, 177 Baldwin Hill Road:
This work is nearing completion.Beckett/23 Loomarwick Road:
The foundation is being backfilled. The silt fence and anti tracking pad will have to be reinstalled.Bowman/44 Plumb Hill Road:
Work is progressing.Charvillat/96 Roxbury Road:
It was noted that after a finish card had been sent in, Mr. Ajello wrote to the property owner that the blue flag iris around the pond and buffer vegetation had not been planted per the approved plan.Donovan/53 Kinney Hill Road:
Recent storms did not damage the site.Dubuque/231 Baldwin Hill Road:
This was discussed earlier in the meeting. It was agreed it would have been helpful if the determination regarding whether there were wetlands on the property had been made before, rather than after, the work had been done.Moriniere/Wheaton Road:
An agent approval was granted for a service trench.Schein/245 West Shore Road:
The physical work is finished, but the required plantings have not been done. Mr. Ajello will contact the owner. It was also noted the citation had not been paid.Tangeman/84 Carmel Hill Road:
The vernal pool has been installed and is holding water, but the planting has not yet been done.Town of Washington/East Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello noted the shoreline does not have a natural edge as the Commission anticipated.141 West Shore Road, LLC./141 West Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello thought the work had been completed.
Enforcement
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Clearing, Filling:
There was nothing new to report. Mr. Ajello will review the file.DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory:
Mr.Ajello had nothing new to report.Anderson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road:
The agreement has been signed and is waiting for the court date. Once approved in court, restoration will be done on site per the approved plan.Brown/127 West Shore Road:
This matter continues in litigation.Howard/West Shore Road:
The Commission is waiting for an official notification from our attorney that this matter has been resolved.Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-07-V12:
There has been no progress.Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/#IW-07-V14:
The restoration work was supposed to have been completed by this time, but the Land Use Office has not received notification that it has been done. Mr. Ajello noted the Town is holding a $5000 bond.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-V2:
The 10/20/09 letter from the Army Corps of Engineers was discussed earlier in the last Meeting.Files Closed by the WEO:
Mr. Ajello reported that he had signed off on and closed:
1)Kessler/West Mountain Road,
2) the Town of Washington/Nettleton Hollow Road,
3) Erhout/289 West Shore Road/Septic Repair,
4) Shepaug Valley Regional Middle-High School/South Street/Drain Pool, and
5) Lufkin/36 Hinkle Road/Chemical Application to Pond.
Administrative Business
Annual CACIWC Meeting:
Registration forms for the annual meeting were circulated.Authority to Issue Citations:
Mrs. Hill noted that the issuance of citations is the enforcement officer’s responsibility, not the Commission’s. She said it was not correct to say that the EO had been directed by the Commission to issue a citation. She explained that the Commission is governed by state statutes, whereas the citation process is according to Town Ordinance.MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 10:26 p.m.
Filed subject to approval
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: October 20, 2009 October 14, 2009
Regular Meeting
7:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, Mr. Lasar, Mrs. Dyer, Mr. Lyon, Mr./Mrs. Condon, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Charles, Mr. BolingRegular Business
Mr. Bedini called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the agenda:
V. New Applications:
C. Lloyd (Cornell)/ Whittlesey Road/#IW-09-42/ Road Drainage Improvements,
D. Potolsky/131 West Shore Road/ #IW-09-43/Relocate Driveway, Construct Addition to Existing Dwelling,
E. Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road (Juniper Meadow Road)/#IW-09-44/Bridge and Driveway,
VI. Other Business:
A. Referral from Woodbury Inland Wetlands Agency/409 Nettleton Hollow Road – Sprain Brook Embankment Stabilization Plan,
VII. Enforcement:
P. Angell/47 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work on Shoreline/ #IW-09-V01,
VIII. Administrative Business:
A. Discussion of 9/2/09 Trinkaus Review and Request for Consideration for Consulting Work.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 5-0.Consideration of the Minutes
The 9/23/09 regular meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 3: Under Rubler: 9th line: Although she had said “water,” Mrs. Hill stated she had meant to say that there had been more “wetlands” shown on the map.
P. 4: Under Wykeham Rise: 7th line: Delete the phrase under #2
P. 5: 2nd line: spelling of “hammerhead”
P. 7: Under Moore: It was clarified that the letter had not been sent because the wetlands violation was connected to a zoning violation.MOTION:
To accept the 9/23/09 regular meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.The 9/29/09 Rubler Site Inspection Minutes were accepted as corrected.
The time of arrival was 3:04 p.m., not 3:27 p.m.MOTION: To accept the 9/29/09 Rubler Site Inspection minutes as corrected.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Brose/214 Roxbury Road/#IW-09-26/Restoration to Correct Violation:
It was noted that no new information had been received since the last meeting and that the time period in which to act on the application had nearly expired.Mr. Bedini asked if a notice of violation had been filed on the Land Records. Mr. Ajello said it had.
Mr. LaMuniere read the 9/23/09 minutes, which stated that if Ms. Brose did not respond to the Commission’s request to remove the patio and stairs by the 10/14 meeting, the Commission would continue with enforcement proceedings.
MOTION:
To deny Application #IW-09-26 to correct a violation, submitted by Mrs. Brose/214 Roxbury Road, because the proposed restoration plan allows the violation to continue in regard to the stairs, patio, and wall that were installed.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Motion approved, Application denied)It was noted this matter would be discussed again under Enforcement.
Santoleri/240 West Shore Road/#IW-09-35/Septic Repair:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his plan, “Septic System Repair Plan, revised to 9/24/09 to show the limit of disturbance line. He noted there was no work proposed on the retaining wall, that access to the site would be from the existing driveway, and that the existing septic tank would be pumped, crushed, then covered and a new tank installed.There were no questions from the commissioners.
MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-35 for Santoleri/240 West Shore Road for septic repairs per the plan, “Septic System Repair Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 9/24/09.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.Rubler/240 Wykeham Road (Nova Scotia Hill Road/#IW-09-36/Driveway:
Mr. Neff, engineer, said there had been no revisions to his plan, “Pool Access Driveway Plan,” dated 9/19/09. He explained a stockpile area was shown so that if the owner wanted to regrade the driveway or put in a turnaround, there would be a location to store materials. It was noted the existing catch basin on Nova Scotia Hill Road was plugged and Mr. Bedini said if the application was approved, a condition would be the cleaning and maintenance of that basin.Mr. LaMuniere suggested moving the driveway entrance 10 feet to the north so there would be no chance that vehicles would damage the catch basin. Mr. Neff noted that it is a regular road basin with a flat top so that it was structurally sound and if a vehicle were to drive over it, it would not be damaged or crushed. Various causes contributing to the plugging of the catch basin were noted;
1) trucks entering and exiting the site,
2) logging trucks, and
3) regrading of Nova Scotia Hill Road with material that was too fine.Mr. Bedini stated that whether or not the driveway work the Rublers had done had caused the culvert and catch basin to clog, cleaning and maintaining them would be mitigation for the portion of the driveway located within 100 feet of the wetlands.
Mrs. Hill noted the First Selectman had approved a temporary driveway, but the applicant now proposed a permanent one.
Mr. LaMuniere thought a permanent driveway could be approved as long as the Commission made sure the drainage system and catch basin would function in the future.
Mr. Ajello said he did not think moving the existing driveway entrance was a prudent alternative.
Mr. Lyon arrived and said the Rublers would have to apply for a driveway permit and sign a maintenance agreement with the Town.
MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-36 for Rubler/240 Wykeham Road (Nova Scotia Hill Road) to construct a permanent driveway per the plan, “Pool Access Driveway Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 9/19/09 with the condition that the Rublers clean out the existing catch basin and culvert across Nova Scotia Hill Road and maintain it to keep it clear so it will function as it is supposed to.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-1.Mrs. Hill voted No due to confusion about the application, she did not agree a temporary driveway should be made permanent, and the application form had been signed by the agent, not the property owner.
Bee Brook Condo Assoc. #2/35-38 Juniper Meadow Road/#IW-09-38/ Remove Trees:
It was noted this application was discussed in detail at the last meeting and that the stumps would be left in the ground and the work done by hand.Mr. Wadelton recused himself because he is a member of the condo association.
MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-38 for Bee Brook Condo Assoc. #2/35-38 Juniper Meadow Road to remove three storm damaged trees.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Bohan, passed 4-0.Wykeham Rise, LLC/101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-39/Affordable Housing:
This application was discussed later in the evening.
New Applications
Dyer/269 and 273 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-09-40E/Animal Shelter, Fences:
Mrs. Dyer explained she was applying for an agricultural exemption. She planned to summer sheep on the property and pointed out the locations of the proposed fences and 8’X10’ lean-to overhang on the existing barn on an enlargement of the Assessor’s Map.Mrs. Hill noted that Steep Rock held an easement on the property and Mrs. Dyer said she had a letter from Mrs. Branson, dated 9/28/09, which stated that fencing for pasturing livestock was an allowable use under the terms of the easement.
Mr. LaMuniere said this was clearly an agricultural activity, and even though the maps submitted were not precise, it qualified for an exemption.
Mrs. Dyer said the electric fence would be installed using as many trees as possible and fiberglass stakes, which would be pounded into the ground.
MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-40E submitted by Mrs. Dyer for a shed addition and fences for agricultural purposes at 269 and 273 Sabbaday Lane.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Town of Washington/Plumb Hill Road/#IW-09-41/Install Drainage System:
Mr. Lyon, First Selectman, presented the plan, “Drainage Improvement, Town of Washington, Plumb Hill Road,” by Lenard Engineering, dated 3/13/07. He explained some of the existing drainage system along a 1900 ft. section of the road would be replaced, and that culverts and catch basins would also be added. He noted there was activity proposed near the brook where the system would discharge and eventually the runoff would flow to the old Gunnery skating ponds. He described the current drainage problems on Rt. 47 and on some of the downhill properties along Plumb Brook Road and circulated some photos of the washed out areas. He said that when a total of 14 culverts were installed along both sides of the road, there would no longer be any discharge onto private properties. He pointed out where silt fence would be installed and said sand bags would be placed around the catch basins during construction to keep the sediment out. Mr. Lyon asked if work could begin on the sections outside of the wetlands as he hoped to get the paving done before the asphalt plants close for the winter.Mr. Bedini advised him to begin work at the end farthest from the wetlands. The application will be voted on at the next meeting.
Pending Application
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-39/Affordable Housing:
The following documents were submitted on 10/13/09:
1) 10/13/09 letter to Mr. Bedini from Mr. Szymanski,
2) Appendix, no date, and
3) “Site Development Plan for Wykeham Rise,” 23 pages, by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., revised to 10/6/09.Mr. Bedini asked for a sheet with a list of all of the proposed activities. Mr. Ajello noted there was a drainage control plan proposed for the upper property that would not impact wetlands. He asked that this be included on the list as a peripheral activity. Mr. Bedini agreed it should be listed. Mr. Bedini asked if the public hearing fees had been paid, noting a previous public hearing fee was also outstanding.
Mr. Klauer said he would make the payment tomorrow.
A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, 10/27/09 at 3:00 p.m. to give the commissioners time to review the new material beforehand.
A public hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, October 28, 2009 from 5:00 to 6:30 p.m. and the regular meeting will not begin until 7:30 p.m.
Lloyd (Cornell)/ Whittlesey Road/#IW-09-42/Road Drainage Improvements:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, presented the plan, “Site Analysis Plan,” by Mr. Alex, dated November 2005 on which he had drawn in the proposed drainage improvements. He explained the work is necessary to correct a drainage problem on the Lloyd property. The Lloyds are paying for the work although it will be done on the Town right of way and the Cornell property. Mr. Sabin noted the application included the 10/9/09 letter from Mr. Lyon approving the project with one change and the 10/2/09 statement of agreement from Mrs. Cornell. Mr. Sabin detailed the drainage problem on the Lloyd property in the area of the existing catch basin. The plan is to pick up the runoff and route it away from the Lloyd property and discharge it before it reaches the river. He pointed out a “slot” between the existing trees where the water could be piped to a level area at least 40 feet from the river where it would be discharged with a level spreader. He noted he would submit the mandatory conservation easement form signed by the property owner before the next meeting. Mr. Sabin also noted he would revise his 10/9/09 memo to the Commission to reflect the changes in the catch basins that are required by the Town.Mr. Bohan said the Lloyds had caused the drainage problem with they installed the berm along the property line. Mr. Sabin said this was true in part, but said, too, there was a larger watershed than anticipated and the existing drywell had been overloaded.
Mr. Sabin said he would modify the construction sequence to state that 48 hours notice would be given to the Enforcement Officer so that the erosion controls can be inspected and approved prior to the start of work.
A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.
Potolosky/131 West Shore Road/#IW-09-43/Relocate Driveway, Construct Addition to Existing Dwelling, Etc.:
Mr. Lasar, architect, represented the applicant. The plan, “Site Analysis Plan,” by Mr. Alex, dated February 2006 on which Mr. Lasar added the proposed activities, dated 10/13/09 was reviewed. Mr. Lasar stated the following activities were proposed, although they were not all within 100 ft. of the lake;
1) relocation of the driveway to the opposite side of the property,
2) addition to the existing dwelling, and
3) installation of an infiltration system.It was noted that this property is drier than the neighboring Brown property, but that Mr. Neff was working on plans for an infiltration system that would pick up all roof and footing drains and which would be located further than 100 feet from the lake. Mr. Lasar noted a shallow swale was also proposed.
A site inspection was scheduled for Tues., October 20, 2009 at 3:30 p.m.
Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road (Juniper Meadow Road/#IW-09-44/ Driveway and Bridge:
Mr. Boling and Mr. Charles represented the applicant. The plan, “Wetland Crossing for Access Driveway,” by Mr. Trinkaus, dated 10/12/09 was studied. A portion of the proposed driveway was in the right of way on Bee Brook property. Mr. Boling noted there was no other way to access the 13 acre parcel and said the Commission had approved a box culvert crossing several years ago. He said the current application for a small bridge would be less intrusive because it would require less excavation and less equipment to install than the box culvert. The 100 ft. setback and location of wetlands on the far side of the crossing were noted.Mr. Bedini asked if the driveway would be paved. Mr. Boling said the steeper portion would be paved and the rest would be gravel. Mr. Charles said the driveway surface would match the trap rock used for the Bee Brook driveway. He also noted the bridge was sized to accommodate emergency vehicles; it would be 23 ft. wide, with a travel surface width of 21 feet. Mr. Boling said limited impact development designs would be used for the stormwater management system.
Mr. LaMuniere asked about the existing drainage patterns and surface flow. Mr. Charles pointed out a seepage area and an existing swale and said there were no intermittent streams on the property. He said the driveway would have a 2% slope so that the runoff would drain into the swale. He said, too, there would be a series of swales within the swale to slow the velocity of the runoff. He said Mr. Trinkaus, engineer, would attend the next meeting to discuss the engineering.
Mr. Bedini said the Commission would refer the plans to a consultant and would inspect the site after his review was submitted.
Mr. Wadelton recused himself.
Several consultants were considered and it was the consensus to send the plans to Milone and MacBroom. Mr. Charles said he would address the points raised in Mrs. Hill’s 10/14/09 review and submit a larger scale drawing. He noted the Commission typically requires a report and sketch map from the soil scientist, but said Arthur Howland & Assoc. does not produce sketch maps. It was the consensus the soils report would be adequate. It was not known at this time whether a public hearing would be scheduled.
Early/52 Carmel Hill Road/#IW-09-37/Renovate Dwelling, Upgrade Underground Service:
It was noted that Ms. Zinick, agent, had indicated at the last meeting that she would delete the trench work from the application, but she had not yet done so. It was the consensus that the original map submitted had been inadequate because it did not contain construction details. Since no new information had been submitted, further discussion was tabled to the next meeting.
Other Business
Referral from Woodbury Inland Wetlands Agency/409 Nettleton Hollow Road/Sprain Brook Embankment Stabilization Plan:
Mrs. J. Hill noted there would be no impact to Washington because the proposed work was downstream of the town boundary line. The plan, “Brook Embankment Stabilization Plan,” by Hrica Assoc., dated 8/24/09 was briefly reviewed. The commissioners expressed no concerns.
Enforcement
Angell/47 West Shore Rd/Unauthorized Work on Shoreline/#IW-09-V01:
Mr. Ajello reported that Mr. Angell had 1) cut the vegetation in the Lake Waramaug Task Force’s biofiltration system and 2) had disturbed the soil on the shoreline when pulling out tree stumps. Therefore, he had sent a notice of violation. Mr. Angell has yet to respond. Mr. Bedini said it was important to be vigilant around the lake and to treat all property owners consistently. It was noted there is a $150 fine for the violation on the beach. Mr. Ajello said he would like to send the contractor a citation because this was his second violation. It was the consensus that the WEO should send the $150 citation to Mr. Angell.Charvillat/96 Roxbury Road:
Mr. Ajello will contact the property owner as requested previously by the Commission.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road:
Mr. Ajello contacted the US Army Corps of Engineers who advised him that if the Rosens do not respond to their certified mailings, they will be served with a court order.DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street:
Mr. DiBenedetto will apply to install some bridges so that he can use an estate vehicle without damaging the sides of the trenches on site. Mr. Ajello also noted that Mr. DiBenedetto plans to finish planting the interior of the property in the spring.Gruson/62 Frisbie Road:
It was so wet this year that the approved pond dredging has been postponed to next year.Delancy/79 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-08-V6:
Mr. Delancy was not present and did not submit an application to restore the property as the Commission requested. It was noted that the 9/23/09 minutes stated that if he did not respond by 10/14 a citation would be issued. Mr. Ajello said a notice of violation had already been issued and he read the letter sent to Mr. Delancy on 9/16/09. After a brief discussion it was the consensus to issue a citation for $350.MOTION:
To issue a $350 citation to Mr. Delancy/79 New Milford Turnpike in accordance with Ordinance #720 because he did not respond in a timely manner with an application to correct the violations on his property as the Commission had requested.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Brose/214 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-V5:
Ms. Brose will be sent the usual letter to notify her of the denial of her application and the file will be forwarded to the Commission’s attorney who will be asked to pursue further enforcement proceedings.
Administrative Business
Discussion of 9/2/08 Trinkaus Review and Request for Consideration as Consultant:
It was the consensus it would not be appropriate to discuss this matter while Mr. Trinkaus is working on a pending application.MOTION:
To go into Executive Session at 10:05 p.m. to discuss pending litigation:
Appeal by Federer of Wykeham Rise, LLC. decision.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end Executive Session at 10:26 p.m.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Bedini.Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: September 30, 2009 September 23, 2009
Regular Meeting
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, and Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Whitney, Mr. Berto, Mr./Mrs. Condon, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Charles, Mr. Meyers, Ms. Zinick, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Sears, Mr. NeffMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the agenda:
V. New Applications:
C. Early/ 52 Carmel Hill Road/#IW-09-37/Renovations to Dwelling and Upgrade of Underground Service,
D. Bee Brook Condo Assoc. #2/35-38 Juniper Meadow Road/#IW-09-38/Remove Trees,
E. Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-39/ Affordable Housing
VI. Other Business:
C. 223 Litchfield Turnpike, LLC./223 Litchfield Turnpike/Request to Amend Permit #IW-08-61.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.Consideration of the Minutes
The 9/9/09 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 4: 10th line under Wexler: Change “of 2 psi” to “to 2 psi.”
19th line under Wexler: Change “legal limit” to “legal over the road limit.”
Page 5: 16th line under Lufkin: Change “lethal” to “a threat to vegetation.”
Page 8: It was noted the Permit # wasn’t given for the Town of Washington planting plan permit. It is #IW-08-36.
Page 10: 16th line under Delancy: Change “He also asked…” to “Mr. Bedini also asked….”MOTION:
To accept the 9/9/09 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-09-26/Restoration to Correct Violation:
It was noted that Mr. Allan of Land Tech would not attend and it was not known whether Ms. Brose planned to attend. This item would be discussed later under Enforcement.
New Applications
Santoleri/240 West Shore Road/#IW-09-35/Septic Repair:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his plan, “Septic System Repair Plan,” dated 9/12/09 and said it had been submitted to the Health Dept., but had not yet been approved. He explained there weren’t many options for locating the septic system on this property due to the proximity of the lake and the required separation distance from the existing well. He said, too, that the modular leaching field proposed was placed farther from the lake and took up less space than trenches would require. He noted that when the retaining wall had been built, the Health Dept. had required that sand fill be placed behind it in case repairs to the septic were ever needed. He said the units were shallow and so he thought there was already enough sand on site for the installation.Mr. LaMuniere asked if the silt fence shown on the plan was the limit of disturbance line. Mr. Neff said it was and that he could label it. Mr. Bedini directed him to do so.
It was noted there were no prudent alternatives except to drill a new well. Mr. Neff said the materials for the repair work would be brought in over the existing driveway.
Mr. Ajello asked if the leaching field had been moved as far from the lake as possible. Mr. Neff said it had, noting that it had been laid out to follow the contour lines. He said the area was level lawn and there was no potential for erosion.
Rubler/240 Wykeham Road (Nova Scotia Hill Road)/#IW-09-36/ Driveway:
Mr. Neff, engineer, noted the purpose of the driveway was to access the future pool area from Nova Scotia Hill Road. The plan, “Pool Access Driveway Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 9/19/09 was reviewed. It was noted that the pool area shown was not the area first proposed for the pool. Mr. Neff said the driveway had been roughed in and gravel already deposited. He said the grade was “pretty even,” and that this location was better than having a steep driveway off Wykeham Road.Mr. Ajello noted he had placed a letter in the file that
1) the Rublers had no Zoning or Inland Wetlands permits for the existing driveway,
2) the driveway was considered temporary and to be used for the construction of the pool,
3) that the area was to be restored once the pool was installed, and
4) the Commission would continue to hold the bond until the pool had been properly completed.Mr. Bedini asked if the application included the pool in its new location. Mr. Neff said the application was for the accessway only.
Mrs. Hill remembered this area from a previous application and said there had been more water shown on the map at that time. Mr. Neff responded that the culverts installed since then pick up the drainage.
A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.
Early/52 Carmel Hill Road/#IW-09-37/Renovate Dwelling, Upgrade Underground Service:
Ms. Zinick, agent, explained the entire house and existing service conduit were within 100 ft. of the pond and she presented a portion of a survey map, which showed this was true. Ms. Zinick described the work to be done on the house and said the location of the service trench would not change. She thought there would be little soil disturbance because the entire trench would not have to be excavated and she said she would add a silt fence between the trench and the pond on the plans.Mr. Bedini said this silt fence was required.
It was noted that the construction sequence and narrative submitted pertained mainly to the renovation of the dwelling, while it was the trench work that was more of a concern to the Commission. Mr. Bedini asked for more information, including how wide and how deep the trench would be, how it would be dug, by hand or machine, would the conduit itself be changed, where was the limit of disturbance line, etc.
Ms. Zinick said if lack of information on the proposed trench work would hold up approval, she would delete it from the application.
Mr. Ajello noted she would have three weeks before the next meeting to provide the outstanding information.
Mr. Bedini also asked for specifics on the renovation work, including whether lifts or other machines would be used, where materials would be stored, where construction vehicles would be parked, and where the limit of disturbance line was.
Bee Brook Condo Assoc. #2/35-38 Juniper Meadow Road/#IW-09-38/ Remove Trees:
Mr. Wadelton recused himself because he is a member of the condo association.Mr. Condon, president of the condo assoc., presented the site plan, which showed the work area sketched in by hand on a portion of a survey map. He proposed to take down three damaged trees in the wetlands. Some of the branches would be chipped and the chips taken off site and the rest of the wood would be spread on the far side of the brook.
Mrs. Hill asked that the application specifically state the wood chips were to be taken off site.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if all the brush would be cut.
Mr. Ajello said the applicant would try to save saplings. He also explained that a temporary plank bridge would be installed to get the equipment across the stream without damaging its banks.
Mrs. J. Hill reviewed the application form and noted it stated that no stumps would be removed.
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-39/Affordable Housing: Mr. Klauer noted that his engineer was still working on the response to Land Tech’s 8/20/09 application review.
Mr. Bedini advised him that a public hearing would be scheduled as soon as this response was received. Mrs. Hill asked Mr. Klauer for a written statement for the file
1) to request that all the documents from the earlier file for Application #IW-09-23 be included in the current file and
2) to state that there have been no changes in the application.Mr. Bedini noted that the public hearing fee was still due.
Other Business
Kessler/105 West Mountain Road/#IW-06-05/Request for Bond Reduction:
Mr. Ajello noted that the disturbed hillside had been planted and mulched, vegetation was coming up, and different machinery would be used in order to limit soil disturbance in the future.Mrs. Hill asked if he had signed off that the work had been completed according to the approved permit and that the signoff included only the rebuilding of the one structure. Mr. Ajello said he had and noted there was also a letter on file from Mr. Kessler stating that he did not intend to do the other work covered in the original permit and that he understood that he would have to reapply if he planned to begin work on the second dwelling. Mrs. Hill asked that this be confirmed in the motion to release the bond.
MOTION:
To close out Permit #IW-06-05 for Kessler/ 103-105 West Mountain Road, return the bond, and note for the record that any further work proposed for this property will require a new application and permit.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Washington Community Housing Trust/7 Mygatt Road/Preliminary Discussion/Affordable Housing:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented the site plan, “Myfield Homes,” by Crosskey Architects, dated 5/8/09. He said this plan was similar to the approved Myfield layout. The number of dwellings was reduced from 13 to 11, but the total number of bedrooms did not decrease. The driveway route was modified slightly and a circular turnaround substituted for the approved hammerheard. The drainage facilities would not change, but the septic systems would be modified slightly. Total coverage would remain approximately the same and Mr. Neff said he would provide the Commission with exact calculations. None of the buildings would be moved closer to the wetlands.Mr. Bedini asked if the turnaround would be able to accommodate emergency vehicles. Mr. Neff said it would.
Mr. LaMuniere noted the drainage system was functioning well and asked if it would be impacted by the installation of the turnaround. Mr. Neff stated that all of the drainage system and detention basins would remain in place.
Mr. Ajello asked if the locations of infiltration systems behind the buildings had been changed. Mr. Neff said they had not.
Mr. Bedini asked if the driveway would be paved. Mr. Neff responded that this had not yet been decided.
Mr. Bedini asked if this was a reasonable location in which to install a pervious surface and asked that surface options for both the driveway and sidewalks be considered in the application. Mr. Neff noted that sidewalks might not be installed in order to reduce the amount of impervious surfaces.
Mr. Berto asked if approval of the application could be handled administratively and whether a hearing would be required. Mr. Bedini noted a hearing had been held previously, and said the Commission did have concerns about whether the driveway would be pavement or gravel.
Mrs. J. Hill also noted it was not known whether a petition for a hearing would be submitted.
223 Litchfield Turnpike, LLC./223 Litchfield Turnpike/Request to Amend Permit #IW-08-61:
Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Talbot, architect, presented the plans, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” revised to 9/21/09 and “Septic System Repair Plan,” revised to 9/20/09, both by Mr. Neff.Mr. Talbot reviewed the proposed revisions to the approved plan per his 9/22/09 letter to the Commission. These include changes in the locations of the storage shed, grease trap, septic tank, and service area. He noted that attaching the refrigeration/kitchen storage shed to the main building would bring it 7 feet farther from the wetlands and that he would return to the Commission when plans when for raised herb beds have been finalized.
Mr. Neff noted that all of the revisions were within the original limit of disturbance.
Mr. LaMuniere said the proposed revisions would have no significant impacts on the wetlands.
Mr. Talbot read his above referenced letter.
Mr. Bedini said he saw no problems with the proposed revisions.
MOTION:
To amend Permit #IW-08-61 issued to 223 Litchfield Turnpike, LLC. for renovations to the restaurant and property at 223 Litchfield Turnpike per the map, “Septic System Repair Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 9/20/09, the “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 9/21/09, and the 9/22/09 letter from Mr. Talbot to the Commission.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-09-26/Restoration to Correct Violation:
Mr. Ajello advised the Commission it had until 10/16 to act on the application and suggested a notice of violation be filed on the Land Records. A copy of the original enforcement order was circulated. It was noted that Ms. Brose had sent a letter dated 9/15/09, but in it had not stated whether or not she would agree to remove the unauthorized terrace and stairs.Mr. Bedini briefly reviewed the record; noting the meetings Ms. Brose had attended when her original application had been considered and approved with a condition (that the entire area below the length of the limit of disturbance line be allowed to revegetate to restore the natural woodland vegetation and the understory,) that she had not appealed the approval with condition, and she had been fully aware of the Regulations and the fact that there were wetlands and a watercourse on her property.
He noted her objections to site inspections by Mr. Ajello, but said when she signed her original application it gave him permission to enter the property, and that as EO he has the right to enter properties to stop ongoing violations.
Mr. LaMuniere said he thought the contractor should also be held accountable for the violation.
Mr. Bedini thought Land Tech’s remediation plan was acceptable as mitigation for the clearcutting, but not for the unauthorized terrace and stairs. He asked whether the Commission should approve the application as mitigation for the clearcutting with the condition it did not include the terrace and stairs or whether the Commission should wait to approve the application until those structures have been removed.
It was noted there had been an enforcement order and a show cause hearing, that the Commission had determined the enforcement order should stand, and that Atty. Zizka thought the Commission had a strong position.
Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Ajello to file the enforcement order on the Land Records.
Mr. LaMuniere said the main issue was the total disregard of the Regulations and the conditions of the permit.
It was the consensus to give Ms. Brose until the next meeting to respond to the Commission’s request to remove the structures and if nothing was heard by that time, to continue with enforcement proceedings.
When Mrs. Hill found some paperwork regarding a citation in one of the files, she asked Mr. Ajello if he kept a separate file for citations. He said he had them in a separate book. Mrs. Hill asked him to be consistent when filing these records.
Mr. Bedini asked if more start cards were being submitted. Mr. Ajello said, yes.
Charvillat/96 Roxbury Road/#IW-09-17:
Mr. Ajello reported that a finish card had been submitted, but no shrubs had been planted around the pond. He said brush and grasses had been cut around the pond perimeter and that although Mr. Neff’s plan showed that iris would be planted, the bank of the pond had been cut.He also noted a fountain had been installed in the pond, but that this had not been applied for. Mr. Ajello said he would write the owners a letter to remind them of the planting requirements on their approved plan.
Town of Washington/108 New Milford Turnpike:
It was noted it was not clear whether the present owner was balking at cleaning up the debris before ownership of the property transfers to the Town.141 West Shore Road, LLC/141 West Shore Road/Agent Approval:
In addition to having found an improperly abandoned septic system, it was found that a leak in the water line was causing flooding at the culvert. The necessary repair work will not require tearing up the driveway.Town of Washington/Nettleton Hollow Road/Bridge Replacement/ #IW-08-03:
Mr. Ajello reported that he had closed this file and that vegetation was beginning to grow around the pieces of rip rap on the streambanks.DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory:
Mr. Ajello had not contacted Mr. DiBenedetto as requested at the last meeting.Rubler/240 Wykeham Road:
Mr. Ajello explained he was holding the bond posted for the original application because an illegal driveway had been installed.Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Trenching in Wetlands:
Resolution of this matter is awaiting court action.Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clearcutting:
Mr. Ajello had not yet sent Mr. Moore the letter discussed at the last meeting.Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Drainage, Excavation Work:
This project is nearing completion.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Rd./Unauthorized Stream Work/#IW-08-V2:
Mr. Ajello had not yet contacted the Army Corps of Engineers for a status report. It was the consensus that if the Army Corps was not going to take any action, the Commission should resume enforcement proceedings.Delancy/79 Litchfield Turnpike/Clearcutting/#IW-08-V6:
Mr. Ajello had sent a letter as had been discussed at the last meeting. If the Delancys do not respond by the October 14th meeting, a citation will be issued.Schein/245 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work on Shoreline/ #IW-08-V7:
The work is nearing completion. Mrs. Schein will call the office when it is completed.
Administrative Business
Incomplete Applications:
It was the consensus of the Commission that incomplete applications were not acceptable. It was agreed that applicants should be prepared and that applications should not be amended at the table during meetings.CACIWAC Membership:
The Commission agreed to renew its membership as a sustaining member.Segment 3/2009 Municipal Inland Wetland Commissioners Training:
Information/registration forms for this training session were circulated.MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:24 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Posted: September 16, 2009 September 9, 2009
Public Hearing - Regular Meeting
5:30 p.m./7:00 p.m.
Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Klauer, Mr./Mrs. Federer, Mrs. Friedman, Mrs. Solomon, Mr. Charles, Mrs. McDonald, Mr. Neff, Mr. Majewski, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Gambino, Mr. Allan, Mr./Mrs. Delancy, Mr. Parker, residents
PUBLIC HEARING
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-23/Affordable Housing
Mr. Bedini called the public hearing to order at 5:33 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, LaMuniere, and Wadelton. He read the legal notice published in Voices on 8/26 and 9/6/09.
Mr. Bedini briefly reviewed the history of the application and noted the following had not been submitted:
1) response by Mr. Szymanski, engineer, to the 8/20/09 Land Tech application review,
2) proof the applicant had notified by certified mail all property owners within 200 feet of the property of the public hearing, and
3) $250 public hearing fee.
He then made the following motion:
MOTION:
Regarding Application #IW-09-23 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. for affordable housing at 101 Wykeham Road, to close the public hearing and deny the application on the basis of lack of information and failure to follow the prescribed requirements in Sections 10.05 and 10.06 of the Washington Inland Wetlands Regulations, effective February 3, 2009; the Commission will waive the application fee if the same application is resubmitted, but not the $250 public hearing fee.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton.Mrs. D. Hill arrived and was seated.
A brief discussion followed.
Mr. LaMuniere stated that the Commission had been very specific when advising the applicant that all documents were required to be submitted prior to the public hearing.Mr. Klauer agreed the Commission’s instructions had been clear, but said he had not known it would take Land Tech so long to complete its report and that Mr. Szymanski would have so little time in which to respond. He said Mr. Ajello had advised him that he should submit as much material as possible prior to the hearing and that the hearing would be continued to allow him time to get the remainder in.
Vote:
5-0. (Motion approved, Application denied.)
It was noted the denial was without prejudice.Mr. Bedini closed the public hearing at 5:50 p.m.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Bedini called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the agenda:
VIII. Administrative Business:
A. Discussion of Approval Letter,
1) Once begun, all work must be completed within one year,
2) No work may be done under this permit until all other necessary approvals from federal, state, and/or municipal agencies are obtained,
B. Discussion re: site inspection minutes,
C. Possible revisions to the Regulations,
D. Consultant interview and Report.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.Consideration of the Minutes
The 8/12/09 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 6: Line #21: Insert: “not” after “was.”
Line #22: Add the following phrase after “illegal structure:” but for the illegal extensive clearing and clearcutting along the intermittent stream, the wetland, and within 100 feet of the regulated area.
Line 36: Insert the phrase: “said the patio and stairs had been constructed without any consultation with the Commission and in clear violation of the Commission’s approval of the original application, and he” after “Mr. LaMuniere.”MOTION:
To accept the August 12, 2009 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the August 26, 2009 Special Meeting minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.The 9/1/09 Kessler Site Inspection Minutes were accepted as corrected.
Mr. LaMuniere stated the last sentence was not correct. He said the steep sloped area in front of the house had not been fully stabilized and that before the bond is released, measures must be taken to stabilize it. It was noted Mr. Rosiello had told the Commission he would reseed the area and install a stabilization “blanket.”MOTION:
To accept the Kessler/9-1-09 Site Inspection minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the Wexler /901/09 Site Inspection minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.The 9/1/09 Delancy Site Inspection Minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Change “sever” to “severe.” Change “lightening” to “lightning.”
Line 16: Change: “four” to “five.”
7th line from bottom: Delete: “two to three feet above the wetland where it meets the roadbed.”
Page 2: In point #1) Change: “four” to five.”MOTION:
To accept the Delancy.9-1-09 Site Inspection minutes as corrected.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-23/Affordable Housing:
It was noted the application had been denied without prejudice at the public hearing earlier in the evening because the requirements of Sections 10.05 and 10.06 of the Regulations had not been met.Tangeman/84 Carmel Hill Road/#IW-09-27/Restore Vernal Pool, Install Underground Conduit:
It was noted the commissioners had found no problems when they reviewed the application at the last meeting. Mr. Ajello stated that a service trench had been added to the application. Mr. LaMuniere briefly reviewed the minutes.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-27 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Tangeman to restore the vernal pool and install an underground conduit at 84 Carmel Hill Road; permit valid for two years.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Wexler/157 Calhoun Street/#IW-09-30/Access to Pool:
Atty. Fisher, Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Majewski, soil scientist, represented the applicant. Mr. Neff presented his plans, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” dated 8/1/09 and stated there had been no revisions since the last meeting.
Mr. LaMuniere asked several questions.
1) He noted timber mats would be placed on grade over very wet, spongy land. He asked if the mats could take the weight of large construction vehicles. Mr. Neff responded that the mats used would be 8’ X 8’ and that the timbers would be bolted together. He said the mats would spread out the load of 2 psi. Mr. Majewski circulated photos of the mats, said they would limit the disturbance to the wetlands, and said he had observed natural revegetation in just 6 weeks when these mats had been used elsewhere.2) Mr. LaMuniere noted the proposed route was through a densely wooded area. Mr. Neff said there would not be many trees cut in the access area.
3) Mr. LaMuniere asked if the construction trucks would be wider than the 8’ mats. Mr. Neff thought their width would be adequate because there were no turns required for the crossing and because 8’ wide is the legal limit for width. Mr. Neff said that a smaller truck could be used to carry out stumps from the pool site and the larger equipment could turn around in the disturbed pool construction area.
4) Mr. LaMuniere noted that Mr. Neff had recommended a maintenance program with weekly inspections during construction and asked who would be responsible.
Mr. Neff said the contractor would be responsible and would report the weekly inspections to the Commission if it was made a requirement. Mr. Ajello did not think that would be necessary because he would be required to inspect the project himself two or three times a month. Mr. Ajello asked if the owner had been consulted about constructing a permanent bridge crossing. Mr. Neff said he had looked into both fill and culvert, which would cause the most impact to the wetlands, and a bridge, which would be the most expensive and would require digging in the wetlands for abutments. He said the owner did not think that it was necessary to accommodate heavy equipment on a permanent basis. He noted the pool water would be pumped from the driveway.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-30 submitted by Mr. Wexler to access the pool at 157 Calhoun Street with the condition that the start card be submitted to the Land Use Office 48 hours prior to the start of work and the permit will be valid for two years.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.Lufkin/36 Hinkle Road/#IW-09-31/Chemically Treat Pond:
Mr. Gambino, contractor, submitted a photo of the Tollman pond outflow pipe taken after he had blocked it in anticipation of the chemical application. Mr. Gambino noted that at the last meeting he did not have a consent letter from Steep Rock, holder of the conservation easement on the Lufkin property, but said this had since been submitted. He circulated photos showing the outflow and the extent of the phragmites to be controlled. He said he had not planned to block the outflow pipe during the chemical application, but would do so if the Commission required it. He noted the chemical would be applied to the plants and not put directly into the water. It was noted that the pond was last treated in the fall of 2006 and the area to be treated was small. Mr. Gambino said the area was small because the phragmites had been contained by hand pulling it. Mr. LaMuniere asked how long the herbicide remained active and lethal. Mr. Gambino said that once it was absorbed by the plant, “that’s it,” and that you could plant in sprayed areas 24 hours after application. It was noted the pond outflow flowed southwesterly to a swamp. It was the consensus that the outflow pipe should be blocked during the chemical application and remain so for 24 hours.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-31 submitted by Mr. Lufkin to chemically treat the pond at 36 Hinkle Road subject to the following conditions:
1) a board must be placed over the egress at the start of work and remain there for a least 24 hours and
2) the start card must be submitted to the Land Use Office 48 hours prior to the start of work.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-09-26/Restoration to Correct Violation:
Mr. Allan, Land Tech, said he had sent Mrs. Brose the minutes of the last meeting, which indicated the Commission wants the terrace and stairs removed, but said she still wants to keep them. She suggested the Commission meet with her on site.
Mr. Bedini noted that per the 2005 minutes, Mrs. Brose had attended the meetings when the approval of her original application was discussed and voted on and so knew that there was a limit of disturbance shown on her map and a condition of approval that nothing was to be done beyond that limit of disturbance line. He thought the proposed remediation was adequate for the clearcutting done in the wetlands and upland review area, but that the terrace and stairs were blatant violations that must be removed and the area restored. He also noted that in two recent cases where property owners had done work beyond what had been approved in their permits, the Commission had required the excess work to be removed.
Mr. LaMuniere did not think an exception should be made for Mrs. Brose.
Mr. Wadelton did not think a site inspection with Mrs. Brose would be productive because discussions are not supposed to occur on site inspections.
Mr. Bedini suggested the Commission approve the remediation plan for the clearcutting so the replanting could begin and address the removal of the terrace and stairs separately, whereas Mr. LaMuniere thought approval of the remediation plan should be linked to an agreement to remove the terrace and stairs.
When Mr. Ajello suggested the Commission keep an open mind and possibly consider a compromise, Mr. LaMuniere thought keeping the terrace and stairs would be against both the Regulations and the original permit.
Mr. Ajello asked if off site remediation would be possible. Mr. Bedini said it would not be possible and that removal of the terrace and stairs was not negotiable.
The proposed landscaping/remediation plan was very briefly discussed and the consensus was that it was appropriate and reasonable. Mr. Bedini said there would be nothing to gain by conducting an additional site inspection, but said the Commission would be willing to listen to Mrs. Brose at a regular meeting.
Mrs. D. Hill asked that by the next meeting Mrs. Brose make a firm decision on whether or not she would agree to remove the illegal structures.Kessler/105 West Mountain Road/#IW-09-34/Install Dry Hydrant:
No one was present to represent the applicant. Mr. LaMuniere noted that while on the site inspection he had observed that the alternate pipe routes would result in more damage to the wetlands that the route proposed. None of the commissioners had any objections to the proposal.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-34 submitted by Mr. Kessler to install a dry hydrant at 105 West Mountain Road with the condition that the start card be submitted to the Land Use Office 48 hours prior to the start of work; permit is valid for two years.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Trenching in Wetlands:
Atty. Fisher described a minor revision to the Commission Settlement Agreement regarding language to describe the area to be remediated. It was the consensus that the revised language was OK, especially since the area had been staked on site and photos of the stakes had been taken. Mr. Bedini signed the document. Atty. Fisher explained the court would rule on this administrative business on October 13. Mr. Bedini advised Atty. Fisher that start and finish cards would be required and that a soil scientist must oversee the removal of the fill from the wetlands area. It was noted that per the agreement, all excavation and grading would be completed and the disturbed area seeded and mulched by 12/1/09. Mr. Ajello said this date was OK because even if vegetation did not come up by that date, the area was level so there should be no erosion problems.Other Business
Kessler/105 West Mountain Road/Request for Bond Reduction/ #IW-06-05:
Mr. Bedini noted that the bond would not be returned until the stabilization measures requested had been implemented and Mr. Ajello had signed off that the work had been completed per the approved permit.Enforcement
Wright/Scofield Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello said there were two matters concerning this property, the enforcement issue and the permit for new walls, and that he had signed off on both. Mr. Bedini asked if there was a closing statement in the violation file. Mr. Ajello said the Town had done the rip rap work a year ago and he had been waiting for the pachysandra to grow in on the hillside. Mr. Bedini asked for final inspections and photos before each file is closed out. He asked that this be done for all files going back three years and for all future files.Enforcement Report
Beckett/23 Loomarwick Road/#IW-08-56/Reconstruct Dwelling:
Mr. Ajello reviewed the severe stabilization problems occurring on this site as detailed in his 9/9/09 report.141 West Shore Road, LLC./141 West Shore Road/Agent Approval:
Mr. Ajello stated that when work began an old septic system that had not been properly abandoned had been uncovered. This meant that additional work had to be done, but it was all located within the original limit of disturbance line.Town of Washington/2 Bryan Plaza/Planting Plan:
Mr. Ajello said the project was on hold due to budget problems. Mrs. D. Hill noted, however, that some planting had been done and she feared those bushes had been mowed down since they were no longer there. She asked if the planting done had been according to the approved plan.Delancy/79 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-08-V6/Unauthorized Clearcutting:
Mrs. Hill reported that the 9/1/09 site inspection minutes and an application form had been mailed to the Delancys on 9/8. The 9/1/09 minutes were reviewed. Mr. Bedini noted that the property was very confined and the 100 ft. setback line goes through the house, making the entire front yard within the regulated area. The commissioners hoped Mr. Delancy would cooperate to clean debris from the wetlands and stop spreading wood chips. In return they thought he could install a garden and use the wetlands for a children’s playground as long as there were no ATV’s, no firewood production, and no spreading of wood chips. In addition, it was generally thought that it was a good idea to remove the pines that Mr. Delancy proposed to cut down as they hang over the house and shade the proposed garden area. Mr. LaMuniere said, too, that there was an erosion problem that had to be addressed. Mr. Bedini noted that a citation had not yet been issued and that if Mr. Delancy planned to do any of the clean up work discussed above, an application would be required. It was agreed that the Delancys would have until the next meeting to submit an application. If not submitted by that time, they would be fined and remediation ordered. Mr. Ajello will prepare a draft enforcement letter for the Commission to review at the next meeting in the event an application is not received.Brown/127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work Along Shoreline:
There was nothing new to report.Rubler/240 Wykeham Road/Clearing and Driveway Washout:
Mr. Ajello explained the Rubler’s bond had not yet been returned because they had not removed an unauthorized driveway on Nova Scotia Hill Road as they had been ordered to. It was noted this driveway affected a drainage area. A permit from both the IWC and Selectmen’s Office is required.Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clearcutting:
Mr. Ajello stated Mr. Moore will not meet with him on site for a final inspection to close the file on the wetlands violation. Mr. Bedini instructed him to send Mr. Moore a certified letter stating that if he will not allow Mr. Ajello to make a final inspection, he will have to pay for Land Tech to make an inspection and send a report to the Commission or the matter will be sent to the Commission’s attorney to begin enforcement proceedings. Copies of the letters he has not yet responded to will be included in the certified mailing.DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory:
While what has been planted looks good, the interior section of the property has not yet been planted. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Ajello to phone Mr. DiBenedetto to ask that work resume.Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-07-V12/Unauthorized Excavation:
There was nothing new to report.Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/#IW-07-V14/Unauthorized Drainage and Excavstion Work:
Mr. Ajello said this project was nearing completion.Howard/99 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work on Shoreline:
The Commission’s attorney will soon go to court to withdraw the suit.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-V2/Unauthorized Stream Work:
This violation is being handled by the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Ajello will contact them for an update.Schein/245 West Shore Road/#IW-08-V7/Unauthorized Work on Shoreline:
Work has progressed, but the hillside must still be planted.
Administrative Business
Approval Letter:
A. Mrs. D. Hill asked if the letter should be reworded to state that once begun, all work must be completed within one year. She noted this had previously been the Commission’s policy, but it was not contained in the revised Regulations. Some commissioners thought this was addressed, at least in part, by granting 2 year permits. Others thought it would be impossible to enforce. It was the consensus not to add it to the permit letter.B. Mrs. D. Hill noted that the approval letter used to state that no work may be done under the permit until all other necessary approvals from federal, state, and/or municipal agencies are obtained. It was noted that this provision is included in the Regulations and should be added to the letter.
Start Cards:
Mr. Bedini thought start cards would be used more often if the Commission stopped work on projects whne they were not submitted.
Enforcement
Delancy/79 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-08-06/Clearcutting:
Mr. Delancy arrived and said he had not yet received the site inspection minutes mailed on 9/8. He was given a copy to read and discuss. Mr. Delancy proposed to 1) remove the pine trees on the east side of the driveway and near the house, 2) put in a 50’ X 50’ garden, 3) remove saplings near the hammock, 4) remove the burning bush,. multiflora rose, and bamboo, and 5) continue to use the wetlands for a playground. He had already completed some work including 1) removal of the pile of woodchips from the wetlands, 2) removal of the wood from the wetlands, and 3) placement of woodchips and stones in the eroding sections of the bank along the driveway. Mr. Bedini advised him that the woodchips would not do much to stabilize the steep banks and he recommended grass be planted there instead. Mr. Bedini said no mechanized vehicles were allowed in the wetlands. Mr. Delancy said he did not plan to use them there. He also asked that all of the debris be removed from the wetlands. Mr. Delancy said he had already taken some of it out. Mr. Bedini asked for a well drawn map with dimensions to indicate all of the work proposed. He also asked for the following information: 1) location of all of the invasives to be removed, 2) a written statement that vehicles will not be operated in the wetlands, 3) a list of what activities will continue in the wetlands, 4) a plan for preventing the driveway banks from eroding, 5) what will be done with the woodchips when the pines are cut, and 6) any other activities proposed so that the Commission has a thorough list of all work proposed. The list and map should be submitted with the required application. Mr. Ajello will send Mr. Delancy a letter listing all that he is required to do. Mr. Delancy asked that he be notified before any future inspections of his property. Mr. Bedini agreed, but explained that it was the enforcement officer’s job to conduct inspections and photograph violations.Administrative Business
Site Inspection Minutes:
Mrs. D. Hill did not think site inspection minutes should be circulated before they are filed in the Town Clerk’s Office, but rather should be discussed and corrected at the Commission meetings. Mr. Bedini thought it was necessary to get input before the minutes were filed because often there are separate groups at the site inspection so one group may not know all of the details discussed by the other group. He thought site reports should be complete and accurate. Mrs. D. Hill noted that site inspections are to gather information only; not to make resolutions or conduct discussions. It was agreed that site inspection minutes would continue to be circulated prior to the meetings, but they would be marked “draft” until the final version is completed.Consultant Interview and Report:
Mr. Bedini and Mrs. J. Hill had interviewed Mr. Trinkaus, who asked to be added to the Commission’s list of engineers considered as consultantss for application reviews. Mr. Trinkaus offered to do an application review so the Commission would be able to compare his work with that done by one of the consultants the Commission normally hires. The report he generated, dated 9/2/09, reviewed the Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road affordable housing application. Copies were passed out to the commissioners to read so that a discussion could take place at the next meeting. There was a brief discussion regarding how the review could be fairly evaluated. It was thought perhaps the Commission could send it to Land Tech for comments.MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
SITE VISIT REPORTApplication #: IW-09-30
Inspection Date: 09/01/09
Time: 3:00-3:30 P.M.Applicant: Wexler
Address: 157 Calhoun Street
Reason for Application: Access to Swimming Pool Area; Swimming Pool Construction
Members Present: D. Hill, T. Bedini, C. LaMuniere
Staff Present: M. Ajello
Others Present: Mr. Majeski, ESM Soil ScientistObservations:
The reference material used in this report is the map entitled “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Wexler Residence Swimming Pool”, dated 08/01/09, by Brian Neff, LE.
IWC participants met Mr. Majeski on the driveway to the house at the point where the proposed access way to the swimming pool area bifurcates from it in a westerly direction, cutting across a 60-foot-plus strip of wetlands and an intermittent stream.
Walking the path of the proposed access way, participants noted that the wetlands were waterlogged and soggy in parts with the intermittent stream running clear. Beyond the wetlands and intermittent stream, the proposed path enters a densely wooded area continuing westwards up a gentle slope for approximately 200 feet. It then turns south, close to the western border of the property, for some 120 feet before reaching the proposed swimming pool area. The proposed swimming pool is to be surrounded by a terrace (approximately 12 feet in width according to the map), the specifications of which are not known. The limit of construction area around the swimming pool site is roughly 90 feet (north side) by an average 150 feet (west and east side) and 120 feet (south side). It is not clear whether that whole area is to be cleared of trees and brush. in the land. The excavation and leveling of the pool site will require substantial earth moving. However, no fill is to leave the site through the wetlands as soil excavated on the western side of the proposed pool site will be used on its lower-lying eastern side. The limit of construction area’s eastern side is more than 100 feet away from the wetlands.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles LaMuniere
INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
SITE INSPECTION REPORTAPPLICATION #: IW-08-V6 Violation Unauthorized Clearing INSPECTION DATE: Sept. 1, ’09
TIME: 4:38PMNAME: Delancy
ADDRESS: 79 Litchfield Turnpike
REASON FOR APPLICATION: No application presented.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Dorothy Hill, Charles LaMuniere, Tony Bedini
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Ajello, WEO
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. and Mrs. DelancyOBSERVATIONS:
The Commissioners and WEO arrived at the site at 4:38pm and drove into the driveway where we met Mr. and Mrs. Delancy. We walked the entire parcel west of the house and between the house and Route 202. The wetlands area extends from a ditch along Route 202 eastward to where it rises up to form the driveway in front of the house. This driveway is believed to be the old Route 25 roadbed. The driveway has steep sides that are eroding during rain events. The roadbed has scattered about, 4 vehicles, a dual wheeled flat-bed trailer and smaller trailers and assorted equipment and materials. At the south end of the roadbed is a metal shed, with a large pile of split wood to the east of the shed, and a small garden partially beneath the pile of wood. There is a space about 8 to 10 feet wide behind the shed that is relatively flat and then drops off into a wooded area with an intermittent stream bed running east to west. The drop-off from the roadbed to the wetlands is fairly steep. The bank and parts of the wetland area is littered with dead wood, stumps, pallets, and other debris. The wetland area that was used to cut and split firewood is devoid of any vegetation or ground cover. In the area are four very tall and large Pine trees that pose a threat to the house during sever storms, high winds or lightening events. Some trees appear to have been struck by lightening in the past. The driveway in from Route 202 rises up to meet the old roadbed two to three feet above the wetland where it meets the roadbed. The roadbed is approximately 8 to 10 feet above the wetlands. Both sides (north and south) of the driveway are wetlands, but the north side has much less disturbance, but does have a large pile of woodchips placed in it. The Delancys said they use approximately 10 cords of firewood per year for heating. The problem is where to store the wood and maintain a usable driveway while not encroaching on the wetlands. It is a small parcel of land and requires the effective use of all available space. The house is set into a hillside and the hill rises steeply behind the house making it relatively inaccessible by any vehicles or for wood storage. It appears that if the area was well organized, firewood could be stacked behind and alongside the shed, along the driveway bordering the sloping bank to the wetland and other areas.In discussing what they would like to do in the area the following was proposed by the Delancys:
1) Remove the four large Pine trees, leaving the stumps in the ground.
2) Plant a 30” x 30” vegetable/blueberry garden in the wetland area.
3) Remove all the dead wood, pallets and other debris from the wetland area.
4) Remove invasive plants in the area between the wetland and Route 202.
5) Continue to use the wetland for passive recreation (children’s playground).
6) Agree to not allow any motor vehicles, ATVs, or other mechanized vehicles or machinery in the wetland area.In addition the sides of the driveway from Route 202 to the old Route 25 roadbed are eroding with each rain event depositing sediment in the wetlands. The sides need to be seeded, hay mulched and stabilized. Continued erosion will eventually result in destroying the driveway and require more material to be brought into the wetlands area.
The pile of woodchips in the wetlands on the north side of the driveway needs to be removed and not placed in the wetlands.
It was noted that the large pile of split firewood that was in the wetlands was removed to the old roadbed.
We suggested that they draw a reasonably accurate map including the wetland areas both sides of the drive, the area between Route 202 and the house and include dimensions. Describe in detail how they propose to accomplish items 1 through 6 above if in fact that is their plan. We advised them that we need a great deal of detail about each item proposed. The sketch should be signed and dated, have a north arrow and dimensions in feet. The Commission will then evaluate the proposal and circumstances surrounding the use of the land.
The Commission members left the area at 5:20pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Bedini
INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
SITE INSPECTION REPORTAPPLICATION #: IW-06-05
INSPECTION DATE: Sept 1, 2009
TIME: 3:40 - 4:25NAME: Kessler
ADDRESS: 102 - 105 West Mountain Rd
REASON FOR APPLICATION: Request for bond reduction
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tony Bedini, Dorothy Hill, Charles LaMuniere,
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Ajello, WEO
OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Munson, contractor, Rich Rosiello, landscaper, Susan PayneOBSERVATIONS:
Reconstruction of the guest house (to be so designated when main residence is built) is very near completion: Mr Munson said he began work onsite in January 2008.Mr Rosiello pointed out the well marked shrubs and bushes he has recently installed in accord with the approved planting plan. He used "anti deer" spray instead of netting
Sloopes, material storageand other previously disturbed areas appear to be well stabilized; if the WEO finds some that are not, silt fencing may require repair in those areas
Respectfully submitted,
Dorothy G. Hill
Posted: August 29, 2009 August 26, 2009
Special Meeting
7:30 p.m., Upper Lever Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. GambinoMr. Bedini called the Special Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
Pending Applications:
Tollman/87 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-09-25/Chemical Application to Pond:
Mr. Bedini asked if an updated letter of authorization had been submitted. Mr. Gambino said this was not possible because the property owners were in Africa, but promised to do so as soon as they return.Mr. LaMuniere thought it was important to block the egress of the pond during the chemical application. Mr. Gambino noted the 12” to 14” outflow pipe and said it would be possible to block it with plywood, which would be installed before the application and would remain in place for at least a week afterward. Mr. LaMuniere noted the chemical would be active in the water for ten to twenty days and asked what would happen if there was a large storm. Mr. Gambino said he would watch the weather before spraying, but said the plywood should hold up for normal sized storms.
Mr. Gambino explained he would spray the water chestnut from a boat; first one side of the pond and then the other.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the application included an additional treatment in the spring. Mr. Gambino said he would apply for another DEP permit in the spring, but would evaluate the pond before applying more chemicals. He hoped that any regrowth would be manageable and could be pulled out by hand. He did not think another application would be necessary, but wanted to be prepared. He said he would not apply chemicals in the spring without the permission of the IWC.
MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-25 submitted by the Tollmans for the application of chemicals to their pond at 87 New Preston Hill Road with the condition that the outlet pipe be blocked off during the application and for at least one week afterwards.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 5-0Ernhout/289 West Shore Road/#IW-09-29/Septic Repair
Mr. LaMuniere said he had inspected the property, observed the failing system, and thought the proposed repairs would be an improvement. He said there was no other location in which to make the repairs and he found no problems with the application.
It was noted that the Washington Health Department had approved the application since the last meeting.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-29 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Ernhout for septic repairs at 289 West Shore Road.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. D. Hill, and passed 5-0.Region #12 School District/159 School Street/#IW-09-33/Empty Pool into Pond
Mr. Bedini reviewed the file and the site plan, “Schematic of Pump Discharge,” undated, unsigned.Mr. LaMuniere asked if the pond discharge flows to Roxbury. Mr. Ajello said it does and that Roxbury had been notified of the application.
It was noted the pool water would be neutralized before it was pumped to the pond. Mr. Bedini said, too, that the water being pumped out would not be heated.
The state law requiring the repair of the pool was discussed and the reasons the pool had to be drained were noted.
MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-33 submitted by Region #12 School District to empty the school pool into the pond at 159 South Street as specified in the application.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To enter Executive Session at 7:14 p.m. to discuss pending litigation: Howard/99 West Shore Road.
By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To end Executive Session at 7:25 p.m.
By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 5-0.Howard/99 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work on Shoreline
After having discussed the resolution of this violation in Executive Session, the commissioners took the following action.MOTION:
Regarding Howard/99 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work on Shoreline; To direct the Commission’s attorney to close out the matter concerning the wall and stairs based on the progress to date, the photos of the restoration work in the file, and Mr. Howard’s compliance with the Commission’s order to rectify the situation.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. D. Hill.Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 7:28 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: August 20, 2009 August 12, 2009
Regular Meeting
7:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bohan
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Papsin, Mr. Gitterman, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Titman, Mr. Charles, Mrs. Delancey, Mr. Neff, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Majeski, Ms. Rowe, Mr. McDonough, Mr. Gambino, Mr. D’Agosta, Mr. IsleyRegular Business
Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
MOTION:
To include the following subsequent business not already posted on the Agenda:
III. Consideration of the Minutes,
B. June 10, 2009;V. New Applications,
G. Rowe/44 Kielwasser Road/#IW-09-32/Feasibility for 2 Lot Resubdivision,H. Region #12 School District/159 South Street/#IW-09-33/Empty Pool into Pond,
I. Kessler/105 West Mountain Road/ #IW-09-34/Install Dry Hydrant;
VI. Other Business,
C. Request to Amend Permit #IW-07-11 /John Dorr Nature Lab/220 Nettleton Hollow Road,D. Discussion: Return of Bond/ Oberndorf/157 West Shore Road/Permit #IW-07-57 /Demo, Rebuild House,
E. Discussion: Wanag/Potash Hill Road/ Expired Permit.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 6/10/09 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.Page 2:
Under Town of Washington: 6th line: Change: “June” to “July.”Page 4 and 5:
The correct spelling is Bardel.Page 8: Under Sheinfeld:
The correct address is 110 Lower Church Hill Road.Under Sheinfeld:
Switch the order of the heading to Chin – Sheinfeld.Under Referral from the Town of Roxbury:
Mrs. D. Hill thought Pickett Road was spelled incorrectly. (This was subsequently researched and “Pickett” is correct.)Under Administrative Business:
7th line: Should be Mrs. J. Hill.MOTION:
To accept the June 10, 2009 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0.MOTION:
To accept the July 8, 2009 Regular Meeting minutes as written.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.
Pending Applications
Papsin/30 Mygatt Road/#IW-09-20/Additions to Dwelling:
Mr. Papsin briefly summarized his application to remove the existing deck and construct a larger addition in its place. The new construction on the side of the house would be within 40 feet of the regulated area. The sketch map was reviewed. It was noted that the property was fairly level. Mr. LaMuniere stated that the plans had been discussed in detail at the last meeting and no concerns had been raised.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-20 submitted by Mr. Papsin for additions to his dwelling at 30 Mygatt Road per the undated, unsigned site plan submitted; a 2 year permit shall be issued.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0.Mahan/54 Sunny Ridge Road/#IW-09-21/Addition to Dwelling:
Mr. Neff, engineer, and Atty. Fisher presented the map, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 7/5/09. It was noted there had been no changes to this plan since the last meeting. Mr. Neff stated the existing garage would be torn down and an addition built 97 feet from the wetlands. He pointed out the location of the proposed footing drains and the limit of disturbance line. Mr. Neff said he had addressed all of the questions/missing items in Mrs. J. Hill’s 7/29/09 letter except for the mandatory conservation easement form.Atty. Fisher stated that the conservation easement area would not be affected by the proposed work, that he had notified Steep Rock of the application, and that he expected it would respond that there was no problem with what had been applied for.
Mrs. J. Hill noted that since the holder of the conservation easement had not been notified 60 days prior to the submission of the application, a letter from Steep Rock saying that the proposed work was in compliance with the easement was required.
Mr. Ajello suggested a conditional approval, but Mrs. D. Hill and Mr. Bedini noted the Commission was bound by the state statutes.
As none of the commissioners raised any other concerns, Mr. Bedini agreed to consider the application at a Special Meeting to be held on August 26 if the letter from Steep Rock is received by that date.
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-23/Affordable Housing:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, submitted the documents requested and said he had amended the sequence of construction to include the requirement that the WEO be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work.Mr. LaMuniere asked if a narrative detailing the activities proposed in the upland review area had been submitted. Mr. Szymanski stated he had submitted 20 pages of plans. He gave a brief summary of the work proposed: the removal of the old tennis court and the installation of a new one outside of the regulated area, the upgrading of the existing driveway to rectify an existing erosion problem 65 feet from wetlands, and the renovation of the existing structures. He said pavement would be added to the driveway in three areas, 80 feet away, 200 feet uphill, and 240 feet uphill of the wetlands.
It was noted the application had been referred to Land Tech several weeks ago. Mr. Szymanski said he would respond to Land Tech’s report as soon as possible after it is received.
Mr. Bedini asked that all material be submitted at least one week prior to the next meeting to give the commissioners the opportunity to study it beforehand.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the Commission had permission to inspect the property. Mr. Szymanski said, yes, it did.
MOTION:
To schedule a Public Hearing to consider Application #IW-09-23 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. for affordable housing at 101 Wykeham Road at 5:30 p.m. on September 9, 2009 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, passed 4-0.Cohen/64 Calhoun Street/#IW-09-24/Chemical Application to Pond:
Mr. Gambino, contractor, noted he had submitted the application last month and had since submitted the required conservation easement form.Mr. Ajello noted the pond has a rubber lining and only an emergency overflow. Mr. Gambino said it is fed by a well.
Mr. Bedini asked if the application was complete; Mrs. J. Hill said it was.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-24 submitted by Mr. Cohen to chemically treat his pond at 64 Calhoun Street as presented.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.Schein/245 West Shore Road/#IW-09-19/Repair Stone Stairs, Build Stone Wall:
Mrs. Schein explained the application was to complete the repair of stone stairs and to build a stone wall 40 feet long, 18 inches wide along the back of the existing dock. She said this would prevent hillside sediment and debris from reaching the dock. She also noted that she would install filter fabric on the far side of the wall to further prevent erosion.Mr. LaMuniere asked if the wall would be a dry wall. Mr. Ajello responded it would be blind mortared to hold it together. The construction narrative and construction sequence were noted.
Mr. Bedini asked if erosion controls were needed. Mr. Ajello said they were not needed at this point and that the filter fabric and ferns, when planted, would help to prevent erosion.
Mrs. Schein initialed and dated the notes written on the sketch plan she submitted.
There were no other questions from the commissioners and Mr. LaMuniere noted the proposed work would stop sediment from reaching the lake.
MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-19 submitted by Mrs. Schein to build a stone wall and repair the steps at 245 West Shore Road per the 8/12/09 sketch map presented.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.New Applications
Tollman/87 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-09-25/Chemical Application to Pond:
Mr. Gambino, contractor, and Mr. D’Agosta, caretaker, submitted the conservation easement form signed by Mr. D’Agosta and toxicological information about chemical to be applied. Mr. Gambino explained the chemical treatment was needed to reduce the water chestnut in the pond and he circulated photos of the plant and the condition of the pond.Mr. D’Agosta said he had tried to remove the weed by hand last year, but was unsuccessful. Mr. Gambino said the pond was primarily fed by ground water and has an egress, which he thought he could temporarily stop by putting a board over the outlet pipe. In response to questions from Mr. LaMuniere, he said the chemical to be used was highly non toxic, was applied only to floating leaf surfaces, did not impact fauna as long as it was applied at the correct rate, and would last approximately 10 to 20 days in the water and 6 to 10 days in soil. He noted there are no potable water sources within a quarter mile of the pond and said that after the treatment he hoped to be able to manage the water chestnut in the future without chemicals by hand pulling it as it comes up.
Upon hearing from Mr. D’Agosta that there is 6 to 8 feet of muck in the bottom of the pond, making it only 6 feet deep, Mr. Ajello said that was not deep enough to keep the water cool and so the weed problem would increase. He recommended the pond be dredged. It was noted a second treatment in the spring would probably be necessary.
The commissioners agreed to accept a letter of authorization for Mr. D’Agosta from a previous file, but requested an updated letter if a spring application was needed. Mr. LaMuniere thought the application could be approved with the condition that there be no egress while the chemical is active.
This application will be added to the agenda of the 8/26/09 Special Meeting.
Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-09-26/Restoration to Correct Violation:
Mr. Allan, Land-Tech, represented Mrs. Brose. He submitted photos of the existing condition of the various disturbed sections of the property and the site plan, “Proposed Wetland Restoration,” by Land-Tech Consultants, dated 6/8/09. He reported that when he had inspected the property in June he had found that two tenths of an acre of actual wetlands had been cleared, the ground cover had not been disturbed, and there had been no evidence of soil disturbance or erosion or sedimentation into the wetlands. He described the vegetation that had been predominant in the areas next to the wetlands before they were cleared.He then presented the Restoration Plan, which included five separate planting areas with planting tables and planting details for each area. He briefly reviewed each. The last area, the one located between the patio and the wetlands, was discussed in detail. Mr. Allan proposed to keep the patio and convert the lawn between it and the wetlands to a grass meadow. He stated that the patio was an inert structure with no impact to the wetlands and he had found no signs of concentrated runoff from it. He said he was more concerned about the impact of lawn care practices on the wetlands than he was about possible impacts from the patio.
Mr. Bedini asked if Mrs. Brose proposed to keep both the patio and the stairs. Mr. Allan said runoff sheet flows off one side of the stairs causing no erosion, and he proposed that both structures remain.
Mr. LaMuniere noted several times during the discussion that the original permit had contained the condition that no work could be done beyond 50 feet of the house and so all of the work recently done had been in defiance of that permit. Mr. Allan said he understood and that was the reason for Mrs. Brose’s ATF application. Mr. LaMuniere noted the patio is inert, but asked if the health of the wetlands would benefit if this area was restored to its original vegetated cover. Mr. Allan stated that habitat would be improved, but he did not know whether there would be a benefit to the wetlands as he saw no impact now.
Mr. Bedini asked if the proposed restoration was enough to offset just what had been clear cut or if it included the patio and stairs. Mr. Allan spoke again of the improvement to the habitat and also about the proposed increase in the variety of plants, which would create a multi tiered canopy.
Mr. LaMuniere said while the restoration plan was well thought out, much smaller trees would be planted than those cut down and so it would take a minimum of 10 years to restore what had been cut. Mr. Allan stated that Mrs. Brose had requested that some larger trees be planted in addition to the many smaller ones.
Mr. LaMuniere noted the remediation plan was being offered for the patio, an illegal structure. Mr. Ajello thought the patio and most of the stairs should be removed because 1) if such structures were truly inert, it would make no difference if they were located all along the streambanks,
2) if the applicant had applied to build the patio the Commission would have required that feasible and prudent alternatives be considered, and
3) the impact was cumulative and difficult to measure. Mr. Allan noted the patio was already there and to take it out would be expensive and result in additional disturbance.Mr. LaMuniere thought the proposed restoration plan addressed the clear cutting and the patio was an additional concern that it did not address. Mr. Wadelton agreed.
Mr. Allan countered that if the Commission first determined that there would be an unreasonable impact to the wetlands, then it would have asked the applicant to consider feasible and prudent alternatives, but said he found no observable impact from the patio.
Mr. LaMuniere thought that letting the patio remain would set a bad precedent, but Mr. Allan said each case should be judged on its own merits.
Mr. Ajello suggested the Commission could hire its own consultant to determine whether the patio impacts the wetlands. Mr. Allan again stated that the patio did not cause sedimentation or runoff and had no impact on the wetland functions.
Mrs. D. Hill asked if the proposed plants would require fertilizer. Mr. Allan said, no, they were native plants.
Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Allan to advise Mrs. Brose that the Commission wants the patio and stairs removed; that their construction was an intentional violation of the original permit. Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Wadelton agreed. Mrs. D. Hill said she did not feel as strongly about it as the other commissioners.
Tangeman/84 Carmel Hill Road/#IW-09-27/Restore Vernal Pool:
Mr. Isley, contractor, explained the new property owners proposed to correct the violation by the previous property owners, the Feolas.Mr. Ajello reviewed the history of the violation and the conceptual restoration plan from the Feola file.
Mr. Isley pointed out the area proposed for the vernal pool, stating that it would be as close in size and location to the original pool as possible. He said that organic materials would be added to the site and indigenous species planted per the Feola’s approved plan.
Mr. Ajello noted the Feola’s restoration plan had been approved in 2006. He also noted that the current proposal included additional plantings and a 2 foot deep service trench along the side of the vernal pool.
There were no other questions or comments. The application will be considered again at the 9/9/09 meeting.
Ernhout/289 West Shore Road/#IW-09-29/Septic Repair:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his plans, “Septic System Repair Plan,” dated 7/25/09. He noted the property was located along the eastern shore of Ash Swamp. Mr. Neff proposed to pump to the septic system location in the northeast corner of the lot where he said it was a little higher and the driest section of the property. The proposed site was 70 feet from the edge of the swamp, which was as far back as he could push it. He said the existing septic tank would be used. Because the property is relatively wet, he said, an extensive amount of fill would be required to elevate the system above ground water. He said the plans had been submitted to, but not yet approved by, the Health Department.Mr. Bedini asked if the repair was an emergency. Although it was not, Mr. Ajello recommended that the work be done as soon as possible while the weather was dry. The proposed site is staked and the commissioners will drive by individually prior to the next meeting.
This application will be added to the agenda of the 8/26 Special Meeting.
Wexler/157 Calhoun Street/#IW-09-30/Access to Swimming Pool:
Mr. Neff, engineer, Atty. Fisher, and Mr. Majeski, soil scientist, were present. The map, “Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 8/1/09 was reviewed. Mr. Neff summarized the proposal to access an inground pool in a non regulated area in the southwest corner of the property. The pool itself and all pool equipment would be more than 100 feet from wetlands, but to access it, a 6 foot wide crossing over wetlands and a watercourse was proposed. Mr. Neff described the proposed construction process.First, temporary crossing mats with steel plates would be used for the pool construction equipment, then when the construction was completed they would be removed, and finally, galvanized steel piers would be drilled into grade and an elevated bridge over the wetlands installed. He noted that a filled roadway was not proposed.
Mr. Majeski noted the report, “Environmental Review,” by ESM Associates, dated June 2009. He said this study had concluded there would be no permanent damage to the wetlands or watercourse as tree cutting would be minimized, there would be no stumping or grading, and the final crossing would be a bridge. He stated the crossing was proposed over a narrow section of the wetlands and that alternate routes had been considered, but this one would have the least impact.
Mr. Neff submitted a cross section of the bridge. He noted the bridge would be for pedestrian and “golf cart-like travel” only, that no excavation would be required, and that by using piers to install the bridge, it was a low impact crossing solution. The proposed bridge is 70 feet long; 65 feet spanning the wetlands.
Mr. Ajello asked about the impact of the construction vehicles driving over the wetlands on the temporary mats. Mr. Neff said the soils were firm in this area and that in similar sites he had seen little impact.
Mr. Ajello recommended that the cement be pumped in rather than have the cement truck drive over the temporary crossing. Mr. Neff stated that the trucks used were smaller for gunite work.
Mr. Wadelton noted a utility trench was also proposed through the wetlands. Mr. Neff said this was for electricity only; a hose would be used to fill the pool. Mr. Neff also noted that all pool maintenance would be done by a person on foot and that the existing plank walk behind the garage would be removed.
A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, September 1 at 3:00 p.m.
Lufkin/36 Hinkle Road/#IW-09-31/Chemical Application to Pond:
Mr. Gambino, contractor, noted that phragmites was growing back since the last pond treatment. The map, “Property/Boundary Survey, Conservation Easement Plan,” by Mr. Bertaccini, dated November 2007 was reviewed.Mr. Bedini noted that Steep Rock wanted to discuss the application because it was the holder of a conservation easement on the property. Mr. Gambino said he had not been aware of this, but would discuss it with Mrs. Branson before the next meeting.
Mrs. D. Hill asked if the work had to be done this fall. Mr. Gambino said it should be done before the end of September. He said Rodeo would be sprayed on the plants and they would be removed during the winter.
Mr. Bedini said that a letter from Steep Rock that the proposed activity was in compliance with the terms of the conservation easement is required.
Rowe/44 Kielwasser Road/#IW-09-32/Feasibility for 2 Lot Resubdivision:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his map, “Proposed Site Development Plan,” dated 8/9/09. He explained the existing property was 26.78 acres with a house, barn, and pool and a 9+ acre lot in the southeast corner was proposed. He noted the proposed house site was in the southwest corner of the lot away from wetlands and that the nearest wetlands were several hundred feet away. Erosion controls were proposed down gradient of the development site. He noted that although this was a feasibility plan for resubdivision, the location of the proposed house shown on the map was the actual location where the house would be built. It was the consensus of the commissioners that there would be no wetlands impacts.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-32 submitted by Mrs. Rowe for the feasibility of a two lot resubdivision at 44 Kielwasser Road per the map, “Proposed Site Development Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 8-9-09 because there would be no impact to the wetlands.
By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0.Region #12 School District/159 South Street/#IW-09-33/Empty Pool into Pond:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, explained the high school pool had to be drained for necessary repairs and that the school proposed to neutralize the water in it, test it to make sure it was neutralized, treat it again if necessary, and then empty the pool into the nearby pond. He said there would be no hazardous by products. He proposed to pump the water outside onto a tarp so it could flow into the pond without causing any erosion. He also noted that the volume of the pond was 10 to 15 times greater than the volume of the pool so thermal impact to the pond should not be a problem.Mr. Ajello asked Mr. Szymanski to find out whether the outlet from the pond flows into Roxbury.
This application will be taken up at the 8/26 Special Meeting.
Kessler/105 Mountain Road/#IW-09-34/Install Dry Hydrant in Existing Pond:
Mr. Lowe, contractor, presented the map, “Proposed Dry Hydrant Plan,” which was drawn by hand on the site development plan by Mr. Neff, dated 6/15/07. The plan showed two possible locations for the hydrant. Mr. Lowe said that the Fire Department preferred Location #1 even though it would require trenching through wetlands because less pipe would be required and there could be a problem with fire trucks passing the pumper in Location #2.Mr. LaMuniere asked why the pipe could not be installed 200 feet from wetlands. Mr. Lowe said that would require that trees be cut. Mr. Lowe said he understood the area was “delicate.” Therefore, he proposed to put down wooden or plastic mats for a small excavator to drive over. The mats would be 6 to 8 feet wide and the excavator to be used is only 4.5 ft. wide. The machine would drive in 200 feet making a 4 foot deep trench and would then regrade as it worked its way back. He said the work would take only one day. He also stated that although this would be the most expensive way to install the hydrant, it would cause the least impact to the wetlands.
Mr. Ajello said he preferred Location #1 as part of the route for the pipe to serve #2 would run along the stream. The application will be considered again at the September 9th meeting.
Pending Application
Mahan/54 Sunny Ridge Road/#IW-09-21/Addition to Dwelling:
Atty. Fisher stated the work proposed was hundreds of feet from the conservation easement area on the property and noted the contractor was ready to begin work. He said he had notified Steep Rock of the application, Steep Rock had stated the work proposed was in compliance with the terms of the restriction, but he did not yet have this in writing. He assured the Commission he would have the letter by tomorrow and asked that the application be approved with the condition that the required letter was submitted the next day.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-21 submitted by Mr. Mahan to construct an addition to the dwelling at 54 Sunny Ridge Road subject to the condition that a letter from Steep Rock Assn. is submitted stating that the work proposed complies with the terms of the conservation easement on the property.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0.
Other Business
Request for Bond Reduction/Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road:
Mr. Gitterman was present. Mr. Bedini read the letter from Mr. Gitterman dated 8/31/09, which, based on the fact that the majority of work was completed and stabilized, requested that a major portion of the bond be returned. Mr. Gitterman advised the Commission that the stormwater management facilities had been installed and functioned well and the road and septic system had been completed.Mr. LaMuniere said his main concern was that there be no sedimentation into the large ravine below the detention facility.
Mr. Bedini reviewed the condition of approval concerning the bond.
Mr. Gitterman asked that $13,000 be released because in the future only one or two houses would be constructed at a time.
Mrs. D. Hill said that since the site was fully stabilized she had no problem with returning the entire bond.
Mr. Gitterman said he would post another bond if and when construction resumes.
MOTION:
To return the entire amount of the bond for Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0.Request for Bond Reduction/Kessler/105 West Mountain Rd/#IW-09-05:
Mr. Bedini read the 8/4/09 email from Mr. Kessler requesting a substantial reduction of his bond. He noted that the reconstruction of the guest house and bridge had been “substantially” completed, he would not now proceed with the construction of the new dwelling, and that in 2 weeks all the work on the project would be completed and stabilized.Mr. Ajello advised the Commission not to act until the next meeting because planting was in progress and there were open areas of soil where erosion could occur.
Mr. Bedini noted that part of the bond was required to be held through two growing seasons.
Mr. LaMuniere recommended the Commission inspect the property before voting on whether to release part of the bond.
Mr. Bedini questioned what “substantially” completed meant.
The Commission scheduled a site inspection for Tuesday, 9/1/09 at 3:30 p.m. and will review the conditions of approval regarding the bond prior to the next meeting.
Enforcement
Delancy/79 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-08-V6/Unauthorized Clearing:
The commissioners reviewed Mr. Ajello’s 8/12/09 enforcement report and Mr. Hayden’s, soil scientist from the Northwest Conservation District, review dated 8/6/09.Mr. Bedini recalled the Commission had asked the property owners to come up with a plan for moving the unauthorized activities out of the wetlands.
Mrs. Delancy was present, but said they did not yet have definite plans for doing so.
Mr. Bedini said that a resolution was needed and gave the Delancys until the September 9th meeting to propose a solution. In the meantime, no activities were to be done in the wetlands, nor any additional materials deposited there. The map of the property and recent photos were reviewed.
A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2009 at 4:15 p.m.
Other Business
Request to Amend Permit #IW-07-11/John Dorr Nature Lab/220 Nettleton Hollow Road:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, reported that the project had “evolved” as the work had progressed. He briefly reviewed the changes to the permit to date that the Commission had approved. He then noted that the Nature Lab now proposes to maintain the original lodge and the access to it because it is being used as an educational facility. The map, “Lawn Restoration Map,” by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., dated 8/11/09 was reviewed. He proposed to convert four areas of existing lawn in the upland review area to meadow to serve as a buffer to the wetlands to compensate for the increase in impervious surfaces resulting from the retention of the lodge and its access. He said these four areas totaled over 10,000 square feet and that he would look for other areas to restore as well. The commissioners had no objections.MOTION:
To approve the request by John Dorr Nature Lab, 220 Nettleton Hollow Road, to amend Permit #IW-07-11 per the map, “Lawn Restoration Map,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 8/11/09.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0.Discussion/Oberndorf/157 West Shore Road/#IW-07-57/Return of Bond:
Mr. Ajello reported that the work was done and the site had been stabilized, although he had not yet signed off and closed the file.Mr. Bedini noted it was important to complete all paperwork and officially close out each file.
MOTION:
To return the entire amount of the bond posted by Oberndorf, 151 West Shore Road, for Permit #IW-07-57.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0.Discussion/Wanag/Potash Hill Road/Expiration of Permit:
Mr. Ajello noted this permit had expired in June and the property owner had asked if he should reapply now. He said he had advised Mr. Wanag not to reapply until he is ready to begin work.Mr. Bedini agreed, noting that permits are now valid for only two years and the Commission doesn’t want more open permits than necessary.
Enforcement Report
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello said the stonewall was finished and the bank stabilized so this could come off the agenda.Mr. LaMuniere noted a finish card was required.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike:
Mr. Ajello reported that both Zoning and Inland Wetlands violations continue and said he had sent Mr. Moore a letter requesting a site inspection.DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street
Rubler/240 Wykeham Road
Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/IW-07-V12:
There was nothing new to report on these three matters.Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello said the restoration work would be completed within 30 days and had been slow to get done due to the weather.Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane:
Mr. Ajello said the site was in good shape and the plantings were in.Mrs. D. Hill asked if Ms. Barbieri had supervised the restoration work as she had said she would. Mr. Ajello will check the file.
Brown/127 West Shore Road
Howard/99 West Shore Road:
These two matters would be discussed later in Executive Session.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-V2:
It was noted that the Army Corps of Engineers had threatened to fine the Rosens, but had not submitted any reports to the Commission since June.Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-V5:
There was a discussion regarding whether the Commission should stand fast to its request that the patio and stairs be removed. It was noted that
1) Mrs. Brose had known this work was in violation of her previous permit as there had been a condition of approval that addressed it. 2) If she had applied for the patio and stairs in their present locations, the Commission would not have approved them.
3) The two structures were also in violation of the Zoning Regulations.
4) Although the restoration plan was a good one, to accept the argument that it would cause more harm to remove them would send a bad message to the public because it could be used for any/all illegal work.Mr. LaMuniere felt strongly that since the structures violated the original permit’s condition of approval, they could not remain and that vegetation would be better for the health of the stream than their existing inert surfaces.
Mr. Wadelton thought the Commission would be justified going to court based on the violation of the permit. Mr. Ajello noted that judges consider violation of the law as well as impact to wetlands.
Four Members agreed the patio and stairs must be removed. Mrs. D. Hill dissented.
141 West Shore Road, LLC./141 West Shore Road:
Mr. LaMuniere asked for clarification about the erosion control measures to be installed so there would be no sedimentation into the catch basin.Treadway/20 Nettleton Hollow Road
Thorne/228 West Shore Road:
Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Ajello to formally sign off on the closing of these files and to attach photos of the completed work.Rumsey Hall School/Romford Road:
Mr. Ajello reported that sidewalks around the new dorms are proposed. He said there would be no impact to any wetlands and that the increased runoff would flow into the Romford Road drainage system, which runs to the Bantam River.Town of Washington/2 Bryan Plaza:
Mrs. D. Hill noted the pond in back of the Town Hall has been mowed to the edge of its banks. She asked Mr. Ajello to check this out because the Commission had approved a planting plan for this area and she did not want the approved vegetation to be mowed down.MOTION:
To enter into Executive Session at 11:02 p.m. to discuss pending litigation: Brown, Howard, and Federer.
By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0.MOTION:
To end Executive Session at 11:18 p.m.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. D. Hill, and passed 4-0.MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting.
By Mr. LaMuniere.Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 11:20 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Posted: July 17, 2009 July 8, 2009
7:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Shade
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Lyon, Mr. Solley, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Clark, Mr. Szymanski, Brian Neff, Mr. Paredes, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Leitz, Mr. Klauer, Mr. and Mrs. DelanceyMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere and Wadelton.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the Agenda:
V. New Applications:
A. Schein/245 West Shore Road/#IW-09-19/Repair steps and retaining wall.
B. Papsin/30 Mygatt Road/Construct additions.
C. Mahan/54 Sunny Ridge Road/Single family dwelling addition.
D. Leitz/337 Romford Road/Install garden shed. E. Wykeham Rise LLC/101 Wykeham Road/Construction of affordable housing.
F. Cohen/64 Calhoun Street/Aquatic pesticide application.VI. Other Business:
A. Cohen/64 Calhoun Street/Aquatic pesticide permit from State DEP.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill and passed 4-0.Consideration of the Minutes
Mr. Bedini deferred consideration of the 6/10/09 minutes until the August meeting.MOTION: To accept the 6/29/09 Herrmann site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini and passed 4-0.
The 6/29/09 Bowman site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected:
1st line: “b” left out of Plumb.
3rd paragraph, line 1: change where the proposed…. to for the proposed…..
MOTION: To accept the Bowman site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton and passed 4-0.MOTION: To accept the 6/29/09 Charvillat site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere and passed 4-0.
Pending Applications
Town of Washington /59 East Shore Road /#IW-09-16 /Phase II Town Beach:
Mr. Lyon, First Selectman, Mr. Solley, Selectman, Mr. Sabin, Landscape Architect and Mr. Clark, Engineer, Oakwood Environmental Associates, were present to discuss the application.Mr. Sabin read through his Project Summary for the proposed renovations at the Town Beach. Repairs and renovations have been done to update the facility. The significant change in this plan is dealing with storm water runoff which had never been done before - it was just allowed to run into the lake. The commissioners looked at the Landscaping Plan(Rec’d 7/2/09). Mr. Sabin pointed out where two bio-filters are to be located; one by the canoe launch and the other near the parking area and house. As part of the landscape plan, boulders will be put in place as a natural buffer for the shoreline. Some fencing will be replaced and a gravel path installed to the kayak/canoe launch. He said work will start this fall and be completed, ready to open in the spring. Mr. Sabin said they do not expect any significant impact to the wetlands.
Mr. Clark described erosion controls. He said water coming off the parking lot will be directed to bio-filters. They have added new sand and built a berm that goes around the entire beach to keep water from running across the beach area. They are trying to limit the amount of drainage that comes off the highway by directing the flow to continue down to the State drain. Mr. Bedini asked if anything had been done about the problem of water run off from the road. Mr. Clark said the Town had repaired the erosion in that area and put in a berm to keep water from running down and causing further erosion. Mr. Bedini asked about the height of the berm protecting the beach. Mr. Clark said they want to match existing conditions and create a rolling berm so water will go around the beach instead of through it. Mrs. Hill asked if the erosion sequence is included in the construction sequence. Mr. Sabin replied it is included. The commissioners briefly discussed how long this project will take. The work is expected to begin this fall and be completed in the spring before the summer beach season.
Mr. Bedini asked the members if they had any additional questions or comments. There were none.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-16 submitted by the Town of Washington for Phase II at the Town Beach, 59 East Shore Road as depicted on the “Overall Plan”, 4 pages by Oakwood Environmental Assoc.(rec’d 7/1/09) along with “Landscaping Plan”(rec’d 7/2/09) and the “Project Summary”(rec’d 7/8/09); both by Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect, subject to the following conditions:
1. the permit shall be good for 2 years, and
2. the applicant shall notify the Land Use Office 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the Enforcement Officer can inspect the erosion controls. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere and passed 4-0.Herrmann /90 East Street /#IW-09-15 /Single Family Dwelling:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, represented the applicant. He referenced the site inspection that took place on 6/29/09. Mr. Szymanski discussed the 6/3/09 revision to the proposed Sediment & Erosion Control Plan by Arthur Howland & Associates, to be clear on how it would be implemented and incorporated into the construction sequence. He said they are providing for treatment of run-off and have offered to place orange snow fence(approx. 3ft tall) within 100ft of wetlands and staked hay bales closest to the wetlands. Mr. LaMuniere asked if Mr. Szymanski thought hay bales were sufficient. He replied yes – especially with the erosion control blanket. Mr. LaMuniere noted the septic is located 30ft below the house and wondered how a truck could get there to pump it out. Mr. Szymanski said the truck could just drive to the garage and the hose would be long enough to pull down to the septic area.Mr. Bedini asked if there were any additional questions or comments. There were none.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-15 submitted by Mr. Herrmann, 90 East Street, to construct a single family dwelling per the “Site Development Plan” by Arthur H. Howland & Associates dated 5/20/09 and revised 6/3/09, subject to the following conditions:
1. the permit shall be good for 2 years, and
2. the applicant shall notify the Land Use Office 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the Enforcement Officer can inspect the erosion controls. By Mr. Lamuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill and passed 4-0.Charvillat /96 Roxbury Road /#IW-09-17 /Dredge Pond, Replace Pipe:
Mr. Neff, engineer, represented the applicant and discussed the proposed maintenance work on the existing pond. Mr. Neff was unable to be at the site inspection on 6/29/09. He noted that the outlet pipe is pretty well rusted out and the water level has dropped significantly. Mr. LaMuniere said it is completely rusted out, the members had trouble finding it. Mr. Neff said the inlet pipe is also scheduled to be replaced, as the suction has been crushed. Mostly PVC pipe will be used. Mr. Neff said this is definitely a man made pond and is very close to the house. There is no proposal to enlarge it. The commissioners discussed the process. Mr. Neff said approximately 1½ft of materials will come out; mainly organics and silt. It will be de-watered and trucked off site. Mr. LaMuniere asked how long the job will take. Mr. Neff replied about 1½ weeks to do the entire job; trenching will take no more than a day.Mr. Bedini asked for any questions or comments. Mrs. Hill asked if there were any cattails in the pond. Mr. Neff said he didn’t see any. Mostly there are some phragmites. If there are any cattails they will be removed along with the phragmites. Mr. Ajello commented that, on previous visits, he had seen grass clippings in the pond. Mrs. Hill pointed out that people are planting iris along ponds now – but the yellow ones are invasive. Mr. Ajello said the blue flag iris is a nice addition. Mr. Neff said the iris will create a buffer around the pond. Mr. Bedini noted the Commission would like to encourage them to plant as much iris as possible in order to avoid mowing down to the water. Mrs. Hill asked who would be responsible for the iris planting. Mr. Neff replied it is part of the plan and is listed on the sequence of construction around the entire perimeter. It will be a nice buffer. Mr. Ajello noted that phragmites roots can be as deep as 2ft. Mr. Neff said they will dig deep enough to take them out. Mr. Bedini asked if there were any other comments or questions. There were none.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-17 submitted by Mr. Charvillat, 96 Roxbury Road, to dredge a pond and replace pipe per the “Pond Repair Plan” by Brian E. Neff, Engineer, dated 5/18/09, subject to the following conditions:
1. the permit shall be good for 2 years, and
2. the applicant shall notify the Land Use Office 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the Enforcement Officer can inspect the erosion controls. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton and passed 4-0.Bowman /44 Plumb Hill Road /#IW-09/18 /Demolish, Reconstruct Dwelling, Install Pool, and Underground Utilities, Build Garage-Pool House, Reconfigure Parking Area, etc.
Mr. Neff, engineer, represented the applicant. He said the plan is to demolish the existing house, build a new house with a similar footprint; just a little bigger. Also included is a pool and garage. Mr. Neff explained most expansion activity is outside the regulated 100ft area. Activities within the regulated area include removal and reconstruction of the house. The septic will remain as is. Mr. Neff said he staked out the septic area and location of the well. An area by the driveway will be used as a staging area and used for contractor parking, stock piling of stones for rebuilding of the walls. Mr. Neff said he also spoke with the owners about moving some plants to that area in order to protect them from construction activity.Mrs. Hill asked if the area around the pond is mowed. Mr. LaMuniere said that area is very spongy – like a bog. Mrs. Hill asked Mr. Neff if there is any vegetation along the stream. He replied there is none. Mr. LaMuniere suggested the owners be asked to mow in that area once a year to allow the wetland to reestablish itself. Mr. Ajello said, given the nature of the area, a better alternative would be to suggest appropriate wetland plantings in that area. Mr. Neff said the owners are working with a landscape designer. He will bring a planting plan in when it is prepared.
Mr. LaMuniere asked about the demolition. Mr. Neff said the dumpsters will be placed in the driveway and then hauled away. It should be a clean operation. The members discussed all the truck traffic that would be on site. Mr. Ajello suggested silt fences should be placed along the driveway and Mrs. Hill said, in addition, anti-tracking pads should also be installed as part of the approval. Mr. Neff agreed erosion barriers along the driveway would be needed. Mrs. Hill commented that Mrs. Janet Hill had a concern about the curtain drain outlet. Mr. Neff said he did go back and look at that area. He said the water should run down toward the water course itself. There is no danger of water going onto adjacent property.
Mr. Bedini asked if there were any additional questions or comments. There were none.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-18 submitted by Mr. Bowman, 44 Plumb Hill Road, to demolish and reconstruct dwelling, install pool and underground utilities, build garage-pool house, reconfigure parking area, etc., subject to the following conditions:
1. install 50ft anti-tracking pad at driveway entrance,
2. install E & S controls along driveway on both sides in vicinity of wetlands,
3. use either native plantings or let wetlands return to natural ecosystem and mow once a year
4. the permit shall be good for 2 years, and the applicant shall notify the Land Use Office 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the Enforcement Officer can inspect the erosion controls.New Applications
Schein /245 West Shore Road /Repair Stone Steps, Repair Handrail, Build Stone Retaining Wall /#IW-09-19
Jose Paredes, contractor, represented Mrs. Schein. Mr. Ajello read a letter from Mrs. Schein dated 6/28/09, authorizing Jose Paredes to act on her behalf. The members looked at photos taken from the dock and concrete pier by Mr. Ajello on 6/26/09. It was noted that the application form is an old one and Mr. Bedini said they should be asked to fill out one of the new forms.Mr. Ajello said rocks had been rolled down the hillside and disturbed the dirt and vegetation. Mr. Bedini asked if he had requested the contractor to stop work. Mr. Ajello replied he had. Mr. Bedini looked over the application and asked if that was everything that had been submitted. Mr. Ajello said yes, that was all he got. Mr. Bedini stated the application was incomplete and the map should be more detailed. A discussion ensued over whether to send a Cease and Desist and have a Show Cause Hearing in August. It was decided they should issued a citation to Mrs. Schein.
Papsin /30 Mygatt Road /Construct Additions
Mr. Papsin told the commissioners that his driveway is directly across from the Quarry Ridge Condos. He said there is a swale on the edge of his property – 2½ft wide and 3ft deep. He explained they would like to put a family room off the back of his ranch house, remove the existing deck and extend the kitchen, family room and mudroom off of that. Mr. Bedini asked if there were any wetlands other than the stream. No, there are none. Mr. Papsin said he had the plans for the house. Mr. Bedini said the commission did not need to see elevations but they did look at the site plan.Mr. Bedini asked the members if they could see anything other than the stream as a problem. They did not. He said it does not appear that they need to do a site walk. He asked the members if they need anything else. Mr. LaMuniere asked to see the addition plans. Mr. LaMuniere said he did not see a problem, it is clear enough from the design. Mr. Bedini asked the members if they want the sequence of work revised. Mr. Ajello said he would work with Mr. Papsin.
Mahan /54 Sunny Ridge Road /SFD Addition
Mr. Neff, engineer, represented Mr. Mahan. Mr. Neff told the commissioners that this property is part of the old Potter farm. He presented his Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Plan dated 7/5/09 which also includes the project narrative and sequence of construction. In addition, he also submitted a soil report by Michael Temple of Nutmeg Soil Services dated 6/20/09.Mr. Neff said this is just an addition to an existing dwelling. Mr. Ajello said he met with Atty. Rob Fisher. The proposed additions do not conflict with any conservation easements held by Steep Rock Association. Mr. Neff said no one is living in the house so the members could easily go have a look. Mr. Bedini asked if there were any more questions or anything else Mr. Neff needs to do? Mrs. Hill said it is pretty straightforward – each member can go individually.
Leitz /337 Romford Road /Install Garden Shed
Mr. Leitz told the commissioners that his house does not have a garage and he needs the storage space. The members looked at the site plan dated 9/2/04 for Michael Velseboer, the former owner. The shed is to be 12’x12’. It will be built of wood from trees on his property that were lost in a storm. There will be no foundation. The shed will sit on gravel. Mr. Bedini said a site walk would not be necessary.Mrs. Hill asked if this could not have gone through as an agent approval. A brief discussion followed. Mr. Bedini said he did not see any problems with doing an agent approval – there is no excavation, no impact. All agreed. Mr. Ajello said he would help Mr. Leitz with the agent approval and legal notice if he chooses to do so.
Wykeham Rise LLC /101 Wykeham Road /Construction of Affordable Housing
Mr. Klauer was present. Mr. Ajello said he received a check from M. Klauer, two maps dated 2/20/09, a letter from Land Tech dated 5/6/09. A new application form will need to be filled out.Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Klauer if he was ready to schedule a Public Hearing. Mr. Klauer replied that Mr. Szymanski (A.H. Howland Assoc.) had not yet finished all the paperwork. He said they would like to move the tennis courts far away from their present location. Mr. Bedini asked what they intend to do with the old tennis courts. Mr. Klauer said they will just restore the grade – no construction in that area. Mr. Bedini asked if there will be a fence around the tennis court. Mr. Klauer said yes, a wire fence. Mr. Bedini said the commission would like to know what they are going to do about the demolition of the tennis courts and prefer they stay 100ft away from wetlands.
Mr. Bedini stated that the commission would like all relevant information at least 1 week prior to the Public Hearing so all of the members can look at it. This would also give the consultant time to look at it. Mr. LaMuniere said he would like to go with what Mr. Bedini said - unless we have the completed information as requested, the Public Hearing will have to be postponed. Mr. Bedini asked when Mr. Klauer expects to have the information from Mr. Szymanski and Land Tech. Mr. Klauer replied 1week from this coming Friday (7/17/09). Mrs. Hill suggested they put off the Public Hearing until September 9. The members discussed scheduling the Public Hearing. They will decide at the August 12 meeting.
Cohen /64 Calhoun Street /Aquatic Pesticide Application
Mr. Gambino will be at the next meeting to represent Mr. Cohen who wants to put these pesticides in his fire pond. Mr. Wadelton asked if this pond had an outlet. No it does not. Mr. LaMuniere said if there is no egress he does not have a problem. Mr. Bedini said the commission has no reason to deny this. Mr. LaMuniere suggested they get a protocol on the pesticide Mr. Cohen is using. Mr. Bedini asked if the State gives any guidelines for using this pesticide. Mr. Ajello said Mr. Gambino just tells them what he wants to do and they approve. Mr. LaMuniere asked if there will be an interface with the chemical and groundwater. Mr. Ajello stated the pond has a 3-layer rubber liner. Mr. Ajello will tell Mr. Gambino not to be at the August meeting because the members have no problem with this pond.Enforcement E.O. Report: Mrs. Hill noted that Bardel has 1 “l”.
Delancey /79 Litchfield Turnpike Clearcutting /#IW-08-V7
Mr. and Mrs. Delancey were present. They asked if they could find out who reported them. Mr. Ajello said he did not know – someone just complained anonymously. He showed the commission photos taken on 6/17/09. Mr. Delancey said even after a rain, it is dry enough for his kids to play and ride bikes. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Delancey what his plan is for the wood he cut. Mr. Delancey replied it is to heat his house.Mr. Delancey asked the members what they want him to do. Mr. Ajello said they could have the soils tested – these are wetland soils. Mr. Bedini proposed that Mr. Delancey do his log splitting in another area near the driveway. Get out of the wetlands and let it restore itself. Mr. Delancey does not consider the area wetlands. Mr. Bedini stated it is not what it looks like – it’s how the soils test. That is what the Statutes say and that is what the Commission has to abide by. Can you find another area to do this work? We need to find a solution.
Mr. Ajello told Mr. Delancey he cannot use an ATV in the wetlands. Mrs. Hill suggested contacting the Conservation District (Sean Hayden) to come take a look and perhaps have a suggestion. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Ajello to contact Mr. Hayden to see if he can help Mr. Delancey and he asked Mr. Delancey to go home and try to decide how this problem can be fixed. Mr. Delancey agreed. Mr. LaMuniere said he would like to visit Mr. Delancey’s property and have a look around. Mr. Bedini said if that is acceptable, that’s what they will do. He asked Mr. Delancey to come to the August meeting.
Action Taken by Wetlands Agent
Schiesel /6 Wheaton Road: Agent ApprovalFornasier & Condon /57 Findley Road: Agent Approval
MOTION: To go into Executive Session at 10:26PM to discuss Howard/99 West Shore Road/Unauthorized work on shore line, Brown/127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized work along shore line and Wykeham Rise LLC/101 Wykeham Rise/Appeal by Federer. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To come out of Executive Session at 10:36PM. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini and passed 4-0.
Mrs. Hill nominated Tony Bedini as Chairman and Steve Wadelton as Vice Chairman. All agreed unanimously.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 10:37PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha T. Shade
Land Use Clerk
*** SITE VISIT REPORTS ***
APPLICATION: IW-09-15
INSPECTION DATE: 06/29/09
TIME: 3:00 PMAPPLICANT: Herrmann
ADDRESS: 90 East St.
REASON FOR APPLICATION: Construct single family dwelling
MEMBERS PRESENT: S. Wadelton, C. LaMuniere
STAFF PRESENT: M. Ajello
OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Szymanski, Engineer
References:
1. Field Work Print, Dated Aug 27, 2008, stamped “Preliminary”
2. Site Development Plan, Dated May 20, 2009
Both drawings by A. H. Howland & Assoc.OBSERVATIONS:
Construction is proposed in the Southwest corner of a 14 +/- acre lot, and is accessed by a dirt road which goes down grade from East St. to the site for the dwelling. Grading will be required to lower and level off the building site. The material will stay on site, being moved to the East, Southeast and South for use as fill and grading.Part of the proposed work falls within the 100’ URA, however the wetland involved is at a higher elevation than the planned limit of disturbance, and therefore should not be adversely affected by this plan. Respectfully submitted,
Steve Wadelton
APPLICATION: IW-09-18
INSPECTION DATE: 06/29/09
TIME: 3:00-3:30 P.M.APPLICANT: Bowman
ADDRESS: 44 Plumb Hill Road
REASON FOR APPLICATION: Demolish/Reconstruct Building; Construct Garage/Pool House; Install Pool and Underground Utilities; Reconfigure Parking Area
MEMBERS PRESENT: S. Wadelton, C. LaMuniere
STAFF PRESENT: M. Ajello
OTHERS PRESENT: Mrs. Bowman
OBSERVATIONS:
Site participants entered the applicant’s property from Plum Hill Road and drove east along the long gravel driveway that leads to the house’s present entrance and parking area where they met Mrs. Bowman. On the way to the house, they viewed the proposed temporary construction/parking area on the southwestern corner of the property, approximately three quarters of which falls within the 100-foot URA setback.Concentrating on the potential impact of the application on the pond, wetland and the intermittent stream that traverses it, all of which are located on the western half of the property, participants noted that the area which separates the wetland from the proposed house construction site is approximately 80 feet wide at its narrowest point and is fully stabilized. The wetland was water logged, spongy and mowed to lawn height. The culvert that links another wetland pocket to the south of the gravel driveway to the wetland under discussion was flowing freely and showed no signs of channel erosion even after a preceding, prolonged rainy period.
Participants then turned their attention to the construction area where the proposed pool, garage/pool house and septic area, which is located outside of the 100-foot URA setback in the eastern half of the property. The proposed pool is to be constructed where a shed currently sits. It appears that the erosion control measures proposed to protect the wetland and pond from the house demolition/reconstruction activities should also serve to protect them from the pool, garage/pool house, septic field and other upland-related construction activities.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles LaMuniere
APPLICATION: IW-09-17
INSPECTION DATE: 06/29/09
TIME: 4:15 PMAPPLICANT: Charvillat
ADDRESS: 96 Roxbury Rd
REASON FOR APPLICATION: Dredge pond, repair/replace inlet & outlet pipes.
MEMBERS PRESENT: S. Wadelton, C. LaMuniere
References: Pond Repair Plan, Dated May 18, 2009 by Brian Neff, PE
OBSERVATIONS:
The pond, approx 0.4 acres in size, is located just to the East of the dwelling. The plan involves removing an estimated 400 cubic yards of organics, leaf litter and invasive plants from the pond itself, and dredging to a maximum depth of 10’, with a slope of 1:3. The Phragmites, which cover more than half the shoreline will also be removed, along with their root systems. Native Iris plantings around the pond are planned after dredging is completed. The pond currently supports an active amphibian population.The existing inlet and outlet pipes will be replaced. This will require trenching, none of which will be in, or crossing wetlands. The outlet pipe will empty out to the surface, forming a watercourse, which feeds a smaller pond to the West. The water then leaves the property via a small stream. The Installation of a Sediment filter is planned in the outlet watercourse prior to it’s entering the small pond.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve Wadelton
Posted: August 20, 2009 June 10, 2009
Regular Meeting
7:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Fusco, Mr. Neff, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Neff, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Jontos, Mr. Solley, Mr. Sabin, Mr. LyonMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the Agenda:
IV. New Applications:
B. Charvillat/ 96 Roxbury Road/#IW-09-17/Dredge Pond, Replace Pipe
C. Bowman/44 Plumb Hill Road/#IW-09-18/Demolish, Reconstruct Dwelling, Install Pool and Underground Utilities, Construct Garage-Poolhouse, Reconfigure Parking Area, etc.,VI. Other Business:
A. Referral from the Town of Roxbury/Repairs to Picket Road.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Consideration of the Minutes
The 5/27/09 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 3: First paragraph: last line: Insert: “been” before “submitted.”
Under Wykeham Rise, LLC.: Insert” “new” before “information.”MOTION: To accept the 5/27/09 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.MOTION: To accept the 6/3/09 Bardell site inspection minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.The 6/3/09 Wexler site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected.
3rd line: The correct spelling of driveway was noted.
5th-6th line: Change: “…falls just outside the 50 ft. setback…” to “…is more than 50 ft….”MOTION: To accept the 6/3/09 Wexler site inspection minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.New Applications
Town of Washington/59 East Shore Road/#IW-09-16/Phase II - Town Beach:
Mr. Lyon, First Selectman, Mr. Solley, Selectman, and Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, discussed the Phase II plans for the Town beach property, which include renovation of the beach house, reconfiguration of parking, and improvements in stormwater management.
The preliminary review map, “Proposed Renovations at the Town Beach,” by Oakwood Environmental Consultants, dated 6/8/09 and the plan, “Conceptual Design Study for Proposed Renovation at the Town Beach,” by Mr. Sabin, dated 1/15/07 were reviewed.
Mr. Solley said the final plans would be ready for the June 8th meeting. He briefly reviewed the major components of the proposal. The renovation of the beach house will require pouring a new foundation. The existing structure is only 10 feet from the shoreline. By removing an existing porch, this distance will be increased to 25.5 feet. Also the building will be lifted to get it out of the flood plain and the footprint will decrease by 85 sq. ft.
A variance from the ZBA will be required to increase the height of this non conforming building 4.5 feet.
Mr. Solley explained that in addition to the proposed drainage plans, the Town has requested that the state DOT redirect the “leak off” from the state highway, which now flows through the property and causes erosion problems. It was not known how long it would take the state to review this matter.
Mr. Sabin compared a photo of the existing view shed to a sketch of what it would be after the improvements were completed. He detailed plans for restoration of the shoreline;
a) a pea stone ramp for the airboat would be installed for access to the garage
b) varied, large “naturalistic” stones would be placed along the eroded sections of shoreline
c) a bio filter basin would be installed.
The sheet flow across the property would be directed to an infiltration trench, which would lead to the native plant lined bio filter basin to be installed slightly above the level of the beach. This system would look like the natural shoreline, but would be a major drainage improvement and would help to preserve both the shoreline and the quality of the lake.
A bio filter was also proposed at the West Shore Road end of the property near the proposed kayak dock.
Mr. Sabin stated the functions of all existing facilities would be retained and there would be the same amount of “useable areas” for the public.
Changes in the configuration of the parking area and driveway entrance were noted, as were proposed trees and ornamental plantings. In short, he said the property was being restored with minimal impact, the existing conditions would be improved, and the current erosion problems would be addressed.
Mr. Solley noted a project narrative and construction sequence would be submitted.
It was the consensus that the Commission and the general public were familiar with this property due to several past applications and so it would not be necessary to conduct either a site inspection or a public hearing.
The deeded right of way on the west end of the property was briefly discussed.
Mr. Bedini asked that all outstanding documents, including the final engineered plans, project narrative, and construction sequence be submitted a week prior to the July 8 meeting so that the commissioners would have an opportunity to review them.Pending Applications
Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-09-08/Tennis Court, Stormwater Management System:
Mr. Fusco, landscape architect, submitted his 6/10/09 letter in response to Land Tech’s review. He also noted an email dated 6/10/09 from the Lake Waramaug Task Force had been received, and said he wouldrespond to it, too. Mr. Fusco reviewed Land Tech’s 6/10/09 letter point by point, detailing how each of Land Tech’s concerns had been addressed. He noted that the Task Force’s main concern had been the removal of all of the bio retention features and the rain gardens. He assured the Commission these would not be deleted from the plans. He noted that in the remote possibility that the Storm Tech units failed, the overflow would travel down to the two bio retention areas that were not needed to handle normal runoff and so had not been included in the drainage calculations. Maintenance of the drainage system was briefly discussed. Although the Task Force recommended a maintenance plan be included in the proposal and the Commission agreed this would be a good idea, the commissioners noted that it would be unenforceable. Mr. LaMuniere thought the proposed drainage system with swales and plantings was a vast improvement over the existing conditions. He noted, however, that the latest revised maps did not show the location of the intermittent streams. Details on Sheet #ST102 were briefly discussed and Mr. Fusco said Mr. Marchetti would call Mr. Ajello for clarifications about the turbidity barrier.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-08 submitted by Mr. Adams for a tennis court and stormwater management system at 233 West Shore Road per the maps, “Landscape Site Plan,” by Louis C. Fusco Landscape Architects, revised to 6/10/09 and “Stormwater System Plan,” 2 sheets, by Marchetti Consulting Engineers, dated 6/10/09 subject to the following conditions:
1. the Land Use Office shall be notified 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the Enforcement Officer can inspect the erosion controls,
2. the permit shall be good for 2 years, and
3. the applicant shall submit a revised map showing the location of the intermittent streams.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-09/Affordable Housing:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, submitted the 6/10/09 letter of withdrawal.Bardell/166, 169 Baldwin Hill Road/#IW-09-13/Install Septic System, Well, and Driveway:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented the revised plans, “Subsurface Sewage Disposal System,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 6/10/09.
The new proposal was for the septic system to be installed at 166 Baldwin Hill Road, across Baldwin Hill Road from the dwelling unit proposed in the existing barn at 169 Baldwin Hill Road. Compared to the original plans, this new plan required less piping and did not have to cross wetlands.
Mr. Neff stated that the state Health Dept. would have to approve the plans and the easement because the septic system was proposed on a separate property.
Mrs. D. Hill asked if a soil scientist would delineate wetlands at 166 Baldwin Hill. Mr. Neff said the area where the system was proposed appeared to be high and dry and drained toward the road and that he did not think there were any wetlands within 100 feet.
Mr. Bedini asked how future owners of 166 Baldwin Hill would know about the restrictions on the property. Mr. Neff said they would be on file in both the Health Dept. and Wetlands office.
Sheet #2 with the erosion controls, construction sequence, and project narrative was reviewed. Mrs. D. Hill noted that both the well and driveway proposed at 169 Baldwin Hill Road were within the regulated area. Mr. Neff detailed drainage plans. The driveway will be raised so there will be clearance for a culvert pipe with rip rapped outlet at the entrance.
It was noted that specifications for the driveway fill had been provided. Mr. Neff revised the application form to include the well and driveway. He noted that pending state approval, the 6/10/09 map was final.
It was noted that the 166 Baldwin Hill Road property owners had not signed the application, but Mr. Neff pointed out that the septic proposed for that property was not a regulated activity.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-13 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Bardell to install a septic system at 166 Baldwin Hill Road and to install a well and driveway at 169 Baldwin Hill Road per the map, “Subsurface Sewage Disposal System,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 6/10/09 subject to the following conditions:
1. the permit shall be good for 2 years and
2. the applicant shall notify the Land Use Office 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the Enforcement Officer can inspect the erosion controls.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.Wexler/157 Calhoun Street/#IW-09-14/Additions to Dwelling, Relocate Driveway:
Mr. Neff, engineer, represented the applicant. The map, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 5/21/09 was reviewed. He pointed out the driveway to be abandoned, the proposed driveway, which would be shorter, would reduce the possibility of impact to the wetlands, and would decrease the lot coverage, and the location of the two proposed additions. Mr. Bedini stated that no problems were noted on the site inspection. Mr. Neff said that the existing catch basin would be grassed over because it would result in more disturbance to remove it.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-14 submitted by Mr. Wexler for two additions to the existing dwelling and to relocate the driveway at 157 Calhoun Street subject to the following conditions:
1. the permit shall be good for 2 years and
2. the applicant shall notify the Land Use Office 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the Enforcement Officer can inspect the erosion controls.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.New Applications
Herrmann/90 East Street/#IW-09-15/Single Family Dwelling:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, represented the applicant. He said a single family dwelling is proposed on the 14.5 acre lot, 1.3 acres of which would be disturbed. He pointed out the location of two drainage outlets from East Street; one flowing to wetlands on the property and the other to the pond on the map, “Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., dated 5/20/09. He stated the closest activity to the wetlands was 56 feet away, but located on land, which actually drained away from the wetlands. He noted that the soil scientist had verified that there were no wetlands on the property to the south and he submitted drainage calculations for a 100 year storm event.
Mr. Szymanski stated a construction fence would be erected to limit clearing and the erosion control narrative had been revised at the request of Mrs. J. Hill to include the person responsible for replacing any damaged erosion controls and to state that 48 hrs. notice would be given prior to the start of work so the WEO could inspect the erosion controls. A site inspection was scheduled for June 29, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.Charvillat/96 Roxbury Road/#IW-09-17/Dredge Pond, Replace Pipes:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented the map, “Pond Repair Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 5/18/09. He explained the proposed work was to dredge the pond to remove the organics and phragmites and said the pond would not be enlarged. He stated that approximately 1.5 feet of organics would be removed, plus another foot of dredging would be necessary to get rid of the phragmites.
All excavated material will be trucked off site. Also the crushed inlet and outlet pipes would be replaced. A site inspection was scheduled for Monday, June 29, 2009 at 4:15 p.m.Bowman/44 Plumb Hill Road/#IW-09-18/Demolish, Reconstruct Dwelling, Install Pool and Underground Utilities, Build Garage- Pool House, Reconfigure Parking Area, etc.:
Mr. Neff, engineer, pointed out all the work proposed on the map, “Proposed Site Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 6/1/09. He stated the wetlands had been flagged and that many of the proposed activities were not within the regulated area. He noted the location of the limit of disturbance line, parking area for construction vehicles, and stockpile areas.
Mrs. J. Hill asked if it had been determined where the existing shed would be relocated. Mr. Neff said it had not. She then noted how close the curtain drain outlet was to the property line and asked if water flowing from the pipe could impact the adjoining property. Mr. Neff did not think so due to the contour of the land, but said he would look into it on the site inspection.
Mr. Ajello recommended an anti-tracking pad at the driveway entrance and silt barriers along the driveway at the wetlands crossing.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the proposed activities could be moved farther from the wetlands. Mr. Neff explained that this was not possible because the lot was very tight and there were minimum required health and zoning setbacks to meet.
The site inspection was scheduled for June 29, 2009 at 3:45 p.m.Enforcement
Brose/213 Roxbury Road/Unauthorized Clearcutting/#IW-08-V5:
Mr. Jontos, biologist representing Mrs. Brose, presented a proposed site plan and photos of the existing conditions on the property. He detailed the unauthorized activities:
1) in wetlands: Eighteen trees were cut and the shrub layer completely removed, but there was no evidence of soil erosion.
2) in the transitional zone: Fifty-nine trees and the understory were cut. The duff layer remained and there was no evidence of erosion.
Mr. Ajello disagreed and pointed out an area where he had observed an erosion problem. Mr. Jontos contrasted the disturbed areas to the uncut portions of the property that could be observed in the photos and also pointed out the patio, wall, and stairs that had been constructed between the wetlands and the house. He presented a preliminary restoration plan, which included a list of proposed species; flowering herbaceous plants for the wetlands, some hardwood trees and conservation seed mix for the transition zone, and an erosion control mix for the disturbed uplands. He asked the commissioners if this plan was “on the right track.” A lengthy discussion ensued.
Mr. LaMuniere noted that the 2005 condition of approval for the garage and septic system on this property specified that there should be no activities beyond the limit of disturbance line. Therefore, he said that the restoration plan should not address only vegetation, but also the removal of the patio, stairs, and wall so that wetlands system would function as it did before Mrs. Brose disturbed it. Mr. Jontos said the plan that he presented would restore the wetlands function and enhance species diversity, but that it would take time.
Mr. LaMuniere saw this as a two part problem:
1) the technical issue of restoring the forest and protecting it from further damage and
2) the owner’s complete disregard of the terms of the original permit.
Mr. Jontos spoke in more detail about the planting proposed for both the wetlands corridor and the upland areas.
It was the consensus that the restoration plan for the wetlands was a good one.
Mr. Bedini asked if Mrs. Brose would submit an application to correct the violation. Mr. Jontos said she was waiting for direction from the Commission.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the construction of the structures had any impact on the wetlands function. Mr. Jontos said they were inert in relation to the system and its operation.
Mr. LaMuniere thought Mrs. Brose should be ordered to remove the illegal structures, but was concerned that the court might not uphold an appeal as Mr. Jontos did not think they adversely impacted the function of the wetlands.
The use of organic fertilizers was briefly discussed.
Mr. Bedini asked if the restoration area should be enlarged to include the land surrounding the structures. Mr. Jontos stated that ornamentals had been planted in these areas, but Mr. Ajello noted that they were not as thickly planted as the natural vegetation had been.
Mr. Jontos offered to extend the planting of native vegetation farther back up the hill.
Mr. LaMuniere thought the more land replanted, the stronger the environmental recovery would be.
Mr. Bedini asked what restoration measures would be implemented above the patio. Mr. Jontos said the existing shrub border could be enhanced and extended to join the existing band of shrubs, which would create a 30 ft. wide buffer.
Mr. Bedini asked that as much planting as possible be done.
It was noted that 77 trees had been cut and 44 were proposed in the restoration plan.
Mr. Ajello talked briefly about the zoning violations as a result of the construction of the structures.
It was the consensus that the Inland Wetlands Commission should not base its action on what enforcement measures the Zoning Commission might take, but should instead strive for the best restoration plan possible.
It was noted that Mrs. Brose had received a citation and had paid the fine.Sheinfeld (Chin)/10 Lower Church Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello reported that the pool and pool equipment do not impose on the easement area. Mrs. D. Hill noted that the easement area should be inspected regularly.Referral from the Town of Roxbury/Improvements to Pickett Road:
Mr. Ajello said he had reviewed the plans and inspected the site and found the water in this area drains away from Washington. The Commission voiced no concerns.Schiesel/6 Wheaton Road/Agent Approval:
Mr. Ajello noted he had approved work 60 feet down grade from a stream and that he was waiting for proof the applicant had published the legal notice as required.Administrative Business
The use of Start and Finish cards was discussed.
Mr. LaMuniere thought they were useful and should be used, but feared the Commission could not require them because they were not included in the Regulations.
Mr. Bedini thought if the IWC was going to have a policy to require Start and Finish cards, it had to be enforced. Otherwise, he thought the Commission should establish a more effective procedure.
Mrs. Hill listed the ways that she and Mr. Ajello have been trying to bring the Start and Finish card requirement to the applicants’ attention and get them submitted prior to the start of work:
1) hand them out at meetings upon approval of the application,
2) include a paragraph in the approval letter that submission 48 hours prior to the start of work is required,
3) require a note on the plan or in the construction sequence that submission is required 48 hours prior to the start of work, and
4) keep a stack of them in Mr. Ajello’s office so that he can fill them in if notice is phoned in and the contactor can fill one in if he comes in to give notice in person.
Mrs. D. Hill suggested that Mr. Ajello should also carry the cards with him when he conducts inspections.
Mrs. J. Hill said the only other idea she had was to print up a more official looking card that applicants would not be so likely to ignore.
It was the consensus that this was a good idea and official cards should be printed.
Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Ajello to make sure that upon completion of each permit he inspects the site to make sure the work was done per the approved plan, makes notes, if applicable, takes photos to document the completion, and signs off.
Mr. LaMuniere also asked Mr. Ajello to put a note in each file that the erosion controls and limit of disturbance line had been inspected, were found to be properly installed, and permission had been given for the work to begin.
There was a brief discussion about how to handle cases where Start cards are not submitted. It was the consensus that this would be a violation and the applicant should be fined.
Mr. Ajello was advised to make up a start card himself for a notice given by phone and to put it in the file.
The need for thorough recording keeping was stressed.There was no need to hold an Executive Session.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 10:08 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
SITE INSPECTION REPORTI. APPLICATION #:IW-09-13
INSPECTION DATE: 3 June ‘09
TIME: 3:00pmII. NAME: Bardel
III. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 169, 177 Baldwin Hill Road
IV. REASON FOR APPLICATION: Install septic system, well and driveway
V. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dorothy Hill, Steve Wadelton, Tony Bedini
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Ajello
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Peter Talbot, Architect; Mr. Brian Neff, Professional EngineerVI. OBSERVATIONS:
The properties are located at the intersection of Baldwin Hill Road and Scofield Road. The subject property is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads.We arrived at the site at 3:00pm and were met by Mr. Peter Talbot and Mr. Brian Neff. Using the map titled Subsurface Sewage Disposal System, The Bardel Barn House, dated 05-01-09, revised 05-19-09 by Brian Neff, we reviewed the proposed route for the sewer line from the barn house to the leaching fields. The pumped system is proposed to travel in a northwesterly direction from the barn house towards the intersection of Baldwin Hill and Scofield Road. It would cross under Scofield Road and travel along Scofield road in a southwesterly direction, between Scofield Road and an existing wetland, for approximately 430 feet to the primary leaching field. The total length of the proposed line would be approximately 750 feet. The pump chamber and holding tanks are in a regulated area off the southwest corner the barn house. A portion of the parking lot is in a regulated area. Currently the proposed parking area is a hayfield considered a wetland area. The proposed well is situated south of the parking lot.
In an attempt to reduce this extremely long run of pipe and disturbance to existing wetlands, to reduce costs and develop a more manageable system, another avenue is being explored. The main house is located across Baldwin Hill Road from the barn house and slightly elevated above the barn house elevation. It would be a much shorter run, perhaps 200 feet, to locate the primary septic system in a relatively flat area in the yard of the main house. The preliminary soil testing by Brian Neff indicate a favorable location for the primary leaching fields. Boring under Baldwin Hill Road would also be easier because of the way the land drops off from Baldwin Hill road towards the barn house. Brian still needs to get approval from the Health Department for the septic location and the State of Connecticut for the easement required to locate the septic on property not owned by the barn house owner. This alternate plan would cause a minimum of wetland disturbance compared to the original plan and make the system more manageable and serviceable.
We left the area at 3:35pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Bedini
INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
SITE INSPECTION REPORTI. APPLICATION #:IW-09-14
INSPECTION DATE: 3 June ‘09
TIME: 3:40pmII. NAME: Wexler
III. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 157 Calhoun St
IV. REASON FOR APPLICATION:
Additions to dwelling, remove current driveway and regravel old abandoned driveway path with materiel removed from existing driveway, modify existing barn for use as two vehicle garage. Two additions to the existing dwelling, and installation of a 4” pvc pipe to connect the garage to existing septic system.V. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dorothy Hill, Tony Bedini, Steve Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Ajello
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Brian Neff, Professional EngineerVI. OBSERVATIONS:>
We arrived at the site at 3:40pm, and using the map titled Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Wexler Residence Addition, dated 05-21-09, by Brian Neff, we reviewed the diveway to be removed, and the old abandoned driveway path to be restored.
There is a slight deviation from the old path proposed in order to break the line of sight from Calhoun Street for privacy, and also the addition of a gate. Much of this route falls just outside the 50 ft setback from wetlands, and all but a section to the North of the house where an entry court is planned, falls within the 100 ft review area.
Some excavation will be required north of the barn/garage to provide access to the building by vehicles which is also within the 100 ft review area.
The proposed addition to the west end of the house is outside the 100 ft review area, however the small addition to the southeast corner is not. Additionally, excavation within the 100 ft review area for the installation of a 4” pipe from the garage to the existing septic tank, as well as two proposed soil stockpiles will be required.
We left the area at 4:15pm.Respectfully submitted,
Steve Wadelton
Posted: June 4, 2009 May 27, 2009
7:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Fusco, Mr. Marchetti, Mr. Neff, Mr. Talbot, Mrs. Smith,
Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: VII. Enforcement: N. Mitchell/ 12 Shinar Mt. Road/Spraying Herbicides in Wetlands. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The May 13, 2009 Show Cause Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 2: Bottom line: Change: “applicant” to “school.”
Page 3: Under both Wykeham Rise, LLC. and Adams: Change: “consultant’s bond” to “consultant’s estimated fee.”
Page 3: Under Wykeham Rise, LLC.: Change #3 to: “had granted an extension so the public hearing may be scheduled to be held on the July 8th meeting date.”
Page 4: Under Facey: Mr. LaMuniere pointed out that although the text includes Mr. Bedini’s statement advising Ms. Facey that any future work in the stream, clean up work, or work within 100 feet of both sides of the stream would require a permit, he thought the Commission should have made this a condition of approval.MOTION: To accept the 5/13/09 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Shepaug Valley Regional School District #12/159 South Street/ #IW-09-07/Construct Bridge, Clear Brush:
The school had been sent a letter asking that the application be withdrawn. There was no response, and therefore, the Commission had to act before the deadline per state statute.MOTION: To deny Application #IW-09-07 submitted by Shepaug Valley Regional School District #12 to construct a bridge and clear brush at 159 South Street due to lack of information. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-09-08/Tennis Court, Bio Retention, Stormwater Management:
Mr. Fusco, landscape architect, and Mr. Marchetti, engineer, presented the map, “Stormwater System Plan,” ST101, by Marchetti Consulting Engineers (no signature, no seal), dated 5/27/09 and photos of the existing conditions on the property. Mr. Fusco reported that the plans had been revised according to comments made at the 4/22 meeting and by Land Tech and he submitted a letter dated 5/27/09, which responded to the Land Tech review dated 5/22/09. He reviewed his letter. Mr. Fusco stated that the rain gardens and plunge pools that had been proposed were an “added bonus” and were not needed for mitigation for the tennis court. He said that although they were a “more responsible way to approach the property due to erosion in the intermittent stream,” because Land Tech was asking for too much data about them, the applicant was taking them off the table. He said it would be too costly to assemble the data requested for facilities that were not needed for drainage purposes or for mitigation. Mr. Bedini asked if he had discussed this with Land Tech. He said he had not. Mr. Bedini asked if he had considered using pervious asphalt for the tennis court. Mr. Marchetti said it was not an ideal surface for tennis because it was not smooth and since it was pervious to water it could freeze and crack. The benefit of the plunge pools was discussed. It was noted they would be useful in slowing the velocity of the runoff. Mr. LaMuniere also noted the importance of the rain gardens that had been proposed at the bottom of the property because they would help the runoff to dissipate. Mr. Fusco agreed that the rain gardens would have provided a natural buffer between the lawn and the lake. The possibility of deleting the pipes from the drainage plans, but leaving the plunge pools and rain gardens was discussed. Mr. LaMuniere noted that additional information was needed before the Commission would act on the application. This included an erosion control narrative, erosion control details, and a construction sequence as this is a difficult site that requires protection. Land Tech’s 5/22/09 letter was reviewed point by point. Under the section concerning erosion and sediment control, points #2 and #6 had not been addressed by the applicant. Mr. LaMuniere noted that point #7 under stormwater management would not be relevant if the pipes were removed. When revised plans are submitted and referred to Land Tech, the Commission will ask for clarification re: #9 under stormwater management. Mr. Fusco asked the Commission to approve the application with conditions, but it was the consensus that the application was not yet complete and the commissioners needed time to review all the information that had just submitted this evening.Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-09/Affordable Housing:
There was no information regarding this application.
New Applications
Bardel/169, 177 Baldwin Hill Road/#IW-09-13/Install Septic System, Well, Driveway:
Mr. Neff, engineer, noted he would amend the application form to include installation of the well and driveway. The map, “Subsurface Sewage Disposal System,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/19/09 was reviewed. Mr. Neff noted the existing barn would be converted to a residence, but the septic system was proposed on other property owned by the Bardels across Scofield Hill Road because the area surrounding the barn could not accommodate a septic system due to wetlands and shallow groundwater. The plans call for piping the effluent through wetlands, under the road, along the edge of the second lot, and to the leaching fields; a total distance of approximately 700 feet. Mr. Ajello asked if piping to the Bardel’s main house lot across Baldwin Hill Road had been considered as a feasible alternative that would disturb less wetlands. Mr. Neff and Mr. Talbot, architect, thought this lot was also wet. Mr. LaMuniere said this alternative should be considered because there would be less pipe and less impact to the wetlands. Mr. Neff said he would draw a site plan of the main house property for reference purposes and to show the constraints there. It was noted the Health Dept. had not yet approved the proposed septic system and that the application had to be referred to the State Health Dept. Approval from the Selectmen/Highway Dept. will be required for the road crossing. Mr. Ajello noted that the Town needed more details on the drainage. Mr. Neff advised the Commission that he would also discuss a formal easement with the Town for the road crossing. Mr. Bohan asked if it would be possible to add to the existing main dwelling’s septic system rather than to install the new proposed system. Mr. Talbot stated there was not enough room available to do so. Mr. Bedini asked if a shorter, more direct route to the proposed septic site would do less damage to the wetlands. Mr. Neff noted the proposed route was slightly drier and the more direct route would cross more wetlands. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Bedini noted it would be helpful to have the map of the main house property at the site inspection.Wexler/157 Calhoun Street#IW-09-14/Additions to Dwelling, Relocate Driveway:
Mr. Neff, engineer, explained additions were proposed to the SE and SW corners of the existing dwelling, a new driveway would be constructed, and the gravel from the existing driveway would be excavated and used on the new driveway to the north. The map, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 5/21/09 was reviewed. Mr. Neff said the impervious surfaces on the property would decrease with the installation of the new driveway. Mr. Ajello noted that grading was proposed on the south side of the house. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 3:45 p.m.Other Business
Smith/35 East Shore Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-06-24/Shed:
Mrs. Smith proposed a 6’ X 8’ portable metal shed and pointed out its proposed location on the site plan. Mrs. D. Hill asked how it would be accessed. Mrs. Smith said there was an existing driveway. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the shed would have a foundation. Mrs. Smith said it would be placed on blocks. She noted it would be bolted together and carried up to the site. Mr. Bedini said there would be no soil disturbance. Mrs. Smith said there would be no storage of chemicals or hazardous materials in the shed.MOTION: To approve the request of Mrs. Smith to revise Permit #IW-06-24 to include the erection of a shed at 35 East Shore Road. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Andersson/45 Gunn Hill Road/#IW-09-12E/Install, Repair Fences, Stonewalls:
The property survey map showing the location of all of the existing walls and highlighting the proposed new walls and fences was reviewed. Mr. LaMuniere stated the fences are required as part of a legitimate farming operation and so he thought an exemption was warranted. Mrs. D. Hill thought the plan lacked the necessary details because it did not differentiate between the proposed fences and walls and did not provide any measurements. She wanted an accurate map. Mr. Ajello said there might be small areas of wetlands within 100 feet of the new fences/walls.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-12E submitted by Mr. Andersson to install and repair fences and stonewalls at 45 Gunn Hill Road as an exemption. By Mr. Bohan, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Adams/233 West Shore Road:
It was noted that other than the proposed tennis court, all of the other structures on this property had been previously approved. Mr. Bedini hoped the applicant would submit the revised plans in time for Land Tech to review them prior to the next meeting.Kessler/West Mountain Road:
Mr. LaMuniere asked how the suspension of work would impact the five year permit. Mr. Ajello said all work must be started within 5 years or if not, the Kesslers would have to reapply to the Commission. Mr. LaMuniere asked if all disturbed areas had been stabilized. Mr. Ajello reported that 90% were stable. Mr. LaMuniere asked Mr. Ajello to inspect the site and to report at the next Meeting.Mitchell/12 Shinar Mountain Road/Report of Spraying of Herbicide in Wetlands:
Mr. Bedini reported that Mrs. Forge, owner of the property adjacent to the Mitchells, had called him to complain that the Mitchells had sprayed Round Up in the wetlands on the Forge property. She was concerned because she gets her drinking water from the spring on the property. It was noted the issue of trespassing was a civil matter between the two neighbors. Mr. Ajello will phone Mrs. Mitchell to find out what was sprayed. Mr. LaMuniere thought the application of an herbicide in wetlands was a regulated activity, and therefore, this was a violation. He thought it was important that the public be made aware that this was a regulated activity. This matter will be discussed again at the next meeting when more facts are available.
Administrative Business
Mrs. J. Hill circulated “Ten Tips for New Commissioners,” which she had copied from Welcome to the Commission: A Guide for New Members, by The Planning Commissioners Journal, edited by Wayne Senville. She recommended it as a good review on how to properly serve as an effective commissioner.
MOTION: To enter Executive Session to discuss the mediation for the Wykeham Rise, LLC. appeal. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end Executive Session at 9:35 p.m. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:36 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: May 19, 2009 May 13, 2009
Show Cause Hearing – Regular Meeting
6:30 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Allan, Mr. Neff, Ms. Facey, Mr. Solley
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-V5/Unauthorized Clearcutting, Structure
Mr. Bedini called the Hearing to order at 6:31 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
Mr. Ajello read the 5/6/09 letter from Mrs. Brose in which she stated she had hired Land Tech Consultants to evaluate the disturbance to the wetlands and develop a restoration plan for the site. Mr. Ajello noted that all work had stopped since the receipt of the cease and desist order and that Mrs. Brose would submit an application to correct the violation.
Representing Mrs. Brose, Mr. Allan of Land Tech stated that she did not dispute the enforcement order. He said that although he had, indeed, been retained to evaluate the damage done and prepare a restoration plan, he had nothing to present at this time. He said the plan would be ready by the June 10th meeting.
Mr. LaMuniere noted that in addition to the clearcutting, a structure had been built in the area beyond the limit of disturbance line (as had been approved in Permit #IW-05-56). He stated that because the Commission had instructed the applicant that there should be no activity on the slope and that the land in this area had to remain in its natural state, the unauthorized activities were a clear violation of the permit. He asked Mr. Allan to address the question of whether the new structures should be removed.
Mr. Bohan asked if erosion control measures had been installed. Mr. Allan said, no, because the soils had not been disturbed and there was no evidence of any erosion problems. Mrs. D. Hill noted for the record that Mrs. Brose did not dispute the cease and desist order.
MOTION: To close the Show Cause Hearing to consider whether the 5/4/09 enforcement order issued to Mrs. Brose at 213 Roxbury Road for #IW-08-V05: unauthorized structure and clearcutting should remain in effect. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Bedini closed the Show Cause Hearing at 6:40 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
Regular Business
Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 4/22/09 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Change: “Mrs.” to “Ms.” Purnell
Page 4: The spelling of Harrison was corrected.
Page 5: First line: Add: “benthics” to the list for which information will be collected.
Page 5: Brose: Line 12: Change: “…citation for $500…” to: “…citation requiring payment of a $500 fine…”MOTION: To accept the 4/22/09 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 4/28/09 Facey site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 4/28/09 Harrison site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Shepaug Valley Regional School District #12/159 South Street/ #IW-09-07/Construct Bridge, Clear Brush:
The applicant has decided not to pursue this permit. Mrs. J. Hill will write to him to ask for a letter of withdrawal.Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-09-08/Tennis Court, Bio Retention, Stormwater Management:
The consultant’s bond was paid and hopefully, Land Tech’s review will be ready for the next meeting.Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-09/Affordable Housing:
It was noted that Wykeham Rise, LLC. had 1) not yet posted the consultant’s bond, 2) said it would do so by the June 10th meeting, and 3) had granted an extension so that the public hearing would not be scheduled until the July 8th meeting. It was also noted that revised plans had not yet been submitted. Mr. LaMuniere stressed the importance of the Commission receiving Land Tech’s report in time to review it prior to the start of the hearing.Harrison/19 Kielwasser Road/#IW-09-10/Additions to Dwelling and Garage, Installation of Septic System:
Mr. Neff, engineer, noted there had been no revisions to the plan since the last meeting. The map, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 4/7/09 was reviewed. Mr. LaMuniere said he saw no problem with the application except to make sure the silt fence was properly installed prior to the start of work. Mr. Neff referred to the sequence of construction, which specified the erosion controls must be installed and inspected and approved by the WEO prior to the commencement of work. MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-10 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Harrison for additions to the dwelling and garage and septic system installation at 19 Kielwasser Road per the map, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 4/7/09. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Bohan abstained because he had not attended the site inspection. It was noted later in the meeting that this was a 2 year permitFacey/151 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-09-11/Addition to Existing Dwelling:
Ms. Facey initialed and dated the revisions to the site plan she had made since the last meeting. These included the location of silt fencing and a limit of disturbance line. She noted the proposed 20’ X 30’ addition and 8’ X 8’ breezeway would require piers every 8 feet for a total of 15 piers. She also stated that she had withdrawn her proposal for check dams in the stream. Mr. Bedini expressed his concern that work would be done behind the garage and advised Ms. Facey that if any work or the construction of a bridge was proposed there in the future, it would require another Inland Wetlands application. The pipe in the stream was discussed. Mr. LaMuniere asked if it ever backed up and Ms. Facey responded it did, but only a small amount in severe storms. Mrs. D. Hill pointed out an eroded section of an old stream channel and asked if water flowed through it during storms. Ms. Facey said she had not noticed any water in that area. Mr. Bedini stated that any future work in the stream or clean up or work within 100 feet of both sides of the stream would require a permit. Mr. LaMuniere noted that any such work could not increase the velocity of the stream. Mr. Ajello asked if the removal by hand of invasives along the stream would be allowed without a permit. When Ms. Facey said she would continually cut the invasives without pulling them up, she was told she would not need a permit because there would be no soil disturbance. Mr. Ajello asked if she would be permitted to remove the sediment at the pipe discharge by hand so it would not flush downstream. It was agreed to add this to the motion of approval. Also discussed was keeping construction equipment away from the stream and the wetlands. Mrs. J. Hill suggested the limit of disturbance line should be staked prior to the start of construction. It was noted this would be a 2 year permit. MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-11 submitted by Ms. Facey for an addition to the existing dwelling at 151 Litchfield Turnpike subject to the following conditions: 1. all construction equipment shall be kept on the southwest side of the structure and there shall be no equipment between the addition and the stream and 2. the discharge end of the pipe in the stream shall be cleaned out by hand. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Enforcement
Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-V5/Unauthorized Clearcutting, Structure:
It was the consensus to keep the 5/4/09 enforcement order in effect until implementation of a remediation plan is completed. It was also agreed there was no reason to revise any of the terms in the order. MOTION: To keep in effect the 5/4/09 enforcement order issued to Mrs. Brose/213 Roxbury Road/ #IW-08-V5, for an unauthorized structure and clearcutting. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road:
Atty. Zizka and Atty. Fisher will appear in court to finalize the terms of the agreement.Town of Washington/Woodcreek Road:
Mr. Ajello stated that the work reported had been the Town maintaining its beaver deterrent mechanism, but Mrs. D. Hill said material had been excavated from the beaver pond. She asked where this material had been deposited. Mr. Bedini noted the Commission had previously informed the Town that it requires prior notification and/or an Inland Wetlands permit for work in and/or near wetlands and watercourses.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-V2/Unauthorized Stream Work and Clearing:
The 4/28/09 letter to Mr. Rosen from the Army Corps of Engineers was circulated.Sheinfeld/Lower Church Hill Road:
Mrs. D. Hill noted that the easement on this property is the only one that the Inland Wetlands Commission is responsible for and asked if it had been inspected as required. Mr. Ajello said he would inspect it soon.Privilege of the Floor
Town of Washington/59 East Shore Road:
Mr. Solley, Selectman, submitted the “Project Summary” by Mr. Sabin, dated 1/31/08, with attached photo of the current view of the Lake Waramaug from the Flirtation Ave. intersection, sketch of the proposed improved scenic view of the lake, and “Final Conceptual Design,” by Mr. Sabin, dated 1/15/08. He said the Town would soon submit an application that would include a site plan by Mr. Alex, engineering plans by Mr. Clark, and the landscaping plan by Mr. Sabin as well as architectural renderings of the beach house. The proposed activities will include the demolition and reconstruction of the beach house, a change in the existing fence, reconfiguration of the parking area, a public right of way with removable dock, the restoration of an eroded portion of the shoreline and lawn, and drainage improvements. The commissioners questioned whether the right of way could be legally used by all Town residents or only by those nearby property owners entitled to permanent access rights. Mr. Bedini said the Commission would wait to schedule a site inspection until both the site plan and stormwater management plan have been submitted.Administrative Business
Mr. Ajello reported on the status of permits approved in 2007 and 2008. He noted the difficulty in closing out files since applicants sometimes don’t submit start cards and rarely submit finish cards even though it states on the permit that this is required. Several possible solutions were discussed such as requiring a note in the sequence of construction to state that inspection and approval of erosion controls by the WEO prior to construction and submission of start and finish cards are required, stamping plans with these requirements when they are approved, making the submission of start and finish cards a condition of approval, and/or fining property owners who begin work before submitting start cards.
MOTION: To go into Executive Session to discuss the following pending litigation: 1) Howard, 2) Brown, 3) Federer. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end Executive Session. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Executive Session was concluded at 9:16 p.m.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:17 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: May 12, 2009 April 22, 2009
Regular Meeting
7:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Purnell, Mr. Neff, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Fusco, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Charles, Mr. Jontos, Mr. Marchetti, Ms. Facey
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the Agenda:
V. New Applications:
B. Harrison/ 19 Kielwasser Road/#IW-09-10/Garage-Guest House Addition and Septic System,
C. Facey/151 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-09-11/Addition to Existing Dwelling,
VI. Other Business:
A. Peloquin/10 New Preston Hill Road/Farmers Market,
B. Aquatic Pesticide Permit Application/Canal/Sabbaday Lane, IX.
Communications:
A. Report on Shepaug River Project by Mrs. Purnell.
By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 4/8/09 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0-1.
Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not been present. The 4/20/09 Adams site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected.
Line 3: Insert: “pool” after “swimming.”
Line 4: Clarify that the direction is south. Change: “planned” to “proposed.”
MOTION: To accept the 4/20/09 Adams site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Shepaug Valley Regional High School District #12/159 South Street/ #IW-09-07/Construct Bridge, Clear Brush:
Mr. Koerner had been advised to submit a letter of withdrawal. If this is not received, the Commission will deny the application because it is incomplete.Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-09-08/Tennis Court, Bio Retention, Stormwater Management:
Mr. Fusco, landscape architect, Mr. Marchetti, engineer, and Mr. Churchill, contractor, were present. They presented a mounted site plan and photos of the property. Mr. Fusco reviewed the proposal. He explained that the entire site was within the regulated area. The plans call for infiltration chambers beneath the tennis court, which would direct the runoff to rain gardens that would then flow into bio retention areas below. This stormwater management system would be sized for a 25 year storm event. Mr. Fusco noted it would be a major improvement in terms of filtering stormwater before it empties into Lake Waramaug. Mr. Bedini asked if a pervious surfaced court had been considered. Mr. Churchill stated this would be too porous for a sports court. Mr. LaMuniere noted that the eastern intermittent stream has violent flows during major storms and expressed his concern that the rain garden system could be breached by the intermittent stream. The engineer noted the two drainage flows would be separate and said the proposed system would increase the ability to retain stormwater on site. He said he would clarify the plan profiles to make this clear. Mr. Bedini recommended that given the severe slope and amount of water that drains across the property, the Commission have its consultant review the application. Mr. LaMuniere was not sure that the two proposed rain gardens at the bottom of the system were large enough to handle both the runoff from the property and from Tinker Hill Road. It was noted that the rain gardens would overflow and flood the existing lawn area, but that the proposed system would delay the flow to the catch basin that empties into the lake. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the applicant had considered installing a swale rather than the proposed pipe. He noted that a swale would slow the velocity of the stormwater. Mr. Marchetti said a rip rapped swale could be implemented instead. Mr. Bedini said silt should be prevented from flowing onto the road and into the lake. It was the consensus that Land Tech would review the plans.New Application
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/#IW-09-09/Affordable Housing:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, and Mr. Klauer, owner, were present. Using the map, “Overall Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., revised to 4/21/09, Mr. Szymanski pointed out activities proposed within the regulated areas. These included 1) renovating the existing structures in the northern part of the property, 2) repairing the tennis court, 3) repairing the retaining wall on the north side of the tennis court, 4) driveway work at the Bell Hill Road entrance including installation of culverts, and 5) renovating building #6 and installing pavement to accommodate underground parking. He said other proposed activities that would have no direct wetland impact included 1) ancillary grading downhill of detention pond #1, 2) installation of a large rain garden to handle the runoff for building #7 and its parking area, and 3) construction of two sediment basins and two detention ponds. He said the applicant tried to reduce impacts to the greatest extent possible within the regulated areas. Mr. Szymanski also noted that the size of the proposed detention ponds had been changed since the original inn application and that the ponds would be wet ponds holding at least 18 inches of water at all times. He said they were in the preliminary stages of reviewing the existing septic system and whether it would be possible to expand it, although its expansion was not included in this application. He pointed out that erosion controls would be installed on the downhill side of all the structures to be renovated and that full drainage calculations still had to be submitted. Mr. Bedini asked if any of the buildings would be torn down. Mr. Szymanski said, no, the existing structures would be utilized. Mr. Bedini asked if changes to the bridge were proposed. Mr. Szymanski said only sight line improvements to the north side of Wykeham Road were proposed. He also noted that the two discharge points into the brook by wetlands flag #3 and the east side of the driveway would remain and that the peak runoff flows would not increase as a result of the proposed development. Mrs. D. Hill asked that the site plan be revised to show the 100 ft. wetlands setback in red. Mr. Bedini noted that due to public interest, a public hearing would be held. The date for the hearing will be determined at the next meeting. Mr. Charles asked Mr. Szymanski if he could provide information from the DEP regarding the approval of the septic system at the hearing. Mr. Szymanski declined to answer until the question is raised at the hearing.Harrision/19 Kielwasser Road/#IW-09-10/Additions to Dwelling and Garage, Septic System:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented the map, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” dated 4/7/09. He noted that the tank and some of the piping for the proposed septic system were within the regulated area, but the leaching fields would be at least 100 feet from the wetlands and the intermittent watercourse. It was also noted that the proposed 24 ft. X 24 ft. garage addition was totally within the regulated area. He said the additional septic system was required for the guest house, which would be located on the second floor of the garage. Detached buildings require separate septic tanks and fields per the state health code. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, April 28, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.Facey/151 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-09-11/Addition to Existing Dwelling:
Ms. Facey detailed her proposal to construct an addition on piers on the south end of the existing dwelling. She said the excavated material would be temporarily stockpiled on site and then either used for gardens or trucked off the property. The map, “Property Survey,” by Berkshire Engineering, dated 12/16/08 did not show any erosion controls, but Mr. Facey said she would install either hay bales or silt fence to protect the wetlands, which were flagged 25 ft. from the proposed addition and would leave them in for the duration of the construction. Ms. Facey said she had recently removed trash from the stream, which had increased the velocity of its flow, resulting in erosion of the banks and sedimentation. She proposed check dams to slow the flow. Mrs. J. Hill asked if these had been added to the application and she said they had. (Note: Per staff review on 4/28/09 there was no information about the proposed check dams with the application.) A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, April 28, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. The commissioners asked that the location of the addition be staked prior to the inspection.Other Business
Shepaug River Project/Report by Ms. Purnell:
Ms. Purnell submitted her 4/22/09 report on the field work, which will be done during the next few months in Washington and Roxbury, to obtain baseline data on the Shepaug River before additional water is released per the settlement with the City of Waterbury. She presented a map of the Shepaug watershed and photos of the insects and animals that are indicators of water quality and will be searched for. It was noted there will be 8 times more water released this summer than in years past and that the data collected now will help Rivers Alliance, HVA, and NRCS to determine the impact this has on the river. Other data that will be collected includes information on fish, flow, level of dissolved oxygen, and water temperature. Ms. Purnell said that volunteers are needed for the field work and would receive two hours of training before working a half day to collect data.Peloquin/10 New Preston Hill Road/Farmers Market:
The possibility of a farmers market on the Peloquin property was briefly discussed. It was the consensus that this was a zoning issue and that a farmers market would not impact the Aspetuck River.Canal/Sabbaday Lane/Aquatic Pesticide Permit Application:
Mrs. Hill reported that a copy of the DEP approval had been received. She wrote to Mr. Canal to inform him that an Inland Wetlands permit from the Washington Inland Wetlands Commission is also required before the chemicals may be applied to the pond. It was noted that a similar application by Mr. Canal had been denied last year.Enforcement Brose/213 Roxbury Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Structure/#IW-08-V5:
Mr. Ajello circulated photos showing the property as it had been and how it appeared now with the current violations. The immediate areas along both sides of the brook had been cleared and mowed and a masonry patio had been installed, and both were located beyond the limit of disturbance line shown on previously approved site development plans. Mr. Ajello read the 10/05 motion of approval, which stated that the entire area below the limit of disturbance line must be allowed to regrow to restore the natural vegetation and understory. He said he had sent Mrs. Brose a notice of violation. After a lengthy discussion it was agreed to send Mrs. Brose a citation for $500, send her a cease and desist order, and to schedule a show cause hearing for the May 13th meeting. Mr. Ajello was requested to research sample cease and desist orders to make sure this one was properly worded as it would most likely be filed on the Town Land Records and because enforcement of this violation could possibly go to court. Commissioners disagreed on whether the order issued should be only to cease and desist with an order to restore issued only after the cease and desist order is upheld or whether just one order should be issued to include both an order to cease and desist and to restore. It was the consensus that the unauthorized work done was in total violation of the permit that had been issued. Mr. Bedini said that an application to correct the violation would be required so that the Commission could enter the site to inspect it and the property owner would be responsible for hiring a consultant to draft a remediation plan, paying for the Commission’s consultant to review it, and for implementing the approved restoration plan. Mr. Ajello said a draft enforcement order would be available for review before May 4th.Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Soil Disturbance:
Mr. Ajello said he was waiting for the disturbed areas to be completely stabilized before this item is removed from the agenda.Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Trenching in Wetlands:
Resolution of this violation is slowly progressing. Possibly remedial work will begin in May.MOTION: To go into Executive Session at 9:23 p.m. to discuss the following pending Litigation: Howard and Brown. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end Executive Session at 9:46 p.m. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bohan, passed 5-0.
Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-V5:
The commissions made a formal motion regarding the Brose violation.MOTION: Regarding Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-V5/ Unauthorized Clearcutting and Structure: To issue a citation per Ordinance #720 and an enforcement order and to schedule a Show Cause Hearing at 6:30 p.m. on May 13, 2009. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:48 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill Land Use Administrator
Posted: April 20, 2009 April 8, 2009
Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. LaMuniere
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Wright, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Ross
Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, and Wadelton.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: New Application: A. Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-09-08/Tennis Court, Bio Retention, Stormwater Management. By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. D. Hill, passed 3-0
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 3/25/09 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 3-0.
Pending Applications
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road/#IW-09-05/Construct Stonewalls:
Mr. and Mrs. Wright were present. Mr. Bedini read notes by Mrs. J. Hill regarding revisions made to the application since the last meeting. The site plan, construction plans, and photos of the property were reviewed. Mr. Wadelton noted he had no problem with the proposal now that erosion control measures had been added to the plans per the Commission’s request at the last meeting.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-05 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Wright to construct stonewalls at 59 Scofield Hill Road as shown in their 3/17/09 application. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 3-0.
Mr. Bedini noted this was a 2 year permit.
Shepaug Valley Regional School District #12/159 School Street/ #IW-09-07/Construct Bridge, Clear Brush:
Mrs. Hill reported that the application was still incomplete and that she had advised Mr. Koerner that it would remain pending until a letter of withdrawal was submitted.New Application
Adams/233 West Shore Road/#IW-09-08/Tennis Court, Bio Retention, Stormwater Management:
Mr. Bedini noted that Mrs. J. Hill had sent the applicant’s agent a letter dated 4/8/09 to advise him of the incomplete items in the application. The map, “Storm Water System Plan,” by Marchetti Consulting Engineers, dated 2/24/09 was briefly reviewed. It was noted that although the key showed a symbol for silt fencing, there was none shown in the vicinity of the proposed activities. A site inspection was scheduled for Monday, April 20, 2009 at 3:30 p.m.Mr. Bohan arrived at 6:15 p.m. and was seated.
Other Business
Preliminary Discussion/Sachs/51 Rabbit Hill Road/Driveway:
Mr. Ross, contractor, represented the property owner. He noted he had consulted the Commission in 2005 after the previous driveway permit had expired and at that time construction details for the entire length of the driveway had been requested. He presented the plans, “Driveway Plan and Profile,” by Arthur Howland and Assoc., dated 12/26/06. It was noted 1) the driveway would be located in both Warren and Washington in the existing right of way, 2) three properties would be served by the one driveway, 3) a section of the existing driveway serving the Tracy property would be removed, 4) there are wetlands in the vicinity of the right of way, and 5) fill would be deposited in some areas to decrease the driveway slope to 15%. Mr. Ross noted that paving the driveway would not be proposed, but said the Commission could stipulate that the steepest sections must be paved. Mr. Bedini noted that pavement would affect drainage and help to prevent washouts, especially in the steepest sections. Mr. Ross noted that a 3 ft. wide, 1 ft. deep grassed swale was proposed on the uphill side for drainage. He also noted the area is now stabilized and that the existing 25% slopes do not erode. Mr. Ross pointed out that some catch basins installed by a previous property owner would have to be removed because they were installed at the wrong grade and on the property line. Mr. Bedini read Land Tech’s October 2005 review of the previous plans and said Arthur Howland and Assoc. would have to show that the current plan addresses all of the points raised in this review. He also said that drainage analysis and calculations would be required. Mr. Ross stated that when he was assured that all of Land Tech’s points had been addressed, the application would be submitted. A site inspection will be scheduled at that time.Request to Revise Permit #IW-08-33/Thorn/228 West Shore Road/ Buried Propane Tank:
Mr. Talbot, architect, was present. In his letter to the Commission dated 4/6/09, he requested a revision to the permit to include a buried propane tank and the rerouting of the previously approved underground utility lines. He indicated their proposed locations on the map, “Thorn, Additions and Renovations to the Residence of Weston and Karen Thorn,” Sheet SP-1, by Peter Talbot Architects, revised to 4/6/09. Mr. Bedini asked if the silt fencing for the rest of the project was still in place. Mr. Talbot said it was and that more would be added and installed around the area to be dug for the propane tank. Mr. Talbot explained the code requirements for propane tanks. The tank will be made of enameled steel. He circulated the 2/27/97 letter from the State Dept., which clarified sections of the Public Health Code. Mrs. Hill noted that she had phoned the assistant Fire Marshal who had said that underground propane tanks were “standard practice.” Mr. Talbot noted the tank would be buried 70 ft. from the existing well, 40 ft. from the lake, and at least 10 ft. from all buildings and from the septic fields. He said there were not many other locations on this small lot where the tank would comply with all of the setback requirements.MOTION: To approve the request by Mr. Thorne to revise Permit #IW-08-33 to include installation of an underground propane tank and realignment of previously approved buried utility lines at 228 West Shore Road. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. D. Hill, passed 4-0.
It was noted there was no Enforcement Report and no need to go into Executive Session.
Administrative Business
Applicant’s Guide to Completing and Processing an Application for and Inland Wetlands Permit:
Several minor edits were made to the proposed text and it was the consensus to put the Guide back on the website.MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Bohan.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 7:12 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use AdministratorM
Posted: April 6, 2009 March 25, 2009
7:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. D. Hill
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. and Mrs. Wright, Mr. Branson, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Z. Koerner, Mr. C. Koerner
Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: V. New Application, C. Shepaug Valley Regional School Dist. #12/159 South Street/#IW-09-07/Clear Brush, Construct Bridge. By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 3/11/09 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.
Pending Applications
Washington Partners, LLC./108 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-08-57/9 Lot Affordable Subdivision:
It was noted that a draft motion for approval with conditions had been previously discussed and that the revised draft motion reflected the comments made at the last meeting. Mr. Bedini read the motion for the record.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-57 submitted by Washington Partners, LLC. for a 9 Lot Affordable Housing Subdivision at 108 New Milford Turnpike per the plans, “Pond View Estates at Washington,” 15 sheets, by CCA, revised to 2/13/09, subject to the following conditions:
1. A performance bond of $30,000 shall be posted for the roadway and basin construction (Phase I) prior to the issuance of the permit,
2. A performance bond of $15,000 shall be posted for the stormwater basin planting, invasive species removal, and post construction stormwater basin monitoring by a wetland scientist (Phase II) prior to the issuance of the permit,
3. Japanese knotweed shall be removed prior to the commencement of construction of the roadway and the stormwater basin (Phase I), and suppression of regrowth shall be continued for a period of three years post construction,
4. All limits of disturbance shall be clearly marked in the field and the erosion and sedimentation control measures for Phase I shall be installed and both requirements approved by the WEO prior to the commencement of all clearing, grading activities, and/or site disturbance,
5. The applicant shall retain a professional engineer, who shall be agreed upon by the Commission, to complete erosion control inspections weekly and after rainfall events of one half inch or more during Phase I of the project; reports of these inspections shall be submitted to the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission and to the WEO for review,
6. Prior to any site disturbance and/or construction on each of the lots in the subdivision, each individual lot owner/builder shall submit to the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission a final site development plan and construction sequence for the Commission’s approval and this requirement shall be noted on the final subdivision mylar to be filed on the Town Land Records,
7. This approval shall not include the proposed walking trail, which shall be removed from the final plan,
8. All conservation easement areas as shown on the site plans dated 2/13/09 shall be clearly demarcated in the field by the installation of conservation markers per Conservation Commission standards, and
9. A note shall be placed on the final subdivision mylar to be filed on the Town Land Records that the constructed rain gardens on each lot are an integral part of the required stormwater management system and shall not be relandscaped without prior approval by the Commission. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0.
It was noted later in the meeting that this was a 5 year permit.Eaton/284 West Shore Road/#IW-09-04/Reconstruct Portion of Shoreline Stonewall:
Mr. Ajello circulated photos taken several years ago during the reconstruction of the first portion of the wall and of the condition of the wall before that time. The construction specifications submitted with the application were reviewed. Mr. LaMuniere noted that regardless of future policies the Commission might establish for the preservation of the natural shoreline around Lake Waramaug, this stonewall was existing and reconstruction of half of it had already been approved in 2006 so he did not see how the Commission could deny the application.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-04 submitted by Eaton to reconstruct the remaining portion of the shoreline stonewall at 284 West Shore Road. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 4-0.
It was noted later in the meeting that this was a 2 year permit.New Applications
Wright/59 Kinney Hill Road/#IW-09-05/Construct Stonewalls:
Mr. Ajello presented photos of the existing site conditions. The untitled site plan and two undated sheets of specifications titled, “Natural Stonewall Front Yard,” and “Retaining Wall Side of House” were reviewed. Mrs. Wright proposed a stonewall approximately 35 feet from the intermittent stream situated 10 ft. back from where the land begins to drop steeply towards the stream. She also pointed out an area along the side of the house where two retaining walls were proposed 82 feet from wetlands. Mr. Bedini asked if plants would be planted between the new walls and the wetlands. Mrs. Wright said there would be plantings on both sides of the wall. Mr. Ajello noted that a previous violation for unauthorized work along the intermittent stream had not been closed out because the required ground cover had not yet been established. Mr. Bohan asked if the intermittent stream ran only during storm events and Mr. and Mrs. Wright said that was so. Mr. and Mrs. Wright said the Regulations state that if it can be shown that proposed activities will have a minimum impact on wetlands and watercourses the application may be waived, and they asked for a ruling that an application was not necessary in this case. They did not want to have to wait 14 days for the Commission to act on the application as required by state statute because they wanted to begin work immediately. A lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. Bedini noted that on this property, however, there were very steep slopes down to the watercourses and that the plans did not include erosion and sedimentation control measures. He asked for written details of erosion control measures, noting there would be minimal impacts only if they were properly installed. It was the consensus of the Commission that applications for activities on steep slopes above wetlands were a standard requirement and that the Commission had to treat applicants in a consistent manner.Steep Rock Assn./147 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-09-06E/Timber Harvest:
Mr. Branson, certified forester, represented Steep Rock. An aerial map indicating the areas to be cut was reviewed. Mr. Branson submitted a detailed forest management plan, Timber Harvest Plan,” dated 3/9/09 and explained that the goal of the timber harvest was to preserve biodiversity within Hidden Valley in general and to provide a habitat for bird species such as some of the warblers that are on the endangered species list. It was noted that timber harvesting is considered an agricultural use as of right. Mr. LaMuniere said he had inspected the site, had found that the intermittent streams shown on the aerial map were out of the work areas, and said he did not think there would be any impacts to wetlands or watercourses. He also noted the plans called for the slash to be left on the ground. Mr. Branson confirmed this, adding that the stumps would be left in place. Mr. LaMuniere recommended that as many trees as possible be left along the intermittent streams and that those cut be felled away from the streams.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-06E submitted by Steep Rock Assn. to cut mature trees in a 7.9 acre area and to clear another 5.9 acre section for the preservation of migratory bird habitat as an exemption and note that the work proposed will be good for the Washington environment. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0.
Shepaug Valley School District #12/159 South Street/#IW-09-07/ Construct Bridge, Clear Brush:
Zack Koerner, boy scout, and his father, Chris Koerner, presented a portion of a site plan on which the proposed work site had been indicated. Mr. Bedini asked if Mr. Z. Koerner had a letter of authorization from the school district, which is the owner of the property. When Mr. Z. Koerner said he did not, he was directed to get one. Zack proposed to clear “a lot” of land by cutting the brush to ground level or to a height the Commission would find acceptable in order to create a view of the track from the back of the school. He circulated photos of the existing multi flora rose bushes in this area and proposed to clear out the debris after the bushes were cut, dig up the roots by hand, and replace the plants with grass and hay mulch. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the entire watercourse was overgrown with invasives, and Zack said it was. Mr. LaMuniere suggested that the roses be cut again in the fall and herbicide applied at that time. He said a tight maintenance schedule would have to be carried out or the roses will reestablish themselves. Chris said he hoped the school would maintain this area. Zack reviewed his plans for the 16 ft. long X 4 ft. wide bridge to be constructed of pressure treated plywood. He said it would be constructed elsewhere and moved to the site. Mr. Bedini asked if pressure treated wood would be suitable for use over a watercourse. Zack responded that the bridge would be substantially above the brook so it would not constantly be in the water. Mr. Bedini asked how much weight the bridge would support and asked Zack to provide documentation that it would be safe. Chris asked if his son could begin the clearing immediately or at least cut the tops off the bushes because of the fast approaching deadline for completing the project. Mr. Bedini answered that the clearcutting of brush within 100 ft. of a wetland or watercourse is a regulated activity requiring a permit. Mr. LaMuniere agreed that all of the information requested should be submitted before approval is granted. Mr. Ajello asked that native plants beneficial to the wetland corridor be identified and not removed from the area when the rose bushes are cut. The use of pressure treated lumber was discussed again. Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Bedini advised Zack to seal it off site away from wetlands, explaining that would minimize the amount of pollutants that would leach into the brook. Mr. Ajello recommended that a composite made of recycled materials be used for the deck and railings. Mr. Bedini also noted that Mrs. J. Hill had found that some of the required information had not been provided on the application form and so asked Zack to complete the form for the next meeting. In addition, he asked for plans for the ends of the bridge, details and location of the erosion control measures, and a revised written construction sequence. Mr. Ajello said he would inspect the site prior to the next meeting. Mr. Bedini asked that the areas proposed for clearing be marked.Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello said a final copy of the map had been received on 3/24 and that he would send it to Atty. Zizka, who would then meet with the judge and Atty. Fisher.Rubler/240 Wykeham Road:
A $10,000 bond is still being held because Mr. Rubler has not applied for the second driveway as required.Corbo/Nettleton Hollow Road:
Mr. Corbo paid his fine.Condon/Findley Road:
The multi flora roses were removed by hand and the debris will soon be taken off site.Harris/258 New Milford Turnpike:
Mr. LaMuniere noted that Mr. Harris must apply to the Commission before removing any cement pieces or rocks from the river.Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane:
Mr. Ajello noted that he had not yet signed off on the house construction and that the Commission would hold the bond until the required restoration work had been successfully completed.Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road:
This item will remain on the agenda until the hillside is stabilized with vegetation.Administrative Business
“Applicant’s Guide to Completing and Processing an Application for an Inland Wetlands Permit”:
Mrs. J. Hill said she thought this was a worthwhile document to have on the website. She asked the commissioners to review a revised draft that would be discussed at the next meeting.Procedure for Assessment of Retaining Walls Along the Lake Waramaug Shoreline:
Mr. Bedini suggested that the next time an application is submitted for a new wall or to extend an existing wall along the shoreline that the Commission refer it to Dr. Kortmann for review and recommendations. Mr. LaMuniere thought the Commission should find additional ecological evidence to support the concept that limiting shoreline walls is good for the health of the lake and incorporate this in the Regulations. The length of wall that should be permitted on each property was considered. Mr. Bedini thought a percentage of the total lake frontage should be set, while Mr. Wadelton suggested 20% or 20 feet, whichever is greater. Mr. Ajello thought that each case should be considered on its own merits and that the Commission should wait for the results of the Brown court case before setting any policy. It was noted that rough, low, angled walls better preserve the shoreline than do high, smooth, perpendicular walls. It was agreed that the Commission would work slowly to develop a shoreline wall policy and would consult with both Land Tech and Dr. Kortmann as applications come in.Communications
Mr. Ajello noted he had received a report from the state DEP on the 2005 municipal training program and a compilation of the information from the 2005 state activity reporting forms.
MOTION: To enter Executive Session at 8:58 p.m. to discuss pending litigation: Brown, Howard, Andersson, and Federer/Wykeham Rise. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To exit Executive Session at 9:10 p.m. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To accept the mediator recommended by Atty. Zizka for the Federer and Wykeham Rise appeals and to notify Atty. Zizka that the IWC has no objection to Mrs. Peacocke being granted intervener status. By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 3-0-1. Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he questioned whether it was too late in the litigation process for a person to apply to be an intervener.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Wadelton.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 9:17 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: March 17, 2009 March 11, 2009
Regular Meeting
7:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Bohan
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mrs. Cheney, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Corbo, Mr. Charles, Press
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Bohan. He noted that consideration of the 3/10/09 Site Inspection minutes would be added to the agenda.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 2/18/09 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. D. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 2/25/09 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0-1. Mrs. D. Hill abstained.
MOTION: To accept the 2/10/09 Site Inspection minutes as written. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1. Mrs. D. Hill abstained because she had not attended the site inspection.
The order of the agenda was changed to accommodate those present.
New Application
Eaton/284 West Shore Road/#IW-09-04/Reconstruct Shoreline Wall:
Mr. Johnson, contractor, noted he had rebuilt half of this wall in 2006 and now proposed to complete the remaining 85 feet in the same way. He reviewed the cross section and the construction sequence. The collapsing wall would be reconstructed on the existing base, rebar put down into the foundation, and the existing stones used. He proposed to make the rebuilt wall 3 ft. wide at the base and taper it to 20 inches wide at the top. He said the height of the wall would not increase. Mr. Johnson explained that he would work on 25 ft. sections at a time and that he had a system using staked plywood and piled sandbags to keep the wave action off the work area. He circulated a photo of the existing wall. It was noted the existing wall extends along the entire length of the shoreline. Mr. Johnson said the trees near the wall at the corner of the property would not be disturbed. Mr. Bedini asked if there would be backfill to the top of the wall. Mr. Johnson said that 6 inch rip rap would come up to approximately 6 inches of the top. He also noted that the wall could have pipes 2 ft. above the water level, the rip rap would be encased in landscaping cloth, and the disturbed area behind the wall would be top soiled and grassed. Several commissioners noted that the Commission does not encourage boundary to boundary shoreline walls, that there were environmental benefits to leaving sections of the shoreline in a natural state, and that they would rather see rip rap installed as there was already a long section of existing wall. Mr. Johnson said the owners were not interested in installing rip rap. Mr. Bedini suggested that half of the remaining wall could be rebuilt and the remaining section returned to natural conditions. Mr. LaMuniere noted there was an existing wall and thought the Commission might be sued if it did not permit the entire length to be rebuilt. Mr. Bedini said he would research this issue before the next meeting.Kinney Hill Properties, LLC./27 Kinney Hill Road/#IW-09-03/ Driveway Crossing:
Mr. Clark, engineer, reviewed the site plan, “Driveway Construction,” by Oakwood Environmental Assoc., dated 2/10/09, which had been presented at the last meeting. He said he hoped to begin work in early spring and to complete it within three weeks once started. Mr. Bohan suggested that it would make sense to install the utility conduits when the driveway was constructed so the wetlands would not be disturbed twice. Mr. Clark said one 4” and three 2” conduits extending 40 feet on either side could be installed now rather than waiting until a dwelling was constructed. Mr. LaMuniere stated that any future site development within 100 feet of wetlands would have to be approved by the Commission. Mrs. D. Hill noted the permit would be good for two years.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-03 submitted by Kinney Hill Properties, LLC. to construct a driveway at 27 Kinney Hill Road subject to the following conditions: 1. one 4” and three 2” utility conduits shall be installed at the time the driveway is installed and shall extend 40 ft. from either side, and 2. duration of the permit is 2 years. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Washington Partners, LLC./108 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-08-57/9 Lot Affordable Subdivision:
It was noted that the proposed road would have to be approved by the Board of Selectmen and that Mr. Smith, Highway Dept., had briefly reviewed the plans. Regarding who should require a performance bond for the road, Atty. Zizka had advised the Commission that nothing would prevent the different boards from requiring separate bonds to cover their separate areas of concern; the Selectmen can bond the quality of the road construction, while the Commission can bond for wetlands protection and stabilization of the site. The draft conditions of approval by Milone and MacBroom and Mrs. J. Hill were reviewed and revised. A $30,000 performance bond was agreed upon for the roadway and basin construction and a $15,000 bond will be required for the stormwater basin planting, invasive species removal, and post construction stormwater basin monitoring by a wetland scientist. It was also agreed that the walking trail would be removed from the plans. Several conditions recommended by Mr. Bernard in his letter dated 2/24/09 were considered, but because they dealt mainly with the monitoring of the quality of drinking water, it was noted they would be under the Health Department’s jurisdiction. Mrs. J. Hill will circulate the revised motion and the Commission will act on the application at the next meeting.Enforcement
Corbo Assocites, Inc./40 Nettleton Road/Activity Outside Approved Limits of Disturbance:
The 3/11/09 WEO Report was reviewed and Mr. Ajello presented photos of the disturbed area on the adjoining Ranieri property. Mr. Corbo stated that he had gotten permission from Mr. Ranieri to use his property to access the work site, had notified the EO that work was going to begin, and had installed erosion controls as soon as he had been ordered to and he apologized to the Commission. Mr. Ajello stated that Mr. Corbo should have come to the Commission for a revision of his permit, but noted the erosion controls had been installed before there had been any damage to the wetlands. Mr. Charles, who had reported the violation, said he thought this violation was an indication that the Commission has a significant communication problem about its requirements. He also pointed out that the logging contractor had not stopped work when the EO had told him to and that there were often difficulties with loggers operating in and near wetlands. He hoped the Commission would learn to regulate loggers more effectively. It was the consensus to issue Mr. Corbo the minimum citation as the unauthorized activity was not in wetlands and did not have an adverse impact.Myfield, LLC./Mygatt Road:
Mr. Ajello said the balance of the consultant’s bond would soon be returned to the applicant.Harris/258 New Milford Turnpike:
Mr. Ajello said that Mr. Harris plans to take concrete pieces out of the Aspetuck River, armor the uneven riverbank, and so some planting. Mrs. J. Hill and Mrs. D. Hill noted that buffer planting should be stressed and that care should be taken not to channelize the stream as had been done on the Rosen property. Mr. Bedini asked that Mr. Harris submit detailed plans about the proposed work.Administrative Business
Washington Montessori School/240 New Milford Turnpike/Bond:
Mr. Ajello recommended the $25,000 bond be returned as the school’s five year permit had expired several years ago and he did not think it had been renewed. He thought possibly all of the required water testing had not been done and that a vernal pool may not have been restored. Before returning the bond Mrs. D. Hill wanted to thoroughly review the file to determine if there was required work that had not been completed. Mr. Bedini thought the Commission should have required any necessary work while the permit was in effect. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the detention basin was clean and functioning and if all disturbed slopes had been stabilized. Mr. Ajello said they were.MOTION: To return the unused portion of the Montessori School performance bond. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-1.
Mrs. D. Hill voted No because she thought the file should be thoroughly reviewed for compliance before the remainder of the bond was released.Procedure for Assessment of Retaining Walls Along the Lake Waramaug Shoreline:
Mr. Bedini handed out the document, “Shoreline Landscaping for Residential Use and Ecological Integrity – Some Principles,” by Dr. Kortmann, no date. He noted that the Commission receives many applications for shoreline walls, but said according to the information presented by Dr. Kortmann, this was not a good idea and the walls should be limited. He asked the Commissioners to read the material and to think about drafting policies or regulations to address this problem. There was disagreement among the commissioners about whether guidelines would be adequate or whether regulations should be implemented. Mr. LaMuniere thought regulations were needed, while Mrs. D. Hill thought this issue could be addressed under the existing Regulations. The question of what percentage of shoreline should be allowed to be walled was discussed. Mr. LaMuniere said any decision should be based on ecological factors and the impacts to the natural environment. He recommended that Atty. Zizka be consulted to find out whether such guidelines should be incorporated into the regs and if so, what would be the best way to accomplish it. Mr. Ajello did not think so much time should be spent on this as 99% of the lake shore was already built out. He recommended that buffers be encouraged along the shoreline. Mr. Bedini said this matter would be discussed again at the next meeting and that in the future, a Special Meeting with Mr. McGowan and Dr. Kortmann would be held.Applicant’s Guide to Completing and Processing an Application for an Inland Wetlands Permit:
Mr. Ajello said he had reviewed this document and had found only a couple of points that needed to be updated. He thought the Guide was helpful to applicants. Mr. Bedini asked the commissioners to review it before deciding whether or not to put it back on the website.Communications
The 2/24/09 notice from the Ct. DEP regarding the discharge elimination system permit for Lake Waramaug was noted and briefly discussed.
Mrs. J. Hill passed out the responses from Atty. Zizka to the general questions the Commission had raised at the last meeting about the mediation process. The sheet was dated 2/26/09. A discussion about mediation followed and when it became too specific about the Wykeham Rise, LLC. appeal, the commissioners voted to go into Executive Session.
MOTION: To go into Executive Session at 9:50 p.m. to discuss pending litigation/mediation for Wykeham Rise, LLC/101 Wykeham Road. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end Executive Session at 10:12 p.m. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: March 9, 2009 February 25, 2009
Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
5:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Bohan
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Strub, Mr. George, Mrs. Frank, Ms. Cheney, Mrs. Cheney, Mr. Bernard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Charles, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Klauer, Mrs. Solomon, Mr. Szymanski, Mrs. Federer, Mr. Merritt
PUBLIC HEARING Washington Partners, LLC./108 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-08-57/9 Lot Affordable Housing Subdivision
Mr. Bedini reconvened the public hearing at 5:03 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Wadelton, and Alternate Bohan. He noted the documents submitted to the file since the last session of the hearing.
Mr. George, engineer, noted the map, “Overall Site Plan,” by CCA, revised to 2/13/09. Revisions since the last meeting included the addition of the limit of disturbance line and changes to the retaining wall at the road entrance in order to save some of the existing trees. Mr. George noted the 2/17/09 letter from Milone and MacBroom, which stated that all of the concerns raised to date had been addressed.
Mr. Bedini noted that due to drainage concerns, the Commission would want to review the site development plan for each of the lots at the time it was developed and asked if the current owner planned to develop them or if this would be left to future owners. Mr. George did not know, but said that lots #1, #2, #7, #8, and #9 had development proposed within regulated areas and so would be required to return for permits. Mr. Bedini said he would want the Commission to review even the upper lots due to their steep slopes. Atty. Strub suggested this could be a condition of approval.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the walking trail around the wetlands would be open to the public. He thought if so, a parking area would be required. Atty. Strub noted that Mrs. Branson, director of Steep Rock, had supported the trail, but said if the Commission thought it would be a negative due to its closeness to the wetlands, it would be eliminated from the plans. He added that if the trail was left on the plans and the Planning Commission thought a parking area was needed, the applicant would come back to Wetlands for an approval of the revision. It was noted that the holder of the deed restriction would be responsible for trail maintenance.
Mr. LaMuniere was concerned about potential pollution that could be caused by the location of the septic system on lot #2. He asked if moving the septic closer to the lot’s access would decrease the likelihood of adverse impacts to the seep, the wetlands, and to the adjacent property. Mr. George said he could not move the septic nearer to the access because there would not be enough separation between it and the well. He also stated that the proposed septic location was almost 200 ft. from the springhouse and whichever location was used, the runoff would flow in the same direction. Mr. LaMuniere stated, however, that the flow from the site nearer to the access would not be as direct.
Comments from the public were received.
Mr. Bernard submitted a letter dated 2/24/09. 1) He was concerned about a “pinch point” between the proposed retaining wall and road where all of the runoff from lots #1, #2, and #3 would be directed. He thought if the culvert was plugged the runoff would flood the road and scour out under the retaining wall. He asked that as a condition of approval the road be moved away from the corner of the property to allow for better drainage and ease of maintenance. Mr. Bernard stated that if the road was moved there would be room for the swale to continue and for a second culvert should the first one get plugged. He noted that nearby Schwab Road is steep and washes out during short duration storms and he thought similar washouts near the proposed road would plug the proposed culvert. 2) Mr. Bernard asked for a condition of approval that no site disturbance including tree clearing and driveway installation be permitted off the proposed town road until construction contracts for the individual lots are in place. 3) He recommended that monitoring wells be installed between the wetlands and the septic systems on lots #7, #8, and #9. 4) He agreed with Mr. LaMuniere that the lot #2 septic system should be moved so there would be no impact on the spring and the watercourse. If this was not possible, he asked that water quality testing be done on the nearby water supply before, during, and after construction and that money be set aside for the installation of a water treatment system should it be determined that the water supply has been impacted. 5) Mr. Bernard recommended that lots #8 and #9 be combined as a feasible and prudent development option. If this was done, there would be no encroachment into the regulated area. 6) Mr. Bernard recommended that the Flirtation Avenue access be reconsidered as a feasible and prudent alternative because he thought it would have less long term impacts. He said if the Rt. 202 access was abandoned, the stream could be restored to its natural state and there would be less impact from salt, oil, heavy equipment, etc.
Atty. Strub stated that all of the issues raised by Mr. Bernard had already been reviewed and addressed by the Health Dept. or by Milone and MacBroom.
Mr. Charles voiced concerns about the construction sequencing, noting that contrary to Mr. Bernard’s recommendations, the Housing Trust had indicated that it would require that the driveways, wells, and septic systems be installed for the affordable lots before they are turned over to the receiving entity. Atty. Strub said this issue had to be resolved and there was no formal agreement yet. Mr. George stated that a construction sequence had been submitted, that a road construction phasing plan had been required by Milone and MacBroom, and the road should be stabilized before any lot development takes place. He said that most likely only the driveway apron for lots #1, #2, and #3 would be installed before those lots were sold and ready for development.
Mr. LaMuniere explained that because this was an affordable housing subdivision, the lots may not be developed according to who wants to buy them, but it would be required that 30% of the dwellings existing at any time be affordable under 8-30g. He asked how the developer would manage this. Atty. Strub stated that all lots under the Commission’s jurisdiction would have to come back for approval prior to their development.
Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Sanford of Milone and MacBroom if all of the issues he had raised had been addressed. Mr. Sanford said they had.
Mrs. Cheney asked what a conservation easement was and Mr. George and Atty. Strub explained the concept. She then asked what was the length of the proposed retaining wall off Rt. 202 and how much fill would be required in the wetlands. Mr. George said it would be 100 – 110 ft. long and 4 – 5 ft. high and that its construction would not require any fill in the wetlands. He noted that all excess road construction material would be taken off site and that the only wetlands impact would be the installation of the road culvert. He said a poured concrete wall was proposed in order to preserve the existing trees.
Mr. Merritt asked if there were plans for reventment at the culvert crossing, if all of the drainage was directed into the brook, and if the bulkhead below the culvert would be stabilized. Mr. George said there would be a sediment forebay before the detention basin, from there the runoff would flow into the wetlands, and eventually through the culvert and into the brook. He said there would be no increase in the amount of runoff. Mr. Ajello described the route of the brook and the culverts it flows though south of 108 New Milford Turnpike and noted that all of those culverts were on state property. Mr. Merritt told of times in the past when both this property and Rt. 202 had flooded and the existing entrance had washed out because the runoff could not be discharged fast enough. He asked if a study had been done to determine whether the drainage system south of the entrance could handle the water flow. He was skeptical that the installation of gutters, footing drains, and catch basins and the increase in impervious surfaces would not result in an increase in runoff. He agreed with Mr. Bernard that monitoring wells should be installed and water quality tested prior to the start of construction.
Mr. Bernard asked if the entrance area was in a flood plain. Mr. George stated that according to FEMA maps it was.
Mr. Ajello stated that the state would not change the downstream drainage system.
Ms. Cheney noted she appreciated the applicant’s offer to plant replacement trees on her mother’s adjoining property, but informed the Commission this could not be done due to the location of the septic fields. 1) She asked if there was ledge on the north side of the property, whether blasting would be required, and whether this would impact the wetlands. Mr. George stated there was no ledge where the septic systems were proposed, blasting would be required only for the basement for lot #6, and he did not think it would impact the wetlands. 2) Ms. Cheney asked how soil types were determined and Mr. Sanford explained the criteria used by soil scientists. 3) Ms. Cheney submitted photos of the area where she hoped the existing trees could be saved. Mr. George thought it might be possible to plant replacement trees along the stonewall on the Cheney property and said again, that efforts would be made to save as many of the existing trees as possible. 4) Ms. Cheney submitted a photo of the runoff from lot #1 flowing on her mother’s property and said she did not want any additional runoff to flow towards the garage or onto the property. 5) Ms. Cheney noted that Mr. Sanford had previously stated that the brook dries up in the summer, but she said in all the years she has lived next to it, it has never been dry. 6) She submitted a letter dated 2/25/09, in which she asked that if there is any damage to her mother’s property, such as the collapse of the stonewall or an increase in runoff, resulting from the proposed construction that the Commission make sure that the applicant makes the necessary repairs. Mr. Bedini explained that the applicant would be required to post a bond to ensure that the work would be done per the approved permit, but he did not know if it could be used to protect an adjoining property. He will consult with Atty. Zizka.
Mr. Charles noted that Myfield, LLC. had been required to install an emergent tank stormwater management system and asked why that was not required in this case. Mr. Sanford noted that this plan proposed rain gardens for infiltration above the wetlands. Mr. Charles noted that rain gardens are effective only if they are maintained and said property owners have been known to destroy them by relandscaping.
Mr. Ajello asked if the applicant would be opposed to marking the conservation easement boundaries on site. Mrs. J. Hill stated that this would be required by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Ajello asked if the applicant would agree to limited surface water testing up front in key areas. Mrs. D. Hill noted this could be a condition of approval. Atty. Strub said he was opposed, noting that the Commission’s engineer and the Health Dept. had found the plans were OK as submitted.
Mr. Bernard asked if the 42” culvert was adequate to handle the drainage and noted that it gets plugged, backing up water occasionally. Mr. George said this had not been analyzed because he proposed only to replace the existing pipe and the state sizes culverts to handle 10 year storms. Mr. Sanford briefly noted that it is not the 42” culvert that controls the hydrology above the pipe, but the constricted control point above the culvert as well as the beaver dams, which allow the wetlands to function as they do today. Mr. Bernard asked if the proposed drainage plans were an adequate solution. Mr. Sanford said they were.
Mr. Ajello asked Mr. Sanford what size bond he would recommend. Mr. Sanford could not say without reviewing the plans, but noted that in addition to the construction of the bridge and the road he had already recommended that money be set aside for planting the basin, removing the invasives, and monitoring the site for three years.
Mr. Bernard was still concerned about downstream drainage impacts. Mr. Sanford advised him that the downstream culverts were on state property and he should take the matter up with the state. He noted that the applicant would need both a permit from the DOT and from the DEP as the watershed was over 100 acres.
Mr. Merritt thought it made more sense to access the development from Flirtation Avenue. Mr. Sanford responded that he had considered this alternative, but thought the high quality wetlands near Flirtation should be preserved and said the proposed Rt. 202 access with the open bottom culvert would improve the condition of the wetlands in that area.
Atty. Strub stated the applicant was comfortable with the record and so requested the close of the hearing.
MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider Application #IW-08-57 submitted by Washington Partners, LLC. for a 9 Lot Affordable Housing Subdivision at 108 New Milford Turnpike. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Bedini closed the Public Hearing at 6:35 p.m.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot.
REGULAR MEETING Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Bohan.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 2/11/09 minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: End of second paragraph: Add sentence: “He displayed a drawing to illustrate these points.
Page 7: Second line: Should be Mrs. J. Hill.
Throughout: Change: “further” to “farther.”MOTION: To accept the 2/11/09 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Washington Partners, LLC./108 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-08-57/9 Lot Affordable Housing Subdivision:
The commissioners will consider conditions of approval, Milone and MacBroom will recommend conditions of approval and a bond amount, and Mrs. J. Hill will draft a motion of approval.New Applications
Kinney Hill, LLC./27 Kinney Hill Road/#IW-09-03/Driveway:
Mr. Clark, engineer, reviewed the site plan, “Driveway Construction, by Oakwood Environmental Associates, dated 2/10/09. He noted approximately 70 acres of the 85 acre property was under a conservation easement and that the purpose of the proposed driveway was to reach the remaining 14 acre section for maintenance purposes. He said that most of the wetlands had been flagged several years ago and that he had included the 12/5/08 soils report by Mr. Temple, soil scientist, to address the soils near the proposed crossing.Mr. LaMuniere asked why the driveway was proposed through the wetlands instead of to the west of the stonewall where a crossing could be avoided. Mr. Clark said that was not possible due to the location of the boundary line.
Mr. Clark discussed the proposed driveway, which would have a 10% grade in one section and would be gently sloped elsewhere. He pointed out the proposed culvert locations and said there would be grassed lined swales to handle runoff. He reviewed the construction details for the catch basins, culverts, rip rap apron, and headwalls and the erosion and sedimentation controls. It was noted a limit of disturbance line was included on the map.
Mrs. J. Hill noted that two downhill property owners had already complained about runoff onto their properties and asked Mr. Clark to address this concern. He responded that the existing drainage patterns to the existing wetland would be maintained, that there would be several discharge points so the runoff would not be concentrated, and a grass lined swale would discharge the water to the forest floor where it would dissipate and infiltrate. Mrs. D. Hill asked if the drainage onto the Swanson property would be increased. Mr. Clark stated it would not.
Mr. Bedini asked if the portion of the driveway through the wetlands would be built up. Mr. Clark said it would so there would be no problem with mud and so the top of the pipe would be covered. Mr. Bedini asked if this would dam up that part of the wetlands. Mr. Clark said it would, but that it was a very small drainage area and that the water would push down to the catch basin.
It was the consensus of the commissioners that a consultant was not required.
Mr. Clark showed the driveway construction details, including profile, swales, and grades, on his plans, “Driveway Construction,” dated 1/28/09.
A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, March 5, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Bedini asked that the center line of the driveway be staked for the inspection.
Other Business
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Preliminary Discussion/ Affordable Housing:
Atty. Fisher and Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented the map, “Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 2/20/09 and an informal discussion of the project followed. Mr. Szymanski said the owner proposed to keep all of the existing infrastructure. He briefly reviewed the draft plan. 1) Parking would be installed under the existing dorm buildings. The only improvement required for parking within the regulated area would be a 20 ft. X 10 ft. paved area to access the northern dorm and 250 sq. ft. of pavement for the western dorm. 2) In the eastern part of the property the existing access driveway would remain and would be extended and widened. It would access a new development site that would be outside of the regulated area. An existing gravel parking area would be kept for overflow parking. A new eight dwelling unit building would be constructed to the southeast of the proposed septic area. Its runoff would be directed to a large rain garden and from there to the drainage system consisting of wet ponds constructed per the 2004 stormwater management guidelines. 3) Mr. Szymanski said he would ensure the existing septic galleries were “H-20” so they can accommodate the driveway over them. 4) Sheet flow from the driveway was discussed. A curb would be installed on the downhill side to direct the water into a sediment basin and then into the pond. He said this would improve existing conditions, control the velocity of the runoff, and protect Kirby Brook from sediment and erosion. 5) Mr. Szymanski noted the existing scouring at the southeast corner along Bell Hill. He said the two existing pipes would be replaced and the incorporation of some kind of seepage envelope would be considered and sheet flow in this area would be encouraged. 6) The driveway profiles were reviewed. The Bell Hill driveway would have a 2% grade along most of its length, but would increase to 5% along the 75 ft. near point 6-50. He said the driveway would not be paved because its grade was less than 10%. Its minimum width would be 16 ft. 7) The erosion and sedimentation control plan dated 2/20/09 was reviewed. 8) No excavation would be required within the regulated area.Mr. Szymanski asked if under the new Regulations the Commission would require an ecological analysis. Mrs. D. Hill noted the Regulations do not require this, but say only that it may be required. Mr. Bedini said the Commission would most likely have a consultant review the application, but unless the consultant thought it necessary, since the development would be mostly on the existing footprint, he did not think it probable that an ecological analysis would be required.
Mr. LaMuniere noted that in the previous application Mr. Szymanski had pointed out that it was not good to have the road drainage empty directly into the brook. Mr. Szymanski responded that under Section 8-30g the applicant could not afford to correct the existing drainage. He said the proposal would not make the existing situation worse because the discharge would have less erosive capabilities and all new development would be at least 350 ft. from the wetlands.
Atty. Fisher stated that he understood the Federers had requested that their Inland Wetlands appeal be mediated and that Wykeham Rise, LLC. had no objection to mediating the Zoning and Inland Wetlands appeals together.
Mr. Bedini asked that when the application is submitted that the applicant avoid last minute revisions that are unfair to all parties concerned.
Executive Session
Atty. Fisher, counsel for Mr. Andersson, was invited to participate in the portion of the Executive Session to discuss the resolution of Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Trenching in Wetlands. This portion of the Executive Session ended at 8:07 p.m.
MOTION: To enter Executive Session to discuss Andersson with Atty. Fisher and mediation for Wykeham Rise, LLC. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end Executive Session. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Executive Session ended at 9:54 p.m. and the commissioners took the following action:
MOTION: Regarding Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/ Unauthorized Clearing and Trenching in Wetlands: To approve the 2/23/09 settlement document with attached map submitted at the 2/25/09 Meeting with the correction on page 3, item 4 that the words, “crushed stone and” be deleted. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: That the Inland Wetlands Commission agrees to participate in the mediation of the Wykeham Rise, LLC. appeals. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. J. Hill was directed to ask Atty. Zizka several questions about mediation that came up during the Executive Session.
Enforcement
Myfield, LLC./Mygatt Road:
Mr. Ajello recommended that the balance of the consultant’s fee be returned to the applicant. MOTION: To return $4438.16, the unused portion of the Myfield, LLC. consulting fee, to Myfield, LLC. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 5-0.Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/#IW-07-V14:
Mr. Ajello said there would be no final signoff until after the required planting had been done.Pending Application
Washington Partners, LLC/108 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-08-57/9 Lot Affordable Housing Subdivision:
It was noted that prior to the next meeting Mr. Sanford would recommend an amount for the bond and any conditions of approval he thought were necessary. It was the consensus that the walking trail should be deleted from the application, but could possibly be added once it was determined who would hold the conservation easement. Mrs. J. Hill was asked to prepare a draft motion of approval.Other Business
Procedure for Assessment of Retaining Walls Along the Lake Waramaug Shoreline:
Mr. Bedini noted Washington had no regulations that specifically address the lake. He had discussed this with Mr. McGowan and had asked if he and Dr. Kortmann would work with representatives from the Commission to draft policies or regulations. Mrs. D. Hill recommended that policies be written so that shoreline walls could be handled in a consistent manner. Mr. Bedini noted that once these were written, Atty. Zizka would be asked to review them and to recommend whether or not they should be incorporated in the Regulations.MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Bedini.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:27 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Posted: February 27, 2009 February 18, 2009
Special Meeting
5:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Bohan
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Kortmann, Mr. McGowan, Mr./Mrs. Frank, Mrs. Payne, Mr. Markert, Mr. Neff, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Szymanski, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Wellings, Mrs. Sutter, Mr. Nelson, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Lasar, Ms. Purnell, Residents
Mr. McGowan, Director of the Lake Waramaug Task Force, gave a brief introduction. He noted that the Task Force has been very concerned about shoreline treatments on Lake Waramaug and so recommended consultation with Dr. Kortmann.
Dr. Kortmann, limnologist, gave his Power Point presentation, “Lake Waramaug, Ct., An Examination of Shoreline Stabilization Approaches.” This addressed what happens at the land/water interface and how to deal with it from a community perspective.
He first defined the shoreline types around Lake Waramaug and explained the most effective stabilization method for each would vary depending on each type and the wave activity in the area. He discussed the prevailing winds in the area and said most locations around the lake are moderate to high energy sites.
Dr. Kortmann cited the reasons shoreline retaining walls fail. 1) Solid walls tend more to fail and are more difficult to repair than rip rap or dry walls when they do fail. 2) Inadequate design, such as too short walls or walls that don’t have a foundation base, can fail. 3) Freezing and thawing can undermine walls. 4) Hydrostatic pressure; the build up of water behind a wall, can have an adverse impact. 5) Use of non porous materials to construct the wall can contribute to its failure. 6) Eroding and scouring at the base of a wall can cause undermining. 7) Ice can damage walls. 8) Extreme temperatures and exposure to the elements can cause damage.
He then listed the environmental impacts, which can be caused by a shoreline retaining wall. 1) The near shore shallow habitat, which is a spawning area and food source, can be destructed. 2) The walls may create barriers between the water and the near water upland, which many species depend upon for reproduction and food. 3) The movement of both groundwater and surface water may be disturbed. 4) Erosion problems may increase elsewhere due to the redirection of the energy dissipation of the waves. 5) There may be a degradation of the natural shoreline aesthetics.
Alternative shoreline stabilization methods were discussed. Dr. Kortmann stated that fairly sizable rip rap or stone tended to be a good treatment for shoreline erosion. He cautioned, however, that the first question that should be asked when considering such stabilization methods is: Is there an erosion or instability problem that really needs to be addressed? The second question to answer when considering the construction of a shoreline wall is: Are there other conventional measures such as grading or rip rap that will be a better long term solution?
Wave action was explained. Dr. Kortmann noted that variables were involved such as the slope of the bottom of the lake and the slope of the land the wave runs up on. He reviewed the different types of shoreline stabilization suitable to use for different wave types. Stabilization in low energy wave areas might be accomplished with biological erosion controls such as a brush mattress, in moderate energy wave areas with vegetation, vegetative armoring, or traditional rip rap, and in high energy wave areas by any of the above listed methods or with a sea wall. He cautioned that flat sea walls will refocus the waves in other areas, which could result in the creation of additional erosion problems elsewhere. He recommended sloping sea walls, which would dissipate some of the wave action.
He listed the questions that when faced with an application for shoreline stabilization the Commission should ask to help it to determine whether the proposal is prudent:
1. What is the severity of the existing shoreline erosion?
2. What type of access to the lake is needed?
3. What kind of access to the shoreline already exists?
4. What is the depth of the water at the shoreline and what is the slope of the shoreline and of the lake bottom?
5. What are the subsurface characteristics? Careful design is required for hardpan areas.
6. What is the orientation of the shoreline and how much exposure to the sun is there?
7. Is there an aesthetic criteria?
8. Are there budget constraints?
9. Must waterfowl be considered?
10. What will the impact to the lake and the neighboring properties be?Criteria for seawalls were discussed. Dr. Kortmann stressed that the Commission must make sure they are high enough and that both surface and groundwater flows are possible behind the wall. Also: 1) The lake side of the wall should be rough and sloped for wave dissipation. 2) The backfill should be permeable. 3) The wall should be erected on a firm footing or foundation. 4) The ends of the wall should be protected with wing walls, anchored rip rap, vegetation, etc. 5) The length of the wall should be limited to a fraction of the length of the total shoreline. 6) Landscaping should be incorporated in the design. These design criteria work to minimize reflection and refraction of the waves, which could cause erosion problems elsewhere.
A question and answer session followed the presentation.
Mrs. Frank asked what improvements could be made if there was not a gradual slope on the lake bottom below the wall. Dr. Kortmann would not recommend improvements without inspecting the site, but said a jetty or a baffle along a dock might be helpful.
Mr. Markert asked how close Lake Waramaug was to the optimal level of absorption of nutrients. Dr. Kortmann stated the lake used to be over the limit for phosphorous and that although it no longer was, it was close and so should continue to be monitored. He explained that nitrates in the lake are desirable because they attract beneficial organisms.
Dr. Kortmann discussed watershed management techniques such as setting a specific nutrient allocation per acre and requiring applicants to incorporate BMP’s like infiltration systems when that limit is reached. Mr. Frank suggested that this type of technique could be incorporated in the local land use regulations.
Mr. Bedini asked, where is the property line at the edge of the lake? Dr. Kortmann said that was a question for attorneys, title searchers, and surveyors to resolve.
Mr. Bedini asked if a case could be made for prohibiting walls along the entire lake shore. Dr. Kortmann said the case could be made because if the majority of the perimeter of the lake was sea walls, there would be ecological impacts. He noted that in some cases improvements to the shoreline were necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. He suggested that sea walls be limited to 15 to 20 percent of the total length of the shoreline on each property. He advised the Commission to aim for complexity at the edge of the lake, noting that the existence of many different natural conditions there helps to preserver habitats, water quality, and aesthetics.
Mr. Wilson asked about the amount of phosphorous present in sediment transfer. Dr. Kortmann noted that most accumulated nutrient particles are washed away in the first half inch of rain and that was the reason it was important to implement infiltration systems to manage the stormwater on site.
Mr. Wilson asked why dry walls were recommended over masonry walls. Dr. Kortmann said this was because they were easier to repair and maintain over time.
Someone asked if the salt and chemicals used on the road impacted the lake. Dr. Kortmann said there was some impact, but it was not critical for Lake Waramaug. He urged the Commission to beware of organic deicers and to require deep sumps with enough storage capacity for accumulated road sand. In addition, he stated that phosphorous was not needed to maintain healthy lawns.
Mr. Nelson asked if bubblers could have long term impacts. Dr. Kortmann said that would depend on how many were in use and said they attracted geese, which were not good for the lake.
Atty. Kelly asked Dr. Kortmann to speak on the facts that form the foundation of the wave measurements presented as he had never observed 2.5 ft. high waves on the lake. Dr. Kortmann noted he was measuring trough to crest and said craft induced waves would be greater than wind induced waves.
Atty. Kelly asked if plans for feasible and prudent alternatives should be based on the worst case scenario. Dr. Kortmann said, yes, or very close to it.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the shoreline drift pattern was known. He thought it would be helpful when considering improvements in areas with a lot of wave action. Dr. Kortmann said he did not know the pattern.
Mr. LaMuniere asked what the composition of the bottom of the lake was. Dr. Kortmann said it varied and described areas with cobble that are within reach of ice during the winter and sandy areas like the one near Succor Brook.
Mr. McGowan thanked Dr. Kortmann and said copies of the slides would be available for anyone interested.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: February 20, 2009 February 11, 2009
Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
5:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Bohan
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Charles, Mr. Sanford, Mr. George, Atty. Strub, Mr. Bernard, Mrs. Branson, Mr. Neff, Mr. Perrin, Mr. Lord, Press
PUBLIC HEARING Washington Partners, LLC./108 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-08-57/9 Lot Affordable Housing Subdivision:
Mr. Bedini reconvened the public hearing at 5:01 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Bohan.Mr. George, applicant’s engineer, submitted his letter dated 2/6/09, which responded to all thirteen points in Milone and MacBroom’s 2/10/09 review. He also noted that at the last meeting access to the lots from Flirtation Avenue had been suggested as a feasible and prudent alternative. However, he explained he did not think it was prudent because it would require 10 ft. of fill, more of the wetlands would be filled than would be filled for the Rt. 202 access, and a 6 to 10 ft. high retaining wall would be required.
The Rt. 202 access was discussed. Mr. George stated that the DOT requested the bridge span be reduced to 12 feet, which would reduce the open bottom from 6’ X 20’ to 6’ by 12’, but would not reduce the width of the roadway at the entrance. He said the state was concerned about both maintenance and liability for the crossing in the state right of way.
Mr. Lord, soil scientist, advised the Commission that he had revised the planting plan in response to comments from Milone and MacBroom. The revisions mainly addressed the removal and monitoring of Japanese knotweed and the planting list for the proposed rain gardens. He also responded to several of the questions raised at the previous session of the hearing. 1) He reinspected lot #3, but did not find additional wetlands or evidence of any concentrated flows or channels. 2) He also reinspected lot #7, but did not find additional wetlands, intermittent watercourses or high ground water. He submitted photos of the site conditions on these lots.
Mr. LaMuniere pointed out that the site development plan did not include the limit of disturbance line. He said this was important because the land was steep and would require cuts and fills. He also noted that although the applicant had stated that most of the houses would be located in existing fields, the site development plan showed six houses in the forested area. He asked how many trees would be cut, and for a construction envelope and limit of disturbance to be shown for each lot. Due to the steepness of the proposed road in the vicinity of lots #1-#3, Mr. LaMuniere asked for confirmation that the proposed drainage plans were adequate.
Mr. George stated the limit of disturbance and construction envelopes were already on the plan, but Mr. Bedini asked that they be more clearly noted and labeled for each lot and for both forested and open areas.
Mr. Sanford, Commission’s consulting engineer, detailed revisions that had been requested by Milone and MacBroom and said the applicant had provided additional information to address all of the concerns raised in his 2/10/09 review. In particular, he noted conservation easement areas had been added along lots #1, #7, #8, and #9, that the boundary line for lot #8 had been shifted to the west to move it further from the wetlands, and the driveways to lots #6 and #7 had been combined and moved further from the wetlands to provide a better wetlands buffer area. He agreed with Mr. George that an access from Flirtation Avenue would have a greater impact on the wetlands than the proposed Rt. 202 access, because the forested wetlands that feed the main wetlands would be impacted. He thought the proposed crossing was more “environmentally friendly.”
Mr. LaMuniere noted that the proposed pipe under the main road running to the detention basin was 15”, but the outlet pipe from the basin was 24”. He was concerned that the outlet pipe was larger than the inlet pipe and asked if this could result in the siphoning of water from the basin. Mr. George responded that the pipe under the road was 18” and the 24” pipe had been sized for a 100 year storm. Mr. Bedini noted the proposed walking trail was very close to the wetlands and he asked if it was necessary. Mr. George thought it would be an amenity for the subdivision and noted it would be constructed entirely by hand.
Mr. LaMuniere noted how steep the driveway to lot #3 was and that drainage was proposed on both its sides and so asked for a confirmation that the design was adequate. Mr. George stated that since the last meeting he had added catch basins, had “mounded,” the driveway, and had added water bars to the erosion control plan. He described how the yard drains, catch basins, and swales would handle the stormwater runoff. He stated that two catch basins had also been added along the roadway.
Mr. Bedini asked Mr. George if he had reviewed the proposed septic system located above a spring on adjacent Schwab Road property. Mr. George said the septic system was more than 150 ft. further from the water source than is required by the Health code. Mr. Bedini noted that a neighbor had also reported a spring on lot #7. Mr. George said Mr. Lord had investigated and had not found a spring there.
Public comments were taken.
Mr. Bernard, Schwab Road, asked if the hearing would be continued so that the public would have an opportunity to review the revised plans. Mr. Bedini said it would and he also noted there were 15 additional documents that had been submitted since the last meeting.
Mr. Charles asked how many acres of open space were proposed. Mr. George said 12 acres; 9 consisting of wetlands and 3 acres of upland soils. Mr. Charles asked how much of the 3 upland acres was not in a regulated area and Mr. George responded that only a small portion was not regulated. Mr. Charles noted that the Planning and Conservation Commissions usually do not like the required subdivision open space to consist of wetlands, which are already protected under the Regulations. Mr. Charles asked who would own the open space. Atty. Strub said this had not yet been determined.
Mr. Charles asked if there was an entity to receive the affordable units. Atty. Strub noted that this matter was not under the Inland Wetland Commission’s jurisdiction.
Mr. Charles asked if all infrastructure would be installed before the lots were put on the market. Mr. George stated that lots #1, #2, and #5 would be affordable and that decisions about the installation of the infrastructure would be up to the Planning Commission. He noted that the road would be constructed to rough grade and the detention basin installed early in the process, but would not be completed until after all of the construction activities were finished so that it would not be damaged by construction equipment.
Mrs. Branson asked if the proposed open space and the conservation easements discussed were the same areas or if Milone and MacBroom had proposed additional easement areas. Atty. Strub explained the open space had been proposed by the applicant in the original plan, while the conservation easements had been recommended by Milone and MacBroom and included on the revised plans. Mrs. Branson noted that if the proposed trail was located in open space accepted by a non profit entity, it would be open to the public. Atty. Strub said this would not necessarily be so as a private land trust could hold land not open to the public. Mrs. Branson thought it would be good to have the trail open to the public, but cautioned that a public access easement over the open space would be necessary.
Ms. Cheney asked why so many large trees had to be cut at the entrance of the roadway and suggested that Mrs. Cheney should be shown some consideration because their removal would impact her privacy. Mr. George stated that trees would be planted along the edge of the road and said maybe some could also be planted on the adjoining property. Ms. Cheney asked if the retaining wall could be moved closed to the road in order to preserve some of the existing mature trees. She noted that when the trees are cut, the existing stonewall would collapse. She was concerned that the Commission did not want the wetlands along Flirtation Avenue to be impacted, but would consider wetlands impacts near her mother’s property and Rt. 202. Mr. George stated there would be more impacts with a Flirtation Avenue access. Mr. Lord explained there was an existing crossing off Rt. 202 and so the wetlands impacts there were not totally new impacts. He noted that the Commission could not legally approve the proposal if there was an alternative that would result in less impact to the wetlands. Ms. Cheney asked if the proposed retaining wall could be rotated away from the stonewall to preserve it and some of the trees. Mr. George did not think this would work due to the cut and fill requirements. Ms. Cheney asked if the project were downsized if the road could then be moved. Mr. George said the best location for the road had been proposed
Mr. Ajello asked if the developer had to remove the existing trees that were farther than 10 ft. from the traveled portion of the proposed road. Mr. George said, yes, because there were grading issues at the corner and there had to be room for the retaining wall. He did say, however, that if the retaining wall was made higher and was rotated, perhaps two or three trees could be saved. Atty. Strub said the applicant would investigate and would try to come up with some accommodations to offset the impact of the tree removal.
Ms. Cheney voiced her concern that drainage and the proposed septic system would impact her mother’s Schwab Road property. She said there was already so much runoff from this property flowing onto her mother’s that she had had to install a ditch to divert it and a curtain drain around the garage. She also did not want runoff to impact the nearby spring. Mr. George said the proposed stormwater drainage system would cut off some of the runoff and that there would be no increase in the flow onto her property.
Mr. Bernard did not think that under the Health code requirements the protection of open springs could be compared to the protection of sanitary sealed wells drilled in bedrock. So he thought it was erroneous to say the water quality of the down slope spring or nearby shallow wells would not be impacted by the proposed septic system. Mr. George stated the Health Dept. requirements are the same for wells and springs. Mr. Ajello said he had consulted with the Town Sanitarian who confirmed Mr. George’s statements. He recommended that Mrs. Cheney do some baseline testing of the water on her property so that she would have proof if her water quality was affected in the future.
Mr. Ajello thought the proposed walking trail would attract ATVs and so recommended a barrier be installed to prevent them from driving on it.
Atty. Strub submitted a request for an extension of the public hearing to February 25, 2009.
6:23 p.m.
Mr. Bedini continued the public hearing to 5:00 p.m. on 2/25/09 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the LU Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING Mr. Bedini called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Bohan.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the Agenda: Administrative Business: B. Bonds. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 2/4/09 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 4: Motion for #IW-07-33: Condition should be: there shall be a machine used only to move the rocks; not for any other work.
Page 4: DiBenedetto: line 2: Insert “to” before “begin.”
Page 4: DiBenedetto: line 2: Letter was received on 1/28/09.
Page 6: Education: Should be “CAWS” not “CACIWC.”
MOTION: To accept the 2/4/09 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Bennett/80 East Shore Road/#IW-09-02/Addition to Dwelling:
Mr. Neff, engineer, noted that at the last meeting the Commission had been concerned about protecting the catch basin next to the parking area. In response, he revised the plan to show the catch basin grates wrapped in filter fabric to catch silt and sediments and said that this and another basin south of the parking area would be inspected and maintained on a weekly basis during construction. The map, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 2/10/09 was reviewed. It was noted there would be no site disturbance and that the ZBA would also have to approve the plan.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-02 submitted by Ms. Bennett for a second story addition to the existing dwelling at 80 East Shore Road per the plans, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 2/10/09. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To amend approval of Application #IW-09-02 submitted by Ms. Bennett for a second story addition at 80 East Shore Road to include the duration of the permit shall be 2 years. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road:
The final maps had not been submitted. It was hoped that the settlement could be discussed at the next meeting.Cornell/Whittlesey Road:
Mr. Ajello reported that trees had been cut down.DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street:
Mr. Ajello reported that logs were being skidded off the property while the ground was frozen and that no work had been done in the “sensitive area.”Kessler/West Mountain Road:
The work on the guest house is almost complete. Mr. Ajello was asked to make sure the work done was per the approved permit.Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane:
It was noted the Commission still holds a bond for the required planting.Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello said the planting should be more evenly distributed on the hillside to stabilize it.Administrative Business
“The Applicant’s Guide to Completing and Processing an Application for an Inland Wetlands Permit”:
Mrs. Hill circulated copies of this brochure and recommended that the commissioners review it before deciding to remove it from the Commission’s web page.Executive Session:
There was no business to discuss in executive session.Bonds:
Mr. Ajello said he had not discussed bonds and consulting fees with the Town Treasurer since the last meeting. He circulated a memo, “Summary of Returnable Bonds,” which listed the bonds he recommended be returned. Each was reviewed. It was the consensus that all should be returned with the exception of the bond held for the Montessori School. The Commission thought it should carefully review whether the work had been completed per the approved permit before the bond is released. Mr. Bedini asked that the records be checked again to make sure the bond amount listed for Montessori is accurate.MOTION: To return the unused portion of the following performance bonds and consulting fees: 1) Berger/392 Nettleton Hollow Road/8/24/07, 2) Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/5/31/07, 3) Lecher/47 West Shore Road/10/5/07, 4) Lloyd/149 Whittlesey Road/7/12/06, 5) Kleinberg/181 West Shore Road/4/5/06, and 6) Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/6/13/08. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Also, procedures for record keeping of bonds and consulting fees were discussed. Mr. Bedini recommended that Mr. Ajello establish a spread sheet system for tracking bonds that would be used by both the Land Use Dept. and the Treasurer, that Zoning and Inland Wetlands fees and bonds be tracked separately, that a monthly report be submitted for the Commission’s review, and that a form letter be drafted to accompany the bonds and fees returned to property owners and contractors.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 7:54 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: February 13, 2009 February 4, 2009
Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m., Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Bohan
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sabin, Mr. Kehoe, Mr. Harris, Ms. Cheney, Mr. Charles, Mr. Talbot
Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Bohan.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business not already posted on the Agenda: Administrative Business: B. Discussion of Bonds, C. Review of Web Page. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 1/14/09 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 6: Under Revision of Regulations: Correct time of close of hearing is 6:40 p.m.
Page 7: The spelling of intervenor was corrected.
Page 8: Mrs. D. Hill asked to add that Harris/258 New Milford Turnpike was formerly the Marbledale Pub.
Page 9: In the Kessler motion: The commissioners noted they should have stated in #3 that after April 1st inspections would resume every two weeks and after rain events of over half an inch within 24 hours.
Page 9: Under First Washington Capital: 13th line from bottom: Change: “would” to “could” and 12th line from bottom:
Change “fauna” to “flora.”
Page 10: Rosen: 12th line: Change: “advice” to “advise.”MOTION: To accept the 1/14/09 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Washington Partners, LLC./108 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-08-57/9 Lot Affordable Housing Subdivision:
Mrs. Hill noted that the CCA response to the issues raised by Milone and MacBroom had been received earlier in the day and had been immediately mailed and faxed to Mr. Sanford for his review.223 Litchfield Turnpike, LLC./223 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-08-61/ Septic Repair, Site Improvements:
Mr. Talbot, architect, presented a revised map, “Septic System Repair Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/21/09, which showed the route of the forced main piping relocated through the narrowest part of the wetlands and he said the landscaping plan had also been modified accordingly. He said there were no revisions to the erosion and sedimentation control plan. In contrast to the notes on the revised map, Mrs. D. Hill noted the minutes state that the trench for the pipe would be dug by hand. Mr. Talbot said it would not be practical to dig the ditch by hand and Mr. Sabin said the duration of the disturbance would be shorter if the mini excavator was used.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-61 submitted by 223 Litchfield Turnpike, LLC. for septic repair and site improvements at 223 Litchfield Turnpike per the map, “Septic System Repair Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 11/25/09, revised to 1/21/09 and the landscaping plan by Mr. Sabin revised to 1/15/09. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To amend approval of Application #IW-08-61 submitted by 223 Litchfield Turnpike, LLC. for septic repair and site improvements at 223 Litchfield Turnpike to include the duration of the permit shall be 2 years. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Harris/258 N. Milford Turnpike/#IW-09-01/Remodeling, Improvements:
Mr. Ajello said there had been no changes since the last meeting. Mr. Bedini noted all digging was supposed to be done by hand. Mr. LaMuniere said the Commission had asked for revisions to the plan to show the specific location of all trenching, screening, and light posts and the depth and width of the electrical trenches. Mrs. D. Hill noted the new plan being reviewed had no date. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Harris to revise the plans accordingly and said the discussion would resume later in the meeting.New Applications
Bennett/80 East Shore Road/#IW-09-02/Addition to Dwelling:
Mr. Kehoe, contractor, said Mr. Neff had asked him to attend the meeting although he had no letter of authorization from the owner. The map, “Property/Boundary Survey,” by Mr. Alex, dated April 2008 and the “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 1/24/09 were reviewed. Mr. Kehoe said that a second story addition was proposed and there would be no change in the building’s footprint. “House Floor Plans,” by Mr. Quigley, dated June 20, 2008 were also reviewed. Mr. LaMuniere noted the work would be approximately 60 feet from Lake Waramaug and on a steep site. Mr. Ajello pointed out the location of a catch basin near the parking area that could catch debris. Mr. Kehoe said he would not store any materials near the road. Mr. Ajello advised daily cleaning and job management to protect the basin. Mr. Bedini asked that Mr. Neff, engineer, provide plans for the protection of the catch basin and that a second set of the map and plans be submitted for the file. Mr. LaMuniere thought a larger construction envelope would be needed, but Mr. Bohan pointed out there would be no soil disturbance. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the stonewall would be removed. Mr. Kehoe said it would not.Pending Application
Harris/258 N. Milford Turnpike/#IW-09-01/Remodeling, Improvements:
Mr. Harris presented the amended site plan with revisions in red. The commissioners were satisfied with the plan.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-09-01 submitted by Mr. Harris for remodeling and improvements at 258 New Milford Turnpike per the plans, “Proposed Site Plan,” by MacMillan Architects, revised to 1/14/09 with handwritten revisions by Mr. Harris dated 2/4/09; duration of the permit: 2 years. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0/
Other Business
Condon-Fornaiser/57 Findley Rd/Request to Revise Permit #IW-07-33:
Mrs. Turoczi, landscaper, represented the property owners. She explained her plans for landscaping in wetlands as detailed in her 1/3/09 memo and 12/11/08 “Planting Plan.” Photos of the existing conditions were circulated. Invasive plants such as barberry and multi flora rose would be removed in the winter, in the spring the intermittent stream channel would be enhanced with native species, native plant material and shrubs would be planted throughout, debris would be removed along the boundary line, boulders placed there, and plant material for screening added there. The rocks would be taken from an upland area on site. The only machinery to be used was in the upland area just beyond the garage to pick up and move the boulders. Mr. Ajello said he had no concerns about the proposed work. Mrs. Turoczi read the project description. Mr. LaMuniere stated there would be no damage to the stream and thought the plans were detailed.MOTION: To approve the request to revise Permit #IW-07-33 granted to Mr. Condon and Ms. Fornasier to construct an addition at 57 Findley Road to include landscaping per the 1/3/09 Description of Project and 12/11/08 planting plan by Earth Tones, LLC. subject to the condition that only one machine shall be used to move the rocks. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
First Capital, LLC./89 Lower Church Hill Road:
Mr. Bedini reported that he had consulted with Atty. Zizka who had advised him that 1) the Commission has no jurisdiction over seeps and 2) a complete site development plan should be submitted so the Commission can make sure there will be no wetlands encroachments. He noted that this was the same advice given to the Commission by Milone and MacBroom. Mr. LaMuniere noted the property owner was going to move the proposed pool farther from the edge of the cliff and said he wanted to see a revised site plan to make sure this was true. He asked for a detailed site plan showing distances. He noted his concern, too, that drainage from the seeps could form intermittent streams, which would be under the Commission’s jurisdiction. Mr. Ajello thought this would be unlikely because the solid rock in the area would prevent a channel from forming.Enforcement
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street:
Mr. Ajello circulated an undated letter from Mr. DiBenedetto, which noted he planned begin the Phase II tree removal on January 29 while the ground is frozen so there will be minimum or no impact on the wetlands and watercourses. He will submit a spring planting plan for review by Land Tech. Mr. Ajello noted a report from Mr. Allan of Land Tech that stated he had inspected the site to check the trees that were marked for removal and had asked that 1) care be taken to leave the understory to develop and 2) woody material be left on the forest floor. Mr. Bedini noted that the Commission had previously ordered all cutting to stop until it could be shown that the planting already done had been successful. Mr. LaMuniere stated the remedial planting had been done per plan and the multi species forest was regrowing nicely. Mr. Ajello said that he had removed markers so that trees would not be cut on the steep slopes and that more planting was required in areas that had previously been cleared. It was noted that Land Tech is still monitoring the work and that the Town still holds a bond. It was the consensus that the cutting of the trees could continue.Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road:
The Commission is still waiting for the final map. This will be discussed at the next meeting.Howard/99 West Shore Road:
This violation is in court.Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike:
Mr. LaMuniere urged the Commission to write a letter directing Mr. Lodsin to remove all operative vehicles from the property and to do no further work on site until the property has regenerated to the Commission’s satisfaction. He said the vehicles on site were a threat to Meeker Swamp. Mr. Ajello said that all of the equipment was in the upland area, the Army Corps would not order the equipment to be removed from the upland area, and the land would eventually repair itself. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Ajello to write to Atty. Zizka to outline what has happened to date, inform him the Commission has placed a note concerning the violation on the Town Land Records, and ask if he thinks the best course of action would be for the Commission to wait until Mr. Lodsin tries to sell the property for compliance with the enforcement order. It was noted that although this matter has been referred to the Army Corps of Engineers, there has not been much progress because that agency does not have adequate staff.Rumsey Hall School/Romford Road:
Mr. Ajello will inspect this site in the spring to make sure the disturbed areas have been stabilized.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road:
The Army Corps of Engineers will continue its investigation in the spring and possibly call in Marla Butts of the EPA.Administrative Business
2009-2010 Budget:
The proposed budget was briefly discussed. It was the consensus to eliminate printing of the Regulations because they are available on line and to keep Education at $1200 for ongoing training for the WEO and for basic training for the commissioners who will fill the three vacant seats. Mr. Bedini and Mrs. J. Hill will complete the budget and submit it to the Selectmen’s Office.Education:
Notices for the CACIWC annual meeting and an invasive plant workshop were circulated.Web Page:
The commissioners reviewed the web page with Mr. Wadelton. Several changes in organization were recommended. Mr. Bedini suggested the commissioners review “The Applicant’s Guide to Completing and Processing an Application for an Inland Wetlands Permit” before deciding whether to eliminate it from the page. He thought it might be outdated. Also, he thought the Land Use Brochure might be outdated. Mr. Wadelton noted the revised Regulations would be on line on 2/5/09.Bonds:
Mr. Ajello prepared a list of outstanding consultant and performance bonds through 2/3/09 with attached summaries for DiBenedetto, Myfield, LLC., and Wykeham Rise, LLC. He noted he still had to check with the Treasurer due to discrepancies between her figures and Commission records. A lengthy discussion followed regarding those discrepancies and about how a more accurate bond tracking system must be established. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Ajello to meet with the Treasurer before the next meeting to make sure the figures in his list were accurate and to write a narrative for the Commission explaining why it would be OK to return each bond that he had recommended the Commission return. He also recommended that the Commission and/or staff write up a proposed procedure for the future handling of bonds.Executive Session:
There was no need to go into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation.MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:47 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: January 23, 2009 January 14, 2009
Public Hearings – Regular Meeting
5:00 PM, Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Bohan
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Strub, Mr. George, Mr. Lord, Mr. Neff, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hileman, Mrs. Frank, Mr. Lyon Mr. Bernard, Mrs. Payne, Ms. Dupuis, Mrs. Cheney, Ms. Cheney, Mr. O’Keefe, Mr. Studer, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Sabin, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Harris, Mr./Mrs. Perrin, Residents
PUBLIC HEARINGS Washington Partners, LLC./108 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-08-57/9 Lot Affordable Housing Subdivision
Mr. Bedini called the public hearing to order at 5:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Bohan. Mrs. J. Hill read the legal notice published in the Waterbury Republican on January 2 and January 11, 2009. Mr. Bedini referred to the list of 24 documents in the file.Mr. George, engineer, reviewed the map, “Overall Site Plan,” by CCA, revised to 8/28/08. He reviewed the proposal for 9 lots, three of them affordable, on the 34.04 acre parcel. He noted the location of the property on Flirtation Avenue and New Milford Turnpike and pointed out the various natural features including the wetland corridor. He proposed a 983 ft. long paved road off Rt. 202 at the existing curb cut. He noted this entrance currently has a 42” RCP culvert, but proposed a clear span open bottom bridge structure to replace it. He noted the proposed bridge was under review by the DOT; a permit is needed due to the size of the watershed and encroachment in the state ROW. He said he had received the 1/6/09 review by Mr. Sanford of Milone and MacBroom and would respond to it in a positive manner.
Mr. George stated that there were 9.6 acres of wetlands, that 99% of them were located on the east side of the property, and that none would be impacted except for the installation of the walking trail. He noted that the wetlands impacted by the installation of the road crossing were in the state right of way. Grading for some lots, including #1 and #9, grading for the driveway to lot #7, and the stormwater management system were activities proposed within the regulated area. Mr. George also made the following points: 1) the Health Dept. had approved the application, 2) the proposed 11.9 acres of open space was made up mostly of wetlands, and 3) the conservation easement language had not yet been drafted.
Mr. George discussed the stormwater management system. He said the majority of the runoff would flow from the driveways to the proposed road, which would have no curbs, then to grassed swales along the roadside, and eventually to a sediment/detention pond where it would be treated before flowing into the wetlands. The drainage system was designed to handle a 25 year storm event and the detention pond and culvert a 100 year storm. The roof runoff from the houses would not flow into the drainage system, but would collect in rain gardens on lots #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, and #9. The planting plans for both the rain gardens and detention pond were included in the plans. Mr. George stated the rain gardens would have a 1” rainfall capacity and any overflow would sheet flow from them. He said he would provide details. Mr. George stated that both the velocity and volume of runoff from the site would be reduced post development. He noted that a water diversion permit was required from the state DEP. Mr. LaMuniere noted there were areas of steep grades and pointed out the need for adequate protection from surface water flow during bad storms. Milone and MacBroom will take another look at the plans.
Mr. George said that Milone and MacBroom had requested a revision to the boundary line for lot #8. He agreed to straighten it to provide a greater buffer from the wetlands and said he would provide more details at a future meeting. He added that other comments from Milone and MacBroom would also be covered, including 1) the soil scientist would sign the plans, 2) removal of invasive species would be addressed, 3) the addition of some catch basins would be considered for handling runoff during periods when snow might block the flow to the swales, and 4) more erosion controls would be provided.
Atty. Strub presented a tree survey, which showed the trees to be removed and those that would remain. He noted that the Subdivision Regulations require street trees to be planted every 50 ft. along the proposed road and said this would be done.
The proposed bridge crossing was discussed. Mr. George said he would submit a 10 scale detail. The structure will be 20 feet wide with 14 ft. wide shoulders on each side.
Mr. LaMuniere was concerned that the proposed 15” culvert leading to the detention basin at the bottom of the road was not sized large enough to handle the runoff. Mr. George stated there would not be that much runoff, the swales had been designed to handle it, and the culvert could accommodate a 25 year storm. Mr. LaMuniere noted there had been several larger storm events recently. Mr. George responded that the detention basin was designed for a 100 year storm and noted that if the Commission required engineering for a larger storm, it would set an expensive precedent. Mr. Bedini said he would ask Milone and MacBroom to specifically address this issue.
Mr. Lord, soil scientist, briefly described his 10/10/08 wetlands impact evaluaton report, which described the three wetlands areas on site and their functions. He stated the project as designed would not impact their existing characteristics.
Mrs. D. Hill asked Mr. Lord if he had used Mr. McNamara’s wetlands boundaries. Mr. Lord said he had, but had not confirmed them, except for those closest to the stormwater management system.
Mr. LaMuniere asked what Mr. Lord thought about Milone and MacBroom’s recommendations for the removal of invasives. Mr. Lord agreed that knotweed, phragmites, multiflora rose, and loosestrife should be controlled as they can quickly take over disturbed areas. He said part of the stormwater management system was a 3 year monitoring plan to ensure the proper vegetative cover was established. He noted the vegetation proposed for the detention pond area was selected for its ability to remove contaminants. He said that Milone and MacBroom asked that planting area B be expanded and said this would be considered.
Mr. Sanford, Wetland Scientist, from Milone and MacBroom, noted he had been hired by the Commission to evaluate the potential impact of the proposed development to the natural resources on site, particularly the wetlands and watercourses. He said he found the applicant had made a good faith effort to preserve the function of the wetlands. He also made the following remarks: 1) The proposed open arch system for crossing the wetlands was an improvement over the existing conditions because it would improve the habitat and restore the natural stream bottom. 2) The proposed stormwater management system implements two of the newest and best ways to handle runoff; a) rain gardens and b) a wet bottom stormwater basin planted with native wetlands species. 3) Invasive species are a general problem on site, but his main concern was only that they do not spread to the wet bottom basin. 4) The proposed swales were appropriate, but should be used in combination with other stormwater management control measures due to the steep slopes. He noted he had asked the applicant to consider raising the crown of the road and installing leak-offs. 5) He noted the typical design standard was a 25 year storm, but said considering the Commission’s concerns, he would ask his engineer to review this. 6) Shifting the lot line for lot #8 would provide an extra buffer for the wetlands. He also recommended a conservation easement in lots #1, #7, #8, and #9. 7) Details are needed for the construction of the walking trail so that this activity can be reviewed. 8) A list of general comments had been provided in his report and he will wait until they are addressed by the applicant before commenting further.
Mr. Bedini noted there are three lots proposed above the road in a steep area and he asked that the consulting engineer check to make sure the runoff from these lots could be adequately handled by the proposed swales. Mr. Sanford said that diversion berms, sediment traps, and water bars would all be considered by CCA. Mr. Bedini also asked the consulting engineer to look into the driveway within 50 feet of the wetland “finger” and whether the proposed swales and culverts were adequate.
Mr. LaMuniere asked for details about the stormwater management plans in the vicinity of lot #6. Mr. George described the proposed swales and catch basins and said details of the proposed spreaders that would direct sheet flow to the wetlands had been provided.
Mr. Sanford informed the Commission that it was important not to deprive the wetlands of all surface runoff and that he had asked for a plan for the removal of all junk from the wet meadow.
Public comment was taken.
Mrs. Payne, Conservation Comm. chairman, asked how many acres were contained in the conservation easement area. Mr. George said this had not yet been finalized.
Mrs. Frank, Conservation Comm., asked if it would be possible to limit the size of the lawns for each of the proposed lots and whether the proposed houses would be built on platforms or into the hillside. Mr. George said the houses would be constructed with the least amount of regrading possible and would possibly have walk-out basements. He noted there was a steep slope and that there would be significant cuts on lots #4, #5, and #6. Mr. George said the developer had no control over the lawns future owners might install and suggested the Commission could put restrictions on the lots. Mr. Bedini stated the Commission has no jurisdiction unless the activity proposed is “adjacent” to wetlands. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the limit of construction envelope was indicated on the plan and Mr. George said it was. Mr. LaMuniere noted the construction envelope was key to protecting the natural vegetation and forest. Mr. George responded that 6 of the 9 proposed houses would be located in the existing open field. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the amount of earth to be removed for each house had been calculated. Mr. George said it had not.
Mr. Bernard, adjoining property owner, raised the following points, which he detailed in the 1/14/09 letter he submitted to the Commission. 1) It is almost always wet in the location of the proposed house site on lot #3. 2) There is a proposed septic system upgrade of the spring that flows from the vicinity of lot #1 towards Schwab Road and Rt. 202 and drinking water wells on adjoining properties. Will the output of the spring or these wells be impacted? 3) He pointed out a wild life trail through the property and asked if any thought had been given to getting the animals safely across the proposed road. 4) He noted how steep the driveways to lots #1, #2, and #3 were and said he imagined they would have maintenance problems. He asked if drainage from these driveways would affect the properties along Schwab Road and what recourse these property owners would have if either their drinking water or road was impacted. 5) He noted his concerned about the leaching field discharge from lot #2. 6) He noted there were feasible and prudent alternatives for the lot #7 driveway. 7) He said he was concerned about the preservation of the viewscape from Rt. 202, saying that with the proposed house locations and the “enormous” amount of cuts and fills proposed the site would not look like natural open space. 8) Although he applauded the improvements that would result from the installation of the arched bridge crossing, he thought an access from Flirtation Avenue that would hug the contours and access the lots from above would have less impact on the wetlands. 9) He noted the pond is maintained by beavers and its height varies depending on their activity and he asked what provisions had been made regarding the beavers. 10) He noted a maintenance plan beyond three years is needed for the drainage facilities. He asked who would monitor and remove sediment and who would monitor the open space.
Mr. George noted that the proposed septic systems were approx. 125 feet from wetlands and had been approved by the Health Dept. Mr. Bedini asked if the Health Dept. had identified the water sources on the adjoining lots. Mr. George said it had, and that the Health Dept. would later approve specific systems for each of the lots.
Ms. Cheney submitted photos taken during recent storms of the wetland areas near the proposed road and a letter dated 1/14/09. She noted the stream near Rt. 202 is never dry. She was concerned that runoff from the steep grades would pollute her well. She pointed out two areas on her property where there were already erosion problems from runoff from the applicant’s property and the location of a spring that was not indicated on the plans.
Mr. Bernard stated there were two springs that were not shown on the plans.
Ms. Cheney voiced her concerns about the preservation of the existing tree line and noise pollution. She also asked for a traffic study.
Mr. Perrin noted there was a spring with outflow in the vicinity of lot #7 that did not appear to have been addressed. He thought it flowed through the proposed house site on lot #7. Mr. George said he would have the soil scientist investigate.
Mr. O’Keefe opposed the application. He did not think access should be from Flirtation Avenue due to the wetlands in that area. He noted the section of the property off Flirtation Ave. is always wet, especially since it now gets more runoff due to the recent clearing across the street.
Mr. LaMuniere asked what the driveway grades were for lots #1, #2, and #3. Mr. George said they were 15%, the maximum allowed, and that paving is recommended for steep driveways.
Mr. George stated that a Town road is proposed.
Mr. Bedini noted the public hearing would be continued and asked that additional questions and/or concerns be submitted in writing as soon as possible. He asked the applicant to submit the information requested a week before the next session of the hearing, which was scheduled for 5:00 p.m. on February 11, 2009.
Mr. LaMuniere asked for an existing site conditions map and Mr. George said he would submit one.
Mrs. J. Hill noted the Commission usually asks the applicant for a written review of feasible and prudent alternatives.
At 6:37 p.m. Mr. Bedini continued the hearing to 5:00 p.m. on 2/11/09 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Revision of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Regulations of the Town of Washington, Ct.
Mr. Bedini reconvened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Bohan. Mr. Bedini noted the Commission had worked for many months on the revisions and asked if there were any comments about the final draft dated 1/12/09. There were no questions or comments from the public or from the commissioners. Mr. Bedini closed the hearing at 7:40 p.m.These Public Hearings were recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Bohan.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: Other Business: First Washington Capital/ 89 Lower Church Hill Road and to take up this matter upon the arrival of Atty. Fisher. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 12/10/08 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. The spelling of intervener was corrected throughout.MOTION: To accept the 12/10/08 Regular Meeting minutes as amended. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 223 Litchfield Turnpike, LLC. site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Site Inspection Report below, at end.Pending Applications
Washington Partners, LLC./108 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-08-57/9 Lot Affordable Housing Subdivision:
The hearing was continued to 5:00 p.m. on February 11, 2009 in the Land Use Meeting Room.223 Litchfield Turnpike, LLC./223 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-08-61/ Septic Repair, Site Improvements:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his map, “Septic System Repair Plan,” revised to 1/14/09, which showed a slightly different parking layout and the dumpster now located directly behind the building for better accessibility. There was no change to the septic system itself. He also submitted an erosion control plan revised to 1/13/09, which included a landscaping plan as part of the construction sequence. Mr. Bedini asked about the double pipe under the driveway entrance. Mr. Neff said it would be installed a few feet below the surface with either iron or steel pipe sleeving for protection. The proposed “tortuous” pipe route was discussed at length. Mr. Bedini asked if installing the pipe in a straighter route through the narrowest section of wetlands had been considered. He noted this area was level and that the wetlands had been grassed. Mr. Neff said that route would work and would cut the pipe required by two thirds, but noted he had proposed the indirect route in order to avoid the wetlands soils. It was noted a trench 8 inches wide and 2 feet deep would be required for the pipe installation. Mrs. D. Hill was uncomfortable with the direct route because the Commission usually avoids disturbance to wetlands whenever possible and she was sure this area had been wetlands before it had been filled for the construction of the building. Mr. Bedini recommended the Commission be practical where it can, noting he supported the direct route because the area was flat and was already lawn, the trench would be dug by hand, and with this route there would be no concerns about traffic on top of the pipe. Mr. LaMuniere did not think the Commission would be setting a precedent as the disturbance of wetlands was justified in this case. Mr. Bedini agreed, saying it was important to judge each application on its own. Mr. Sabin said the proposed landscaping would indicate the location of the pipe. It was the consensus that the shorter, more direct route would be permitted and Mr. Neff said he would revise the map to show it. Mr. Sabin described his “Landscaping Plan,” dated 1/6/09. This included planted wetlands buffers on three sides and the return of the area in the middle of the property to a wet meadow to be mowed once a year. Invasives would be removed by hand and herbicides used if they resurge after two growing seasons.New Applications
Harris/258 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-09-01/Building Renovation, Landscaping, Sign:
Mr. Harris and his architect, Mr. Studer, presented the map, “Site Plan,” by MacMillan Architects, revised to 1/14/09. He said his renovations could be accomplished with no further digging and no impact to the river. He noted the location of a 10’ X 12’ concrete pad and said he proposed to put a utility/storage shed on it. He pointed out the proposed lightposts and said a small hand dug trench would be needed to connect them. The existing fence will be repaired and a fence installed to screen the existing propane tank. Other proposed activities include 1) building a portico roof in the front, 2) moving the sign, 3) repairing the existing rear deck, cutting back on the rear roof line and replacing deck boards with composite lumber, and 4) planting native non invasive plants. Mr. Bedini asked for an exact plan that showed the specific screening for the propane tank and the exact location, depth, and width of the proposed trenching.Communications
Kessler/103-105 West Mountain Road/Request to Amend Condition of Approval:
Mr. Kessler’s 1/10/09 email requesting a decrease in the number of monitoring inspections required during the winter months was discussed with Mr. Neff, engineer. The map, “Final Site Development Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 6/15/07 was reviewed and the terms in the following motion agreed upon.
MOTION: Regarding Kessler/103-105 West Mountain Road/ #IW-06-05: To modify condition #2 to 1) allow Mr. Neff to inspect the site once per month during January, February, and March, 2) allow the WEO to supplement these inspections during unusual weather events, and 3) request that Mr. Neff resume inspections once per week as of April 1. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.Other Business
First Washington Capital, LLC./89 Lower Church Hill Road:
Atty. Fisher, representing the applicant, and Mr. Sanford, consultant from Milone and MacBroom on behalf of the Commission, were present. Mr. Bedini noted the question to be answered was whether the Commission had jurisdiction over the proposed plans to construct a house, swimming pool, and detached apartment. Atty. Fisher said he had contacted Mr. White, Steep Rock, and Mrs. Payne, Conservation Commission, and learned their only concern was the pool location. He said he would urge his client to move it further from the edge of the cliff. He said he did not think the Commission had jurisdiction in this case because there were no regulated activities proposed within 300 feet of wetlands. He said there were seeps on the property, but he did not think they were under the Commission’s jurisdiction. Mr. Sanford said he had reviewed the file and needed more information before he could determine whether the Commission had jurisdiction. He asked for a more detailed site plan showing the proposed development lines, septic system and stockpile locations, proposed grading, stormwater management system, and erosion and sedimentation controls. He said once this had been submitted, if it was determined there was no potential impact to wetlands or watercourses, an application would not be required. Mr. LaMuniere expressed his concern that blasting would compact the rock and impact the seeps and the “incredible” fauna near them. Atty. Fisher asked whether underground seeps were regulated watercourses under the Commission’s jurisdiction. Mr. Sanford replied that unless a soil scientist determines they are watercourses, they aren’t regulated by definition. Mr. Bedini noted that because this has been an issue that other commissions and the public have expressed concerns about, he would like a geologist or hydrologist to review the matter and respond. Mr. LaMuniere said he would like Atty. Zizka’s opinion about the seeps. Mr. Bedini said he would write to Atty. Zizka and to Milone and MacBroom once the detailed plan was submitted. He asked that all communications be written and submitted to the file.MOTION: To enter Executive Session at 8:30 p.m. to discuss the following appeals and pending litigation: Andersson, Howard, Brown, and Federer. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end Executive Session at 8:53 p.m. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
The following matters were briefly noted or discussed:
*Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane:
The house is currently under construction.
*Rubler/240 Wykeham Road:
The Commission is waiting for an application for the service driveway. Mr. Ajello noted he had refused to release the performance bond until an application for the second driveway was received.
*Liljequist/Tinker Hill Road:
Mr. Liljequist paid his fine. This item will be taken off the agenda.
*Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike:
A notice of violation has been filed on the Land Records. It was noted that Mr. Lodsin had no funds for restoration and the wetlands were slowly restoring themselves. Mr. Ajello said the Army Corps of Engineers would not push for the removal of the vehicles from the wetlands. It was the consensus to take no further action at this time.
*Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road:
Mr. LaMuniere recommended that the Rosens be required to submit an application to correct a violation. Mrs. D. Hill agreed. Mr. Bedini noted this was a situation where the Commission would like an application to correct the violation so that a consultant could be hired at the applicant’s expense to make recommendations for mitigation. Since there has been no communication from the Army Corps of Engineers, this file will be referred to Atty. Zizka who will advise the Commission on how to proceed. Mr. Ajello noted that the original enforcement order issued to the Rosens asked them to restore the watercourse to its original condition. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Ajello to write to the Army Corps. to advice it that the Commission is preparing for litigation and to request any information it has that would be helpful for the Commission’s case.
*DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street:
Nothing more will occur on site until the spring.Communications
Mr. Ajello circulated a letter from the Kent ZBA regarding proposed work within 100 feet of Lake Waramaug at 72 Lake Waramaug Road, the latest Habitat, and an article on cattails.Revision of the Regulations:
Mr. LaMuniere briefly reviewed the most recent revisions before the vote was taken. Mr. Bohan asked when as-builts were required. Mr. Bedini said the Commission would try to use them more in the future, but first would establish a system of monitoring and enforcement with the use of start and finish cards, taking photos of successfully completed work, and signing off and closing out files upon the completion of projects in compliance with their permits.
MOTION: To approve the revision of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations of the Town of Washington, Ct., draft dated 1/12/09 as revised to 1/14/09. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0
These revised Regulations will be effective on February 3, 2009.MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Bedini.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:54 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Town of Washington
Inland Wetlands Commission
Site Inspection ReportI. APPLICATION #: 1W-08-61
INSPECTION DATE: Dec 16, 08
TIME: 3 - 3:25 PMII. NAME: 223 Litchfield Tpke.LLC
III. ADDRESS: 223 Litchfield Tpke., New Preston, CT
IV. REASON FOR APPLICATION: Septic repair, Site improvement
V. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tony Bedini, Roger Bohan, Steve Wadelton, Dorothy Hill
OTHERS PRESENT: EO Mike Ajello, Agent/Engineer Brian NeffVI OBSERVATIONS: Commission members and others present walked the small, 1.2 acre property where the former restaurant with apartment above is being gutted and renovated for use as a restaurant with office/storage space above. This building has wetlands on both sides and in the rear; those in the rear lie between the structure and the upland review area ajecent to Wilbur Road where new septic fields will be installed.to accept effluent from a new concrete pump chamber near the rear of the building. Wetlands on the East contained open water with shrubs and small trees, those on the West were covered with phragmites and multiflora rose, and those in the rear have been maintained as lawn. A small existing shed will be rebuilt close to the rear of the renovated main building.
Mr. Nefff's Septic System Repair Plan, 11/25/08 and Soil Erosion Sediment Control Plan, 12/1/08 show a compact area of disturbance and no activity actually in wetlands although, of necessity, very close to them.
BY: Dorothy G. Hill
DATE: 12/29/08
Meetings in 2008