The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Inland Wetlands Commission
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Inland Wetlands Commission |
|
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 14 •December 13 •November 22 •November 9 •November 1 •October 27 •October 12 •September 28 •September 14 •September 8 •August 31 •August 10 •July 27 •July 13 •June 30 •June 22 •June 8 •May 25 •May 11 •April 13 •March 23 •March 9 •February 23 •February 9 •January 13 •Previous years: 2010 • 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: December 26, 2011 December 14, 2011
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. Hill
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Martino, Mr. Papsin
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Underwood, Ms. Von Holt, Mr. Caroe, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Smith, Mr. NeffMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Cheney for Mrs. Hill.
MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: VIII. Administrative Business,
A. Approval of 2012 Calendar.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.Consideration of the Minutes
The 11/22/11 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1 and throughout: The correct spelling is Ms. Scodari.
Page 4: Under Griffin: The last sentence was revised to: …to the old wall, but said the shoreline protection policy had to be corrected because the new stonewall had to be wider at its base for stabilization than the initial concrete wall.MOTION:
To accept the 11/22/11 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Ms. Cheney, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.The 12/7/11 Gunnery site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. The time of adjournment was changed to 4:20 p.m.
MOTION:
To accept the 12/7/11 The Gunnery site inspection minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Ms. Cheney, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
The Gunnery, Inc./22 South Street/#IW-11-40/Athletic Fields:
It was noted the public hearing had been continued to January 11, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.Bol/44 Slaughterhouse Road/#IW-11-43/Install Underground Propane Tank:
Mr. Neff, engineer, stated the proposed underground tank would be located in front of the house as far from the wetlands as possible. This was the only place available due to the location of the septic system and shallow ledge elsewhere on the property. The map, “Proposed Propane Tank Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 11/4/11 was reviewed. It was noted this had been discussed at the last meeting and no questions or concerns had been raised.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-43 submitted by Ms. Bol to install an underground propane tank at 43 Slaughterhouse Road per the plan, “Proposed Propane Tank Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 11/4/11; the permit shall be valid for 9 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. the Land Use Office shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. the property owner shall give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Herman/74 West Morris Road/#IW-11-45/Site Improvements:
Mr. Ajello noted in his enforcement report that neither the property owner nor the contractor had paid his citation. Mr. Neff, engineer, had revised the site plan since the last meeting. The map, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 12/8/11 was reviewed. Mr. Neff noted that the conduit had been moved to the rear of the wall and the size of the retaining wall, 2 ft. wide by 3 ft. high, had been added to the plan. Mr. Papsin asked if the Town had OK’d the location of the pillars that had been erected without a permit in the Town right of way. Mr. Ajello said he was waiting to hear from the Selectmen and so recommended the Commission wait until the next meeting to act because if it was determined the pillars had to be moved, that would be an additional regulated activity to include in the application. Mr. LaMuniere noted the location of the pillars had no impact on the wetlands. He also thought moving the conduit to the rear of the wall and the installation of the fence were good ideas. Mr. Papsin asked if the Commission would delay action on the application since the work had begun without the required permit and the citations had not yet been paid. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Ajello to write to the Hermans and to Mr. Randall to inform them the Commission had delayed acting on the application.Schwartz/173 West Shore Road/#IW-11-46/Rebuild Stonewall, Repave Driveway and Entrance:
Mr. Neff, engineer, stated that a landscape architect had drawn the plans for the stonewall, but that he had written the project narrative and sequence of construction. These and the 1” = 20’ scale map, “Schwartz Residence, Lake Waramaug,” dated 9/21/11 were reviewed. Mr. Papsin noted he had observed drainage coming through a “broken area” of the wall. Mr. Neff said that water now flows from the wetlands behind the wall to the catch basin and would bleed over the top of the wall and then flow down to the basin once the wall was rebuilt. He said there would be no fill placed behind the wall and an opening for water to flow through could be put in one section of the wall if the Commission wanted it. Mr. LaMuniere was concerned the water might pond on the road and create icy conditions. Mr. Ajello said the current drainage route would not be altered. Mr. Neff said the new wall would be less than 50% mortared and so the water could continue to flow through it as it does now. He noted that all of the work would be done by hand. Mr. Ajello asked if the DOT had been contacted. Mr. Neff said, not yet, but he understood it was required. He added that if the DOT requires the wall to be moved back from the road he would have to return to the Commission for a revision of the permit.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-46 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Schwartz to rebuild stonewalls and repave the driveway entrance at 173 West Shore Road per the plans by Mr. Neff, dated 9/21/11 (and 11/18/11); the permit shall be valid for 9 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. the Land Use Office shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. the property owner shall give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 5-0
New Applications
Bee Brook Condo Assoc. #2/31 Bee Brook Road/#IW-11-47/Install Drainage Pipes:
Mr. Wadelton recused himself.
Mr. Condon, president of the condo association, was not present and there was no one present to represent the applicant. Mr. Bedini read Mrs. Hill’s 12/9/11 review and Mr. Ajello noted that a narrative had been submitted to respond to each of her points. Mr. Bedini read the unsigned 12/12/11 narrative. Mr. Ajello noted that all disturbed areas would be mulched to prevent erosion. Mr. LaMuniere noted, too, that the rip rapped level spreader at the outlet would prevent erosion. Mr. Ajello thought it was important to approve the application now so that the work could be completed before the ground freezes. Photos of the site dated 11/17/11 and 11/10/11 were reviewed. Mr. Martino asked if there would be a critter cap installed on the ends of the pipes, and Mr. Ajello said there was no plan to do so. Mr. Ajello said there had been no impact to the watercourse as a result of the work done without a permit. MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-47 submitted by Bee Brook Condo Assoc. #2 to repair the footing drain and install a level spreader at 31 Juniper Meadow Road per “Footing Drain Repair and Level Spreader Plan,” Sheet #2, unsigned, dated 11/18/11; the permit shall be valid for 9 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. the Land Use Office shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. the property owner shall give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Ms. Cheney, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 4-0Mr. Wadelton was reseated.
Underwood/99 Blackville Road/#IW-11-49/Clean Out Watercourse:
Mr. Ajello noted this was an after the fact application prompted by the enforcement of a violation. Photos of the work area were circulated. Mr. Ajello explained there was a man made channel, which has all of the characteristics of a watercourse, that requires cleaning out from time to time and that Mr. Underwood had used a small excavator to dredge an approximate 150 ft. section of this channel. He noted that the Underwoods had immediately responded to his call by stopping work, covering the piles of excavated material, and haying the disturbed edge. He did not think there had been an impact to the brook into which the channel outlets because the flow from the channel had been a “trickle” at the time the work was done. Mr. Bedini said there looked like there had been a lot of clearing done. Mr. Ajello said the area had been lawn where the excavated material had been dragged and that it would regrow. He also said the spoils would be trucked off site. Mr. LaMuniere asked how long it had taken the channel to refill with material. Mrs. Underwood said since 1985 and that it had been almost completely refilled. Mr. Bedini asked if a notice of violation had been issued. Mr. Ajello said, no, because the owners had quickly submitted their application to restore the area. It was noted the dredging had been necessary to keep runoff from flowing into the basement and ponding over the septic area. Mr. Ajello recommended that the Commission allow the remaining work to be done immediately away before the ground freezes. Mr. Bedini agreed and said the Commission would act on the application at the next meeting.Smith/22 Parsonage Lane/#IW-11-48/Renovations and Addition to Existing Dwelling, Installation of Drainage System:
Mr. Caroe, adjoining property owner, voiced his concern that the proposed activity might impact his property and noted the latest plans had not been submitted well enough in advance of the meeting so that his engineer had not had time to review them and so asked the Commission not to act tonight. Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, objected that Mr. Caroe had been allowed to speak before the applicant had made his presentation, saying it could be prejudicial to the Commission. Mr. Bedini stated that Mr. Caroe’s comments had not influenced the Commission. Mr. Ajello noted Mr. Sabin’s plan had been submitted on 12/12, while Mr. Neff’s erosion and sediment control plan was being submitted tonight. Mr. Sabin presented his plan, “Site and Landscape Plan,” dated 12/5/11 and referred to a series of photos showing the location of wetlands flags on the Smith property and ponding on the Caroe property. He noted there is 4000 sq. ft. of wetlands on the Smith property, and proposed to restore them so they would be functional. He assumed the wetlands system extended off site to the Caroe property based on the location of standing water. He said a wet meadow was proposed and he listed the types of vegetation that would be planted. He next detailed the proposed drainage system, which included a series of drain inlets, recharge galleries, a rain garden, and buffers along the edge of the wetlands to provide an additional filter. Mr. Neff reviewed his plan, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” dated 12/10/11. He described what he termed, the “straightforward” plan to collect runoff from a series of downspout inlets and catch basins, then direct it to two dry wells with overflows to the rain garden on the east side of the house. He said the system was designed for the first inch of rainfall, which contains most of the pollutants. He compared this to the existing drainage pattern, which follows the topography. The proposed system would decrease the velocity of the runoff before it flows into the wetlands. Mr. Bedini asked if the stonewalls shown on the plan are existing. Mr. Neff said the walls and a new driveway extension are proposed. Mr. Bedini asked about the existing rain gutters. Mr. Neff said they go to grade and are not part of the proposed drainage system to serve the new addition. Mr. Bedini asked if foundation drains were proposed for the new addition and if they were, how do they get to daylight. Mr. Sabin said he would look into it. Mr. Bohan asked why two dry wells were proposed. Mr. Neff responded that one was proposed to the north and one to the south of the addition to divide the drainage. Mr. Bohan asked where the existing drainage flows. Mr. Smith said it goes down the spout, onto the soil near the house, and then flows over the ground. Mr. LaMuniere noted that the entire addition was within the upland review area so it was important to address all issues regarding the foundation and slabs, drainage, etc. Mr. Sabin noted the proposed work would require the removal of one tree. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 3:30 p.m.
Enforcement
Mr. Ajello reviewed his 12/14/11 report.
Berger/392 Nettleton Hollow Road:
Mr. Ajello has spoken with the contractor. An application to repair an eroded streambank is expected.Bee Brook Condo Assoc. #2/31 Juniper Meadow Road:
Mr. Ajello said he would make sure the work was done properly.Griffin/199 West Shore Road:
The new boathouse wall is completed and the disturbed area has been mulched. However, sand bags were left in the lake. Mr. Ajello will contact the contractor.Hunt/25 Juniper Meadow Road:
Trenching is required to install an LP line for a fireplace.Lanyi/105 West Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello noticed drainage pipes in the driveway. He will call the contractor to make sure they are temporary since the approved plans did not include them. Mr. LaMuniere also asked Mr. Ajello to remind the contractor that he should clean out the catch basin to prevent icy road conditions.Seitz/104 Blackville Road:
The illegal shed has been taken down.18 Titus Road, LLC./18 Titus Road:
It was noted that the streambank work done had extended several feet into the river. Not only was this not done according to the approved plan, but restrictions of the river channel are not permitted. Mr. Ajello reported that the contractor made the required corrections. He said he had measured carefully afterwards and found the work had resulted in either a minimal or no enlargement of the bank, that the natural grade was acceptable, and that the before and after distance from the building to the slope is the same. Mr. Bedini said he had searched for the official stream channel encroachment map in the Town Clerk’s Office, but it could not be found. The Town Clerk will call the DEEP to find out if the map was ever issued. The property owner has been advised to contact the DEEP. Mr. Ajello said he gave the DEEP information to the job foreman, but said it could also be obtained on line. Mr. Ajello also said he thought that both local and DEEP approvals were needed prior to the commencement of work.246 New Milford Turnpike:
This property has a new owner who will be upgrading the electrical service. Mr. Ajello said he had signed off on an agent approval for a trench across the parking lot to a new utility pole. The work should take one day and should not impact the river.Chatfield and Schellerer/19 Tinker Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello said the disturbed areas had been mulched and would hopefully be seeded in the spring. There have been no new activities on site. The owners have not yet paid the citation and a notice of violation has been filed on the Land Records.Spring Hill Farm/Whittlesey Road:
Mr. LaMuniere noted an agricultural exemption was recently approved and asked whether the WEO would follow up and make sure the work was completed as proposed. Mr. Ajello said he would check on this when he inspects other work on the property.Brown/127 West Shore Road:
Mr. Bohan asked if this could be taken off the agenda. Mr. Ajello said, no, because Mr. Brown had not yet made the settlement payment and because the restoration work would not be done until the spring.
Administrative Business
Correction/Clarification of Section 11.A.4.d/Reconstruction of Stonewalls on Lake Shore:
Mr. LaMuniere had pointed out that the shoreline protection policy would have to be clarified to allow cement walls to be replaced by stonewalls with a wider base than the original cement wall. He said to get the same retention power as a cement wall, the stonewall base had to be wider and that the width required would depend on the location of the wall, height, wave action, etc. There was a brief discussion regarding whether inserting language that the replacement stonewall must be “functionally appropriate” would be adequate clarification. It was generally thought that wording was too vague and open to interpretation. Mr. Ajello said it was a general rule that the width of the base of a stonewall should be equal to its height and that the wall would narrow to the top. It was the consensus that the revision of this section was needed, but that it would be done at a later date in conjunction with other revisions.
Correspondence
Mr. Ajello read the 12/9/11 letter from Ms. Matteo in which she requested that the Town return her application fee for work done along her shoreline and also pay her engineer’s invoice. It was the consensus that the letter should be forwarded to the Commission’s attorney who will respond to it.
There was no need to conduct an executive session.
Other Business
Mr. Bohan asked how many acres of disturbance must there be to require the involvement of the DEEP. It was thought it was 5 acres, but Mr. Ajello said he would look up this state regulation. Mr. Bohan thought The Gunnery athletic fields application might need DEEP approval.MOTION:
To approve the 2012 Calendar.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting.
By Ms. Cheney.Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:35 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Posted: January 12, 2011 December 13, 2011
Special Meeting
6:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Martino, Mr. Papsin
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Smith, Mr. Buck, Atty. Andrews, Atty. Williams, Atty. Marcus, Mr. Dutton, Mrs. Buonaiuto, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Piscuskas, Ms. Zelenko, Mr./Mrs. Crumrine, residentsThe Gunnery, Inc./22 South Street/#IW-11-40/Athletic Fields
Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Wadelton read the legal notice published in the Waterbury Republican on 12/2/11 and 12/9/11 and the list of documents in the file. Mr. Bedini seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
Atty. Andrews introduced the applicant’s representatives; Mr. Smith, Mr. Buck, and Atty. Williams.
Atty. Williams, wetlands intervention specialist, stated that the proposed activities, two athletic fields, two small parking areas, and the extension of the driveway, comply with the Inland Wetlands Regulations and were located to avoid wetlands impacts. He stated that the claims made in the interveners’ petitions had no merit and could not be proven. He asked that the 10/12, 10/27, 11/9, and 11/22/11 IWC minutes be included in the record.
Representing the two interveners, Atty. Marcus said he would like an opportunity to review the minutes and would comment on them at a later date. Mrs. Hill noted they were already listed as part of the record.
Atty. Williams submitted resumes for Mr. Smith and Mr. Buck and a copy of the prior IWC permit for the completed portion of the access driveway. He noted the Commission had approved a revision to that permit for an environmental classroom building. He said the 11/28/11 plans had been revised to show the location of an intermittent watercourse, noting that some of the proposed activities were within its upland review area. Atty. Williams stated the property already had a paved driveway, classroom building, and the school’s water supply and said the school would do nothing to jeopardize its own water supply. He stated the proposed addition of 4300 sq. ft. of impervious surface would cause no direct or indirect impact to any wetlands or watercourse and said the proposed permanent stormwater management system would reduce the velocity of the runoff and increase its infiltration. He said the proposed location for the fields, driveway, and parking area had been chosen to minimize the amount of tree clearing and earthwork. He also noted that Land Tech’s 12/5/11 letter had been reviewed and that some of the wetlands had been reflagged as a result.
Atty. Williams advised the IW Commission about the proper procedures to follow when it receives a petition for intervention. In short, he said the intervener must provide evidence to prove the proposed activities will cause unreasonable pollution to or impairment of wetlands and/or watercourses and said the Commission must make a separate motion regarding its findings about the intervener’s allegations. He added that the Commission is required to consider feasible and prudent alternatives only if the proposed activity “meets the threshold of impact to the wetlands and watercourses.”
Mr. Smith, surveyor, said Smith and Co. had collaborated with Buck and Buck when drafting the plans to make sure there would be no impacts to the existing water system that Buck and Buck had designed. He noted The Gunnery had purchased the 70 acre property in the 1950’s, gave a brief history of the activities on site, and discussed its physical characteristics.
The map, “South Street Athletic Fields,” by Smith and Company, revised to 12/9/11 was reviewed.
Mr. Smith noted the wetlands flagging had been done since 1999 in incremental pieces by Mr. Beroz, soil scientist, and said each wetlands flag was not indicated on the drawings. Mr. Smith said Mr. Beroz had recently added two wetland pockets north of the proposed fields and an intermittent watercourse to the plans. He also noted that the location of the wetlands near the hockey ponds and to the SE had been taken from the soil survey because they were not near anything proposed. He also stated the 2 ft. contour map was a class T-3 survey.
Mr. Smith stated that the 225’ X 360’ athletic fields would be centered on the property in an area with a 14% slope and that the cuts and fills would balance out. 55,000 yards of material would be cut and filled. The 18 ft. wide, 240 ft. long paved driveway extension would have an 8% grade and the parking area, a 1% grade. No curbs were proposed. The maintenance driveway where busses would park would not be paved. Mr. Smith provided many details, which included the location of wooden guide rails, bleachers, handicapped spaces, stairs with handrails, and the limit of clearing line, and he said no lighting was proposed. 12 acres would be cleared. The closest regulated activity to an adjoining property line was 71 ft. Mr. Smith described alternative plans that had been considered and explained the shortcomings of each. He said the proposed location would not impact the school’s well fields or the wetlands along Rt. 47. He then reviewed the sedimentation and erosion control plan on sheet #6 and the construction sequence.
Mr. Smith passed out copies of the 11/30/11 letter from MB Soil Mapping, which was already in the file, and reviewed it. He noted the property had been reinspected due to concerns raised by Land Tech, that upon reinspection Mr. Beroz had determined that a wet area located approximately in the middle of the proposed fields was not wetlands, and that Land Tech had agreed it was not wetlands per its 12/5/11 letter. Also on the north side of the property a channel had been identified as a watercourse and flagged and Mr. Beroz had also reflagged wetlands elsewhere at Land Tech’s request.
Mr. Smith reviewed the new documents the Commission had not yet seen. 1) Cut and fill worksheet, dated 12/9/11: This sheet showed the areas to be cut and filled and the approx. depth of each cut and fill. It was noted in the SW corner of field #2, approx. 14 ft. of fill would be required. 2) Level spreader plans: He compared the proposed level spreader to the one installed below the Rumsey Hall rink, which he said was functioning well. He circulated a photo of this spreader and said the one proposed would be a similar design. 3) 12/13/11 letter to Mr. Bedini from Mr. Smith and Mr. Rieffenhauser: This letter detailed the latest revisions to the plans. Mr. Smith reviewed the letter point by point.
Mr. Buck, engineer, explained how the three sections of under drains and surface water drains on the uphill side of the driveway and parking area will pick up groundwater and surface runoff. He noted that three level spreaders had been added to the plans to address concerns raised by Land Tech and he described their design and how they would function. He compared the current runoff patterns with those proposed and said the velocity of the runoff would slow down because 1) the field area would have only a 1% slope and 2) grass would slow the flow more than the existing wooded area. He added that because the flow would be slower, more water would infiltrate and, therefore, there would be a 2% to 5% reduction in the peak rate of runoff from the site.
In response to the 12/13/11 letter from the Conservation Commission, Mr. Buck pointed out the location of The Gunnery well fields, briefly described recent improvements to the water system, and noted there are now 6 wells, five of which are in service. He said a temporary diversion swale would be installed to prevent any disturbance from the construction from reaching the well fields and water supply system. He stated that no one’s water supply would be jeopardized.
Mr. Smith passed out copies of the drainage report updated through 12/9/11.
Mr. Bedini asked if the pipes to the level spreaders had been sized for a 100 year storm. Mr. Buck said they had.
Mr. Bedini asked for questions and comments from the public.
Atty. Marcus said he would have questions. Mr. Bedini asked him to put them in writing so they could be forwarded to the Commission’s consultant.
Atty. Marcus asked Mr. Smith if the overall plan was an A-2 survey. Mr. Smith said it was noted on sheet #7 this was a Class T-3 survey. When Atty. Marcus said he believed that property shown in the SE corner of sheet #2 as Gunnery property was actually owned by Mr. Stern, Mr. Smith said he had researched the deeds where specific dimensions were cited. Atty. Olson noted that ownership is not under the jurisdiction of the Inland Wetlands Commission and asked if the matter was relevant to this application. Atty. Marcus said the application should show the correct acreage and the amount of acreage owned would impact the calculations for the percentage of land disturbed.
Atty. Marcus asked if the existing classroom building was served by any utilities. Mr. Buck said it had electricity only.
Atty. Marcus asked if the well fields were shown on the map. Mr. Buck stated that both the well fields and storage tanks were indicated.
Atty. Marcus asked whether the reduction of grade from 14% to 1% in the area of the fields would result in a reduction in the velocity of runoff or in the amount of runoff. Mr. Buck answered the velocity of runoff would decrease.
Atty. Marcus asked if the runoff would flow to the north directly below the fields. Mr. Buck said it would flow down hill. Atty. Marcus pointed out there are significant wetlands at the bottom of this hill. Mr. Buck stated that while less surface runoff would reach these wetlands, due to an increase in infiltration, the same amount of water would flow into the wetlands as does now. He added there would be no change in the volume of water leaving the site and it would not be possible to detect any impact on these downhill wetlands. Atty. Marcus asked if this would change for a 50 year storm. Mr. Buck said it would not since he had used calculations for a 100 year storm.
Atty. Marcus asked if blasting would be required. Mr. Buck said it would not. He said according to Welti’s soil report for most of the site there could be no contact with ledge rock. In the SE corner of field #2 it was possible that 2 to 3 ft. of ledge would have to be removed, but a contractor that had been consulted said it would be removable by conventional mechanical excavating equipment. Atty. Marcus asked if hammering or blasting would impact underground flows. Mr. Buck said it was not likely because water flows over, not through rock.
Atty. Marcus asked if the drawings showed Mr. Beroz’s individual wetlands flags. Mr. Smith said they did not, except the 12/9/11 plans show those flags specified in the 11/30/11 letter.
Atty. Marcus asked if all of the wetlands were field sampled. Mr. Smith said some of the wetlands were identified from the SCS map for Litchfield County, some had been identified in the field by a soil scientist, but not surveyed, and others near the well fields had been both field delineated and surveyed 10 years ago. Mr. Smith said because of the scale of the map and where the wetlands were located on the property, not all of the flags were shown, but the wetland boundary was the same as it had been 10 years ago.
Atty. Marcus asked if the wetlands had been field surveyed for the 12 acres that would be disturbed. Mr. Smith answered that had been done in 2001 and again on the site inspection with Land Tech a few weeks ago. There were no wetlands in those 12 acres, so none were delineated according to Mr. Smith. Atty. Marcus noted that only the intermittent watercourse to the north of the fields had been added to the plan.
Atty. Marcus asked what would happen to the water in the seep area. Mr. Buck stated it would be picked up in the drainage system and conducted through an 8” pipe to the start of the intermittent watercourse. Atty. Marcus asked if that would change the hydrology of this watercourse. Mr. Buck said it would not.
Referring to the cut and fill worksheet, Atty. Marcus asked if the largest cut was 18 feet in the SW corner. Mr. Smith said it was 18.34 ft. in the south center portion of field #1. Atty. Marcus asked if the largest fill area was 12 feet. Mr. Smith said it was 16 ft.
Atty. Marcus requested an electronic disc of the submission so that his engineer could more easily review the plans. Atty. Williams stated that this was not required and that the applicant had not been asked by the Commission to do so. Mr. Smith noted there was no way to sign and emboss electronic versions of the plans and that the State Board had ruled electronic versions could not be issued for that reason. Mr. Bedini noted the IW Regulations do not require electronic versions to be submitted. Mr. Wadelton said that in the past a similar request had been made and the engineer’s insurance carriers would not allow it.
Mr. Piscuskas asked if opponents had to disprove the statements made on behalf of the applicant through scientific analysis. Mr. Bedini said that was correct.
Mr. Piscuskas asked if frozen ground impacts water flow. Mr. Buck said it did because water does not percolate into frozen ground. Mr. Piscuskas said it was common sense that the amount of woodland would effect the hydrology. Mr. Buck said that rainfall either runs over the surface, is infiltrated into the ground, or is evapo-transpired and that there is only a minimal difference when woodland is changed to grass. Mr. Piscuskas noted the massive root structure of trees compared to grass and so questioned Mr. Buck’s statement. Mr. Buck said the existing woods were in good shape with relatively low runoff rates and that SCS studies had shown that the proposed type of development would produce slightly less runoff than woods in good condition.
Ms. Roberts asked if plans for turf management had been submitted and said she was concerned that nutrients and pesticides used on the fields would get into the runoff and would infiltrate into the groundwater. Mr. Buck responded that The Gunnery would fertilize as recommended by a turf management expert. He said studies have shown a greater impact to water sources from septic systems than from turf management.
Mrs. Buonaiuto asked how many trees would be cut on the 12 acres to be cleared. Mr. Buck said there was no way to estimate the number. Mrs. Buonaiuto said she was a gardener and so had observed that woodland areas have leaf mulch, which prevents the soil from freezing, while grass areas don’t and so she concluded that there would be more winter runoff once the woods were cut. Mr. Bedini noted that was her opinion. Mrs. Buonaiuto said her opinion was based on her experience.
Mrs. Buonaiuto said it was ironic that The Gunnery had placed its environmental classroom building uphill of 12 acres of environmental disturbance.
Ms. Zelenko and Mr. Piscuskas asked for an elevation drawing or a cross section drawing of the proposal so that the impacts of the cuts and fills could be understood. Mr. Smith said he had not prepared one.
Mr. Piscuskas asked if the Commission had ever before considered a project of this scale and asked if it understood the dynamics. Mr. Bedini said the Commission had considered other more complex projects such as the Rumsey Hall rink and the Montessori School. Mr. Piscuskas said he was not questioning the engineering, but did question the wisdom of the project. Mr. Bedini stated the Commission had also had its own consultant review the plans, that the consultant’s questions and concerns had been forwarded to the applicant, and the applicant had responded. He said the Commission considers all technical input from all sources when making its decision.
Mrs. Crumrine noted that in years past The Gunnery had referred to Phase 1, 2, and 3 plans for this site and asked what would happen if once completed, the applicant found it needed more. Mr. Bedini said that any proposed change to the approved plans would have to come back to the Commission for reapproval.
Mrs. Crumrine complained that the presentation was only two dimensional and asked for an explanation of what would be visible from her back yard. Mr. Smith said the fields would be at least 32 ft. higher than the elevation of her house. Mr. Buck said there would be 100 yards of woods between her house and the fields and that if anything would be visible, it would be a 20 ft. high bank planted with no mow grass. He said she would not see the fields.
Mrs. Crumrine said a serious terrace of the natural hillside was proposed and she asked how many dump truck loads of material would be removed. Mr. Buck said that no material would be removed from the site, but approx. 3,500 truck loads would be moved.
Mr. Smith clarified that the Crumrine house would be 606 ft. from the fields, the elevation of the Crumrine house was at 805, while the fields would be at 890.
Mrs. Crumrine stated the project would have a huge impact on the pristine hillside.
Ms. Zelenko noted there is ledge on the hillside and asked if mining permits would be obtained for earth moving and explosives. She also asked if the issue of disturbing vernal pools and impacting underground flows when the rocks are broken up would be addressed. Mr. Bedini asked how she had concluded that blasting would be required.
Mr. Piscuskas noted that blasting is not part of the application and so if it is found they need to blast, they will have to return to the Commission for approval.
Mr. Buck reported that per the Welti borings, almost all of the proposed grading would be above ledge and that most of the area where the fields would be located have 20 ft. of overburden on top of ledge. He said according to the contractor, the minimal amount of rock removal required could all be accomplished by “ripping” and no blasting was anticipated. Mrs. Roberts asked if there was a map that showed the boring locations and Mr. Buck said there was.
Mrs. Buonaiuto asked if the driveway for handicapped access would be gravel. Mr. Smith said it would.
Mr. Piscuskas said in his experience The Gunnery had not been truthful with the neighbors and so he asked that the use of the fields be stated in writing. Atty. Williams said the fields would be used for practices and for JV games. Mr. Piscuskas said it was a poor location for athletic fields and so other areas with less impact to the environment should be explored.
Mr. Bedini stated the public hearing would be continued and asked if it was anticipated there would be a large amount of additional information submitted. Atty. Williams said he had expected the interveners would have submitted their arguments tonight. Mr. Bedini asked that additional materials be submitted at least a week before the continuation date so that the commissioners will have time to review it. After a brief discussion it was decided to continue the hearing to January 11, 2012.
MOTION:
To continue the public hearing to consider Application #IW-11-40 submitted by The Gunnery, Inc. for athletic fields at 22 South Street to Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: December 1, 2011 November 22, 2011
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mr. LaMuniere
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Papsin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Scoldari, Mr. Aston, Atty. Andrews, Mr. Neff, Mr. HorriganMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, and LaMuniere and Alternates Papsin and Cheney for Mr. Wadelton and Mrs. Hill. It was noted that two applications had been submitted after the deadline so they would not be discussed tonight although they would be formally received.
MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the agenda:
New Applications:
C. Randall/74 West Morris Road/Site Improvements and
D. Schwartz/173 West Shore Road/Rebuild Stonewalls, Repave Driveway and Entrance.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 11/9/11 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. The correct spelling of Ms. Scoldari’s name was noted.MOTION:
To accept the 11/9/11 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 4-0-1.Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not attended the meeting.MOTION:
To accept the Rumsey Hall School site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Bohan, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not attended the meeting.
Pending Applications
Rumsey Hall School/201 Romford Road/#IW-11-34/Reconstruct Student Center and Dining Hall: Ms. Scoldari, business manager, and Mr. Aston, engineer, responded to several of the points raised in Milone and MacBroom’s 11/22/11 letter to Mr. Bedini. These included:
C2: Mr. Aston said it had originally been proposed to move the monitoring well to the edge of the pavement so that no special cap would be required, but that Milone and MacBroom (MandM) had recommended that the final location be reviewed by the DEEP. He said if the proposed location was not approved by the DEEP the well could remain in its current location. Mr. Aston noted the DEEP had already reviewed the use and was allowing Rumsey Hall to use the existing septic system.
C9: Regarding debris along the streambank, Mr. Aston said only the above ground debris would be removed as MandM recommended and that this would be included in the construction contract. Ms. Scoldari noted that invasive species would also be removed.
C13: MandM had requested a map of the existing drainage areas. Mr. Aston said he had not had an opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Sanford, but would agree to a condition of approval requiring the submission of this map and new pipe capacity computations.
Mr. Aston noted there was a clerical error on Sheets D1 and D2 that he would have to correct, but said this would not require a redesign. He also noted the plans “did what they could” to protect the river and that conditions would improve over those that now exist once the drainage work has been completed. Maintenance was briefly discussed. Mr. Aston said the proposed pipes have a capacity to hold 10 yards of sand and stated the maintenance crew would carry out a yearly maintenance plan.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-24 submitted by Rumsey Hall School to reconstruct the student center and dining hall at 201 Romford Road per the plans, “Inland Wetlands Submission, Dining Hall/Student Center” by Buck and Buck, dated 9/1/11 and revised to 11/15/11; the permit shall be valid for 9 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. the map of the existing drainage area is to be submitted next week,
2. a print out for the capacity of each pipe shall also be submitted,
3. elevation sheets D1 and D2 shall be revised for consistency (no material changes) and submitted to the Land Use Office by 11/28/11,
4. the Land Use Office shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
5. the property owner shall give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
6. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 4-0-1.
Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not attended the site inspection.The Gunnery, Inc./22 South Street/#IW-11-40/Athletic Fields:
Mrs. J. Hill reported that Mr. Allan of Land Tech had inspected the site and had some questions so he would soon reinspect it accompanied by Mr. Smith, surveyor, and the applicant’s soil scientist. She also noted she had received paperwork regarding two interveners, Ms. Zelenko and Mr. Stern. Mr. LaMuniere stated that the interveners had not submitted any information that would justify their intervener status. Atty. Andrews explained the initial burden of proof was on the intervener to prove his general allegations. The Commission will consult with its attorney regarding the interveners. Mr. Bedini noted that at the upcoming site inspection scheduled for December 7th, he would hand out an instruction sheet to all attending about the proper procedures for conducting a site inspection.
New Applications
Bol/44 Slaughterhouse Road/#IW-11-43/Install Underground Propane Tank:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his plan, “Proposed Propane Tank Plan,” dated 11/4/11. He noted there were wetlands surrounding the house and the only area where the tank could be buried was in the front yard between the house and the road. He noted this was a small project, but technically within 100 feet of wetlands. He said the area was fairly level and had good access from the road and that any excess material would be taken off site. Both a construction sequence and an erosion control plan were submitted. There were no concerns raised and it was the consensus that a site inspection was not necessary.Randall/74 West Morris Road/#IW-11-45/Site Improvements:
Mr. Neff, engineer, noted there was a watercourse flowing through the corner of the property and that the driveway was adjacent to this watercourse. He presented his plan, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” dated 11/17/11. Mr. Neff advised the Commission that the work had already begun. Pillars had been erected at the end of the driveway, a split rail fence erected on the west side of the driveway and stonewall wall work begun on the east side, a trench had been dug for the conduit for lights on the pillars, and the porch had been demolished, all within 100 ft. of wetlands. It was noted the porch would be replaced in kind. Mr. Ajello said he had sent the owner a notice of violation. He thought there was an alternate shorter route for the conduit that would cause less disturbance on the other side of the driveway. Mr. Bedini noted the alternate route was further from the stream and so asked Mr. Neff why it could not be used. Mr. Neff said it would be possible, but said it would be longer. It was noted Mr. Randall would soon buy the property from the Hermans. Mrs. J. Hill asked if there was a letter of authorization for Mr. Randall in the file. Mr. Neff said there was. Mr. Ajello said the Selectmen would determine whether the pillars had been constructed in the Town right of way and whether they would have to be removed. Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the work already done and said he would send a citation to both the property owner and to Mr. Randall. Mr. LaMuniere said that an after the fact application should be required. Mr. Neff said he applied for a regulated activity even though it was after the fact. Mr. Ajello said he thought the Commission would have approved the application if it had been submitted prior to the start of work. The commissioners will drive by the site prior to the next meeting.
Other Business
Griffin/199 West Shore Road/Request to Amend #IW-11-33/Boathouse Wall Repairs:
Mr. Horrigan, contractor, and Mr. Neff, engineer, were present. Mr. Neff explained that the original permit had been to repair the wall, which had since collapsed and so had to be completely rebuilt. He proposed to build a stonewall on the existing footing in place of the poured concrete wall. The plans, “Boathouse Wall Repair Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 11/17/11 were reviewed. These included a cross section of the proposed wall. Mr. Neff said the proposed wall would be the same height as the old wall and the same width, 1 foot across the top, but would get wider towards the bottom. Mr. LaMuniere said this would not comply with the new shoreline protection policy, which states the replacement wall must be similar in height and width to the old wall, but said he understood the new wall had to be wider at its base for stabilization.MOTION:
To approve the request submitted by Mr. Griffin to amend Permit #IW-11-33 to rebuild the shoreline wall at 199 West Shore Road; this revision changes the construction of a concrete wall to a dry stone wall of similar height with a broader base per the plan, “Boathouse Wall Repair Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 11/17/11; the permit shall be valid 9 years from the original date of approval and subject to the original conditions of approval.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Schwartz/173 West Shore Road/#IW-11-46/Rebuild Stonewalls, Repave Driveway and Entrance:
Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted a project narrative, construction sequence, list of materials to be used, and a 1” = 20’ site plan, “Schwartz Residence,” by McCobb & Assoc. on which he had drawn the wetlands boundaries. He said the reconstruction of the stonewall along the edge of West Shore Road was proposed. Mr. Ajello noted the work would be in the state right of way and a DOT permit would be required. Mr. Neff said the wall would be 3 feet high and 18 inches wide at the top, widening to approximately 3 feet wide at the base. Mr. Ajello noted the wall exists and that part of it is directly in the watercourse. Mr. Neff said the existing rock would be used to rebuild the wall. Mr. Papsin asked if any work would be done to the existing catch basin. Mr. Neff replied that it is a DOT basin that is maintained by the state. The commissioners will drive by the site prior to the next meeting.Fuchs-Lancaster/18 Sabbaday Lane/Request to Amend Permit #IW-11-01 Relocate Retaining Wall, Expand Pool Deck, Install Fencing:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his plan, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” dated 11/17/11. He noted the changes proposed were not major. Mr. LaMuniere noted the relocation of the retaining wall would slightly expand the construction envelope. Mr. Neff noted the existing driveway would be used to access the work site.MOTION:
To approve the request to modify Permit
#IW-11-01 issued to Mr. Fuchs and Mr. Lancaster, 18 Sabbaday Lane, to relocate the retaining wall, install a fence, and expand the deck per the plans by Mr. Neff, revised to 11/10/11; the permit shall be valid for 9 years from the original date of approval and subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval. By Mr. Bohan, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Averill/250 Calhoun Street/#IW-11-44E/Exemption for Solar Project:
A solar array was proposed off the corner of the large barn. Trenching was required at the south end of the barn for mechanicals. Mr. LaMuniere asked if this was part of the farm activity on the property. Mr. Ajello said it was. Mr. LaMuniere noted the location was 80 feet from an intermittent stream. Mr. Ajello noted the stream was slightly upgrade of the array and that the actual trenching would be outside the 100 ft. setback area.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-44E submitted by Mrs. Averill for an exemption for a solar project at 250 Calhoun Street per the site plan and drawings by Pure Point Energy revised to 11/12/10.
By Ms. Cheney, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Bennett/27 West Shore Road:
A notice of violation was filed on the Land Records on 7/18/11.Berger/292 Nettleton Hollow Road/Excessive Clearing:
Mr. Ajello said he did not consider the clearing done to be a violation because a substantial canopy remained. Mr. LaMuniere said that clearing along a streambank was a regulated activity, the Commission had been strict about this in the past, and he thought this should have been handled as a violation. Mr. Ajello responded that the work had been done by hand and there had been no significant impact to the watercourse. Mr. LaMuniere thought the Regulations should be enforced in a consistent manner.Chatfield-Schellerer/19 Tinker Hill Road:
A second citation was sent on 7/29/11, but no response has been received.Condon/31 Juniper Meadow Road:
Mr. Ajello reported that drainage work had been done without a permit. A trench had been dug from Mr. Condon’s condo to the Chapel Brook corridor and drainage pipes had been installed. Mr. Ajello asked for an after the fact application and for treatment, possibly a rip rapped spreader, to prevent erosion on the streambank where the pipes outlet.Seitz/104 Blackville Road:
It was confirmed that the unauthorized shed was larger in footprint and height than the one it was replacing. Also a bed of finely crushed stone had been deposited. The owner has been asked to remove it. Mr. Ajello expects an application to construct a shed that is the same size as the recorded dimensions.18 Titus Road, LLC./18 Titus Road:
The work to stabilize the streambank and reconstruct the wall has begun. Mr. Ajello reported on the progress.
Administrative Business
Mrs. J. Hill informed the Commission that Mrs. Giampietro appealed the Commission’s approval of the latest revision to Wykeham Rise, LLC’s permit #IW-08-31 for Wykeham University.The question was raised whether the new statute requiring 9 year permits had been challenged. Atty. Olson will be consulted.
Ms. Cheney asked if trees had fallen due to the storm, whether property owners had the right to remove them, even if they were near wetlands. Mr. Bedini said this was a dangerous condition, so they did have the right to clean up their property. Mr. LaMuniere stated that the clearing of vegetation in the upland review area is a delicate situation and advised the Commission that it must be careful and consistent. He asked, as he had earlier in the meeting, why it was OK to even moderately clear at the edge of a stream without a permit.
Mr. Bedini again reminded the commissioners of the proper conduct for site inspections. Regarding the Dec. 6, 2011 Gunnery site inspection, he asked the commissioners to keep together, to ask only questions for clarification, to leave the site immediately when the inspection has ended, and not to talk among themselves or with the public. He also noted that all questions would go through the chairman and that any questions other than for clarification should be asked at the public hearing.
MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting.
By Mr. LaMuniere.Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:26 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Posted: November 15, 2011 November 9, 2011
7:00 p.m.Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. LaMuniere
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Aston, Ms. Scadari, Atty. Andrews, Mr. Sabin, Mr. DuttonMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order t 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mr. LaMuniere.
Consideration of the Minutes
On page one of the 10/26/11 Regular Meeting minutes the date in the heading should have been 10/26/11, not 10/27/11.MOTION:
To accept the 10/26/11 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the Oberndorf/151 West Shore Road site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Mr. Bohan, passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 11/1/11 Special Meeting minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Brown/127 West Shore Road/#IW-11-31/Application for Exemption:
Mr. Bedini explained that Atty. Olson had advised the Commission there was no need to act on this application as it was now moot due to the settlement and had been in effect withdrawn.Rumsey Hall School/201 Romford Road/#IW-11-34/Reconstruct Student Center and Dining Hall:
Ms. Scadari submitted the document, “Review Comments,” undated, no signature, which responded to the points raised in Milone and MacBroom’s 10/25/11 report. She noted there were still updates to be made to the plans. Mr. Aston noted the remaining outstanding issues were: 1) The test pits required by Milone and MacBroom to determine the groundwater level and whether there was ledge in the area had been done earlier in the day. 2) Regarding the swirl concentrator stormwater unit, the end catch basins will be revised to twin chamber sediment traps. He also stated that a curtain drain would be installed around the detention system and said this would not be influenced by groundwater. Mr. Aston will submit the required computations to Milone and MacBroom. Maintenance was discussed. Mr. Aston stated the sediment traps would be pumped out by a vacuum truck and Ms. Scadari said the school would hire an outside contractor for maintenance if it needs to. Mr. Ajello asked what would happen to the drain outletting to the stream during flood conditions. Mr. Aston responded that it would already be full with drainage from the site before the flood waters back up. Mr. Bedini said the Commission would not act until its consultant had reviewed the final revisions. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, 11/16/11 at 3:30 p.m. Mr. Aston said the final revisions to the plans would be done by then. Ms. Scadari noted that points C3 and C12 regarding test pits had been addressed in the time since the “Review Comments” had been written.The Gunnery, Inc./22 South Street/#IW-11-40/Athletic Fields:
In response to questions by Atty. Andrews, Mr. Bedini reported that Land Tech’s report would not be completed until the end of next week. Therefore, in order to give both the Commission and the public adequate time to review it, he said the public hearing would begin in December. It was the consensus to commence the hearing at a Special Meeting on Tuesday, December 13, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room. A site inspection was scheduled for 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 7, 2011.Fenwick/168 Romford Road/#IW-11-42/Pond Restoration:
It was noted that Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, Mr. Ajello, and Mr. Wadelton had inspected the site. Mr. Bohan said he had made a separate visit. Mr. Sabin said that Mr. Ajello 1) did not think the dredged material was the kind that should be used to fill in the depressions in the berm and 2) had advised him to get approval from the DEEP for the proposed work on the weir. Mrs. Hill asked if there would be digging in wetlands soils. Mr. Sabin responded that sandy sediment would be excavated from the pond. A site plan, which was not signed or dated, was reviewed. Mr. Ajello suggested that appropriate material from other areas on the property could be used for the berm and the excavated sediment could then be deposited in these areas. Mr. Sabin noted that some of the excavated material may have to be trucked off site. Mrs. J. Hill noted there was no limit of disturbance indicated on the site plan and that there were no erosion control plan details. Mr. Papsin asked that stockpile areas be shown on the plan. Mr. Sabin revised and initialed the plan and stated that not all of the area within the limit of disturbance line would be disturbed. It was agreed that a site inspection was not necessary. MOTION: To approve Application #IW-11-42 submitted by Ms. Fenwick to restore her pond at 168 Romford Road per the site plan by Mr. Sabin, revised to 11/9/11 and two plans by Mr. Sabin, entitled, “Fenwick Pond,” dated 10/19/11; the permit shall be valid for 9 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, 3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval, and
4. the receipt of an approval letter from the DEEP.
By Mr. Bohan, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.
There were no new applications.
Communications
Mrs. Hill circulated copies of the 11/3/11 letter with attachments from Atty. Olson regarding the Brown settlement and a survey from RC&D.It was noted the annual CACIWC seminar would be held on 11/12/11 and that Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, and Mr. Wadelton would attend.
Enforcement Report
Griffin/199 West Shore Road/Wall and Concrete Abutment Repairs:
Mr. Ajello reported that the seawall had collapsed and so repairs would not be possible; a new wall would have to be constructed. He hoped that the project would not be held up and that some work could be allowed to continue before new plans were finalized. The commissioners, however, were not comfortable allowing any further work without knowing what the revised plan would be.Seitz/104 Blackville Road/Unauthorized Construction of Storage Building:
Mr. Wadelton noted that the illegal work in progress had nothing to do with the drainage work that had been previously approved and properly completed and so said that Mr. Ajello should sign off on the permitted work. Regarding the current violation, Mr. Ajello explained that crushed stone in which to place the building had been deposited and that the construction was occurring within the review area. It was noted there had previously been a shed on the property, but the new one was larger and was not exactly in the same location. Mr. Ajello stated that activities so close to a stream are under the Commission’s jurisdiction. Mr. Ajello said he would investigate this matter and stop the work if necessary.
Administrative Business
The schedule of upcoming site inspections and meetings was reviewed: 11/16 at 3:30 p.m. – Rumsey Hall School/201 Romford Road/site inspection; Tuesday, 11/22 at 7:00 p.m. – Regular IWC meeting; 12/7 at 3:30 p.m. – The Gunnery/22 South Street/site inspection; Tuesday, 12/13 at 6:00 p.m. – The Gunnery public hearing; 12/14 at 7:00 p.m. – Regular IWC meeting.The procedure for The Gunnery public hearing and site inspection was briefly discussed. Atty. Olson will be asked to attend all sessions of the hearing. It was noted the purpose of a site inspection is to familiarize oneself with the property and to observe the terrain. Proper site inspection procedure will be strictly adhered to; everyone will keep together in one group, there will be no talking except for questions for clarification, and written rules of conduct will be circulated. Members of the public will be asked to bring up all questions at the public hearing, not on site. There will also be a sign in sheet to keep track of attendance.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Bohan.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 8:26 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Posted: November 8, 2011 November 1, 2011
Special Meeting 5:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. HillMr. Bedini called the Special Meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mrs. Hill. He noted the purpose of the meeting was to hold an executive session to discuss the Brown litigation followed by a vote on the proposed shoreline restoration and buffer enhancements to settle this enforcement matter.
MOTION:
To go into executive session to discuss the Brown litigation for 127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Shoreline Work.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr.Bedini, and passed 4-0.MOTION:
To end executive session.
By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0.Executive session ended at 6:00 p.m.
MOTION:
To approve settlement of litigation between the Town of Washington Inland Wetlands Commission and Robert and Angie Brown of 127 West Shore Road and approve Chairman Tony Bedini to sign the agreement, which includes:
A) Settlement Plan L-3, by Mr. Sabin, dated October, 11, 2011, entitled, “Proposed Shoreline Restoration with Enhanced Buffer Planting,”
B) Conditions of Approval, numbered 1-7 per Draft II, dated October 26, 2011, and
C) Reimbursement of legal expenses to total $4500 payable to the Town of Washington.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere.
A brief discussion followed. The word, “approve,” in line 4 was changed to “authorize.”
Mr. Wadelton and Mr. LaMuniere agreed to amend the motion.
Vote: 4-0 in favor.MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Papsin.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 6:02 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: November 8, 2011 October 27, 2011
6:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. Hill
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Olson
ALSO PRESENT AFTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION: Mr./Mrs. Solomon, Ms. Purnell, Mr. Sabin, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Neff, Mr. Oskandy, Atty. Andrews, Mr. Farmen, Mr. Aston, Ms. Scadari,. ResidentsMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, LaMuniere, Wadelton, and Alternate Papsin for Mrs. Hill.
MOTION:
To enter Executive Session to discuss Brown/ 127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work Along Shoreline/Proposed Settlement.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To close the Executive Session.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, passed 5-0.The Executive Session ended at 7:00 p.m. and a short recess was taken.
Mr. Bedini reconvened the Regular Meeting at 7:08 p.m. and noted again that Members Bedini, Bohan, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin were seated.
MOTION:
To change the order of the agenda to put the Rumsey Hall School Application #IW-11-34 as A under Pending Applications and Brown/127 West Shore Road as B.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the Agenda:
V. New Applications; A. Fenwick/ 168 Romford Road/#IW-11-42/Pond Restoration.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To change the order of the agenda to consider the Minutes under Other Business.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Rumsey Hall School/201 Romford Road/#IW-11-34/Reconstruct Student Center and Dining Hall:
Mr. Farmen, headmaster, Mr. Aston, engineer, and Ms. Scadari, business manager, were present. Mr. Aston briefly responded point by point to Milone and MacBroom’s 10/25/11 review. C1. No problem. C2. Mr. Aston agreed that the monitoring well was for the septic system and would have to be relocated. C3. Mr. Aston said he would discuss this point with Mr. Sanford because the way the stormwater detention system had been designed, there is an outlet at the bottom so there is no way it could fill up. C4. Mr. Aston said Milone and MacBroom had not yet seen all of the construction specifications. C5. Mr. Aston was not sure what Milone and MacBroom wanted for maintenance accessibility and so said he would discuss this point with Mr. Sanford. C6. The stockpile location was already indicated on the plans. C7. Mr. Aston agreed to submit a flood contingency plan. C8. Mr. Aston said the matter of the 4 inch PVC pipe needed investigation, but would either be relocated or removed. C9. Mr. Aston was not sure that the removal of vegetation was a good idea as it would destabilize the riverbank and could possibly be detrimental to the adjoining wetlands. C10. Mr. Aston agreed and said he would move the construction fence to the other side of the trees. C11. Mr. Aston acknowledged a technical error with the silt fence line on the plans and said this would be corrected. C12. Regarding the need for test pits to confirm that blasting will not be required, Mr. Aston said he had hoped to do all of the test borings at one time to save money, but could do the septic borings first if that was required. C13. The required computation sheets will be forwarded to Milone and MacBroom. C14. Mr. Aston said the installation of a swirl concentrator stormwater unit would be possible, but since he was trying to maintain the grades along the existing edge, he would discuss alternatives with Milone and MacBroom. Mr. Bedini noted that when the applicant has submitted revised plans, the Commission will schedule a site inspection and might have additional questions or suggestions at that time. He asked for the revisions in writing by the next meeting and advised Mr. Aston that he could contact Milone and MacBroom to discuss its review.MOTION:
To change the order of the agenda to move C under Enforcement; Brown/127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work Along the Shoreline up to B under Pending Applications.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, passed 5-0.Brown/127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work Along the Shoreline/ Restoration Plan:
The plan, “Proposed Shoreline Restoration,” Sheet L3, by Mr. Sabin, revised to 10/26/11 was reviewed. Atty. Kelly noted that Sheet L-2 had also been submitted. He summarized that prior to the executive session Mr. Sabin had drawn Sheets L2 and L3 and had written the 10/26/11 “Environmental Summary,” which detailed the restoration offered as settlement of the enforcement matter. Sheet L2 was specifically for the restoration of the shoreline wall area and Sheet L3 identified buffer plantings and work beyond the shoreline restoration as mitigation. Atty. Kelly presented photos to the Commission. Mr. Sabin answered questions and explained the details of Sheet L3. Atty. Olson asked the commissioners whether any of the information presented by Mr. Sabin or Atty. Kelly had changed their minds about their discussion while in executive session about the proposed restoration plan. It had not. Atty. Olson said the Commission was prepared to approve the plan, L3, with the 10 conditions discussed in executive session. (See the attached conditions dated 10/26/11.) Atty. Kelly responded that he was not authorized to accept conditions and he asked the Commission to vote so that his client would know this was a valid offer. Atty. Olson said this was not necessary, but agreed the Commission would act. Mr. Bohan asked what would happen if Mr. Brown did not approve the conditions. Atty. Kelly said the matter would then go to trial.MOTION:
To offer in consideration of resolving Brown/ 127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work Along the Shoreline; the Commission is in agreement regarding the “Proposed Shoreline Restoration with Enhanced Buffer Planting,” Drawing L-3, dated 10/11/11, by Dirk Sabin with the conditions of approval spelled out in the document, “Conditions of Approval of Proposed Shoreline Restoration Plan, L-3,” dated 10/26/11.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.Atty. Kelly asked if there would be an opportunity to negotiate the conditions of settlement if his client had any objections. It was noted there was not much time in which to settle before the date of the trial management conference, but Mr. Bedini said it would be possible to schedule a special meeting on Tuesday, November 1, if necessary.
Atty. Olson left the meeting.
Coleman/112 Walker Brook Road/#IW-11-37/Replace Pipe, Install Swale:
Mr. Oskandy, engineer, submitted the signed conservation easement form, the USGS topo map, and a letter dated 10/17/11 from Mr. Coleman. The plan, “Improvement Location Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 10/28/11 was reviewed. The proposal was to replace the existing outlet pipe for the man made pond and to install a grass lined swale with a rip rapped pad on the other side of the property behind the poolhouse. Mr. Bedini asked if the construction sequence had been revised. Mr. Oskandy pointed out that it had been amended per Mrs. J. Hill’s comments and the concerns that had been raised by the Commission. These additions were noted in red on the plan.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-37 submitted by Mr. Coleman to replace the pipe and install a swale at 112 Walker Brook Road South in accord with the drawings, “Improvement Location Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 9/30/11 and revised to 10/26/11; the permit shall be valid for 9 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures, 2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.Getnick/237 West Shore Road/#IW-11-38/Correct Erosion of Existing Swales:
It was noted there had been no unresolved issues when this application had been considered at the last meeting.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-38 submitted by the Getnicks to correct the erosion of the existing swales at 237 West Shore Road with reference to “Proposed Repairs to Drainage Swales,” Sheets 1 and 2, by Calabrese Engineering, dated 10/5/11; the permit shall be valid for 9 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.The Gunnery School, Inc./22 South Street/#IW-11-40/Athletic Fields:
Atty. Andrews represented The Gunnery and submitted additional copies of the plans and colored copies of the soils mapping documents. Mr. Bedini explained the Commission had been advised by two consultants that the proposed construction was under its jurisdiction. It was reported that Milone and MacBroom had estimated the cost of a full review would be $4,000 to $5,000 and that Land Tech’s estimate had been $3500. Mr. LaMuniere noted that Land Tech had reviewed The Gunnery’s previous application for the driveway and so was familiar with the property. Mr. Bedini stated that while both firms were skilled, Land Tech’s estimate was lower.MOTION:
To select Land Tech as the consultant to review The Gunnery’s application.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.It noted that a site inspection and a public hearing would be scheduled after the engineering review is received.
Oberndorf/151 West Shore Road/#IW-11-41/Restore Shoreline Wall, Replace Dock:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, submitted photos of the shoreline with survey stakes to depict the linear footage of the wall to be restored. He reported that subsequent to the site inspection, the contractor proposed a different dock configuration due to the shallow water and he submitted a revised dock plan dated 10/25/11. Mr. Papsin asked if this would require a change in the anchor block. Mr. Sabin said there would be no change at the shoreline. Mr. LaMuniere asked for the plans for the in-water anchors. Mr. Sabin said he did not have them, but he could have the contractor submit them as a condition of approval. Mr. Ajello noted for the record that the site of the dock is an old build-out into the lake and he said there could not be any additional build-out. Mr. Sabin agreed there would be no further build-out and offered to take offset dimensions from the existing road pavement before any construction begins. Mr. Ajello said he would take the measurements.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-11-41 submitted by the Oberndorfs to restore the shoreline wall and replace the dock at 151 West Shore Road per the plans by Mr. Sabin, “Revised Dock per Tucker,” dated 10/25/11 and “Cross Section Oberndorf Dock Wall Renovation,” undated; the permit shall be valid for 9 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Fenwick/168 Romford Road/#IW-11-42/Pond Restoration:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, submitted the plans, “Site Plan,” not signed or dated, two plans entitled “Fenwick Pond,” dated 10/19/11, and the USGS topo map. He noted the location of the property. He explained that 10 years ago beavers had plugged the outlet pipe under the berm and had raised the pond level. This season the pipe was unplugged, a leak developed, and the pond level dropped 3 feet. The proposal is to create a more permanent pond outlet with a new stone lined weir at the northeast corner of the existing berm, plug the existing pipe with hydraulic cement so it will not leak, fill in the settled sections of the berm where the old pipe is located, and restore the pond to the size it was when the beavers lived in it. Also, two silt deposits totaling approx. 67 cubic feet at the bottom of the intermittent streams feeding the pond would be removed and used to fill in the settled berm areas. Mr. Ajello advised Mr. Sabin to contact the DEEP Dam Safety Dept. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, November 1, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.At 8:25 p.m. the Commission took a 5 minute recess.
Other Business
Wykeham Rise, LLC/101 Wykeham Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-08-31/School:
Mr. Bedini recused himself.
Mr. Wadelton read his six page statement, “Opinion Statement for Discussion: Wykeham Rise LLC Application for Modification to the Permit – Wykeham University,” dated 10/26/11 (attached) and Mr. LaMuniere read his 10/26/11, “Note for the File.” (attached) Mr. Papsin and Mr. Bohan agreed with these statements, which are on file in the Land Use Office. Mr. Wadelton stated that if the Commission were to consider a motion of approval, he would want to include the seven conditions for the previously approved modification to Permit #IW-08-31. He read these seven conditions of approval. Mr. LaMuniere asked for a copy of the conditions and said he would like an opportunity to review them. Mr. Papsin suggested a condition be added to prevent the rain gardens from being converted to lawn. Mr. Ajello said he had been assured several times that if the rain garden plants died, they would be replaced, but agreed an additional condition requiring the indefinite life span of the rain gardens would confirm this. Mr. LaMuniere stated he was concerned due to the steep grades about the cuts required for the construction of driveway #2 and thought erosion control blankets should be used. Mr. Ajello said there would be many people on site to monitor the construction and the erosion controls, identify any problems, and address them. He said that Land Tech had not been concerned. Mr. LaMuniere noted the change in the recent rainfall pattern and said since the entire hillside would be exposed, the applicant had to be ready to deal with all erosion problems. He said he was not sure that the conditions Mr. Wadelton had read covered this issue. Mr. Ajello said they did. Mr. LaMuniere said he would like to have an erosion control specialist on site every week. Mr. Papsin said this had been recommended by Land Tech. Mr. LaMuniere said this was such an important motion that he wanted the time to read it and to modify and strengthen the conditions for this proposed amendment. Mr. Wadelton stated the Commission could require additional inspections after any rain event. Mr. LaMuniere questioned whether the conditions could be reused, especially after the changes that had been made to the construction sequence and said he would like more time to review them. Mr. Wadelton said discussion could continue at a special meeting or after a recess, but said he was satisfied with the seven conditions, which were based on his previous recommendations for changes to the original permit. Mr. Papsin said he was OK with the conditions. Mr. Wadelton noted that if the amendment request was not approved, these seven conditions of the previous amendment would still be in force. Mr. LaMuniere said, for example, he would like the erosion control specialist to participate in the pre construction meetings. He said he had mentioned this at the public hearing and Mr. Szymanski had agreed to it, but it was not on the plan. Mr. LaMuniere said he did not want to delay the vote if the other commissioners were ready and would abstain. Mr. Wadelton said he could not abstain at this point and that if only three commissioners voted, a unanimous vote would be needed. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the Commission was legally required to have the motion in a formal form in order to review it. Mr. Wadelton said the motion had to be complete because it could not be added to afterwards. Mr. Ajello said that Mr. Wadelton had worked on the conditions of approval two years ago and Mr. Wadelton said they had been approved at that time 5-0. Mr. LaMuniere said again that he would like time to study the conditions, he had not expected the vote would be tonight, but he would agree to vote on them with the two small modifications that had been discussed. Mr. Papsin asked if a condition about the rain gardens would be added. Mr. Ajello stated this could be added, but long range enforcement, even if the condition was filed on the land records, would be very difficult.MOTION:
To approve the request by Wykeham Rise, LLC. to modify Permit #IW-08-31, the permit is valid for 9 years from the original date of approval in December 2008 subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval, and
4. that all of the previous seven conditions will still apply, however, that #2 and #5 have been modified according to the copy entitled, “Motion to Approve Wykeham University #1 with Conditions, Dec. 8, 2010,” and its dated and initialed this evening, 10/26/11.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bohan, passed 4-0.
Mr. Bedini had recused himself.Mr. Wadelton asked the commissioners if the reasoning in the two documents read into the record was the reasoning for the approval. All agreed it was.
Mr. Bedini was reseated.
105 West Shore Road, LLC./105 West Shore Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-11-17/Addition of Stonewall and Pillars:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his plan, “Driveway Relocation Plan,” revised to 10/20/11, which added a decorative stonewall and pillars to the lower part of the driveway. The stonewall would be 130 ft. long, 2 ft. high, and 1.5 feet wide and the pillars would be 3 ft. X 3 ft. and 4 feet high. Mr. Neff said all of the work would be done within the original limit of disturbance. It was the consensus these could be constructed without impact to the water resources.MOTION:
To approve the request submitted by 105 West Shore Road, LLC. to amend Permit #IW-11-17 to add stone walls and pillars at 105 West Shore Road with reference to the driveway location plan prepared by Mr. Neff, dated 5/27/11 and revised to 10/20/11, Sheet 1 of 1, subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Chatfield-Scheller/19 Tinker Hill Road:
There has been no response to the second citation mailed on 7/29/11. Mr. Ajello will send another letter.Doherty/214 Calhoun Street:
The erosion controls are in good condition.Getnick/237 West Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello gave permission for temporary rip rap if the swale repair work can not be done before the winter.Lake Waramaug Country Club/22 Golf Links Road:
The cattails in the sediment basin will soon be thinned out. Stones will not be deposited in the trench because they would make periodic cleanouts more difficult.Seitz/104 Blackville Road:
A small rip rapped pad will be installed on the stream bank.Mr. Ajello noted that the Dept. of Dam Safety had sent three notifications that local dams are in need of repair.
Mr. Bedini noted that no executive session was needed at this time, but that if further negotiations were needed for the settlement conditions for Brown/127 West Shore Road, a special meeting could be scheduled after the site inspection on Nov. 1.
Consideration of the Minutes
The October 12, 2011 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 10: The motion to close the hearing was not seconded by Mr. Bedini. It was Mr. LaMuniere.
Page 13: The application number for Coleman is #IW-11-37, not 39.MOTION:
To accept the 10/12/11 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.Consideration of the Oberndorf site inspection minutes was postponed until the next meeting.
Mr. Papsin reported that he had completed his commissioner training.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Papsin.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 10:00 p.m.FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
************************************************
S.L. Wadelton
Opinion statement for discussion: Wykeham Rise LLC application for modification to the permit – Wykeham UniversityNow that the public hearing has closed, it would be useful to remind ourselves that what we are dealing with is an application to modify an already approved permit. Throughout the hearing process, very little attention was paid to the specifics of the modifications by the members of the public. They instead chose to question the validity of the two underlying permits, attempting to show that the commission was negligent in our duties and left many unanswered questions and therefore should require a new permit application, where they could once again bring up a long list of issues already thoroughly discussed, evaluated and acted upon. There were also claims that the commission violated its own regulations and therefore invalidated the entire proceedings.
That being the situation in which we now find ourselves, I believe that it would be helpful to revisit those previous applications and some of the processes we went through in deciding to approve them both before we begin deliberations on the actual details of the application before us.
I. Controversy over the actions of this commission in applying section 10.6 of the Washington Inland Wetlands Commission Regulations.
Claims have been made that:
“The applicant again directly violates§ I0.06 of the WIWC's regulations and once again puts the public at a disadvantage”
and also that:
“ this public hearing (is) fundamentally flawed due to the repeated procedural violations….”
I choose to believe that this contention is due to nothing more than an incomplete reading of the entire section, rather than intentionally selecting only those portions that support a personal agenda. In order to clarify this issue for the members of the public I believe that it is necessary to consider the entire Section 10.6 of the IWC regulations:If a public hearing is to be held on any application for a permit, all documentary evidence in support of the application shall be filed with the Agency and available for public inspection no less than fifteen (15) days prior to the day of the hearing or any reconvening thereof. All other persons wishing to present documentary evidence in the proceeding should file such evidence on or before the date on which the public hearing is commenced.
Nothing in this Section shall prohibit the Agency, in the exercise of its discretion, from receiving evidence from any person at a later time.
However, the Agency may refuse to consider any information and documentary evidence, including but not limited to any proposed modifications to the applicant’s site plans or regulated activities, that is submitted after the aforesaid dates if it determines that the Agency’s members, staff or consultants would not have sufficient time to review such information or evidence properly or thoroughly before the public hearing is losed.Please note the following two points:
1. The commission has the authority at its sole discretion to waive the time requirements for the submission of any materials from the applicant.2. The commission may refuse to consider materials “if it determines that the Agency’s members, staff or consultants would not have sufficient time to review such information or evidence properly or thoroughly before the public hearing is closed.”
I direct your attention to the fact that the word “public” is not included in that paragraph of the regulation.
There is no evidence anywhere in the record that the commission has ever violated this regulation going all the way back to the original application for an inn, and I therefore request that my fellow commissioners give this issue no further consideration, since the claim is totally without merit.
II. Contention that the public is always at a disadvantage and having to play “catch up”
The public had the opportunity to begin to familiarize themselves with this application at the same time as the commission. I am referring to the official site visits held by the IWC. By law, these visits are special meetings of the commission, and as such must be properly noticed in the Town Clerks office, posted on the town website, and must also be open to the public. All of these requirements were satisfied.
At each of these site visits, the applicants’ engineer was present with complete sets of plans and documentation, ready and willing to describe all aspects of the proposed project, and answer specific questions from the commission about those plans. Any discussion among the members of the commission during these visits however, is not allowed. The members of the public are welcome to view the same documentation, and walk over the same ground at the same time as the commission members. Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, there are no restrictions barring the public from discussing the project among themselves while on-site. I am amazed that not a single member of the public chose to attend any of the last three site visits, and therefore, as with the claim that the commission violated regulation 10.6, any claims of the public being at a disadvantage or having to play catch-up is also clearly without merit.
III. Submissions by experts
Whenever there is uncontested testimony by a recognized expert the Commission is required to accept that experts report as fact, and will therefore give it great weight in the deliberations prior to a vote. On the other hand, when there are opposing qualified experts who present somewhat different opinions during the public hearing, we have one of those rare situations where I believe that all of the attorneys involved in this issue to date would be in complete agreement. That is the fact that each commissioner individually is completely free to decide which expert opinion to accept.
In making that determination however, each commissioner has many factors to consider that must be evaluated in a fair and impartial manner. These factors include, but are not limited to:
* The academic credentials and experience of said expert.
* Whether or not the person submitting a peer review appeared at the public hearing to allow questions from the commission and/or cross examination by his peers representing the applicant.
* Did he or she actually visit the site under review in the process of preparing the report.
And probably what I believe is the most important consideration of all:
* Were there any significant concerns identified that were not answered to the commissions’ satisfaction by either the applicants or the commissions own experts.Throughout all of the proceedings from the original application and leading up to this evening’s discussion we have received a great deal of information submitted by at least 6 qualified experts to consider. To refresh everyone’s memory they are Ms Jodie Chase, Dr Michael Klemens, Mr. Chris Allan, Mr. Gooden, Mr. Aubrey and Mr. Szymanski
Considering the qualifications of the three engineers, all have the required educational credentials, are licensed to practice by the State of Connecticut , and with no evidence to believe otherwise all are equally competent professionally. As to the various plans for development of this site by Mr. Szymanski, and the peer reviews of his plans most recently performed by Mr. Aubrey, and also the peer review by Mr. Gooden in the previous application for a modification, there is one underlying concept that we need to keep in mind, and that is Engineering is most definitely an art as well as a science.
When an engineer develops a plan attempting to satisfy as closely as possible his clients vision, he is governed by professional standards, guidelines and best practices, and as long as none of those many requirements are violated, he is free to rely on his training and experience in applying them to the job at hand, designing what he believes, in his professional opinion, is the best solution for each of the many problems and challenges arising from the physical features of the site. If the applicant had selected Towne Engineering, it is not unreasonable to believe we might be evaluating a peer review done by Mr. Szymanski.
The two engineers would undoubtedly have different but equally valid solutions to many of the issues they faced. What this commission must consider is
a.) Do the proposed solutions of the applicants engineer conform to all accepted standards?
and
b.) Has the firm doing the peer review raised significant issues or questions showing the likelihood of significant adverse effects to the wetlands and watercourses that were not adequately answered by the applicant to the commissions satisfaction?.My answers here are “Yes” to question “A”, and “No” to question “B”.
The comment has been made that this is the biggest development project in Washington since the flood of 1955, implying that the commission should somehow deal differently with this application than other less complex projects. While the statement may be true, and might be a valid topic of discussion with the zoning and planning commissions, it is totally meaningless in the Inland Wetlands deliberations. Here, size really does not matter. What does matter is if the commission members believe that the size and scope of the project is within the capabilities of the engineers involved to carry out this project successfully, does the proposed project provide adequate safeguards to protect the wetlands resources, and whether or not each commissioner feels that they are up to the job of fully and fairly evaluating all of the documentation and verbal testimony presented to them.
It is my opinion that the firm of Arthur H. Howland, Inc. is more than equal to the task, and I also have full confidence in the knowledge, abilities, and commitment to the sworn duties of my fellow commission members to deal with this and all other applications that come before them in a thorough, impartial, and professional manner.
Having covered the engineering considerations of this proposal, it is also necessary to look at the environmental considerations in the reviews carried out by Ms. Chase, Mr. Allan, and also the review by Dr. Klemens.
Beginning with the application for the Inn, the initial review was carried out for the applicant by Ms Jodie Chase, Founder and President, Chase Ecological .Ms Chase’s credentials include a Bachelor of Science, in Natural Resource Conservation, a Master of Arts in Wetland Ecology, and she is also a Certified Ecologist, Certified Professional in Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, and is Certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Habitat Evaluation Procedures.
Additionally, that application was reviewed by the commissions own consultant, Mr. Chris Allan, Senior Associate, Land-Tech Consultants, Inc. Mr. Allan’s credentials include a B.A in Biology, and an M.E.in Environmental Studies. He is also a Certified Soil Scientist, Professional Wetlands Scientist, a Certified Professional in Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, and a Registered Sanitarian .
At the close of that first public hearing Ms Chase and Mr. Allan were both asked if in their professional opinions, the plan were carried out as proposed, would there be any reasonable likely risk of significant adverse impacts to the wetland and watercourses. They both answered with an unqualified “No”.
There was a peer review of Ms Chases’ findings by Dr. Michael Klemens who holds a doctorate in conservation biology and ecology, along with posts at the Bronx Zoo and appointments at several universities. Although obviously a highly qualified individual to carry out such a review, and his report was given a great deal of consideration by the commission, there are certain troubling details surrounding the selection of Dr Klemens, and his subsequent report.
First of all the commission already had selected Land Tech as their consultant. Dr Klemens was unilaterally selected as an additional consultant by the chairman at that time who had already written to the zoning commission requesting that the application for the Inn be denied, and during the IWC hearings was twice requested in writing to recues himself by the applicant’s attorney. All contact with Dr. Klemens was solely with that chairman and the commission has no record of what instructions or guidelines were give to Dr. Klemens prior to beginning his review.
The second thing I find troubling is that Dr Klemens wrote his report in his office in the Bronx, never actually visiting the site. Additionally, since the chairman felt it important enough to have this review done, it is curious that he did not feel it was important enough to have Dr. Klemens attend the hearing where he could be questioned by the commission members. And finally, throughout his entire report, Dr Klemens used only words or phrases like “may”, ”might”, or “could possibly” when indicating potential impacts. At no point did he refer to any aspect or feature of the plan and claim that it was likely to have a significant adverse effect, and that is the standard that must be satisfied if the commission is to decide against any feature of the project or to deny the application.
As a result of these issues it is not difficult to understand why the majority of the commission discounted Dr. Klemens findings in favor of those by Ms Chase and Mr. Allan, in a 3 to 2 vote that has been described as close in a divided commission. One “No” vote was by the chairman which by now should surprise no one, and the reason given for the second “No” vote was the commissioner felt that there was not enough consideration given to reasonable and prudent alternatives. Three other members disagreed. Hardly the evidence of a seriously divided commission that some would have you believe.
Since then Land Tech has made several additional reports, evaluating the proposed changes and modifications to the previously approved permits, as well as responding to the concerns, questions and opinions presented by both the commission and members of the public.
In my opinion, Mr. Allan has answered every relevant question or concern to my satisfaction. Additionally, I believe that each successive modification to the original approved application has resulted in a net reduction is scope and even greater protections and safeguards for the wetlands and watercourses. I find that the record does not support the argument that there are still important questions and issues that need to be addressed with regards to runoff, drainage, erosion control, or pre treatment of the waters either within the site or leaving the property and their possible adverse impacts.
IV. Claims of the inevitable failure of the Erosion Control System, and the resulting adverse effects to the wetlands and watercourses.
Statements have been made that all erosion control measures are subject to failure, and on a site as complex and challenging as this, such failures will result in unacceptable damage to the wetlands. I fully agree that erosion control measures can and do fail frequently on many development sites, and in some cases do have highly undesirable effects.
The possibility of likely failure of these control measures on any given application however is not in itself reason to deny that application. What the commission must evaluate is whether or not the proposed measures follow accepted standards and current best practices, do the members feel that these are adequate, and is there an effective plan to monitor and inspect these measures, or do additional conditions need to be placed on the permit. Additionally, In making such a determination the commission also needs to consider what backup plans the developer has in place to deal with the likely failures in an effective and timely manner.
Since they are already a matter of public record, and will most likely remain in force under this recent application for modification should it be approved I will not read the 7 conditions as they currently exist. I do however have a copy of them here should the commission members wish to review and discuss them. My personal opinion is that the plan as proposed along with the inspection, monitoring, and reporting schedules, and with the requirement for an erosion control specialist to be on site during construction, as well as the requirement to maintain an additional supply of erosion control materials provides a comfortable level of assurance that any failures will be noticed, acted upon and corrected almost immediately after they occur.
All of which brings us to the current question before us, and that is an application to modify an approved permit. Each commissioner must decide if this is indeed only relatively minor modifications or is it extensive enough to require a new permit application.
Should any member of the commission feel that a new application is needed then I encourage them to make a motion to deny, which we will then discuss and vote on.
On the other hand, if the other members feel as I do that this is indeed a reasonable modification proposal, then we must satisfy ourselves with an answer to only one question. Do these modifications in and of themselves present the likelihood of significant adverse impacts to the wetlands and watercourses of the Town of Washington.
Having made my thoughts and opinions known, I look forward to the comments from the rest of the commission. Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Stephen L. Wadelton
Vice Chair, Inland Wetlands Commission
Town of Washington, CT
October 26, 2011
************************************************
NOTE FOR THE FILE
Additional comments on Wykeham Rise, EEC/101 Wykeham Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-08-31 (WU2)
1. I am well aware of the many concerns that people have regarding the possible impacts which the construction of a large educational facility on the applicant's property might have on their homes and neighborhood. However, as I stated during our public hearing meeting of 09/28/11, some of these concerns extend beyond the WIWC's primary responsibility, i. e., to consider the potential effects such a project might have on the property's wetlands and watercourses. The WIWC has tried to discharge this responsibility to the best of its abilities for a long time, in fact from the day the first Wykeham Inn application came up for its tumultuous and harshly contested review, which lasted from June to December 2008. I mention this because during the subsequent review of the first amendment to the Inn application (WU 1), allegations were made that the handling of the Inn application by the WIWC had been flawed, partial and unfair to the public. Some of these allegations surfaced again during the current review of WU 2. Having been a full participant in the appraisal of the Inn application and having spent many hours reviewing stacks of related documentation or listening to a protracted, highly charged technical debate, I believe these allegations to be unfounded and that they should not influence the review of WU 2. The Inn application was finally approved because a majority of the Commissioners concluded, on the one hand, that the careful implementation of the project would not have an adverse impact on the property's wetlands and watercourses and, on the other hand, that a Motion to Deny tabled at the time contained too many conjectural statements and technically unsubstantiated assertions regarding the project's possible deleterious effect on these wetlands and watercourses.
2. It is not necessary to review here the many and detailed reasons why the WIWC unanimously approved WU 1. These are in the file. Succinctly put, the principle justification for that approval was the consensus among Commissioners that the storm water management system, which remained essentially unchanged from the one approved for the Wykeham Inn application, would continue to provide to a reduced development proposal adequate protection to the property's wetlands and watercourses and would, in fact, deliver cleaner water to Kirby Brook than the system currently in place.
3. With WU 2 we now have to decide whether additional modifications to the approved WU 1 -- some of which, such as the concentration of vehicle parking in one location along Driveway No. 1 that has warranted a modification in the design of Water Pond No. 1 — should allow the WIWC to approve WU 2 as an amendment or whether these modifications are significant enough to require a new application. Considering the extensive amount of technical information that has already been provided on this issue, both directly and as part of the discussion about the potential impacts or benefits of these modified WU 2 components, it is unlikely that a further quantum of significant new information on possible wetlands and watercourse adverse impacts would be generated as a result of a new application review. Most of the salient points regarding the capacity of the expanded storm water management system to handle these modifications, as well as the protective measures to be put in place against possible sedimentation, erosion and other related problems which may arise during the proposed development's construction phases, have been detailed in the public hearing material and gone over in written or oral technical exchanges during its proceedings. I would like to know what my colleagues' thinking is on this issue.
4. Mrs. Solomon and Ms. Purnell have stated that WU 1 should not have been approved as an amendment, and Ms. Purnell, in particular, has repeatedly requested a new application for WU 2. Additionally, Attorney Branse supports the same course of action based on a peer review carried out by Engineer Donald R. Aubrey. While Mr. Aubrey's extensive comments cover a lot of ground, I believe that the WIWC's consultant, Mr. Chris Allan of Land-Tech, in his letter of 10/05/11 has adequately responded to and largely refuted the technical points and allegations of data shortcomings raised by Mr. Aubrey. For the record I do not think that the ditch that runs along the gravel road on the western boundary of the property constitutes a watercourse. I would also like to mention that the farm road which originates east of Wetland Flag 49 was pointed out to the initial site inspection party for the Inn application by the applicant's engineer and was walked by some of its participants including myself.
5. I have reviewed the data pertaining to the WU 1 approval and carefully considered the exchanges of technical information between Ms. Purnell, Mr. Szymanski and Mr. Allan, as well as verbal exchanges among them or with members of the WIWC and the public during the public hearing meetings. On this basis I believe that the proposed implementation of WU 2, in spite of its modified site configuration but considering its proposed a) reduction in the number of buildings and modifications in some of their footprints and locations, b) concentration of parking in one area mitigated by an expanded storm water management system, c) significantly reduced intrusion in the URA from buildings and Driveway No. 1 and finally d) a detailed, much improved sequence of operations with corresponding tight and specific monitoring requirements, will have no detrimental impact on the wetlands and watercourses of this property. In spite of arguments to the contrary, I do not think, as I stated above, that new information - by this I mean information additional to that already at hand in the extensive amount of technical material generated during the WU 2 review — which might come to the fore in the appraisal of a new application would contribute significant new insights on possible adverse wetlands and watercourses impact.
6. If the WIWC votes to approve WU 2 as an amendment, I would want to review and contribute to the Motion of Approval resulting therefrom.
Charles LaMuniere 10/26/11
Posted: October 24, 2011 October 12, 2011
Public Hearing – Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m.Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Papsin
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Szymanski, Ms. Purnell, Mrs. SolomonPUBLIC HEARING
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Second Request to Amend Permit #IW-08-31/School
Mr. Wadelton reconvened the public hearing at 6:01 p.m. and seated Members Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mr. Bedini. He then read the list of documents submitted to the file since the last meeting.Mr. LaMuniere made several points.
1) To ensure optimal monitoring, the erosion control specialist should be involved in all pre construction meetings. Mr. Szymanski, engineer, agreed.2) The Removal Plan on Sheet RM.1 was detailed, but contained no specific sequencing. He said the plan needed more detail as it has pollution implications, heavy machinery would be used, and the proposed activities are on steep slopes. He asked that details be added to address the spread of debris and to proved erosion control for the removal of all structures, including the tennis courts. Mr. Szymanski stated that the construction sequence showed the erosion controls would be installed before any other work began and that not all of the property would be opened up at once. He pointed out the undisturbed buffer area for Phase I. He also noted that the debris would be loaded into containers and trucked off site. Mr. LaMuniere said he would like this in writing for the record.
3) More trees than indicated on Planting Plan #2, would be removed. Mr. LaMuniere was concerned the proposed replanting would not be sufficient along the Kirby Brook corridor and on the east side of driveway #2. Mr. Szymanski noted that some trees had to be cut due to grading activities. Mr. Szymanski noted the trees along Kirby Brook could be left, but the Public Works Dept. had asked that they be removed. Mr. LaMuniere recommended that the WEO and a commissioner should approve the trees to be cut in this area before the work is done.
4) Mr. LaMuniere asked if there would be an erosion problem at the points where the sheet flow over bituminous surfaces meets the natural soil. He suggested that a narrow belt of grass pavers be installed in these areas to prevent erosion. Mr. Szymanski said the maintenance staff would monitor these areas on a weekly basis, that there would be a minimum amount of sheet flow, these areas were not steep, and they would be fully stabilized.
Mr. Szymanski responded orally to the points raised in Land Tech’s 10/5/11 review. Land Tech’s review had addressed concerns raised by both Mr. Aubrey and Ms. Purnell.
1) Former septic system leach fields:
Mr. Szymanski agreed with Land Tech that the removal and disposal of regulated waste materials would have to be done per the current laws and regulations and would be coordinated with the Health Dept. But, he added that the testing had found no evidence of waste materials.2) Wetlands and watercourses delineation:
Mr. Szymanski said he had inspected the areas that Mr. Aubrey had ID’d as additional watercourses on site and he circulated photos of these areas and said there was no evidence of water flowing in them. He said he and Mr. Allan were comfortable with the wetlands flagging.3) Upland review area:
Mr. Szymanski stated that the applicant had always shown the 100 ft. upland review area on his plans.4) Drainage report:
Mr. Szymanski disagreed with Mr. Aubrey’s claim that the drainage calculations are incomplete, saying that his review revised to 7/22/11 contained all the information that Mr. Aubrey said was not in the file. He said that supplemental swale calculations had also been submitted.5) Rainfall intensity values:
Mr. Szymanski stated that Land Tech had confirmed the proper values had been used.6) Test pits:
Mr. Szymanski referred to Land Tech’s 12/6/10 review, which stated that the presence of groundwater would not impact the operation of the two stormwater basins or result in the loss of any basin capacity. Mr. Szymanski added that he had not taken credit for the rain gardens when sizing the stormwater basins.7) Seasonal high groundwater tables:
Mr. Szymanski explained the concern had been raised that the septic system would load pond #1. He said he had done further analysis, which indicated the elevation of pond #1 would not be impacted by any more than 1/4 inch and that Mr. Allan had agreed there would be no impact.8) Expanded parking area:
Mr. Szymanski stated that previous calculations had been done for bituminous surfaced driveways and parking, so in his 8/31/11 letter to the Commission Mr. Allan found that since there had been no credit for any porous pavements, their removal would have no impact on post development runoff rates or volumes.9) Possible expansion of parking:
Mr. Szymanski disagreed with Ms. Purnell’s concern that enlargement of the pond would limit the future expansion of the parking area. He stated there was never any intention of using this area for parking. If future parking expansion is needed, he said it would be on the flat area near station 7.00.10) Reassessment of water quality impacts:
Again, Mr. Szymanski said this was not needed because he had never taken any credit for porous pavement.11) Under estimation of impervious cover:
Mr. Szymanski said that no facts had been submitted to refute his coverage figures and that his coverage calculations had been done by a licensed surveyor, while the coverage figures in the Assessor’s Office had not been done by a trained professional.12) Water quantity and quality treatment measures:
Mr. Szymanski stated that currently there are three non treated direct discharges into Kirby Brook, whereas his plan proposes a line of redundancy treatment measures such as wet ponds, vegetated swales, forebays, rain gardens, etc.13) Enhanced water quality treatment of porous asphalt:
Mr. Szymanski said Land Tech had addressed this issue in its 9/25/08 review letter.14) Test pit data:
Ms. Purnell had complained that this data was not in the file. Mr. Szymanski said he had supplied this information in his 11/18/10 letter to the Commission, but it was now missing from the file.15) Wet ponds:
Ms. Purnell had stated that further clearing was needed to install the proposed pipe, but Mr. Szymanski said the limit of disturbance had not increased from the previous approved plan.16) Forebay:
Mr. Szymanski was glad the enlargement of the forebay to 9.6 times larger than the required size had been acknowledged.17) Required riparian buffer width:
Mr. Szymanski stated that a 100 ft. width was not always required. He said he had a position paper, which stated the exact required width is disputed and should be determined on a site specific basis.18) Thermal impacts:
Mr. Szymanski read from page 5 of Land Tech’s 10/5/11 letter, which stated there would be less thermal impact to Kirby Brook under the proposed conditions than currently exists.19) Impacts on groundwater:
Mr. Szymanski stated that Land Tech did not anticipate negative impacts to the groundwater associated with the stormwater basins.20) Phasing:
Mr. Szymanski noted that Land Tech thought the proposed maximum 5 acre disturbance limit was reasonable.21) Stockpile in tennis court:
Mr. Szymanski said per Land Tech’s recommendation, he had removed the Phase 2 top soil stockpile in the tennis court area because it was not needed. He offered to cross it out and initial the plan. He noted this had been the only change made in response to Land Tech’s latest comments. At this point Mr. Szymanski crossed out the stockpile in the SE corner of the tennis court, and initialed and dated this revision. He also labeled the photos he had submitted.22) Pollution of rain gardens:
Ms. Purnell was concerned that the runoff from the proposed metal roofs would pollute the rain gardens. In his 10/5/11 letter, Mr. Allan stated that it was prudent to use the rain gardens to collect the contaminants rather than to let them discharge directly into the wetlands and watercourses.23) Monitoring and enforcement:
Mr. Szymanski noted that the monitoring recommended by Land Tech in its 9/20/11 letter was OK with the applicant.24) Limit of disturbance:
There had been a concern that the limit of disturbance for each phase had not been shown to extend to Wykeham Road. Mr. Szymanski noted that the work done in each phase would be stabilized before work in the next phase would begin.25) Feasible and prudent alternatives: Mr. Szymanski stated these had been discussed in detail at the last meeting. He said that Ms. Purnell had not proven that the proposed activities would have a substantial adverse impact on the wetlands and watercourses and so consideration of feasible and prudent alternatives was not required.
26) Ultimate construction on the site:
Mr. Szymanski stated this was not in question since detailed plans had been submitted.27) Installation of additional impervious surfaces:
There had been a concern expressed that impervious surfaces beyond those proposed on the plans and approved by the Commission would be needed and installed. Mr. Szymanski stated that an as-built would be required upon completion of the project.
Specifically addressing Ms. Purnell’s 10/5/11 letter to the Commission, Mr. Szymanski gave the following responses. 1) Incomplete documentation for request: Ms. Purnell had claimed the applicant had not submitted all of the required information per Section 8.08. Mr. Szymanski stated that the approved activity had not yet commenced on site due to the pending lawsuit and noted the permit had not yet expired. He also stated there had been no changes in the facts or the circumstances so a new narrative had not been submitted.
2) Invasive plant management plan:
Mr. Szymanski said this was still proposed.3) Reduction of ecological benefits associated with #IW-08-31 approval:
Ms. Purnell stated the proposed amendment would reduce the ecological benefits, while Mr. Szymanski said no one had stated what those benefits were and that Land Tech had found the proposed plans provided adequate protection of the wetlands and watercourses and would not result in any adverse impacts.4) Sheet flow from the lower parking lot and porous asphalt:
Mr. Szymanski stated that Ms. Purnell’s concerns had already been addressed in his responses to Mr. Aubrey and Land Tech.5) Tree clearing:
Regarding Ms. Purnell’s claim that additional areas would be disturbed due to clearing in the Kirby Brook riparian buffer and planting to provide screening for adjoining property owners, Mr. Szymanski stated that he had already addressed this concern.6) Application detail:
Ms. Purnell complained that the application lacked sufficient detail, but Mr. Szymanski said the plans were detailed throughout.7) Farm roads:
Mr. Szymanski stated the farm roads were not surfaced and had not been included in the lot coverage calculations.8) Clearing along Kirby Brook:
Mr. Szymanski agreed that a representative of the Commission would meet with Mr. Sabin to help identify the diseased trees to be cut before the work is done.9) Required buffer:
Mr. Szymanski stated the existing lawn was within 20 to 30 feet of Kirby Brook and a large portion of the upland review area along the brook would not be disturbed. He said the proposed large meadow and restoration area will provide a larger buffer than now exists.10) Increasing separation distances:
Mr. Szymanski said this was suggested as a way to decrease potential down slope disturbances, but he said this had not been tied to how the proposed activities would adversely impact the wetlands.11) Short term impacts:
Mr. Szymanski said Ms. Purnell had implied the short term impacts would be great, but had not cited what they would be.12) Erosion control measures:
Ms. Purnell had said that due to the difficulties of this site; friable soils, steep slopes, and the expanse of the areas to be disturbed the Commission should review information from the Center for Watershed Protection re: the success rates and functions of erosion control measures. Mr. Szymanski stated the erosion controls would be maintained as proposed and that Ms. Purnell’s claim that they would fail was based on speculation.13) Stormwater management measures:
Ms. Purnell stated the proposed stormwater measures were not consistent with guidance from the Ct. DEEP and in her 10/5/11 letter she cited six specific ways the proposed plans did not meet the DEEP specifications. Mr. Szymanski argued that materials from the DEEP say “should”, not “shall,” and so it is guidance, not requirements.14) Lot coverage:
Mr. Szymanski stated that the Assessor’s property cards should never be used to calculate lot coverage because there is no guarantee that they are accurate.15) Long term impacts to Kirby Brook:
Mr. Szymanski stated that while Ms. Purnell says the proposed activities will result in long term thermal impacts to Kirby Brook, she does not address the thermal impacts from the current direct discharges into the brook. He stated that Mr. Allan found there would be no long term thermal impacts.16) Flood storage capacity:
Although Ms. Purnell thought that there would be long term impacts due to the reduction in flood storage capacity due to the buried water supply infrastructure, Mr. Szymanski noted that Mr. Allan was OK with the proposal.17) Mr. Szymanski stated that many of Ms. Purnell’s concerns were speculative and that she had cited no specific substantial adverse impacts that would be the result of the proposed plan.
Questions were taken from the commissioners.
Mr. Papsin asked if the stumps of the cut trees would be removed. Mr. Szymanski said they would be flush cut.
Mr. LaMuniere said he would like to check the vicinity of wetlands flag #49 to see if there is a channel there. Mr. Szymanski noted there is a swale there and some erosion.
Mr. LaMuniere noted that the gravel parking area would become pond #1 and that he had not seen any debris in this area. Mr. Szymanski said there was an old appliance and some brush there.
Mr. Wadelton asked for comments from the public.
Ms. Purnell noted the proposal is a substantial one and said the Commission still did not have all the required information with which to render a decision about whether it could cause significant impact to the wetlands. She referred to Section 2.44 of the IW Regulations and asked the Commission to consider changes to the plans that would allow what the applicant wants but with greater protection for the wetlands and watercourses. She noted the steep grades and high groundwater table on the property. She noted that Land Tech had found that the plans would “mostly” mitigate the proposed impervious surfaces, but asked if they would be completely mitigated. She questioned how the applicant had arrived at 9.7% for the existing lot coverage. She listed her training in ecology and biology and stated that based on her training she had many concerns. In brief: 1) There are existing watercourses that are not shown on the site plan. 2) The runoff from Bell Hill Road in the southeast corner of the property meets the definition of an intermittent watercourse; it had been identified as such by Jody Chase in a previous application. 3) There are springs behind the existing main building and these have been documented from information in the Swiss Hospitality file. 4) There is an existing well upslope on the adjoining Risley property. 5) The existing farm road has been identified by Mr. Aubry as an intermittent watercourse. 6) These existing watercourses add to the upland review area. 7) Ms. Purnell expressed her concern about the area of the abandoned septic fields, noting the file did not include any auger hole locations, depths, or soil conditions for this area. 8) She reminded the Commission that she had previously submitted information on contaminants and porous pavement and said she hoped all of the proposed porous pavement would be deleted from the application as she did not think the site conditions were favorable for its use. 9) She could not find any test pit data although she had searched several times and Mr. Szymanski maintained that it was in the file. She said that although Land Tech’s report implies it received this information, the data in the file does not support Land Tech’s findings. 10) No soils profiles had been submitted for the septic area. She was concerned that there would be leakage into the subsurface soils. 11) She was also concerned that there would be more runoff due to the removal of the porous pavement and that the stormwater basins were limited because they were wedged in between two wetlands. 12) The impervious pavement now proposed would require the use of more sand and salt. 13) The use of the driveways by snow plows, additional traffic, the increased number of students and all attendant services would result in more wear and tear on the driveway and she said she did not understand why the Commission did not view this as an obvious problem. 14) She stated that some of the runoff would flow through the wetlands. 15) Regarding riparian buffers, Ms. Purnell commented that she had submitted information from both the DEP and the Stormwater Manual. 16) Ms. Purnell noted that the Commission had agreed in its discussion of the previous Wykeham Terrace application that there would be short term impacts (turbidity) and stressed that was for an application that was going to reuse the existing buildings. She maintained that the current application would have many more short and long term impacts because a much greater scope of work was proposed. 17) She urged the Commission to give more thoughtful consideration to feasible and prudent alternatives because she thought there was a way to have a quality educational facility with a different configuration that would provide more protection for the wetlands and watercourses. 18) She questioned why the Commission had not enforced its requirement for preconstruction water quality monitoring for Permit #IW-08-31.
Mrs. Solomon voiced her concern that all of the details for the initial inn application had not been well thought out and so asked the Commission to thoroughly review the plans now. She said the applicant’s reluctance to share information, refusal to extend the public hearing, and the lack of maintenance of the property worried the neighbors. She asked that the Commission require explicit safeguards and monitoring because the project is so complicated and is proposed on a difficult property.
Mr. Szymanski again stated that the sediment forebay had been oversized so there was no reason to fear the need for future expansion. He said there were already thermal impacts to Kirby Brook due to the direct discharges into it. He stressed that Land Tech had reviewed all the plans and had found there would be no adverse impacts to the wetlands.
Ms. Purnell referred to the minutes of the IWC Wykeham Terrace approval and the Swiss Hospitality Inst. file information to support her statements and said she had submitted a precipitation report for 8/08, which showed there had been less than normal precipitation for that month and that had impacted the groundwater levels. Mr. Szymanski objected to the last minute submission. Ms. Purnell stated it was not new information, but supporting data for issues she had already brought up. She said she was being held to a higher standard than Mr. Szymanski who had been permitted to submit photos and to revise his plans at the table tonight in violation of Section 10.06. The commissioners had no objections to accepting Ms. Purnell’s submissions.
There were no further questions or comments from the commissioners.
MOTION:
To close the public hearing to consider the request by Wykeham Rise, LLC. to amend Permit #IW-08-31 for a school at 101 Wykeham Road.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.Mr. Wadelton noted the Commission would not vote on the application tonight because it would need time to review all of the documentation in the file and closed the hearing at 7:25 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sabin, Ms. Zelenko, Mrs. Crumrine, Mr. Law Mr. Szymanski, Mrs. Solomon, Mr. C. Smith, Mr. Buck, Atty. Andrews, Mr. Neff, Mr. Calabrese, Mr./Mrs. Getnick, Mr. K. Smith, Mr. Lyon, Mr. PiscuskasMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
MOTION:
To include the following subsequent business on the Agenda:
New Applications:
E. Oberndorf/151 West Shore Road/#IW-11-41/Restore Shoreline Wall, Replace Dock.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 9/28/11 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 3: Under Rumsey Hall School: Mrs. Hill noted that the minutes should include that several of the school staff were present and that Mr. Farmen, headmaster, gave a presentation of the proposal.
Page 4: Under Seitz: 2nd sentence: The minutes should state there was a lot of water under the house and coming through the floor.
It was noted that all permits that had not expired by 5/11/11 were now valid for 9 years from the date of approval. MOTION:
To accept the 9/28/11 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Steep Rock Assoc./120 Bee Brook Road/#IW-11-21/Bridge:
Mr. Bedini recused himself as he had not attended the last session of the public hearing. Members Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin were seated. Mr. LaMuniere stated that he had reviewed all of the materials, noted that corrections had been made as a result of the Milone and MacBroom review, and said the aesthetics of the gabions was not under Inland Wetlands jurisdiction. Mr. Papsin noted the request to mark all trees to be cut had been addressed. It was noted that the engineers were still studying the merits of whether sheet pilings or micropiles would be used. Mr. LaMuniere thought the only remaining issue was the location of the dewatering basin. MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-21 submitted by Steep Rock Assoc. for a bridge at 120 Bee Brook Road per the set of maps and drawings, “Pedestrian Bridge Crossing the Shepaug River at the Hidden Valley Reservation,” by Gray Organschi and TPA Design Group, dated July 11, 2011 and revised to 9/23/11; the permit shall be valid for 9 years and subject to the following conditions:
1. the design team, in consultation with the Inland Wetlands Commission or its representative, will identify a location for the dewatering basin and add the details to the erosion control plan,
2. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
3. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
4. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0. Mr. Bedini was reseated.Brown/127 West Shore Road/#IW-11-31/Application for Exemption:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, reported that Atty. Kelly would forward revised plans to Atty. Olson for review. He submitted the 9/28/11 letter from Atty. Kelly and photos. Further discussion was tabled until after Atty. Olson has an opportunity to review the revised plans.Rumsey Hall School/201 Romford Road/#IW-11-34/Reconstruct Student Center and Dining Hall:
It was noted the consulting bond had been posted and it was hoped the review by Milone and MacBroom would be ready for the next meeting.Malamed/115 River Road/#IW-11-36/Dredge Pond:
Mr. Neff, engineer, represented the applicant. He noted that although the pond had been cleaned five or six years ago, a tremendous amount of material had been deposited due to the recent storms. He circulated photos of the site. The plans, “Pond Cleanout Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 9/26/11 were reviewed. Mr. Neff indicated the excavated material would be spread on the property in a location clear of any wetlands or watercourses and then seeded and mulched. He estimated 200 cu. yards would be removed. No increase in the size of the pond or change in the side slopes was proposed. Mr. Neff explained that to drain the pond the water would be pumped around it and that the duration of work would be a couple of days. Mr. Neff said the same access for equipment would be used as had been approved in 2005 and he noted the location of the dewatering basin on the east side of the pond. He said the work would be done before winter. MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-36 submitted by Mr. Malamed to dredge the pond at 115 River Road per the map, “Pond Cleanout Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 9/26/11; the permit shall be valid for 9 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Coleman/112 Walker Brook Road South/#IW-11-39/Replace Pipe, Install Swale:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, represented the applicant. The plan, “Improvement Location Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 9/30/11 was reviewed. Two activities were proposed; 1) installation of a 120 to 150 foot long grass lined swale outletting to a rip rapped apron, which would discharge into the woods and 2) removal and replacement of an 8 inch PVC pipe with a 15 inch pipe near the pond. It was noted the pond would be pumped down while the construction was in progress and that this would be a one day project. Mrs. J. Hill noted the required conservation easement form, construction sequence, and erosion control plan had not been submitted.Getnick/237 West Shore Road/#IW-11-38/Correct Erosion of Existing Swales:
Mr. Calabrese, engineer, presented the plan, “Proposed Repairs to Drainage Swales,” by Calabrese Engineering, dated 10/5/11. He described the existing site conditions; one large swale along the east side of the property was eroding and water from two minor swales was flowing towards the house. Mr. Calabrese said the proposal was limited as work was proposed only for the eroded areas; one of which was just 12 feet from the house. For the main swale he proposed a small basin with plunge pool that would outlet over a rip rapped level spreader. The depth of the plunge pool would be 2.5 feet. He said he would like to use the material excavated here to construct a berm to prevent the water in the two minor swales from flowing towards the house. He pointed out the limit of disturbance line, access for equipment, construction sequence, and planting plan. Mr. Calabrese noted the work would be done during dry conditions, and that if not done soon, temporary measures such as rip rap would be needed over the winter. Mr. LaMuniere thought the small basin would fill quickly with sediment. Mr. Calabrese agreed and said it would require periodic maintenance by hand. Mr. Calabrese said he would submit the conservation easement form as soon as possible. The commissioners were familiar with the property and agreed a site inspection was not necessary.Town of Washington/30 and 36 Tompkins Hill Road/#IW-11-39/Replace Culvert:
Mr. Lyon, First Selectman, and Mr. Smith, Director of the Highway Dept., were present. Mr. Smith stated he had drawn a plan according to Mr. Neff’s recommendations to replace the two existing culverts with one 48 inch culvert and to realign the road slightly to bring it more in line with the existing right of way. He said the road had washed out due to Hurricane Irene, was now closed and impassible, and was a high priority. Mr. Smith’s sketch plan, “”Tompkins Hill Culvert Replacement,” dated 10/12/11 was reviewed. Mr. LaMuniere asked if any rip rap would be installed and Mr. Smith said it would. It was noted that 50 yards of material would be removed at the inlet end and used at the discharge end of the pipe and that the rip rap pad would contain an estimated 50 cubic yards of rip rap and would be at least a foot thick. Mr. Smith wrote the rip rap information on the sketch plan. Mr. Bohan thought the work was an emergency repair needed for public safety and the other commissioners agreed. Mr. Smith said the Town hoped to get the work done before the plants close in November. MOTION:
Given the fact there is an emergency situation; to waive the two week waiting period and to approve Application #IW-11-39 submitted by the Town of Washington to replace the culvert at 30 and 36 Tompkins Hill Road per the plan, “Tompkins Hill Culvert Replacement,” dated 10/12/11; the permit shall be valid for 9 years, and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.The Gunnery School/22 South Street/#IW-11-40/Athletic Fields:
Atty. Andrews, Mr. Smith, surveyor, and Mr. Buck, engineer, represented the applicant. The plans, “South Street Athletic Fields,” 7 sheets, by Smith and Company, dated 10/3/11 were reviewed. Atty. Andrews noted the school had acquired the property in the 1950s and that it was currently the site of its water system and environmental classroom. Two athletic fields in the center of the property are proposed. Mr. Smith noted the property has 1132 ft. of frontage on South Street and 988 ft. of frontage on Rt. 47. He pointed out the location of adjoining property owners, the wetlands flagged by Mr. Beroz, soil scientist, the 100 ft. wetlands review line, and the existing 1100 ft. long driveway. He advised the Commission that all disturbance would be outside the 100 ft. wetlands review area. In addition to the fields, a 240 ft. paved driveway, a gravel parking lot, and stairs to the fields were proposed. He reviewed the various grades and elevations proposed and said the detailed plans included erosion control measures and best management practices during construction. Mr. Bedini asked if any work would be done to the existing driveway. Mr. Smith said, no. Mr. Buck reviewed the drainage plans. A swale would prevent water from flowing onto the parking lot. He detailed the system of underdrains and level spreaders and stated that very little impervious surfaces would be added. He explained that the creation of the two large level fields would slow the existing runoff allowing more of it to percolate into the ground. He said that the volume of runoff as well as its velocity would be reduced and this would result in “less than zero impact” off site. Mr. Bedini asked about the proposed regrading. Mr. Smith pointed out the impacted areas, noting that the clearing proposed was required due to the necessary grading. He stated 11.4 acres of the 70 acre property would be disturbed and that the closest activity to wetlands was 126 feet away. He said the proposed driveway and parking area would follow an old wood road. Mr. Smith noted that alternatives had been considered in the past for the driveway, but said the sight lines off Rt. 47 were not as good as on South Street and any access from Rt. 47 would have to fight the grades and would disturb more of the natural features. Mr. Bedini asked the Commission to consider whether it had jurisdiction since all proposed activities were outside the 100 ft. review area. Mr. Bohan noted that in addition, the drainage would not flow into the wetlands. Mrs. Hill noted the Commission specifies in its Regulations that it may extend its jurisdiction in the case of steep slopes. Mr. LaMuniere said this was true, but only in cases where the drainage flows to the wetlands. All agreed the proposed activities were out of the upland review area. Mrs. Crumrine stated that a few years ago The Gunnery had drilled wells, which resulted in more water flowing onto her property. She noted it now proposed to clear the steep hillside and asked if it would fall under the Commission’s jurisdiction if wetlands were created. Mr. LaMuniere stated that increased drainage does not create wetlands. Mrs. Crumrine said the plans were incomplete because they did not include vertical elevations. Mr. Smith said they were included. Mrs. Crumrine asked why the Commission was not concerned about the steep grades. Mr. Bedini responded that if there are steep slopes with runoff flowing towards a stream or watercourse, then the Commission can extend its jurisdiction, but if not, and the activity will not unduly impact the wetlands, it is not under the Commission’s jurisdiction. Ms. Zelenko, adjoining property owner, asked if The Gunnery had made a 3-D model, measured how much earth would be removed, or done a wildlife analysis. Mr. Bedini stated that wildlife was not under the IWC’s jurisdiction. Ms. Zelenko noted that a stream flowing from her property was not shown on the map and she noted a petition had been submitted requesting a public hearing. Mrs. Crumrine asked if the wetland information had been submitted by the applicant. Mr. Bedini said the wetlands had been flagged by a licensed soil scientist who reviewed the entire property. Mrs. Crumrine asked when this had been done and noted the Commission had never held a public hearing for activities on this site. Mr. Bedini advised the neighbors that if they hired a consultant who could show the proposed activities would adversely impact the wetlands, the Commission would review the application, but at this point it had no jurisdiction. Ms. Zelenko said there were many concerned neighbors with questions about runoff, wildlife and the environment and said she thought the request for a public hearing had to be granted. Mr. LaMuniere explained that legally the Commission could not conduct a hearing unless the proposed activities would impact the wetlands. He advised Ms. Zelenko that her concerns were legitimate, but should be raised before the Zoning Commission. Atty. Andrews noted The Gunnery would soon apply to the Zoning Commission and a public hearing would be required. Mr. Bedini said he would consult with the Commission’s attorney about how the Commission should handle petitions for hearings to consider matters out of the Commission’s jurisdiction, but he advised the neighbors to direct their questions to The Gunnery as using a public hearing as a means to communicate with the school was not the best means of communication. Mr. Wadelton noted that if the IWC held a public hearing that only wetlands issues could be discussed. Atty. Andrews noted that several years ago The Gunnery had presented a master plan, which included the two athletic fields, and said more drainage controls had been added since that time. Mr. Ajello said he would check the wetlands maps and the DEEP’s natural community map and would walk the site to look for the stream not shown on the map. Mr. Smith said the stream was indicated and pointed it out. Mr. Ajello asked why infiltration was not proposed rather than the level spreaders. Mr. Buck responded that more runoff would infiltrate after the fields were installed than now does. Mr. Smith added the field would be sod, not artificial turf, there would be no mowing below the parking area, that a meadow mix would be planted on the slopes, and that the drainage report would show that the calculations had been done for a 100 year storm. He also referred to Sheet #7, which showed there was a lot of Class A soil below the proposed fields.Oberndorf/151 West Shore Road/#IW-11-41/Restore Shoreline Wall, Replace Dock:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, represented the applicant and presented his undated sketches, “Oberndorf Dock and Wall Restoration,” and “Cross Section, Oberndorf Wall Renovation.” He proposed to reconstruct approximately 30 ft. of the dry laid sea wall and to replace the dock. A natural granite slab would be used to anchor the dock, which would extend 44 ft. from the shore. The reconstructed wall would be dry laid. The crumbled stone would be dismantled, the base would be reset, and crushed stone and filter fabric would be installed behind the wall. The wall would be approximately 3 ft. high and would be no taller than the walls on the adjacent properties. A silt boom would be used during construction and the work would be done during the winter while the lake was drawn down. The reconstruction would be done by hand except a machine would be used to dig out behind the wall. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, October 18, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.Other Business
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Second Request to Amend Permit #IW-08-31/School:
The commissioners will review the file and discuss this matter at the next meeting.Enforcement
Doherty/214 Calhoun Street:
The buildings have been demolished and the erosion controls are in place.Erhardt/57 West Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello will soon inspect the project for compliance with the approved plan.Frankland/173 Litchfield Turnpike:
Mr. Ajello said the work was well done.Hochberg/15 Couch Road:
Mr. Hochberg made an offer to settle the citation, but the Commission noted that citations are issued per Town ordinance and there can be no negotiating. The Selectmen’s Office will have to schedule a hearing.Lake Waramaug Country Club/22 Golf Links Road:
Eighty percent of the work is completed and there had been no soil disturbance on site.Lanyi/105 West Shore Road:
The owners will soon apply to revise their permit.Regional School District #12/159 South Street:
The pond repairs have been completed. There has been no response from the Roxbury Soccer Club regarding the clearing done or the proposed entry near the lower soccer fields. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Ajello to inspect the fields to see if any more work had been done.Wang/110 Blackville Road:
The notice of violation filed on the Land Records has been released.No executive session was needed.
MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. LaMuniere.Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:35 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Posted: October 7, 2011 September 28, 2011
PLEASE NOTE:
In place of minutes in the usual format, transcripts in .pdf format were prepared for the Public Hearings on Steep Rock (16 pages), and Wykeham Rise (65 pages)
These transcripts are available here:
Steep Rock Assoc., #IW-11-21/Construct Bridge/Con't
Wykeham Rise LLC., Request to amend permit #IW-08-11/School/Con't
REGULAR MEETING
8:00PM Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Bedini
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Shade
ALSO PRESENT: Kris Martin, Oscar Ebner, Peter Morris, Brian Neff, Rich Horrigan, Harry WyantMr. Wadelton called the Meeting to order at 8:00PM and seated Members Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mr. Bedini.
MOTION:
To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda.
New Applications:
A. Malamed /115 River Road /#IW-11-36 /Dredge pond.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To postpone approval of the minutes until later in the meeting.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bohan and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications Steep Rock Association Inc. /120 Bee Brook Road /#IW-11-21 Bridge /Cont’d.
Mr. Wadelton noted that the public hearing for this application had been closed. The commissioners agreed they were not ready to vote.Shepaug Valley Properties /27 Mt. Tom Road /#IW-11-28 Storage Shed, Bridge, Walkway, Parking area:
Kris Martin came forward to discuss this application with the commission. She thought the site visit last week went very well and noted she took some photos for the commission. She said the parking area will be leveled out using the two existing piles of gravel. Mr. LaMuniere asked if they would need to use additional fill. No, they will just use what is there. Mr. LaMuniere asked how much lower the parking area will be from the road. Ms. Martin said it will remain the same. Ms. Martin said they had originally asked for a golf cart path but since the area is so steep they will just have a walking path and will put in steps for the footpath. She showed the members two proposals for the stairs. Mr. LaMuniere commented that log stairs would make for a more solid construction, but the decision on construction material for the stairs was up to the applicants. Mrs. Hill asked that the location of the parking area and walking path be clarified on the site plan. Mr. Papsin said he would prefer the path come off the northeast corner of the parking lot instead of the middle and then follow the old logging road. Ms. Martin said they would make changes to the site plan tonight and give them back to the Commission before they leave.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-28 submitted by Shepaug Valley Properties for a storage shed, bridge, walkway and parking area at 27 Mt. Tom Road per plans dated December 10, 1987 with later revisions on September 28, 2011. This permit is valid for 9 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work,
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval,
4. that the paths from the parking lot to the northern edge of the property will no longer be a golf cart path. The very steep embankment at the northern edge of the paths will be traversed by stairs; the construction of which is left to the applicants. By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Mr. Wadelton and passed 5-0.Brown /127 West Shore Road /#IW-11-31 /Application for Exemption:
The Commission agreed to accept Attorney James Kelly’s request for a 30-day extension on this application.MOTION:
To accept Atty. James Kelly’s request for a 30 day extension on the pending application for Brown, 127 West Shore Road, #IW-11-31, application for exemption.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin and passed 5-0.Griffin /199 West Shore Road /#IW-11-33 /Replace Boathouse Concrete Walls:
Brian Neff, P.E. and Rich Horrigan, contractor, represented Ms. Griffin. Mr. Neff explained that the scope of work will be less extensive than originally proposed. Now they will be repairing the deteriorated concrete walls under the boathouse and along the edge of the lake rather than replacing them. After a brief discussion, the commissioners approved the repairs.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-33 submitted by Ms. Gail Griffin to repair the boathouse concrete walls at 199 West Shore Road per plans by Brian E. Neff, P.E. dated September 2, 2011 and revised September 24, 2011. This permit is valid for 9 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work,
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval,
4. the channel out of the pipe will be rip-rapped to minimize erosion on the slope. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton and passed 5-0.Rumsey Hall School /201 Romford Road /#IW-11-34/Reconstruct Student Center and Dining Hall:
Mr. Wadelton noted it was too early to schedule a site visit. A check was received from Rumsey Hall School. The plans will be forwarded to Milone and MacBroom for their review.Seitz /104 Blackville Road /#IW-11-35 /Install Drain, Repair Eroded Streambank:
Harry Wyant represented the applicant. He told the members a lot of water is coming into the house because all the big rains have washed out the banks of the stream. Mr. Wyant would like to stabilize the stream bank with big boulders and install a drain. He said the DOT had already done some repairs to the road. Mr. Wyant showed the members the repair plan he drew dated 9/13/11. Ms. Cheney and Mr. Bohan thought the Commission should approve this application and not make the applicants wait. Mr. Wadelton agreed and said that seems to be the general opinion of the Commission. He considered this to be an emergency situation and so waived the 14-day requirement.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-35 submitted by Ms. Amanda Seitz to install a drain and repair the eroded stream bank in accordance with the hand drawn plan dated September 13, 2011. This permit is valid for 9 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work,
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bohan and passed 5-0.
Other Business
West Indies, LLC. /96 Calhoun Street /Request to Transfer Permit #IW-07-04:
This application is a request for name change on the existing permit to the new owner. This property was approved several years ago for a first cut, lot split and wetlands crossing. The Commission looked at the site plan prepared by Brian Neff dated 8/26/11. The new owner, West Indies, LLC would like to have the permit in his name before starting work on the wetlands crossing for the driveway. In his letter dated 9/21/11, Mr. Harold Tittmann stated that there will be no changes within the regulated area. The commissioners discussed the application. Mr. Wadelton observed that there would be no changes within the Commission’s area of authority. Mrs. Hill disagreed. She believed the Commission was not following usual procedures.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-07-04 submitted by West Indies, LLC to transfer the permit for 96 Calhoun Street. This permit is valid for 9 years from the original approval and is subject to all conditions of that approval.
By Mr. Bohan, seconded by Mr. Papsin and passed 4-1.
Mrs. Hill denying. Reason for denying is stated in minutes.
Enforcement
Bennett /27 West Shore Road,
No Change.Chatfield /19 Tinker Hill Road,
No Change.Moore /25 Litchfield Turnpike,
has met all his obligations to the Commission and should be removed from the enforcement list.Others to be removed from Enforcement List:
Denscot Pools /269 New Milford Turnpike, has submitted a proposal accepted by Commission.
Wang /110 Blackville Road.
Howard /99 West Shore Road.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 9/14/11 minutes were accepted as corrected:
Page 2, Paragraph 7, Line 1, Mr. Sanford is a licensed Soil Scientist & Wetlands Scientist.MOTION:
To accept the 9/14/11 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 9/20/11 Griffin site inspection minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 9/21/11 Shepaug Valley Properties site inspection minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting.
By Mrs. Hill.Mr. Wadelton adjourned the meeting at 9:40PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Martha T. Shade, Clerk
Posted: September 20, 2011 September 14, 2011
Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
5:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Papsin
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hileman, Mr. Law, Mrs. Dyer, Mrs. Peckerman, Mr. Organschi, Mr. Aston, Mr. Charles, Mr./Mrs. Matthews, ResidentsPUBLIC HEARING
Steep Rock Assoc./120 Bee Brook Road/#IW-11-21/Footbridge
Mr. Bedini called the public hearing to order at 5:33 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
Mr. Wadelton read the legal notice published in Voices on 8/31/11 and 9/11/11 and the list of documents in the file.Mr. Organschi, design principal, Mr. Law, Director of Steep Rock Assoc., and Mr.Sacco, engineer, were present.
Mr. Organschi explained that a pedestrian timber bridge over the Shepaug River to be located 512 ft. upstream from the Rt. 47 crossing was proposed. The plans, “Pedestrian Bridge Crossing the Shepaug River at the Hidden Valley Reservation,” by Gray Organschi and TPA Design Group, revised to 8/18/11 were reviewed. Mr. Organschi noted the main goals of the project were to keep all work out of both the riparian river channel and the adjacent wetlands and to provide an accessible crossing for wheelchair bound people.
It was noted that the project was under review by the DEEP for flood certification, a 60 day process, and that the flood elevation at the bridge site was 518.
Mr. Organschi discussed feasible and prudent alternatives and said this was the preferred location because it required less ramp, which meant fewer impacts to the wetlands. He said a bridge closer to the DOT bridge was not feasible because it was too difficult to work with the state and a location further up the river was not feasible because you would not be able to see it from the south parking lot.
Construction materials were briefly reviewed. The bridge would be constructed of pressure treated laminated timber planks, stainless steel cables, and concrete footings. The footings on the north side would serve as the abutment and structural mass for the bridge. The cables would be installed outside the wetlands areas. A gabion “basket” was proposed to surround the concrete footings.
The erosion control plans on Sheets 2 and 3 were discussed. Mr. Organschi stated that existing grades would be used wherever possible so that deposition of fill and excavation would not be required. He noted that Steep Rock had requested that clearing be kept to a minimum and that the amount of footings had been reduced whenever possible. Best management practices per the 2002 Ct. Soil and Erosion Guidelines were proposed and the work would be done during the dry season.
Mr. Organschi described the construction sequence, which is detailed on Sheet AO.2. The five basic phases were 1) site preparation, 2) excavation, 3) pouring of concrete, 4) stringing of the cable system, and 5) installation of the deck components. The initial phases would be done in June/July of 2012 and the later phases in September 2012.
Mr. Organschi responded point by point to the Milone and MacBroom report dated 9/12/11. His response is detailed in his 9/14/11 letter to Mrs. Hill, Mr. Ajello, and commissioners, which is on file in the Land Use Office.
Mr. Bedini asked if machinery would be placed in the river. Mr. Organschi said it would not, but equipment would cross Bee Brook. He added that there also would be no machinery within the wetlands limits and all staging areas would be outside the wetlands areas.
Mr. Bedini asked if the bridge could sustain high winds. Mr. Organschi said very strict structural design specifications would be met for both wind load and vibrations.
Mr. Sanford, engineer from Milone and MacBroom, said the plans had been reviewed by a soil scientist, engineer, and structural engineer. He said the location was proposed where there would be the least impact to the wetlands and all activities were outside the wetlands so there would be no significant impacts. Regarding the trees to be cut, he noted the Commission should be comfortable with the number to be cut, especially below the high water line, the number to be cut in the cable areas should be specified, particularly in the south on the steeply sloped banks, the areas to be cleared should be clarified, and said there had to be enough clearance to get the materials to the site. Mr. Sanford recommended the installation of siltsoxx instead of silt fence because siltsoxx will stay in place under the conditions existing along the Shepaug River. He said all stumps should be left in place and all disturbed areas restored and stabilized with native plantings. For the north abutment, Mr. Sanford thought micropiles were the preferred alternative because they would require less dewatering than for standard concrete abutments, and therefore, less impact would result.
Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Sanford if he had an estimate of the number of trees to be cut. Mr. Sanford said this would not be possible until the plans were revised to show the limits of clearing.
Mr. Organschi noted that on the south side the goal was not to take down all of the trees, but to tie back branches so that the materials could be conveyed. He was not sure how this should be indicated on the plans.
Mr. Papsin asked about the life of the cable system. Mr. Organschi said it was 15 to 30 years depending on the coating system. He also stated that the cables could be restrung fully outside the wetlands and so their replacement would not cause any significant impact.
Mr. LaMuniere stated that the protection of the canopy was critical, especially on the north bank near the large wetland pocket. He also thought the hemlocks on the south bank and all the vegetative cover should be protected. Mr. Organschi said the applicant hoped to work closely with the Commission to save as much vegetation as possible.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if a problem with turbidity was anticipated. Mr. Organschi said it was not due to the erosion control measures proposed and the use of proper dewatering techniques.
When Mr. Ajello questioned the aesthetics of the proposed gabions, Mr. Organschi said he would discuss this with the Commission if it was a wetlands issue. Mr. Ajello said if the gabions were not used, there would be less material to be moved up river.
Mr. Bedini asked for comments from the public.
Mr. Charles gave a brief history of the reasons for the bridge and for its proposed location. He asked the Commission to consider feasible and prudent alternatives and to include the originally proposed DOT bridge as an alternative. When Mr. Bedini noted that that bridge was no longer possible, Mr. Charles countered that some of the funding for the original DOT bridge was no longer available, but there was nothing to prevent a pedestrian bridge from being built along the DOT’s Rt. 47 bridge.
Mr. Bedini explained that the application before the Commission was for a bridge in the location proposed by Steep Rock and that if the Commission found there could be significant impacts to the wetlands or watercourses, it would then consider feasible and prudent alternatives. He also noted that aesthetics and funding were not the Commission’s concerns. Mr. Charles said he did not understand how there could be less impacts to the wetlands and watercourse by building the bridge 512 feet upstream rather than along side the DOT bridge and he cited another recent bridge application where the Commission required the applicant to consider feasible and prudent alternatives.
Mr. LaMuniere noted that the Commission’s consultant supported the proposed approach and that one of the goals was wheelchair accessibility. He said the impact to the wetlands appeared minimal. Mr. Bedini agreed, but said it had not yet been determined whether the proposal would have significant impacts.
Mr. Organschi stated the applicant would make the revisions that Mr. Sanford and the Commission thought were necessary.
Mr. Bedini said the public hearing would be continued to provide the Commission the opportunity to review and comment on the revisions the applicant would submit. After a brief discussion, the hearing was continued to Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Mr. Bedini asked the applicant and members of the public to get their comments and revisions in as soon as possible.
At 6:50 p.m. Mr. Bedini continued the public hearing.
REGULAR MEETING
7:00 p.m.MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Martino, Mr. Papsin
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Matteo, Mr. Sabin, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Neff, Mr. Horrigan, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Gabrenas, Ms. Martin, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Farmen, Ms. Scodari, Mr. Aston, Atty. Olson, ResidentsMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
MOTION:
To include the following subsequent business not already posted on the agenda:
III. Consideration of the Minutes:
G. Special Meeting – 7/27/11 and
H. 8/24/11 Matteo site inspection
and to note the following new application that was received too late to be posted on the agenda:
Seitz/104 Blackville Road/#IW-11-35/ Site Drainage and
Armor Streambank.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.MOTION:
To change the order of the Agenda to take up Consideration of the Minutes after X. Executive Session.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Steep Rock, Assoc./120 Bee Brook Road/#IW-11-21/Bridge:
It was noted the public hearing had been continued to 9/28/11 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting RoomBrown/127 West Shore Road/#IW-11-22/Application to Correct Violation:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, and Atty. Kelly represented the applicant. The 9/6/11 email between Atty. Kelly and Atty. Olson was read into the record and all of the emails between them from 8/16/11 through 9/9/11 were submitted for the file. Mr. Ajello noted that he did not agree with all of the statements by Atty. Kelly in the 9/6/11 email. Atty. Kelly circulated photos of the site. Mr. Sabin presented his amended landscaping plan, “Proposed Shoreline Improvements and Buffer,” dated 9/14/11 showing the counter proposal revisions in red. In his counter offer for his 157 feet of shoreline, Mr. Brown proposed to retain approximately 68 feet of dry laid seawall and to leave the remaining 60% as natural buffer. Mr. Sabin said that more than 240 native plants would be added to the buffer and these would help to manage the road runoff. Atty. Olson asked what would be done with the fill that had been placed behind the wall. Mr. Sabin said the amount was negligible. The proposed deposition of large flat stone slabs that would be resistant to wave action along the shoreline was discussed. Mrs. Hill asked if any larger stones would be added elsewhere. Mr. Sabin stated there would be a second course of stones behind the first. Atty. Kelly said the grade would be changed to provide a lower elevation for accessing the lake. Mr. Sabin said a ramp would be cut in. Atty. Olson noted that regrading would be required and asked how much would be done. Mr. Sabin said less than 25 cubic yards would be removed and that permanent stones would be laid down to correct the erosion problem. Atty. Kelly explained this was in response to the Commission’s request to replant the entire area, but Atty. Olson responded that the request was for restoration, not to place stones. Atty. Kelly noted that if the Commission did not want any of the stones to be placed, then the applicant would agree not to do so. Mr. Ajello asked what the planted area would look like. Mr. Sabin said it would not be woods, but would be a native plant shrub layer with a fern understory. Mr. Ajello asked if it would be maintained. Atty. Kelly said, yes, the owner would not give up his right to landscape his property. Mr. Sabin reviewed the types and quantities of the proposed vegetation. It was the consensus of the commissioners to go into executive session to discuss the counter proposal.MOTION:
To alter the order of the Agenda to move Executive Session up to IV. Pending Applications: B. Brown/ #IW-11-22/Application to Correct Violation.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To enter Executive Session at 7:33 p.m. to discuss pending litigation: Brown/127 West Shore Road/ Unauthorized Work along Shoreline and Application #IW-11-22.
By Mr. Bohan, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To end Executive Session at 8:04 p.m.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.Hochberg/15 Couch Road/#IW-11-25/Dredge Pond:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, submitted his plan, “Pond Dredging Plan,” revised to 9/14/11. After discussing the proposal with Mr. Ajello in the field, Mr. Szymanski said he had revised the location of the disposal area to keep it closer to the road. He also read the additional notes he had added to the plans. There were no other questions or comments.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-25 submitted by Mr. Hochberg to dredge his pond at 15 Couch Road per the plan, “Pond Dredging Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 6/30/2008 and revised to 9/14/11; permit shall be valid for 9 years and subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures before work begins,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and the approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0Lake Waramaug Country Club/22 Golf Links Road/#IW-11-26/Install Fairway Drainage System:
Mr. Gabrenas, golf course superintendent, presented the plan, “Golf Course Drainage Improvement Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 10/26/04 on which he had drawn the limit of disturbance line. He pointed out the area of the filter basin where a 2 ft. depth would be established and he said the drainage lines within the disturbed area were now marked. Mr. Papsin asked if there was a containment area for the excavated material. Mr. Gabrenas said it would most likely be used elsewhere on the golf course. Mr. LaMuniere asked for the size and depth of the drainage pipes. Mr. Gabrenas said they were 4 inch lines and would be 1 ft. deep.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-26 submitted by the Lake Waramaug Country Club to install a fairway drainage system at 22 Golf Links Road per the plan, “Golf Course Drainage Improvement Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 8/19/04 and revised to 10/26/04 and per the sheet received tonight, signed and dated 9/14/11; permit shall be valid for 9 years and subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures before work begins,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and the approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.Regional School District #12/159 South Street/#IW-11-27/Install Air Line and Remove Tree:
It was noted that no one was present to represent the applicant and there had been no questions or concerns at the last meeting.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-27 submitted by Regional School District #12 to install an air line and remove a tree at 159 South Street per the plan, “Property.Boundary Survey Site Analysis Plan,” by Mr. Alex, dated 2/2004; permit to be valid for 9 years and subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures before work begins,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and the approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.Shepaug Valley Properties/27 Mt. Tom Road/#IW-11-28/Storage Shed, Parking Area, Walkway, Bridge:
The revised map, “Supplemental Map Showing Topographic Lines and Wetlands,” unsigned, dated 12/10/87 with the location of the proposed activities highlighted by hand, was reviewed. Ms. Martin noted the new location of the walkway, which would now cut across her property. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, 9/21/11 at 5:00 p.m. Ms. Martin said she would be willing to submit a new application, but not until after the site inspection had been conducted.Glickman-Henley/37 Old North Road/#IW-11-29/Addition to Dwelling:
Mr. Neff, engineer, had revised the map to show the flagged wetlands boundaries and said it was now confirmed that the proposed addition (finishing off the building under the existing roof) was 25 feet from the wetlands. The map, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” revised to 9/1/11 was reviewed. There were no questions or comments.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-29 submitted by Glickman and Henley for an addition to their dwelling at 37 Old North Road per the plan, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 8/7/11 and revised to 9/1/11; the permit shall be valid for 9 years and subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures before work begins,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and the approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.Matteo/176 West Shore Road/#IW-11-30/Repair Lakeshore Landing:
Mr. Neff, engineer, and Ms. Matteo were present. Mr. Neff stated there had been no changes to the plans since the last meeting. Mr. Papsin noted the proposed repairs were minor.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-30 submitted by Ms. Matteo to repair the lake shore landing at 176 West Shore Road per the hand drawn plan, “Lakeside Landing Repair Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 8/6/11; the permit shall be valid for 9 years and subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures before work begins,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and the approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.Brown/127 West Shore Road/#IW-11-31/Application for Exemption:
MOTION:
To table discussion of Application #IW-11-31 submitted by Mr. Brown for work at 127 West Shore Road.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Bennett/207 Bee Brook Road/#IW-11 32/Repair Retaining Wall:
Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Bennett explained that the recent storms had caused erosion along the streambank near the house. Mr. Bennett noted his house was only 12 feet from the streambank and that 3 to 4 ft. of the bank had washed out. He feared the water would reach his house if there was another storm before the retaining wall was repaired. Mr. Neff explained the details shown on his plan, “Retaining Wall Repair Plan,” dated 9/7/11. He said the base of the wall and the upper level of the eroded bank would be reinforced with stone and then backfilled. Filter fabric would be installed behind the boulders. Also plants would be transplanted and placed between the boulders. He referred to the proposed construction sequence and narrative on the plan. Photos of the site were circulated. It was the consensus of the commissioners that this was emergency repair work and that action on the application could be taken immediately.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-32 submitted by Mr. Bennett to repair the retaining wall at 207 Bee Brook Road per the plan, “Retaining Wall Repair Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 9/7/11; the permit shall be valid for 9 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures before work begins,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and the approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.Griffin/199 West Shore Road/#IW-11-33/Replace Boathouse Concrete Walls:
Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Rich Horrigan, contractor, were present. Mr. Neff presented photos of the existing conditions. Mr. Neff stated that a temporary coffer dam would be installed around the work areas to keep the work zone dry. The same contractor who worked on the Town boat launch will do the work. Mr. Neff said the new concrete walls would not change in size or configuration and would be 12 inches thick. The old cracked walls would be removed, the walls would be repoured and foundation work would be done at the bottom of the footings where erosion had taken place. Mrs. Hill asked what type of machinery would be used. Mr. Neff said an excavator and pointed out the accessway and where the work would be done from. Mr. LaMuniere thought it was a complex project and recommended a site inspection. The site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.Rumsey Hall School/210 Romford Road/#IW-11-34/Reconstruct, Enlarge Student Center, Reconfigure Driveway and Parking, Install Drainage System:
For orientation, Mr. Farmen, Headmaster, presented the map, “Illustrative Master Plan,” dated 2000 and explained why it was necessary to reconstruct and increase the size of the building. Mr. Aston, engineer, submitted plans, “Dining Hall/ Student Center Inland Wetlands Submission,” 14 Sheets, by Wieber Powell + Grunigen, Inc., Buck and Buck, LLC., Smith and Company, CR3, LLP., and Environmental Planning Services, with most of the L series sheets revised to 9/14/11. Mr. Bedini asked if all of the concerns raised in Mrs. Hill’s 9/13/11 review had been addressed. Mr. Aston said the revised plans addressed her comments. Mr. Aston said the goal was to keep the new building as far from the Bantam River as the existing building is; 108 ft. He noted in addition, per the Zoning Regulations, buildings may be no closer than 50 ft. from the flood plain and the existing building is located 22 ft. from the flood plain. He said the existing septic system would be kept and all of the required separation distances would be maintained. He stated that due to the location of the septic system, this was the only feasible location for the building. He also stated that although there would be new pavement for the driveway and parking, none of it would be any closer to the wetlands than the existing pavement. Mr. Aston stated the parking space count is currently 42 and would be 40 with a better circulation pattern upon the completion of the project. He noted other changes as well such as moving the service area to the north end of the building and installing temporary parking and walkway. He noted that the installation of an underground stormwater detention system to handle a 50 year storm was also proposed. The time frame for the project was demolition in March 2012 with work running from March 2012 to January 2013. Ms. Scodari amended the application form to include all of the activities proposed. Mr. Farmen noted that a landscaping plan had also been submitted. Mr. Bedini stated that the application would be referred to Milone and MacBroom for review and a site inspection would be scheduled after this report was received. Mr. Bedini explained the process of posting the consulting bond. Mr. Farmen noted that during the recent storms there was no flooding in this area. It was the consensus that the FEMA flood elevations probably were not accurate.
Pending Application
Brown/127 West Shore Road/#IW-11-22/Application to Correct Violation:
MOTION:
To enter Executive Session at 9:00 p.m. to discuss pending litigation: Brown/127 West Shore Road/ Unauthorized Shoreline Work and Application #IW-11-22.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To end Executive Session at 9:55 p.m.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
Regarding Brown/127 West Shore Road/Application #IW-11-22 to correct a violation and shoreline restoration; it is apparent the plans have been modified and there is not sufficient time to review them, therefore, the Commission moves to deny the application without prejudice and to allow the applicant to resubmit it and the application fee will be waived.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Ms. Cheney and Mr. Bohan left the meeting at this point and Alternate Papsin was seated for Mr. Bohan.
Enforcement Report
Mr. Ajello reviewed his 9/14/11 report and noted at the next meeting the Selectmen would have a complete report concerning the work done due to the recent storms.
Enforcement
Unauthorized Clearing at Regional School District #12/School Street:
An incomplete after the fact application was submitted. Mr. Ajello was asked to send an enforcement letter to the school superintendent.Denscot Pools/New Milford Turnpike/Unauthorized Expansion of Parking Area and Outside Storage:
Mrs. Hill asked why this issue was not listed on the agenda under Enforcement. Mr. Ajello said he was still waiting for an application. Mrs. Hill asked Mr. Ajello to contact the owner.
Administrative Business
2011 Municipal Inland Wetlands Commissioners Training Program:
Segment III will concern soils. Two of the four sessions offered will be held in Burlington in October.The DEEP announced in a memo dated 9/8/11 that IW permits will now be valid for 9 years and may be extended up to 14 years.
Mr. Bedini reported that Atty. Olson had advised the Commission not to accept any blanket requests that entire files be included in the record of a current file. The Commission should accept requests that specific documents be included in the file and a copy of each document should be submitted with the request.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 7/13/11 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. Mrs. J. Hill provided a corrected entry for page 2: Lancaster-Fuchs (attached).Mrs. Hill asked if the Franklands had submitted a second copy of their site plan as required before their permit was issued. Mrs. J. Hill will check.
MOTION:
To accept the 7/13/11 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0-1.
Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not attended the Meeting.MOTION:
To accept the 7/27/11 Special Meeting minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.The 8/10/11 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 6 under Schwartz, “deterioration” basin should be changed to “detention” basin.
MOTION:
To accept the 8/10/11 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 8/31/11 Special Meeting minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.The 9/8/11 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 5 the Wykeham Rise public hearing was continued to 9/28, not 9/14. Also on page 5 regarding whether the Commission can waive its Regulations, Mr. Wadelton said it could, but that the Commission should check with its counsel.
MOTION:
To accept the 9/8/11 Special Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 8/24/11 Shepaug Valley Properties site inspection minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 9/6/11 Wykeham Rise, LLC. site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 8/24/11 Matteo site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Wadelton.FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: September 13, 2011 September 8, 2011
Special Meeting
5:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Klauer, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Allan, Mrs. Solomon, Ms. Purnell, Ms. Giampietro, Mr. Bent, Residents, PressPublic Hearing
Wykeham Rise, LLC./ 101 Wykeham Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-08-31Mr. Bedini called the public hearing to order at 5:35 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton. Mr. Wadelton read the legal notice published in Voices on 8/24/11 and 9/4/11 and the 9/8/11 list of documents in the file.
Mr. Szymanski presented the map, “Overall Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 7/8/11 and revised to 9/7/11. He then discussed point by point the 8/31/11 review letter to Mr. Bedini from Mr. Allan of Land Tech Consultants, Inc. He noted that he had responded in detail to Mr. Allan’s report in his 9/7/11 letter to Mr. Bedini and said all of the revisions in the 9/7/11 plans that had been made in response to Mr. Allan’s 8/31/11 review had been clarifications. Both of these letters are available in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Mr. Bedini asked the commissioners if they had any questions. Mr. LaMuniere said Mr. Szymanski’s letter and the modified plans had just been received today and he had not yet had time to review them.
Mrs. Hill asked for clarification regarding revision dates. Mrs. J. Hill explained that this was actually the second request for a revision of Permit #IW-08-31.
Mr. Bedini asked the public for comments.
Ms. Purnell said she had prepared written comments based on the information in the file two weeks prior to the opening of the public hearing. She stated the documents submitted by the applicant today were in violation of Section 10.06 of the Inland Wetlands Regulations. She said the late submissions put the public at a disadvantage and said she did not think the Commission could continue with the hearing.
Mr. Bedini said it had taken the applicant time to respond to the report from the Commission’s consultant and that it was difficult to make the process fair to all.
Ms. Purnell stated the proposed revisions to the permit were significant and so a new application should be required. She said the Commission had made an error when it approved Wykeham University as a permit revision. She questioned their accuracy and whether it was possible to implement the proposed work schedule and construction sequence according to the plan presented. She noted the site is very constrained and she compared it to other previous large developments in Town, which, she said, all had required daily monitoring and all had serious erosion problems in spite of the monitoring. These issues are detailed in her letter to the Commission dated 9/8/11, which is on file in the Land Use Office.
Ms. Purnell next raised the issue of transparency, citing what she thought were potential conflicts of interest that should have been disclosed to the Commission.
Ms. Purnell questioned why the Commission would waive the predevelopment quarterly water quality monitoring requirement that had been a condition of approval for the original permit. She reminded the Commission that the public relies on it to protect the Town’s wetlands and watercourses and that erosion and stormwater management and the appropriateness of the proposal for the site were wetlands issues under the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Mr. Wadelton said he had dealt with the issue of dropping the water quality testing in his 7 page memo to the Commission, written at the time the first request to revise Permit #IW-08-31 was considered. He noted he would be happy to listen to Ms. Purnell refute it.
Ms. Purnell complained that the Commission had squelched public participation in the past and had acted in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner. She noted that she had not been able to submit her letter at the last session of the Wykeham Terrace hearing because it was felt it might “taint” the proceedings, but tonight new information from the applicant had been accepted.
In response to Ms. Purnell’s comments (detailed in her 9/8/11 letter and charts), Mr. Szymanski stated that the current culverts at 101 Wykeham Road were not undersized and had been only half full during Hurricane Irene, that it would be impossible for the developer to function if only 3 acres could be disturbed at any one time, that a multitude of stormwater treatment measures had been proposed for the site, and that he had worked previously with many members of the Commission and staff, but acted in a professional manner and had no conflicts of interest.
It was noted that the plans submitted tonight would be referred to Land Tech, Inc. for review.
Mrs. Solomon noted the frustration that she and other neighboring property owners have with the application review process and asked the commissioners not to take any shortcuts with this review due to the complexity of the project. She, too, questioned why the Commission waived the water quality testing requirement, saying that the applicant had not asked that this be done. Regarding enforcement and monitoring of the project once work has begun, she said that the WEO already has a full schedule and so the neighbors would be more comfortable with “significant” monitoring by an outside professional.
Mr. Bedini explained that the Commission reviews all information submitted and does not take shortcuts.
Mr. Wadelton said the water monitoring requirement had been a condition of approval by previous commissioners who were “well intentioned,” but who “did not know what they were doing” and who had overstepped their authority. He said the cost to the applicant would not be justified because the information that could be obtained could not relate back to the Wykeham Rise project. He thought this condition was “almost punitive.” Mrs. Hill said she had not agreed with the Commission when it voted to waive this condition.
Mrs. Solomon thought the Commission should let the applicant represent itself. She also said that although the Commission has the right to deny an application because it is incomplete, it seemed to her that the Commission no longer placed the burden of proving the application is complete on the applicant. She said some neighbors were hiring an engineer to review the plans.
Ms. Purnell said the monitoring was an issue of fundamental fairness; that previously all large projects had had water quality monitoring requirements. In comparision, she said this property was steep, has more erodable soils, is closer to a watercourse, and has seeps throughout it. She noted the Montessori School was supposed to have installed a water quality monitoring well, but that this had never been put in. She also thought the proposed work would intercept groundwater. She disputed the applicant’s claim that the proposed work would result in better water quality in Kirby Brook, noting the property had not been used for 8-10 years and the grassed sections are currently meadow. She noted the Commission had not required the property owner to correct an erosion problem that had been ongoing for three years. She concluded that water quality monitoring was imperative for pre, during, and post construction and said the Commission would already have 3 years of data if the condition of approval had not been waived.
Ms. Purnell said she was troubled by how accountability would be determined as the project goes forward due to its complexity and continued revisions. She noted that Mr. Allan of Land Tech had stated in his review that if all work was completed and installed per the plans, he believed there would be no adverse impact to the wetlands, but she asked how the Commission could be assured the plan would be carried out as approved and that it would be carried out without any changes.
Mr. Bedini said the Commission would take a closer look at oversight.
Ms. Purnell said again, that the project should be considered as a new application. She said it should require up to date data and documents, she said the current plans could not “fly” with the DEP, and she asked if the thermal impacts resulting from the expanded forebays had been considered.
Mr. Wadelton said he would look forward to reviewing the report from the neighbors’ engineer and said he hoped they would get it in on time.
Mr. LaMuniere stated that the Commission could not reopen issues from the original application; it could only consider the impact of the proposed revisions. He said although it was clear that the public needs full access to all application materials and time to review them, input had to be cut off at a certain point.
Ms. Purnell stated that the Commission must consider all information presented. She said the Commission should assess whether the springs and seeps pointed out in the Wykeham inn application would be impacted, said the monitoring wells are not shown on the site plans, and said the Commission has not assessed whether wetlands on adjoining down slope property would be impacted. She also noted that some of the reasons on which the Commission had based its approval of the original application were no longer proposed, such as most of the porous driveway surface, the restoration of the driveway off Bell Hill Road, the green roof on the main building, and the greenhouse. She stated the inn had been approved for 44 rooms, while the university proposed 70, an increase in usage. She asked if the Commission had considered the impacts from the increase in the number of cars now that the porous pavement was gone.
Mrs. Solomon asked the Commission to make sure the latest proposal stands on its own merits.
Mr. Bedini said the public hearing would be continued to give everyone an opportunity to review the latest revisions. Atty. Fisher asked if Land Tech could get its comments in by the 9/14 meeting so that the Wetlands Commission could act before the next Zoning Commission meeting on 9/26/11. Ms. Purnell said that last minute comments from Land Tech would make it difficult for the public to review and comment on the report by the 9/14 meeting.
Ms. Purnell pointed out that per Section 10.06 of the Regulations, all material in support of an application is supposed to be submitted at least 15 days prior to the public hearing. This would mean that if the continuation of the hearing was scheduled for 9/28, the applicant’s response to Land Tech’s review would have to be submitted by 9/13.
MOTION:
To continue the Public Hearing to consider the request by Wykeham Rise, LLC. to revise Permit #IW-08-31 –school at 101 Wykeham Road.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Mr. Bedini said time of the Regular Meeting on 9/14 would be changed to 7:30 p.m. and continued the hearing to 9/14/11 at 5:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room. The hearing was continued at 7:28 p.m.
Discussion Regarding Whether the Commission Wants Legal Counsel to Attend the Next Session of the Wykeham Rise, LLC. Public Hearing:
Regarding the submission of material for a public hearing, Mr. Wadelton stated the Commission could waive its Regulations if it thinks it reasonable.
MOTION: To enter Executive Session. By Mr. Wadelton,
There was a brief discussion. Mr. Bedini and Mrs. Hill did not think this was a legitimate reason to go into executive session. Mr. Bohan and Ms. Cheney thought there was no need. Mr. Wadelton spoke strongly in support and Mr. Ajello stated that Atty. Zizka had advised him that the Commission could go into executive session if there was a risk of litigation.
Seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-1.
Mrs. Hill voted No because she thought it was not necessary and there was not a legitimate reason for an executive session.The Commission entered executive session at 7:37 p.m.
MOTION: To end the Executive Session. By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bohan, passed 5-0.
Executive session concluded at 7:45 p.m.
MOTION:
To invite the Commission’s legal counsel to attend future sessions of the Wykeham Rise, LLC. public hearing and to contact the applicant for the appropriate bond to cover the cost of the Commission’s legal representation.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Corbo/40 Nettleton Hollow Road/Request to Extend Permit #IW-06-34/First Cut:
It was noted that Mr. Corbo is now applying to Zoning for a first cut and that his IWC permit would expire before the next Zoning Commission meeting.MOTION:
To grant Corbo Associates, Inc. a 2 year extension of Permit #IW-06-34 for a first cut at 40 Nettleton Hollow Road.
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 7:52 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: September 7, 2011 August 31, 2011
Special Meeting
5:30 p.m. Town PavilionMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. HillMr. Bedini called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., seated the five regular members, and noted it had been called to discuss administrative business. Most of the discussion centered on the question, What can we do better? The suggestions included:
1. Try to keep the meeting on track so that it can be adjourned by 10:00-10:15 p.m. after which, many commissioners find it difficult to concentrate.
2. Be careful not to engineer plans for applicants.
3. Review staff reports more seriously.
4. Search for a diversity of legal advice.
5. Have legal counsel attend more meetings, especially public hearings.In an attempt to keep meetings to the 10:00 p.m. limit, a new policy was established. New applications that are not submitted by 5:00 p.m. the Friday prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting will not be discussed at that meeting, although the time limits set per the state statutes will begin. This will provide staff adequate time to review applications prior to the meeting and will be consistently applied to all applicants. The one exception will be for urgent matters such as emergency repairs and situations that impact the public health, safety, and welfare.
It was the consensus that application fees would not be required for applications for Exemptions. This will be included in the Regulations the next time they are revised.
In general, it was agreed that the Commission’s counsel and consultants should attend public hearings. But regarding the upcoming public hearing for Wykeham Rise, LLC. on September 8, it was decided to have a brief special meeting that evening after the hearing has been either closed or continued to make a determination regarding whether to request the Commission’s legal counsel attend the next session of the hearing at which Wykeham’s request would be considered or the next meeting when the deliberation would be conducted. It was also agreed that counsel should attend when there is an application having an intervener.
Other questions/issues that came up included the following matters, which will be researched and then discussed further.
1. Is the Commission required to pass a motion to schedule a public hearing?
2. If a commissioner abstains from a vote, must he give a reason for the record?
3. Should abstentions be avoided in favor of recusals?
4. Should violations be numbered?
5. Can applicants’ engineers be asked either to provide less information on each map or larger maps so that it is easier to read details.
6. What specifically is the recent ruling regarding participation of alternates and how should the IWC apply it when conducting its business?MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: August 17, 2011 August 10, 2011
Show Cause Hearing – Regular Meeting
6:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Howard, Mr. Law, Mr. Neff, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Sabin, Atty. Kelly, Mrs. Pond, Mr. Ebner, Mr. Sweeney, Ms. Matteo, ResidentsSHOW CAUSE HEARING
Howard/99 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Construction of Patio
Mr. Bedini called the show cause hearing to order at 6:30 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, and Wadelton and Mr. Bohan for Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Wadelton read the 7/26/11 citation notice to Mr. Howard from Mr. Ajello and the 8/1/11 cease and desist order to Mr. Howard from Mr. Ajello.
Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Howard to explain why the cease and desist order should not stand. Mr. Howard responded that water had undermined pavers that had been installed in the area and so he had deposited sand and had replaced the pavers with bluestone. He said he had not known that repair work required a permit. Mr. Ajello noted that if an application had been submitted to the Commission, it would have considered a device to control the erosion of the sand on this bank.
Mr. Wadelton read the 7/21/11 letter from Mr. Howard to Mr. Ajello, which he had written after receiving the notice of violation. Mr. Howard noted the work had been completed in one day and that he had considered it to be maintenance. He circulated photos of the site.
Mr. Bedini advised Mr. Howard that any work on the lake shore is within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Mr. Bohan said he had not realized this was the replacement of an existing patio. Mrs. Hill asked if there was any work left to be done. Mr. Howard said he would replace a tree that had died. Mr. Ajello noted the tree had been planted as part of the settlement to correct a previous violation. Mr. Ajello also noted the sand from the job had been cleaned up promptly as he had requested.
The cease and desist order to pay the fine and to stop all work was reviewed. Mr. Howard stated that he had not yet paid his fine.
Mrs. Hill told Mr. Howard that the Commission would vote during the regular meeting on whether the order should remain in effect.
MOTION:
To close the Show Cause hearing for Howard/ 99 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Construction of Patio.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 5-0.Mr. Bedini closed the hearing at 6:48 p.m. This hearing was recorded. The audio is available 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:
V. New Applications:
C. Regional School District #12/159 South Street/#IW-11-27 Install Air Line, Remove Tree,
D. Shepaug Valley Properties, LLC./27 Mt. Tom Road/ #IW-11-28/Storage Shed, Bridge, Walkway,
E. Glickman and Henley/37 Old North Road/ #IW-11-29/Additions to Existing Dwelling,
F. Matteo/176 West Shore Road/#IW-11-30/Repairs to Shoreline Stone Landing,
G. Brown/127 West Shore Road/#IW-11-31/Application for Exemption After the Fact Repair of Stone Wall,
VIII. Administrative Business:
A. Discussion re: Update Plan of Conservation and Development,
B. Additional Meeting.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION:
To postpone consideration of the 7/13/11 Regular Meeting minutes until the next meeting.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 7/20/11 Lyon-Gray site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, passed 4-0-1. Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not attended the site inspection.MOTION:
To accept the 7/20/11 Kessler site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0-1.
Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not attended the site inspection.MOTION:
To accept the 8/3/11 Brown site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0-1.
Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not attended the site inspection.MOTION:
To accept the 8/3/11 Schwartz site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0-1.
Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not attended the site inspection.MOTION:
To table consideration of the 7/27/11 Special Meeting minutes to the next meeting.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Nauiokas-Kleinberg/10 and 18 Loomarwick Road/#IW-11-19/Driveway Drainage Swale:
Mr. Neff, engineer, stated there had been no revisions to the plan since the last meeting. His map, “Driveway Drainage Plan,” dated 7/2/11 was reviewed. Mr. Neff explained the old swale had filled in over the years and a new stone lined swale was proposed to stabilize the area and stop the erosion problem. Mr. Bedini noted there had been no questions or concerns raised at the last meeting.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-19 for a driveway drainage swale at 10 and 18 Loomarwick Road, submitted by Nauiokas and Kleinberg, in accordance with the plan, “Driveway Drainage Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 7/2/11; permit to be valid for 2 years; subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 5-0.Lyon-Gray/82 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-11-20/Gazebo and Landscaping:
Mr. Bohan noted he had not attended the site inspection and so Mr. Bedini seated Alternate Papsin in his place. Mr. Sabin stated that the gazebo would be constructed on piers, mostly native species would be planted, and a silt fence would be installed to protect the wetlands.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-20 submitted by Lyon and Gray for a gazebo and landscaping at 82 Old Litchfield Road per the plans by Mr. Sabin, 4 sheets, dated 5/1/11; permit to be valid for two years; subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.Steep Rock Assoc./120 Bee Brook Road/#IW-11-21/Footbridge:
Mr. Bedini noted a petition requesting that a public hearing be held had been received. He asked if the consulting bond had been posted. It had not. Mr. Law, Steep Rock Director, said he hoped he would have it in by the end of the week. He noted that additional information such as test boring results and minor revisions including a change in the work schedule would be submitted by August 19. Mr. Ajello stated the only wetlands issues were the vehicle crossing over Bee Brook and the transport of equipment and materials along both sides of the river. A public hearing was scheduled on September 14, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.Brown/127 West Shore Road/#IW-11-22/Correction of Violation/ Shoreline Renovation:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, and Atty. Kelly represented Mr. Brown. Mr. Sabin’s plan, “Proposed Shoreline Improvements and Buffer,” dated 7/11/11 was reviewed. Mr. LaMuniere thought that given the long history of the violation, the Commission should consult with its attorney. Mr. Bedini agreed and said a vote would not be taken until this matter had been discussed with the attorney. Atty. Kelly stated that he had contacted the Commission’s attorney yesterday to inform her that due to the trial conference coming up, it was critical that he know tonight what the Commission’s decision would be. Mr. Sabin made the following points: regardless of what had transpired between the Commission and the property owner, the current application proposes 50% of the shoreline as useable and 50% to be left in a natural state, and creates a buffer of native plants. He thought his plan was a good faith effort to address the owner’s concerns and the Commission’s goal of protecting the lake. Mrs. Hill asked about the 7/13/11 minutes and about which section of the wall had been deconstructed. Mr. Sabin said the west end near the stairs had been deconstructed, but Mr. Ajello noted that 15 to 20 feet of the wall to the west had never been reconstructed. Atty. Kelly briefly reviewed the proposed plan again. Mr. LaMuniere commented that the work that had been done was not what was originally approved. Mrs. Hill said the minutes state that Mr. Ajello did not think the disturbance that would be caused by the installation of filter fabric behind the wall would be worth it, but that on the site inspection Mr. Sabin had said filter fabric would be installed. Mr. Sabin said this was still part of the proposal unless the Commission thought it would have too much impact. Atty. Kelly said the crushed stone and filter fabric had been included in Mr. Wilson’s original plan, although had not been installed when the work had been done. He said it would be installed now if the Commission thought it would be beneficial. Mr. Sabin pointed out the section of shoreline that was to remain natural. He measured the section that would have grass on top of the wall, and determined it was more than half of the shoreline. Mr. Sabin completed the missing sections of the DEP form.Kessler/105 West Mt. Road/#IW-11-23/Hot Tub and Stone Wall:
It was noted that a site inspection had been conducted since the last meeting. Mr. Neff, engineer, explained the proposal to extend the wall and to install a hot tub in the garden area on the south side of the house. Mrs. Hill asked how much backfill would be required. Mr. Neff said 6 to 8 inches would be needed to level off the area. He also noted the wall would be dry laid, have a 3 ft. wide base, which would taper to 18 inches wide at the top, and would have a maximum height of 4 ft.MOTION: To approve Application #IW-11-23 for a hot tub and stone wall in the regulated area at 105 West Mountain Road, submitted by Kessler, in accordance with the plan, “Stone Wall and Hot Tub Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 7/11/11; permit to be valid for two years; subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.Schwartz/173 West Shore Road/#IW-11-24/Patio and Retaining Wall:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his revised plan, “Sediment and Erosion Control Plan,” revised to 8/8/11, noting the revisions were based on comments made at the 8/3/11 site inspection. The large patio that had been proposed less than 50 ft. from the wetlands had been deleted, but the stairway and the proposed retaining wall at the NE corner of the garage had not been changed although part of the wall would be within 50 ft. of the wetlands. A footing drain pipe to pick up water from behind the wall was also added to the plan. Mr. Neff said a deteriorating basin would be rebuilt and the driveway would be curbed and repaved. The paved area would not increase in size. Mr. Papsin asked if the disturbed areas would be grassed this year. Mr. Neff said they would be seeded and mulched by the end of the season. Mr. Papsin thought this was important due to the steep slope and recommended that jute matting also be installed. Mr. Neff agreed to install the matting, but noted the area would be more level once the retaining wall was constructed.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-24 for a retaining wall and terrace at 173 West Shore Road submitted by Schwartz, per the map, “Sediment and Erosion Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 7/11/11 and revised to 8/8/11; permit shall be valid for two years; subject to the following conditions:
1. that grass shall be planted by September 15, 2011 and jute matting installed on the north and east sides of the new terrace and garage,
2. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
3. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
4. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Mr. Bohan was reseated at this point.
New Applications
Hochberg/15 Couch Road/#IW-11-25/Dredge Pond:
The map, “Pond Dredging Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 7/28/11 was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski stated the proposed dredging was part of a maintenance plan for the annual removal of sediment from the pond. He said its removal by hand would cause no adverse impact to the pond. Approximately 10 yards would be excavated and deposited in the nearby forest. Mr. Szymanski offered to draw down the pond for a site inspection to show that the silt could be easily removed by hand and wheelbarrow. He noted there is a tremendous amount of sediment that ends up in the pond each year, so he was not sure whether dredging once a year would be adequate, and he asked for a five year permit. Mr. Bedini thought this would be possible if all the work was done by hand, the WEO was notified prior to the start of work each time the pond was to be dredged, and the pond would not be made larger or deeper when excavated. Mr. Ajello noted that the Town’s drainage disappears into the ground behind the wall near the area proposed for the deposition of the excavated material. Mr. Szymanksi said he would check into this and would inspect the site with Mr. Ajello before the next meeting. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Ajello to draft conditions of approval and Mr. Szymanski offered to note these conditions on the approved plan. Mr. LaMuniere suggested that the excavated material be piled on site and removed by truck every two years or so when it reached a certain size.Lake Waramaug Country Club/22 Golf Links Road/#IW-11-26/Install Fairway Drainage System:
Mr. Gabrenas, golf course superintendent, presented the plan, “Golf Course Drainage Improvement Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 10/26/04. He proposed to maintain the ditch and the sediment basin and to install the sections of the drainage system that had not been installed in 2004. Mr. Gabrenas did not know how much silt would be removed from the basin, but said he would not disturb its edges. Mr. Bedini asked him to measure it and to calculate how many cubic yards would be excavated. He also requested a written description of all the work to be done and to highlight on the map the sections of the system to be installed. He asked that details such as the depth of the drainage system, size of the pipe, where it would be connected, and what would be done with the excavated material be specified in writing. Mr. Gabrenas said there would be limited disturbance, the sod would be stripped, the work done in one day, and the sod then replaced. Mr. Papsin asked that the location of the stockpile area be shown on the map. It was the consensus that a site inspection was not needed.Regional School District #12/159 School Street/#IW-11-27/Install Air Line and Remove Tree:
To control the algae in the pond, the installation of an air line and a bubbler are proposed. The plastic pipe would run 120 ft. between the school’s mechanical room and the pond. The trench would not be deeper than 1 ft. and the disturbed area would be quickly resodded. Photos of the existing conditions were circulated. It was also noted that a willow tree would be removed. Mr. LaMuniere thought the roots would not be deep and could be easily pulled out. Mr. Bedini noted the application included the statement that the area disturbed by the removal of the stump would be seeded and mulched as soon as possible.Shepaug Valley Properties, LLC./27 Mt. Tom Road/#IW-11-28/Storage Shed, Bridge, Walkway, Parking Area:
Mr. Ebner proposed to expand his existing camp to his adjoining property. On the map, “First Cut Map,” by Mr. Farnsworth, dated 9/30/08, he pointed out the location of the property and its entrance just south of the state park booth. The following proposed regulated activities were either drawn in by hand or highlighted on the map: 1) pathway, which included both a 60 +/- ft. long boardwalk and a bridge over wetlands and an intermittent stream, 2) a 12’ X 24’ storage shed, 3) a parking area, and 4) portable toilets. He noted the bridge was required to span a foot wide brook that drains from the pond through an 18” pipe and said the boardwalk would be elevated above the wetlands. Construction diagrams of the proposed structures were reviewed and Mr. Ebner stated that both were relatively short crossings and neither would require footing holes or sono tubes. Mr. Ebner said the 17,000 sq. ft. parking area would accommodate up to 40 cars. It was an already established sand and gravel area and would not be paved. Mrs. Hill noted how close this area was to the wetlands and asked that the parking be kept away from the wetlands. Mr. Ebner noted the elevation of the parking area was lower than the wetlands, but said he would probably install a woodchip and sand berm to protect the wetlands. The area proposed for the portable toilets was pointed out. He noted they would be pumped weekly. It was noted the proposed storage building would be at least 50 ft. from both the pond and the brook. A site inspection was scheduled for Wed., 8/24/11 at 5:30 p.m. Mrs. J. Hill said that in her application review she had not been able to determine whether erosion controls were needed because contours had not been provided and there had been no information regarding whether the installation of the path would require any regrading or deposition of material. Mr. Ebner said it would not; that the only material to be deposited would be under the storage shed. Mr. Ebner said he would have the owners fill out the conservation easement form.Glickman-Henley/37 Old North Road/#IW-11-29/Addition to Dwelling:
Mr. Neff, engineer, explained the proposal was for a small addition to fill in a corner under the existing roof of the dwelling, install a dormer, and install a bay window. He pointed out the small area of disturbance and the erosion controls on his map, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” dated 8/7/11. It was noted this work was within the regulated area, but the grade was flat and only a small amount of excavation would be required. No questions or concerns were raised and it was the consensus that a site inspection was not necessary.Matteo/176 West Shore Road/#IW-11-30/Repair Lake Shore Landing:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented a small scale drawing entitled, “Lakeside Landing Repair Plan,” dated 8/6/11 on which he noted that the retaining wall stones would be restacked and the stones at the landing edge would be reset. He noted these stones had fallen out of place and that only existing stones would be used to restack and reset. He said no excavation would be required, no new material would be brought in, and there would be no new work in the lake. Photos of the existing walls were circulated and Ms. Matteo said they would look the same after the work was done as they do now. Mr. Ajello said it was all stone in this location; there were no soils to migrate to the lake. A site inspection was scheduled for 8/24/11 at 6:15 p.m.Brown/127 West Shore Road/#IW-11-31/Application for Exemption:
Mr. Bedini read the application form and noted it was for an exemption for after-the-fact work. Atty. Kelly stated this application was necessary because there had been no resolution regarding Application #IW-11-22 for the same property. He said the entire procedure should have started with this application because maintenance of existing structures is an as of right activity and so is exempt. He also stated that landscaping an area equal to the smallest lot size in Town is also permitted as of right. He continued that per its Regulations the Commission was obliged to act of the exemption application at the meeting at which it was received. Mr. LaMuniere stated that not more than one third of the wall was standing and recognizable as a wall at the time Mr. Wilson applied for the original permit and so the owner did not have the right to repair more than one third of it. He said that only the repair of three 10 ft. lengths had been approved. Atty. Kelly, on the other hand, said that the Commission had been treating #IW-11-22 as the restoration plan it thought it was entitled to four years ago, but was not entitled to. Discussion continued regarding the original state of the wall 6 years ago compared to what was there now and what was proposed under #IW-11-22. Atty. Kelly showed before and after photos from 2006. It was the consensus that the Commission was not ready for a vote and that it would consult with its attorney.
Other Business
Request to Amend Permit #IW-08-31/Wykeham Rise, LLC/101 Wykeham Road/School:
Mr. Bedini noted that a petition for a public hearing had been received. The hearing was scheduled for Thursday, September 8, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room. Mr. Szymanski noted that a letter detailing the proposed revisions and a revised drainage report had been submitted.Request to Amend Permit #IW-11-10/Geurts/117 East Shore Road/ Install Rip Rap:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, proposed to install 2 inch wide, 18 inch thick, intermediate rip rap along the shoreline to prevent the erosion that was beginning due to the current at the waters edge. He stated the rip rap would be placed by hand and there would be no build out into the lake. He also stressed that this would be rip rap, not a stone wall. The map, “Proposed Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 7/15/11 was reviewed.MOTION:
To approve the request to amend Permit #IW-11-10 to include installation of rip rap on the Geurts property at 117 East Shore Road per the map, “Proposed Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 11/30/09 and revised to 7/15/11.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Pond/153 West Shore Road/Construction of Unauthorized Stone Wall:
Before and after photos were studied. Mrs. Pond said she had obtained a permit in 2003 to construct the wall, had not done the work at that time, and did not realize the permit had expired. She noted the wall was mortared and that she had contacted Mr. McGowan of the Lake Waramaug Task Force, who advised her that the cement probably would not harm the lake. Mr. Ajello noted the permit had expired in Sept. 2008, but it had not been for the construction of a stone wall. He reviewed the original permit, which included a diagram for shoreline rip rap. It was agreed that the work permitted was not the work recently completed. However, Mr. Bohan and Mr. Papsin suggested that the original permit be extended and amended.MOTION:
Regarding Pond/153 West Shore Road; to extend the permit issued to Mrs. Pond on 9/10/2003 to 8/10/2011 and to amend it to allow the stones in the wall to be mortared.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bohan, passed 4-1.
Mrs. Hill voted No saying it was not proper to extend the permit because 1) it was for a different activity and 2) it had expired 3 years ago so could not be extended.At 9:45 p.m. the Commission took a 5 minute recess.
Enforcement Report
Bennett/27 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Drainage Work:
The notice of violation was filed on the Town Land Records on 7/18/11.Chatfield-Schellerer/19 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-10-V01/Unauthorized Clearing:
A second citation and fine were sent to the property owners.Erhardt/57 West Shore Road/#IW-11-11:
Work on the project has begun.Glickman-Henley/37 Old North Road:
Mr. Ajello gave permission for the removal of 5 trees, all more than 50 ft. from the pond.Hochberg/15 Couch Road/Unauthorized Excavation of Pond and Deposition of Material:
Mr. Hochberg had contacted the Selectmen’s Office to request a hearing to protest the amount of his fine. The citation hearing has not yet been scheduled.Howard/99 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Construction of Patio:
It was noted that a show cause hearing had been held earlier and the Commission had to vote on whether to leave the 8/1/11 enforcement order in place.MOTION:
To leave the 8/1/11 enforcement order in place for Howard/99 West Shore Road/ Unauthorized Construction of Patio.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.Steep Rock Assn./120 Bee Brook Road/#IW-11-21/Footbridge:
Mr. Wadelton thought the ongoing state DOT project to reconstruct the Rt. 47 bridge over the Shepaug and the staging area for the installation of the footbridge would interfere with each other.Town of Washington/59 East Shore Road/Unauthorized Deposition of Sand:
Photos of the piles of sand deposited at the Town Beach were circulated. Mr. Ajello said this sand had not been beach sand, but was sifted road sand. He asked the First Selectman to remove the sand because it was not needed and this had been done. He also asked that in the future, an application be made before any material is deposited. He also recommended that less of a better quality sand be used on the beach and that it be deposited less frequently.Wang/110 Blackville Road/#IW-09-V07/Unauthorized Clearing and Driveway:
It was noted the newly planted trees were doing well in the dry weather.
Administrative Business
Plan of Conservation and Development:
Mr. Wadelton asked the commissioners to contact him before 9/27, the date of the final subcommittee meeting, regarding any recommendations for the update of the POCD.Special Meeting:
A special meeting was set for Wednesday, 8/31/11 at 5:30 p.m. at the Town pavilion on School Street to discuss administrative business.Complaint re: 31 East Shore Road:
Mrs. J. Hill summarized the complaint by Mr. Woodruff that the house on this property had been rebuilt in 1997 without an IWC permit and to larger dimensions than the variance approved by the ZBA. It was the consensus of the commissioners that 1) the Commission does not get involved in personal disputes, 2) the work was done too long ago; there had been ample opportunity to complain about it 14 years ago, and 3) to remove the unauthorized addition now would cause disturbance to a now stabilized area.
Communications
The 8/2/11 letter from Atty. Zizka regarding applications for work in the state right of way was briefly discussed. Regarding the work Mr. Geurts proposed in the state ROW, Mrs. J. Hill will send him a copy of the 8/2/11 letter with a cover to notify him that the proposed activity is under IWC jurisdiction. She will also provide copies of Atty. Zizka’s letter for the commissioners.
MOTION:
To enter into executive session at 10:20 p.m. to discuss the pending litigation for Brown/ 127 West Shore Road.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To end executive session at 11:00 p.m.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting.
By Mr. Wadelton.Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: August 12, 2011 July 27, 2011
Public Hearing – Special Meeting
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. LaMuniere
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Kleinberg, Mr. Cavalaro, Mr./Mrs. Frank, Press, ResidentsPUBLIC HEARING
Revision of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations/ Proposed Section 11A:
Special Criteria for Applications Involving Regulated Activities Around Lake Waramaug and Other Major Water Bodies and WatercoursesMr. Bedini called the public hearing to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Wadelton read the legal notice published on 7/15/11 and 7/22/11.
Mr. Bedini asked for comments from the Commission.
Mr. Ajello pointed out inconsistent language in section 11A.01.c. It was agreed that the words, “do not” should be deleted from line 4.Mr. Frank, president of the Lake Waramaug Assn., commended the Commission on the proposed revision and said that it has the full support of the LW Assn.
Mrs. Frank thanked the Commission on behalf of the Lake Waramaug Task Force for its efforts to keep Lake Waramaug healthy.
Mr. Wadelton read the 7/25/11 email from Mr. and Mrs. Klein to the commissioners.
Mrs. Hill noted the numbering in the draft should be corrected.
MOTION:
To close the public hearing to consider the revision of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations: proposed Section 11A.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 4-0.Mr. Bedini closed the hearing at 7:14 p.m.
This public hearing was recorded and the recording is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot.
SPECIAL MEETING
Mr. Bedini called the Special Meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mr. LaMuniere and Ms. Cheney for Mr. Bohan.
Mr. Wadelton responded to the 7/25/11 email from Mr. and Mrs. Klein.
1) Regarding the Klein’s request for a clearer definition of “reasonable use of the lake,” he noted that there is a wide variety of conditions around the lake and many possible activities that could be applied for, so many of each, that they could not all be listed. He said property owners have a right to do what they want within reason and that the Commission needed the flexibility to review each application on its own merits and to balance the rights of the property owner with the Commission’s mandate to protect the lake. Mr. Bedini and Ms. Cheney noted that problems often result when a term is over defined.2) To answer the Klein’s question, “Is this a threat to ‘grandfathering?’” Mr. Wadelton said it was not. He noted existing stonewalls could be repaired and maintained within reason.
3) The Kleins recommended that “feasible and prudent alternatives” be more clearly defined and asked if this took into account property values and financial hardship. Mr. Wadelton said the Commission does take into account financial considerations.
4) While the Kleins felt there were not “before” and “after” measurements, Mr. Wadelton noted the Commission conducts site inspections, which are the “before” measurement.
Referring to the remark by the Kleins re: section 11A.04a, Mrs. Hill said the Commission does not deal with applications in a “black and white” manner; each case is considered on its own merits. Mr. Wadelton agreed that it was not all or nothing; that there is give and take when reviewing applications.
Finally, regarding the statement that “money buys what the regulations forbid,” Mr. Wadelton agreed with the Kleins, but said the Commission is limited in the amount of fines it may levy.
MOTION:
To approve Section 11.A; new section to the Washington Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, draft dated 5/16/11, with two corrections:
1) delete the words, “do not” in line #4 of section 11A.01c and
2) correct the section numbers.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.Section 11A will become effective 15 days after the date the legal notice is published.
MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting.
By Mrs. Hill.Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 7:23 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: July 20, 2011 July 13, 2011
Regular Meeting
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. LaMuniere
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Law, Mr. Organschi, Mr. Szymanski, Mr./Mrs. Frankland, Mr. Coleman, Ms. Purnell, Ms. Giampietro, Mr./Mrs. Solomon, residents, pressMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mr. LaMuniere.
MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the agenda:
V. New Applications:
E. Kessler/ 105 West Mountain Road/#IW-11-23/Stone Wall and Hot Tub,
F. Schwartz/173 West Shore Road/ #IW-11-24/Patio and Retaining Wall:
VI. Other Business:
A. State Permit for the Use of Herbicides in Pond/Tagley/___ Sabbaday Lane,
B. Klauer/101 Wykeham Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-08-31/School:
VII. Enforcement:
N. Howard/99 West Shore Road/ Unauthorized Patio,
O. Pond/153 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Stone Wall. By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 6/8/11 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as amended.
Page 2: next to the last paragraph: insert the word, “authorized” before “…pond maintenance is allowed.”
Page 7: Under Lanyi: 12th line: Change “driveway” to “steps.”MOTION:
To accept the 6/8/11 Regular Meeting minutes as amended.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the Lancaster-Fuchs 6/16/11 site inspection minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 105 West Shore Road, LLC. 6/16/11 site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 6/22/11 Special Meeting minutes as written.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 6/30/11 Special Meeting minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Lancaster-Fuchs/18 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-11-16/Dredge Pond:
Mr. Neff, engineer, said he had reviewed the plans presented at the last meeting, had inspected the property during heavy rains, and had revised the application. A review of the map, “Pond Cleanout Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 6/20/11 showed the addition of catch basins and a pipe north of the garage to direct runoff from the swale above the driveway to the pond. He noted that a 2 ft. deep silt basin was proposed at the pipe inlet to collect sediment from the swale. He also said that for final treatment, a 6 inch perforated pipe would be installed in a 30 ft. long, 1.5 ft. wide, 3 ft. deep stone trench to allow the water to infiltrate before reaching the pond. He noted the location of the proposed curtain drains. The unauthorized ditch that had been dug will be filled in. Mr. Neff also stated that no plantings were proposed on the slope; that natural vegetation would grow there as soon as the erosion was corrected. Mr. Bedini stated that the concerns raised at the last meeting had been addressed.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-16 submitted by Lancaster-Fuchs to dredge a pond and for drainage improvements at 18 Sabbaday Lane in accordance with the plan, “Pond Cleanout Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 5/18/11.and revised to 6/20/11; the permit shall be valid for two years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.Frankland/173 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-11-18/Construct Barn:
Mr. and Mrs. Frankland presented a larger scale map with contours, “Site Analysis Plan,” by Mr. Alex, dated June 2011, as had been requested at the last meeting. It was noted that the proposed location of the barn had been moved so that it was at least 50 ft. from all wetlands. Mrs. Frankland said that as long as the barn had no footing drains, the Health Dept. would allow it to be 18 ft. from the existing well, and she noted a more detailed construction sequence had been submitted. Mr. Frankland discussed the building plans for the proposed 40 ft. X 40 ft., 6 to 8 inch thick monolithic slab. Mr. Bedini asked if there would be any soil stockpiled on site. Mrs. Frankland said it would be hauled off the property. Mr. Frankland noted the total amount to be hauled away was 60 yards. It was noted the construction would take approximately 14 days. It was the consensus of the commissioners that no site inspection was necessary.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-18 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Frankland to construct a barn at 173 Litchfield Turnpike in accordance with the map, “Site Analysis Plan,” by Mr. Alex, dated June 2011 and the handwritten construction sequence signed by Mrs. Frankland, dated 7/13/2011; the permit shall be valid for two years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work,
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval, and
4. a second copy of the site plan must be submitted to the Land Use Office before the permit shall be issued.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Nauiokas-Kleinberg/10 and 18 Loomarwick Road/#IW-11-19/Driveway Drainage Swale:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his map, “Driveway Drainage Plan,” dated 7/2/11 and noted the application involved two properties. Mr. Kleinberg gave Ms. Nauiokas permission to undertake driveway repair work on his property as Ms. Nauiokas’ right of way agreement provided no details regarding maintenance. Mr. Neff explained that currently the runoff overflows the swale and erodes the driveway. He proposed a 3 ft. wide, 1 ft. deep rip rapped swale, which would empty into the intermittent watercourse near the end of the driveway. He said some of the material to be excavated for the swale would be taken off site. Mr. Neff also stated that the existing pipe along Loomarwick Road would be left as is and that the roots of any trees cut would also remain in place. Mr. Ajello described the sheet flow in this area. It was the consensus that no site inspection was needed.Lyon-Gray/82 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-11-20/Gazebo and Landscaping:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, presented the map, “Site Plan,” by Mr. Sabin, dated 5/1/11. He pointed out the wetlands setback and an area where some trees would be thinned out, noted a permit to remove invasive species had already been approved, and reported that some of that work had been completed. A 12 ft. diameter gazebo, which would result in 8 sq. ft. of soil disturbance is proposed. It would be accessed by a back terrace and the slope behind it would be restored with native plants. Slab steps are also proposed. Mr. Ajello noted the gazebo must be at least 50 feet from the wetlands to comply with the Zoning Regulations. In response to a question from Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sabin explained the differences between the activities approved in old permit and those proposed in the current application. Mr. Sabin noted the work would be done by hand or with a power auger. Mr. Bohan noted the existing stonewall would serve as a sediment barrier to protect the wetlands. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Sabin said he would stake out the wetlands setback line and mark the trees to be cut.Steep Rock Assn./120 Bee Brook Road/#IW-11-21/Bridge:
Mr. Law, Director of Steep Rock, and Mr. Organschi, architect, represented Steep Rock Assn. The plans, “Pedestrian Bridge Crossing the Shepaug River at the Hidden Valley Reservation,” 7 sheets, by Gray Organschi and TPA Design Group, dated July 11. 2011 were reviewed. Mr. Organschi stated the following were the design criteria for the bridge; minimum impact on the wetlands, clearance as required by the DEP, no work and no construction of a permanent structure within wetlands, and access for mobility impaired people. He stated the cable embedments and the sonotubes for the bridge would be installed within the 100 ft. regulated area. He noted the application includes two construction narratives, erosion control measures, best management practices, a set of civil engineering plans, and an architectural-structural set of plans. He said also that all construction information such as sizes of footings, explanation of phasing, type and size of machinery to be used, vehicular traffic, etc. are included. The phasing of the bridge construction was discussed. Phase I would be done quickly in the fall of 2011. Minimal clearing and excavation would be done and the concrete poured. The erosion controls would be left in place over the winter. The 12 days of construction for Phase II would begin in June 2012 when the ground had dried and the DOT was finishing its work on the Rt. 47 bridge. The bridge decks would be constructed off site. Mr. Organschi described the machinery to be used including a crane, which would operate from the south trail bank, and how a small loader would shuttle back and forth from the staging area in the existing parking lot. The number of vehicles allowed in the construction site would be limited. Mr. Organschi noted that all of the wetlands had been flagged by a soil scientist and that a natural diversity database study had been preliminarily OK’d by the DEP. He noted, too, that the bridge had been designed to DEP standards. In response to a question from Mr. Bedini, Mr. Law said Steep Rock had not yet decided whether it would close the parking lot north of the river. If it were to be closed, the removal of the existing truss bridge would be a separate application. Mr. Bedini said the Commission would normally hold a public hearing to consider the application because the bridge was on the Shepaug River and there was much public interest. He also stated that the application would be sent to a consultant for review. Mr. Organschi again stated there would be no construction in the wetlands and no impacts to the wetlands. He pointed out the 100 year flood elevation and spoke about the construction sequence. The material to be used for the walkway is glued laminated timber like the material used by the National Park Service and the cables would be weather resistant galvanized steel. Mr. Bohan asked if a DEP engineer was reviewing the plans. Mr. Organschi said he was and that the project was considered to have low impact in the flood plain. Mrs. Hill asked what the distance was between the proposed bridge and the road and the proposed bridge and the Reich bridge. Mr. Organschi did not know, but said he would provide this information. As there had been no objection to holding a public hearing, Mr. Bedini said the Commission would pick a hearing date at the next meeting. It was hoped that by that time it would know how long the consultant would take to review the application. It was the consensus that the consultant would be Milone and MacBroom. Mr. Organschi noted the final engineering specs had not yet been completed.Brown/127 West Shore Road/#IW-11-22/Application to Correct a Violation:
Atty. Kelly and Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, represented the applicant. Atty. Kelly explained the application was part of a settlement order and pending litigation and was not an application for an exemption. The map, “Proposed Shoreline Improvements and Buffer,” by Mr. Sabin, dated 7/11/11 was reviewed. Mr. Sabin noted the goal of the Commission is to encourage buffers and natural shoreline around the lake, and to discourage sea walls. He proposed to maintain a portion of the existing sea wall and to install filter fabric behind it. To the east of the existing dock he proposed to demolish some of the wall, to line the shore with boulders, and to add a planted buffer of native plants. Mr. Bedini noted that originally Mr. Brown had been issued a permit for three sections of wall with a total length of 30 ft., but had built a 130 ft. long wall. He said a notice of violation and a cease and desist order had been issued and Mr. Brown had been ordered to remove the 100 ft. of unauthorized wall. He said this matter had not yet been resolved. Atty. Kelly stated that Mr. Brown’s original application had been to rebuild the entire wall, but the approval had been for only 30 ft.; 10 ft. around both of the dock anchors and 10 ft. along the stairs. He noted the original application had included crushed stone and filter fabric behind the entire wall, but said these had not been installed when the work was done. He presented several photos of the shoreline taken in 2006 before any work was done and compared them to photos taken in 2007 after the wall was built. Atty. Kelly pointed out that one section of the wall had been deconstructed. He also stated that Mr. Brown had the right to maintain the wall as an as of right activity. Atty. Kelly stated that the current application proposed significant improvements and the enhancement of the shoreline and was an offer of settlement. Mr. Sabin explained that about half the shoreline would have a planted buffer that did not exist before the work was done. He added that 13 ft. of the wall to the east of the dock would be removed. In summary it was noted that 30 ft. of wall had been approved, 150 ft. had been constructed, then 50 ft. had been removed, currently 76 ft. of wall was proposed to remain, and so the difference actually being applied for was 46 ft. Atty. Kelly stated that the WEO did not think the disturbance that would result from the installation of crushed stone and filter fabric behind the existing wall would be “worth it,” and so said it would only be done if the Commission wanted it. Mr. Bedini said the Commission would want a consultant to review the proposal, noting that a major concern was how the construction of sea walls impacts the health of the lake, especially now that so many property owners were attempting to wall in Lake Waramaug. Mr. Sabin thought this was a simple matter that did not require a consultant as only 76 ft. of wall was proposed along the shore where there had always been a wall. He reminded the commissioners that half of the shoreline would be returned to natural vegetation and saw the proposal as a “workable solution.” Atty. Kelly encouraged the Commission to defer a decision until after a site inspection had been conducted so the commissioners could view this property in relation to the others in the area. Mr. Bedini asked what would be the point of the Commission settling by approving a section of wall it had previously denied. Atty. Kelly voiced his frustration that the Commission’s attorney was not present to advise it. Mr. Ajello thought it would be helpful if he read the enforcement order, but Atty. Kelly objected because Mr. Ajello was named as a party in the suit. Mr. Bedini informed Atty. Kelly the Commission’s job was to protect the lake and so it would consult with an expert about the impact of shoreline walls. He said this was not punitive, but was necessary for the Commission to do its job properly. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. It was noted that all commissioners should review the complete file. Mr. Sabin said he would fill out the remaining sections of the DEP form.Kessler/105 West Mountain Road/#IW-11-23/Stone Wall and Hot Tub:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his plan, “Stone Wall and Hot Tub Plan,” dated 7/11/11. A dry laid 2 ft. wide, 3 ft. high stone wall and a hot tub were proposed on the existing lawn area on the south side of the house. Both the wall and the tub would be located in the upland review area. Mr. Neff noted it was a straightforward application as the area was pretty level and only a little backfill would be needed. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 6:00 p.m.Schwartz/173 West Shore Road/#IW-11-24/Patio and Retaining Wall:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his plan, “Sediment and Erosion Control Plan,” dated 7/11/11. He explained this landscaping plan supplemented the garage construction that had been previously approved. Retaining walls were proposed around the patio area and at the corners of the garage and the driveway would be paved. Mr. Neff pointed out the limit of disturbance line and said both erosion controls and a construction sequence had been submitted. The distance from the proposed patio to the closest wetlands flag was 34 feet. A site inspection was scheduled for August 3, 2011 at 6:15 p.m. Mr. Neff said the patio area would be leveled and the excavated material would be temporarily deposited on the driveway. Mr. Bedini noted that asphalt would be installed very close to the wetlands making what had been a pervious gravel area an impervious surface. Mr. Neff responded that compacted gravel has a runoff coefficient close to that of pavement.
Other Business
Tagley/___Sabbaday Lane/State Permit for Application of Herbicide in Pond:
It was noted that although the state DEP had approved the application, an Inland Wetlands permit was also required. Mr. Ajello will send a letter to Mr. Tagley to inform him.Klauer/101 Wykeham Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-08-31/School:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, said the owners were applying to modify the university design, which would result in a net decrease in impervious surface area. He said he was in the process of finalizing the plans and would prepare an overlay map that would show the improvements proposed. He briefly reviewed his 7/12/11 letter to Mrs. Hill, which described eleven proposed revisions. He said he anticipated that the Commission would send this out to Land Tech for review and asked that this be done as soon as possible. Mrs. Hill noted that normally the Commission would not consider this a revision because of the number of changes proposed, but said because they were all positive for the wetlands, she was prepared to consider it as a revision. Mr. Szymanski noted an error on the plans and said no spa was proposed. Mr. Bedini did not think a public hearing would be needed for the proposed downsized revisions. A site inspection will be scheduled at the next meeting. Hopefully by that time the consultant’s review will have been received. Mr. Wadelton asked if construction would begin this year. Mr. Szymanski said it would possibly begin this fall or in the spring.
Enforcement
Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Rd./Unauthorized Stream Work, Clearing/ #IW-08-V2 and #IW-10-V3:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, submitted a letter stating that all restoration work had been completed per the approved plans. Mr. Papsin asked if the invasives had been removed and the level spreader installed. Mr. Sabin said they had. Mr. Sabin informed the Commission that 80% of the lawn would be converted to meadow. Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the site and was satisfied with the work done.MOTION:
Regarding Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/ Unauthorized Stream Work and Clearing/#IW-08-V2 and #IW-10-V3; to approve the completed restoration and to release the notice of violation filed on the Town Land Records.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.Bennett/27 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Drainage Work:
A notice of violation has been sent to the estate’s attorney, but there has been no response. Mr. Ajello said this was a serious violation because the drainage had been installed on top of the septic system.MOTION:
Regarding Bennett/27 West Shore Road/ Unauthorized Drainage Work; to file the notice of violation on the Town Land Records.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bohan, passed 5-0.Chatfield-Schellerer/19 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-10-V01/Unauthorized Clearing:
Neither a site development plan nor a restoration plan has been submitted as requested and it was noted the owners had not met the terms of the enforcement order. Mr. Ajello was asked to send another citation.Gordon/180 West Shore Road/Landscaping and Drainage Work:
Mr. Ajello said the work was completed and the file would be closed.Hochberg/15 Couch Road/Unauthorized Excavation of Pond and Deposition of Material:
Mr. Hochberg had informed the Commission that he would appeal his citation. However, a hearing date has not yet been set nor a judge selected by the Selectmen’s Office. It was noted that Mr. Hochberg had offered to pay half of the fine, but that the fine was set by Town ordinance and could not be negotiated by the Commission.Howard/99 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Patio:
Mr. Ajello said he had told the worker on site to stop work and had mailed a notice of violation. An enforcement order will be sent and a show cause hearing conducted on August 10, 2011 at 6:00 p.m.Leary/164 West Shore Road/Reconstruct Dwelling:
This project is nearing completion.Pond/153 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Construction of Stone Wall:
Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the recent work done. He said he would send a notice of violation and a citation to Mrs. Pond and a citation to the contractor. He thought the work had been done in the flood plain. An enforcement order will be sent and a show cause will be held on August 10, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.Wang/110 Blackville Road/#IW-09-V7/Unauthorized Clearcutting and Driveway:
The required trees have been planted.
Administrative Business
Shoreline Policies:
A public hearing to consider proposed Section 11A to the Washington Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, Special Criteria for Applications Involving Regulated Activities around Lake Waramaug and Other Major Water Bodies and Watercourses, was scheduled for Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. There will be a special meeting immediately following the hearing to vote on the proposed regulations.Work in the State Right of Way:
Mr. Ajello noted possible problems with the work the state is allowing in the Rt. 45 right of way by the Geurts property. Staff will contact Atty. Olson for advice on how to handle this matter and other situations that frequently occur around the lake in the right of way. Other suggestions included having the Commission’s attorney write to the state DEP to inform it of the ongoing activity and getting the Lake Waramaug Association involved.
MOTION:
To enter into executive session at 10:15 p.m. to discuss pending litigation:
Brown/127 West Shore Road.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To end executive session at 10:50 p.m.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.
MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting.
By Mrs. Hill.Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 10:52 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: July 1, 2011 June 30, 2011
Special Meeting
6:00 p.m. Land Use OfficeMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Martino, Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Ms. Cheney
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. HillProposed Settlement of Litigation:
Case Entitled, “Teresa Rosen Peacocke v. Inland Wetlands Commission of the Town of Washington;” filed in Superior Court, Judicial District of Litchfield, Docket No. LLI-CV-10-6001405-SMr. Bedini called the Special Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and noted the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed settlement.
MOTION:
To go into Executive Session to discuss the proposed settlement of Peacocke v. Inland Wetlands Commission, Docket No. LLI-CV-10- 6001405-S.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.Executive Session commenced at 6:02 p.m.
MOTION:
To end the Executive Session.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, passed 5-0.Executive Session ended at 6:45 p.m.
MOTION:
To reconsider the proposed settlement of Peacocke v. Inland Wetlands Commission, Docket No. LLI-CV-10-6001405-S.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 5-0.Mr. Bedini said the reason for reconsideration of the previous vote was that the Commission had since had the opportunity to discuss its concerns and the facts of the case with its attorney and now had information it was not aware of at the time of the first vote. Mr. LaMuniere stated the Commission was also now aware of the legal process. Mr. Wadelton said the vote was based on the Commission’s discussion with its attorney, Mr. Zizka.
MOTION:
To approve a proposed stipulation for judgment in the case entitled, “Teresa Rosen Peacocke v. Inland Wetlands Commission of the Town of Washington,” filed in Superior Court, Judicial District of Litchfield, Docket No. LLI-CV-10-6001405-S, under which the court would vacate, and declare null and void, Permit #IW-09-39, which this Commission granted to Wykeham Rise, LLC. on December 22, 2009 for regulated activities in connection with an affordable housing development.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.Mr. Bedini stated the motion to go forward with the stipulation had been approved because the applicant had been given ample opportunity to defend his permit, but had not done so. It was also noted that it appeared the applicant had no particular interest in participating in the procedure and there would be substantial cost to the Town to proceed.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: July 1, 2011 June 22, 2011
Special Meeting
6:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bohan
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Horrigan, Mr. NeffMr. Bedini called the Special Meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mr. Bohan.
Pending Applications
Lancaster-Fuchs/18 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-11-16/Dredge Pond, Drainage Improvements:
Mr. Neff, engineer, noted that during the site inspection the Commission had discovered unauthorized drainage work near the garage and so said he had revised the plans to include it. The map, “Pond Cleanout Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 6/20/11 was reviewed. Mr. Neff explained that erosion had resulted when drainage flowed across the driveway due to a plugged pipe. He proposed to run a drainage pipe in the trench already dug by the owners (under the driveway, around the garage, and into the pond) to dig a silt basin at the pipe inlet, and to put in a catch basin at the end of the pipe. He said a small catch basin was also proposed on the east side of the driveway. Mr. Ajello was concerned that all of the runoff would be concentrated and would run directly to the pond without treatment. Mr. Neff responded that all of this drainage had already been reaching the pond. Mr. Ajello said that sand and salt from the driveway, garden chemicals, and heated water from roof runoff in the summer would now flow directly into the pond. Mr. Neff said that the ponds were man-made, the area was predominately wooded with many shade trees, and the proposal would handle the runoff to prevent erosion. Mr. Ajello said the flow would be accelerated. Mr. Papsin asked how deep the existing swale was along the driveway and suggested the water could be slowed down by deepening it and lining it with rip rap. Mr. Neff said it was 8” deep and agreed that rip rap would slow the flow. Mrs. Hill asked if periodic cleaning of the pipe was included in the plans. Mr. Neff said the pipe would need it and that a condition could be included in the motion. Mr. Papsin agreed the pipe would need regularly scheduled maintenance, but Mr. Bedini said the Commission would not be able to enforce it. Mr. Ajello recommended that part of the lawn by the shore of the pond be planted to give the runoff an opportunity to filter. Mr. LaMuniere noted the erosion he had observed during the site inspection and asked if the existing swale was sufficient to handle the runoff. Mr. Neff said the proposal was not to design a drainage plan for the entire property, but to address the work done without a permit. Ms. Cheney asked whether the pond dredging and drainage improvements should be two separate applications. Mr. Bedini said that at the site inspection, the commissioners had suggested the drainage work be added to this application. Mr. Ajello noted that if the drainage work had not already been started, the Commission would have expected a more comprehensive plan. Mr. Neff again stated the proposed drainage plan was only to address the specific problem in one area of the property. Mr. LaMuniere thought the pond cleaning plan was well thought out, but that the drainage plan was just an attempt to make it look like what the owners had already done was OK. He asked if it would fix the erosion problem. Mr. Neff stated that the proposal was not changing the direction of the flow, but would help to alleviate the problem. He also stated there was no reason to dig another ditch a few feet away because the owners had dug their ditch in a logical location and that the pipe to be installed would not be erosive, whereas the overland flow was. Mr. Papsin said he would like the swale deepened and lined with rip rap and the washed out area between the maple trees to be planted to help hold the soil. Mrs. Hill asked if there would be any benefit to a larger splash pad. Mr. Neff said the proposed pad was large enough to break up the flow as it comes out of the pipe. It was the consensus that the swale should be deepened and lined with rip rap and the eroded area between the maples should be planted. Mrs. Hill noted that the owners mow up to the edge of the pond and that the shoreline could use plantings. Mr. Neff said this was an existing pond; that the Commission recommends plantings around new ponds. Mr. Wadelton stated the Commission could only recommend plantings around an existing pond, it could not require them. Mr. Neff said he would discuss this recommendation with the owner. The swale on the west side of the driveway was discussed. Mr. Neff agreed to extend the swale 60 feet on both sides of the silt basin. Mr. Ajello complained that by doing this even more water would be picked up, concentrated, and piped directly to the pond without any filtration or infiltration. He recommended a biofiltration area be installed. Mr. Neff offered instead to use perforated pipe set in crushed stone for the last section of pipe between the garage and the pond. Mr. Ajello questioned whether 30 ft. of pipe could handle that amount of water and said an infiltration area would be another option. Mr. Neff again explained his plan was to address only the specific drainage problem of the erosive flow over the driveway. Mr. Neff said he would take another look at the problem and revise the drainage plan for the next meeting. Mrs. Hill asked that he amend the application form to include the drainage improvements. Regarding the pond dredging, it was noted that part of the northern pond was off the property. Mr. Neff stated there would be no work done on the adjoining property.105 West Shore Road, LLC./105 West Shore Road/#IW-11-17/Relocation of Driveway:
Mr. Horrigan, contractor, and Mr. Neff, engineer, were present. Mr. Neff presented his plan, “Driveway Relocation Plan,” revised to 6/17/11, which, he said, included the following revisions based on the discussion at the site inspection: addition of 1) a row of staked hay bales for extra protection behind the silt fence down grade of construction and three short sections of erosion controls in the area to be used for stockpiling, 2) a note that the retaining wall will not exceed 4 ft. in height, and 3) jute blankets on the banks to hold them in place until stabilized with vegetation. Mr. Ajello asked if the area between the wall and the limit of disturbance on the lake side would have a steep bank. Mr. Neff said it has an existing steep bank. Mr. Ajello asked how deep the soil would be mounded behind the back side of the wall. Mr. Neff said it would not have more than a 1:2 slope. He noted the construction of the retaining wall would keep the disturbed area limited and reduce the number of trees that had to be cut. Mr. Horrigan noted the service would be trenched up the driveway. MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-17 submitted by 105 West Shore Road, LLC. to relocate the driveway at 105 West Shore Road per the plan, “Driveway Relocation Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 5/27/11 and revised to 6/17/11; permit to be valid for two years; subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of the approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Proposed Settlement of Litigation: Case entitled, “Teresa Rosen Peacocke v. Inland Wetlands Commission of the Town of Washington;” filed in the Superior Court, Judicial District of Litchfield, Docket No. LLI-CV-10-6001405-S:
It was noted that Atty. Zizka had drafted the following motion for the Commission to consider:MOTION:
To approve a proposed stipulation for judgment in the case entitled, “Teresa Rosen Peacocke v. Inland Wetlands Commission of the Town of Washington,” filed in Superior Court, Judicial District of Litchfield, Docket No. LLI-CV-10-6001405-S, under which the court would vacate, and declare null and void, Permit #IW-09-39, which this Commission granted to Wykeham Rise, LLC. on December 22, 2009 for regulated activities in connection with an affordable housing development.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini.Mr. LaMuniere noted that in paragraph 4 of the Motion for Judgment in Accordance with Stipulation, Wykeham Rise, LLC. was aware of the agreement, but chose not to participate and that if Wykeham wanted a permit in the future, it could resubmit. He said he had no problem with the motion.
Mr. Wadelton said Wykeham Rise, LLC. had no obligation to get involved in the suit. He said the Commission should not vacate a permit it issued in good faith. He thought that would set a dangerous precedent.
Ms. Cheney asked whether the permit issued was for 2 years or 5 years. Mr. Bedini said it was valid for 5 years.
Mr. Wadelton said it would be irresponsible for the Commission to take the permit from Wykeham Rise, LLC.
Mr. Bedini thought vacating the permit would penalize Mr. Klauer without reason.
Mr. Wadelton made another strong statement against the motion and stated that he thought it would be immoral and unethical for the Commission to change its vote. He also noted that the Commission did not have any written advice from Atty. Zizka recommending that the Commission approve the motion.
Mr. Papsin and Ms. Cheney noted that Atty. Zizka had written the motion of approval.
Mr. Wadelton responded that Atty. Zizka was forwarding the matter brought up by Mrs. Peacocke’s attorney and said he had not provided his opinion for the Commission.
Mr. Bedini said the Commission could put off the vote and ask Atty. Zizka for clarification.
Mrs. J. Hill noted that should the permit be invalidated, it could not be concluded that either side had made an error, but Mr. Bedini felt that logically it would mean the Commission had erred in its approval of the permit. He thought the applicant could sue the Commission for vacating his permit.
Mr. LaMuniere thought the applicant’s silence did not indicate he agreed to vacate the permit and so the Commission should not do so unless the applicant agreed.
Mr. Wadelton stated that the Commission had not made a mistake in granting the permit and the approval would withstand the appeal.
It was the consensus that the granting of the permit was legitimate, that saving money on legal fees was not reason enough to vacate it, and that Mrs. Peacocke could continue with the appeal.
Vote: 0-5.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:30 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: June 18, 2011 June 8, 2011
Show Cause Hearing - Regular Meeting
6:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Hochberg, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. NeffSHOW CAUSE HEARING/Con’t.
Hochberg/15 Couch Road/Unauthorized Excavation and Deposition of Materials into a Watercourse
Mr. Bedini called the hearing to order at 6:30 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Ajello circulated copies of the 4/18/11 notice of violation and 5/2/11 cease and desist order.
Mr. Bedini noted the show cause hearing had opened on 5/11/11 and had been continued to 6/8/11 at Mr. Hochberg’s request. He explained the purpose of the hearing was to give Mr. Hochberg an opportunity to show why the cease and desist order should not be upheld.
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, spoke on Mr. Hochberg’s behalf, saying that Mr. Hochberg did not want to argue the enforcement order, but did want to discuss the long term maintenance of the pond. He explained that the outlet control structure had become blocked during the winter causing sediment to be deposited behind it. He said Mr. Hochberg wanted to maintain the pond as a watercourse so that the sediment resulting from upstream erosion would continue to flow downstream. It was Mr. Hochberg’s opinion that shoveling the backed up sediment from the pond into the stream had no more impact than letting it naturally flow through the pond. Mr. Szymanski reviewed Mr. Hochberg’s 6/6/11 letter to the Commission in which he argued that shoveling the sediment into the watercourse did not have a significant impact and that he was not removing and then depositing sediment, but merely transferring it so that it moved along as it used to move naturally. Mr. Hochberg also stated that the amount he excavated was insignificant compared to the amount that normally flowed through the pond.
Mr. Hochberg presented eight photos both from 2008 and 2011 showing erosion along the streambanks and the resulting sedimentation.
Mr. Bedini noted that if the dam had not been constructed, the silt laden water would have continued to flow down the stream, but that since Mr. Hochberg wanted the pond, there were maintenance problems that came with it. The solution, he said, was not to have workers shovel silt back into the watercourse.
Mr. Hochberg gave some of the history of the pond, saying that since it existed when he purchased the property he had the right to clean it out. He claimed the Inland Wetlands Commission and Conservation District had approved the design to restore the dam, but now would not let him clean the pond out.
Mr. Bedini responded that the Commission had not told him he could not clean out his pond.
Mr. Hochberg stated that using heavy equipment to do the work would cost thousands of dollars and would cause environmental damage. He argued that his maintenance plan of shoveling the silt back into the stream was reasonable and would not pollute or destroy the environment.
Mr. Bedini noted that all other pond owners in Washington get permits to clean them out, that pond maintenance was not a unique problem, and that maintenance might be costly, but it was the price of having a pond. He also noted that Mr. Hochberg was aware of the Inland Wetlands Regulations due to past experiences with the Commission. He advised him to find a way to get rid of the silt without putting it back into the stream.
Mr. LaMuniere agreed, noting it was Mr. Hochberg’s responsibility to get a permit before cleaning out the pond.
Mr. Hochberg again stated he wanted to clean out the pond, but not the Commission’s way.
Mr. Bedini said the Commission would listen to ideas about how to accomplish periodic maintenance, but shoveling silt back into the watercourse would not work.
Mr. Szymanski read Section 4.01.C of the Regulations re: as of right uses and asked the Commission how it interprets this section, specifically the language, “significant amounts of material.”
Mr. Bedini again stated that pond maintenance is allowed, but shoveling silt back into a stream is not.
Mr. Hochberg stated that previously when the IWC had approved the use of a bulldozer to clean the pond, staked hay bales were installed below the dam and the excavated material was poured over the dam into the stream. He asked if this could be done now.
Mr. Bedini responded, no, because the Commission was not aware of what that approved plan was.
Mr. Szymanski asked if the silt could be removed manually, deposited in the woods, and seeded.
Mr. Bedini noted the Commission would not engineer a solution, but would work with Mr. Hochberg once he had submitted a plan for review.
Mr. LaMuniere agreed that removing the silt by hand was a good idea. He said, however, that the Commission has a systematic way of reviewing pond cleaning and requires specific information such as the volume of material to be removed. He said the excavated material could not be dumped back into the stream.
Mr. Wadelton stated there were reasonable alternatives to operating a bulldozer in the pond, and that the silt could not be put back into the stream.
Mr. Papsin agreed.
Mr. Hochberg said he would appeal his citation and his request for a hearing was included in his 6/6/11 letter. Mr. Ajello said he would forward the letter to the Selectmen’s Office.
Mr. Bedini closed the show cause hearing at 7:02 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Bedini called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mrs. Hill.
MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the agenda:
V. New Application: C. Frankland/173 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-11-18/ Construct Barn.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION:
To accept the 5/25/11 Regular Meeting minutes as written.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 4-0.MOTION:
To accept the 5/31/11 Erhardt site inspection minutes as submitted.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.
Pending Applications
Geurts/117 East Shore Road/#IW-11-10/Dock Mooring and Abutment:
Mr. Symanski, engineer, said he had revised the plan to include information on the dock anchor. He noted that rather than install a large stone as originally proposed, concrete would be mixed by hand and mixed with field stone to form the abutment. This would be installed at the high water line and the anchor would be on a pivot. The map, “Proposed Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 6/8/11” was reviewed. Mr. Papsin asked how long the dock would be. Mr. Szymanski said the existing dock would be used. Mr. Bedini noted all of the concerns raised at the last meeting had been addressed.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-10 submitted by Mr. Geurts, 117 East Shore Road, for activities in his revised application for a dock mooring and abutment only per the site development plan by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc. revised to 6/6/11; the permit shall be valid for two years, and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 4-0.Erhardt/57 West Shore Road/#IW-11-11/Repair, Reconstruct Retaining Walls, Install Stone Patio and Stormwater Management Improvements:
The site development plan by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 5/24/11 was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski, engineer, noted the one revision was a correction to note one shade tree would be planted. He briefly described the current erosion problems and the proposed stormwater management improvements that he had detailed at the previous meeting. Mr. Ajello noted the 6/8/11 email from Mrs. Frank of the Lake Waramaug Task Force who was concerned that the proposal did not address the runoff from the driveway across the street. She thought this should be corrected or the washouts would continue. Mr. Szymanski responded that the proposed field stone retaining wall would act as a 1 ft. curb to direct this runoff to the catch basin. Mr. LaMuniere said the plan had many good elements, but he asked why 18 inch rip rap was proposed for the beach when he saw no evidence of erosion there. He noted how calm the lake was in this cove and he said the placement of rip rap would actually be filling the lake. Mr. Szymanski then offered to delete the “hatched area.” Mr. LaMuniere also said he saw no reason for the proposed 4 ft. wall, especially considering the Commission’s view on walls along the lake shore. Mr. Szymanski said it formed a seating area and suggested a compromise could be a 2 ft. wall with intermediate rip rap at the base of the wall. Mr. Wadelton also thought there was no other purpose for the wall than for people to sit on. Mr. LaMuniere worried about the precedent that might be set if a patio were approved. Mr. Bedini thought the installation of rip rap would be sufficient, but Mr. LaMuniere noted that Mr. Szymanski had already agreed to remove it. Mr. Bedini suggested that the rip rap remain, but the two ft. high wall at the edge of the patio be changed to wooden benches, which would serve as a barrier, but would let waves pass through. Mr. Szymanski thought it was important to maintain the 2 ft. wall so that all of the work being proposed would not be undermined. He amended the plan and said he would submit a formal revised copy for the file.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-11 submitted by Mr.Erhardt, 57 West Shore Road for improvements per the drawings by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc. dated 5/4/11, revised to 6/2/11 and as revised with handwritten notes by Mr. Szymanski dated 6/8/11; the permit shall be valid for 2 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 4-0.Nauiokas/170 Church Hill Road/#IW-11-13/Dredge Pond:
Mr. Neff, engineer, noted that Steep Rock had sent a letter dated 5/31/11 stating that it had no objections to the proposal. He stated there had been no revisions to his plan, “Pond Cleanout Plan,” dated 4/8/11 since the last meeting. Mr. Bedini noted that the application had been discussed at the last meeting and the only item to be resolved had been the letter from Steep Rock.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-13 submitted by Ms. Nauiokas to dredge the existing pond at 170 Church Hill Road per the plan, “Pond Cleanout Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 4/8/11; the permit shall be valid for 2 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin.Mr. Neff asked for a 5 year permit and the commissioners agreed.
Mr. Wadelton amended the motion to include a 5 year permit and Mr. Papsin seconded the amendment. Vote: 4-0.
New Applications
Lancaster-Fuchs/18 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-11-16/Dredge Pond:
Mr. Neff, engineer, noted there were two ponds on the property and presented his plan, “Pond Cleanout Plan,” dated 5/18/11. He said the southern pond would be dredged to 10 ft. deep, but would not be enlarged. The banks would have a 1:3 slope and 1800 cu. yrds. would be excavated. The designated deposition area on the east side of the driveway and the temporary dewatering area were noted. Mr. Neff stated that the erosion and sedimentation control plan and a sequence of construction had been submitted. A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.105 West Shore Road, LLC./105 West Shore Road/#IW-11-17/Relocate Driveway:
Mr. Neff, engineer, noted the existing driveway has a grade of 20% and the proposal was to lengthen it and to install more of a curve in order to bring the first 50 feet to a 10% grade and the remainder to 15% to meet the Town regulations. He noted this would provide better access for emergency vehicles. The plan included the construction of a retaining wall at the lower edge of the driveway. Mr. Neff said this would allow more trees to be preserved and overall would require a smaller construction footprint. The plan, “Driveway Relocation Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 5/27/11 was reviewed. Also applied for were 1) a stone walkway from West Shore Road to the driveway, 2) the restacking of the small stonewalls near the boathouse, and 3) the installation of a stone veneer on top of the existing pier on the east end of the boathouse. Mr. Ajello asked why the stone walkway was proposed where it was rather than across from the boathouse. Mr. Neff responded that the sight lines were better in this area. Mr. Ajello asked if runoff would be prevented from running down the driveway. Mr. Neff there would be sheet flow as there is now. Mr. Ajello noted the Commission had asked for a driveway cross section in a recent application and he asked how tall the stonewall on the outside curve would be. Mr. Neff said it would be a maximum of 6 ft. Mr. Wadelton asked if there were wetlands on the property. Mr. Neff said there was an intermittent watercourse at the north end of the property and it was 60 feet from the proposed driveway at its closest point. Mr. LaMuniere asked for the stonewall specifications. Mr. Neff stated it would be a gravity wall with a larger base at the bottom. Mr. LaMuniere noted there would be no direct impacts to wetlands. A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 5:30 p.m.Frankland/173 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-11-18/Construct Barn:
Mr. and Mrs. Frankland presented the map, “Property/Boundary Survey,” by Mr. Alex, revised to 6/6/11, which showed the location of the proposed barn and the reflagged wetlands. They noted there was an alternate site available, but a 200 ft. wetlands crossing would be required to reach it. Mr. Ajello said the proposed location was only approximately 20 feet from the wetlands and asked that the exact distance be specified on the map. He also asked that the contour lines be labeled. Mr. Frankland said the barn would be built on a slab. Mr. Bedini asked if the existing driveway would be extended to reach the barn. Mr. Frankland said it would not. Mr. Bedini asked if any material would be deposited to level the slab. Mr. Frankland said perhaps 2.5 feet of fill would be needed in one corner. Mr. Bedini asked for details about the fill and the footings. He also asked for a blow up of the map so that it was readable, a detailed construction sequence, an erosion control plan, location of stockpile areas, and how much material would be excavated or deposited and where. Mr. Bedini said a site inspection would be scheduled when more details have been submitted. Mr. Ajello advised the applicants that the location of the barn might have to be revised due to Zoning setback requirements.
Enforcement Report
Mr. Ajello noted the following from his 6/8/11 report:Bennett/27 West Shore Road:
Mr. Neff is working on a plan to present to the Commission.Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-08/V5:
The restoration planting was completed and there had been substantial regrowth of the understory. As Mr. Ajello had requested, the agent had submitted a written statement detailing all that had been planted. Mr. Ajello stated he was satisfied that the restoration plan had been successfully implemented.MOTION:
Regarding Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-V5: to file a release of the notice of violation on the Land Records, close the enforcement file, and return the $500 bond.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.Davis/152 Upper Church Hill Road/Agent Approval/Shed:
Location of a shed 65 feet from flagged wetlands had been approved.Early/52 Carmel Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello signed off on the underground service by the pond.Gordon/180 West Shore Road:
The planting has not yet been completed, but the erosion controls are still in place.Hochberg/15 Couch Road/Unauthorized Excavation, Deposition of Material in a Watercourse:
A hearing will be required if Mr. Hochberg appeals his citation. Mr. Ajello noted his letter written in 2006, which details the history of violations on this property. It was the consensus that the excavation of the pond was an unauthorized activity and the cease and desist order should be upheld.MOTION:
Regarding Hochberg/15 Couch Road/Unauthorized Excavation of Pond and Deposition of Material in a Watercourse: to leave the 5/2/11 cease and desist order in effect.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.Lanyi/105 West Shore Road:
The renovation of the boathouse is ongoing and the site conditions are under control.Leary/164 West Shore Road:
The site is stable.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-V2 and #IW-10-V3:
The grass has not been mowed. Currently there are low flow conditions, so the work to restore the stone “canal” will begin on 6/13.Wang/110 Blackville Road/#IW-09-V7:
Ten maple trees were planted. It was the consensus that the Commission should wait until fall to make sure all of the trees are established before acting to release the notice of violation on the Land Records.Whittenberg/24 Horse Heaven Road:
Only a small area of disturbance exists. Construction activity did not extend past the limit of disturbance line.
Other Business
Shoreline Protection Policies/Presentation at LWA Annual Meeting:
Mr. Bedini read the letter from Mr. Frank inviting the IWC chairmen from Warren, Kent, and Washington to attend the meeting. Mr. Wadelton and Mr. Papsin will attend and report on the proposed shoreline protection policies.MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Wadelton.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 8:38 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: June 21, 2011 May 25, 2011
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. LaMuniere
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Gambino, Mr. NeffMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, and Wadelton and Alternate Cheney for Mr. LaMuniere.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 5/11/11 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
On page 5 under Erhardt, the correct spelling of “repair” was noted.MOTION:
To accept the 5/11/11 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 5/17/11 18 Titus Road, LLC. site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Geurts/117 East Shore Road/#IW-11-10/Installation of Bulkhead and Planting:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented his map, “Proposed Site Development Plan,” revised to 5/23/11, which showed only the work proposed on the applicant’s property and none on the state right of way. In response to a question from Mr. Bedini, Mr. Szymanski noted the DOT had given a verbal approval for the work proposed on the right of way. Mr. Wadelton clarified that an IW approval would not include work in the state right of way. Mr. Wadelton asked for the specifications of the bulkhead. Mr. Szymanski said it would be approximately 15 inches thick, 3 ft. wide, and 4 ft. deep depending on the size of the natural stone that is available. Mrs. Hill asked that the application form be amended to delete the work originally proposed in the right of way and Mr. Szymanski did so. Mr. Wadelton asked what the dock attachment would look like. Mr. Szymanski said he would supply this information. The commissioners determined a site inspection was not necessary. Mr. Szymanski will take photos of the site and submit these and the dock mounting and bulkhead details for the next meeting.Erhardt/57 West Shore Road/#IW-11-11/Repair, Reconstruct Retaining Walls, Install Stone Patio and Stormwater Management Improvements:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, advised the Commission to conduct a site inspection. The map, Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 5/24/11 was reviewed. He explained that significant erosion of the beach sand into the lake had occurred due to runoff and the wall along the state road was failing. The proposed work includes constructing a new field stone retaining wall where the wall is currently crumbling, and grading the shoulder to a new catch basin and drainage pipe. This would divert all of the runoff from West Shore Road to a water quality basin that would be located in the converted beach area. This basin would allow the runoff to infiltrate. All but approximately 5 ft. of the beach would be replaced with intermediate rip rap. Also proposed was a stone patio with 2 inch wide gaps of pea stone gravel to promote infiltration of stormwater and an enlarged walkway. Between the patio and the rip rapped area would be a 4 ft. high stone retaining wall. Mr. Szymanski noted they were trying to find an area in which to plant a shade tree. Mr. Ajello asked if the proposed patio was flat. Mr. Szymanski said it was, but it could be installed with a slight grade. He noted the applicant was willing to make the drainage improvements and address the erosion problem in exchange for having a sitting area near the lake. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, May 31, 2011 at 5:30 p.m.18 Titus Road, LLC./18 Titus Road/#IW-11-12/Riverbank Stabilization:
Ms. Cheney recused herself and Mr. Papsin was seated.
Mr. Quinn, agent, addressed the two items of concern raised at the site inspection.
1) What kind of modifications would be done to the existing wall? He reported that Mr. Nardi of O and G recommended rebuilding the top 18 inches of the wall from the corner of the building east to about three quarters of the way to the property line. Some additional stones would be used to supplement those that have fallen. He submitted a sheet, “Stone Retaining Wall,” undated, regarding how the dry wall would be constructed. Filter fabric and crushed stone would be placed behind the disturbed sections. The map, “Streambank Stabilization,” by Studio 49, revised to 5/24/11 was reviewed. It was noted at the top of the bank a vegetated buffer would be planted.
2) How would the Japanese Knotweed be disposed of? Mr. Quinn submitted a paper, “Control of Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) that detailed the steps that would be taken to properly remove it. He noted that to control this weed the entire watercourse would have to be managed. The knotweed would be cut and taken to a compost site above the high water mark of the river. Then the cut areas and the cut piles will be sprayed with Rodeo or a similar chemical by a licensed professional. There will be follow-up treatments for the next two years, when the cut areas would be sprayed in late summer.
Construction of the wall was again discussed. It was noted that 65 tons of material, the majority of it rip rap, would be brought in and 20 tons of debris taken off site.
Mr. Bedini asked if the washout area would first be filled with earth and then rip rapped, and Mr. Quinn said it would and that filter fabric would be installed up beyond the top of the slope to help prevent it from washing out again. At the request of the Commission, Mr. Quinn revised the application to state that the wall would be rebuilt from where it is stable, which may not be 18 inches from the top. Mr. Bedini noted a site inspection had been conducted and the Commission’s questions had been answered.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-12 submitted by 18 Titus Road, LLC. for riverbank stabilization at 18 Titus Road per the plan dated 5/6/11 and revised to 5/24/11 and the 8.5 X 11 drawing that was revised and updated to 5/25/11; the permit will be valid for 2 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.Ms. Cheney was reseated.
Nauiokas/170 Church Hill Road/#IW-11-13/Dredge Pond:
Mr. Neff, engineer, discussed the plan submitted at the last meeting. He noted there was a construction sequence and notes on the plans detailing the work to be done. A silt basin would be installed for maintenance, the dredged material would be taken off site, and the work would be done mid summer during the dry season. He said the pond would not be enlarged. He noted there would be a temporary settling basin for dewatering the excavated materials. The map, “Pond Cleanout Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 4/8/11 was reviewed. There is a conservation easement on the property, but Steep Rock had not yet sent a written approval for the proposed dredging. Mr. Neff said he would submit the approval letter from Steep Rock as soon as it is received. Because the Commission must have either proof notification of the application was sent by certified mail to the holder of the conservation easement 65 days prior to the submission of the application or written approval from the holder of the conservation easement, action on the application was tabled to the next meeting.Wallgren-Rook/136 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-11-15/Herbicide Application to Pond:
Mr. Gambino, contractor, was present. He presented a Google map and topo map showing the location of the property and pond and a portion of the DEP map of species of special concern, which showed there were no endangered species or species of special concern in the area. He noted the pond was half an acre in size and averaged 5 feet deep. Photos of the inlet, where there was no direct stream, and of the outlet pipe were circulated. For the Commission’s general information, Mr. Gambino also submitted sheets entitled, “Streamside Buffer Plantings” compiled by the North Central Conservation District. Mr. Bedini asked what would happen if an herbicide were not applied to this pond. Mr. Gambino said it would be 100% covered with duckweed. Mr. Gambino stated he had looked into the cause of the weeds, which he assumed was high nutrient levels in the water. However, the septic system was not nearby and the owners use a minimum amount of fertilizer on the lawn. He thought perhaps a nearby field used by the Potter Farm was the cause. Chemical information sheets on Clipper were reviewed. He read the environmental hazards if not used correctly and noted no posting restricting swimming and fishing was required. Mr. Gambino noted the state had approved the application and he complained about the high town and state application fees.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-15 for herbicide application to the pond owned by Mr. Wallgren and Mr. Rook at 135 Old Litchfield Road; the permit is valid for 2 years.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Ms. Cheney, passed 5-0.
Enforcement Report
Bennett/27 West Shore Road:
Mr. Bennett will retain Mr. Neff, but no letter of authorization has been received.Chatfield-Schellerer/19 Tinker Hill Road:
Excessive cutting on this property caused an increase in the flow of runoff across the road and as a result, the catch basin is clogged with sediment.Brose/213 Roxbury Road:
At the last meeting revisions to the approved planting plan had been discussed. Mr. Ajello said since then Mr. Allan of Land Tech had confirmed that the species and size changes were OK. The required planting is almost complete and the disturbed area is now thickly vegetated. The contractor has been asked to provide a list of all the material planted and copies of the invoices. It was the consensus that the planting should be complete before it is signed off. Mr. Ajello noted that once it has been completed a release would have to be filed on the Land Records, it would have to be determined how long the bond will be held, and monitoring for invasives will have to continue.Erhardt/57 West Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello thought an excellent drainage plan was proposed in exchange for approval of the patio.Geurts/117 East Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello did not understand why the DOT would waive a permit for work in the state right of way since it always requires one for projects that will impact traffic flow. He said the purpose for the permit is to make sure the contractor has insurance. Mr. Wadelton noted again that the application lacked specific details for the bulkhead.Hochberg/15 Couch Road:
The show cause hearing will take place at 6:30 p.m. on June 8. Mrs. Hill questioned why a notice of violation had been sent. She said a cease and desist order was all that had been needed and that it should have been sent sooner. Mr. Ajello noted that once sent, a show cause hearing must be held within 10 days, so he had timed it so the hearing could be held on the date of a regularly scheduled meeting. He also noted that the workers had stopped work when he verbally ordered them to do so.Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike:
Mr. Ajello reported that the ruts had been graded in since he had last been there.Wang/110 Blackville Road:
It was noted that 10 trees must be planted to replace the canopy. Mr. Ajello said Mrs. Wang had responded quickly to the last letter he sent. If the trees aren’t planted by mid summer, a second reminder letter will be sent.
Administrative Business
Shoreline Protection Policies:
Mr. Wadelton said the revisions had been sent out for the commissioners to review and that he had drafted a single document with a Section 11A as Atty. Zizka had recommended. This will be referred to the DEP.Lake Waramaug Assoc. Annual Meeting:
Mr. Bedini said the Association would like IW commissioners to speak about shoreline protection policies at its annual meeting in June. Mr. Wadelton and Mr. Papsin will attend and Mr. LaMuniere, the third member of the subcommittee, will, too, if he is available.35 East Shore Road/Complaints re: Alleged IW Violations:
Mrs. J. Hill had circulated her 5/24/11 Memo prior to the meeting. She asked that the commissioners consider each of the alleged violations noted in it. She said she would report the Commission’s opinions/actions to the neighbor who had complained when she had also discussed these matters with the Building Dept. and the Zoning Commission. She hoped a thorough review by each department would resolve the matter. During the discussion, Mr. Ajello presented various photos of the property.1) Utility shed in the wetlands,
2) “Footbridge over the East Aspetuck River, and
3) Installation of underground electrical conduits:
Concerning these three complaints, the commissioners referred to Mrs. J. Hill’s memo and noted permits had been issued for the shed, the conduits, and for pond work for which planks over the river were needed to reach the work area. They found no violations and considered these three matters resolved.4) Garden ornaments:
Mr. Bedini said the Commission was not concerned with garden ornaments as they did not impact the wetlands, had been placed on rocks, and did not require that footings be poured. Mrs. D. Hill thought the ornaments were an as of right activity under Section 4.5) Stone patio in or near wetlands:
It was noted that the patio had been constructed in the location where the Commission had approved the construction of a greenhouse. The commissioners were not concerned that the patio was larger than the greenhouse, noting it had less potential impact to the wetlands and watercourse because it was a pervious surface whereas the greenhouse was not.6) Stone walkway:
It was noted this had been installed at the time of the wetlands restoration and had been noted on one plan, but not on Mr. Neff’s plan. Mrs. D. Hill stated the walkway was pervious, had no impact on the wetlands, and was also permitted by right under Section 4. Mr. Wadelton agreed that gardening was an as of right activity and said this was reasonable gardening, not unreasonable landscaping.7) Installation of concrete pad for LP gas tank:
It was the consensus that if the Commission had known about this at the time it had been installed, a permit would have been required. Mr. Wadelton asked if everyone thought it would have been approved if it had been applied for and it was thought it would have as there were not many suitable locations on site. Mrs. D. Hill thought removing and relocating the tank would result in more disturbance to the area than if it was left in place. None of the commissioners wanted to pursue the enforcement of this matter.
There were no communications to discuss.
Executive Session was not needed.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:10 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: June 1, 2011 May 11, 2011
Public Hearing – Show Cause Hearing – Regular Meeting
5:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomPUBLIC HEARING
Klein/271 West Shore Road and 236 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-11-03/ Construct Driveway
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Papsin
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. HillMr. Bedini called the continuation of the public hearing to order at 5:04 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Wadelton read the 5/6/11 letter of withdrawal from Mrs. Klein to the Commission.
MOTION:
To close the public hearing to consider Application #IW-11-03 submitted by Mrs. Klein to construct a driveway at 271 West Shore Road/236 Tinker Hill Road.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.Mr. Bedini closed the hearing at 5:07 p.m.
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Hochberg/15 Couch Road/Unauthorized Excavation of Pond and Disposal of Excavated Material into Watercourse
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Papsin
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. HillMr. Bedini called the show cause hearing to order at 5:16 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mr. LaMuniere. He noted the purpose of the hearing was to give Mr. Hochberg the opportunity to show why the 5/2/11 cease and desist order for unauthorized excavation of his pond and deposition of the excavated material into the watercourse should not stand.
Mrs. J. Hill recounted her 5/9/11 conversation with Mr. Hochberg during which he stated that his workers had not deposited the excavated material directly into the stream, but had placed it in the outlet pipe where it had then “naturally” flowed into the stream. She said that he also stated that he had not received notice of the hearing and would not be available until June 8, 2011 and so asked that it be continued until that date.
Mr. Ajello noted a notice of violation and citation had been mailed to Mr. Hochberg at the same time. He then reviewed the specifics of the 5/2/11 cease and desist order. He reported that Mr. Hochberg had contacted Mr. Szymanski, engineer, who had no time to prepare a response for tonight’s hearing.
Mr. Ajello read Mr. Hochberg’s 5/9/11 email that asked that the hearing be continued. There was a brief discussion regarding whether to continue it or not. Mrs. Hill noted the order would remain in effect if the hearing was continued. It was the consensus the hearing would be continued to give Mr. Hochberg the opportunity to respond.
MOTION:
To continue the Show Cause Hearing for the 5/2/11 cease and desist order issued to Mr. Hochberg for unauthorized dredging of his pond at 15 Couch Road to June 8, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.At 5:30 p.m. Mr. Bedini continued the show cause hearing to 6:30 p.m. on June 8, 2011 in the Land Use Meeting Room.
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. LaMuniere
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Canal, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Wilson, Mr. GambinoMr. Bedini called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, and Wadelton and seated Alternates Papsin for Mr. LaMuniere and Cheney for Mr. Bohan.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 4/27/11 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 4: The heading should say, “West Shore Farm, LLC.” not West Shore Road.MOTION:
To accept the 4/27/11 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.The 5/10/11 West Shore Farm, LLC. site inspection minutes were accepted as amended.
First paragraph: last line: The correct spelling is “existing.”MOTION:
To accept the 5/10/11 West Shore Farm, LLC. site inspection minutes as amended. By Mrs. Hill, seconded
by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Klein/271 West Shore Road and 236 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-11-03/ Construct Driveway:
Mr. Bedini noted the application had been withdrawn.The order of the agenda was altered to accommodate those present.
New Applications
Geurts/117 East Shore Road/#IW-11-10/Demolition, Reconstruction of Retaining Walls, Install Bulkhead for Dock, Extend Parking Area, Rebuild Stairs, Etc.:
It was noted that most of the proposed work was not on the Geurts property, but in the state right of way. Mr. Ajello said that Mr. Szymanski, engineer, had reported that the DOT OK’d the plans, but there was nothing in writing. Mr. Ajello thought approval from the state DEP should also be obtained. The map, “Proposed Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 11/30/2009 was reviewed. Several commissioners were not comfortable approving an application, which encroached on the state right of way, noting too, that the applicant proposed to demolish and move back a retaining wall towards the highway. Mr. Wadelton noted the retaining wall work could impact the stability of the road. It was the consensus to require the applicant to resubmit the application for only the work proposed on his own property. A site inspection will not be scheduled until the revised application is submitted.
Pending Applications
Doherty/212-214 Calhoun Street/#IW-11-07/Guest House, Pool, Utility Shed:
Mr. Talbot, architect, Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, and Mr. Neff, engineer, were present. The plan, “Guest House and Pool House Septic System,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/9/11 was reviewed. Mr. Neff stated the revisions were based on the discussion at the last meeting and included rerouting of the drainage pipe and inclusion of notes both on the map and in the construction sequence regarding restacking the stonewall and references to Mr. Sabin’s planting plan. Mr. Neff noted the 4” PVC pipe that would discharge to the spreader before the wall would only handle the floor drains in the utility building. The other pipe, which would pick up the courtyard drainage, would flow towards the designated wetland planting area. Regarding the planting area, Mr. Sabin explained the pipe would discharge to 35 feet of undisturbed lawn and then beyond that point the sod would be removed and the area seeded with northeast wetland mix and planted with other native wetland plants; both shrubs and wetland flowers. He stated that 70% of the lawn would be restored to more native wetlands conditions. Mr. Neff submitted erosion control plans revised to 5/10/11. Mr. Ajello asked if the pool equipment had been relocated. Mr. Neff said it was located in the utility shed beyond the 50 ft. wetlands setback required for Zoning.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-07 submitted by Mr. Doherty to construct a guest house, pool, and utility shed at 212-214 Calhoun Street per the plans by Mr. Neff, “Guest House and Pool House Septic System,” revised to 5/9/11, the plan, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/10/11, and the letter from Mr. Sabin to the Commission dated 5/11/11; this permit is valid for two years; approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.West Shore Farm, LLC./285 West Shore Road/#IW-11-09/Replace Dock Anchor Pier:
Mr. Papsin recused himself.
Mr. Wilson, engineer, presented his untitled drawing, dated 5/11/11, that referenced the porch and the corner post. He noted the steps would begin 8 ft. back from the front of the building’s porch and would be 15 inches away from and parallel to the side of the building. He also noted that a gate was proposed and added it to the 5/11/11 sketch. He said the gate would not be higher than 2 ft. above the center line of the road. Mr. Bedini asked if a railing was proposed. Mr. Wilson said, no, that due to rocks in the area, there was not much of a drop off.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-09 submitted by West Shore Farm, LLC. to replace the dock anchor pier at 285 West Shore Road per the drawings, “Dock Pier,” by Mr. Wilson, dated 4/26/11 and an additional sheet signed by Mr. Wilson dated 5/11/11 submitted at the meeting; this permit is valid for two years; approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Ms. Cheney, and passed 4-0.Mr. Papsin was reseated.
New Applications
Erhardt/57 West Shore Road/#IW-11-11/Repaie, Reconstruct Retaining Walls, Install Stone Patio and Stormwater Management Improvements:
The plan, “Site Development Plan, by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 5/4/11 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello noted there would be limited work done in the state right of way. The proposed activities included installation of a new catch basin, drainage pipe, and planted water basin on the south side of the property, and installation of a mortared bluestone patio on a 5 inch concrete slab. Mr. Bedini noted the patio would be impervious and asked for an alternate plan. Mr. Ajello said he had already suggested that the applicant install tightly fitted native stone that would slope down to the water and allow the wave action to dissipate. It was the consensus to wait to see if the plans would be revised before scheduling a site inspection. It was noted in this case the state has a right of way over the Erhardt property.18 Titus Road, LLC./18 Titus Road/#IW-11-12/Riverbank Stabilization:
Ms. Cheney recused herself.
Mr. Quinn, agent, presented the plan, “Streambank Stabilization,” by Studio49, revised to 5/6/11. He proposed to stabilize approximately 180 ft. of the Shepaug riverbank using large boulders and 6” – 8” rip rap and make it look natural like the opposite side of the river. The existing grade would not be altered. The boulders would be put in place with an excavator operating from the top of the bank. At the top of the slope he proposed a small vegetated buffer varying from 4 to 5 ft. in width. Mr. Quinn also proposed to repair the top of the existing retaining wall. He noted there was various debris on the bank, but said it would not be dug out. Any junk sticking up would be cut off and carted away and the rest would be left in place. He estimated that 20 tons of material, mostly concrete, would be taken off the property. Mr. Ajello asked if either the root structure or canopy would be recreated. Mr. Quinn said ornamental shrubs and trees would be planted and they would not shade the river. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, May 17, 2011 at 5:30 p.m.Ms. Cheney was reseated.
Canal/142 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-11-14/Apply Herbicide to Pond:
Mr. Gambino, contractor, stated he had filed an application with the state DEP. He noted that when an application for this pond was first submitted to the Commission in 2008, it had been denied because the applicant had not considered alternate treatments. This time, however, he submitted Attachment #4 listing alternatives that had been considered. He also submitted photos of the existing buffers on the east and west sides of the pond and fact sheets on copper sulphate and Komeen, the chemicals to be used in the pond. He stated that Komeen was safer than Diquat, which had been proposed in 2008. Safety charts were reviewed. Mr. Gambino said he would apply the chemicals after the level of the pond had been slowly drawn down 18 to 24 inches so there would be no siltation downstream as had occurred in the past and that the chemicals would be held in for 24 hours. He explained how the pond’s valve structure works. He stated he would look at the weather report and apply the chemicals on a sunny morning and that the process was safe and there would be no downstream problems. The DEP map showing species of concern was reviewed. He also said all work would be done according to the directions in the state permit, which had already been issued.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-14 submitted by Mr. Canal to apply herbicides for weed control to his pond at 142 Sabbaday Lane.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Nauiokas/170 Church Hill Road/#IW-11-13/Dredge Existing Pond:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his map, “Pond Cleanout Plan,” dated 4/8/11. He noted the same plan had been approved in 2002, but the work had not been done. He briefly reviewed the proposal to dredge the half acre pond. A 30’ X 30’ silt basin would be installed at the inlet to trap sediment and 3000 cubic yards of material would be removed from the pond. Side slopes would be 1:3 and the maximum depth 14 ft. The work would take 2 weeks and the dewatering one month. Mr. Neff pointed out the proposed stockpile/dewatering area on the west side of the pond and said the dredged material would be removed from the site. He also stated the work would be done during the driest time of year. Mr. Bedini asked if a driveway access would be installed. Mr. Neff responded there would be a temporary access that would be grassed over upon completion of the work. The pond is in a conservation easement area held by Steep Rock. Mr. Neff said the easement allows pond cleaning and he hoped Steep Rock would confirm this in writing before the next meeting. Mr. Ajello suggested a long term permit in case we experience wet summers like in the past two years.
Enforcement
Schwartz/Loomarwick Road:
Mr. Ajello noted the Commission had recently approved a revision of the permit to increase the size of the garage. However, it appears the plans will be revised further to build a balcony/overhang within 50 ft. of wetlands.
Enforcement Report
Bennett/27 West Shore Road:
Mr. Bennett’s attorney had not yet responded to the notice of violation.Bennett/132 New Preston Hill Road:
The work is progressing.Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-V5:
Mr. Ajello reported that the clearcut area had not been replanted per the approved plan; all the major plantings were missing. He has spoken with Ms. Brose’s agent who proposed substitutions to the approved plan per his email dated 5/11/11. The map, “Proposed Woodland Restoration,” by Land Tech Consultants, Inc., dated 6/8/2009 was reviewed and compared to the proposed substitutions of species, size, and number of plants. The agent generally proposed smaller sized plants, but more of them to offset the size. The commissioners did not feel qualified to determine whether the proposed changes were comparable to the plants originally specified by Land Tech in its restoration plan and so thought Land Tech should review the proposal. Mr. Ajello will send the email and plan to Land Tech for review.Douglas/86 Painter Ridge Road:
Mr. Ajello sent a letter to Mr. Douglas as the Commission directed at the last meeting.Gordon/180 West Shore Road:
The bulk of the work is done; only the planting remains.Hochberg/15 Couch Road/Unauthorized Excavation, Deposition:
The show cause hearing was continued to June 8, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.Pond/153 West Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello reported an Agent Approval for repairs to a boathouse where there would be no soil disturbance.Wang/110 Blackville Road:
Mr. Ajello reported that the unauthorized driveway had been removed, but the required replanting had not been done. Ten trees were supposed to have been planted in the fall. Mr. Ajello will send a letter to Mrs. Wang.
Enforcement Items on Agenda
Town of Washington/16 Titus Road/#IW-09-V2:
It was noted there are still small piles of material in a condensed area. This item will remain on the agenda.Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike:
Mr. Ajello stated the screening had not been planted and he had not signed off on the building.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-V2 and #IW-10/V3:
Mrs. Hill asked if the gatehouse had been demolished yet. Mr. Ajello said it had not, possibly because the certified letter sent to Mr. Rosen had been returned. He has since delivered the letter to Mr. Sabin, Mr. Rosen’s agent.
Other Business
Shoreline Protection Policies:
A final draft incorporating Atty. Zizka’s comments has been completed. Mr. Ajello said he would like to review it a final time. Mrs. Hill asked that a copy be mailed to her for her review. Mrs. J. Hill referred to the state statutes, which require that proposed revisions to IW regulations be sent to the DEP commissioner at least 35 days prior to the public hearing to consider the revisions. She noted, too, that the Commission must state its reasons for the revisions on the record. Mr. Wadelton will incorporate the draft language into a formal proposed revision to the Regs and it will be sent to the DEP as soon as possible. A public hearing will most likely be scheduled for July.There were no matters to discuss under Executive Session.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Wadelton.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Posted: May 5, 2011 April 13, 2011
Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
5:00PM
Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Shade
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Woodward, Mr. Neff, Mr. SabinPUBLIC HEARING
Klein(cont’d) /271 West Shore Road and 236 Tinker Hill Road /#IW-11-03 /Construct Driveway
Mr. Bedini reconvened the Public Hearing at 5:06PM to consider Application #IW-11-03 for Klein, 271 West Shore Road and 236 Tinker Hill Road to construct driveway. He seated members Bedini, Hill, Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mr. Bohan. The applicants were not at the meeting and no one was there to represent them. Mr. Wadelton read a letter from Mrs. Klein dated 4/11/11, stating she was unable to attend this Public Hearing but would agree to continue the Hearing until 5PM on May 11, 2011. Mr. Bedini and the Commissioners said that would be acceptable.MOTION:
To continue the Public Hearing for Klein, 271 West Shore Road and 236 Tinker Hill Road, IW-11-03, for driveway construction, until May 11, 2011, at 5:00PM.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin and passed 5-0.Mr. Bedini continued the public hearing at 5:11PM.
This hearing was recorded. The audio 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 7:01PM and seated members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere and Wadelton.
MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the agenda:
V. New Applications:
A. Doherty/212-214 Calhoun Street/#IW-11-07/Construct pool, guest house and utility shed.
B. Lanyi/105 West Shore Road/#IW-11-08/Boathouse renovation.
VI. Other Business:
A. Adams/233 West Shore Road/Requesting revision to #IW-07-10/change location of pool.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The March 23, 2011 Public Hearing minutes were accepted as amended.
Page 2, Par. 2, …..of Lake Waramaug Task Force….” Should be inserted after Mr. McGowan’s name.
Page 2, Par. 4, Line 8, …..area is glacial till with…..
Page 4, Par. 1, Line 3, …..dated 11/4/2009….. The year was questioned – M. Shade will listen to tape.
Page 5, Under Thorn: Line 8, …..wood base….. was questioned –should be surface(?) – M. Shade will listen to tape.
Page 6, Under Rosen: Line 14, remove one levelMOTION:
To accept the 3/23/11 Regular Meeting minutes as amended.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill and passed 5-0.Site Inspection/Klein
MOTION:
To accept the 3/22/11 Klein site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bohan and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To add Rosen site inspection visit to agenda.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini and passed 5-0.Site Inspection/Rosen
Mr. Bedini asked the members if they had any comments on the Rosen Site Inspection. There were none.MOTION:
To accept the 4/7/11 Rosen site inspection minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications Klein/271 West Shore Road and 236 Tinker Hill Road#IW-11-03 Construct Driveway.
Public Hearing was continued until 5:00PM on May 11, 2011 in the Land Use Meeting Room.Thorn /228 West Shore Road #IW-11-04 /Install Dock.
Mr. Ajello told the Commissioners that Mr. Thorne had called to say he would be unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Ajello told him the members did not have any questions and no new information regarding this application has been received since the last meeting. The dock is 80ft long because the water is shallow and there is no shore line disturbance. Mr. Papsin said this was a well thought out plan. All agreed. Mr. Ajello said Steve Sordi, Lake Safety Officer, is ready to sign off.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-04 submitted by Mr. Thorne, 228 West Shore Road, to install a dock per plans by Peter Talbot, AIA, marked Floating Dock and dated 3/9/11. This permit is valid for 2 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval. By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bohan and passed 5-0.Douglas /68 Painter Ridge Road /#IW-11-06 /Herbicide Application
Mr. Ajello noted that Mr. Gambino was unable to attend this meeting. Mr. Ajello said he and Mr. Wadelton visited the site and saw rip rap swale which was installed by the Town at the point of drainage and is close to two well heads. They did not see any other changes on the site since IWC approved a similar application last year. Mr. Bedini asked the members if they had any questions. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the chemicals are similar to the ones applied last year. Mr. Ajello said he would need to compare the chemicals but the old application expired, Mr. Gambino sent a Finish Card, and this is a re-application. Mr. Wadelton said this is the same treatment for the same problem they had last year. Mr. LaMuniere asked if this is a closed system. Mr. Ajello said they will try to keep the water level in the pond low in order to keep the chemicals in the pond as long as possible. If you consider the fact that the small pond has no weeds, it is a closed system.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-06, submitted by Mr. Gambino for Mr. Douglas, 68 Painter Ridge Road, for herbicide application to control aquatic weeds. This permit is valid for 2 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval,
3. the Commission strongly encourages buffer planting around the larger pond. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton and passed 5-0.Rosen /304 Nettleton Hollow Road /#IW-11-05 /Correct Violations-Restore Buffers and Streams
Mr. Rosen was represented by Mr. Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect. He submitted a letter for the record from Brian Neff, P.E. dated 4/11/11, in which Mr. Neff reported on his inspection of the driveway bridge and gate house on the Rosen property. Mr. Sabin said he would be open to any questions from the Commission. The members looked over the drawings with Mr. Sabin: L-1, the stream & buffer restoration plan and L-2, the gate house. Mr. LaMuniere asked about the automatic gates. Mr. Sabin said the gates, which are for security, will not be on the stream, they will be on the driveway which goes over the stream. The members discussed the wing walls. The stone facing on the wing walls is new since the concrete structure was built. Mrs. Hill asked if there was any impact on the stream from the structure. Mr. Sabin replied there is no significant impact on the stream. Mr. LaMuniere referred to Mr. Neff’s letter which stated the stone veneer would not impact the flow of the stream. Mr. Wadelton said that Mr. Rosen carried out the construction of the gate house and stone veneer on the bridge within the regulated area, so basically the Commission is going to approve that in retrospect along with new plans for restoration of the stream and buffer. Mr. Sabin said the gate house is definitely part of this application and he will annotate the plan accordingly.Mr. Papsin asked Mr. Sabin if the native shrubbery would be left alone. Yes. Mr. Sabin said he only wants to remove invasives like the multi-flora rose. Mrs. Hill said some of the trees look like they are on their last legs. Mr. Sabin agreed that some are scrubby looking, but the songbirds like them so he will not be taking any down unless absolutely necessary. The intent is to have the meadow edge brought to the road. The Commissioners discussed the best time to mow the wet meadow. It was decided on or about September 1st. In addition, for the information of future owners, Mr. Sabin suggested that these plans could be placed on the land records once all the work is completed. The members agreed. Mr. Bedini asked the members if they were ready to make a motion.
MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-05, submitted by James Rosen, 304 Nettleton Hollow Road, to correct violations-restore buffers and streams per plans by Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect. Plan L-1, Stream & Buffer restoration at Stonebrook Estate, and L-2, Gatehouse at Stonebrook Estate; both dated 3/22/11. This permit is valid for 2 years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work,
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval,
4. that the wet meadow be cut once a year on or around September 1,
5. the work is to be monitored by a competent professional acceptable to the Commission,
6. a copy of the map shall be filed on the Land Records once the work has been completed. By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini and passed 4-1.
Mrs. Hill denying. She stated Mr. Rosen was well aware he needed a permit to do this work and she does not think the Commission should approve it after the fact.
New Applications
Doherty, 212-214 Calhoun Street /#IW-11-07 /Construct pool, guest house and utility shed
Mr. and Mrs. Doherty were represented by Mr. Brian Neff, P.E. Mr. Neff presented his plans for the guest house and pool house septic systems along with the plans by Peter Talbot Architects to construct the guest house, pool house and pool. He pointed out that the house and barn complex are very close to the road. Mr. Neff told the Commission that the applicants have approval from the Historic District Commission. He explained that the existing barn will be converted to a guest house, the pool will be in the old barn foundation and pool equipment will be placed in the utility shed. Mr. Neff showed the future areas for septics and noted that the actual leaching fields are functioning. Mr. Ajello asked why the fence extends so far down through part of wetlands. Mr. Neff replied that they want the entire guest house and pool complex surrounded by fence. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the pool is to be built within the barn frame. Mr. Sabin commented the pool will be built in the foundation of the old bank barn. Mr. Ajello said he would like to know how equipment will access the back area. Mr. Sabin said they only want to mow the hay fields. Mrs. Hill said she likes that idea. Mr. Bohan asked if the existing leach fields can be used with the new guest house. Mr. Neff said possibly, they seem to be in good shape. The Commissioners thought a site visit would be beneficial and they agreed on Wednesday, April 20, 2011. Meet at Town Hall at 4:15PM and visit site at 4:30PM.Lanyi /105 West Shore Road /#IW-11-08 /Boathouse Renovation
Mr. Lanyi was represented by Brian Neff, P.E. The members looked at the Boathouse Renovation plan by Mr. Neff. Mr. Neff told the Commission that they are proposing to rebuild the boathouse in the same location and use the existing foundation. The roof is fairly low and they may raise the roof. A dumpster will carry materials away. Mr. Neff said an architect is working on the plans which will show the raised roof. It is a kind of open patio house with the boat underneath. The footprint is not changing. Mr. Neff suggested the members could go individually and park in an area across the street to get a good look at the boathouse. Mr. Ajello asked if anyone is presently living on the property. No.
Other Business
Adams /233 West Shore Road /Revisions to #IW-07-10 /Change location of pool
Mr. Sean Woodward represented Mr. Adams. He reminded the Commissioners that this used to be The Birches Inn. Mr. Ajello said at one point the pool was to be in front where the parking area used to be for the restaurant. Then eventually approval was given to locate the pool behind the house. Tonight Mr. Woodward is here with a revision to relocate the pool back in front where it was previously approved. Mr. Bohan commented the pool is further away from a water course than it would have been in the back. Mr. Woodward said it is a simple gunite pool with safety fence and conifer tree line. Pool equipment will be inside a structure. Mr. Bohan said this is a simple revision that can be approved tonight. The Commission had no problems. This 5year permit expires 5/9/12.MOTION:
To approve the revision of Permit #IW-07-10 requested by Mr. Sean Woodward for Mr. Adams, 233 West Shore Road, to change location of the pool as shown on plans “Site Plan Map Prepared For Birch Hollow, West Shore Road, Washington, Connecticut”, revised to September 2010. This permit is still valid until 5/9/12.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Chatfield /Schellerer /19 Tinker Hill Road:
Mr. Chatfield left a message for Mr. Ajello – he wants to clean up the site and said they have an erosion control expert working with them. Mr. Ajello showed some photos to the Commission. He said he is glad they are making an effort even if they have not discussed it with him. They want to restore the property and sell.Kinney Hill LLC:
No change.Leary /164 West Shore Road:
No ChangeMartinelli /18 Titus Road:
Owner of building. Met with him on site, lots of debris on bank. Mike suggested plantings or fence along top, perhaps stepping stones on bank for fishermen to use. He will come before IWC with application.Rosen /304 Nettleton Hollow Road:
Will stay in touch with him to make sure he is going in right direction.Wexler /157 Calhoun Street:
No Change.Whittenberg:
No change
Administrative Business
Shoreline Protection Policies:
Mr. LaMuniere noted the Commission has the ok of Bob Kortmann and the Conservation Commission is happy. He suggested working on a final draft to circulate and then send to Mike Ziska to see what he recommends.Mrs. Hill had a question regarding enforcement. She asked about Mr. Wang, 110 Blackville Road, has any planting been done. Mr. Papsin said he drove by recently – nothing has been planted.
MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Hill.Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 8:50PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Martha T. Shade, Clerk
Posted: March 25, 2011 March 23, 2011
6:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. LaMuniere
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Martino, Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Ms. Cheney
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Weeks, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Gambino, Mr. Neff, Mr./Mrs. Klein, Mr./Mrs. Frank, Mr. Wellings, Mr./Mrs. Ernhout, Mrs. Sutter, Mr. Thorn, Mr. Sabin, Atty. Sienkiewicz, ResidentsPUBLIC HEARING
Klein/271 West Shore Road and 236 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-11-03/ Construct Driveway
Mr. Bedini called the hearing to order at 6:02 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mr. LaMuniere. Mr. Wadelton read the list of documents in the file. Mr. Bedini read the legal notice published in Voices on 3/9/11 and 3/20/11.Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted a letter to the Commission dated 3/23/11 and presented his plans, “Driveway Entrance Plan” and “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” both revised to 3/23/11. He noted the letter and revisions were in response to Land Tech’s 3/22/11 review. A gravel driveway from West Shore Road is proposed to access the 83 acre property, which has access on three roads. Mr. Neff said all of the accesses had been considered and referred to his map, “Alternate Driveway Plan,” dated 1/20/11. He stated the West Shore Road driveway would have the least impact to the property because driveways from Tinker Hill and Ash Swamp Roads would be quite lengthy and would require an enormous amount of tree cutting and regrading, while the West Shore Road driveway would require no tree clearing and only minimum disturbance to the land. He pointed out where the driveway would cross wetlands, noting that 960 sq. ft. would be disturbed and that this represented 5% of the wetland area adjacent to West Shore Road. He also noted the driveway would cross the wetlands at its narrowest point. He described the proposed catch basins, rain garden, and rip rapped swale for drainage, noted the cuts and fills on both sides of the driveway would be stabilized, and said an erosion blanket would be installed on the upper side of the cut area for extra stabilization per Land Tech’s recommendations. He also described how the stormwater management system would work to allow silt and sediment to settle out of the runoff before the flow reaches Lake Waramaug. He stated the application included the limit of disturbance, proposed grading, specifications for the driveway construction, driveway cross sections, erosion control installation details, cross section of the proposed rain garden, and construction sequence.
Mr. Wadelton read the 3/23/11 letter from Mr. McGowan against the proposed driveway location.
Atty. Sienkiewicz represented Mrs. Weeks, the adjoining property owner at 265 West Shore Road. He asked the Commission to continue the public hearing to allow the public the opportunity to review the revised plans.
Mr. Wilson, engineer, represented Mrs. Weeks and listed his qualifications. He stated he had not reviewed the 2 ft. contour plan, but had the following general comments: 1) The driveway as proposed would direct the sheet flow into limited discharges of concentrated flow, which would increase the saturation of the soils down slope. 2) There was no estimate on the quantity of material to be disturbed and no information on how large the cut and fill would be. 3) Because the soil in the area is glacial til with fine particles, it would be picked up by the stormwater and would not settle out prior to reaching the lake, which would cause turbidity. He was concerned with both the “erodability” of the soil and the turbidity discharge to the lake. 4) A probable future house site would require the driveway to be lengthened by 700 to 800 ft., making it more comparable to the Tinker Hill access. 5) Driveway discharge from either the Tinker Hill or Ash Swamp Road access would have more of a chance for treatment prior to reaching the lake. 6) A major concern was the amount of exposed slope during the actual driveway construction. He concluded that both the Tinker Hill and Ash Swamp Road accesses were superior to the proposed driveway from the point of view of protection of the lake.
Mr. Bedini asked for his comments in writing.
Mr. Logan, environmental scientist, presented his resume and letter dated 3/23/11. He stated he agreed with the points made in Mr. McGowan’s letter but said he wanted to review the revised plans and submit a more substantial review. The points he made included the following: 1) When he inspected the site he found an additional wetland that originates as a seep near the proposed driveway and drains towards the Weeks property and said this wetland must be taken into consideration. He recommended that it be delineated by a soil scientist and he provided photos of the area. 2) He said the hydrology of the flagged wetland is derived from significant shallow groundwater discharge, which would be intercepted when the driveway cut is made, resulting in the dewatering of a small portion of the undisturbed wetland. He said although this would be an impact, it would not completely dry it out. 3) He recommended that the Commission look at feasible and prudent alternatives, which would cause less direct and indirect impact to the wetlands. The proposed driveway on steep slopes next to the lake would cause more impact than would a driveway farther from the lake where there would be sufficient area for proper stormwater controls. 4) He said fines from the property were already reaching the lake and he pointed out the sediment filled catch basins in the area. 5) He stated that rain gardens require a 2 ft. separation from the bottom of the rain garden to the seasonal groundwater level and it had not been proven this was possible in its proposed location. Mr. Neff referred to the cross section of the rain garden in his plans. Mr. Logan said he would review it again and provide more specific comments.
Mr. Martino questioned Mr. Logan’s statement that the driveway cut would intercept the water flowing into the wetland because he thought the groundwater would continue to flow through the gravel. Mr. Logan said he was “pretty sure” the wetland would be impacted because the hydrology would be changed, although not throughout the entire wetland.
Mr. Logan also stated that some of the fines would get into the rip rap in the swale making less infiltration possible. He also thought the gravel driveway would generate fines in close proximity to the lake. He recommended the driveway be installed as far from the lake as possible and that the originally approved Tinker Hill Road access be used.
Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Logan to submit his follow-up report as soon as possible.
Mr. Neff asked Mr. Logan if Mr. Allan from Land Tech had identified wetlands soils in the additional area he had referred to. Mr. Logan said, no, they had not looked at this area together. Mr. Neff asked if Mr. Logan would delineate the new wetland on the Weeks property. Mr. Logan said he would if the Commission wanted it done. He did not think it would be touched by the proposed grading, but he was not sure. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Neff if he would work with Mr. Logan to delineate the additional wetland.
Atty. Sienkiewicz read Section 11.02.f of the Inland Wetlands Regulations, which states the Commission shall consider impacts made inevitable by the proposed activity. He noted in his letter that Mr. McGowan had suggested the proposed 500 ft. long driveway would be extended to serve a dwelling on the property. He presented the site plan for Application #IW-07-66, which showed a feasible house site 1000 ft from West Shore Road. He also submitted the 1/8/08 and 1/23/08 reports from Stansfield Environmental Services from that file and the “Declaration of Restrictive Covenants” dated 11/4/2009, which placed a building restriction within 200 ft. of the property line. He submitted a copy of Map #1830 on which this restricted area was highlighted. He said that feasible and prudent alternatives had been considered at the time of the subdivision application and the Tinker Hill Road access had been found to be the best because there were no wetlands in that area. He then read Section 11.02.b of the Regulations, which states the applicant’s purpose and feasible and prudent alternatives must be considered. He also submitted excerpts from the 2007 and 2008 minutes pertaining to the subdivision application. He referred to minutes from January 2009 in which Mr. Neff is reported to have said that the Tinker Hill Road driveway would have less impact to wetlands than would a driveway from West Shore Road. Atty. Sienkiewicz said the Commission must consider what will ultimately be on the property.
Mr. Bedini responded the Commission would consider the application before it.
No one else had any written information to submit.
At 7:22 p.m. Mr. Bedini continued the public hearing to Wednesday, April 13 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
This hearing was recorded. The audio 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 7:27 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mr. LaMuniere.
MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the Agenda:
V. New Applications:
B. Rosen/ 304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-11-05/ Application to Correct Violations/Restore Buffer and Streams.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The March 9, 2011 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 2: The correct address in the motion is 35 East Shore Road, not East Street.
Page 2: Under Carter: line #10: Change to: “…excavator, which would access the brook from Walker Brook Road, park on the sandbar, and reach across the brook.”MOTION:
To accept the 3/9/11 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.The 3/22/11 Klein site inspection minutes will be considered at the next meeting.
Pending Applications
Klein/271 West Shore Road and 236 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-11-03/ Construct Driveway:
It was noted the public hearing was continued to 5:00 p.m. on April 13, 2011 in the Land Use Meeting Room.
New Applications
Thorn/228 West Shore Road/#IW-11-04/Install Dock:
Mr. Thorn presented the map, “Additions and Renovations to the Residence of Weston and Karen Thorn,” Sheet SP-1, revised to 3/9/11. He stated a boulder from which the dock would extend would be set back 16 ft. from the shoreline. Mrs. D. Hill asked if excavation would be required. Mr. Thorn said, yes, a little, but only on land above the high water elevation of the lake. Mr. Wadelton noted there would be no disturbance to the shoreline. Mr. Thorn stated the wood base of the dock would be covered with a man made substance that would not erode or get hot and the wood frame would be pressure treated wood. It was noted that Trooper Sordi had reviewed and OK’d the 80 ft. long dock as it was thought that due to its length it might be a potential safety hazard. Because it will be located in a protected cove with shallow water, it will not extend into navigable areas. 250 lb. mooring blocks chained to the dock will secure it at the far end. Mr. Ajello stated that a suitable location was proposed, the materials to be used had been researched, and there would be no disturbance to the shoreline. It was determined that a site inspection was not necessary.Douglas/68 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-11-06/Application of Herbicide:
Mr. Gambino, contractor, represented the property owner. He said the application now being applied for was the same as the one approved in 2008 except that there were now different weeds in the pond. The property owner was not sure yet if treatment would be needed, but wanted to be ready with a permit in case the weeds reoccur. Mr. Gambino stated that copper sulphate would be used if there was an algae bloom, Diquat for the removal of subsurface weeds or grass around the edge, and Rodeo would be applied for killing sedges, cattails, and phragmites. He noted information sheets were included in the application. The large pond has no outflow device and flows into a smaller pond on the property. Mr. Gambino said if treatment was necessary, he would do it when the water was low and would photograph the conditions before applying the chemicals. It was noted that in 2008 alternative treatments had been recommended to Mr. Douglas. Mrs. Hill again recommended that he plant a buffer around the pond. Mr. Gambino noted the Town directs road runoff onto the property, saying it flows over two well heads and exacerbates the weed problem. Mr. Ajello responded that the Town had rip rapped the drainage swale, but had not changed its path, and had no further responsibility in this matter.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-11-05/Application to Correct Violation/Restore Buffer and Streams:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, presented the revised plan, “Proposed Stream and Buffer Restoration at Stonebrook Estate,” dated 3/22/11. He said the plan included revisions recommended at the last meeting and the construction of the unauthorized gatehouse because he needed IWC approval by 4/21/11 in order to apply to the ZBA for a variance. He detailed the revisions made since the last meeting. 1) He provided specific names, quantities, sizes, and locations of the vegetation to be planted. 2) Per Mr. LaMuniere’s request, he had extended the length of channel to be realigned, bringing it farther up slope to 50 ft. below the driveway. He had originally proposed that 120 ft. be restored and naturalized, but increased the length to 210 ft. At the opposite end, the channel will end in a 30 ft. wide two tiered level level spreader. Construction procedures were briefly discussed. Mr. Sabin stated he would consult with the contractor regarding whether to install a temporary rip rapped channel or a temporary pipe. He thought the channel realignment would take four days. 3) He said that test holes would be dug to determine how much over burden would be removed and said the existing trees would not be touched. 4) The area of maintained lawn would be reduced and converted to wet meadow. 5) The multiflora rose along the driveway will be removed, but the other native shrubs would be left in place. 5) The weir board will be replaced with a granite slab placed 4 ft. above the pipe. Mrs. D. Hill recommended that a site inspection be conducted. This was scheduled for Thursday, April 7, 2011 at 5:45 p.m. Construction plans for the gatehouse and wing walls were reviewed. Stone veneer on the existing wing walls, the gatehouse that has already been constructed, and an additional 14 to 15 ft. long, 5 ft. high wall to support hydraulic automatic gates are proposed. It was noted the additional wall would require a footing. Mr. Neff is working on hydraulic computations for the next meeting. The plans, “Gatehouse at Stonebrook Estate,” by Mr. Sabin, dated 3/22/11 were briefly reviewed.Later in the meeting Mr. Bohan asked if the Commission should hire a consultant to review the proposed restoration plans as it has done in the past for other restoration projects. Mrs. Hill noted the restoration plan looks OK, but wondered considering the two egregious violations, whether enough mitigation was proposed. It was the consensus that this would be decided after the site inspection has been conducted. Mr. Ajello noted that the $1500 in fines paid by Mr. Rosen was the largest amount ever collected by the Commission. It was also noted that perhaps a condition requiring long term protection of the restored area would be warranted.
Enforcement Report
Brose/213 Roxbury Road:
There were no changes since the last meeting.Carter/Walker Brook Road:
Mr. Ajello reported that the rip rap had been put in place and the Town had filled the holes in Walker Brook Road so that it is temporarily passable.Schellerer – Chatfield/19 Tinker Hill Road:
Either a site development plan or a restoration plan as specified in the enforcement order that was sent several months ago is still required. Mr. Ajello said he had photos of the damage caused from the runoff from this property and of the improperly installed silt fence.DePecol/269 Nettleton Hollow Road:
The timber harvesting began the day after the last meeting, although a Start card was not submitted.Kinney Hill, LLC./27 Kinney Hill Road:
The project is nearing completion but Mr. Ajello has not yet signed off.Leary/164 West Shore Road:
The excavation hole has been refilled and the propane tank buried. All disturbed areas will be raked, seeded, and mulched.Ranieri/58 Nettleton Hollow Road:
Mr. Ajello will write to Mr. Ranieri to invite him to attend an upcoming meeting for a preliminary discussion of the dam repair and replacement of the outflow pipe and overflow weir.Smith/35 East Shore Road:
The relocation of the shed was approved by the ZBA and it will be moved when the weather is drier.Wexler/157 Calhoun Street:
Mr. Ajello has contacted the contractor regarding concerns about the driveway construction. He will check the plans to see whether an anti-tracking pad was required.
Other Business
Shoreline Protection Policies:
Mr. Bedini read an email between Mr. Markert and Mrs. Payne of the Conservation Commission, which applauded efforts by the IWC to work on regulatory improvements to address current conditions around Lake Waramaug.Update on DEP Pesticide Permits:
Mr. Ajello noted the information circulated at the last meeting was part of the process to incorporate DEP and EPA regulations into the state’s new Dept. of Energy and the Environment.
Executive Session
MOTION:
To go into Executive Session at 8:45 p.m. to discuss the Peacocke appeal of the Wykeham Rise approval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To end Executive Session at 8:55 p.m.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Bohan.Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 8:57 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: March 16, 2011 March 9, 2011
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, Mrs. Coakley, Mr. CrosseleyMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, and LaMuniere and Alternate Cheney for Mr. Wadelton.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 2/23/11 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 2: last sentence, top paragraph: Add: "less" - He estimated less than one tenth....
Page 2: next to last paragraph: While it was said at the meeting the petition had 25 signatures, actually there were only 23.
Page 3: next to the last line: Change: "Mr. Charles" to "Mr. LaMuniere."MOTION: To accept the 2/23/11 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Klein/271 West Shore Road and 236 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-11-03/ Construct Driveway:
It was noted the public hearing had been scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 in the Land Use Meeting Room. A site inspection was scheduled on Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.
Other Business
Smith/35 East Shore Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-06-24/Shed:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented the map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated October 2006, on which he indicated the new location for the shed. The proposed site was 25 feet from the boundary line, bringing it into compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Neff noted that the new location was the same distance from the Aspetuck River, but was closer to another watercourse. However, that watercourse was higher in elevation than the shed site. He noted, too, that the shed was not a permanent structure and would be set on timbers. No excavation or tree cutting would be required.MOTION:
To approve the request submitted by Mrs. Smith to revise Permit #IW-06-24 to change the location of the shed approved at 35 East Street.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Privilege of the Floor
Mrs. Coakley submitted a letter, which stated that concerned area residents are opposed to the proposed 17 Warren Road cell tower and to other sites proposed by the Montessori School's attorney. It was noted that Mr. Wadelton will speak with Selectman Solley regarding drafting a letter to the Siting Council and will find out whether AT&T would be required to apply for an Inland Wetlands permit for 17 Warren Road should it decide to apply to the Siting Council for that location.
Enforcement
Carter/Walker Brook Road:
Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Crosseley, caretaker, were present. Mr. Ajello noted ongoing maintenance and washout issues due to the recent storms and snow melt. He noted he had inspected the site and circulated photos that showed the collapsed section of the retaining wall. He noted that Mr. MacBroom, engineer, had recommended that emergency repair work be done. Mr. Ajello asked for the Commission's consent to immediately place large rip rap behind the wall to prevent further scouring. He said the rocks would be set in place by an excavator, which would reach across the brook from the road. He noted that large boulders would be used because they would be less likely to need readjustment when the permanent repair work was done. It was the consensus that this emergency repair work should be done. Mr. Neff stated that all the work done would be documented for the file. In addition to the collapsed wall along Walker Brook, there was also damage to the culvert crossing on Walker Brook Road. Mr. MacBroom thought the entire culvert had sunk and would have to be replaced with either a double culvert or a bridge.Auth/West Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello presented a photo of the dock, which had not been taken out of the lake because Mr. Auth had installed a bubbler.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road:
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the unauthorized stonework had restricted the flow of water. Mr. Ajello said the flooding was minor in this area and he did not think it had.Chatfield/19 Tinker Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello reported that the cleared site is not eroding, but runoff is flowing onto the property below and then into the lake. He said he will send another letter to Mr. Chatfield.Brose/213 Roxbury Road:
Mr. Ajello will inspect the planted area in a few weeks.Ranieri/Nettleton Hollow Road:
Mr. Ajello showed photos of the erosion at the top of the earthern dam on the east side of Nettleton Hollow Road. When he called Mr. Ranieri to alert him of the problem, he learned that he had already completed emergency repairs. Mr. Ajello advised him that the Commission would regulate any permanent repair work that would be done during the dry season. Mr. Papsin asked if an engineered plan would be required. Mr. Ajello said it would and said he would write to Mr. Ranieri to advise him what is required before further repairs are made. He noted he had not contacted the DEP dam unit. Mr. Bedini thought it would be a good idea for the Commission to meet with Mr. Ranieri to discuss preliminary plans. Mr. Ajello said he would invite him to the next meeting.DePecol/Nettleton Hollow Road:
It was noted that Mrs. DePecol had not picked up her certified mailing and had not sent in a start card. Mr. Ajello will call Mr. DePecol to advise him that he missed his opportunity for timber harvesting this winter and will have to wait now until the dry season.
Administrative Business
Shoreline Protection Policy:
Mrs. J. Hill reported that the document had been referred to the other commissions who had been asked to comment by April 8th. Mr. LaMuniere said he had been working with Mr. Ajello to use more precise language. Pressure treated wood and the difference between the Zoning and Inland Wetlands Regulations were discussed. Mr. LaMuniere said he would get additional information on pressure treated wood. Mr. Bedini asked what the DEP's position on pressure treated wood was. He noted that once the Commission decides on the language, it will be referred to our attorney for review. Mr. LaMuniere said he would try to use the language from the Inland Wetlands Regulations as closely as possible. He also stated that it was his intent to provide fundamental, simple working guidelines.Update on DEP Pesticide Permit Process:
Mr. Ajello said the process had been modified, but it was not clear from the material sent what the changes were. Mr. Bedini asked him to contact the State to find out and report back at the next meeting.
Executive Session:
It was noted an executive session was not needed.
Mr. Bedini reported that after the recent high water there had been 30 inches of water in the Primary School basement even though drainage improvements had been installed last summer. This was the highest level of water there since the 1955 Flood.
The 3/12/11 Ct. Bar Assoc. workshop was briefly discussed. Mrs. Hill will attend in Mr. Wadelton's place.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 8:10 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: February 27, 2011 February 23, 2011
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Martino, Mr. Papsin
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Klein, Mr. Neff, Mr. Dirienzo, Mr./Mrs. Frank, Mr. Wellings, Ms. Baldwin, Mrs. Weeks, Mr. Sabin, ResidentsMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, and LaMuniere and Alternates Martino and Papsin for Mr. Bohan and Mr. Wadelton. He noted there was no subsequent business to add to the agenda.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION:
To accept the 2/9/2011 Regular Meeting minutes as written.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Klein/271 West Shore Road and 236 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-11-03/ Construct Driveway
Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Dirienzo, environmental consultant, represented the applicant. The plans, "Driveway Entrance Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/5/11 were reviewed. Mr. Neff noted he had also submitted driveway construction plans, erosion and sedimentation control plans, and an alternate driveway plan showing the three options for access to the property.Mr. Neff and Mr. Dirienzo reviewed the presentation made at the last meeting.
Mr. Neff stated the preferred driveway access was from West Shore Road for several reasons; 1) it was the shortest, 500 feet compared with 1500 from Tinker Hill Road and 1800 from Ash Swamp Road, 2) it would require no clearing, and 3) it would require less regrading and less cuts and fills. He noted the driveway crossing was proposed at the narrowest section of a quarter acre wetland area and said this wetland was not connected to any other wetland by watercourses or surface flow. He explained the proposed drainage system included catch basins, a swale, and a rain garden and would tie into the existing system on West Shore Road. He estimated than one tenth of an acre of wetlands would be disturbed by the driveway construction.
Mr. Dirienzo explained that the wetlands were formed because the hillside runoff can not flow through the glacial til and so sufaces at various break out areas. This wet area functions as a wet meadow. He said he had 23 years experience as an environmental consultant and that the proposed driveway would not impact the wetland or its function of enhancing the quality of the water flowing off the field.
The three driveway options were reviewed again. Mr. Neff pointed out that the Ash Road driveway would be the longest, would require the most drainage, and would be closest to Ash Swamp. He noted the driveway off Tinker Hill Road, which had previously been approved, would require both extensive clearing and cuts and fills due to the steep grade in this area. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the West Shore Road driveway would have less impact on the property and on the wetlands. Mr. Neff stated it would have less impact.
Mrs. Hill asked if there was a clean out schedule for the sump. Mr. Neff said that yearly inspection and maintenance could be made a condition of approval.
Mr. Bedini read three letters: 1) from Mrs. Weeks, dated 2/21/11 in which she expressed concerns and objections about potential runoff into the lake and disruption of the underground flow of water onto her property and in which she said that development of the property was proposed because an agricultural use would not require a driveway, 2) from Mr. Frank, president of the Lake Waramaug Association, dated 2/23/11 in which he expressed his concern about the potential development of the last major undeveloped parcel on the lake and requested a public hearing, and 3) from Mr. Wilson, engineer on behalf of Mrs. Weeks, dated 2/22/11 in which he noted his concern about potential impacts on the Weeks property, questioned why 2 ft. contours had not been provided, asked if the cuts into the steep slopes in the wetland area had been discussed, and noted the lake must be protected from sedimentation.
Mr. Bedini stated a petition requesting a public hearing had been signed by 25 residents. A hearing was scheduled for March 23, 2011.
It was noted that a site inspection of both the proposed driveway site and the two alternate sites should be conducted prior to the start of the hearing, but it was not scheduled at this time due to the existing snow cover.
Mr. Ajello noted that Mr. Wilson had asked for two foot contours. Mr. Neff said these would be provided.
The Commission decided to hire Land Tech as its consultant. Land Tech's review will include the issues of drainage and sedimentation and the potential impact to Lake Waramaug.
Mr. Dirienzo clarified that although the immediate use of the property will be for agriculture, the owner was not applying for an agricultural exemption because she did not want the future use of the property restricted. He noted his client valued the property and was not proposing an unreasonable use. He said in his expert opinion the West Shore Road driveway was the most feasible and prudent alternative because it would have the least impact.
Other Business
Herrmann/90 East Street/Request for an Extension of Permit #IW-09-15/Single Family Dwelling, Driveway, Well, Septic System
It was noted that the Commission had previously inspected the property and the plans had not changed since the application had been approved. Mr. LaMuniere said the Commission had spent a lot of time reviewing the original application due to the proposed earth work. Mr. Ajello noted the wetlands were located above the construction site so there would be little chance they would be impacted.MOTION:
To approve the request to extend Permit #IW-09-15 issued to Mr. Herrmann for a single family dwelling, driveway, well, and septic system at 90 East Street for two years.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Papsin, passed 5-0
Enforcement
Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/Unauthorized Stream Work and Clearing/#IW-08-V2 and #IW-10-V03:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, paid the two Rosen fines. Mr. Sabin presented his plan, "Preliminary Concept: Wetland Corridor and Buffer Restoration for: Stonebrook Estate, Stonebrook, LLC.," dated 2/15/11, which detailed the six elements of his preliminary design. 1) The invasives along the driveway and Sprain Brook would be removed and native plants planted between the stream and the road. 2) The edge of the maintained lawn would be delineated and the remainder of the area between the brook and the driveway would be restored to an upland wetland meadow. Mr. Charles asked how far the existing lawn extends and pointed out that Mr. Rosen had filled along the stream. 3) The lowest 160 feet of the "canal" would be dismantled and reconfigured to create a more natural, less channelized stream and spread out the flow in the area between Sprain Brook and the driveway. This would include the installation of check dams. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the work on the channel would make it less like a canal and less severe. Mr. Sabin said it would, but added he would try to minimize the area of disturbance by retaining the section of the "canal" closest to the driveway. Mr. LaMuniere thought the restoration work should be extended closer to the driveway. When asked how the work would be done, Mr. Sabin stated it would be done by hand and with a small track excavator. The fill that had been placed directly in the wetlands along both sides of the lower section of the "canal" and invasives in the same area would be removed. Native riparian vegetation would be planted in these disturbed areas. 4) Mr. Rosen will apply for a variance for the unauthorized guard house and for an Inland Wetlands permit. 5) The board across the culvert would be removed and replaced with a stone weir in a manner that does not reduce the hydraulic capacity of the culvert. 6) Along the channelized section of stream above the driveway the invasives would be removed and the banks replanted with native wetland species.The need for yearly maintenance and cleaning of the plunge pool was briefly discussed. Mr. Ajello also thought that cleaning out "the point by the bridge" would be a good idea.
Mr. LaMuniere asked what mitigation would be done to compensate for the illegal work. Mr. Sabin responded that the native plantings would provide shade for the watercourse, forage for birds, and a more natural setting.
Mr. Sabin said he would provide detailed plans if the Commission agreed with the concept. He said he hoped to get the planting done at the end of April.
Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Papsin said in the area below the driveway, more of the canal had to be removed to bring the natural stream further up the hill and closer to the driveway than what was now being proposed. Mr. Sabin agreed, but said that the canal above the driveway was stable even in significant storm events so he did not want to disturb this area in any way except to reintroduce vegetation along the banks. Mr. LaMuniere agreed that the upper section of canal had survived two seasons without any erosion, but stressed again that in the lower section the natural stream had to be restored to a point closer to the driveway.
Mr. Ajello pointed out another area where an intermittent stream had been filled. Mr. Sabin said he would look into this and perhaps reintroduce it as long as it would not interfere with mowing. Mr. LaMuniere noted that the filling of this area had progressed after Mr. Rosen had been ordered to stop work and said the function of the wet meadow to disperse water should be restored to the extent possible.
It was the consensus an application to correct a violation should be submitted. The commissioners did not make a determination about whether a separate application should be submitted for the guard house.
Enforcement
Brose/213 Roxbury Road:
Restoration work will resume in the spring.Chatfield-Schellerer/19 Tinker Hill Road:
A notice of violation has been filed on the Land Records. Mrs. Hill asked if the second fine had been sent and referred to the 12/8/10 minutes where it stated the Commission had ordered a second fine for failure to respond. Ms. Cheney thought the Commission should be consistent in issuing fines to people who do not follow through. Mr. Ajello said he would pressure the property owners to comply with the order to submit either a site development plan or a restoration plan and would threaten a second fine if they do not respond.Cruse/33 East Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello said he had sent the new owner a letter to notify him that there was a notice of violation filed on the Land Records, but had no response. He will send a second letter. He said he was not concerned about potential erosion because the vegetation on site had regrown.DePecol/269 Nettleton Hollow Road:
Mr. DePecol has not yet notified the Land Use Office about when work will commence.Howard/99 West Shore Road:
Mr. Howard completed the required restoration work, although he did not notify the Commission he had done so.Klein/236 Tinker Hill Road and 271 West Shore Road:
Mr. Bedini asked whether the Commission should hire an attorney to attend the public hearing. It was the consensus to 1) wait until after the first session of the hearing to see if this was necessary and 2) to hire an attorney if there is an intervener.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road:
It was hoped a substantial restoration plan would prevent this matter from ending up in court. Mr. LaMuniere noted the Commission had previously asked for flow calculations in order to help determine the impact of the stone veneer placed on the wing walls and bridge.Smith/23 East Shore Road:
Mrs. Smith has applied for a variance for the shed approved by the IWC at its last meeting. Locations for the shed are limited due to setback requirements from wetlands and watercourses and boundary lines.West Shore Farm, LLC./285 West Shore Road:
The fine for unauthorized clearing was paid.Schein/245 West Shore Road:
Mrs. Hill noted this matter had been unresolved for several years. Mr. Ajello said the required hillside planting had never been completed and he would contact Mrs. Schein again in the spring.
Administrative Business
Shoreline Protection Policies:
Mr. LaMuniere had sent out copies of the latest draft prior to the Meeting. He asked for comments so that he could revise the language accordingly and refer the document to Atty. Zizka for comments. He noted that Atty. Zizka's input was needed regarding whether a revision to the Regulations or a Town ordinance would be more effective. He also noted that he wanted Mr. Wadelton to participate in the discussion and so recommended it be tabled to a future meeting. It was noted the Conservation Commission had asked for a copy of the draft and Mr. LaMuniere was asked if the subcommittee had referred it to Zoning and the Lake Waramaug Assoc. Mr. LaMuniere said the subcommittee had planned to do so after the IWC had agreed upon a final draft. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus that the Commission should not wait to refer the latest draft to the Board of Selectmen and other land use commissions. Mrs. J. Hill will send out the referrals as soon as possible with an early April response date.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Martino.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 8:42 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: February 21, 2011 February 9, 2011
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Klein, Mr. Neff, Mr. Dirienzo, Mr. DePecol, Mrs. Coakley, ResidentsMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
MOTION:
To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: VIII. Administrative Business/2011-2012 Budget, X. Executive Session/Peacocke vs IWC – Docket #LLI-CV10- 6001405-S.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 1/13/11 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Add that the 1/13/11 meeting had been postponed from the previous night.
Page 3: Under DePecol: Line 5 and throughout: delete: “a” and change “stream” to “streams” and Line 6 change: “it” to “they.”
Page 5: Line 6: Correct spelling is: Dr. Klemens.MOTION:
To accept the 1/13/11 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Fuchs-Lancaster/18 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-11-01/Construct Poolhouse:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his revised plan, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” revised to 1/25/11, which included the limit of disturbance line. In response to the question raised at the last meeting, Mr. Neff said the existing pool has a cartridge filter that does not require backwashing. Mr. Bedini noted the proposal had been reviewed at the last meeting and that there were no further questions.Mr. Bohan stated he had not attended the last meeting and so asked that Mr. Papsin be seated. Mr. Bedini seated Mr. Papsin.
MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-01 submitted by Fuchs-Lancaster to construct a poolhouse at 18 Sabbaday Lane per the map, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 1/6/11 and revised to 1/25/11; this permit is valid for two years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Klein/271 West Shore Road and 236 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-11-03/ Construct Driveway:
Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Dirienzo, hydrogeologist, represented the applicants. The map, “Driveway Entrance Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/5/11 was reviewed. Mr. Neff noted that when the lot had been approved originally the driveway was located off Tinker Hill Road. He presented his map, “Alternate Driveway Plan,” dated 1/20/11, which showed three alternate driveway locations from Tinker Hill, Ash Swamp, and West Shore Roads. He stated that West Shore Road was the preferred location. Mr. Neff explained that while this proposed driveway would require a wetlands crossing, it was the shortest and would require no tree cutting. The other two driveways would be longer and would require more clearing and extensive regrading. Mr. Dirienzo described the type of wetlands and the glacial till in the area of the proposed crossing and said the crossing was proposed at the narrowest point of wetlands. He explained that while the driveway would be used to access a field to grow hay and raise animals, an agricultural exemption was not proposed so that future options for the use of the property would not be limited. He noted that the drainage must be handled properly to protect the lake and adjoining property and he described the proposed swale and rain garden that would manage the runoff. As mitigation for the wetlands crossing, he recommended that the Kleins donate part of Ash Swamp to a conservation organization because it is such a valuable wetland. He thought this would be a large giveback for the small crossing. Mr. Dirienzo noted that the adjoining property owner had voiced concerns in the past regarding additional runoff flowing onto her property. Therefore, the drainage plans would direct the driveway runoff into the proposed swale and rain garden and would not direct it towards the adjoining property or onto the road. Mr. Neff noted the proposed rip rapped swale would permit some of the runoff to infiltrate and would slow the velocity of the flow. He noted, too, that the existing catch basin on West Shore Road was adequately sized to handle the additional runoff. He added that the 2 foot sumps in the catch basin and the proposed rain garden would trap sediment and help protect the water quality of Lake Waramaug. Mr. Neff noted the plans submitted showed cross sections of the driveway, the proposed cut and fills, construction details, narrative, and plant list. The location of the stockpile area at the upper end of the driveway was noted. Mr. Neff indicated the driveway would be gravel and have a 12% grade. Mr. Dirienzo explained it was not possible to avoid the wetlands crossing due to the steep slope in this area. The rain garden was briefly discussed. It would be 6 feet by 12 feet with a rip rapped apron at the outlet, and extra buffering at the outflow. Mr. Ajello asked about the paved driveway apron. Mr. Neff said it would be 12 ft. by 12 ft. and that the anti tracking pad would be 50 ft. long. No site inspection was scheduled due to the snow cover.Mr. Bedini reseated Mr. Bohan.
Pending Application
DePecol/269 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-11-02/Timber Harvest:
It was noted that additional information from Mr. Lintner about the proposed timber harvest and stream crossings had been submitted. The 1/6/11 map, “Harvesting Tree Plan,” and the topo map were reviewed and the location of the property noted. Mr. DePecol stated that the streams are narrow and dry in the summer and flow through hard, rocky soils. He said poles would be placed across them then they would be crossed with a skidder. The landing area was proposed 75 to 100 feet off the road, near the driveway, and on high, flat ground. Mr. Papsin asked if the work would be done now, while the ground was frozen. Mr. DePecol said he would wait until the snow was gone, but that he wanted to start as soon as possible. Mr. Ajello said there was not much frost in the ground and the work might have to wait until dry summer weather. Mr. Papsin agreed. Mr. Bedini asked the EO to look at conditions on the property before the work starts. Mr. Ajello noted some of the clean up and reseeding could not be done until spring.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-02 submitted by Mr. DePecol for timber harvesting at 269 Nettleton Hollow Road per the map submitted, “Harvesting Tree Plan,” dated 1/6/11 and 1/19/11 letter from Mr. Lintner; the permit is valid for two years and is subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures,
2. that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and
3. any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Proposed Cell Tower/17 Warren Road:
Mrs. J. Hill noted that Mrs. Devlin had emailed a thank you note and Mrs. Coakley thanked Mr. Wadelton for his input on behalf of the Commission at the Town informational meeting. Mr. Wadelton said he had not yet received proof in either the form of a ruling from the Commissioner of the DEP or a legislative act that AT&T is not required to apply for a permit from the IWC prior to submitting its application to the Ct. Siting Council. He said the Commission could not give the Siting Council an informed opinion unless it receives a complete application to review. He noted the plans the Commission had seen contained no best management practices, no construction sequence, no construction details, no flow data, etc. AT&T had indicated this information would be submitted to the Siting Council, but he explained that would not give the Commission an opportunity to review it before the hearing. Mr. Wadelton was authorized to discuss this matter with Selectman Solley and to request that the Selectmen include the IWC’s concerns in a letter to the Siting Council. It was noted that an alternate site may be under consideration.Smith/35 East Shore Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-06-24/Enlarge Shed:
Mr. Neff noted the Commission had approved a 6 ft. by 8 ft. shed, but said an 8.6 ft. by 9.9 ft. shed had been installed. He circulated a site plan that showed its existing location. He noted it was a prefab metal shed. Mr. LaMuniere said the proposal increased the size by 37 sq. ft. over what had been originally approved. No one raised any concerns about the larger sized shed.MOTION:
To approve the revision of Permit #IW-06-24 requested by Mrs. Smith to enlarge the shed at 35 East Shore Road per the plans, “Proposed Boundary Survey,” revised to 2/4/11; the permit is valid for two years.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Chatfield-Schellerer/19 Tinker Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello said he was proceeding to file the enforcement order on the Land Records. He noted that neither a site development plan nor a restoration plan had been submitted as requested and it had not been proven that the property was a buildable lot. Mrs. Hill asked if both fines had been paid. Mr. Ajello noted one fine had been paid. Mrs. Hill read from the 12/8/10 minutes that Mr. Ajello had been directed to send a second fine. Mr. Bohan noted there was no bond posted for the property and he was concerned about erosion once the snow melts.Cruse/33 East Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello noted there had been no activity on this property during the last three years. He will notify the new owner about the restoration order filed on the Land Records.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-V2 and #IW-10-V03:
There has been no progress on these violations since the last meeting and Mr. Rosen has not paid his fines.Mr. Ajello passed out information from the State DEP concerning snow disposal in public watercourses. He did not think this was a wise practice due to the precedent it would establish.
Administrative Business
Shoreline Protection Policies:
Mr. LaMuniere said he would like to finish this discussion and have a policy in place before applications are submitted in the spring. He asked the commissioners to review the latest draft and send him their written comments so that he can incorporate them prior to the next meeting. Discussion of the revised draft will resume at the next meeting.2011-2012 Budget:
Mr. Bedini noted the Board of Finance had requested budget reductions. The budget line items were discussed and the following proposals made:Mrs. J. Hill was directed to research past legal expenses so it could be determined what amount should be proposed for legal fees.
Contracted services: decrease to $2000 DEP fees: leave at $3000 Film, etc.: leave at $350 Legal ads: leave at $1000 Legal fees: increase to amount to be determined Membership/educ: decrease to $800 Mileage: leave at $1000 NWCT Con. Dist.: leave at $575 Supplies: decrease to 0
MOTION:
To enter Executive Session at 9:15 p.m. to discuss pending litigation: Brown, Peacocke, and Giampietro.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To end Executive Session at 9:30 p.m.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
It was noted that Ms. Cheney successfully completed the DEP Wetlands Commissioner’s Training Program.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:31 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: January 22, 2011 January 13, 2011
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sabin, Mr. Neff, Mr. DePecol, Mr. Distel, Mr. Corbo, Mrs. Gordon, Mrs. Coakley, Ms. Dupuis, Ms. DevlinMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Mr. Papsin for Mrs. Hill.
MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: V. New Applications: A. Fuchs and Lancaster/18 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-11-01/Construct Poolhouse, B. DePecol/269 Nettleton Hollow Road/ #IW-11-02/Timber Harvest, VI. Other Business: B. Spring Hill Farm, LLC./69 Whittlesey Road/Revision of Plans for Exempted Activities/Addition of Covered Entry.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.Consideration of the Minutes
The 12/8/10 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 2: Point #2 in the first paragraph: Insert: “Commission’s” before “membership.”
Point #3 in the first paragraph: Insert: “adversely” before “impact.”
Point #7 in the first paragraph: Change to: “… concern that possible increases in lot coverage could impact the wetlands and watercourses, Mr. LaMuniere stated that lot coverage was a zoning issue unless it had a demonstrated impact on wetlands and watercourses and that….”
Page 4: Line 25: Change: “managing the site” to: … a good job, make monitoring the site a high priority, and….”MOTION:
To accept the 12/8/10 Regular Meeting minutes as amended.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 1/5/11 site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 4-0.
Pending Application
Gordon/180 West Shore Road/#IW-10-40/Renovation of Drainage and Walkway, Stonewall, Landscaping, Expansion of Parking Area, Etc.:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, submitted his revised plan, “Proposed Site Repairs and Improvements,” revised to 1/12/11. He noted the length and square footage of the proposed dock had been reduced, the new dock layout was shown, and half of a small oak by the shore would be left in place rather than removed. In response to questions raised at the last meeting, Mr. Sabin said the property was farther than 500 feet from the Warren town line.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-40 submitted by Ms. Gordon for renovation of drainage and walkway, stonewall, landscaping, expansion of parking area, etc. at 180 West Shore Road per the plans, “Proposed Site Repairs and Improvements,” by Mr. Sabin, revised to 1/12/11.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton and passed 4-0.Mr. LaMuniere noted the permit would be valid for two years. Mr. Bedini said the permit had conditions, which Mr. LaMuniere read from the motion template. These were 1) that the Land Use Office be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures, 2) that the property owner give the contractor copies of both the motion of approval and approved plans prior to the commencement of work, and 3) that any change to the plans as approved must be submitted immediately to the Commission for reapproval.
New Applications
Fuchs-Lancaster/18 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-11-01/Construct Poolhouse:
Mr. Neff, engineer, represented the applicants. He explained the proposed 10’ X 13’ poolhouse would be constructed close to the existing pool and at least 50 ft. from the edge of the nearby pond. It would be wood framed on four concrete piers. The poolhouse would be for seasonal use and would have no plumbing. The existing pool pump and filter would be relocated to the rear of the new building. Mr. Neff noted the area had a gentle slope toward the pond and so silt fencing would be installed. The map, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 1/6/11 was reviewed and building plans were noted. Mr. LaMuniere stated that soil types were not indicated on the map. Mr. Ajello said the area was lawn and Mr. Neff said it appeared to be all upland soils. Mr. LaMuniere asked Mr. Neff to find out whether the owners backwash the existing pool filter. Mr. Papsin asked if any trees would be cut. Mr. Neff said a few small caliper trees would be cut. Mr. Papsin asked if a trench would be dug for the installation of the pool equipment. Mr. Neff said, yes. Mr. LaMuniere asked that a limit of disturbance line be shown on the map.DePecol/269 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-11-02/Timber Harvest:
Mr. Depecol proposed to take approximately 100 large hardwood trees from his ten acre property. He said he had consulted with a forester. The topo map and location of the property were noted. Mr. DePecol showed the location of a small intermittent stream that runs through the property and said it would be crossed with a skidder in five places. He said there were non wetlands soils on both sides of the stream. Mr. Ajello asked how deep the stream was at the proposed crossing points, noting a corduroy crossing would be appropriate if the work was to be done during the winter or in the dry summer. Mr. DePecol said no bridge would be built, the work would take two weeks, and he would like to complete it while the ground was still hard. Mr. Ajello asked for a written narrative to explain the measures that would be taken to restore the crossings such as regrading, seeding, mulching, and handling of the tree tops. Mr. LaMuniere said the Commission wanted to make sure there would be no damage to the streambed and that the canopy over the stream would remain. Mr. DePecol noted that nothing under 14” would be cut, so there would be canopy left. Mr. DePecol said he would have his forester respond to the questions raised.
Other Business
Lloyd/149 Whittlesey Road/Request for Extension of Permit #IW-06-29/Demolish and Reconstruct Dwelling:
Mr. Sabin represented the property owners. It was noted the Commission had received a letter requesting a three year extension. Mr. Ajello said the approved plans had not changed. The commissioners debated whether to grant a two year or a five year extension.MOTION:
To approve the request by Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd for a 5 year extension of Permit #IW-06-29 for the demolition and reconstruction of the dwelling at 149 Whittlesey Road.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 4-0.Spring Hill Farm, LLC./69 Whittlesey Road/Request for Exemption/Portico and Access Ramp:
Spring Hill Farm, LLC. had recently been granted an exemption for the installation of a wine room, shower, bathroom, and septic system. The owners then applied to add a 5’ X 10’ portico and an 8 ft. wide concrete access ramp on the north side of the building. A letter from Atty. Kelly was reviewed and it was noted these activities would require a variance from the ZBA, but that Inland Wetlands approval was needed first. It was noted the use of the property had not changed and all of the buildings were agricultural.MOTION:
To approve an agricultural exemption for Spring Hill Farm, LLC./69 Whittlesey Road to construct a covered entry and access ramp.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.Proposed Cell Tower at 17 Warren Road:
Several residents including Ms. Dupuis, chairman of the Conservation Commission cell tower subcommittee, Mrs. Coakley, and Ms. Devlin were present to discuss the cell tower plans. The map, “Wetland Sketch,” Sheet LE-1, by CHA, dated 8/12/10 was presented. Mrs. Coakley raised several concerns including 1) the proposed driveway grade was 20%, 2) runoff could potentially impact the wood turtles’ habitat, 3) 104 trees would be cut in the regulated area, and 4) the proposed driveway would cross wetlands. No one was sure whether AT&T was required to apply for an Inland Wetlands permit. Mr. Ajello said the Commission was waiting for an answer from the Siting Council. Mr. Ajello stated that most of the maps he had seen showed the crossing at the narrowest section of the wetlands. Ms. Dupuis presented a second map that showed an alternate driveway location. Ms. Devlin noted the proposed driveway grade was over the maximum permitted by the Zoning Regulations and said she did not know if it could be accessed by emergency vehicles. It was the consensus that if the Commission has jurisdiction in this matter, it would require a complete application from AT&T. Ms. Dupuis explained that the Siting Council must consider local regulations and she asked the Inland Wetlands Commission to comment at the informational meeting to be held later in the month. Mr. Bedini said the Commission does not comment on sketch maps, but waits until an application with detailed plans such as type and specific construction plans for the crossing, drainage details, location of underground utilities, etc. is submitted. Mr. LaMuniere asked if AT&T and the Siting Council can ignore state mandated Inland Wetlands regulations. He said he was concerned about drainage. Ms. Dupuis said the report referred to driveway grades of 15% to 35%. Mr. LaMuniere asked who was responsible for responding to questions concerning habitat. Ms. Dupuis stated that the presence of a threatened species had been acknowledged. Mr. Wadelton said it would have to be determined whether the project would impact the wetlands in a way that would adversely impact the species. Mr. Bedini thought that Dr. Klemmens could comment on this issue. It was the consensus that an application is required and that the Commission could not comment unless it had a complete application before it or a legal opinion that AT&T is not required to submit one. Mr. Bedini stated the Commission would consult with its attorney on how to proceed if advised that an application from AT&T is not required.
Enforcement
Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/Unauthorized Stream Work, Clearing /#IW-08-V02 and #IW-10-V03:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, submitted a letter of authorization from Mr. Rosen and said he wanted to discuss enforcement issues before working on a restoration plan. He noted he had inspected the site prior to snow cover and had reviewed the file for both violations; upper stream armoring and installation of stone veneer on bridge wing walls and construction of the guard house. Mr. Bedini asked if Mr. Rosen had agreed to pay both fines. Mr. Sabin said he had. Regarding the first violation, Mr. Sabin proposed to restore the pipe under the driveway to its original design size, thus eliminating the need for an engineering analysis of the stream. Mr. Sabin had a positive view of the stream armoring because he thought it was an effective means of erosion control. He asked the Commission to compare the armored section to the unarmored section upstream where there is erosion. Mr. LaMuniere objected, noting that the armoring was not permitted, pointing out that the stream section above meanders through a flat area, and saying the two areas could not be compared. Mr. Sabin said the botanic component along the stream had been destroyed with the installation of the lawn and so said that riparian plants would be restored and some invasives removed upstream. He noted the buffer to Sprain Brook below the driveway had been taken out and said the present lawn should be removed and the wet meadow habitat restored there. Mr. LaMuniere stated that Mr. Rosen had filled along each side of the stream channel. Mr. Sabin thought some of the fill could be removed and check dams installed. He said he would rather leave the stone channel as it is, but said he would listen to the Commission. Mr. Bedini asked if what was being proposed would restore the area to “what it was or better.” Mr. Sabin said it would. Landscaping and buffering improvements were discussed. Mr. Ajello asked if a “curve character” could be created in the lower section of the stream “chute.” Mr. Sabin stated that at a minimum, the stream could be opened up, check dams put in, and a level spreader installed at the bottom. He said if a curve was manageable without causing erosion, he would agree. Mr. LaMuniere recommended that the commissioners read the original notice of violation and all pertinent correspondence. Mr. Sabin said there were also good photos in the file that show where the top soil and fill were deposited along the channel. Mr. LaMuniere stated the stonework in the streambed had been significant construction, which completely changed the nature of the stream and that section of land, and noted the strong position the Commission had taken against it. The second violation, stone veneering and guard house, was discussed. Mr. Rosen had not yet decided whether he would apply for a variance for the 8’ X 8’ stone guard house. Mr. LaMuniere noted an important issue was the unauthorized installation of the stone veneer on the four wing walls because this had narrowed the stream channel. Mr. Bedini asked how thick the veneer was. Mr. Sabin thought 8” – 10”, but Mr. Ajello thought 4” – 6”. Mr. Bedini asked how wide the stream was at that point and whether the narrowing would impact the stream flow. Mr. Sabin was concerned that removing it now would cause even more impact. Mr. Ajello said an engineering analysis may be needed. Mr. Bedini agreed. Mr. LaMuniere said the flow data for a 25 year storm should be reviewed. Mr. Ajello asked if the footings upon which the guard house was built had the capacity to support the structure. Mr. Bedini asked if there would be remediation plans for the veneered walls. The commissioners considered what to do at the end of the canal. Mr. LaMuniere noted this area had been filled and grassed and wanted to be sure it would be restored. He asked what Mr. Sabin proposed to do with the embankments above the plunge pool. Mr. Sabin said that riparian plants should be planted and the armoring left in place. He said since the stones are stable, he would rather restore than rebuild. Mr. Ajello noted other areas on the property where erosion had been a problem, and Mr. Sabin said these were now stable. Mr. LaMuniere stated the main damage to the environment had been below the driveway and so said restoration plans should focus on this area. He asked Mr. Sabin for more details. Mr. Sabin said he would have a schematic preliminary concept for the first meeting in February. Mr. Wadelton asked for proof that Mr. Rosen had paid his fines.
Enforcement Report
Chatfield/19 Tinker Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello reported that the fine had been paid. Perc tests were recently done, but to date no site development plan has been submitted. The Health Dept. was concerned that a driveway could not be installed without impacting the septic system and so Mr. Ajello advised the Commission an engineered plan would be required. Mr. Ajello also noted that a letter from the Lake Waramaug Assoc. complaining about icing and the sheet flow of water over Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road had been received. The property owner submitted three photos showing there was a runoff problem before the clearing of the property took place, but it was not known whether the clearcutting had made the problem worse.Seymour/Whittlesey Road:
Mr. Ajello reported that clearing was underway and that he thought more than 50 cords would be cut and so a timber harvest permit would be required. The location of wetlands on the property and stabilization measures were briefly discussed.Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Filling, Clearcutting:
Mr. Bedini asked why this was still on the agenda. Mr. Ajello said a final inspection was needed.West Shore Farm, LLC./West Shore Road:
The property owners have not yet paid their fine.Wang/110 Blackville Road/#IW-09-V07/Unauthorized Clearing and Installation of Driveway:
It was noted that the required planting will not be done until spring.
Communications
Mrs. J. Hill reported that Ms. Giampietro had appealed the Commission’s decision to approve the revisions to Wykeham Rise, LLC’s Permit #IW-08-31 and she circulated copies of the appeal. Mr. Wadelton thought the claims did not have merit and had been disproved by a qualified expert. A copy of the appeal has been sent to Atty. Olson.It was noted the state DOT will replace the bridge over the Shepaug River near Hidden Valley. Mr. Ajello noted the work would be done on state land without local permits.
Two upcoming seminars were noted. 1) 2/23/11 – a conference sponsored by the Ct. Wetland Scientists in New Haven. 2) 3/12/11 – a land use seminar by the Ct. Bar Assoc.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 8:58 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Meetings in 2010