Seal: Washington, Connecticut; Founded 1779 www.WashingtonCT.org
The Town of Washington, Connecticut

Minutes: Inland Wetlands Commission		 Home
Search
Notify me every time this web page is updated
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 the Town Clerk. Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.

General information about the Inland Wetlands Commission

Jump down to: January 25 • January 11 •

Previous years: 2011 • 2010 • 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002

Posted: January 31, 2012

January 25, 2012

7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Sabin, Mr. Neff, Mr./Mrs. Smith, Mr. Caroe, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Johnson

Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.

MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the Agenda:
VI. Other Business B. Wykeham Rise, LLC./ 101 Wykeham Road/Approval Motion for Third Amendment to Permit #IW-08-31.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.

Consideration of the Minutes
The 1/11/12 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Pages 4, 5: last paragraph: Ms. Zelenko asked for a correction regarding her statement about why she had hired Mr. Logan. After Mrs. Hill read a transcript of what Ms. Zelenko actually stated at the hearing, the commissioners determined the minutes should be left as written.
Page 8: Line #9 under Smith: Insert “deep” to read, …30 inch deep units….
Page 11: Under Ingrassia: Atty. Kelly requested the minutes state that Mr. Neff was present to represent the applicant. When Mr. Bedini noted that at that time it was not known that Mr. Neff was present to represent the applicant, Atty. Kelly asked that the first sentence, “The applicant was not present,” be deleted. The Commission agreed to do so.

MOTION:
To accept the 1/11/12 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, 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 February 8th.

Herman/74 West Morris Road/#IW-11-45/Install Retaining Wall and Fence and Renovate Porch:
Mr. Neff, engineer, stated there had been no changes to the plans since the last meeting. He pointed out the locations of the stone retaining wall and fence on his “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” revised to 12/8/11. Mr. Ajello noted the citation had been paid. Mrs. Hill recommended a two year permit be granted. There was a brief discussion about changes in the state law regarding the length of time for which permits should be issued. Mrs. Hill said while most people, upon listening to a recent CACIWAC presentation, thought nine year permits were required, when she read the statue she thought it said that two to five year permits should be issued as had been done in the past. Mrs. J. Hill will consult with Atty. Olson on this question.

MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-45 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Herman for a retaining wall and fence, and porch renovation at 74 West Morris Road per the plan, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Site Improvements,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 12/8/11; 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. Bohan, seconded by Mr.Wadelton, and passed 5-0.

Smith/22 Parsonage Lane/#IW-11-48/Addition, Renovations to Dwelling, Extension of Driveway, and Installation of Drainage System:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, reported that since the last meeting Mr. Caroe, adjoining property owner, and the Smiths had come to an agreement about the proposed improvements to the property. An open view easement will be established for the entire meadow area, which will be preserved with no plantings. He reviewed his plan, “Site and Landscape Plan,” revised to 1/18/12, noting the only revision since the last meeting was to make the stone retaining wall more of a boulder wall with planting pockets. He said this was based on his sketch, which had been discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Caroe thanked the Commission for its diligence and for delaying action to give his engineer time to review the final plans. Mr. Ajello asked whether there would be a separation between the garage floor and the sump pump area in the basement. Mr. Neff stated the garage floor area was separate from the rest of the house. Mr. LaMuniere said it was important that the driveway be constructed with pervious material and he referenced the 1/11/12 handwritten note by Mr. Neff on the “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” revised to 1/5/12 that the driveway would be constructed of “permeable paving.”

MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-11-48 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Smith for additions to and renovation of the existing dwelling, driveway extension, and installation of a drainage system at 22 Parsonage Lane per the “Site and Landscape Plan,” by Mr. Sabin, revised to 1/18/12 and the “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/5/12 with handwritten note by Mr. Neff dated 1/11/12; 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. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.

InGrassia/143 East Shore Road/#IW-12-01/Demolish, Rebuild Dwelling and Accessory Building:
Mr. Neff, engineer, explained the existing buildings adjacent to Lake Waramaug would be torn down and replaced with slightly smaller structures, decreasing the lot coverage on the property. He also noted a new septic system would be installed. He said there would be no disturbance to the lake during construction and that almost the entire property would be within the limit of disturbance. Access would be from East Shore Road. He noted extensive landscaping plans that would preserve the trees along the edge of the lake and a sequence of construction were included with the application. He presented a rendering of the proposed building with landscaping and circulated photos of the site. Mr. Neff stated that the new buildings would be lower than those existing and he reviewed the elevations and roof profile. Atty. Kelly said the roofs would slope towards the lake to provide a better view of the lake from East Shore Road. Mr. Bedini asked if there would be work on the seawall. Mr. Neff said there would not. Mr. Neff pointed out the temporary stockpile locations and said excess material would be lifted and hauled off site. Mr. LaMuniere asked if a basement was proposed and for the estimated amount of material to be removed. Mr. Neff said there would be a crawl space and he would figure the estimated amount for the Commission. Mr. LaMuniere asked where vehicles would park during construction. Mr. Neff responded there is an area adjacent to East Shore Road in front of the building that will be filled in and this will be used for parking. Mrs. Hill asked if there were issues with the state right of way. Mr. Neff stated the owners were currently dealing with the DOT to get an encroachment permit. The architectural plans were briefly discussed. Mr. Ajello asked if the lower floor would be lowered. Atty. Kelly said it would, but not to the level of the seawall. It was noted the elevation of Lake Waramaug is approx. 694, while the elevation of the lower floor would be 700. Atty. Kelly noted that the lake sometimes rises over the seawall and that was why the house would be built on a slab. The “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/5/12 was reviewed. Plans for a new septic system with a high tech leaching unit were discussed. Mr. Neff noted the number of bedrooms would be reduced from three to two so a smaller system would be required and said the new system would be pumped from a pumping station in each building. Mr. Papsin noted the large sized trees called for in the landscaping plan would require large holes and asked if there would be any planted near the lake. Mr. Neff said the existing trees near the shoreline would remain. A few trees will have to be cut to install the septic system. Mr. Bohan thought that if future repairs were planned for the seawall, now would be the time to do them while equipment was on site. A site inspection was scheduled for Friday, February 3, 2012 at 3:30 p.m. Because the applicant was anxious to expedite the application, Atty. Kelly stated that he had asked Land Tech to review it, but had been told the Land Use Office had asked him not to do so. Atty. Kelly also offered to ask Mr. McGowan to review the plans or to get additional information as requested by the Commission. Mr. LaMuniere did not think review by a consultant was needed because there would be no work on the seawall. Mr. Bedini agreed, noting there would be no activity in the lake. Mr. Ajello stated that a careful review of the construction sequence would be necessary and that he would review the application again to see if additional information was needed. Ms. Cheney questioned whether the seawall would hold up with all of the equipment that would be operating near it. Mr. Neff said it was a substantial wall. Atty. Kelly explained that conceptually most of the work would be accomplished from the top down and that once the buildings and wall were constructed, the equipment would not move around much on site.

Johnson/30 West Mountain Road/#IW-12-02/Addition to Dwelling:
Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Johnson to submit the information noted on the application review form. Both the map, “Zoning Location Plan,” by Mr. Alex, dated January 2-12 and the “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 1/20/12 were reviewed. It was noted the proposed addition would be 27.20 feet from the pond in the rear of the property. Mr. Johnson said this area was currently lawn that gradually sloped towards the spring fed pond. He said the existing one story addition would be demolished and replaced with another addition on frost walls on a slab and also a terrace. The architectural plans were reviewed. Mr. Johnson referred to the erosion control plan and said the construction site would be managed to prevent runoff to the pond. Mr. Ajello asked if there were plans to handle the roof drainage. Mr. Johnson said there were none, adding that the existing house has gutters that flow to the lawn. Mr. Neff suggested the roof runoff not be piped so there would be an opportunity for the stormwater to be treated before it discharges to the wetlands beyond. He noted the pond would effectively act as a sediment basin, but the small amount of sediment that would reach it would not make any difference. Mr. Bohan asked what kind of terrace would be built. Mr. Johnson said it would be trap rock and blue stone. Mr. Bedini again advised Mr. Johnson to submit the missing information before the next meeting.


Other Business
Bol/44 Slaughterhouse Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-08-25:
Mr. Neff, engineer, explained the original permit had been to rebuild the garage and renovate the dwelling but the current proposal was to tear the house down to its foundation and rebuild it. He said the only change to the approved site plan was a note that this is a demolition and rebuild. He said the reconstructed dwelling would have the same footprint and there would be no additional disturbance to the wetlands. Mr. Ajello said there would be no risk to the wetlands if the limit of disturbance line was respected. Mr. Neff noted the foundation would be saved and the equipment would work from the front yard. Mr. Ajello suggested an anti tracking pad should be added to the plan. Mr. Neff said there was silt fence around the lower portion of the site and that it extended to the Town road shoulder. He thought the road was well protected. The map, “Proposed Site Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/14/12 was reviewed. It was noted that the original five year permit would expire on May 28, 2013 according to the approval letter. Because the permit had not expired, it was the consensus that action could be taken.

MOTION:
To approve the request by Mrs. Bol to revise Permit #IW-08-25 to demolish and rebuild the dwelling at 44 Slaughterhouse Road in accordance with “The Proposed Site,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/14/12.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.

Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Motion of Approval for the Third Revision of Permit #IW-08-31:
Mrs. J. Hill compared the motions of approval for the second and third revisions of Permit #IW-08-31; the motion for the second revision being more detailed, and asked whether the Commission thought it would be a good idea to add the same conditions to the approval for #3 that had been made for #2. It was the consensus to do so.

MOTION:
To amend the motion of approval for the third revision of Permit #IW-08-31 issued to Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road for a school to state that all previous conditions of approval continue to apply.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.


Enforcement
There were no other concerns than those already listed in Mr. Ajello’s 1/25/12 report.

It was noted again how confusing the state legislation is regarding nine year permits. Mrs. J. Hill will consult with Atty. Olson about this matter.

MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.

Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 8:55 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator


Posted: January 19, 2012

January 11, 2012

Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
5:00 p.m./7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bohan
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Allan, Atty. Olson, Atty. Andrews, Atty. Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Buck, Mr. Neff, Mrs. Frank, Mrs. Payne, Ms. Zelenko, Mr. Logan Atty. Marcus, Mr. Piscuskas, Ms. Gadwa, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Swain, Ms. Purnell, Mr. Sabin Mr./Mrs. Crumrine, Mr. Kiiffner, Mr. Szymanski Mr./Mrs. Solomon, Ms. Caroe, Mr. Caroe, Mr. Gagnon, Mrs. Buonaiuto, Residents, Press

PUBLIC HEARING

The Gunnery School, Inc./22 South Street/#IW-11-40/Athletic Fields

Mr. Bedini reconvened the hearing at 5:05 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mr. Bohan. Mr. Wadelton read the list of documents added to the file since the last session of the public hearing.

Representing the applicant, Atty. Williams made the following points: 1) an irrigation plan had been submitted since the last meeting, but it did not change the regulated activities that are proposed and 2) all new information with the exception of the turf management and pesticide management plans, which had been requested by Mr. Allan, had been submitted at least a week prior to the hearing.

Also representing The Gunnery, Atty. Andrews explained the registration process required by the DEEP for projects disturbing 10 or more acres per CGS 22a-430b. Atty. Williams stated The Gunnery would register after local approvals were granted and at least 30 days prior to the start of construction.

Mr. Smith, surveyor, briefly summarized his 12/22/11 letter to the Commission regarding the proposed irrigation system. He noted it does not extend beyond the limit of disturbance already shown on the plans. He noted, too, that comprehensive turf and pesticide management plans had been submitted.

Atty. Williams addressed the 1/10/11 “Memorandum of the Intervenors,” by Atty. Marcus, which, he said, contained factual inaccuracies. 1) Atty. Marcus claimed the applicant had first submitted one application and then another, but Atty. Williams stated that the applicant had never mislead the public about what it was proposing. Atty. Williams said the Commission’s notices were clear that it was considering an application for a permit for athletic fields. He also said that the Commission had never used the term, “declaratory ruling,” two consultants had advised the Commission that it had jurisdiction in this matter, and the Commission had determined that an application was needed. He said the statement by Atty. Marcus that the sole purpose of the public hearing was to consider whether there should be a declaratory ruling was false. 2) Atty. Williams said the application had never been changed; that wetlands flags had been added on site and the plans revised accordingly, but the same activities were proposed. 3) Atty. Williams said there was no basis for the claim that the public was disenfranchised. He noted the public hearing had been properly noticed and the public had been allowed to speak even prior to the start of the hearing. 4) Atty. Williams stated there had been no “subtle discrimination” against the interveners because everyone, not just the interveners, had been asked to get material in a week before the hearing so there would be time for a proper review. 5) In response to the complaint that a cross section had not been submitted, Atty. Williams said that the Commission had not requested one and that it was not necessary for the review.

There were no questions from the commissioners at this time.

Atty. Marcus said he wasn’t clear on exactly what was before the Commission and he read part of the 10/6/11 letter, which accompanied the application form. He said it asked the Commission to decide if the proposed activities were subject to review or not. He then referred to the 10/12/11 minutes and said it was at this point that he suggested his clients petition the Commission to hold a hearing to consider whether a permit was required or not. He said it was not until the first session of the hearing that the applicant said it was seeking a permit. Atty. Marcus complained that the applicant had been able to submit a “revised application” on 12/13, but that the neighbors had not been provided the opportunity to comment on it by that date. He also complained the application process was being rushed and said the information submitted to date was insufficient to meet the requirements of the IW Regulations. He noted Mr. Logan’s environmental review for the interveners was more detailed than was Mr. Allan’s for the Commission. He suggested the Commission consider what is really proposed and examine the environmental impacts in depth, and if it finds there will be likely impacts to the area wetlands and watercourses and to the Shepaug River, it should require the applicant to consider feasible and prudent alternatives.

Atty. Olson explained the Commission was not rushing the application process but was complying with the state statutes.

Atty. Marcus asked the Commission to deny the application without prejudice and then begin a proper review.

Mr. Logan, environmental consultant for the interveners, submitted his resume and Ms. Gadwa’s. He then submitted his 1/11/12 letter to supplement his review of the proposed irrigation system and said there are two different irrigation systems on the record, and submitted his report, “Review of IPM Plan and Turf Plan Proapared (sic) by Lunan’s Landscaping for The Gunnery School, 1-1-2012.” He stated the proposed project was complicated and substantial and compared it to big box development. He stated 55,000 cubic yards of material would be moved on 11.5 acres. His review included the following points. 1) The wet area located between the two proposed fields was not a moderately drained soil type as had been determined by Mr. Beroz and Mr. Allan, but was a wetland. 2) He referred to figure #4 in his 1/10/12 letter to Atty. Marcus and said the proposed drainage system would divert 48% of the water that now flows to the western hillside seepage wetland. 3) There is a well proposed in this same watershed that could contribute further to the dewatering of the down grade wetlands. 4) A “good” estimate of the amount of material to be trucked in and off the site had not been provided. Mr. Logan said the applicant claims this will balance out, but he thought that since a lot of the land was not suitable to use as fill, a lot of material would have to be brought in. He said cross sections were needed to verify the exact amount of the cuts and fills. He also claimed the applicant would have to truck in a large amount of sand with which to construct the fields if they were to drain properly. 5) Mr. Logan said the 14 ft. of rock to be removed at the far end of the turn around would require blasting and that the blasted rock would not be suitable to use as fill. 5) Mr. Logan said the 12/9/11 drainage report contained summary information and incorrect soil info that had not been field verified. 6) He stated that the plans did not conform to the 2002 Ct. Erosion and Sedimentation Guidelines of the 2004 DEEP Stormwater Quality Manual. 7) In Mr. Logan’s view there was too much development proposed for a site with such problem soils and slopes and that this would result in the destruction of natural resources.

Ms. Gadwa agreed this was an extreme site and that the wet areas Mr. Logan spoke about were, indeed, wetlands. She spoke about the universal soil loss equation. She stated that the construction traffic using the existing driveway and the loose material, fuel, and noise it would generate would impact the western wetlands and wildlife She noted that the impacts to the down grade stream on the northeast side of the property had been detailed in the 1/10/12 report and added that its habitats would be degraded even post construction. She also noted the high quality of the Shepaug River and its biodiversity and said the applicant would have to go well beyond the average erosion and sedimentation control measures to avoid impacting them. Ms. Gadwa was also concerned that the turf and pesticide management plans were not adequate.

Mr. LaMuniere noted that the Commission had just received the interveners’ submissions and so would not have questions until it had time to review them and to receive Mr. Allan’s response.

Mr. Ajello asked if the diversion of water from the down slope wetlands might be offset by the decrease in transpiration once all the trees are cut. Mr. Logan stated this might be so for the wetland areas not located near the level spreaders, which he thought would not distribute the water adequately and would change the existing drainage patterns.

Questions and comments were taken from the public.

Mrs. Frank, Conservation Commission, stated that Commission had voiced its concerns in its 12/13/11 letter and added that the visual impact from Rt. 47 was another concern. Atty. Olson responded that this was not under the Commission’s jurisdiction. Mrs. Frank noted there would be a lot of clearing in the northeast corner of the property and asked if evergreens could be planted to help stabilize the soil on the slopes. She also asked if the IWC would have its own engineer to oversee the work to make sure the plans would be carried out as approved. Mr. Bedini responded that if the application was approved, that would be a condition.

Mr. Piscuskas, Painter Ridge Road, thought The Gunnery was misleading the public. He said the soil information was not accurate and that because the project was so huge and would change the landscape of Washington if it was approved, it should be denied.

Mr. Swain, South Street, noted he was a down hill abutter. He said the experts disagree on the site conditions and he did not think it was likely that the construction could be undertaken without problems. He was worried that the site work would impact his well and that The Gunnery would not be held accountable. He urged the Commission to deny the application and asked The Gunnery to consider locating the fields on one of the other properties it owns but has not yet thoroughly investigated.

Ms. Zelenko, Painter Ridge Road, stated that since the first presentation, the “game plan” had changed. She said the DEEP had recommended Mr. Logan who had presented an unbiased report on the adverse impacts the project would have on aesthetics, the environment, neighboring wells, wetlands and streams, and the Shepaug River. She stated that blasting of the site would be required. She complained that she had asked several times for sectional elevations, but the applicant had not provided them. She asked the Commission to deny the application because there were alternative locations available.

Mrs. Buonaiuto, Shearer Road, asked how many trees would be cut. Mr. Logan estimated 5,000 to 6,000. Mrs. Buonaiuto noted that all of the stumps would have to be removed and fill brought in to fill the holes. Mr. Smith responded that this had already been taken into consideration by the applicant when stating the cuts and fills would be evenly distributed on site. Mrs. Buonaiuto asked why an A2 survey was not required. Mr. Smith responded that the south and west boundary lines closest to the work area were done to A2 standards, but the other boundaries were over 300 ft. away so they were done to T3 standards. He said he would supply the other boundary lines to A2 standards if the Commission wanted him to do so. Atty. Olson said while an A2 survey might be a Zoning requirement, it was not required by the IWC. Mrs. Buonauito asked how close the proposed level spreaders were to the existing ponds. She noted there are times when Rt. 47 almost floods and so she thought the DOT should review the plan. Mr. Smith stated that one level spreader would be 400 ft. to the northwest corner of the pond and the other was more than 600 ft. away.

Mr. Kiiffner, South Street, read his letter dated 1/9/12 in which he stated that the proposal would not protect the environment and would cause lasting environmental damage.

Mrs. Crumrine, South Street, said because the project was so large and Mr. Logan had such serious concerns about it, if the Commission approved the application, it had to ensure the work was done properly. She asked who would be responsible for making sure this was done. Mr. Bedini explained that in addition to the Wetlands Enforcement Officer, as a condition of approval for other large projects, the Commission had required a consulting engineer to make sure the approved plans were implemented and to inspect the erosion and sedimentation controls. Mrs. Crumrine stated that cutting 12 acres of forest would irrevocably change the hillside and she wanted to know what would happen if there were problems that could not be fixed. She asked if the public could be made aware of the safeguards that would be taken. Mr. Bedini said the public would know what safeguards would be taken and, if approved, the erosion and sedimentation controls would be checked continually. Mrs. Crumrine said the neighbors were concerned about the possible contamination of their wells, some of which were hand dug. She asked what The Gunnery would do to protect these wells.

Mr. Swain said he understood the project would be monitored during construction, but noted there could be unintended consequences. He thought the project was so complicated that it should not be started.

Atty. Williams questioned Mr. Logan, who, he said, was a soil scientist, not a licensed engineer, and who had trespassed on The Gunnery property to research his report. In response to questions from Atty. Williams, Mr. Logan stated that while the applicant’s consultants were reputable, he thought perhaps they had not done as careful a report as they could have. Atty. Williams stated that neither Mr. Logan nor Ms. Gadwa was a licensed engineer, and that the interveners had not hired a licensed engineer to review the application. He said there were two licensed engineers and two certified soil scientists with a combined 102 years of experience who found that the plans would cause no adverse impact to the wetlands and watercourses and he asked Mr. Logan if they were wrong. Mr. Logan said they were wrong, and that even Mr. Allan, the Commission’s unbiased consultant, was wrong because he had done only cursory work compared to his report. Mr. Logan said he was glad to see the turf management plan and generally thought the level spreaders were a good idea, but that there were many issues apparent when the details of the plan were reviewed.

Atty. Williams stated that the application was not being rushed as Atty. Marcus claimed, but said given the late submissions by the intervener the applicant would agree to a continuation of the hearing to February 8 and would submit all materials at least a week before that date. He submitted a written request for the extension.

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 February 8, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.

At 6:56 p.m. Mr. Bedini continued the public hearing to February 8, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.


REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mr. Bohan.

MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the agenda:
III. Consideration of the Minutes:
C. 12/20/11/The Gunnery/site inspection minutes and VIII. Administrative Business:
A. Revision of 2012 Calendar.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.


Consideration of the Minutes
The 12/13/11 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Heading: “Public Hearing” was added.
Page 1: Paragraph 4: Change “Mrs. Hill” to “Mrs. J. Hill.”

MOTION:
To accept the 12/13/11 Public Hearing minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Papsin, and passed 5-0.

MOTION:
To accept the 12/14/11 Regular Meeting minutes as written.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.

The 12/20/11 Smith site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. It was noted the correct spelling is Brian Neff.

MOTION:
To accept the 12/20/11 The Gunnery site inspection minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.


Pending Applications
The Gunnery School, Inc./22 South Street/#IW-11-40/Athletic Fields:
It was noted the public hearing had been continued to February 8th at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.

Herman/74 West Morris Road/#IW-11-45/Site Improvements:
It was noted the fines for the violation had not yet been paid. Mr. Ajello explained there had been a violation because work had been done without a permit and a notice of violation had been sent. A restoration order had not been issued because it could not be determined that there had been a direct adverse impact on the wetlands. An application to correct the violation had been submitted. The map, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 12/8/11 was reviewed. Atty. Olson said the Commission could table action until the next meeting because the citation had not been paid and it was the consensus of the commissioners to do so. Regarding the pillars that had been erected in the Town right of way, Atty. Olson advised that a notice should be placed on the Land Records that the Town will let the pillars remain, but the property owner will be responsible for the cost of any repairs needed in the future. Mr. Ajello said this should be done by the Selectmen. Mrs. Hill did not think the issues associated with the citation should be “tangled” with those of the application since citations are issued per Town Ordinance, while applications are processed under the IWC Regulations and the state statutes.

Smith/22 Parsonage Lane/#IW-11-48/Renovations, Addition to Existing Dwelling, Install Drainage System:
Mr. Neff submitted a letter dated 1/11/12 and drainage plans revised to 1/5/12. He explained the drainage system had been divided into two sections. All roof drains and foundation drainage will be tied together and the driveway and yard drainage will flow separately to a catch basin and then through a 4 inch pipe to the proposed rain garden. He said that additional soil testing had been done and as a result of finding shallow groundwater, the dry wells had been relocated and they had also been enlarged. They will be 30 inch units placed in areas where the groundwater level is down 7 ft. and will be installed at least 4 ft. above the water table. He pointed out a bioswale proposed in the southeast end of the property into which a small amount of water would drain from an area approximately 150 sq. ft. in size. He said this was a more linear design than a rain garden and also would allow the runoff to infiltrate. He pointed out that currently there is no drainage system and no detention of runoff on site, whereas after the installation of the new system, the majority of the runoff will infiltrate, the flow of water to the neighbor’s wetlands will be reduced, and post construction runoff will be reduced from what it is now. He noted the proposed driveway would be pervious gravel and the drainage area of the rain garden would be 500 to 600 sq. ft. Mr. LaMuniere pointed out that because the ground is saturated, the rain garden would have to be significantly above the water table in order to function. Mr. Neff said it would be 1 ft. above the water table. Mr. Bedini asked how the rain garden would impact the wetlands. Mr. Neff said it would have no impact because the size of the area draining into the rain garden had been decreased and most of the upland runoff would be directed to the dry wells. Mr. Neff explained the driveway was at too low an elevation to direct its runoff to a dry well, but that the amount of water that would flow into the rain garden had been reduced as much as possible. Mr. Neff noted he had added to the sequence of construction the installation of two geothermal wells with silt fencing and sediments basins below them during the drilling.

Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, stated that the quality of the wetlands has been “nil” for decades and he showed photos of the water collecting in the low portion of the mowed lawn. He said the area was so wet due to the increased amount of rain this year. He stated the old garage would be removed and restored with a rain garden and a functioning wetland meadow would be created with native wetlands plants around its perimeter. This wetland would accommodate the increased runoff from the driveway for a 4 inch storm event. He said the proposal would not only restore the wetland, but would improve it. Mr. LaMuniere said it was important that the driveway remain gravel to maintain its permeability.

Mr. Ajello asked if the amount of proposed walls and fill had been reduced. Mr. Sabin submitted the 1/11/12 design sketch to show the issue of retaining walls could be addressed with grading and by placing boulders and plantings to form an undulating boulder wall. He noted the distance to the property line did not change, but how the grading would be dealt with did change. He pointed out proposed plantings on a colored landscaping plan. Ms. Caroe, adjoining neighbor, disagreed with Mr. Sabin, saying the Caroe property has been “soaking wet” for 46 years. She said there was water in their basement all of the time and she worried that the proposed work would direct more water towards it. Mr. Caroe also noted how wet his basement is.

Mr. Sabin responded that the Caroe house is not downgrade of the Smith’s.

Mr. Gagnon, engineer for the Caroes, submitted his letter dated 1/11/12 and noted the plans submitted this evening had not been available for him to review. He said the 12/8/11 plans did not include test pits, which he thought were required. He said the infiltration of stormwater runoff to the north of the house could contribute to the ground saturation and impact the Caroe house. He said many of his concerns had been addressed, but noted 1) the temporary stockpile in the upland review area should be relocated, 2) the location of the septic system and the design of the leaching fields were needed so it could be determined whether separation distance requirements had been met, 3) increased flow to the wetlands could cause flooding issues, 4) jogs in the pipes could cause clogging, and 5) more grading information should be provided.

Mr. Neff said there was a septic design by the septic installer and the setbacks had been verified. He said the septic system was more than 50 ft. from the proposed activities.

Since the revised plans had just been submitted and Mr. Gagnon had not had an opportunity to review them for the Caroes, it was the consensus of the commissioners that to be fair, they would wait until the next meeting to act on the application.

Mr. Sabin objected, saying the consulting engineer had indicated that many of his concerns had been addressed and that he and Mr. Neff were well known to the Commission.

Atty. Olson stated the Commission has the obligation to review all of the materials presented. She noted that both the commissioners and the neighbors were concerned about flooding and so thought it was important to make sure these concerns were addressed. Mr. LaMuniere stated the Commission did not want the flow of water off site to increase, said the water table in the rain garden was very important, and noted the site had been very wet at the time of the site inspection.

Mr. Smith said the 1890’s drainage system in this area had broken down and so flooding in the Caroe’s basement was not the Smith’s problem.

Mr. Caroe stated there was no question that water backs up onto his property causing major ponding. He said the plans had not been submitted in time for his engineer to review them to make sure the proposed activities would not make the problem worse.

Mrs. Smith asked how a delay in acting on the IW application would impact the Smith’s ZBA application. Atty. Olson stated the two were not related.

A brief discussion followed in which each of the commissioners expressed his opinion regarding whether action should be tabled to the next meeting.

MOTION:
To continue consideration of Application #IW-11-48 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Smith for renovation of and addition to the existing dwelling, extension of driveway, and installation of a drainage system at 22 Parsonage Lane to the next meeting.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-1. Mr. LaMuniere voted no because he did not think that a second review by the neighbor’s engineer would result in significant revisions to the plan.

Underwood/99 Blackville Road/#IW-11-49/Clean Out Watercourse:
It was noted that at the last meeting the applicants had been told they could proceed with the emergency clean out of the watercourse so that the work could be completed before the ground froze.

MOTION:

To approve Application #IW-11-49 submitted by Mrs. Underwood to clean out the watercourse at 99 Blackville Road per the plan entitled, “Proposed Cleaning of Intermittent Watercourse,” dated 12/7/11; 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 Application
Ingrassia/143 East Shore Road/#IW-12-01/Demolish, Rebuild Dwelling and Accessory Building:
The applicant was not present. The application was accepted and will be discussed at the next meeting.


Other Business
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Request to Amend Approved Plans-#IW-08-31:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, said he understood all changes to approved plans had to be approved by the Commission and he noted that all of the proposed changes were listed in his letter to Mrs. J. Hill dated 1/6/12. Sheet OSD.1, by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 1/4/12, was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski briefly described the changes proposed. Mr. LaMuniere asked what a bituminous cape cod curb was. Mr. Szymanski pointed out the specifications on Sheet D.2, revised to 1/4/12. Mr. Wadelton said he saw no wetlands issues in the proposed changes. Mr. Ajello stated that he had reviewed the plans and had found no potential wetlands impacts. Ms. Purnell asked if the Commission was formally receiving the request tonight. Mr. Bedini said it was. Mr. Ajello asked for an additional set of the final plans for the Wetlands file.

MOTION:
To approve the request by Wykeham Rise, LLC. to amend Permit #IW-08-31 for a school at 101 Wykeham Road per the plans amended to 1/4/12.
By Mr. Papsin, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.


Enforcement Report
Bol/44 Slaughterhouse Road:
Mr. Ajello reported that a revised application would soon be submitted for the complete demolition and reconstruction of the dwelling.

Griffin/199 West Shore Road:
The repairs to the wall and abutment have been completed and the debris has been removed from the lake.

The Gunnery, Inc./22 South Street:
Mr. Ajello said he would look into the DEEP requirements for stormwater discharge permits.

Herman/74 West Morris Road:
Mr. Ajello will find out whether the Commission can deny this application if the fine is not paid, noting there are no wetlands impacts.

Lanyi/105 West Shore Road:
The catch basin must be cleaned out before the final sign off.

Oberndorf/151 West Shore Road:
The project is almost completed; the only work remaining is to complete the planting.

Town of Washington Park and Rec. Commission/11 School Street:
Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the stockpile of clay to be used on Ted Alex Field in the spring. Due to the recent storms, the material was washing down towards a catch basin in the new drainage system. The pile has since been covered with a tarp and hay bales were placed around it. Mr. Ajello noted this was the second time this year that Park and Rec. had not applied to the IWC for a regulated activity.


Administrative Business
2012 Calendar:
The commissioners decided the second meeting in November should be held on the normal day; the fourth Wednesday. Also, they did not schedule extra meetings for the summer months, saying that special meetings could be scheduled later if needed.

MOTION:
To revise the 2012 calendar to change the second meeting in November to 11/28, the fourth Wednesday of the month.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.


Communications
The 12/27/11 letter from Atty. Olson to Ms. Matteo regarding Ms. Matteo’s request for reimbursement of her application fee and engineer’s invoice was read and will be put in her file.


MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:12 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator


Meetings in 2011