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
August 11 •August 4 •July 14 •June 23 •June 16 •June 9 •May 26 •May 12 •April 28 •April 14 •April 8 •March 24 •March 10 •February 24 •January 27 •January 13 •Previous years: 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: August 23 2010 August 11, 2010
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. Martino, Mr. Papsin
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Wang, Ms. Holiman, Atty. Sconyers, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Palella, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. McMorrow, Mrs. KeatingSHOW CAUSE HEARING
Wang/110 Blackville Road/#IW-09-V07/Unauthorized Clearing, Driveway Con’t.
Mr. Bedini reconvened the Show Cause Hearing at 6:40 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.Mrs. Wang apologized and said her landscape designer who had her planting plan had not yet arrived. She asked if the hearing could be held later in the evening.
MOTION:
To recess the show cause hearing for Wang/110 Blackville Road/#IW-09-V07 to the end of the Meeting.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.The hearing was recessed at 6:43 p.m.
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:
B. Town of Washington/112 Walker Brook Road South/ #IW-10-31/Roadway Drainage Improvements,
VI. Other Business:
C. Town of Washington/108 New Milford Turnpike/Request to Transfer Permit #IW-08-57/Remediation, and
D. Nominating Committee for Election of Officers.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 7/14/10 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 5:
Line 30: Add to end of sentence: “…entire wall on the property under discussion.”
Line 35: Add to end of sentence: “…smaller ones, perhaps farther from the lake edge.”
Page 13: Sheinfeld’s address should be 110 Lower Church Hill Road.MOTION:
To accept the 7/14/10 Show Cause Hearing – Regular Meeting minutes as amended.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, passed 5-0.The 8/4/10 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as amended.
Page 2: #2 under Length of Commission Meetings: Should be: Mrs. J. Hill.”MOTION:
To accept the 8/4/10 Special Meeting minutes as amended.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 8/4/10 Horan site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 8/4/10 Schoellkopf site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Devereux Glenholme School/81 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-10-25/Replace Drainage Pipe:
Although there had been no questions or concerns raised at the last meeting, Mr. Bohan had since brought up his concern about sink holes eventually occurring as the old pipe deteriorates. Mrs. Hill had written Mr. Allan, engineer, who responded in an email dated 8/10/10 that the existing pipe would be crushed in place and then backfilled so there would be no potential for sink holes.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-25 submitted by the Devereux Glenholme School to replace the drainage pipe at 81 Sabbaday Lane subject to the following conditions:
1. the existing pipe is to be crushed and the trench then backfilled,
2. the contractor is to be given both the motion of approval and the approved plan prior to the start of work, and
3. the land use office must be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so that the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.Schneider/97 Lower Church Hill Road/#IW-10-26/Dredge Pond:
Mr. Palella, owner’s representative, submitted a larger map on which he highlighted the small area at the corner of the pond where any disturbance would occur. He pointed out the dewatering area and the access to the site and noted the pond is now dry so he had not added any downstream erosion controls to the plan. Mrs. Hill noted then that the work could be done only when the pond was completely dry. Mr. Palella stated that approximately 20 yards of material would be excavated from the pond and taken off site.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-26 submitted by Mr. Schneider to dredge his pond at 97 Lower Church Hill Road per the documents submitted and the latest enlarged map, which details where the work will be carried out.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0.Town of Washington/10 Blackville Road/#IW-10-27/Driveway, Storage Area, Stormwater Management: Mr. Lyon, First Selectmen, noted there had been no revisions to the plans since the last meeting. He also said that the application had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval before work could begin. It was noted the application had been discussed at the last meeting and no questions had been raised at that time.
MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-27 submitted by the Town of Washington for stormwater management, driveway, and storage area at 10 Blackville Road per the plans, “Site Development Plan,” “Proposed Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan,” and “Lot Coverage Map,” all revised to 7/14/10 by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 5-0.Ernhout/289 West Shore Road/#IW-10-28/Drainage Improvements:
Mr. Neff, engineer, stated there had been no changes since the last meeting. The proposed drains would tie into the existing drainage system and the new pipe would be only a few inches below the surface. He said only a small area would be disturbed and the project would take just one day. Mr. Ajello stated that the ponding of stormwater was not necessarily a bad thing, but in this case it was happening too close to the septic system.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-28 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Ernhout for drainage repairs at 289 West Shore Road as submitted.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 5-0.Schoellkopf/300 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-10-29/Repair Dam:
Mr. Neff, engineer, noted the Commission had recently inspected the site and said that it was a good time to do repair work because it was so dry. He explained the repair work on the existing stone and mortar dam would be done by hand, that no heavy equipment would be needed, cement would not be poured, and that the dam base was in good shape. Mr. Neff said he had called the DEP regarding the proposed work, and although he was told the DEP had no concerns, he had sent a copy of the plans anyway. He noted it was a relatively low dam and the work was patching and maintenance work.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-29 submitted by Mr. Schoellkopf to repair the dam at 300 Nettleton Hollow Road.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Holiman/125 West Shore Road/#IW-10-30/Plantings:
Mrs. Holiman circulated a sketch map dated July 2010 and photos of the areas on both sides of West Shore Road where she proposed to plant trees and shrubs. Along the lake shore, which has a steep bank, she proposed to remove the existing grass and to plant various flowering shrubs. Rugosa roses were one of the shrubs selected because they are salt resistant and their runners spread and will hold the hillside. She noted that the Lake Waramaug Task Force advises property owners on the lake that it is not good to have grass lawns on the lake side. A narrow strip of grass will be left along the road. She asked the Commission what it recommended for erosion control and what type of mulch did it recommend for the steep bank. Mr. Ajello suggest that an erosion blanket be placed on the bank to hold the disturbed soils and that holes be poked through it to plant the proposed shrubs or that a silt fence be toed in at the bottom of the bank. The Commission scheduled a site inspection at 4:30 p.m. on August 25 and urged Ms. Holiman to have her contractor attend. Mrs. Holiman submitted the mandatory conservation easement form and a proposed work sequence.Town of Washington/112 Walker Brook Road South/#IW-10-31/Roadway Drainage Improvements:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, stated the Town proposed to continue drainage improvements to the south of those completed last year. He noted Mr. Coleman, adjoining property owner, would do the work in the Town right of way at his own expense during the driest time of the year. Mr. Szymanski said the plan was to get the runoff to infiltrate into the ground to help to correct the icing problem on Walker Brook Road. He noted Mr. Smith of the Town Highway Dept. had signed off on the plan. Both Mr. Szymanski and Mr. Lyon advised the Commission that the work done last year had been a big improvement on Walker Brook Road. Mr. Ajello asked if adding more cross culverts had been considered. Mr. Szymanski responded that the proposed plan affords more opportunity for infiltration. The plans, “Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 7/12/10 were reviewed.
Other Business
Town of Washington/108 New Milford Turnpike/Request to Transfer Permit #IW-08-57/Complete Remediation Work:
Mr. Lyon explained the Town had purchased 108 New Milford Turnpike and the previous property owner had not completed the required remediation work. He proposed to spread top soil, regrade, and seed the disturbed area and noted it would be a good time to regrade while it was so dry. It was noted there was a letter requesting the transfer of the permit from Mr. Solley dated 8/5/10.MOTION:
To approve the request by the Town of Washington to transfer Permit #IW-08-57 to complete remediation work at 108 New Milford Turnpike to the Town of Washington.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Horan/54 East Street and 49 Tompkins Hill Road/#IW-10-24/Lot Line Revision and Construct Single Family Dwelling:
Atty. Sconyers and Mr. McMorrow, engineer, represented the applicant. Mr. McMorrow noted the Commission’s concern regarding the proposed house location only 50 feet from the wetlands and he read his memo dated 8/11/10, which listed the reasons other locations farther from the wetlands had not been selected. These included setback requirements both from wetlands and boundary lines, the fact that the proposed house site was already cleared, and steep slopes elsewhere on the property. He noted that to address the Commission’s concerns about seeps flowing down the hill and driveway resulting in icy conditions on the town road, he had added a 15 inch cross culvert and a 12 inch bermed area for the water to collect and infiltrate. He offered to add a second cross culvert closer to the road if the Commission thought it was necessary. Mr. Ajello asked if the recharge area would be large enough to prevent overflow onto both Tompkins Hill and Nettleton Hollow Roads. Mrs. Hill noted her concern about an eroded gulley, which takes runoff towards the proposed septic area. Mr. McMorrow explained the proposed 20 X 15 X 1 foot deep recharge area would be planted with grass and would be large enough to handle the runoff, but offered to size it for a rain garden. Noting there was only 50 feet between the wetlands and the proposed house, Mrs. J. Hill asked how clearing and lawns would be prevented in this area. Mr. Martino noted there was a steep bank down to the wetlands in this area so it would not be a lawn. Mr. Ajello recommended a document to define a limit of clearing, both in the area behind the house and elsewhere on the property where if the steep slopes were cleared, it would increase runoff. Mr. McMorrow offered a conservation easement area. Atty. Sconyers noted this could be enforceable by anyone in Town and would be in the deed so that future owners would know about it. A line 25 feet from the wetlands was sketched as the conservation easement line. Ms. Cheney and Mrs. Hill asked again why the house could not be moved to the north. Mr. LaMuniere noted the question to consider was whether locating the house close to the wetlands or in a location requiring more clearing and excavation would have the greatest long term impact. Mr. McMorrow said the area to the north was steeper and would require more excavation work and added that he did not think the proposed house site would adversely impact the wetlands. Mr. Ajello, Mr. Bedini, and Mr. Martino thought cutting on the steep slopes would increase the runoff. Mrs. Hill asked why the reserve area was on the other side of the wetlands. Mr. McMorrow explained that due to location of wetlands, drainage, and ledge there were not many suitable areas on site for the septic reserve system. He said he thought if septic repairs were needed in the future that the primary system would be replaced rather than pumping to the new reserve site. The commissioners asked for the following information for the next meeting: 1) size of the basin for the rain garden, 2) construction specifications and size of the rip rapped swale by the road, 3) runoff calculations for how much water will be carried in the proposed cross culvert, 4) planting plan for the rain garden, 5) written details regarding how the water flowing to Tompkins Hill Road will be handled, 6) conservation easement area extending at least 25 ft. from the wetlands, 7) no clearcutting provisions for the entire property.Wang/110 Blackville Road/#IW-09-V07/Unauthorized Clearing, Driveway:
Mrs. Wang informed the Commission that her contractor and landscaper had never arrived. It was decided to continue this hearing to the 9/1/10 agenda. Mrs. Wang was asked to notify the Commission in advance if the required restoration plan would not be ready for the next meeting. MOTION:
To reconvene the Show Cause Hearing for Wang/ 110 Blackville Road/#IW-09-V07/Unauthorized Clearing, Driveway.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To continue the Show Cause Hearing for Wang/ 110 Blackville Road/#IW-09-V07/Unauthorized Clearing, Driveway to 6:30 p.m. on 9/1/10 in the Land Use Meeting Room.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Rumsey Hall School/Romford Road/Release of Bond:
Mr. Ajello reported that the work was completed, the site well stabilized, and the consultants’ fees paid. There is approx. $15,000 to return.
MOTION:
To release the remainder of the bond posted for the Rumsey Hall School ice hockey rink on Romford Road.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 5-0.Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/#IW-07-V14/Restoration:
MOTION:
To release the remaining $1000 of the bond posted by Mr. Slaymaker for restoration work at 17 Sunset Lane.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
The following matters addressed in the WEO’s 8/11/20 report were briefly noted.Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road:
Mr. Andersson must pay the final consultant’s bill before his bond can be returned.Angell/47 West Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello discussed with Mr. Angell the use of pressure treated wood on his shoreline stair treads and Mr. Angell has already changed them. Discussion of storage boxes along the lake will be a matter to be taken up by the Zoning Comm.Auth/329 West Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the completed work. It was the consensus that the work was acceptable, although not exactly according to the approved plan.Brose/213 Roxbury Road:
Work to remove the structures is in progress.Charvillat/96 Roxbury Road:
The citation was paid and the planting has been completed. Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the site.Frog Hill, LLC./91 Nettleton Hollow Road:
The driveway is under construction.Gorman/62 Frisbee Road:
This project will soon be completed.Hochberg/15 Couch Road:
A complaint from Mr. Hochberg about his pond filling with sand from the town and state roads has been referred to the Selectmen’s Office.King/153 Lower Church Hill Road:
The invasives have been cut and stockpiled and the pond dredging will begin in a week or so.Kott/14 Wheaton Road:
Citations were sent to both the property owners and to the contractor. Both have been paid.Schein/245 West Shore Road:
The required planting of ferns to stabilize the bank still has not been completed.Town of Washington/108 New Milford Turnpike:
Mr. Ajello reported that the silt fence had held up well and that material from Titus Road would be used for regrading.Weaver/176 East Shore Road:
Mr. Weaver was sent a citation.Shepaug Middle-High School/South Street: Mr. Bedini reported that due to an emergency the pool had recently been emptied into the pond.
Keating/68 West Shore Road/Installation of Dock:
Mr. Ajello sent a notice of violation for the build out of the dock into the lake. Mrs. Keating was present to discuss the alleged violation and the approved plan. She stated the new dock did not extend further than the rocks that had been there previously and that the work had been done according to what she understood had been approved. She referred to the plan that had been presented to the Commission. Mr. Ajello stated the Commission had not approved that plan, that when Mrs. Keating had presented it to the Commission, it had questioned why it had to go out so far into the lake, and that he had pointed to a spot on a photo past which the deck should not extend. Mr. Bedini noted the Commission had talked about a concrete step at the bottom of the stairs, but said Mrs. Keating had built more of a pier in that it was much wider than the normal width of a “step.” A lengthy discussion ensued. Mrs. Keating said she had her contractor installed the concrete block as it was shown on the approved plan. Mr. Wadelton agreed that she had constructed the 4 ft. wide concrete pier per the plan in the file and noted that the Commission had not specified the width of the “step” it had approved. Mr. LaMuniere said the Commission had not been specific when it based its approval on photos. It was the consensus that in order to prevent this type of misunderstanding from occurring, in the future the Commission will require engineered plans for all projects along the lake shore. Mr. Ajello said the dock as constructed probably would not have a measurable impact to the lake, but that build outs into the lake were not permitted.
Other Business
Subcommittee Report Re: Policies for the Lake Waramaug Shoreline:
Mr. LaMuniere had sent a first draft document to Mrs. Hill and Mr. Ajello. The subcommittee of Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton, and Mr. Martino will meet before the next Commission meeting to discuss procedures for working on this policy statement. Any commissioner who has an idea he would like considered should submit it in writing to the staff, who will forward it to the subcommittee.All the commissioners received a copy of an email from Mr. Burke on a code of ethics.
Mrs. Hill recommended that the Commission hold another special meeting on organization and procedures. Mr. Bedini asked the commissioners to send him their suggestions for topics that should be discussed at such a meeting. It was thought, too, that the Wetlands Commission could meet with each of the other Commissions to learn more about each other in order to work better together. When the final draft of the Shoreline Policies Statement is ready, the IWC will hopefully meet with the Zoning Commission to discuss it and other matters of mutual interest.
Election of Officers:
Mr. Bedini and Mr. Wadelton said they would be willing to serve another term as Chairman and Vice Chairman. The election will be held at the next meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:40 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Posted: August 11, 2010 August 4, 2010
Special Meeting
6:00 p.m. Town Pavilion, School StreetMEMBERS 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. HillA Commission “workshop” was held so the commissioners could discuss general wetlands issues and procedures. Topics included the following:
Agricultural exemptions:
It was noted that although gardening is an exempt activity by right, the Commission has the discretion to determine whether a proposed activity qualifies. Several commissioners thought, for example, that activities associated with Schoellkopf’s gardens would qualify as an agricultural exemption. It was felt the Commission must be objective and consistent and review each case on its own merits.
Activities and “Improvements” around Lake Waramaug:
The commissioners generally voiced their concerns about the protection of the shoreline. Several issues were discussed and the following points made.1) Engineered plans should be required. The Commission’s attempts to work with applicants using sketch plans has led to misunderstandings and unauthorized work.
2) The letter of approval will be revised to include instructions to the property owners that contractors must be given both the motion of approval and a set of the approved plans. (This pertains to all permits, not just those for properties on the lake.)
3) Guidelines/Town Ordinance:
Several commissioners will begin to work on a set of guidelines or functional set of directives for the types of activities the Commission will permit around the lake. It was thought this was needed because the Commission’s current policy of permitting only activities that cause minimal impact to the shoreline was not specific enough. Once this has been prepared, the Zoning Commission will be asked for its input and cooperation. It was hoped that the two Commissions would work together to coordinate their regulations and/or work on a town ordinance regarding the limitation of activities around the lake. A professional, such as a limnologist or Tom McGowan of the Lake Waramaug Task Force, will be consulted.4) Specific concerns around the lake:
Putting further restrictions on the use of pressure treated materials, limiting the size of both docks and concrete anchor blocks, limiting the length of stonewalls and “hardened” shoreline along the lake, etc. were considered.
Applications in which there is an intervener:
It was noted the Commission should always address the claims by the intervener for the record before the close of the public hearing.
Length of Commission meetings:
What could be done to shorten the meetings was discussed. It was decided:1) The Commission will not work on sketching plans/engineering for applicants during the meeting, nor will discussion of an application be tabled so that an applicant could go out of the room, revise a plan, and return to discuss it later in the meeting.
2) Applicants will be encouraged to submit their applications well before meetings so that Mrs. Hill will have time to review them for completeness.
3) Applicants will be advised that although officially received by the Commission, incomplete applications will not be discussed at meetings.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:45 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: July 24, 2010 July 14, 2010
Show Cause Hearing – Regular Meeting
6:30 p.m., Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Papsin
ALTERNATES PRESENT FOR MEETING ONLY: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Sconyer, Mrs. Wang, Mr. Herman, Mr. Rosiello, Mr. Clark, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Neff, Mr. Allan, Mr. LyonSHOW CAUSE HEARING
Wang/110 Blackville Road/#IW-09-V07/Unauthorized Clearing, Driveway
Mr. Bedini called the Show Cause Hearing to order at 6:34 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton. He offered to read the enforcement order, but Mrs. Wang said she had already read it. Copies of the 7/6/10 order were circulated.
Mrs. Wang stated she had paid her fine, all of the bushy vegetation that had been cut had now grown back, the stone deposited on the “driveway” had been removed, maple trees would be planted in the fall, and she would restore the area to what it had been before it had been cleared.
Mr. Herman, contractor, said the maple trees would be planted in the open 60 ft. gap on both sides of the stream to restore the canopy.
Mr. Bedini noted points #4 and #5 in the enforcement order and asked Mrs. Wang if she had prepared a map showing a restoration plan and if she had addressed all of the other points in the order. He noted a Class A survey map would not be necessary, but a planting plan was required.
Mrs. Wang responded that all of the plants had grown back except for the trees.
Mr. LaMuniere explained the order had been clearly written and restoration plans and a written proposal had to be submitted for the Commission’s review.
Mrs. Wang asked how many trees the Commission wanted her to plant and said they could not be planted until the fall.
Mr. Bohan said he had observed that a section of the ground had been grubbed and there had been no root structure remaining.
Mrs. Wang said the plants had only been cut, they had grown back, and the Commission was welcome to inspect. She said she would restore the site to what had been there before, but would not do any work beyond that. She said she would not sketch the plants already growing back on a plan, but would take a photo. She also said she would ask her landscape architect to show on a plan exactly where the trees would be planted.
Mr. Bedini noted the cease and desist order would remain in effect until a restoration plan is submitted. He asked that it include the outline of the property, the location of the stream, where the trees would be planted, how many trees would be planted, how large they would be, when they would be planted, etc.
Mrs. Hill asked what kind of plants were growing back; she thought they might be invasives. She asked that the landscape architect identify what is now growing and recommend what should be planted. She thought this could be an opportunity to get rid of the invasives.
Mr. Herman said it was mostly prickers and vines that were now growing.
Mrs. Wang again stated that what was growing back was what had originally grown there and she was adamant that she would do no work beyond restoring what had been growing before the area had been cleared.
Mr. Ajello arrived at this point.
Mr. Herman offered to seed and mulch the section of bare dirt and said he would work on a sketch map and would get a letter of authorization for the next meeting.
Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the site and it was filling in, although he had not identified the plants. He recommended that a one to two year monitoring plan be incorporated in the restoration plan.
Mr. Bedini again stated the Commission required a planting plan. As there were no further questions, he continued the Show Cause Hearing to 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 11, 2010 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 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:
D. Town of Washington/10 Blackville Road/#IW-10-27/ Driveway, Storage Area, Stormwater Management,
E. Ernhout/289 West Shore Road/#IW-10-28/ Drainage Improvements,
F. Schoellkopf/300 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-10-29/Repair Dam.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.Consideration of the Minutes
The 6/9/10 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 3, Line #3: Change “plains” to “planes.”
Header throughout: Correct the date to 6/9/10.MOTION:
To accept the 6/9/10 Regular Meeting minutes as amended.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.The 6/16/10 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 2: Change “Public Hearing” to “Special Meeting.”
Page 7: Change “Mrs.” to “Ms. Cheney.”MOTION:
To accept the 6/16/10 Special Meeting minutes as amended.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.The 6/23/10 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as amended.
Page 2, Paragraph #3, Line #2: Change “cement” to “existing cement anchor block.”MOTION:
To accept the 6/23/10 Special Meeting minutes as amended.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.The 6/14/10 Sullivan-Ahearn site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected.
Change the estimated depth from “3 feet” to “3 to 6 feet.”MOTION:
To accept the 6/14/10 Sullivan-Ahearn site inspection minutes as amended.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 6/14/10 141 West Shore Road, LLC. site inspection minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Whittenberg/24 Horse Heaven Road/#IW-10-20/Demolish, Reconstruct House:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his revised plan, “Proposed Site Plan,” revised to 7/6/10, which included two stockpile areas, one to the north and one to the south of the house. He also added a hot tub to the plans and a note that excess soil will be removed from the site. He noted the only activity within the regulated area was the installation of the footing drain. It was noted that all of the concerns raised at the last meeting had been addressed.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-20 submitted by Mr. Whittenberg to demolish and reconstruct the house and install the associated footing drain at 24 Horse Heaven Road per the site plan dated 10/12/10 and revised to 7/6/10.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.Frog Hill, LLC./91 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-10-21/Lot Line Revision, Construct Driveway:
The map, “Proposed Site Development Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 5/29/10 was reviewed. Mr. Neff, engineer, noted the existing driveway had been installed ten years ago under a previous permit and that it was mainly the existing first section that was in the regulated area. As the driveway goes west, it gets beyond the regulated area. In response to the discussion at the last meeting regarding conduits, Mr. Neff said he had revised the erosion control plan to include the installation of the conduit to as far as the bend in the driveway. Mr. Ajello asked if the limit of disturbance had been shown on the map. Mr. Neff stated it had.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-21 submitted by Frog Hill, LLC. for a lot line revision, to construct a driveway, and to install conduits at 91 Nettleton Hollow Road.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.141 West Shore Road, LLC./141 West Shore Road/#IW-10-22/Repair Septic System, Install Patio and Handicapped Ramp, Reconstruct House, Rebuild Wall Along Shoreline, Install Dock, Remove Invasive Species, Construct Berm, Install Pervious Walkway:
Mr. Clark, engineer, stated that based on the discussion at the last meeting, the comments made at the site inspection, and Mrs. J. Hill’s application review, he had made several revisions to the plan. The plans, “Building Improvements,” 2 sheets, revised to 7/7/10 were reviewed. He provided a larger map to show the proposed shoreline work in detail as the Commission had requested. Landscaping along the shore was discussed. Mr. Ajello noted there were view and vista issues and cautioned that the bollards and hedges should not be any taller than 2 ft. above the elevation of the center line of the road. Mr. Clark proposed to cut five trees because their roots were damaging the shoreline wall, but the Commission was concerned about the loss of the canopy. Mr. Clark said he was willing to try to save some of them, but added they might die anyway due to impact of the construction. The trees to be saved were labeled both on a photo dated 5/18/10 and on the plan. Mrs. Hill asked if the Commission had any problems with the proposed reconstruction of the 100 feet of wall along the shoreline. Mr. Clark circulated photos of the wall, which he said showed it needs repairs. He said the existing base stones would not be removed, but new stones at the base might have to be added as the work progresses. He noted the rebuilding would be done in three phases and that the construction details were included on the plans. He said repairs would be made to the existing stairs, too. Mr. Ajello advised him that the dimensions of the stairs could not change. Mrs. Hill asked what the difference was between this proposal to reconstruct the entire wall and the Brown property, where the Commission had not approved the entire reconstruction that had been proposed. Mr. LaMuniere responded that part of the Brown property had been natural shoreline and another section had been rebuilt in a different manner than the original wall. Mr. Ajello stated there was no evidence that there ever was a wall on the west side of the Brown shoreline. He noted the Commission had ordered that half of the newly constructed Brown wall be removed, but said they only took down half of what they had been ordered to. Mrs. Hill did not see the need to replace the entire wall. She said she understood the section in the area where the dock would be anchored had to be rebuilt, but noted that as the stones fall to the lake, they break up the wave action and provide more habitat and a natural appearance. She said what is left of the wall would last longer if the existing trees were removed and replaced with smaller ones. Mr. Ajello noted the applicant proposed not only to cut the trees, but to remove the stumps. Mr. LaMuniere suggested that a root barrier technique be used on the trees to be saved by the wall. He noted the wall was existing and failing and that the Commission had recently allowed other property owners, (Daly,) to rebuild their existing wall. Mrs. Hill said the Daly wall had not been 100 ft. long. Mr. Bedini thought it would be difficult for the Commission to make a case that it was OK to rebuild one existing wall but not another. Mrs. Hill responded that the first approval had been prior to the Commission’s meeting with Dr. Kortmann, limnologist. Mr. LaMuniere stated that rebuilding the wall, if rebuilt as is, and restacking the stones would not impact the ecology of the lake, but that the removal of trees was a concern. Mr. Ajello stated the wall would be thicker at the base, but its width would taper up to the top. Mrs. Hill thought a 5 ft. wide base was “too much,” but Mr. Clark said it was standard engineering practice. The proposed concrete base needed to anchor the dock on top of the existing rock was discussed. Mr. Clark stated that concrete had to be used, that a rod would be used to stabilize it, and that it would not be visible. Mr. LaMuniere asked how thick the concrete would be and Mr. Clark said approximately 4 inches. Mr. LaMuniere asked how much material would be deposited to create the proposed berm on the upper side of the property. Mr. Clark said he found dimensions were more verifiable than the amount, noting that the top of the berm would be 4 ft. wide. Mr. LaMuniere warned that the contractor must be given very specific plans. Mr. Ajello asked if the pervious walkway along the driveway would withstand traffic and plowing. Mr. Clark said it would. He described the materials in the product to be used and the installation process and submitted an informational brochure. He explained that 6 inches of stone would be placed under the pervious surface and that runoff would either infiltrate or run down the hill. Since drainage at the end of the driveway had been a problem in the past, Mr. Ajello asked that a path be made for the runoff to reach the drainage pipe. Mr. Clark said he would add this to the plans. In response to Mrs. J. Hill’s review Mr. Clark stated, 1) a comprehensive list of proposed activities was included in work description, which was part of the construction sequence table, 2) a note had been added that the land use office must be notified at least 48 hours prior to the start of work, 3) the construction sequence now specifies it is the property owner who will be responsible for inspecting and maintaining the erosion control measures, 4) a note was added that the erosion controls must remain in place until the disturbed areas are stabilized, and 5) stockpile areas were added to the plans. He said he did not include a limit of disturbance line because there would be activities throughout the entire property except the section east of the intermittent stream. Mrs. Hill asked if all of the equipment to be used had been provided. Mr. Clark said this information was included in the work sequence. In addition, he noted a soil scientist’s report, the mandatory conservation easement form, and the approval by the Health Dept. had been submitted. Mr. Bedini asked when the work would begin. Mr. Clark said work on the wall would begin as soon as possible while it was still dry.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-22 submitted by 141 West Shore Road, LLC. to repair the septic system, install a patio and handicapped ramp, reconstruct the house, rebuild the wall along the shoreline, install a dock, remove invasive species, construct a berm, and install a pervious walkway at 141 West Shore Road subject to the following conditions:
1. a note shall be added to the construction sequence on the plan that all erosion control measures are to remain in place until the disturbed areas are stabilized,
2. trees along the shoreline are to be saved per the labeling of the photo dated 5/18/10 and the 7/14/10 notations on the plan,
3. the pipe under the pervious walkway is included in the approval, and
4. a note shall be added to the construction plans that the land use office must be notified at least 48 hours prior to the start of work so that the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion control measures.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 4-1.
Mrs. Hill voted No because she did not think the Commission should approve the rebuilding of the entire 100 ft. shoreline wall.Sullivan-Ahearn/7 Warren Road/#IW-10-23/Dredge Pond,Repair Weir, Remove Invasives:
Mr. Rosiello, landscape architect, submitted his revised plans, “Proposed Pond Dredge Plan,” dated Summer 2010. He addressed the points raised in Mrs. J. Hill’s review as follows: 1) He submitted an additional $30, 2) He indicated on the plan where the dredged material would be deposited. No material will be deposited in wetlands. It will be used between the house and the barn to create flower beds. 3) He added a note that the land use office would be notified at least 48 hours prior to the start of work. 4) He specified that he would be responsible for the inspection and maintenance of the erosion controls and said they would be inspected after each storm and on a bimonthly basis. 5) How the disturbed areas would be stabilized was also added to the plan. 6) Mr. Rosiello stated it would take two days to remove the invasives by hand, one week to dredge the pond, and 2 to 3 days to replant. 7) The existing weir is 20 ft. long X 14 inches thick X 4 to 6 inches high. 8) There are no possible alternatives. 9) The property is 512 feet from the Town boundary, so notifying the other town is not required. 10) He said 250 to 295 yards of material would be excavated. Mr. Ajello asked what equipment would be used to repair the weir. Mr. Rosiello said a small excavator would work from the edge of the pond and that he would try to save all of the wetlands vegetation along the NW shore. He noted the invasives to be removed were located in the pond and at the overflow. The invasives will be bagged and taken off the property and additional wetlands vegetation will be planted.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-23 submitted by Sullivan-Ahearn to dredge the pond, repair the weir, and remove invasives at 7 Warren Road per the plan and notes by Mr. Rosiello dated Summer 2010.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Horan/54 East Street and_49 Tompkins Hill Road/#IW-10-24/Lot Line Revision and Construct Single Family Dwelling:
Atty. Sconyers represented the property owners. He said he had not yet gotten the address for the eastern lot. The plans, “Site Development Plans,” 5 sheets, by Berkshire Engineering, dated 2/16/10 and 2/19/10 were reviewed. Atty. Sconyers pointed out the proposed lot line revision and the feasibility plans for the development of the lot with access from Tompkins Hill Road. It was noted this lot was split by wetlands, a four bedroom house was proposed, the septic reserve area was not located on the same side of the wetlands as the house, and the proposed house location was only approximately 50 feet from the wetlands. Mr. Ajello asked if a two bedroom house was proposed, would the reserve system still have to cross the wetlands. He said the alternative of a smaller house and septic system should be considered. Mr. Bohan noted it appeared there was plenty of room to move the house farther from the wetland boundary. Atty. Sconyers stated the house location had been selected as far from the road as possible to provide maximum privacy. Mr. Bedini said there was 160 feet between the house and the road, so the house could be moved 40 feet farther from the wetlands without sacrificing privacy. He also asked if there was an alternate location for the septic reserve. Mr. Bedini asked if there were any technical reasons for not locating the house out of the regulated area. Atty. Sconyers said the contours were a concern. Mr. LaMuniere and Ms. Cheney thought it could easily be moved toward the road. Mr. Bedini asked that for the next meeting the applicant address in writing what other locations had been considered, why they were not viable, and were there any good reasons the house could not be moved 100 feet from the wetlands. He also asked that a limit of disturbance line that encompasses all of the proposed activities be indicated on the map. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, August 4, at 4:30 p.m. The applicant will stake the driveway and the corners of the house and garage. Atty. Sconyers noted the wetlands had been flagged some time ago so he did not think the flags would still be visible.Devereux Glenholme School/64 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-10-25/Replace Drainage Pipe:
Mr. Allan, soil scientist, explained the existing 12” reinforced concrete pipe would be replaced with a 12” corrugated plastic pipe in a straighter line than the existing route and that also an 8” pipe would be installed at the bottom of the electrical box to drain water from the pump house. He noted he had flagged the wetlands and that the new pipe would discharge near them. A 6’ X 5’ rip rapped plunge pool was proposed at the outlet to eliminate the scouring and erosion that is now occurring. It is in essentially the same location as the existing splash pad. The existing pipe would be abandoned, backfilled, and the disturbed area seeded. Mr. Allan noted there would be 160 sq. ft. of temporary disturbance in the wetlands. The plan, “Drainage Improvements,” by Land Tech Consultants, revised to 7/13/2010 was reviewed. Mrs. Hill asked if the application was in response to an enforcement matter. Mr. Ajello said that a notice of violation had been sent. The commissioners will drive by the site prior to the next meeting.Schneider/97 Lower Church Hill Road/#IW-10-26/Dredge Pond:
Mr. Palella was agent for the applicant. The sketch plan by Mr. Baker, “Schneider Property,” drawn on a portion of a survey map was briefly reviewed. It was noted that the pond was last cleaned five years ago, that it collects road sand, and there is no room to install a settling basin. Mr. Bedini asked for a limit of disturbance line to show where the trucks would enter, where the excavated material would be dewatered, and the extent of all proposed activities. He also asked that the sketch map be enlarged so that it would be easier to review. Mr. Bedini asked for the Assessor’s Map and Lot numbers and for a written description of how Mr. Palella would prevent downstream impacts while the work is in progress. Mr. Palella said the pond dries up and so there would be no downstream impacts if the work was done during the dry time of year. In general, the commissioners asked for more specific plans for the next meeting.Town of Washington/10 Blackville Road/#IW-10-27/Driveway, Storage Area, Stormwater Management:
Mr. Lyon, First Selectman, circulated small scale maps, “Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 7/14/10, and a brief narrative, which, he said, addressed the issues raised in Mrs. J. Hill’s 7/12/10 review. Using the large scale plan dated 7/7/10, Mr. Lyon pointed out the existing overgrown drainage swale and explained the proposed drainage improvements, which included installation of a two rip rapped stilling basins and a new pipe from the upper basin to the existing catch basin behind the garage. He stated the storage of small stockpiles of materials for daily use would be moved from the old garage on Titus Road to the Blackville Road facility when the proposed storage area was constructed. In response to Mrs. J. Hill’s 7/12/10 review, he pointed out temporary stockpile areas for topsoil and noted the existing drainage pipe goes to Mallory Brook, which is within 100 feet of a portion of the property so the 100 ft. setback line was added to the plan. Mr. Lyon also stated the surface of the driveway and storage area would be gravel, all proposed activities were beyond the 100 ft. setback, most of the runoff would infiltrate in the lower basin, the work would be done in August or September, and buffering would be installed between the storage area and the road. The commissioners will drive by the site before the next meeting.Ernhout/289 West Shore Road/#IW-10-28/Drainage Improvements:
Mr. Neff, engineer, explained that last year the septic system had been repaired, but there was now ponding of water on a flat area between the yard and the road. The map, “Yard Drainage Plan,” dated 6/28/10 was reviewed. He proposed two 1’ X 1’ catch basins to pick up the surface water and a 4 inch pipe to connect them with the existing 8 inch drainage pipe. He said it was a small project that would require only minor digging with a small machine. He noted he had staked the center of the locations for the two catch basins. The commissioners will inspect the site on their own prior to the next meeting.Schoellkopf/300 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-10-29/Repair Dam:
Mr. Neff, engineer, stated the existing dam needed minor repairs. He presented a photo of the dam and the portion that needs maintenance. He stated that no dredging of the pond was proposed; only the cracks and voids in the dam would be filled. The map, “Dam Repair Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 6/22/10 was reviewed. Mr. Neff said the water was low enough now so there was no need to drop it any further, but he explained the project narrative included notes on how the water would be diverted rather than held back should it become necessary to lower the water level. He pointed out the access to the work site and the temporary material stockpile area. He said the repair work would be done by hand and that this was a good time of year to do the work because it was so dry. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, August 4, 2010 at 5:15 p.m.
Other Business
Kott/14 Wheaton Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-09-47:
Mr. Neff explained that the ZBA had not approved the addition that the Wetlands Commission had approved last year and so the revised proposal was for a second story addition over the existing porch. The plan, “Proposed Site Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 6/28/10 was reviewed. Mr. Bedini noted the revised plan was for less than the Commission had originally approved. Mr. Ajello reported that the owners had installed an irrigation system without a permit. It was noted this was not the first time that the contractor, Artistic Irrigation, had done work without the required wetlands permit. Mr. Bedini said the violation would be discussed later in the meeting.MOTION:
To approve the request by Mr. and Mrs. Kott to amend their Permit #IW=09-47 for a reduction in the scope of work to be done at 14 Wheaton Road.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Kott/14 Wheaton Road/#IW-10-V01/Installation of Irrigation System:
Mr. Ajello said the unauthorized activity, installation of an irrigation system, had not occurred in wetlands, so the fine would be $150 and he recommended that both the Kotts and the contractor be fined. He noted the work had been done within 20 feet of the stream and within 1 ft. of the steep bank above the stream and there had been soil disturbance although no large equipment had been used. It was the consensus of the commissioners that both the owners and Artistic Irrigation should be fined.Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Request for Release of Bond:
Mr. Ajello reported the restoration work had been completed and he was now waiting for the final bill from Land Tech. He explained that Mr. Andersson owes $3000 in previous consultants’ fees per the settlement agreement plus the one day consultant fee for the final excavation work. He recommended the Commission make a motion to return the balance of the bond after these fees are paid. Mr. Bedini said he did not want the remainder of the bond returned until all outstanding bills were paid.DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory/ Request for Release of Bond:
Mr. Ajello noted this matter had been addressed in his enforcement report and he spoke briefly about the planting done and the restoration of the varied canopy. Mr. LaMuniere thought the bond should not be released until the phragmites on the site is removed by hand. Mr. Ajello noted the property had been sold and this would be the new owners’ responsibility. None of the commissioners objected to returning the remainder of the bond once all outstanding bills are paid.Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Clearcutting, Filling:
Mrs. Hill asked why this matter could not be resolved and removed from the list. Mr. Ajello said he would have to inspect for possible encroachments.Brown/127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work Along Shoreline:
There was nothing new to report.Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-07-V12/Unauthorized Excavation:
There was nothing new to report.Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/#IW-07-V14/Unauthorized Drainage and Excavation Work:
The Commission is waiting for Mr. Slaymaker to report that he has planted all of the required vegetation before returning his bond.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-V2/Unauthorized Stream Work:
There was nothing new to report.Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-V5:
Ms. Brose paid the $500 fine and signed the performance bond. She plans to begin removal of the stone patio within two weeks and to do the required restoration planting in the fall.Schein/245 West Shore Road/#IW-08-V7:
Mr. Ajello will send another letter to request that the required planting to stabilize the disturbed areas be completed.Weaver/176 East Shore Road/#IW-09-V3/Unauthorized Clearcutting:
The Commission is still waiting for a planting plan for the bank on the lake shore. Mr. Ajello will write a letter to tell Mr. Weaver the Commission expects an application for the restoration work and will send a citation.Town of Washington/16 Titus Road/#IW-09-V02/Unauthorized Stockpiling in the Floodplain:
This matter will be removed from the enforcement list.Devereux Glenholme School/64 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-09-V05/Unauthorized Excavation:
An application to correct the violation has been submitted.Auth/329 West Shore Road/#IW-09-V06/Violation of Permit #IW-10-10:
Mr. Wilson, engineer, called Mr. Ajello to inform him that work would start tomorrow morning. When Mr. Ajello reminded him he was supposed to have submitted a revised plan for the Commission’s approval before starting work, Mr. Wilson responded that he would use Mr. Ajello’s plan. Mr. Ajello advised him that a zoning permit is also required and that he will be required to sign off on the plans he has agreed to implement.Angell/47 West Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello reported the dock and shoreline work were completed except that two issues remain. First, the work on the stairs across the road was temporarily abandoned until native stone can be obtained. Also, a large pressure treated storage box that was not included in the Wetlands permit and pressure treated stair treads were installed. Mr. Bedini noted this was another example of why the Commission must be as specific as possible when approving permits because even seemingly minor issues such as the width of a step can lead to misunderstandings and permit violations.Charvillat/96 Roxbury Road:
After several letters, Mrs. Adler has agreed to plant the iris for Mrs. Charvillat.Keating/68 West Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello noted that the 6/6/2010 minutes state that the anchor block would not protrude any farther out into the lake than the existing pile of rocks and that the concrete was supposed to be tucked under the stairs. Instead, Mr. Ajello reported there had been a build out into the lake and to make matters worse, the contractor had emptied the sand bags that held the cement forms in place into the water. Mr. Bedini suggested Mrs. Keating be fined for exceeding her permit. Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Martino thought the Commission had been very specific in requiring the cement work to be pushed back into the bank. Mr. Bohan and Mr. Wadelton thought even though Mrs. Keating had agreed to the work as described above, if the diagram she submitted did not clearly show it, enforcement could be a problem. Mr. Ajello stated she had applied for a 3 ft. wide concrete step, but was told, no, she had to push it back as far as possible. Mr. Wadelton pointed out the width of the “step” had not been defined. Mr. Martino noted that in the future no sketch plans should be accepted; engineered plans should be required. It was the consensus that Mrs. Keating be sent a notice of violation and that she be asked to attend a future meeting to discuss this matter. The Commission will decide after that discussion whether she will be asked to remove the concrete build out.Mnuchin/218 Nettleton Hollow Road:
Mr. Gambino submitted photos to show that the collar had been installed on the outlet pipe prior to the application of the herbicide to the pond.Steep Rock Assn./Sabbaday Lane:
Phase II of the selective harvest is underway.Sheinfeld/Lower Church Hill Road:
Mrs. D. Hill asked Mr. Ajello if he had inspected this property to make sure the conservation easements had not been compromised and if he had noted the inspection for the file. Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the site and had found no encroachments, but had not placed a note in the file.Bolek/East Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello noted that Mr. Bolek had applied for a build out into the lake and this had been denied. He circulated photos of the Bolek shoreline taken from the lake in 2005 and 2006 and compared these to a photo taken this year. The 2010 photo showed aluminum deck sections set on top of concrete. Mr. Ajello will deal with this as a zoning issue.
Administrative Business
A workshop meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, August 4, 2010 at approximately 6:00 p.m. (immediately following the earlier scheduled site inspections). The location will be determined later.There were no communications and no need for an executive session.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 10:41 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: June 26, 2010 June 23, 2010
Special Meeting
7:00 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. WilsonMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton. He stated the purpose of the Special Meeting was to address Mr. Auth’s violation of Permit #IW-10-10; to discuss and then decide whether to revoke the permit. He noted all of the commissioners had now had time to review the file and asked based on that review, would they revoke the permit or explain to Mr. Auth what had been approved, give him an opportunity to comply, and if he does not, then revoke the permit. He asked each commissioner for his opinion and noted Alternates could participate in the discussion until the point when a motion was made.
Mr. Wadelton circulated a 2 page diagram, dated 6/22/10, not to scale, of what he understood the Commission had approved, which was a slope from the edge of the grass to the point at the lake bottom measured 26 feet from the edge of the road pavement. He noted how this differed from Mr. Auth’s understanding of a continuation of the natural slope, which he had also diagrammed. He labeled the point where the slope reached the lake bottom as “x” and asked what height the Commission had intended x to be. Mr. Bedini asked why x could not be zero. Mr. Wadelton said it could, but it had to be defined because it was one of the misunderstandings between Mr. Auth and the Commission. He also noted that if the Commission agreed that it was the slope from the edge of the grass to the lake bottom that it had approved, then it would be possible to move the anchor block back, closer to the existing grass, to help to eliminate a massive build out. He stated that the height at point x and the location of the anchor block had to be agreed upon if the two parties were going to try to work together so the Commission would not revoke the permit at this time.
Mr. Ajello agreed with Mr. Bedini that the height at x could be close to zero. He noted that Mr. Wadelton’s page 2, diagram B was a new concept that had not yet been discussed. He said if Mr. Auth would propose it, he would be interested because it would limit the build out.
Mr. Ajello passed out his 3 pages of diagrams, dated 6/23/10, which, he said, depicted what he had understood the Commission had approved and subsequently discussed, and which did not differ much from Mr. Wadelton’s understanding.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the anchor stone was to be placed at the same level as the cement. Mr. Ajello said yes, this was shown in his second diagram.
Mr. Bedini noted the Commission had never approved tapered sides along the anchor block, so one solution would be to move the anchor block back and use a longer cat walk.
Mr. LaMuniere agreed that the Wadelton and Ajello sketches showed what the Commission had approved, saying the slope was needed to dissipate the energy of the waves and current. He did not think two levels like Mr. Wilson had proposed should be considered and he noted there was evidence of erosion along the shoreline.
Mr. Wadelton was concerned about locating the anchor block out at the 26 ft. point with no lateral support. He asked if this was sound from an engineering standpoint. Anchoring the dock was briefly discussed. It was the consensus that the end of the dock had to be securely cross anchored or the anchor block would not hold no matter how it was pinned or mortared to the stone. Mr. Wilson stated the end of the dock would have cross anchors, cross anchors have held larger docks, and the anchor block would be pinned to the stones underneath it.
Mr. Papsin said he agreed with Mr. Ajello’s drawing and also liked the idea of setting the anchor block in closer to the shore. Mr. Ajello said he did not draw his diagram to show this because he had not understood that was what had been approved, but he thought the idea had merit.
Mr. Bohan also liked the idea of setting the anchor block back because it would take it away from the face of the lake.
Mr. LaMuniere again stressed that the anchoring of the dock was critical and should be included as part of the plan.
Mr. Wadelton asked the commissioners whether they had approved a solid mass at the shoreline or a slope down to zero.
Mrs. Hill said she had not envisioned an anchor stone or a catwalk off the anchor stone when she had voted to approve the original permit.
Mr. Bedini referred to page 3 of Mr. Ajello’s diagrams and asked the commissioners if they were all in agreement that this site plan depicted what the Commission had approved except for the step stone walkway from the grass to the anchor stone. Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton, Mr. Papsin, and Ms. Cheney agreed.
Because the commissioners agreed that the plan by Mr. Ajello depicted what they had originally approved, Mr. Bedini suggested that if Mr. Auth would follow the plans as suggested, his permit would not be revoked at this time, but if as the work progressed he made any changes, the permit would be revoked at a later date. He suggested that Mr. Wilson draw up engineered plans based on what the Commission had approved and then submit them to Mr. Ajello for review. If Mr. Ajello found the engineered plans were substantially like his 3 pages of drawings, he could approve them and the work could then recommence.
Mr. LaMuniere again asked that details for the anchoring of the dock be included in the plans, saying acceptable specs were required to protect the shoreline.
Mrs. Hill asked how much of the shoreline would be sloped. After a brief discussion it was agreed the area to be sloped extended from the existing dock anchor to the large stone to the north, which was built into the shoreline. For reference, these were circled and labeled on two of the photos in the file. Also noted on photo #2 was that the measurement from the lake bottom to the top of the anchor block was 3 feet.
After a brief discussion it was agreed the outer limit of the work was 26 ft. from the edge of the road pavement and approximately 10 feet from the edge of the grass. Mr. Ajello said the rocks would not have to extend the full 26 feet it this was not needed.
Mrs. Hill questioned why the Commission was allowing the work as far out as 26 ft. from the edge of the road pavement because the rocks that were out that far were not natural; they had been dumped there. Several commissioners said this was too late to consider because the Commission had already approved it. Mr. Ajello countered that it was not too late to discuss it if the Commission revoked the permit.
It was noted that Mr. Bedini’s suggestion above was a suggestion to the property owner to ask his engineer if he could draft plans to make it work.
The height of the rocks at the low end of the ramp at the lake bottom, or point “x,” was discussed. Mr. Ajello stated this was zero or as close to zero as possible.
Before a motion was drafted, Mr. Wadelton asked Mr. Wilson if Mr. Ajello’s 6/23/10 drawings were feasible from an engineering point of view. Mr. Wilson said they were. Mr. Wilson did, however, present some photos taken earlier in the day and said for the first two feet of the ramp the slope might be a little steeper in order to set the stones in correctly.
MOTION:
Regarding Auth/329 West Shore Road/Violation of Permit #IW-10-10, to suspend the decision to revoke the permit and present to Mr. Auth the two labeled photos dated 6/23/10 and the three drawings by Mr. Ajello dated 6/23/10, which represent what the Commission approved, and direct Mr. Auth to complete this work within 4 months; Mr. Auth has the option to either draw new drawings or to endorse these (Mr. Ajello’s drawings dated 6/23/10) by approving and signing them as his submittal; These drawings should then be submitted to the Wetlands Enforcement Officer and if he finds they are substantially like the suggested shoreline configuration by Mr. Ajello, dated 6/23/10, Mr. Ajello, WEO, may approve Mr. Auth to go forward with the work; Should the WEO at any given time find that the work is not going forward as specified, he will stop work and refer the matter back to the Commission.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0-1.
Mrs. Hill abstained because she had not understood the original plan when it was approved.MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 8:05 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: June 22, 2010 June 16, 2010
Special Meeting – Public Hearing
7:00 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. Clark, Mr. Wilson, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Bibb, Atty. OlsonMr. Bedini called the Special Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
141 West Shore Road, LLC./141 West Shore Road/#IW-10-22/Repair Septic System, Install Patio and Handicapped Ramp, Reconstruct House, Rebuild Shoreline Wall, Install Dock, Remove Invasives, Control Flooding
Mr. Bedini explained the discussion would be limited to whether the application should be referred to a limnologist for review. He noted the commissioners had not made this decision at the last meeting because they had wanted to inspect the site first.Mrs. Hill said she wanted the limnologist’s review because the application involved a long stretch of shoreline, several questions had been raised, and there are differences in the way the water would hit different types of walls. The other commissioners and alternates did not think the review was necessary. Mr. LaMuniere pointed out that while a limnologist might think it would be better if there was no wall, it had been constructed prior to the adoption of the Regulations, was grandfathered in, and could be rebuilt. Mr. Wadelton agreed, but said the question was, how would the wall be rebuilt. Mr. Bohan said as long as the wall was constructed so it was very similar to the existing wall, it would be OK. He said he had also consulted with Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, about putting in crushed stone behind the wall to improve drainage. Mr. Papsin said the reconstruction plan was good and if the wall was rebuilt in sections as proposed, it would be OK. Ms. Cheney agreed. Mr. Martino deferred to the other commissioners because he had been unable to attend the site inspection.
Mr. Bibb asked if existing walls were automatically grandfathered. Atty. Olson said that general questions would be taken at the following hearing.
MOTION:
Regarding 141 West Shore Road, LLC/141 West Shore Road/#IW-10-22, the Commission feels it does not need to hire a limnologist for an application review.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-1.
Mrs. Hill voted No for her reasons given above.
Auth/329 West Shore Road/#IW-09-V06/Violation of Permit #IW-10-10
Mr. Bedini noted the purpose of the Public Hearing was to give Mr. Auth and his representatives the opportunity to explain why his permit should not be revoked.Mr. Wilson, engineer, presented his plan, “Shoreline Improvements,” no revision date, but marked received 6/16/10. He said the one revision since the last meeting had been to correct the cross sections. Mr. Wilson said he had understood at the end of the discussion at the last meeting that Mr. Auth and the Commission had come to an agreement and that this agreement is what is represented on the plan. He said he did not agree with several statements in Mr. Ajello’s 6/9/10 enforcement report. He stated the following: 1) The 30 ft. width of the project had been included on the sketch map that was part of the original approval. 2) The 4.8 X 8 ft. stone anchor was “not at variance” with what was approved. 3) There had been no question about the crescent shape of the rocks proposed, which varied from 24 ft. to 26 ft. from the edge of the road, and he circulated photos of the shore at low water to show the location of the rocks. 4) He said at the previous meeting it was agreed there would be a row of stones at the edge of the crescent and he noted these stones were 1.5 feet tall. 5) He pointed out that on the sketch included with the application, which, he said, was formalized at the Commission’s request, the funnel shaped slope between the two docks extended from the back of the lowest course of rocks to the edge of the grass. He stressed that the back of the lowest course of rocks was from the rocks as they now sit and said the intent was to remove all rocks placed above the initial run. 6) What was constructed to date was not a further intrusion into the water, nor was it any higher than the rocks that were in the lake to start. 7) He also stated the slope behind the rocks shown on his revised plan would “eat up” the wave velocity and the slope would not be subject to the force of the ice as it breaks up.
Mr. Bedini stated the entire Commission believed what it had originally approved was a slope going from the grassed area to the base of the lake. He explained that when the EO found a wall being constructed in the water, he stopped the work, and the discussion on how to modify the plan had begun. He noted that the current proposal differs from what the Commission approved in the original permit and so it would like to revoke the permit and let Mr. Auth apply for what he actually wants to do. Mr. Wadelton agreed the work completed to date was not at all what the Commission envisioned. Mrs. Hill agreed with Mr. Wadelton. Mr. LaMuniere agreed the work had not been done according to the approved permit and said the misunderstanding was due in part because Mr. Auth’s plan had no elevations. He said in addition to the plan, the Commission’s approval was also based on the discussion at the meeting. Mr. Papsin and Mr. Bohan agreed with Mr. LaMuniere. Ms. Cheney agreed with Mr. Bedini and said she thought what had been constructed was clearly a build out and she was concerned that if all lakeside property owners did the same, there would be a cumulative impact on the lake. Mr. Martino agreed the work done was not according to the approved permit and noted that in the transcript Mr. Auth asked many times for clarification, which Mr. Martino thought indicated that he had not understood what had been approved.
Atty. Kelly said he had no letter of authorization, but did represent Mr. Auth. He agreed there was a misunderstanding and stressed that Mr. Auth did not think he had exceeded his approval, which was based on his 4/28/10 plan. He noted Mr. Auth clearly understood the Commission did not want the grassed area extended, or a level area constructed, or a build out into the lake. Atty. Kelly thought the Commission determined that the height of the perimeter stones at the edge of the work area exceeded what it had approved. However, he read from Mr. Auth’s plan, which he said the Commission had approved, “Existing stones to be supplemented with large and small natural and native stones…with slope that is natural and consistent with slope of land/grass….” Atty. Kelly thought the misunderstanding was caused in part because the Commission did not know what the natural slope of the grass was, but approved the plan anyway. He said if the Commission intended more of a “hinged” slope with two different slopes, that was not what it approved. He stated that Mr. Auth remembered Mr. Ajello saying the slope would be from the edge of the grass to the lake bottom, but he also remembered that heavy duty stones would be needed at the edge and then it would have to be filled in with rocks from the inside. He read several statements made by Mr. LaMuniere.
Atty. Kelly said he understood part of the misunderstanding was the result of the Commission’s attempts to help Mr. Auth. He asked if the Commission accepted this was an honest misunderstanding, since the project is now unfinished in mid season, would it be willing to delineate the work that was done beyond the permit and authorize Mr. Auth to correct and complete the remainder of the work according to the Commission’s expectations. He noted the Commission could revoke or not revoke the permit, but also had the option of suspending it to allow Mr. Wilson to draft a plan per the Commission’s expectations.
Mr. Bedini noted another aspect that exceeded the approved permit was the building out with rock on both sides of the dock anchor. He said that had never been discussed as part of the application.
Atty. Olson advised the Commission to review its Regulations and then determine 1) if the work exceeded what was granted and 2) if so, are the modifications so significant that a new application is required. She also noted the Commission was not required to make its decision at tonight’s meeting.
Mr. LaMuniere noted the Commission had approved a plan without elevations, but also had an understanding of how the work would be done based on the hours of discussion with Mr. Auth. Atty. Olson responded that should the matter go to court, the transcript would be reviewed to determine the Commission’s intent.
Mr. Wilson presented a photo taken from the lake of the first row of stones. Mr. Bedini noted none of the commissioners had envisioned the row of stones or the stones on the sides of the anchor block. Atty. Kelly said the stones on the sides of the anchor block were separate from the issue of revocation because they were not part of the original permit, but were added after the fact to address the problem of the two elevations that did not match in the later compromise plan. He also asked at what point stones become a stone wall.
Mr. Bibb stated the Commission had specifically approved a slope down to the bottom of the lake.
Mr. Martino said Mr. Ajello had made it clear the Commission wanted a slope and the Commission had not agreed to Mr. Auth’s proposal for a level area between the anchor blocks. He did not know how Mr. Auth got the idea it had. Atty. Kelly responded the concept originated in recognition that two separate elevations were part of the approval.
Atty. Kelly noted that Mr. LaMuniere did not support the stacking of the stones and said Mr. Auth would fix this. He said honest mistakes were made on both sides and so argued that instead of “punishing” Mr. Auth, the Commission should clarify what it approved and instruct him on how to properly complete the work.
Mr. Ajello made several points: 1) The word, punishment, should not be used in the discussion. 2) Mr. Auth can not claim that he has no use of his beach due to the unfinished work because he still has access to the concrete abutment from which he can attach his 360 sq. ft. dock. 3) The Commission had not been discussing the application since February as Mr. Auth claimed; a complete application had been accepted on April 14.
Mr. Bedini was concerned that the modification process had gotten “so mixed up” and preferred a new application and a “clean start.”
Mr. Wilson explained the proposed grades in the disputed area between the two docks.
Mr. LaMuniere stated the Commission doesn’t allow the extension of land out into the lake and that the shoreline had to be sloped to dissipate the wave action to prevent further erosion. He said instead Mr. Auth had extended the plain of grass and the Commission could not agree to this. Mrs. Hill agreed the slope from the grassed area to the lake bottom had been required.
Mr. Bibb noted he had submitted a petition requesting that a public hearing be held on this matter. Atty. Olson did not agree the petition was relevant, but noted a hearing was now being conducted and he would be permitted to speak. Mr. Bibb pointed out where Mr. Auth proposed to change the contours of the grade of the land. Mr. Wilson agreed the grade might change. Mr. Bibb stated that according to the Zoning Regulations there could be no regrading or recontouring of the Lake Waramaug shoreline and so said the work must be stopped. Atty. Kelly disagreed with Mr. Bibb’s interpretation and advised him to bring it up with the Zoning Commission as it was a zoning matter.
Mr. Bedini asked the commissioners if they had sufficient information to vote on whether or not to revoke the permit. Mr. Wadelton said he was ready to vote.
Mrs. Hill asked if the Commission had considered asking Mr. Auth to request a revision of the permit rather than revoking it and submitting a new application. Mr. Wilson said Mr. Auth had indicated his willingness to do this. Mr. Bedini explained the problem with this approach was that Mr. Auth’s understanding of what would be modified was different from the Commission’s understanding. Atty. Kelly said Mr. Auth was willing to make modifications based on the Commission’s understanding of the approved permit.
Atty. Kelly asked if the Commission would allow larger stones at the perimeter or must they start at the lake bottom and slope up. Mr. Martino said Mr. Ajello made it clear the rocks had to slope up from the lake bottom. Mr. LaMuniere stated the existing jagged rocks had not been sufficient to dissipate the wave action and prevent erosion so a slope of flat rocks from the edge of the grass was needed. He said this had also been discussed on site because the contractor was caught stacking rocks to make a wall.
Atty. Kelly advised the Commission to decide what it approved based on the record, not on its memory, and again said if it would clarify the work it wanted done, Mr. Auth would do it. He read some of the transcript to support his contention that Mr. Auth had been clear that he did not want a slope out to a point at the lake bottom measured 26 feet from the edge of the road and that the Commission had approved the plan, which stated the existing rocks were to be supplemented.
Mr. Kelly noted that if the Commission asked Mr. Auth to submit a new application, it did not know what he might propose. He said he could apply for a wall and bring in an expert who could say it would have no impact to the lake.
Mr. Wilson pointed out that some of the misunderstanding centered around the definition of “level.” A brief discussion followed.
Mr. Bedini drew a diagram to illustrate two alternatives for the placement of the stones and slopes in relation to the lake bottom. Mr. Ajello noted there was a third alternative, which was a slope from the grassed area to the lake bottom as had been discussed. Mr. Ajello said Mr. Auth tried to raise the outer height of the stones and that a tremendous increase in volume results when this is done. Mr. Bedini agreed that was a problem.
Atty. Kelly agreed that Mr. Auth had no right to stack the stones, but noted there was a difference between what Mr. Ajello wanted, what was submitted, and what the Commission approved. He again stated Mr. Auth had made it clear he did not want a slope to the bottom of the lake.
Atty. Kelly again asked the Commission to clarify what it had approved and to let the work go forward.
Mr. Wilson stated from an engineering point of view if there was nothing at the edge of the lake, it would invite scouring over time. He said all of the language supported a perimeter that defines the edge of the lake to resist the scouring action of the waves. He also said there had to be something substantial in place to handle the interaction of the waves with the lake bottom. Mr. Ajello responded that Mr. Auth had brought up the issue of scouring under the old concrete abutment, but he had observed that the original concrete pier had been poured on top of rocks and there had been no scouring underneath. He also suggested that rip rap could help prevent erosion, although he said there had been no erosion or apparent movement of stones in the last ten years.
Mr. Bedini again asked the commissioners if they had enough information to make a decision, did they want to revoke the permit and require a new application, or did they want to modify the permit. Mrs. Hill noted per the Regulations, a request by Mr. Auth would be required to modify the permit.
Atty. Kelly said his preference was to have the Commission confirm what it believes it approved, clarify it, and offer the applicant the opportunity to modify the work to meet the Commission’s approval. Mr. Wadelton noted the Commission had spent hours at the last meeting trying to accomplish that.
Mr. Bedini noted the commissioners should make their decision based on the record.
There was a brief discussion on what the record was and what the decision had been based on. Atty. Kelly thought the decision had been based on the plans, while Mr. Ajello and Atty. Olson said it was based on the plans, discussion, and anything else in the record that was relied on.
Given the level of misunderstanding, the fact that neither the adjoining town nor adjoining property owners had been notified of the application, and a public hearing had not been held, Mr. Bibb thought the permit should be revoked and a new application submitted.
Mrs. Cheney said she would like time to review the record. Mr. Papsin, Mr. Bohan, and Mr. Martino agreed. Mr. Wadelton said he would go along with the majority.
Atty. Kelly noted the transcripts in the file and asked if they included the entire discussion. Atty. Olson said the transcript was not required at this point, so if there was any part of the discussion not covered by the transcript, the minutes should be reviewed.
Mr. Ajello noted that if the Commission agreed to modify the permit, there would have to be an agreement about what the permit was for, but said this had already been debated for hours without resolution. Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Bedini agreed that if the Commission decided the permit could be modified, it would have to be absolutely clear what it had originally approved. Atty. Olson explained the public notice had been whether to revoke the permit, not whether to modify it, so the vote should be to revoke or not to revoke.
Mr. Bohan asked if there was a reason the elevation of the new dock anchor block was so high. Mr. Wilson said it was due to the high water mark.
Atty. Olson voiced her concern about including the new plan in the file because it was not part of the record upon which the Commission rendered its approval of the original permit. She said the record should consist of what was in the file up to and including the approval and not what came in after. She reminded the Commission it had to decide whether Mr. Auth had exceeded the permit granted.
Mr. LaMuniere said it was clear to all the commissioners they had not approved a wall or the stacking of stones.
Mr. Bedini noted it was the consensus that more time was needed to review the record and he thought everyone should have a copy of the transcript. Atty. Kelly said to be clear, the transcript is not the entire record and the Commission’s decision should be based on the whole record.
Atty. Kelly asked if the Commission voted against revocation, would there be anything to prevent the Commission from instructing Mr. Auth about how to correctly complete the work. Mr. Bedini asked who would determine what was the correct way to do the work. Atty. Olson said the Commission could direct Mr. Auth how to proceed in the form of an enforcement order. She said there was no time limit for deciding on revocation, so the Commission could issue an order directing Mr. Auth to do certain work within a specific time frame and if it wasn’t satisfactorily completed within that time, the Commission could then revoke the permit. Mr. Bedini said he liked this approach. Mr. Ajello noted that if an enforcement order was issued, a show cause hearing would have to be held.
Mr. Bedini asked the commissioners to review the transcript and file before the next meeting, which would be a Special Meeting held on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 at 7:00 p.m.
MOTION:
To adjourn the hearing to consider Auth/329 West Shore Road/whether or not to revoke Permit #IW-10-10.
By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the hearing at 9:03 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: June 16, 2010 June 9, 2010
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bohan
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Martino, Mr. Papsin
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Olson, Mrs. Keating, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Neff, Mr. Clark, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Rosiello, Mrs. Wang, Mr. HermanMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Papsin for Mr. Bohan.
Enforcement
Auth/329 West Shore Road/#IW-09-V06/Violation of Permit #IW-10-10
Mr. Wilson, engineer, submitted the plan, “Shoreline Improvements,” by Mr. Wilson, dated 9/2/2010. He stated that a surveyor had provided the contours and elevations and that he had prepared the plan with the final grades. He noted the base course of stone would be left in place and that Diagram BB was a cross section through the proposed new dock anchor. Photos of the work done to date were reviewed. Ms. Cheney asked if the bottom row of stones in the photo would remain in place and if they had been existing or had been moved there when work began. Mr. Wilson said that some had been there. Mr. Bedini said the stones in the row below the water had been placed there. Mr. Ajello presented a photo of the original shoreline for comparison. Ms. Cheney pointed out an area where she said it looked like there had been a lot of filling, but Mr. Wilson responded that had not been done. Mr. Bedini asked if the plan now proposed a row of stones that would be 1.5 feet above the lake bottom. Mr. Wilson said, yes, and from the back of those 1.5 ft. high stones, it would slope up. Ms. Cheney and Mr. Papsin noted the note on the map states that all rocks recently placed would be removed. Mr. Wilson said this note referred only to those rocks recently placed above the base course. Mrs. Hill noted the base course was to be 26 ft. from the edge of the road and asked if those rocks had been there before work began. Mr. Wilson said the rocks there were approximately what had been there before. Photos taken before and after the start of work were compared. Mr. Bedini said the width of the disturbed area had increased. Mr. Wilson responded it had always been 36 to 38 feet. Mr. Bedini countered that it had increased from 30 feet to 40 feet. There was a brief discussion regarding which were the “existing” stones. Mr. Wilson stated he had understood the existing stones were those in place when the matter had been last discussed with the Commission. After reviewing the photos, Ms. Cheney and Mr. Papsin thought the shoreline had been built out. Mr. LaMuniere noted there were now two levels proposed in the new plan. Mr. Wilson explained the two separate slopes. Mrs. Hill said she had not understood when this had been discussed at the last meeting that there would be a 1.5 ft. high rock wall at the water’s edge at the 26 ft. mark. Mr. Ajello noted in addition to the differences already noted, the Commission had originally approved a 4 ft. wide rock anchor, a 4.5 ft. wide anchor had been discussed at the last meeting, but a 5 ft. wide rock anchor was proposed in the new plan. He added the 5 ft. rock anchor would be bolstered on both sides, making it actually 8 ft. wide and it would fan out to a width of 10 ft. as it got farther from the lake. Mrs. Hill again stated the plan presented was not what she expected based on the discussion at the last meeting. Mr. Bedini asked the commissioners if they understood the proposal. No one had any questions.MOTION:
Because this has exceeded the scope of the work we originally permitted and based on the new engineered drawing of 6/4/10, the work done to date, and the photos taken of the site both before and after, I move that we invoke the provisions of Section 15.05 of the Washington Inland Wetlands Regulations that are dated February 3, 2009 and begin the process of revoking the permit because this is significantly different than what was originally approved and we have an obligation to issue proper notice of what is being done and to process it so to make an independent determination of what is proposed, so I think we could encourage them to submit another application and revoke this one and start revocation proceedings.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton.A brief discussion followed.
Mr. LaMuniere stated that based on the Commission’s previous discussion with the applicant, the proposed contour lines showing two separate plains and a different kind of slope, were not what the Commission had agreed to. He noted the slope down to the water was important because it would diffuse the wave action. He stated he agreed with the motion. Mrs. Hill said a 1.5 ft. high rock wall at the point 26 ft. from the edge of the road was not what had been agreed upon at the last meeting. She said the rocks at this point were supposed to as close as possible to the lake bed and there was not supposed to be a rock wall. Mr. LaMuniere said he had understood that the anchor block was the only part that was supposed to be vertical. Mr. Wadelton agreed.
Vote: 5-0.
Mr. Bedini noted a hearing would be held on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room at which time Mr. Auth could argue why Permit #IW-10-10 should not be revoked.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 5/26/10 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Add Mr. Herman to those present.
Page 3: 2 lines from bottom: should be: Mrs. J. Hill
Page 7: 8 lines from bottom: should be: Mrs. J. Hill
MOTION:
To accept the 5/25/10 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.The 6/8/10 Keating site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected.
1) The correct address is: 68 West Shore Road.
2) The correct spelling is: Mr. LaMuniere.MOTION:
To accept the 6/8/10 Keating site inspection minutes as corrected.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 6/8/10 Sachs site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.The 6/8/10 Wang site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. Throughout the report the number of trees cut should be preceeded by “+/-.”
MOTION:
To accept the 6/8/10 Wang site inspection minutes as amended.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Keating/68 West Shore Road/#IW-10-18/Repair Stairs, Install Anchor Block:
Photos taken during the site inspection were circulated. Mrs. Hill noted it was a “very tight spot.” Mrs. Keating submitted written responses to the questions raised in Mrs. J. Hill’s 5/26/10 review and a revised drawing dated 6/9/10. The size and location of the anchor block were discussed. Mr. LaMuniere asked if other ways to access the dock had been considered and for the final dimensions of the block. Mrs. Keating said there had originally been a 5 ft. X 8 ft. pile of rocks, but said the proposed block would be pushed up against the bank as far as possible so she would have just 3 feet to stand on. She said she could not afford to build a new dock structure and a concrete pour would be easier to accomplish than the installation of pilings. She said an expert on lakeshore concrete pours would do the work. Mrs. Hill asked how far into the lake the anchor block would protrude. Mr. Ajello asked her to point this out on the photo. She indicated it would not extend farther out into the lake than the existing pile of rocks.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-18 submitted by Mrs. Keating to repair the stairs and install an anchor block at 68 West Shore Road per the drawing submitted on 6/9/10 and the written responses dated 6/4/10.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
It was noted the permit is valid for two years.Sachs/35 Potash Hill Road/#IW-10-19/Repair Drainage:
Mr. Neff, engineer, again reviewed his plan, “Drainage Repair Plan,” dated 4/30/10. He said there had been no revisions since the last meeting. He summarized the proposal he had previously detailed. The damage to the north end of the pond was the result of water flowing over the hay field instead of into the clogged drainage pipe. A swale will be installed to direct the runoff to the proposed silt basin and a 12 in. pipe installed from the basin to the inlet of the pond. Eroded areas will be rip rapped. Mr. Neff pointed out the location of the proposed erosion controls. Mrs. Hill thought there were wetlands in the area where the pipe was proposed. Mr. Neff said this was possible. It was the consensus there were no problems with this application.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-19 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Sachs for drainage repairs at 35 Potash Hill Road in accordance with the plan, “Drainage Repair Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 4/30/10.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
This permit will be valid for two years.
New Applications
Whittenberg/24 Horse Heaven Road/#IW-10-20/Demolish, Reconstruct House:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his plan, “Proposed Site Plan,” revised to 6/2/10. He explained the house would be rebuilt in the same area outside the regulated area, but would have a different footprint. A footing drain was proposed 16 feet from wetlands on the adjoining property. He briefly reviewed the other work proposed outside the regulated area. Mr. Papsin asked what would be done with the excavated material. Mr. Neff stated it would be hauled off site. Mr. Bedini asked that this be added as a note on the plan. Mr. Ajello did not think the stockpile area shown on the plan was adequate and asked that additional stockpile areas be added. There was discussion about scheduling a site inspection, but this was not done.Frog Hill, LLC./91 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-10-21/Lot Line Revision, Construct Driveway:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented the plan, “Proposed Site Development Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 5/29/10. He noted there is an existing driveway, which was approved by the Commission in 1995. The first 650 feet, including the wetlands crossing, have already been installed. The existing 15 in. culvert pipe would not be disturbed. Mr. Neff explained the only work now proposed within the regulated area was 1) some regrading to bring the driveway grade below 15% and 2) installation of a conduit along the driveway edge. Mrs. Hill asked if the conduit would impact the wetlands. Mr. Neff said there would be no impact because the grading had already been done. Mr. Neff pointed out the proposed lot line revision and noted that if a future owner wanted to subdivide, there was an existing right of way to the potential lot. Mr. Bedini strongly suggested that a conduit to the potential lot be installed at the same time as the proposed conduit so the area would not have to be disturbed again in the future. A site inspection was not scheduled because the site was so overgrown.141 West Shore Road, LLC./141 West Shore Road/#IW-10-22/Repair Septic System, Install Patio and Handicapped Ramp, Reconstruct House, Rebuild Shoreline Wall, Install Dock, Remove Invasives, Control Flooding:
Mr. Clark, engineer, pointed out the wetlands and the intermittent stream on the map, “141 West Shore Road, LLC. Building Improvements,” by Oakwood Environmental Associates, dated 5/27/10. He briefly listed the following proposed activities: 1) installation of a 12 ft. by 16 ft. floating platform with a 24 ft. walkway, 2) rebuilding of the existing shoreline wall, 3) installation of berm to prevent stream from flooding over its banks, 4) installation of rip rap on the stream embankments, 5) installation of curtain drain and swale to protect septic system from seasonal high groundwater, the swale to discharge into the intermittent watercourse. Mr. Ajello asked if the pocket of wetlands in the back yard could have been caused by the continual overflowing of the stream. Mr. Clark said this was likely. Mr. Ajello said he was concerned that the proposed berm and rip rap could change the character of the existing wetlands. Mr. Clark responded this was possible, but was needed to protect the house and driveway from flooding. Dock: Mr. Clark said he had selected the dock area due to the location of a large existing rock that could be used as the dock anchor, the existing stairs, and the 25 ft. side yard setback requirement. Stonewall: The applicant proposed to reconstruct 120 feet of shoreline wall. Mr. Ajello noted the wall was collapsing in spots and asked if the Commission automatically approved the rebuilding of existing walls. Mr. Clark explained the proposed reconstruction. The work would be done in sections and more stone would have to be brought in because the base at the bottom of the wall would be made “thicker.” Soil would be placed behind the wall. Four or five trees along the top of the wall would be cut because their roots pushed out sections of the wall. Mr. Bedini noted the Commission was trying to keep the lake from being walled in. Mr. LaMuniere noted the Commission had, in the past, permitted the reconstruction of stone walls around the lake, but in this case it was proposed to widen the base and so it would be a different wall that was constructed. Mr. Ajello thought “nothing would be lost” by reinforcing the base of the wall. Mr. Bedini asked if only the sections in need of repair could be worked on. Mr. Ajello said that would be an option. Mr. Clark stated there would be no new excavation beyond what was absolutely necessary and the existing base stones would be left in place. Mr. Bedini then asked if all of the existing stones would be taken out and Mr. Clark said they would be and securely restacked. All of the stones on site would be reused and additional stones brought in. Mr. Bedini suggested that a limnologist review the plans. Mr. Ajello asked if the Commission would like a photo of a similar wall with similarly sized stones, no mortar, etc. so it would know in advance what to expect. Mr. Bedini stated that more detail was needed and that if the reconstruction was approved, there would be no changes to the approved plan. He noted the plans submitted were not sufficient. They did not include the amount of stones to be brought to the site, the dimensions of the proposed wall, where the machinery would operate, how far down the base would be built, etc. Mr. Talbot, architect, noted there was a 5 ft. drop from the road to the lake and said if the wall failed, both the road and the ecosystem would be affected. Mr. Wadelton thought there might be reasonable alternatives to the proposed reconstruction of the wall. Mr. Bedini asked if the current disrepair of the wall had caused any erosion. Mr. Clark said it had not. House, Patio, Handicapped Ramp: Mr. Clark said this work was proposed in upland soil, but within 100 feet of wetlands. Mr. Bedini asked for a more complete narrative and construction sequence. Stairs to Lake: Mr. Talbot said the owner would like to widen the stone stairs, which are pre existing, non conforming under the Zoning Regs. Mr. Bedini advised him to submit a proposal, which the Commission would consider based on the impact that might result. It was the consensus that a site inspection should be conducted before the Commission tried to answer specific questions from the applicant. A site inspection was scheduled for Monday, June 14, 2010 at 4:30 p.m.Sullivan-Ahearn/7 Warren Road/#IW-10-23/Dredge Pond, Repair Weir, Remove Invasives:
Mr. Rosiello, landscape designer, submitted photos of the property and said he would address the issues noted in Mrs. J. Hill’s 6/9/10 review. He asked the Commission if the map submitted would be sufficient, noting that there was no survey map on file in the Town. He stated the pond is approximately 83 ft. by 35 feet with a 26 ft. long weir and that 6 ft. of its headwall had buckled. In response to an issue raised in the 6/9 review, Mr. Rosiello said he had measured the distance to the Litchfield town line and it was 512 feet and therefore, notification to Litchfield by certified mail was not required. Mr. Rosiello also stated he would be responsible for inspecting the silt fence, and all invasives would be removed by hand. The pond would be dredged with a drag line or excavator after it had been dewatered and either hay bales or silt fence installed to trap the silt. Fifty yards of the dredged material would be used on site and the remainder would be hauled away. Mr. Rosiello thought there was 3 to 6 ft. of muck in the center of the pond. He said he would aim for 3:1 side slopes after the dredging. Mr. LaMuniere stated that a more detailed sketch was required. Mr. Rosiello said he would respond in writing to the 6/9/10 review by the next meeting. A site inspection was scheduled for Monday, June 14, 2010 at 5:15 p.m.
Enforcement
Wang/110 Blackville Road/#IW-09-V07/Unauthorized Clearing and Driveway:
Mrs. Wang and Mr. Herman, contractor, were present. Mr. Bedini asked them what they planned to do with the pile of debris. Mrs. Wang claimed this pile had been there for years and Mr. Herman said he had only added a few vines to it and had smashed it down with the excavator. Mr. Ajello noted machinery had crossed the brook. Mr. LaMuniere recommended the pile be cleaned up and new trees be planted to restore the canopy over the stream that had been lost when all the trees had been cut down. Mr. Papsin suggested that small native shrubs also be planted and said there would be less disturbance now, if the brush pile was left in place. Mr. Ajello said that normally a mix of trees and shrubs is recommended to restore the lost canopy, stabilize the disturbed streambanks, and recreate the lost environment. Mrs. Wang said the vegetation was already growing back, but she would plant some trees, if required to do so. Mr. Herman asked if he could sow wild flower seeds. Mr. Papsin responded their roots would not be adequate to hold the streambank. Mr. Ajello recommended Mrs. Wang hire a consultant to draw up a planting plan to restore the disturbed area. He said a consultant could identify the types of plants that had been removed and could recommend appropriate kinds for replanting. Mr. Herman said ferns and prickers were growing back. Mr. LaMuniere noted the Commission had required Mrs. Brose to hire a consultant to draft a restoration plan to restore the environment, protect the brook, and keep out invasives and thought the Commission should act in a consistent manner in this case. Mr. Bedini asked that the restoration plan include the type of plants to be planted, how many, what size, and where they would be planted. Mrs. Hill recommended Mrs. Wang consult with the Northwest Conservation District. The driveway was briefly discussed. Mr. Herman said it had always been there and he had just put down some stone for better traction. Mr. Ajello said that now that it was an actual driveway, a driveway permit from the Selectmen’s Office was required. Mr. Ajello will send an enforcement order with a description of everything Mrs. Wang is required to do. This will not be sent until the beginning of July so that a Show Cause hearing may be held at the July 14th meeting. Mrs. Wang was also told to clean up the oil spill. Mr. Ajello will issue a citation for a first offense in wetlands.Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello said the restoration work would be done on June 15 and that Mr. Allan of Land Tech would be there to observe.Brose/213 Roxbury Road:
Mrs. Brose is getting estimates for the restoration work and Mr. Ajello said she would post her bond next week. He said the structure would be removed first and the disturbed area stabilized prior to the replanting.Charvillat/96 Roxbury Road:
Mr. Ajello sent three enforcement letters over the winter. He inspected the property and the required planting has not yet been completed. If he does not hear from Mrs. Charvillat in a week, he will send her a fine.Delancy/7 New Milford Turnpike:
The wood chips have been removed, but the planting has not yet begun.Devereux Glenholme School/81 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-09-V05:
An application for the unauthorized excavation was expected a month ago. Mr. Ajello said he had already sent a notice of violation. He will contact the school.Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-07-V12:
Some mowing was done on the property.Town of Washington/16 Titus Road/#IW-09-V02:
Mr. Ajello said Phase I of the clean up would soon be completed and the disturbed areas seeded. The stockpiles have been processed and the debris removed from the site. Mr. Bedini noted the property is located in the floodplain and noted how the work proposed at the Primary School required review by the Army Corps of Engineers because it, too, is in the floodplain.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-V2:
Mr. Ajello will contact the Army Corps of Engineers for an update on the enforcement of this violation.Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane:
Mr. Slaymaker has only minor work to do before his bond may be returned.
Administrative Business
Proposed Wall Work at 141 Lake Shore Drive:
Mr. Bedini wondered, if a stone wall was taken down, would the Commission be required to approve a replacement wall just because there used to be a wall there. Mr. Ajello did not think the Commission could prevent repairs. Mr. Martino pointed out that the reconstruction proposed at 141 West Shore Road included an increase in the base of the wall. Mr. LaMuniere thought the Commission should be careful to make sure repairs were done, but not allow the construction of a new wall. Mr. Ajello thought dismantling of the wall would be necessary to do work at the bottom. Mr. Wadelton thought alternatives should be considered. Ms. Cheney noted that five trees would be cut and asked if removal of the canopy was an issue. Mr. Ajello said it was and suggested that maples be planted farther from the wall. Mr. Bedini again recommended that a limnologist be consulted. Mrs. J. Hill recommended that if the application is referred to a limnologist, he be asked to address alternatives and whether the work proposed should be done at all so that his report would include more information than just how to best accomplish the reconstruction proposed. Mr. LaMuniere agreed and compared this application to the work the Commission approved to repair the existing wall at Daly’s, also located on West Shore Road.Workshop on Commission Policies and Procedures:
It was the consensus a workshop would be helpful. It was scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on July 21. The location will be decided at a later date.Revision of the Regulations:
Mr. Ajello suggested Section 15.05 could be revised for clarity. There are also a few revisions that may be required due to recent changes in the state statutes.
MOTION:
To enter Executive Session to discuss pending litigation: Federer vs. Inland Wetlands Comm. at 10:29 p.m.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To end Executive Session at 10:33 p.m.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 10:33 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: June 4, 2010 May 26, 2010
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. Martino, Mr. Papsin
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Keating, Mr. Gambino, Mr. Gabrenas, Mr. Neff, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Bibb, Mr. Auth, Mr. Wilson, Ms. Wang, Ms. Wang’s contractor
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; B. Sachs/35 Potash Hill Road/#IW-10-19/Drainage Repairs.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 5/12/10 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 8: Under King: This sentence was changed to: Mr. Ajello… and the burn area would be located where the dredged material would eventually be deposited.”MOTION:
To accept the 5/12/10 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Lake Waramaug Country Club/314 West Shore Road/#IW-10-15/Deposit Beach Sand, Improve Drainage:
Mr. Gabrenas, superintendent, presented a construction sequence and diagram of the proposed work, entitled, “Beach Sand Proposal.” This illustrated what had been discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Gabrenas said approximately 4 inches of sand would be placed on the beach and it would be pushed up as close as possible to the existing grass. He said he hoped with the implementation of the drainage improvements that the sand would last 5 years. The construction of the berm and swale were briefly discussed. It was noted that all of the material requested at the last meeting had been submitted.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-15 submitted by the Lake Waramaug Country Club to deposit beach sand and improve drainage at 314 West Shore Road.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
The permit is valid for two years.Mnuchin/210 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-10-16/Aquatic Herbicide Application:
Mr. Gambino, agent, reported to the Commission on questions raised at the last meeting. Artistic Irrigation agreed to install a sleeve on the out flow pipe so the herbicide would be contained in the pond. Mr. Gambino said the orchard was fertilized every other year in the fall and the sloping lawn was done every year. He noted there was a vegetated buffer between the lawn and the pond. To reduce the nutrients reaching the pond, Mr. Ajello suggested that no fertilizer be applied within 50 feet of the pond and noted that because the land slopes, some of it would be carried down to the lower lawn area anyway. In response to questions from Ms. Cheney, Mr. Gambino explained that 25% of the pond is affected by watershield, Rodeo is applied directly to its leaves, and that what he can’t reach by boat, he applies from the shore. Water testing was briefly discussed. Mr. Gambino stated he did not think the removal of the mass of dead plants was viable and said they would sink to the pond bottom. It was noted that Mrs. Corrigan’s report and the 5/18/10 approval letter from Steep Rock, holder of the conservation easement, were in the file. Mr. Gambino said he also submitted an info sheet on copper sulphate as requested. He said he would not use Diquat, although he had listed it on the state application form. Mr. Wadelton objected to the inclusion of Diquat on the application, saying he wanted to see a definite need for each specific chemical listed. When it was suggested that Diquat be crossed off the local application, Mr. Gambino said the Commission did not have the authority to require this be done. Mr. Gambino reviewed the specific amounts of Rodeo and copper sulphate that would be used.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-16 submitted by Mr. Mnuchin to apply herbicide to his pond at 218 Nettleton Hollow Road subject to the following conditions:
1. only Rodeo and copper sulphate may be used,
2. a sleeve will be installed on the outlet pipe before application of the herbicide to ensure there will be no egress from the pond during the application.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
A two year permit was approved.Griffin/199 West Shore Road/#IW-10-17/Install Curtain Drain, Repair Retaining Wall:
Mr. Cheney, agent, presented the revised plan, “Drainage Remediation Plan,” by Ronald Wolff Assoc., which showed the limit of disturbance and noted the entire property was within the review area. Regarding whether alternate methods to correct the drainage problem were considered, Mr. Cheney stated the state DOT had ordered the owner to deal with the problem immediately and had recommended swales. However, after meeting with the Town and gathering field evidence, he had decided to limit the impact to the banks of the intermittent stream and so he thought this proposal was the best approach. He noted he would supervise the work on site. He put a revision date on the map just submitted. Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the site and the application was straightforward. Mr. Cheney said he understood that Mr. Ajello had to inspect the erosion controls before work on the project could begin.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-17 submitted by Mr. Griffin to install a curtain drain and repair the retaining wall at 199 West Shore Road per the plan, “Drainage Remediation Plan,” by Ronald Wolff Assoc., revised to 5/26/10.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Keating/56 Tinker Hill Road/#IW-10-18/Repair Dock and Stairs, Install Anchor Block:
Mrs. Keating presented photos of her existing floating dock, stairs, and shoreline stones and submitted the signed conservation easement form. She proposed to repair the stairway, not changing its dimensions, and to pour a 4’ X 6’ concrete pier from which to attach the floating dock. As an alternative, she said she had tried to build up the stones at the bottom of the stairs, but that had not worked. The map, “Map Prepared for William Robert Byrne and Jeanne F. Byrne, dated June 1982 (Map #685 in the Town Land Records) and hand drawn construction plans by Mr. Green were reviewed. Mrs. Keating noted that the slope of the lake bottom was exaggerated in the drawing. Mr. LaMuniere noted that pressure treated lumber could not be used for the entire stairway. Mrs. Hill asked Mrs. Keating to check with the Assessor’s Office for the correct street address of the lake front property. Mr. Ajello thought the proposed concrete pier looked like a build out into the lake and asked if it could be set back into the hillside. Mrs. Hill countered that moving the pier back into the hillside would cause more impact to the shoreline and so recommended a site inspection. The inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, June 8, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. Mrs. Keating said she would consult with her contractor to find out if it would be possible to move the pier back or if not, to make it smaller.Sachs/35 Potash Hill Road/#IW-10-19/Drainage Repairs:
Mr. Neff, engineer, represented the applicant. The “Drainage Repair Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 4/30/10 was reviewed. Mr. Neff explained the erosion at the inlet to the pond was caused by water flowing overland and bypassing the pipe to the pond. He proposed to construct a silt basin at the pipe inlet, channel the water through the pipe, and install rip rap on the steep bank at the pond inlet. He noted the work would take only one day and that the sequence of construction and project narrative were included on the plan. A site inspection was scheduled for June 8, 2010 at 5:00 p.m.
Enforcement
Andersson/Gunn Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello said that Land Tech would oversee the restoration work to be done this summer.Brose/213 Roxbury Road:
Mrs. Brose will soon finalize her plans and give the Commission a date for the commencement of the ordered restoration work.Chatfield/Tinker Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello said Mr. Chatfield had been advised there could be no soil disturbance until plans for this lot were completed.Community table/223 Litchfield Turnpike:
Mr. Ajello said the site was in good shape, but the grass was not up yet.Delancy/7 New Milford Turnpike:
Ms. Cheney and Mr. Bohan reported that all of the wood chips had been taken out.Devereux Glenholme School/81 Sabbaday Lane:
The unauthorized excavation had been discussed at the last meeting. An application had been expected for this meeting, but was not submitted.Town of Washington/16 Titus Road:
The rough grading within 125 feet of the river has been finished and a lot of the material was moved off site.Weaver/176 West Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello met with Mr. Weaver on site a month ago, but he has not contacted the Office since.Auth/329 West Shore Road/#IW-09-V06/Violation of Permit #IW-10-10:
Mr. Auth noted that Mr. Ajello had ordered him to stop the work in progress along his shoreline, but he insisted it was being done according to his approved permit. A very lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. Auth read from his application form and from sections of the 4/14/10 and 4/28/10 meeting transcripts to support his claim that he had never agreed to construct a ramp down to the water and that what he was building; a level grassed area out to the edge of a vertical wall along the shore, was what the Commission had approved. He also stated that Dr. Kortmann’s statements made at the February 2009 Special Meeting were supportive of this type of shoreline structure, that it was what he wanted because it was “uniform,” safe, and looked good, and he questioned why the wall he was building was significant and what the negative impact to the lake would be. He also referred to his hand drawn sketch, which was in the file and which showed a vertical stone wall. The Commission and Mr. Ajello also referred to the transcripts to support their belief that a gradual slope from the edge of the grass to the bottom of the lake was what had been approved. They noted that when shown a photo of a similar ramp, Mr. Auth had not stated he did not want a ramp, but had said he wanted to use larger stones. They noted the idea was not to extend the property into the lake, but to dissipate wave action and stop erosion. Several of the commissioners thought Mr. Auth was building out into the lake, an activity, they said, which they would not have approved. Mr. Bedini noted that Dr. Kortmann had presented general information during his 2009 presentation and that since the different areas of the lake vary, the points he made at that time were not specific to this matter. It was noted that Mr. Auth had omitted the vertical wall when he submitted his revised drawing and so the commissioners had thought it was no longer included in the plans. Mr. Wadelton pointed out that the commissioners unanimously agreed that the work Mr. Auth had done on site was in violation of his approved permit because what had been approved was the installation of stones that would gradually slope down to a point at the bottom of the lake measured 26 feet from the edge of the road and what was not approved was building out the property so that it was level out to a point measured 26 ft. from the pavement and then building a vertical stone wall at the grassed edge. Mr. Wilson, engineer, spoke on behalf of Mr. Auth. He discussed conditions at the high and low water levels, and said that Mr. Auth had not extended the shoreline at low water. Mr. Auth asked again what the harm of a vertical wall was. Mr. Martino responded that if one was approved, many lake front owners would want similar walls and Mrs. J. Hill advised him that the Commission was in court over the extension of a vertical shoreline wall on the Brown property. Mr. Wilson stated that the wall was needed to protect the shoreline from scouring during high wave action, but Mr. Ajello countered that an existing stone ramp in Warren effectively absorbs the impact of the waves. Mr. Ajello said the base rock that had been moved too far out into the lake should be removed, but Mr. Wilson thought it would not be wise to disturb the lake bottom. Mr. Wilson briefly described a compromise plan and left the table with Mr. Auth to sketch it so it could be discussed later in the meeting.Wang/110 Blackville Road/#IW-09-V07/Unauthorized Clearing and Driveway:
Mrs. Wang said that she had decided to clear the vegetation to “clean up” the area near the brook and had also removed a fallen tree from the brook. She said she had no idea a permit was required. Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the new driveway, cleared area, and pile of debris. Mr. Bedini explained it is the responsibility of the property owner to know the regulations and that the area within 100 feet of a wetlands or watercourse is regulated. The contractor said the roots had not been disturbed and the plants would grow back. Mr. Ajello spoke of the importance of the canopy to provide shade in the wetlands and advised the owner that invasive species take over when an area is cleared like this one was. Mr. Ajello noted the pile of debris was 10 to 20 feet from the stream. Mr. Bedini pointed out tire tracks; evidence that machines had operated in the stream, and said this was a blatant violation. Mr. Ajello said he had asked that the disturbed areas be mulched because storms were forecast, and the contractor said this had been done. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, June 8, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. and Mrs. Wang was advised this matter would be discussed again at the next meeting.Auth/329 West Shore Road/#IW-09-V06/Violation of Permit #IW-10-10:
Mr. Auth and Mr. Wilson returned to discuss the sketch dated 5/26/10 drawn by Mr. Wilson. He proposed to keep the existing bottom line of boulders in the lake and begin a slope in the shape of a funnel from the top of the boulders back to the elevation of the existing grass. Mr. Ajello pointed out that the line of boulders was three stones high and that they had been brought further out into the lake. Mr. Wilson said the stones would be sloped, not stacked. Mr. Ajello said there would still be a one foot wall at the water level and he did not think this was consistent with the Commission’s policy around the lake. Mr. Bibb thought this was filling in the lake, saying that the new wall was beyond the old waterline. Mr. LaMuniere asked why there could not be a gentle slope up on both sides of the property. Mr. Wilson said this was due to the location of the tree and large rock. Mr. Ajello stated the Commission had approved sloped stones from the edge of the existing grass to the lake bottom, whereas this sketch showed the slope to one foot above water level, and a 5 ft. anchor had been approved, but in the sketch it had been enlarged to 7 to 8 feet with built up sides. Mr. Wilson noted his sketch was not to scale and said he would work to move the slope back. Mr. Ajello noted that at low water the stones would act as a wall and would be a build out. Several commissioners expressed the view that while they were not happy the sketch would allow some build out into the lake, they did think it was a compromise plan. Mr. Bibb asked that a limnologist review the plan. Mr. Bedini said if this had been a new application, a review by a limnologist and engineered plans would have been required, but he thought this was a reasonable compromise. However, he advised Mr. Auth that a formal engineered drawing with accurate measurements was required. He advised Mr. Auth that work could not continue until the new plans were submitted. Mr. Martino asked that a side view and contours be included in the revised plan. Mr. Bibb stated that he was aggrieved because the bordering town of Kent had not been notified of the application. Mr. Ajello noted the application form states the applicant must notify the adjoining town if it is within 500 feet of the subject property, but that neither Kent nor Warren had been notified. Mrs. J. Hill said according to research by Mr. Ajello, the lack of notification did not legally void the Commission’s decision. Mr. Bibb said he would contact his attorney regarding this issue and Mrs. J. Hill said she would refer any correspondence about it to the Commission’s attorney.
Administrative Business
Referring to the Auth violation, several points were made. Mr. Ajello thought a Cease and Desist Order could have been issued with directions to restore the shoreline to its original condition and it would have been upheld in court. Mrs. J. Hill recommended that in the future when considering applications for shoreline work, the Commission reference Dr. Kortmann’s studies for the record. Mr. Martino suggested the Commission draw up a checklist of requirements that would include limnologist review, engineered drawings, elevations that determine slope, set pin, etc. for applications for shoreline work. Mr. LaMuniere stressed the Commission must be very specific in its approval motions. Mrs. J. Hill also thought the Commission should stop designing for applicants and should deny those that don’t meet the Regulations instead of redesigning plans.Application of Herbicides:
Mr. Ajello said he had forwarded to the commissioners an article on herbicides from Mr. McGuinness, the letters that Mrs. Hill had sent to the DEP on the matter, and a 21 page document from the state on the use of pesticides in waterbodies. He noted this matter is on the agenda for the June 3 NWCtCOG meeting.Mr. Bedini recalled that he had previously talked to Dr. Kortmann about drafting an ordinance to govern the shoreline. He thought the Commission needed some guidelines as it continues to confront the same issues and problems. Mr. LaMuniere said the Commission must decide how it will deal with the lake and the shoreline. Ms. Cheney noted that if lakefront owners all built out their properties into the lake, these small incremental changes would adversely impact the lake and environment.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Bohan.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Posted: May 21, 2010 May 12, 2010
7:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bohan
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Papsin, Mr. Neff, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Ross, Mr. Gambino, Mrs. Corrigan, Mr. GabrenasMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton and Alternate Cheney for Mr. Bohan.
MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the agenda:
V. New Applications:
A. Lake Waramaug Country Club/314 West Shore Road/ #IW-10-15/Deposit Beach Sand, Improve Drainage,
B. Mnuchin/218 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-10-16/Application of Aquatic Herbicide,
C. Griffin/199 West Shore Road/ #IW-10-17/Install Curtain Drain, Repair Retaining Wall;VI. Other Business:
A. Klein/ 236 Tinker Hill Road/Request to Amend Permit #IW-10-09/Dock,
B. Tangeman/84 Carmel Hill Road/File Release on Land Records,
C. Madoff/ 285 West Shore Road/Cut Trees,
D. Afco Enterprises/1 Green Hill Road/Excavation;VII. Enforcement:
Q. Devereux Glenholme School/81 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-09-V05/Unauthorized Excavation.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 4/28/10 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 2: 7th line from bottom: Change to: “…smaller 6’ X 10’ anchor block would be used in place of the existing 8’ X 16’ anchor block.”
Page 3: 3rd line: Insert: “be” before “bolted.”
5th line from bottom of Angell: Change: “base” to “anchor block.”
Page 5: 5th line: Change: “were” to “are” and delete the first “the.”
Page 6: Under Brose: Change: “Mrs.” to “Ms.”MOTION:
To accept the 4/28/10 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0-1.
Mr. LaMuniere recused himself because he had not attended the meeting.
Pending Applications
Angell/47 West Shore Road/#IW-10-12/Install Buffer Vegetation, Construct Stairs, Relocate Dock, Install Bulkhead:
Mr. Ross, contractor, represented the applicant. Mrs. Hill reviewed the 4/28/10 minutes and read the list of information the Commission had requested at the last meeting. Mr. Ajello said he had met with Mr. Angell and had taken care of all of the items in the list except for approval by the Lake Waramaug Assoc. (LWA) Mr. Bedini read from the 5/11/10 letter from Mr. Frank of the LWA, in which he stated that the LWA joined with the Lake Waramaug Task Force in asking that the anchor for the dock be as unobtrusive as possible. Mr. Ross explained that 1) the size of the anchor had been downsized since first discussed with the Commission and 2) a concrete anchor was needed because the former dock had been anchored with pipe, but it had shifted a lot. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the DOT had submitted written approval for the plantings. Mr. Ajello said he had spoken with a DOT representative who told him he had OK’d the plan. Mr. Ross noted the DOT would not issue an approval until the contractor had posted both a bond and proof of insurance, which he had not yet done. Mr. LaMuniere stressed that written evidence was required for the file. Mrs. Hill asked that Mr. Ajello place a signed written statement in the file regarding his conversation with the DOT. Mr. LaMuniere noted the anchor block would be set in a section of rip rap so it would not cause additional impact to the shoreline, but thought 6’ X 4’ X 4’ would be sufficient mass to anchor the dock, 8’ X 4’ was not needed, and the smaller size would address the LWA’s concerns. Mr. Ajello said an 8’ wide anchor was needed for a 6’ wide dock. Regarding the proposed stairs on the other side of the road, Mr. LaMuniere asked for specific construction details such as how the stone abutments that would support the large stone at the bottom would be constructed, how high the abutment would be, whether crushed stone would be sufficient to support the weight of the stairs and he also asked whether the ground in this area was spongy. Mr. Ross said he did not know if the soil was spongy, but said there was no natural soil in that area and that the swale was man made. He also explained there would be field stone covering the sides of each step in addition to the crushed stone to support the stairs, that the crushed stone would allow the water to drain underneath, and that the stone at the bottom would be on hard ground so it “won’t go anyplace.” Mr. Ajello stated that he is never in favor of pouring a concrete anchor at the shoreline if it is not necessary, noted the existing dock was in a dangerous location, and noted that at the last meeting he had questioned what would be done with the existing concrete pad and the Commission had said it was OK to keep it. Mr. Bedini read notes on the site plan re: planting, installing boulders, and pitching the lawn. Mr. Ross noted these were from the original plan by Mr. Sabin, this work had been completed as part of a previous application, and he crossed the notes off the plan. Mrs. Hill and Mr. LaMuniere stated they agreed with the LWA and Lake Waramaug Task Force that the anchor block should be as small as possible and that it did not need to be 8’ wide. It was noted that the dock was heavy and that the concrete would also serve as the base for stairs. Mr. Wadelton said the larger size was necessary so the block would not be damaged by ice.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-12 submitted by Mr. Angell to install buffer vegetation, construct stairs, relocate the dock, and install a bulkhead at 47 West Shore Road.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Ms. Cheney, passed 5-0It was noted the permit was valid for two years.
New Applications
Lake Waramaug Country Club/314 West Shore Road/#IW-10-15/Deposit Beach Sand, Improve Drainage:
Mr. Gabrenas, Superintendent, represented the applicant. The application review form by Mrs. J. Hill, dated 5/12/10 was reviewed. Mr. Wadelton asked if the beach sand would be spread or new sand deposited. Mr. Gabrenas said 20 tons of new sand would be deposited on the beach, not in the lake. In response to the question of which was proposed, a berm or a swale, Mr. Ajello stated both were proposed and he circulated a photo of the state park beach to illustrate the proposal. He said the existing sod would be removed, dirt dug out to make the swale and mounded up to create the berm, and then the sod would be replaced over both. He thought this would divert the sheet flow runoff from the beach area and prevent the sand from washing into the lake. He agreed the measurements for the beach area should be placed on the map and said they were approximately 80’ X 36’. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Gabrenas to submit a written narrative by the next meeting to respond to all the questions raised on the review form. Mr. Gabrenas stated that he and Mr. Ajello had determined that the Club beach property was not within 500 ft. of the Town line. He also stated that no additional material would be brought on site to construct the berm, there would be no erosion issues, the work would be done during good weather, and no alternatives to divert the runoff had been considered. Mrs. Hill and Mr. Papsin asked if there could be erosion problems at both ends of the swale/berm. Mr. Gabrenas said, no, because there were large rocks in these areas so the sheet flow would not cause erosion. Mr. LaMuniere thought the loss of sand was due to the undertow as well as sheetflow. Mr. Gabrenas agreed, but said he hoped the proposed work would help to keep the required beach maintenance to a minimum.Mnuchin/218 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-10-16/Application of Aquatic Herbicide:
Mr. Gambino, agent, noted the Commission had denied the same application in 2008. After a brief discussion, Mr. Gambino stated he would submit a letter from Steep Rock, holder of the conservation easement on the property, regarding whether or not the proposed work could be done under the terms of the easement. Mr. LaMuniere stated that the two problems with the previous application had been 1) egress from the pond and 2) the existence of two species of special concern, the Jefferson salamander and the wood turtle. Mr. Gambino stated the current application differed from the first one because this time he had an expert on the species of concern to address any questions raised by the Commission. Mrs. Corrigan, biologist, said that although she had documented the wood turtle in the Nettleton Hollow corridor, it was not a pond turtle, it tended not to go into the uplands, and it preferred the features located in the valley. Regarding the Jefferson salamander, she stated that it existed in the vernal pool network in the upland area, but she did not think it likely that they would be found in the pond because the pond was located in a fairly managed landscaped area and it had bass, which would eat the salamanders. Mr. Ajello asked Mr. Gambino if he had worked with the property caretaker to limit the nutrients from over fertilization that flow into the pond. Mr. Gambino responded that the orchard is not fertilized and the pond is surrounded by a buffer area, which does not look like it is fertilized. Mr. Gambino explained the problem weed, watershield, is rooted in the mud, the roots must be killed to get rid of it, and Rodeo, when applied to the leaves, will kill the roots. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the flow of Rodeo downstream could be controlled. Mr. Gambino said it would be applied when the water level was low and that the standpipe could be covered with both a hay bale and a board. Mr. LaMuniere suggested that in addition, a sleeve could be installed on the standpipe to raise the height of the outlet. Mr. LaMuniere asked, what the best time of year was to apply Rodeo. Mr. Gambino said for watershield it should be applied early in the season, but that was when the overflow of the pond could be a problem as it drains to Sprain Brook. He said Rodeo was required because digging and raking out the watershield was not effective. Mr. Bedini also asked for a sleeve to raise the outlet of the pipe. Mr. LaMuniere said this would address his concern because there would be no outflow from the pond until the chemical ceased to be active. Mr. Gambino stated he would not apply Rodeo if the weed infestation did not get too bad or if Steep Rock did not grant permission, but said he wanted to get the permit now, so that if an application was necessary he could do it as soon as it was needed. Mr. Ajello asked if after the Rodeo was applied, the dead plants could be raked out of the pond so their nutrients would not settle at the bottom. Mr. Gambino thought this would be a difficult job, but that it was an interesting idea. Mrs. Hill noted that the application form lists three different chemicals and four applications, while the discussion tonight was about one chemical, Rodeo, and its application. Mr. Gambino said he had filled out the application before knowing what weeds would be found in the pond and that was the reason several chemicals were listed. He said he would use only what was necessary at the time for whatever weed was present. Several commissioners objected to this “menu” approach, especially since two of the chemicals listed were Diquat and copper sulphate, which remains active for a long time. Mr. Gambino disagreed. Mr. Gambino stated that since there were no species of special concern downstream, the Commission had no jurisdiction to deny the application. The commissioners disagreed. Mr. Wadelton asked to see the product labels for all of the chemicals listed on the application. Mrs. Hill noted that the DEP had approved the use of Diquat, although it had not known whether it would be needed. Mr. Gambino said he would not need the Diquat because there were no weeds in the pond against which Diquat would be effective. Mrs. Hill requested a written report from Mrs. Corrigan regarding the location of the species of special concern.Griffin/199 West Shore Road/#IW-10-17/Install Curtain Drain, Repair Retaining Wall:
Mr. Cheney, contractor, presented the plan, “Drainage Remediation Plan,” by Ronald Wolff Assoc., revised to 5/11/10. It was noted the property is located above Lake Waramaug. Mr. Cheney said the amount of water flowing down the hill has increased over the years and the existing retaining wall does not sufficiently pick it up. This results in an ice sheet on the state road where the water collects. The plan calls for the retaining wall to be rebuilt and two pipes to be installed from the new wall to the pipe, which flows into the intermittent stream. Mr. Martino asked if the ties used for the wall would be pressure treated. Mr. Cheney did not know. Contours were noted. Mr. Cheney described the proposed erosion control measures and noted the hay filter detail was included in the plan. He noted 27 c. yards of material would be excavated and an extra berm created on the lower side of the drain to slow the runoff from larger storm events that could not be handled by the curtain drain alone. Mr. Cheney stated that no alternatives had been considered because the property owners were under orders from the Ct. DOT to correct the hazardous conditions resulting from the existing drainage flows. Mr. Bedini asked that the limit of disturbance line and edge of the upland review area be indicated on the plan. Mr. Cheney noted that the entire .91 acre lot was in the review area. Mr. Ajello said he would inspect the property prior to the next meeting.
Other Business
Klein/236 Tinker Hill Road/Request to Revise Permit #IW-10-09/ Dock:
Mr. Neff, engineer, explained the dimensions of the proposed dock had changed. The walkway would be increased to 5 ft. wide and the size of the float decreased accordingly so the total area would not exceed the maximum set by the Zoning Regulations. He noted this was not a major change and it was due to safety concerns. The plan, “Proposed Dock Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/3/10, was reviewed. It was noted the $25 fee had been received.MOTION:
To approve the request by Mrs. Klein to amend Permit #IW-10-09 to change the dimensions of the dock approved at 236 Tinker Hill Road.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Tangeman/84 Carmel Hill Road: Mr. Ajello noted the enforcement order for the Feolas, previous property owners, had been filed on the Town Land Records. He recently inspected the site and found the restoration work had been satisfactorily completed except for spreading leaf matter to naturalize the area. The area now holds water as it did prior to the unauthorized disturbance and the required vegetation was planted.
MOTION:
To file a release of the enforcement order placed on the Town Land Records for Tangeman (formerly Feola)/84 Carmel Hill Road.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Ms. Cheney, passed 5-0.Madoff/285 West Shore Road (Larsen Farm):
Mr. Wilson, engineer, called Mr. Ajello regarding cutting down four dead trees on the Lake Waramaug shoreline. Mr. Ajello presented some photos and said only one of the trees provided a canopy over the water. He said it would not be necessary to replace the trees because there are many saplings growing in this area and that the stumps would not be removed so there would be no soil disturbance. The commissioners had no objections.Afco Enterprises/1 Green Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello advised the Commission that a new company was taking over the soil testing that has been going on for several years. New areas of contamination were found and so more material will have to be excavated.
Enforcement
Devereux Glenholme School/81 Sabbaday Lane/#IW-09-V5/Unauthorized Excavation:
Mr. Ajello reported that exploratory excavation had been done to find out why the existing pipe was not diverting water away from the well. Photos of the disturbance were circulated. An application is expected for the next meeting.
Pending Application
Town of Washington/11 School Street/#IW-10-14/Install Stormwater Management System:
Mr. Bedini recused himself and Alternate Martino was seated. The map, “Proposed Drainage Improvement Sketch,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 10/16/2008 was reviewed. Mr. LaMuniere noted the new drainage system was needed because the existing system is failing. Mr. Ajello reviewed the information presented at the last meeting regarding the proposed installation of culverts and pipes and the cleaning out of the swale. The 4/28/10 minutes were also reviewed. Mrs. Hill noted that all of the proposed work was in the floodplain. Mr. Ajello read the project narrative. It was noted that the existing pipes would be left in place and the new system installed along side them. Mr. Ajello asked if there would be sink holes along the route of the existing pipe. This was briefly discussed. Mr. Wadelton concluded that the plans had been designed by an engineer and that this was a safety issue not under the jurisdiction of the Inland Wetlands Commission. Mr. LaMuniere stated that rip rapped pads were proposed at the outlets so there would be no impact to the Shepaug River.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-14 submitted by the Town of Washington to install a stormwater management system at 11 School Street per the plans, “Proposed Drainage Improvement Sketch,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 10/16/2008.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Alternate Martino was seated for Mr. Bedini, who had recused himself.It was noted the permit was valid for two years. Mr. Bedini was reseated.
Enforcement
Charvillat/96 Roxbury Road:
Mrs. Charvillat has not responded to letters from Mr. Ajello. The commissioners agreed a citation should be sent.Chatfield/Tinker Hill Road:
This is a very steep and narrow lot. The owner was advised to apply for permits before disturbing any soil.King/153 Lower Church Hill Road:
Mr. Ajello reported the removal of the invasives was going well and the burn area would be where the dredged material had been stockpiled.Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-07-V12:
There was a brief discussion of the history of the violation, which had been for unauthorized excavation in the wetlands. It was noted the disturbed wetlands are gradually “absorbing” the damage, but there is also the potential of pollution from all of the equipment left on site.Tomczyk/39 River Road:
Mr. Tomszyk paid his citation.Town of Washington/16 Titus Road/#IW-09-V03:
Mr. Ajello reported that the stockpiles were being processed and some of the bulky debris had been taken off site. The area within 125 feet of the river has been rough graded.Town of Washington/East Shore Road/Town Beach:
The silt fencing will not be taken down until grass is established in the disturbed areas.Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike:
Mr. Ajello said he had not inspected this site recently.Town of Washington/corner of Christian Street and Slaughterhouse Road:
Mr. Ajello circulated a photo of the plants a resident put in where the wood chips had been dumped. This item will be taken off the agenda.
Communications
Copies of The Habitat were circulated.
Administrative Business
The Inland Wetlands commissioners training, Session II at Sessions Woods was discussed. Several members had already registered and Mr. Papsin and Mr. Martino said they would if there were still spaces available. Mrs. J. Hill will check.Mr. Wadelton noted a recent newspaper article regarding pesticide applications. He noted local municipalities have authority in this matter and suggested a joint meeting with other towns and/or getting some legal advice on this issue would be helpful. Mr. LaMuniere agreed the Commission should know what authority it has and doesn’t have with these applications. The commissioners thought it would be a good idea if Mr. Wadelton contacted Mr. McGuinness at the NWCtCOG and other inland wetlands commissions in the area.
Mr. Wadelton explained the difference between abstaining from a vote and recusing oneself from the consideration of the matter at hand. He reminded the commissioners that a recusal allows an alternate to be seated in your place so there will be a full complement voting.
MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. HillMr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Posted: May 11, 2010 April 28, 2010
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: Ms. Cheney
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Martino
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Angell, Mr. Auth, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Papsin, Ms. Delancy, Mr. Delancy, Mr. DurkinMr. 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 4/14/10 Show Cause Hearing minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Mrs. Friedman should be listed under Also Present.
Page 2: 6th line from bottom: “regarding” should be “regrading.”MOTION:
To accept the 4/14/10 Show Cause Hearing minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0The 4/14/10 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as amended.
Page 5: 2nd paragraph after the motion, third line: Insert “bond” after “$20,000.”
Page 10: 2nd line: Insert: “per the requirements of the Zoning Regulations” after “wetlands.”MOTION:
To accept the 4/14/10 Regular Meeting minutes as amended.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the Gorman site inspection minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
PENDING APPLICATIONS
Angell/47 West Shore Road/#IW-10-12/Install Buffer Vegetation, Construct Stairs, Move Dock, Put in New Bulkhead:
Mr. Angell presented photos of the shoreline and the bank where the stairs were proposed. Mr. Bedini noted that the Lake Waramaug Assoc., holder of the conservation easement on the property, had written that it still had not received a request from Mr. Angell for breaks in the buffer vegetation. Mr. Angell stated he had submitted plans for moving the dock to the LWA, but would provide it with additional information regarding the buffer plantings. The proposed stairs from the dwelling to the bottom of the bank were discussed. Mr. Angell said the stairs would be 3 to 4 ft. wide with 6 inch risers. An 8 to 10 ft. wide stone would be placed over the ditch to cross the intermittent stream without any impact. Mrs. Hill said adequate details had not been submitted and she read the list of questions in the 4/14/10 minutes that had been raised at the last meeting. She also asked that copies of the photos presented be submitted for the file. Mr. Angell stated there would be a stone foundation on the sides of the stream area and the large stone would be set on top for the crossing. To construct the stairs, the shrubs would be cleared from the bank and the stairs would be built up from the bottom on crushed stone. He said there would not be a lot of digging required and he would install silt fence. Mr. Ajello said erosion controls should be installed along both sides of the stairway and at the base to prevent silt from reaching the stream. He also noted any excess soil would be taken to the other side of the bridge because there would be no room for it on the steep side. Mr. Angell stated he would try to use stone from the site in the construction, but he might have to bring in some stone from off site. Regarding the buffer plantings, Mr. Angell said he had verbal approval from the DOT and that he would forward approval from the LWA as soon as it was received. Mrs. Hill noted that at the last meeting Mr. Angell had reported that the DOT had reserved judgment on the placement of the trees near the curve. She said she would not want the Commission to approve the temporary location and then find the trees had to be replanted elsewhere. Mr. Angell pointed out the probable location of trees and shrubs and said he did not plan to plant where the sight lines were bad. Plans for the installation/ relocation of the dock, dated April 2010, were reviewed. Mr. Angell said he would try to keep the existing tree and that a smaller 6’ X 10’ dock would replace the existing 8’ X 16’ dock. He said steps would be needed to go up the last two feet to the dock, but noted there was already stone in this area, so the impervious surface would not be increased. Mr. Ajello read portions of the 4/28/10 letter from Mr. McGowan of the Lake Waramaug Task Force concerning Zoning and Inland Wetlands requirements. He noted that per the Zoning Regulations, wooden stairs would be required. Other Zoning requirements were also reviewed. Mr. Angell proposed to relocate the existing dock, it would be removable, and it would bolted to the bulkhead with the same type of hardware as the existing dock. He noted the existing dock was not anchored at the outer end, but said the new dock should be. He said he would check with a structural engineer to make sure the proposed anchoring was sufficient. Mr. Ajello noted there was an existing impervious surface between the road and the water’s edge and he asked if it was useable. Mr. Angell said he would store kayaks and canoes there and that he proposed to put in 75 additional plants to compensate for it. Mr. Angell agreed to amend his proposal in writing to include the following: 1) add the submission of the Start Card to his construction sequence, 2) install silt fence and use a tarp or plywood at the base of the proposed stairs to contain the sediment, 3) decrease the base of the dock to 8’ X 4’, 4) build wooden stairs with pressure treated posts, 5) obtain the LWA approval for the break in the plantings in the conservation easement area, and 6) submit copies of the photos for the file.Auth/329 West Shore Road/#IW-10-10/Shoreline Work, Install Dock:
Mr. Auth said that at the last meeting he had heard the Commission’s concerns about his proposed deposition of soil along the shoreline and had reconsidered. He now proposed to install stones as had been discussed at the last meeting. The revised sketch map was reviewed. He circulated photos of a similar stone shoreline in Warren, but said he would use larger stones. Mr. Ajello explained the dock would attach to the shoreline at a point 26 feet from the road pavement and he presented photos with measurements and reference points so it would be clear how far out from the shoreline the stonework would be permitted. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Auth for a revised written description of the work to be done, which would incorporate the changes to his plans such as no deposition of soil, use of larger rocks, and new dimensions. Mr. Auth also proposed to erect a split rail fence and put in plantings along the road to reduce erosion from the road runoff. Mr. Auth said he would return later in the meeting with his written revisions.Gorman/233 Roxbury Road/#IW-10-13/Inground Pool, Terrace, Fence, Stonewall, Drain, Landscaping, Etc.:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, noted the location of a driveway easement and said the holder of that easement had been notified of the application, but said there was no conservation easement on the property. He submitted his plan, “Site Plan Illustrating Proposed Swimming Pool,” revised to 4/28/10 and two copies of a larger scaled plan to show the proposed work in more detail. He described the proposed buffer plantings and the diversion swale with level spreader. He noted he had added a note to the plan that the WEO shall be notified 48 hours prior to the commencement of work so that the installation of the erosion controls can be inspected and approved. He also noted that the line of silt fence was the limit of disturbance and he added that note to the plan. Mr. Bedini stated that all of the Commission’s questions had been answered and there were no unresolved issues.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-13 submitted by Mr. Gorman for an inground pool, terrace, fence, stonewall, drain, landscaping, etc. at 233 Roxbury Road per the site plan of the property revised to 4/26/10.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.Auth/329 West Shore Road/#IW-10-10/Shoreline Work, Install Dock:
Mr. Ajello read the revised narrative by Mr. Auth, noting the build out of the shoreline could not extend beyond a point 26 feet from the edge of the road.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-10 submitted by Mr. Auth to install a dock and do shoreline work at 329 West Shore Road per the documents in the file dated 4/28/10.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
ENFORCEMENT
Delancy/7 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-09-V04/Clearing in Regulated Area:
Mr. Delancy read his proposal to clean up and restore the disturbed area. The cut wood and all but a 1 inch layer of wood chips would be removed with minimal disturbance to the soil. He pointed out the small area of concern on the site plan. The proposed plantings were reviewed. Mr. Delancy proposed to clean out the culvert by hand to make it operational and he pointed out its location. Mr. Ajello said this would help to prevent sheet flow across the road. Ms. Delancy noted that any invasives to be removed would be cut so there would be no soil disturbance. Mr. Bedini said the proposal was acceptable and thanked Mr. Delancy for his cooperation.
NEW APPLICATION
Town of Washington/11 School Street/#IW-10-14/Stormwater Management System:
The map, “Proposed Drainage Improvement Sketch,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 10/16/10 was studied. The 4/26/10 letter of authorization from Dr. Storm for Mr. Bedini was noted. Mr. Bedini reviewed the ongoing drainage problems at the Primary School property. He pointed out where the current drainage flows, where the broken and clogged pipes and catch basins and roof leaders were located, and the how the drainage would be redirected south to the river by a 24 inch pipe and west through an 18 inch pipe with the new system. Energy dissipaters are proposed at the outflows into the Shepaug. With the installation of the new system, catch basins will pick up the runoff at the playground and near the cafeteria and parking area to dry up the area around the school building. The old pipes will not be dug up and replaced. The new pipes can be more accurately pitched if they are placed in new trenches. Mr. Ajello asked how far above water level the outflow to the Shepaug would be and if there would be the possibility of backflow during flood events. Mr. Bedini responded that the area is a floodplain, and if the water got that high, the whole area would be flooded. Mr. Papsin asked if there was any way to pipe the runoff in the opposite direction, as that would be a shorter route to the river. Mr. Bedini said that due to the location of the septic fields and tanks and the underground electrical service this was the route that had to be used. Because the property is used so much throughout the year, the project will be done between July 26 and the first day of school. It was noted that although the fee was waived for the Town, the state tax was due.
ENFORCEMENT REPORT
Town of Washington/16 Titus Road/#IW-09-V02/Unauthorized Stockpiling in Floodplain:
In his enforcement report, Mr. Ajello included the finished “settlement agreement” with the Town for all to review.Gootrad/877 Wykeham Road/Application of Herbicide to Pond:
Mr. Ajello noted that Mr. Gambino had not yet used herbicides on this pond, but that a 5 year permit had been approved.Tomczyk/39 River Road/#IW-09-V03/Unauthorized Clearcutting:
A citation was issued.Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/#IW-08-13:
Mr. Ajello thought the work was near completion and the Commission might possibly act to release the bond at its next meeting.Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-07-V12:
It was noted Mr. Lodsin had declared bankruptcy. The enforcement order has already been placed on the Land Records. Mr. Ajello will discuss this matter with the Selectmen and the Tax Collector.Town of Washington/Corner of Christian Street and Slaughterhouse Road/Unauthorized Dumping of Woodchips:
Mr. Ajello read the 4/28/10 letter from Mr. Lyon, First Selectman. Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the site and woodchips had, indeed, been deposited in a wetland area and had been spread too thickly. The commissioners asked the WEO to inspect again and determine whether the Town should be asked to remove the chips from the site.Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-V5:
There was no progress since the last meeting. Mrs. Brose will be back in Town on May 1.
There was no business under Communications or Administrative Business.
MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. BediniMr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:08 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: April 21, 2010 April 14, 2010
Show Cause Hearing/Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
Staff Present: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
Also Present: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Martino, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Charles, Press
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Town of Washington/16 Titus Road/#IW-09-V02/Unauthorized Stockpiling of Material in the Floodplain
Mr. Bedini called the Show Cause Hearing to order at 6:02 p.m.
Mr. Lyon, First Selectman, presented the map, “Preliminary Concept for Restored Town Garage Site,” by Mr. Sabin, dated 5/18/07, revised to 5/23/07, which included hand drawn revisions by Mr. Lyon for the 4/14/10 hearing. Mr. Lyon stated that the Town had stockpiled material on the property “forever” and had never ceased to do so. He pointed out on the map the extent of the work done by the Town to date under its 2007 permit and said that it had not yet completed the project. He said part of the project had been to regrade a portion of the property with the existing stockpiled material, but that additional material had been brought to the site since 2007. He said currently there were 300 cubic yards of new material plus the existing stockpiles on site and that silt fence had been installed along the drainage points. He added that there had been almost no siltation from the stockpiles into the river. He pointed out the 100 ft. setback from the river and stated that in the future materials would no longer be stockpiled within 125 feet of the river. He also stated that the permitted work would continue, the stockpiled material would be processed, and then it would be used to rough grade the area within 125 ft. of the river. He briefly discussed how a sediment basin would be formed to collect and filter stormwater and how the emergency access road to the river would eventually be rerouted.
Mr. Bedini asked if the debris in the stockpiles would be removed and the material screened before it is reused.
Mr. Lyon noted that the 2007 permit approved regrading to the elevations indicated on the map. This would require 2200 cubic yards of material within the regulated area plus 900 c. yards of top soil to complete. He said the Town would process the existing materials, but still had no place to deposit construction by products. He pointed out bin areas where any new material would be placed in the future.
Mr. Bedini asked if the daily work operation would change so that large amounts of materials are not again accumulated on site.
Mr. Lyon responded that there was no other place available to the Town to deposit that type of material.
Mr. LaMuniere stressed that no materials are supposed to be deposited in a floodplain and that another storage site must be found.
Mr. Lyon stated that management of these materials would be addressed, but said more would have to be brought to the site to complete the approved plan.
Mr. LaMuniere noted much of the stockpiled material had come from roadside matter that was filled with invasive plant seeds. He asked how the spread of invasives such as Japanese knotweed would be controlled. He also noted how close the stockpiles were to the river, that they were located in the floodplain, and said that if the Town had applied for a permit, the Commission would have required erosion and sedimentation controls.
Mr. Bedini asked if the Town was trying to find other locations to stockpile this type of material.
Mr. Lyon said it was, but to date, had found no alternative.
Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Lyon if the Town could 1) stop accumulating such large quantities on site, 2) keep the stockpiles as far from the river as possible, and 3) better manage this material and get rid of it gradually.
Mr. Ajello asked if the grading to be done within 125 feet of the river could be completed and stabilized now.
Mr. Lyon thought it would be a good idea to regrade and stabilize this area closest to the river first and then protect it with a barrier that could double as an erosion control measure.
Mr. Smith, Director of the Highway Dept., said if rough grading was done near the river, the stockpiles could be shifted to the other side of the property and the materials consolidated. He pointed out the base floodplain elevation on the site plan and said the floodplain could be remediated first. He said when regarding he would create a sediment basin where runoff could pool and be filtered.
Mr. Bedini asked that the erosion control measures be maintained in case the collected stormwater broke through.
Mr. LaMuniere noted the basin would have to be carefully planned so that the water collected would effectively infiltrate.
Mrs. Hill recalled, although she said she had not reviewd the file recently, that the 2007 approval had addressed the entire property, that the stockpiles were to be removed, and no additional material was to be brought to the site.
Mr. Lyon said she was correct, but that the Town had only completed half of the work under that permit. He also noted that additional fill was needed to complete the work as approved.
Mrs. Hill asked if there was a problem with the toxicity of the stockpiled material, which included a lot of asphalt.
Mr. Smith said most of the material had been taken from along the roads and that the asphalt could be separated.
Mr. Bedini said the salt would have dissipated and so should not be a problem in the stockpiles.
Mr. Smith agreed to work first in the floodplain to level off the stockpiles, grade to the proposed elevations, and restore the area. He said he would remove all of the asphalt and concrete products, take them off site, and remediate the regulated area. He stated there were 4700 cubic yards of material on site and another 3400 were needed to completely regrade the entire site. In addition, 900 cubic yards of top soil were needed; 300 c. yards were already on site. He said there would be no new material stockpiled in the floodplain; any new material accumulated from the daily highway department work would be placed outside the 125 ft. barrier. He said that with the exception of completing the emergency access to the river, three months would be enough time to get this work done.
Mr. Ajello noted that an application to correct the violation would not be necessary as the Town’s 2007 permit was still valid.
Mr. LaMuniere asked Mr. Lyon and Mr. Smith to submit in writing for the record all that they had just agreed to complete, and to include a sequence of operation and a timetable. He also asked Mr. Ajello to closely monitor the work as it progressed.
Mrs. Hill explained the Commission would decide later in the meeting whether to uphold the cease and restore order.
MOTION:
To close the Show Cause Hearing to consider whether the 4/7/10 Cease and Restore Order issued to the Town of Washington for the unauthorized stockpiling of material in the floodplain at 16 Titus Road should remain in effect.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Mr. Bedini closed the hearing at 6:40 p.m.
This hearing was recorded and the audio is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Olson, Ms. Cheney, Mr. Martino, Mr. Charles, Mr. Boling, Mr. Sonder, Mr. and Mrs. Condon, Mr. Meyer, Mr. Neff, Mr. Durkin, Ms. Delancy, Mr. Delancy, Mr. Slaymaker, Mr. Carmellini, residentsMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
Pending Application
Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road (Juniper Meadow Road)/#IW-09-44 Bridge and Driveway
Mr. Wadelton recused himself. Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, and LaMuniere were seated.
Mr. Bedini made the following motion as the basis for discussion and it was seconded by Mrs. Hill.
MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-09-44 submitted by Straw Man, LLC. to construct a driveway and bridge at 135 Bee Brook Road (Juniper Meadow Road) subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a Bridge Scour Analysis Report for the proposed crossing that shall include any necessary measures for complete bank/channel stabilization for Chaple Brook, which measures shall be implemented as conditions of this permit,
2. The applicant shall submit a mitigation plan that shows the locations for all of the proposed mitigation plantings,
3. All bridge work related activities including grading, abutment construction, and beam and deck installation shall be restricted to the low flow months (June 30 through September 30,)
4. A final structural plan for the bridge that has been reviewed and stamped by a Structural Engineer shall be submitted to the Commission,
5. All proposed swales shall be lined with an erosion control blanket during construction and after final grading,
6. All outstanding correspondence from the CTDEP Natural Diversity Database regarding this site shall be submitted to the Inland Wetlands Commission,
7. The application is limited to activities proposed in this application and any additional development and/or regulated activity requires that the applicant return to the Commission for consideration, and
8. A bond shall be posted before commencement of any work. Once the proposed driveway and bridge are completed, including conditions 1 through 6, any remaining funds shall be returned to the applicant.It was noted the first six conditions of approval had been recommended by Mr. Sanford, consultant from Milone and MacBroom.
It was agreed condition #8 should be amended to state a cash bond would be required. After a brief discussion it was also agreed that a $20,000 would be reasonable and that the condition should state that the bond would be returned upon the satisfactory completion of the project.
Condition #7 was briefly discussed. Mr. Bedini stated it was written to address the fact that there are steep slopes on the property and runoff from any future development would have to be managed properly.
Mr. LaMuniere quoted from the 2/4/10 letter from Mr. Trinkaus, which stated that the driveway and bridge would not be constructed until some final land use for the property is proposed and approved by the Washington land use agencies.
Mr. Bedini asked whether the commissioners’ reasons for voting for or against the motion should be stated before or after the vote.
Atty. Olson agreed the reasons for denial or approval should be on the record and this could be done after the vote.
The motion as it is listed above was voted on except condition #8 was changed to: 8. A cash bond in the amount of $20,000 shall be posted before the commencement of any work. Once the proposed driveway and bridge are completed, including conditions 1 through 6, any remaining funds shall be returned to the applicant.
Vote: 4-0 in favor.
The following reasons for approval were stated for the record.
* Mr. Bohan voted in favor because the property owner had the right to enter his property, he thought this was the least obtrusive way to do so, the Town’s engineer was satisfied, and a bond would be secured. He said he thought the project was a good one.* Mr. LaMuniere stated he had considered feasible and prudent alternatives. He noted the access to the property was over the 50 ft. right of way and that the Commission’s consultant said a culvert crossing would do much more damage than a bridge crossing. He said he disagreed with the intervener re: the width of the proposed bridge because he thought the difference of the impact from a 2 ft. narrower access was not sufficiently significant to offset the owner’s need to come back afterward to make the access wider to accommodate a specific development. He said the difference in the area of impacted wetlands was only 400 sq. ft. and the wetlands to be impacted were not pristine; they had already been compromised by tree cutting and farming. Regarding the seepage envelope in the forested wetlands, the Commission’s consultant reviewed the plans and found that although there would be some compaction, the hydraulic function would not be impacted because the pipes to be installed would allow the water to continue to flow through. He said if the applicant had to come back to rebuild the bridge, it would cause more damage to the wetlands to make the base wider so he thought it better to build the 18 ft. wide bridge first. He read a portion of the 2/24/10 letter from Atty. Zizka, which stated, “On the other hand, if the differences in impact would be small, there may be a benefit in approving the 18 ft. proposal to avoid any need for the replacement of the bridge if the applicant later chooses to develop the property more intensively than single-family residential. The impacts related to construction of the replacement may be more significant than the long-term differential impacts of the 18 ft. bridge versus an alternative.” Mr. LaMuniere also noted the applicant had stated many times that there would be no construction until the full development of the parcel had been approved and that if only one or two houses were to be built, a 12 ft. wide access would be constructed.
* Mrs. Hill agreed with Mr. Bohan and Mr. LaMuniere. She also stated that the Commission was charged with balancing the need for economic growth with the need to protect the environment, the applicant was seeking a permit to construct what he feels he needs, there is no other access to the property, the applicant had satisfactorily addressed both the Commission’s and its consultant’s concerns and had modified the plans in response, which had resulted in a lesser impact, the Commission found the impact to be minimal and reasonable, the Commission found that the intervener did not meet his burden of proof, and the Commission had discussed feasible and prudent alternatives, which included a box culvert, but had concluded that the construction of a bridge would have less adverse impact.
* Mr. Bedini noted there were not many feasible and prudent alternatives due to the limited accessway and the plans for the bridge were done in a way that would result in mimimal impact to the area. He said he had been concerned about whether the flood waters from a 100 year storm would cause scouring, but said this matter had been addressed by condition #1. Also, he noted that a mitigation plan for the proposed plantings was now required as a condition of approval. He had also been concerned about the steep slopes on the property and was reassured that condition #7 specified that the applicant was required to review future development plans with the Commission so it could act on any regulated activities and determine whether there would be further impacts to the brook and to the wetlands.
Mr. Wadelton returned and was reseated.
MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the agenda:
New Applications: C. Gorman/233 Roxbury Road/#IW-10-13/Inground Pool, Terrace, Fence, Stone Wall, Drain, Landscaping, Etc.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION:
To accept the 3/24/10 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as written.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 3/31/10 Klein site inspection minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 3/31/10 Auth site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To accept the 4/8/10 Special Meeting minutes as written.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Klein/236 Tinker Hill Road (West Shore Road)/#IW-10-09/Install Stairs and Floating Dock:
Mr. Neff, engineer, noted that the width of the cat walk to the dock had been reduced to 3.5 ft. to meet Zoning requirements. He presented his map, “Proposed Dock Plan,” revised to 4/1/10. Mr. Ajello asked if the anchor block was sufficient. Mr. Neff said the boulders would be pinned to the concrete and the cat walk would rise up and down depending on the water level. Mrs. Hill asked why the dock was needed. Mr. Neff said the owners wanted to use their lake frontage. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the DOT had approved the project. Mr. Neff stated the DOT had approved cutting the fence along the road.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-09 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Klein to install a floating dock and stairs at 236 Tinker Hill Road (West Shore Road) per the plan by Mr. Neff, revised to 4/1/10.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Rosenblatt/229 Calhoun Street/#IW-10-11/Driveway Culverts and Pipes:
Mr. Neff explained two catch basins and a pipe under the driveway would be installed to solve the chronic erosion of the driveway. The pipe would have a rip rapped apron at the outlet. There were no revisions since the last meeting. It was noted that photos had been circulated at the last meeting and it had been decided that a site inspection was not necessary.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-11 submitted by Mr. Rosenblatt to install driveway catch basins and piping at 229 Calhoun Street per the plan, “Driveway Catch Basin Plan, by Mr. Neff, dated 6/17/09, revised to 3/22/10.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Auth/329 West Shore Road/#IW-10-10/Install Dock and Shoreline Work:
Mr. Ajello circulated photos, which showed the difference in the water level of the lake since the commissioners had inspected the site. Mr. Auth submitted a more detailed drawing on graph paper, which Mr. Ajello dated 4/14/10. Mr. Auth proposed to install a rowing dock and to repair what he described as an eroded section of his shoreline. He said the soil had washed away, leaving exposed rocks in the water. He applied to place a large boulder on top of the rocks to use to anchor his dock, to fill between the rocks with soil, to place top soil over the top to bring the shoreline up to the level of his lawn, and to seed the newly filled area. He said this was only a small portion of his total property and that he thought it was the wake action from passing boats that caused the erosion. Mr. Bedini thought the eroded areas should be replaced with smaller stones without dirt and grass, which would erode again. Mr. Auth proposed using 8 tons of 6 inch end tails with a DEP approved water filtration fabric and 4 inches of top soil over that. Instead of depositing soil, Mr. Ajello proposed carefully filling in between the stones with smaller sized rip rap placed by hand so that the rocks would be “locked in.” Mr. LaMuniere thought the Commission could approve filling by hand behind the ledge of large stones, but could not approve filling to extend the lawn. Mr. Bedini agreed. Mr. Auth argued that he was not proposing to extend the lawn, but only wanted to restore the shoreline that used to exist. A lengthy discussion followed. Mr. Auth stated his contractor would use a machine to put the rocks in place and that he also proposed to install a split rail fence while leaving in place the existing bushes along the road. Mr. LaMuniere stressed it was important to keep the bushes to prevent erosion. After it was agreed that Mr. Auth would fit together stones similar to a ramp constructed in Warren and would not deposit any soil or plant grass over them, Mr. Bedini asked him to meet with Mr. Ajello to document all that had been discussed, to work on the list of materials, and to draft the construction sequence. Mr. Bedini advised Mr. Auth that the Commission had consulted a limnologist in the past about the proper method of shoreline repair and the use of the stones as discussed would break up the wave action and keep the water healthy. In response to a question from Mr. Auth, Mr. Bedini said that no soil should be deposited into the lake, not even near the base of the trees.Gorman/233 Roxbury Road/#IW-10-13/Inground Pool, Fence, Stonewall, Terrace, Drain, Landscaping, Etc.:
Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, presented his plan, “Site Plan Illustrating Proposed Swimming Pool,” dated 4/12/10, which he had drawn on the map, “Property/ Boundary Survey, Lot Line Revision,” by Mr. Alex, dated March 2006. He pointed out the location of a “benched area” 5 ft. below the walkout basement where he proposed a 20’ X 40’ inground pool with terrace, stone retaining wall, and stairs. He also proposed a deck extension, which, he stated, was not in the regulated area. He noted the pool equipment would be 70 ft. from the wetlands and there would be no service backwash. Mr. Ajello advised him that this would have to be moved to within 50 ft. of the pool. Mr. Sabin planned to deposit 70 to 80 yards of material to naturalize the contours and to provide a better medium for the proposed native plantings. He described the proposed drainage system that included level spreaders and energy dissipaters and a diversion swale along the upper lawn to take runoff away from the pool. He stated there were no feasible and prudent alternatives because the rest of the property is so steep. He also noted he would submit an enlarged plan. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. It was noted an additional $30 for state tax was due.
Other Business
Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/Request to Revise Permit #IW-08-13:
Mr. Slaymaker’s undated letter to the commissioners and proposed revised landscaping plan were reviewed. Mr. Slaymaker proposed to replace three dead pines with two river birch trees and a red maple and to erect a fence between the lawn and the restored wetland area. The fence would have wire mesh backing and pressure treated posts. He said he would use a mini excavator for both the fence posts holes and to plant the trees. Mr. LaMuniere objected to pressure treated posts in the wetlands. Mr. Slaymaker submitted two MicroPro info sheets, which described how this type of treatment process greatly reduces the release of copper, and stated that what does leach out is in the form of particles. Mr. Bedini noted that the arsenic associated with pressure treatment is essentially gone, too. Mr. Martino advised Mr. Slaymaker about other methods to use when digging the post holes so that not so much material would have to be scooped out. Mr. Bedini and Mr. Bohan agreed a post hole digger would be better to use in wetlands because it would minimize the soil disturbance.MOTION:
To approve the revision of Permit #IW-08-13 requested by Mr. Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane for changes in his approved restoration plan.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Angell/47 West Shore Road/#IW-10-12/Plant Buffer Vegetation, Construct Stairs, Move Dock and Install New Bulkhead:
Three site plans, a reduced map, “Septic As Built, Proposed Site Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 1/18/99, “Proposed Buffer Planting Continuation,” no signature or date, and an enlargement of a survey map, no signature, title, or date, with plants and stairs drawn in by hand, and a plan for the construction of the stairs, entitled, “Stone Steps,” no signature or date, were reviewed. Mr. Ajello explained the applicant proposed to
1) extend the buffer plantings along the shoreline, and this would be supervised by the Lake Waramaug Assoc.,
2) install large stone slab stairs from the existing porch to the grassed area along the road, and
3) to move the existing dock to a more centrally located point on the shoreline. It was noted there is an intermittent stream at the bottom of the proposed stairs and large stones would be installed to cross over it. The 4/7/10 letter from Mr. McGowan of the Lake Waramaug Task Force regarding the planting plan was noted. It was also noted that the Lake Waramaug Assoc. would comment on the proposed dock location. Questions from the commissioners/missing information included:
1) The DOT was reserving judgment on the placement of trees and bushes near the curve. Mrs. Hill did not think a plan should be approved until it had been finalized.
2) Mr. LaMuniere asked for details on the new dock anchor.
3) Mr. Bedini did not think there was adequate detail provided for the intermittent stream crossing and the construction of the stairs. For example, how would the large stones be placed? Would a pipe be installed? How would the stones be anchored on each side? What was the soil type where the stairs were proposed?
4) Mr. LaMuniere thought erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed because the slope where the stairs would be built was so steep.
5) Mr. Bedini requested a construction narrative. It was agreed a formal site inspection was not necessary because the commissioners could all drive by the property.
Enforcement
Delancy/7 New Milford Turnpike/#IW-09-V04/Clearing in Regulated Area:
The 4/14/10 enforcement report by Mr. Ajello and photos of the site were reviewed. Mr. Ajello described the significant tree clearing and deposition of wood chips in the wetlands near Bee Brook. Mr. Delancy stated that he had not known that a permit was required and that dead trees that had been threatening his wires and parking area had been cut. Mr. Ajello said he had ordered the contractor to stop work. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Durkin, contractor, why he was not familiar with the Inland Wetland Regulations. Mr. Durkin responded that he had deposited the wood chips over chips that were already on site and had done so in a manner that would prevent erosion. He said Mr. Ajello had stopped work before it had been properly completed, noting that he had spread 6 to 10 inches of wood chips in the area. He said he had researched the benefits of wood chip mulch after Mr. Ajello claimed the chips could poison the water and submitted information on the subject. Mr. Carmellini noted the state had not responded to requests to cut the dead trees. Mr. Bedini noted the chips had been placed next to an intermittent stream. Mr. Durkin said it was a ditch that was running due to the 6” of rain that had recently fallen. Mr. Bedini noted the Commission did not have a problem with the cutting of the trees that threatened a house, but because the work was done in wetlands and near an intermittent stream, a permit was required. He stated that how the work would be done, what machines would be used, where would they operate from, would there be any soil disturbance, what would be done with the wood chips, etc. would be reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Ajello explained that the nitrogen and phosphorous from the decomposition of the wood chips could contribute to the eutrophication of downstream water bodies. Mr. LaMuniere noted the preservation of the canopy to ensure shade in the wetlands is also important. Mr. Delancy said he would remedy the situation per the Commission’s recommendations and offered to seed the disturbed soil with a wetland flower mix to restore the area. Mr. Ajello recommended that all but one inch of the wood chips be removed without disturbing the soil and asked the Commission to inspect the site to determine whether any planting should be required. Mr. Bedini directed the property owners to work with Mr. Ajello to draft a clean-up plan and a work sequence to present to the Commission. Mr. Ajello said that once the site is cleaned up, the Commission could determine whether plantings were necessary. Mr. Durkin thought allowing only one inch of wood chips was unreasonable, but Mr. Ajello said it would allow native species to germinate. It was agreed no further work would be done until the Commission reviewed the clean-up plan.Town of Washington/Corner of Slaughterhouse Road and Christian Street/Deposition of Wood Chips:
Mr. Delancy complained that the Town had deposited a huge pile of wood chips by a stream in this area. Mr. Ajello will investigate.
Other Business
Request for Authorization for General Permits Administered by the Inland Water Resources Division/Mt. Tom State Park/Beach Maintenance:
It was noted the state proposed to spread sand on the beach at Mt. Tom. The Commission had no comments.
Enforcement Report
Town of Washington/16 Titus Road/#IW-09-V02/Unauthorized Stockpiling of Material in the Floodplain:
Mrs. Hill asked if the 2007 permit allowed the stockpiling of additional materials on site. Mr. Ajello said it did, but not in the floodplain. Mr. LaMuniere stated that the 2007 permit had required the stockpiles of debris to be removed and that he was concerned about the stockpiling of material in the floodplain. Mr. Ajello said that the previous First Selectman, Mr. Sears, had told the Commission the permit to remove the stockpiles did not preclude the Town from using the property should the need arise in the future. He added, however, that the stockpiles had been leveled towards the river and the current situation was “now out of control.” Mr. Ajello reviewed the cease and restore order point by point. Mr. LaMuniere thought the stockpiling was in violation of the existing permit, worried that the stockpiling would be a continuing problem, requested a specific written remedial plan with a timetable to correct the violation, and questioned whether the Commission had the authority to agree to filling in a floodplain. Mr. Wadelton noted the cease and restore order did not prevent the Town from cleaning the debris from the site and agreed the area within 125 feet of the river should be restored. After further discussion, the following motion was approved.MOTION:
To uphold the 4/7/10 Cease and Restore Order issued to the Town of Washington for the unauthorized stockpiling of material in the floodplain at 16 Titus Road as modified to eliminate requirement #5.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Tomczyk/39 River Road/#IW-09-V03/Clearcutting of River Bank:
Photos of the clearcutting on Town property were circulated. Mr. Ajello read the 4/6/10 letter from Mr. Tomczyk to the Commission. Mr. Ajello recommended the commissioners drive by the site to determine whether they think any further action is necessary and whether letting the banks regrow naturally would be sufficient.Weaver/176 East Shore Road:
Mr. Weaver will soon apply to reconstruct the boathouse.Hock/Fiedorowicz/49 Mt. Tom Road:
The driveway crossing is currently under construction and erosion controls are in place.The Community Grill/223 Litchfield Turnpike:
Mr. Ajello reported that soils had been deposited too close to the wetlands and he had requested the property be cleaned back to the wetlands boundaries.
Administrative Business
Shoreline Work:
Mr. Ajello asked the Commission to think about what should be the maximum amount of shoreline allowed to be reconfigured and what type of shoreline work should be allowed.4/8/10 Meeting with Atty. Branse:
It was the consensus that this informational meeting had gone very well and that Atty. Branse’s clarity in explaining his thoughts and legal points was appreciated. As a result of what the Commission learned, interveners will be approached differently in the future and legal advice will be sought earlier in the application process. Regarding whether to schedule future meetings of this kind with the other land use commissions, it was thought that each commission had its own jurisdiction and could schedule its own meetings as desired.MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 10:32 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
SITE VISIT REPORTApplication: IW-10-09
Inspection Date: 3/31/10
Time: 4:00 – 4:30 P.M.Applicant: Klein
Address: West Shore Road
Reason for Application: Install Floating Dock
Members Present: D. Hill, T. Bedini, C. LaMuniere
Staff Present: M. Ajello, E.O
Others Present: B. Neff, P.E.Observations:
Site walk participants gathered on West Shore Road at the point where the post and steel cable fence along the road is to be opened up by DOT to allow access to the lake shore and the proposed dock mooring. Mr. Neff explained the procedure to be used by DOT to carry out this operation.
Participants then walked down and viewed the sloping, narrow strip of land (approximately 20 feet) between the road and the edge of the lake where the proposed cement dock anchor block is to be cast between two large rocks resting on the lake bottom. A discussion took place regarding the possible need to increase the depth of the anchor block to ensure that it was resting on the solid lake bottom and not sediment.
Mr. Neff confirmed that, as per the plan submitted with the application, the posts supporting the hand rails on the sides of the proposed stairway section would be made of untreated lumber.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles LaMuniere
Posted: April 14, 2010 April 8, 2010
SPECIAL MEETING
5:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Branse, Ms. Cheney, Mr. Martino, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Sonder
Mr. Bedini called the Special Meeting to order at 4:55 p.m. and introduced Atty. Branse.
Atty. Branse passed out copies of, “Public Hearing Procedures for Wetlands Agencies,” by Mark K. Branse, which he used as the outline for his presentation. He noted this material was intended to comment on controversial hearings where an appeal was expected. He also noted the courts are not to substitute their judgment for a commission’s and, therefore, most of the appeals that are lost are lost on procedural grounds.
Atty. Branse had been advised that the Commission was interested in reviewing public hearing procedure and agricultural exemptions. These subjects were discussed in detail using his above referenced paper as an outline. Some of the notable points raised were:
* The public must understand that land use decisions are not majority rules; that property owners have the right to use their properties in a legal and reasonable manner.
* The Inland Wetlands Commission must provide a report of its action to the Planning and/or Zoning Commission per state statute. The motion for the action taken does not legally constitute the required report unless the phrase that it serves as the report per Section 8-22 is specifically included in the motion.
* In addition to the street address, Atty. Branse recommended that a description of the location of the subject property, such as 500 ft. south of the intersection of roads a and b, be included in the legal notice.
* Atty. Branse recommended that the Regulations be amended to include the provision that either last year’s grand list or the current tax collector’s list be used to determine abutters for notice requirements.
* Cross examination of public hearing speakers should be allowed. If not allowed by the Commission, opponents can use this as a basis for an appeal and win in court.
* There should be no discussion at site inspections unless the entire proceeding is recorded.
* Commissioners do not have to believe expert testimony presented at public hearings, but if they do not agree or if they question it, this must be stated on the record while the hearing is open.
Also, commissioners must state their research and/or personal knowledge for the record at the public hearing; not after it has closed.* Atty. Branse informed the Commission that case law was recently expanded to rule that if there is the appearance of conflict of interest, the decision will be invalidated. He said opponents must object before the vote and state what the conflict is and that commissioners should disclose potential conflicts for the record and state they are prepared to make their decisions based solely on the application presented.
* Interveners have the burden of proof to prove to the Commission what it is in the Commission’s jurisdiction that will cause an impact and how it will impact the environment. The allegation must be specific and must be backed up with proof.
* When there is an intervener, the Commission should 1) discuss whether he has met his burden to prove it is reasonably likely the proposed activity will create an unreasonable impact and 2) if so, decide whether there are feasible and prudent alternatives with no or lesser impact. If there are, the application must be denied.
* Commissions should make sure their experts make statements like, “It is my professional opinion it is reasonably likely that….” A statement beginning, “I believe…” will not hold up in court.
* If the Commission finds the proposed plans are deficient in some way, make sure it is stated on the record what the consequences of this inadequacy will be. This is the kind of information needed for court. Why something is likely to happen and/or why it is a bad thing will not always be obvious to a judge.
* A tie vote on a motion to approve is a denial.
* Monitoring to make sure a plan works as designed may be required as a condition of approval.
* Regarding farmland issues, the Commission has the authority to determine its own jurisdiction. If the Commission determines the proposed activity is not exempt, the “farmer” may either appeal or apply for a permit. Also, the Commission has the authority to require a bond for the proposed farm work.
In addition to a general review of the information in his outline, Atty. Branse answered many questions from the commissioners. These included:
* When should pre application advice be recommended?
Pre application advice must occur before the application is submitted.* How should incomplete applications be handled?
Atty. Branse recommended they be denied early in the review process as incomplete.* A public hearing may be held if it is in the public interest. What is meant by the public interest?
This term is deliberately broad and how it is interpreted is up to the discretion of the Commission.* When scheduling a public hearing, should the Commission wait until all of the information is in and should it limit the hearing to one or two sessions?
The Commission should make sure it gets all information to its consultant as soon as possible and that he can respond by the scheduled dates. The application may be denied without prejudice if all of the required information has not been submitted by the time the public hearing time limit has been reached.* Should the Commission ask for the credentials of those who speak at public hearings?
The commissioners can not base their decision about something that requires expertise on something said by someone with no expertise in that field. The Commission has the right to weigh the credibility of the speaker.* After the close of the public hearing can the Commission ask its consultant to comment on data/formulas/calculations submitted by the applicant?
Yes, the Commission may seek clarification of information already presented. The consultant may not introduce new information and may not review revised plans after the close of the hearing. However, the consultant may recommend conditions of approval after the close of the hearing.* Must the Commission find that an intervener has met the burden of proof for the specific allegations in his filing?
Yes, the Commission should make this determination and then state in the motion that the intervener has sustained or has not sustained his burden.* Unseated members and alternates may not participate in the deliberations once the public hearing has closed. Is this true for other matters such of revision of the regulations as well as for consideration of applications?
Yes, the unseated members/alternates may not participate in the deliberations.
This is just a summary of the issues covered. The complete document by Atty. Branse is on file in the Land Use Office.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: April 1, 2010 March 24, 2010
Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
5:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere
MEMBER RECUSED: Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bohan
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello and Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Boling, Ms. Canning, Mr. Trinkaus, Mr./Mrs. Sonder, Mrs. Corrigan, Ms. Max-Fiss, Residents
PUBLIC HEARING
Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road (Juniper Meadow Road)/ #IW-09-44/Bridge and Driveway/Con’t.
Mr. Bedini reconvened the Public Hearing at 5:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, and LaMuniere. Mrs. J. Hill read the list of documents that had been submitted since the last session of the hearing.
Mr. Bedini explained that the Commission would consider all of the information in the record and not just what had been written on the application form.
Mr. Tinkaus responded to points raised in Mr. Sanford’s 3/23/10 review. GC#1: Regarding the issue of the location of the right of way and the Condo Association’s septic system on the adjoining property, Mr. Trinkaus noted the right of way is Straw Man LLC’s only access to the property, there was already a cut slope near the septic system, and this was both a matter for the Health Dept. and a civil matter. GC#2: Mr. Trinkaus had no objections to periodic inspections and maintenance of the culverts and seepage envelope. GC#6: He said the Building Dept. would receive and review the structural plans for the bridge. GC#7: Mr. Trinkaus stood by his claim that the depth of flow against the west embankment would be 0.3 feet rather than 1.5 ft. in a 100 year storm event as indicated by Mr. Sanford. He used the cross section diagram to explain how the depth of flow was calculated and said he had submitted calculations to support his finding. GC#9: Mr. Trinkaus stated his 3/12/10 letter addressed the issue of justification for the proposed crossing as it listed the reasons the Commission should approve both the proposed 18 ft. wide bridge and driveway, but added that the applicant would accept a modification to narrow the driveway at the seepage envelope to 12 ft. wide as a condition of approval. He said future widening would be necessary to accommodate multi family housing, but said it could be done with impacts to the wetlands on only one side of the driveway. #2 under Additional Comments: In response to the question of whether the grading for the driveway could be accomplished entirely within the right of way, Mr. Trinkaus responded that the plans Lenard Engineering had reviewed were distorted and the scale had been “off.” He stood by his plan. #GC14: Mr. Trinkaus said that supplemental plantings were addressed in Mrs. Corrigan’s report. #C3: Mr. Trinkaus stated that his calculations were based on a grassed diversion swale. #C1: Mr. Trinkaus noted the proposed use of the property is not single family residential and so a narrower bridge could not be required. #C2: Regarding mitigation, Mr. Trinkaus said Mrs. Corrigan had addressed this in her report and that he hoped the Condo Assn. would work with the applicant to plant over a larger area because that would have a greater environmental benefit.
Mr. Boling, agent for the applicant, stated that the only appropriate use for a 12 ft. wide driveway was a single family dwelling, and there was no evidence that the applicant would propose to use her property in that way. He noted that in a previous Zoning application for multi family housing the Zoning Commission and Fire Dept. had required an 18 ft. wide driveway for public health and safety. He argued that to approve a 12 ft. wide driveway that will have to be widened in the future to accommodate multi family housing would cause the wetlands to be disturbed twice and would result in more short term adverse impacts than necessary. He said if the Commission did not think an 18 ft. wide travelway was justified at this time, it could be reduced in width on the section of driveway over the seep, but the applicant would come back to get a permit to widen it later.
Mr. Bedini asked if the 18 ft. width requirement was the Zoning Commission’s or the Fire Dept’s.
Mr. Boling stated that the Fire Dept. had written that 24 ft. was required, but that the applicant had narrowed that to 18 ft. under 8-30g. He noted that the Zoning Commission’s authority is limited regarding applications submitted under 8-30g (Affordable Housing), but that it does have jurisdiction regarding public safety, and that in the past Zoning required applicants to abide by the Fire Dept’s recommendations. He said he hoped Zoning would accept an 18 ft. wide travelway.
Mr. Bedini asked if the applicant expected to get Zoning approval before constructing the bridge. Mr. Boling said he did not know.
Mr. Bedini noted that if Zoning did not think 18 ft. wide was adequate, the applicant would have to apply for a wider travelway. Mr. Boling explained that 18 ft. could accommodate two viable travel lanes, whereas, a 12 ft. wide driveway would serve a different function.
Mr. Bedini asked if the driveway would have shoulders. Mr. Trinkaus stated there would be 2 ft. shoulders on each side. He added that an 18 ft. wide travelway is the minimum safe width for two way traffic. Mr. Charles, agent, noted that in some cases a 12 ft. wide driveway with 6 ft. travel shoulders on each side would be adequate, but if the shoulders were not plowed there would be a problem with emergency access in the winter.
Mr. LaMuniere advised Mr. Boling that contrary to what was stated in Mr. Boling’s 3/22/10 letter to the Commission, the IWC would review future development proposals for the property due to its steep slopes above the brook and due to concerns about stormwater management. Mr. Boling said he understood the applicant would have to return to the Wetlands Commission.
Mr. Sonder, intervener, stated that since the right of way was the only access to the property, it had to be well designed. He noted that the brook and wetlands had to be crossed and they would be impacted and harmed to some extent. He said approval of any plan that that would permit impacts beyond the absolute minimum necessary would not be acceptable because the damage done would be irreversible. He argued it was not yet known for certain that more than one or two houses would/could be built on the property or that if an affordable housing project were proposed, it would be approved, and so said the Commission could not determine that an 18 ft. wide bridge was required. He recommended that Straw Man return with a complete and comprehensive plan for the entire property so that the need for the 18 ft. wide driveway could be properly evaluated. He also had some technical concerns, which included 1) the grading would encroach on Condo Assn. property, 2) the construction plans for the diversion swale were erroneous, 3) the construction diagram provided for the bridge was inadequate as it could not be determined from the plans submitted how the banks of the brook would be impacted, and 4) the proposed driveway could interfere with the existing Condo Assn. septic leaching fields.
Mr. Boling and Mr. Charles cited examples of developments and subdivisions, which took years to complete once approved and said again that multi family housing was proposed and would be built on the property.
Mr. Sanford suggested that Mrs. Corrigan present her methodology and results so that there would be an opportunity to ask her questions.
Mrs. Corrigan stated she had inspected the site twice, the last time on March 17, and had used the Army Corps of Engineers worksheets to help prepare her report. Mr. Charles noted that she had also done an analysis of the entire property a year ago. She summarized some of the information in her report.
Mr. Sanford asked, what are the principal functions of the wetlands and how and where does the project enhance, diminish, or not change those functions? Mrs. Corrigan reviewed the functions of the seep and the flow of groundwater in the area and pointed out these areas on the map, “Wetland Crossing for Access Driveway,” Scale 1” = 20,” by Mr. Trinkaus, revised to 3/4/10.
Mr. LaMuniere remarked that the wetlands was a forested seep and that clearly the area was not pristine as there was evidence of woodcutting, it had previously been opened for cultivation, and it had invasive vegetation. He asked Mrs. Corrigan, if some trees were cut to install the seepage envelope, would this negatively impact the forest seep? Mrs. Corrigan responded that if all of the vegetation was removed, it could contribute to the drying of the forest floor. Regarding the hydrologic function of the wetlands, Mr. LaMuniere said there would be more water evaporating, but also more water would enter the seep. Mrs. Corrigan agreed, stating that the flow under the driveway would be maintained and the pipes would be installed at the same pitch as the current terrain. Mr. Trinkaus agreed this was so.
Mrs. Corrigan addressed the issue of mitigation. She recommended that the shrub layer be supplemented to cut down on the amount of light that would reach the wetland floor. However, she noted there was very limited space in the right of way near the wetlands for planting and said she hoped the applicant could work with the adjoining property owners to restore their property, too.
Ms. Max-Fiss noted this complex area changes greatly with each season, but that Mrs. Corrigan had inspected the property at only one time of year, and recommended she study it for a full year to observe all life cycles. Mrs. Corrigan noted the wetlands were visible at this time of year and that there was not time to conduct a year long study due to application deadlines. Mr. Bedini further explained there are deadlines per state statutes, so in practice a year long study would not be possible. He also noted that conditions differ over the years so it would be unreasonable to put off the application for a year.
Mr. LaMuniere asked about the functions of the lower wetlands. He noted they were deforested and had many invasives growing, and asked if they could be considered a special habitat for wetlands dependent species. Mrs. Corrigan stated that although she had not observed any, the entire Rt. 47/Shepaug and Bantam Rivers corridor could be used by wood turtles.
Mr. LaMuniere asked how the construction of the bridge would impact that habitat. Mrs. Corrigan stated that the bridge, unlike a culvert, would not be an impediment for all wildlife movement and would cause only minimal disturbance in the uplands.
Mr. Bedini asked about temporary impacts. Mrs. Corrigan said the small scale impacts would heal quickly. She was concerned that if water temporarily pooled along the edge of the driveway or collected in tire ruts that sensitive species like the spotted salamander might lay their eggs there, but she thought this unlikely because 1) the ruts would not hold the water long enough and 2) Mr. Trinkhaus’s design of the swale would prevent this from happening. She stated she did not anticipate any long term impacts because the construction plan and cantilevered bridge design would allow both the current animal movement and water hydrology to be maintained.
Mr. Trinkaus commented on the diversion swale above the retaining wall and said the curtain drain would intercept the groundwater. He also thought that the native species in the area would sprout and recolonize when there was more sunlight as a result of cutting down some trees for the driveway. He offered to submit a specific plant list of the plants to be used for mitigation as a condition of approval.
Mr. Sanford noted his last letter dated 3/23/10 included the review of the seven supplemental items submitted since the last meeting and that even though the information presented tonight by Mr. Trinkhaus had not been fully reviewed, in his opinion the Commission had enough information to close the hearing and render a decision.
Regarding #GC7 in the above referenced letter, Mr. LaMuniere asked Mr. Sanford if he was satisfied with Mr. Trinkaus’s response to his questions about the depth of flow in the channel at the bridge during the 100 year storm event. Mr. Sanford stated there was still a “slight difference of opinion” about the calculations. Mr. LaMuniere did not think the difference was insignificant due to the potential for erosion.
Mr. Trinkaus noted the abutments had now been moved 40 feet apart. He explained how the contours had been plotted and that a fully dimensional cross section had been made, and said Manning’s equation had been used to compute the flow area of the 50 sq. ft. taking into account the 40 ft. span. He said he would submit scour analysis at the time of construction. He stated that .3 would cause no erosion problem because the greatest velocity would be in the middle of the channel, not at the edges.
Mr. LaMuniere asked Mr. Trinkaus if he maintained there would be only 4 inches of overflow in a 100 year storm. Mr. Trinkaus said he did.
There were no other questions or comments from the commissioners or from the public.
Mr. Bedini closed the public hearing at 6:17 p.m. and noted that although Straw Man, LLC. was also listed on the agenda under Pending Applications, there would be no action taken tonight.
This public hearing was recorded. The audio is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bohan
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Neff, Mr. SzymanskiMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
MOTION:
To include the following subsequent business on the Agenda:
V. New Applications:
B. Auth/329 West Shore Road/#IW-10-10,
C. Rosenblatt/229 Calhoun Street/#IW-10-11/Driveway Culverts and Piping,
VIII. Administrative Business:
B. Discussion re: commissioners’ credentials for the public record,
IX. Communications:
C. 3/15/10 letter from Forest Practices Advisory Board to the IWC.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 4-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 3/10/10 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 3: 5th paragraph, 1st line: Change: “was” to “has.”
Page 4: 4th paragraph, 1st line: Change: “consulting engineer” to “consultant.”
Next to the last line: Change: “areas” to “issues.”
Page 8: Under Beckett: 1st line: Insert: “would” before “make.”MOTION:
To accept the 3/10/10 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.The 3/17/10 King site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected.
Under Observations:
3rd line from end: Should state: “…plants native to the state….”
Change the last sentence to: “The roadbed will be removed from the wetlands.”MOTION:
To accept the 3/17/10 King site inspection minutes as corrected.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0.
Pending Applications
Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road (Juniper Meadow Road)/ #IW-09-44/Bridge and Driveway:
This application will be discussed at the next meeting.King/153 Lower Church Hill Road/#IW-10-08/Dredge Pond, Construct Rain Garden:
It was noted that an approval letter from Steep Rock Assn., the holder of the conservation easement, had not yet been received. Mr. Szymanski, engineer, asked that this be made a condition of approval. The plans, “Overall Site Improvement Plan, 4 sheets, by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc. revised to 3/22/10 were reviewed. Mr. Szymanski summarized the proposal to dredge the pond, place the spoils in the upland area, remove the invasive plants from a 2 to 3 acre area, and replace the plants removed with non invasive plants native to Ct. Mrs. Hill asked if a planting plan had been submitted. Mr. Szymanski said, no, and that where an invasive plant was removed, a native plant would be planted except at the “ledge edge” where a seed mix and wetland plantings would be used. He stated that no species would be planted in the pond itself. He noted that the area would be monitored to make sure the invasives were not growing back, and said, if so, the applicant would return to ask for modifications. Mrs. Hill suggested that if wetlands vegetation was planted closely around the edge of the pond, it would help to impede the spread of invasives in that area. Mr. Szymanski read the narrative on the plan re: the removal of the invasives and explained the phragmites in the pond would be dug out by machine to a depth of 4 to 6 feet. The other invasives would be removed by hand and hand treated with chemicals. Mr. Szymanski also noted that the owner would no longer mow right next to the pond. The proposed erosion control measures for the project were reviewed.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-08 submitted by Mr. King to dredge the pond and install a rain garden at 153 Lower Church Hill Road per the plans by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 3/3/10 and revised to 3/22/10 with the condition that the letter from Steep Rock Assn. stating the proposed work complies with the terms of the conservation easement is received.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0.Klein/___ West Shore Road/#IW-10-09/Install Stairs and Floating Dock:
Mr. Neff, engineer, represented the applicant. In response to the brief 3/24/10 list of information missing from the application form, he stated that the Assessor had not yet given the property a street number. He explained the location selected for the stairs and dock was along a straight section of West Shore Road. He circulated several photos of the site and pointed out the cross section and sequence of construction on the plan, “Proposed Dock Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 3/20/10. The location of the property was also discussed and noted on the map, “Site Analysis Plan,” by Mr. Alex, dated October 2009. Mr. LaMuniere asked for confirmation that the state DOT had approved the plans. Mr. Neff said he would be meeting with the DOT soon and expected that a permit would be granted. Mr. Neff said the proposed dock would have removable anchors to keep it in place and would extend 40 feet from the shoreline if approved by the Lake Waramaug Authority. Mr. Ajello noted the size of the dock might have to be decreased to comply with the Zoning Regulations. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.Rosenblatt/229 Calhoun Street/#IW-10-11/Driveway Culverts and Piping:
Mr. Neff, engineer, explained the erosion problem, which had been occurring over the years on the steepest section of the driveway. The map, “Driveway Catch Basin Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 3/22/10 was reviewed. He proposed the installation of two small catch basins and under the driveway an 8 inch pipe with a modified rip rapped outlet to serve as a spreader at the outflow. He presented photos of the two eroded sections of the driveway and said piping the runoff underneath would prevent it from reoccurring in the future. The commissioners were familiar with the site and did not think an inspection was necessary because the photos were adequate.Auth/329 West Shore Road/#IW-10-10/Install Dock and Shoreline Work:
Mrs. Hill reported that the application was incomplete. Mr. Bedini read her 3/24/10 review, which listed the missing information. In particular, the fee had not been paid, a scaled map of the property with accurate measurements had not been submitted, and specific information about the amount of materials to be deposited had not been provided. It was the consensus that the application was not complete and would not be accepted. Members will conduct a drive-by inspection on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. immediately following the Klein site inspection.Pond/West Shore Road/Dock:
Mrs. Hill asked why this application was not on the agenda. Mr. Ajello said he did not think it was necessary for a floating dock that was not attached to the shoreline to be considered by the Commission. Mrs. Hill noted there was a difference between floats and docks, said the Commission had always been concerned about how docks were connected to the shoreline, and said she did not understand why there should be a change in policy. Mr. Ajello noted this dock would be attached to the boathouse, not to the shoreline. A lengthy discussion followed. It was agreed that no application would be required in this case, but there was no consensus about how to handle these applications in the future. This question will be raised at the workshop with Atty. Branse.Delancy/79 Litchfield Turnpike/Clearcutting/#IW-08-V6:
Mr. Ajello reported that he had sent the Delancys a letter earlier in the month regarding the specific information the Commission had requested in September and that Mrs. Delancy had come into the office to discuss it with him. Mrs. Delancy apologized to the Commission for the delay, but explained that due to the recent damage to her home and vehicles she could not afford to make any improvements to the property. She noted she had cut some invasives and asked the Commission what she could do to close the matter tonight. The Commission advised her that in the wetlands soil disturbance, removal of vegetation, use of machinery, parking that compresses the soil, and activities that pollute are not permitted. Mr. Bedini said he would have no problem with the cutting of the remaining tall pine trees, but did not want a wood splitting operation in the wetlands. Mrs. Delancy agreed that her family would not use ATV’s, park, or do wood splitting in the wetlands. Mr. Ajello noted that the wetland boundaries were now known. Mr. LaMuniere gave a brief summary of the violation and enforcement action and noted that the Commission had requested additional specific information so that it could consider the farming application. Mrs. Delancey stated they no longer had plans to farm, would let the area grow back naturally, and would contact the Commission when the trees will be cut. Mr. Bedini asked her to inform the Commission how many trees would be cut, where the wood would be put, and how the work would be done so that guidance could be provided if necessary. Due to the unusual extenuating circumstances, the Commission deferred the collection of the fine. If the property is restored and there are no further violations, it may decide to waive the payment, but if there are any additional violations, payment of both the old and new citations will be required.
Other Business
Walker Brook Estates/Rt. 109, New Milford:
Mr. Bedini reported that he had discussed the 2010-2011 budget with the Selectmen. They had advised him that should the proposed $1500 be spent for baseline testing of Walker Brook and if it was later determined based on those results that there was pollution of the brook resulting from the subdivision, the Town of Washington did not intend to take New Milford to court. Therefore, Mr. Bedini did not think the expenditure would be worth the price. Any future problems resulting from this subdivision will be reported to the New Milford EO.Referral from the Town of Kent:
An application from Mr. Bibb at 72 Lake Waramaug Road for an electrical conduit was briefly reviewed. It was determined that a response to Kent was not necessary.
Enforcement Report
Brose/213 Roxbury Road/Unauthorized Clearing and Structure/ #IW-08-V5:
Mrs. Brose returned a signed copy of the consent order by fax. Mr. Ajello will get her original signature, and then Mr. Bedini will sign the agreement.Beckett/23 Loomarwick Road:
The erosion controls, sediment basins and hay filters, worked well during the last moderate rainfall.Charvillat/96 Roxbury Road:
Mrs. Charvillat had been out of the country and had not received the letters sent by Mr. Ajello. Her caretaker reported that she will contact the office soon.
Administrative Business
Mr. Ajello reported that the state is offering residents excess fill from highway work, but said he would not sign off on receipt of these soils in Washington due to possible contamination. He will consult with the Selectmen about establishing a policy.Atty. Branse will address the Commission on wetlands issues and answer questions from the commissioners at a Special Meeting on Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. This meeting will be for the Inland Wetlands Commission and if it is successful, additional meetings may be scheduled and other land use commissions invited to attend.
Keeping commissioners’ resumes and credentials on file in the Land Use Office and in the files of applications for which public hearings are being conducted was discussed. It was noted these resumes are relevant in cases when a commissioner disagrees with the testimony of an expert. It was the consensus that these are voluntary and should be placed in an application file only upon the specific request of a commissioner. This will be one issue that Atty. Branse will be asked to comment on.
Communications
The March 2010 letter and brochure from King’s Mark Resource Conservation and Development Area, Inc., an organization available to the land use commissions for environmental reviews, were briefly reviewed.The commissioners were reminded that Mr. Talbot will address the 3/25/2010 Board of Selectmen’s meeting concerning conceptual plans for development in the Depot, particularly in the vicinity of the Old Town Garage at 16 Titus Road.
It was noted that forms by the Forest Practices Advisory Board to be submitted to the Inland Wetlands Commission by timber harvest applicants had been received in the Selectmen’s Office. Mr. Bedini will consult with Mr. Lyon about the timber harvest application process and procedures.
There was no reason to go into Executive Session.
MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting. By Mrs. Hill.Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:46 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Posted: March 18, 2010 March 10, 2010
Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
5:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere
MEMBER RECUSED: Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Wadelton, Mr. Charles, Mr. Boling, Mr. Trinkaus, Ms. Canning, Mrs. Corrigan, Mr. Sonder, Ms. Connerty, Mr./Mrs. Condon, Mr. Meyer, Mrs. Lauriat, Residents
PUBLIC HEARING
Straw Man, LLC/135 Bee Brook Road (Juniper Meadow Road)/#IW-09-44/ Bridge and Driveway
Mr. Bedini reconvened the Public Hearing at 5:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, and LaMuniere. Mrs. J. Hill read the list of documents submitted for the record since the last meeting.
Mr. Trinkaus, engineer, reviewed the plan, “Wetland Crossing for Access Driveway,” 5 sheets, by Mr. Trinkaus, revised to 3/4/10 including the “Conceptual Development Plan” and he responded to points raised by Atty. Zizka in his 2/24/10 letter and Mr. Sanford in his last review letter.
Mr. Trinkaus presented a plan for affordable housing units, which, he said, would require an 18 ft. wide driveway for access. He noted this was not a final plan, but would change based on further testing of the parcel. He said that the proposed 18 ft. wide travel surface would reduce the impacts resulting from a 24 ft. wide town road, which per Town regulations, would be required to access more than three building lots. He also noted the Inland Wetlands Commission had previously approved a box culvert crossing. The width of this culvert had spanned the entire right of way and since it would have been set below the bottom of the stream channel, it would have resulted in substantially more impact than the current bridge proposal.
Mr. Trinkaus stated the issues raised concerning the sewage disposal system were Health Dept. issues and a civil matter. He said, however, that to address them either a clay barrier could be installed or the driveway could be shifted to the south to eliminate the proposed bank cut. If the driveway were moved, the runoff would continue to flow to the same vegetated swale.
Regarding the pipes under the seepage flow envelope, Mr. Trinkaus stated they had been sized for a 100 year storm and would be almost full under those conditions. He said he did not think the installation of rodent traps would help prevent clogs because they could also trap debris. He thought an 8” pipe without a grate would allow the movement of amphibians.
Mr. Trinkaus noted he had calculated the depth of flow between the abutments, had corrected drafting oversights, and had checked the cross sections to make sure all the grading shown met required standards. He submitted the 3/8/10 ecological report by Mrs. Corrigan.
Mr. Bedini asked if the application would change. Mr. Trinkaus said it would not; it was for the bridge and driveway and all future additional work would have to come back to the Commission.
Mr. Bedini noted the application stated the purpose of the proposed bridge was to access the property to study development concepts and so this was the purpose the Commission would consider.
Mr. LaMuniere asked Mr. Trinkaus to comment on #G6 and asked if he expected to find groundwater on the west side. Mr. Trinkaus said he did not expect to find groundwater, but would conduct soil borings and would put in crushed stone beneath the footings if groundwater was found there.
Mr. Sonder spoke at length about the points he raised in his letter dated 3/9/10. These included;
1) all impacts from the proposed activity should be kept to an absolute minimum including no increases in the danger of flooding and no encroachment on or harm to the Condo Assn. property,
2) no activities of any kind should be approved until an absolute need is demonstrated,
3) any activity approved should be no greater than the minimum needed to serve that activity,
4) the ultimate use of the property is not stated in the application and that is essential in order for the Commission to determine the absolute minimum activity required to serve the end need,
5) section 11.02f of the Regulations states that the Commission “shall” consider future uses, but the plan submitted states that it is only one possible scenario and subject to change,
6) regulatory, technical, and economic feasibility for the proposed use must be established as there now is no assurance that a Special Permit for affordable housing would be granted or that the property can accommodate more than one single family dwelling, and
7) until an application, which includes a comprehensive plan, is submitted, any approval would risk irreversible harm to the wetlands and brook.Mr. Bedini noted Mr. Sonder had acknowledged the applicant’s right to access her property and said the Commission would consider reasonable access based on what the application states its use will be. He stated whether the property would be developed or not in the future was not a part of the application.
Mr. Sonder agreed the proposed access was to enable the owner to enjoy her property and conduct further tests. He said that the application proposed a driveway, but instead, a two lane road was proposed. He said he would have no problem if a one lane, 12 ft. wide driveway was constructed. He stated there was no evidence that what was proposed would be required for the end use and, therefore, it was excessive and would do more harm to the wetlands than necessary.
Mr. Boling stated the owner’s enjoyment and intended long term use of the property was the construction of multi family residences, so it would make no economic sense to construct a 12 ft. wide driveway. He added that installing a 12 ft. wide bridge and then within a year widening it to 18 ft. would cause more adverse impact to the wetlands than installing an 18 ft. wide access from the start and that the “vast majority” of the property was upland soils that could accommodate multiple dwelling units. He said the current application showed all that is ever likely to be proposed within the wetlands.
Mr. Bedini noted that regarding the future plans for the property, the Commission would be concerned about development on steep slopes above wetlands and about the stormwater management system.
Mr. Boling stated that while the Fire Dept. was been inconsistent in its recommendations for road and driveway widths, it has consistently called for two travel lanes for public safety. He pointed out that 18 ft. wide was the narrowest width to safely accommodate two way traffic. Mr. Bedini noted a narrower road with pull offs might be suitable.
Mr. Sonder again stated the application was for a driveway and that if a road was proposed, it had to be applied for. Mr. Bedini asked what the definitions were for each. It was noted there was no specified standard for width in the Town’s driveway ordinance.
Mr. Sonder used Mr. Battista’s study, revised to 2/4/10, for an 18 ft. wide driveway to explain his claim that the proposed driveway grading would encroach on the Association’s property by approximately 9 ft. Mr. Trinkaus responded that he stood by his signature and seal that the driveway could be constructed as designed without any encroachment. He noted that the scale was distorted on the plans, that before any work began, the boundary line would be staked in the field, and that he had not received Mr. Battista’s plans and he had not been able to review them. Mr. Bedini said he was not sure the encroachment issue was within the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Mr. LaMuniere asked Mr. Sonder how the construction of the bridge would increase the danger of flooding on the Association’s property. Mr. Sonder said that had been a general statement made when the application had first been submitted, but there had been several changes since then to address his concerns.
Mr. LaMuniere asked Mr. Sonder for his concerns about the east bank. Mr. Sonder replied the depth, size, and location of the footing were concerns because that bank was manmade fill and the footing would probably be deeper than 4 ft. He thought there could be problems during construction.
Mr. LaMuniere asked again how the construction of the bridge would increase the danger of flooding. Mr. Sonder said he preferred to have a more detailed bridge design at this point and said he did not know either the depth of construction or what the footings would look like. Mr. LaMuniere stated the abutment had been moved back 6 ft. so there was no longer a concern about erosion and said he did not see how this would impact flooding.
Mr. Sanford, the Commission’s consulting engineer, said he would have a final review for the next meeting after the last documents have been submitted. He asked Mrs. Corrigan to provide the following additional information in her ecological report:
1) description of all the existing wetlands on site,
2) identification of all existing wetlands functions for both the brook and the wetlands,
3) identification of the actual quality of the wetlands, and
4) identification of all primary and secondary impacts to the wetlands functions and values noted under #2 above.Mr. LaMuniere asked if Mr. Sanford would respond to the 3/4/10 letter from Mr. Trinkaus. Mr. Sanford said he would.
Mr. Boling stated that since the applicant was not asking for approval of the conceptual site plan, it would not be revised. Mr. Bedini agreed this was not necessary.
Mr. Ajello asked Mr. Trinkaus how the bridge construction could take place without multiple stream crossings by the large equipment. Mr. Trinkaus said there would be a temporary crossing of telephone poles and a steel plate and a smaller piece of equipment operating from the west side of the brook. He noted driving across the temporary crossing would cause no impact to the stream.
Mr. LaMuniere asked for a provision under long term management that the pipes under the seepage envelope would be checked annually. Mr. Trinkaus agreed to add this note to the narrative.
Mr. LaMuniere commented that the development concept was not very helpful as it shows stormwater management areas, which would be a concern for the Commission, and houses on steep slopes. Mr. Trinkaus stated the purpose of the conceptual plan was to show that the end use of the property would require an 18 ft. wide driveway. He noted that when the stormwater management plans were completed they would show that all of the runoff would not travel down the hill.
Mr. LaMuniere stated that the need for a 12 ft. or 18 ft. wide driveway depended on the future use of the property. Mr. Trinkaus said he had shown a use that requires an 18 ft. wide driveway for the safe and reasonable use of the property.
Mr. Sonder asked when the driveway and bridge would be constructed. He maintained that the applicant stated the construction would not take place until after the entire project was approved. Mr. Boling said the applicant was applying for a permit to build it, but was not saying when the construction would take place. Mr. Bedini noted that future plans may require the modification of any permit issued.
Mr. Meyer asked what would happen if an 18 ft. wide driveway was approved and then the multiple housing was denied; would the Inland Wetlands Commission be liable for more destruction of the wetlands than had been necessary? He noted that the Condo Assn. had offered to help the applicant by allowing a temporary crossing on the Assn. property. Mr. Bedini responded that the Commission would have to refer that question to its attorney and that asking a neighbor for permission to access your property was not a feasible option.
Mr. Charles asked Mr. Sonder if he had received copies of all of the documents he needed. Mr. Sonder said he had.
At 6:10 p.m. Mr. Bedini continued the public hearing to Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room and urged everyone to get all outstanding information in as soon as possible. He noted that if information was submitted too late to be reviewed, it might not be considered by the Commission.
This public hearing was recorded. The audio is on file in the Land Use Office, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Barist, Mr. SzymanskiMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 2/24/10 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 2: middle of 2nd paragraph from bottom: Change: “…move the abutments closer together” to: “shorten the abutments.”
Page 3: Line #8: Change first sentence to: “Mr. LaMuniere asked if there would be potential for heavy turbulence in a 100 year storm, which would result in scouring and erosion on the bridge’s western abutment.”
Page 3: Change next to the last paragraph to: “Mr. LaMuniere said he was puzzled by the claim that the seepage envelope would significantly impact the forested wetland pocket. He thought the seepage envelope would not alter the hydraulic function of that wetland and it should continue to function unimpaired. He asked Mr. Sanford to comment.”
Page 5: 3rd paragraph: Line #5: Change: “insignificant” to “minor.”MOTION:
To accept the 2/24/10 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road (Juniper Meadow Road)/#IW-09-44 /Bridge and Driveway:
The public hearing was continued to Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.Barist/22 South Fenn Hill Road/#IW-10-04/Clearing, Restoration:
Mr. Bedini read the 2/26/10 letter from Mr. Barist to Mr. Ajello. Mr. Barist explained that he had agreed to remove the woodchips as Mr. Ajello had recommended and had added plans for the continuation of the project. He said he understood the work must progress in a way that would not damage the area. Mr. LaMuniere asked if invasives would be removed beyond the stream. Mr. Barist stated that only one patch of barberry would be removed beyond the stream, but that work would not be done until next winter when the ground was frozen. He said that area could be accessed without crossing the stream. Mrs. Hill noted this was an application to correct a violation. She stated that only work by hand was allowed in wetlands and asked if that was how Mr. Barist proposed to remove the invasives in this wetlands. There was a brief discussion re: no impact vs. low impact equipment on wheels. Mr. Ajello thought hand held equipment such as weed whackers were OK for use in the wetlands, but Mrs. Hill thought such low impact equipment could be used only in those areas surrounding the actual wetlands. She noted that in the recent application submitted by Lyons-Gray, the invasives were to be removed by hand in the wetlands. She thought the Barists would know where they had to work by hand because the wetland had been flagged. Mr. Barist said that he had given instructions that no machines except for a chain saw were to be used in the wetlands, but back from there he wanted to use a walk behind flail as the invasives were too thick to be removed by handcutters. Mr. Barist amended his letter to state that only “hand held” equipment would be used in the wetlands.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-04 submitted by Mr. Barist for clearing and restoration at 22 South Fenn Hill Road.
By Mr. Bohan, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
King/153 Lower Church Hill Road/#IW-10-08/Dredge Pond, Construct Rain Garden:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented the map, “Overall Site Improvement Plan,” 3 sheets, by Arthur H. Howland and Associates, dated 3/3/10. He proposed to construct a rain garden to handle the runoff from both the barn and house and to dredge the silted in pond. He noted a large amount of sediment, 5000 cubic yards, would be removed and he pointed out the proposed spoils areas to be located in the uplands. He said most of the work would be conducted from the west corner of the pond where the wetlands are the narrowest and said that it would be done during the driest time of the summer. He said tests had been conducted that showed the deepest excavation would be 4 feet to the hard bottom. Mr. Szymanski submitted a letter dated 3/10/10, which stated Mr. King would be responsible for monitoring and maintenance of the erosion control measures. Mrs. J. Hill noted a letter of approval from Steep Rock Assn., holder of the conservation easement on the property, had not yet been received. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, March 17, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.Leitz/337 Romford Road/#IW-10-07/Construct Garage:
Mr. Ajello briefly reviewed the application and the survey map with the proposed garage drawn in by hand was studied. A timber frame garage with foundation is proposed. Mr. Ajello noted the limit of disturbance line would include a small portion of the lawn on the far side of the driveway. There was a brief discussion regarding how the excavated soils would be handled. Mr. Ajello read the sequence of construction. Mrs. J. Hill said she had notified the applicant that many items were missing from the application such as incomplete DEP form, stockpile areas, conduit location, and limit of disturbance line not shown on the site plan, etc. It was the consensus that the commissioners were familiar with the property and a site inspection was not necessary.
Other Business
Walker Brook Subdivision/Rt. 109, New Milford:
Mr. Bedini noted there had not yet been a meeting with the Selectmen to discuss the Inland Wetlands proposed budget and the Commission’s request for funds to monitor Walker Brook. He said, however, that it would do no good to monitor the brook if the Town was not committed to taking action should problems be found in the future. The ongoing erosion and sedimentation problems at the subdivision were briefly described by Mr. Ajello. Mr. LaMuniere thought more serious pollution would result after the completion of the construction of the houses. Mrs. J. Hill and Mr. Bedini had heard that WEC might have some water quality testing/monitoring capabilities. Mr. Ajello thought the monitoring should be left to the neighbors as he did not think Washington officials were interested in suing New Milford over water quality issues. He said he would continue to inspect the brook and take pictures of any sedimentation. It was noted the purpose of the base line tests proposed was to get data on hand so it would be known in the future whether the subdivision was causing pollution in Walker Brook. Mr. Ajello said additional testing had been recommended, but no plan or testing criteria provided and the estimated cost had been approx. $1500 per year. Mr. LaMuniere thought baseline testing should be completed now before the stormwater management system and houses were constructed, while Mr. Wadelton thought the cost of further testing vs. benefits should be studied. Mr. Ajello thought there would be no return on any money put into testing and that if problems arose in the future, New Milford, NCD, the DEP, and the EPA would get involved.
Enforcement
Beckett/23 Loomarwick Road:
Mr. Ajello said he make sure the erosion controls were in good repair before the predicted storms arrive.Bennett/80 East Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello said there had been no progress.Brose/213 Roxbury Road:
Ms. Brose said she would sign the settlement agreement; the completed document is in the file for anyone interested in reviewing it. The starting date in the agreement will be changed to June 1.Charvillat/96 Roxbury Road:
Mr. Ajello said he was working on the letter the Commission asked him to send to the property owner.Delancy/79 Litchfield Turnpike:
The Delancys have not contacted the Commission since the last meeting. Mr. Ajello recommended that another letter be sent before following up on the citation. Mr. Bedini noted the Regulations state the property owner must prove he is establishing a farm and that this is an issue that Atty. Branse will be asked to address. Mr. LaMuniere did not think it was necessary to prove a farm was established, but only that a farming activity was being conducted. It was noted that Mr. Delancy had not submitted a plan of operation to the Commission as had been requested and it was the consensus that since he had submitted neither this plan nor an application, that he was in violation. Mr. Ajello will send another letter and if there is no response, further enforcement action will be taken.Donovan-Biddle/53 Kinney Hill Road:
Work will continue when the ground thaws.Mello/183 Woodbury Road:
Regrading and stabilization will take place when the ground thaws.Moriniere/22 Wheaton Road:
Work has resumed. Activities near the wetlands will require a permit.Tangeman/84 Carmel Hill Road:
This property owner is also waiting for the thaw to resume work.Town of Washington/16 Titus Road (Old Town Garage Property):
Mrs. Payne had complained that the Town was mowing the field weekly instead of once per year as specified as a condition of approval. Mr. Ajello spoke with the Selectmen who will contact the Highway crew.DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street:
There has been no additional cutting. Mr. DiBenedetto plans to continue with substantial planting.Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road:
Mr. Andersson is waiting for dry weather to complete the work specified in the agreement.Brown/127 West Shore Road:
The Commission’s attorneys are preparing the court case.Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane:
$4000 of the $5000 bond was returned to Mr. Slaymaker. At least two of the pines have died and must be replanted.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road:
The Army Corps of Engineers last sent the Rosens an enforcement letter two months ago.Schein/245 West Shore Road:
The required planting of the hillside has not yet been done.Angell/47 West Shore Road:
Mr. Angell paid his fine.Showah/311 Bee Brook Road:
Mr. Ajello sent Mrs. Showah a letter, but she did not respond. It was noted that had she applied for the driveway, it would have been approved as a farming activity.Weaver/176 East Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello will meet with Mr. Weaver, Mr. Szymanski, and the DOT on March 26.Molinari/59 South Fenn Hill Road:
This item will be taken off the agenda.
Administrative Business
Mrs. Hill asked that the citation officer consistently issue citations for the operation of machinery without a permit in the wetlands. She thought both Barist and Delancy should have been sent citations. Mr. LaMuniere thought property owners should be required to submit applications to correct violations when found to have been operating equipment in the wetlands without a permit. Mr. Ajello explained that he usually issues a notice of violation, but hesitates to issue a citation if it appears the property owner will cooperate and work quickly to correct the violation. It was the consensus that the Commission will be more diligent in following enforcement procedures and will let Mr. Ajello know in a timely manner when it thinks a citation should have been sent.
Atty. Branse will speak on Inland Wetlands issues and respond to the Commission’s questions on Thursday, April 8 from 5:00-7:00.
Communications
Mr. Bedini noted Mr. Lyons had emailed the Commission about several raised bills in the Ct. legislature. Mr. LaMuniere said revisions to the local regulations would be required if the bills were approved.A 2/24/10 document from Ms. Kissance, Transportation Assistant Planning Director, Bureau of Policy and Planning, regarding the highway work to be done along 300 feet of East Shore Road was noted.
Mr. LaMuniere, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Bedini, and Mr. Bohan asked Mrs. J. Hill to sign them up for the second Inland Wetlands commissioner training session on May 22 in Torrington.
MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Bedini.
There being no further business, Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m.FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: March 4, 2010 February 24, 2010
Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
5:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomPUBLIC HEARING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere
MEMBER RECUSED: Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Canning, Mr. Charles, Mr. Boling, Mr. Trinkaus, Mr. Sonder, Mr. Battista, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Dunbar, Ms. Meyer, Ms. Max-Fiss, ResidentsStraw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road (Juniper Meadow Road)/#IW-09-44, Driveway and Bridge
Mr. Bedini reconvened the public hearing at 5:02 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, and LaMuniere. He noted for the record that Mr. Bohan and Mr. LaMuniere had thoroughly reviewed the file and had listened to the recordings of the hearing. Mrs. J. Hill read the list of documents that had been submitted since the last session of the hearing. Mr. Bedini noted that unless the applicant requested an extension, the hearing would have to be closed tonight.
Mr. Trinkaus, engineer, addressed the concerns raised in Milone and MacBroom’s follow-up review letter dated 2/19/10. The points he made included the following: Regarding the proposed width of the bridge deck, he stated that the abutments would be in place to support the bridge and hold the banks regardless of the width of the travelway. He said the sewage disposal system for the Bee Brook Condos was located outside the upland review area and was a Zoning and Health Dept. issue. He noted the Health Code specifies there can be no cut within 50 feet of a sewage disposal system and so if the driveway was shifted 5 ft. to the south and the driveway runoff directed in the same direction it flows now, this would be a “non issue.” He discussed the proposed seepage envelope.
In response to Milone and MacBroom’s opinion that crushed stone might be needed under the footings, Mr. Trinkaus said he had done similar bridge construction without the stone, but added he would be willing to do soils testing and revise his plans if necessary. He said that although FEMA maps do not indicate either a flood plain or flood way along Chaple Brook, it was common sense a flood plain does exist there. He said the height of the water in a 100 year storm had been calculated and he agreed to do a scour analysis as a condition of approval. He stated that a bridge would not constrain the flow of flood water. In response to the criticism that a biological evaluation of the wetlands had not been submitted, he stated that the Regulations state the Commission “may” require one, but had not asked for one. He also noted that per Milone and MacBroom’s request, three cross sections had been prepared. He said, too, that a few drafting errors had been corrected on the revised plans and that the proposed grading works within the limit of construction and could be accomplished within the right of way.
Mr. Bedini asked the reason for the proposed 18 ft. wide travel surface. Mr. Trinkaus said the 14 acre site could be subdivided and a 12 foot wide access would not be sufficient for safety concerns and emergency access. Mr. Bedini noted the Fire Dept. has no written regulations regarding road and driveway width requirements and said its recommendations vary. Mr. Trinkaus gave examples of width requirements in other towns and said 18 feet wide was safe without being too wide and was sufficiently wide for two vehicles to pass.
Mr. Bedini asked if the end use of the property was known. Mr. Boling said multiple residences would be built, but there were no specific plans at this time.
Mr. Boling stated that installing a 12 ft. wide driveway first and then reinstalling an 18 ft. wide driveway when needed would cause more adverse impact to the wetlands than the installation of the proposed 18 ft. wide drive.
Mr. Ajello asked if the 23 ft. width for the bridge abutments would still be needed if the travelway was only 12 ft. wide. Mr. Trinkaus responded that the size of the wing wall was governed by the grading and filling associated with the driveway and the side height of the wing walls governed the distance between the abutments, so a 12 ft. wide travelway would not necessarily move the abutments closer together. He said the vertical geometry governed the width requirement; the center section through the wetlands would not shrink. Mr. Ajello said he would like Mr. Sanford, engineer from Milone and MacBroom, to comment on this later.
Mr. LaMuniere noted it was critical for the Commission to determine whether the narrower bridge would have less impact on the wetlands. He asked, 1) what would be the difference in the area of impact to the wetlands surface if the driveway width was reduced from 18 ft. to 12 ft. and 2) would the seepage envelope be able to handle a 100 year storm event. Mr. Trinkaus answered that there would be 100 to 120 sq. ft. less impact with the reduction in driveway width and said the pipes have more than enough capacity to carry a 100 year storm. He noted that if the driveway were only 12 ft. wide, small pull offs would have to be installed in several upland areas. He said that the flood waters that did not infiltrate in the natural environment would take the path of least resistance and flow across the flat wetland area, under the bridge, and down Chaple Brook. He noted the watershed was only slightly over three acres in size.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if there would be potential for heavy turbulence, which would result in scouring and erosion. Mr. Trinkaus said, no, because there was more than ample capacity.
Mr. LaMuniere asked if the abutment was deep enough. Mr. Trinkaus stated that it met the 4 ft. deep requirement.
Mr. LaMuniere noted that the existing slope could absorb a lot of rainfall and that if a development was proposed, a complete stormwater management plan would have to be approved so there would be no downgrade impacts. He asked how much rainfall it would take to significantly impact the proposed stone check dams. Mr. Trinkaus referred to the 2/4/10 letter he had submitted and said that not much runoff would flow into the swale.
Mr. Trinkaus commented on the additional impact to the wetlands, which would be caused if a 12 ft. wide bridge was installed and then later had to be widened to 18 feet. He stated it would be more environmentally sound to do the work all at once.
Mrs. Hill asked Mr. Trinkaus to submit his presentation in writing for the file.
Mr. LaMuniere asked about potential seepage from the existing Bee Brook Condos’ septic system and if there were plans to test the soil in this area. Mr. Trinkaus stated the bank near the septic system had already been cut and regraded so if there was going to be a problem with effluent leaching out, it probably would have happened already. He noted, too, that the system was outside of the upland review area.
Mr. Dunbar asked how the property would be used in the future. Mr. Bedini asked the applicant why access to the property was needed and what type of equipment would be used there. Mr. Boling responded there would be multiple residences proposed.
Mr. LaMuniere said he was puzzled by the claim that the bridge would significantly impact the wetlands. He thought the installation of the proposed filter fabric and 12 inch blast rock would ensure the hydraulic function of the wetlands would not be impaired and the wetlands would continue to function and he asked Mr. Sanford to comment.
Mr. Sanford stated the direct impact to the wetlands would be from the fill required for the abutments, but an additional impact would be the effect of loss of sunlight on the wetlands vegetation. He said if the travelway was reduced to 12 ft. wide and the abutments shrunk, there would be “somewhat less impact” relating to the fill and loss of sunlight. He noted, too, that along the seepage envelope, the width of the swale and shoulders would be somewhat reduced. He advised the Commission that it has the right to ask for a report regarding the impacts of the proposed crossing. He explained that in terms of the seepage envelope there would be “some” compaction of wetlands soils caused by the driveway. He thought the surface water flow and groundwater hydrology would have “some” loss, but that the installation of a gravel driveway would allow the natural flow to continue through. Regarding Section 8.06f of the Regulations, Mr. Sanford said that Inland Wetlands commissions typically require this information and that since the Commission had deemed this proposal to be a significant activity, it should ask for assurance that what was designed was the best alternative to protect the wetlands function and vegetation.
There was a brief discussion regarding the relationship of the bridge width to the ultimate use of the property.
Mr. Meyer noted that equipment for testing had previously accessed the property from Calhoun Street and he asked what data had been obtained. Mr. Boling said it had been learned that the property has significant development potential. Mr. Trinkaus stated that additional testing in the areas of the proposed septic systems was necessary. Mr. Boling stated that the feasible and prudent development sites were 200 to 600 feet from the wetlands and he understood that if there were any wetlands issues the applicant would have to come back to the Commission.
It was noted the following additional documents/information would be submitted for the file: 1) revised plans from Mr. Trinkaus, 2) follow up letter from Milone and MacBroom, 3) possible response from the applicant re: Mr. Sonder’s 2/24/10 letter, and 4) a written response by Mr. Trinkaus to the latest Milone and MacBroom letter. The applicant also stated that he wanted to hear any input from Mr. Battista so there would be an opportunity to respond to it before the next meeting.
Ms. Meyer did not understand why it was necessary for a car to cross the stream. Mr. Ajello stated a footbridge would be sufficient. Ms. Max-Fiss said the property could be checked with Google or other ways that would not require a crossing.
Mr. Sonder stated the applicant contends that a two lane crossing is needed to satisfy the potential development of the site, but said that potential had not been established and there was no evidence that it was suitable for more than one or two houses. He said the soils map showed the site has soils with severe septic limitations and the latest soils report indicated the non wetlands soils had not been evaluated by a soil scientist. He said that to approve more than necessary would be detrimental to the wetlands in the long term. He noted the Commission had approved a culvert crossing in 1999, but said a complete application for the crossing, two house sites, and a shared driveway had been submitted at that time. He acknowledged the applicant’s right of way. He said, however, the construction of a bridge would result in disturbance of wetlands on the Condo Assoc. property and the Assoc. wanted to be careful that any negative impacts and danger of flooding were kept to a minimum and there would be no grading encroachments on its property. He urged the Commission not to approve any activity that would be more intrusive than necessary to serve the parcel and so said determination of the need was essential for the evaluation of a complete application.
Mr. Battista, engineer for the Assoc., noted he had submitted two letters for the file in which he had expressed engineering concerns. These included the following: He agreed with Milone and MacBroom that the application was incomplete in respect to the lack of ecological studies. He stated that the applicant had resisted a hydraulic analysis of the brook. He thought the bridge would require a DEP permit due to the size of the watershed. He said the grading for the roadway was inaccurately shown on the plans and that as proposed, grading outside the right of way could not be avoided. He estimated there was a 14% difference in the disturbance to wetlands that would result from a 12 ft. wide vs. 18 ft. wide bridge; 2660 sq. ft. vs. 3030 sq. ft.
Mr. LaMuniere noted the importance of the 2/24/10 letter from Atty. Zizka to the Commission and said the Commission understood a bridge was a better crossing solution than a culvert. He thought the difference in the amount of wetlands to be disturbed was insignificant, but asked the commissioners whether they thought the ecological study per Section 8 of the Regulations was warranted. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Sanford to comment.
Mr. Sanford stated that typically if a significant activity is proposed and a perennial watercourse is involved, the applicant provides for the record a report on the quality of the watercourse and the potential impact on its functions and values. He noted that no documentation had been submitted to demonstrate that an 18 ft. wide bridge would not impact these functions and values. Mr. Boling noted the Regulations state the Commission “may” require such a report, not that the report is always required.
Mr. Trinkaus briefly responded to Mr. Sanford. He noted the proposed seepage envelope was in the upper limit of the wetland pocket, but said the crossing location was restricted due to the location of the right of way. He said the crossing was proposed at the narrowest point available to the applicant and that efforts had been made to limit compaction. He also thought that because the bridge location is currently in dense shade, there was not now dense herbaceous vegetation there that could be affected by shade from a bridge. He stated that if the Commission required the ecological report, it would not change the proposed location of the crossing.
Mr. Sanford stated that the record did not evaluate the wetlands, yet that was what the Commission was supposed to do.
Mr. LaMuniere agreed that although it was a very small area that would be evaluated, it should be done for legal purposes.
Mr. Sanford advised the applicant to focus on the seepage wetlands, stream, and flood plain wetlands. He said it would be for the Town’s benefit to have a complete record of what exists on site and to make sure all of the criteria of the Regulations were met.
Mr. Boling submitted a letter dated 2/24/10 asking for the maximum extension permitted.
Mr. Bedini continued the public hearing to 5:00 p.m. on March 10, 2010 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. The hearing was continued at 6:28 p.m.
This public hearing was recorded. The recording is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Forese, Mrs. Swanson, Ms. Forese, Mr. Neff, Mr. SzymanskiMr. Bedini called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, LaMuniere, and Wadelton.
MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the agenda:
V. New Application, A. Swanson-Forese/41 Horse Heaven Road/#IW-10-06/Feasibility for First Cut.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes The 1/27/10 Minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: The Public Hearing should be titled, Straw Man, LLC/135 Bee Brook Road/#IW-09-44/Bridge and Driveway.
Page 2: The correct spelling is Andersson.
Page 5: Under Barist: It was noted an application had already been submitted.
Page 5: Under Carter: 9th line: Change: “assumed” to “confirmed.”
Page 6: Under Subdivision in Litchfield: Line 4: Change to: Mrs. J. Hill.MOTION:
To accept the 1/27/10 Public Hearing/Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 4-0-1.
Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not been present.MOTION:
To accept the 2/4/10 Lyons-Gray site inspection minutes as written.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 3-0-2.
Mr. LaMuniere and Mr. Bohan abstained because they had not been present.MOTION:
To accept the 2/4/10 Barist site inspection minutes as written.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road/#IW-09-44/Bridge and Driveway:
The public hearing was continued to 5:00 p.m. on March 10, 2010 in the Land Use Meeting Room.Lyons-Gray/82 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-10-03/Remove Invasives and Other Vegetation:
Mr. Neff, engineer, noted there had been no revisions to the plan since it had been discussed at the last meeting. The plan, “Invasive Vegetation Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/22/10 was reviewed. He noted he had identified the area where the work was to be done, and had specified in the work sequence that all the invasive plants to be cut would be tagged and an on site meeting with the contractor and WEO held prior to the start of work. Mrs. Hill read the note on the plan. Mr. LaMuniere stated that he saw no potential impact on the wetlands. Mr. Neff noted the work sequence specifies that after the initial removal of the invasives, follow up manual applications of Round Up may be necessary. It would be either brushed on or applied by wand to the cut stems. Mrs. Hill asked who the expert would be who would identify the invasives. Mr. Neff said the expert had not yet been selected.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-03 submitted by Lyons- Gray for the removal of invasives and other vegetation at 82 Old Litchfield Road according to the “Invasive Vegetation Removal Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/22/10 and with the understanding that in addition Round Up will be applied by hand as necessary over the years.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.Barist/22 South Fenn Hill Road/#IW-10-04/Clearing, Restoration:
Mrs. Hill asked if the section of wetlands where the work was done was accurately marked on the map. A copy of the map, “Subdivision Prepared for a Portion of the Pearson Farm,” dated December 1986 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello noted that although the stream was not indicated, the soil types were delineated. Mr. Ajello pointed out several wetland areas where clearing occurred. It was noted there had been machinery operating in the wetlands, but since the ground was frozen, there had been no ruts. Mr. Bedini noted that very little understory remained. Mrs. Hill asked if a citation had been issued and if not, why not. Mr. Ajello responded that a notice of violation had been sent, but he had not issued a citation because Mr. Barist wanted to Commission to rule on whether an application was actually required for the work done. Mrs. Hill said that since machinery had operated in the wetlands, a citation was required. Mr. Ajello noted that the woodchips spread were too thick to permit ferns and other vegetation to grow through. There was a brief discussion regarding how to handle clearcutting in wetlands and when citations should be issued. Mr. Bedini thought there was no clear answer, that this was a continual problem, and that each case had to be judged individually. Mr. LaMuniere noted that in this case a canopy remained and the clearing had not extended beyond the stream. It was the consensus that the work done required a permit and that an application to correct a violation was required. Mr. Ajello said he would order Mr. Barist to remove the woodchips to a depth of one inch or less and ask him to submit an application to correct the violation.Carter/141 Shinar Mountain Road/#IW-10-05/Addition to Existing Dwelling:
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, submitted the 2/21/10 letter from Ms. Steers of the Roxbury Land Trust stating it had no concerns about the proposed work. The map, “Existing Conditions Map,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 1/20/10 was reviewed. He noted a second story addition was proposed, the limit of disturbance had been marked, and hay bales would be installed to ensure that machinery would not get too close to the brook. He said there would be no soil disturbance and no stockpiling of materials.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-05 submitted by Mr. Carter to construct an addition to the existing dwelling at 141 Shinar Mountain Road.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, passed 5-0.
New Application
Forese-Swanson/41 Horse Heaven Road/#IW-10-06/Feasibility for First Cut:
The map, “Proposed Site Development Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 2/22/10 was reviewed. Mrs. Swanson pointed out the existing structures and driveway. Mr. Bedini pointed out an intermittent stream and existing culvert and asked if the driveway would be upgraded. Mrs. Swanson said there was no need to do so. Mr. Bedini noted the only potential problem would be any work proposed within 100 feet of the intermittent stream. Mrs. Hill noted the application was for feasibility only; no work was proposed at this time. There were no other questions or concerns.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-06 submitted by Mrs. Swanson and Mr. Forese for the feasibility of a first cut at 41 Horse Heaven Road in accordance with the site development plan by Mr. Neff dated 2/22/10 with the condition that when the lot is developed, the owner return to the Commission for review of the final plans.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Enforcement Report
Auth/329 West Shore Road:
Mr. Auth will submit an application for development of the shoreline. Mr. Bedini asked if the application should be reviewed by Dr. Kortmann. It was the consensus to find out exactly what was proposed before making this decision.Brose/Roxbury Road:
The Commission is waiting for Atty. Zizka’s review of the settlement proposal.Charvillat/96 Roxbury Road:
A finish card was sent in, but the owner had not completed the required planting. Mr. Ajello has sent several letters, but there has been no response. He will investigate to determine whether a citation is appropriate.Delancy/79 Litchfield Turnpike:
Mrs. J. Hill reported that Mrs. Delancy had come in to say they had not been able to live in their house for two months and needed more time to respond to the Commission’s requests.Mello/183 Woodbury Road:
The well was installed while the ground was frozen. The regrading will have to be completed after it thaws. Fiberglass mats had been used to access the site and the silt fence and hay bales will not be removed until the area is completely stabilized.Martin/Gunn Hill Road: Mr. Ajello sent a letter to Ms. Martin regarding the new stonewall and drainage on the adjoining property as the Commission had requested at the last meeting.
Tangeman/84 Carmel Hill Road:
Planting for the vernal pool will be done this spring.Tendler/66 Old North Road/Demolition and Reconstruction of Dwelling:
Mr. Ajello noted this project would take place 102 feet from the proposed house in a relatively flat area. Excavation would encroach slightly, but it was going to be a modular house, so the risk to wetlands would be low. Mr. Ajello did not think a permit was required and the commissioners agreed with him.Walker Brook Farm, New Milford:
Mr. Ajello had nothing new to report.Agent Approval
Jepson/144 East Shore Road:
Mr. Ajello presented photos of the existing stairs on East Shore Road. Narrower stairs with iron hand rails are proposed. The disturbance will be confined to the immediate area, the new stairs will result in less coverage, and the owner will put in plantings. The owner also proposes to relay the patio further up on the property. Mr. Ajello said there were no wetlands issues and noted that two catch basins on the state road are located 40 to 60 feet away in both directions. It was the consensus that an Agent Approval would be OK.
Administrative Business
A workshop with Atty. Branse was discussed. Two of the topics to be addressed will be how to create the record and agricultural exemptions. Several possible dates were selected and Mr. Bedini will contact Atty. Branse to schedule the workshop.Mr. Bedini noted there was an upcoming meeting of commission chairmen and vice chairmen with the Board of Selectmen and said he would raise the issue of Fire Department specifications for driveways and bridges and dry hydrants. He recommended that the Fire Dept. draft standard written requirements, noting they would be helpful when reviewing applications such as the current Straw Man proposal. Mrs. Hill thought the Commission could make determinations about appropriate driveway and bridge widths based on its own Regulations.
MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. LaMuniere.Mr. Bedini adjourned the Meeting at 9:54 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: February 4, 2010 January 27, 2010
Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
5:00 and 7:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomPUBLIC HEARING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. LaMuniere
MEMBER RECUSED: Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Boling, Mr. Charles, Mr. Sonder, Mrs. Burr, Ms. Connerty, Mr. Meyer, Mr./Mrs. Condon, Mr. Wadelton, ResidentsMr. Bedini called the Public Hearing to order at 5:05 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, and Hill. He then read the list of documents submitted since the last session of the public hearing.
Mr. Boling, agent for the applicant, noted the applicant had not had time to read and respond to the review by Milone and MacBroom dated 1/27/10, but would be willing to answer questions.
Mr. Charles, agent for the applicant, said he would submit the written report on feasible and prudent alternatives tomorrow.
Mr. Meyer stated he was concerned about the proposed crossing and he thanked the Commission for its time and effort in reviewing the application.
Mr. Sonder said his engineer was also working on a report re: feasible and prudent alternatives, which would be submitted soon. He submitted photos of Chaple Brook during the storm on 1/25/10, played a video showing the water flowing in the brook during the storm, and submitted the record of Monday’s rainfall, a letter dated 1/27/10, and the video disc. Mr. Bedini asked him to label all photos and Mr. Sonder did so.
Mr. Charles noted that when he was on the property during the storm, the water did not overflow the swale. Mr. Sonder agreed that he had never seen the swale overflow, but added that there would be additional drainage problems in the area if discharge was added. He also stated that Mr. Trinkaus had proposed to place the dewatering pump in the “worst spot imaginable.”
In response to a question from Mr. Bedini, Mr. Boling stated the travelway of the bridge and driveway was 18 feet, but this was increased to account for the width of the abutments and at the request of the Fire Dept. to accommodate emergency vehicles. Mr. Charles stated a study re: the width of fire trucks would be submitted for the next meeting. Mr. Bedini asked the applicant to provide the Fire Dept’s width and load requirements for the bridge. Mr. Boling said a narrower bridge would be preferred aesthetically and environmentally, but the Fire Dept. requirements had to be met.
Mr. Bedini reviewed the application’s timetable, noting that the public hearing must be concluded within 35 days of 1/13/10 unless an extension was granted by the applicant.
Mr. Bedini urged all parties to get their written documents in as soon as possible so that the Commission’s consultant would have time to review them prior to the next session of the hearing.
Mr. Sonder asked if the Commission thought the Milone and MacBroom report was complete. Mrs. J. Hill said she did not think so because she was still waiting for information from the applicant such as the report on feasible and prudent alternatives, which would be forwarded for review as soon as it was received.
Mr. Bedini noted the public hearing would be continued to Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. At 5:25 p.m. he continued the public hearing.
This public hearing was recorded and the recording is available in the Land Use Office.
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Wadelton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. LaMuniere
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Nettleton, Mr. Riefenhauser, Mr. Neff, Mr./Mrs. BaristMr. Bedini called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, and Wadelton.
MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business to the Agenda:
V. New Applications
B. Carter/ 141 Shinar Mountain Road/#IW-10-05/Addition to Existing Dwelling,
VI. Other Business
B. Martin-Anderson/Drainage on Gunn Hill Road Properties and VIII. Administrative Business
C. Municipal Leader Training/2/17/10.
By Mr. Wadelton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, passed 4-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 1/13/10 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 2 and throughout: Correct spellings: Myles, soil scientist and Riefenhauser, engineer
Page 5: The Public Hearing was continued to 1/27, not 1/25.
Page 7: At the top of the page January 20 should be January 27.
5th line from bottom: Add: “by Zoning” after “permitted.”
Page 8: 6th line from bottom: Insert: “she” before “described.”
Page 10: Under Weaver: 2nd line: Change “Mr. Auth” to “Mr. Weaver.”MOTION:
To accept the 1/13/10 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 3-0-1. Mr. Wadelton abstained.The 1/19/10 Special Meeting Minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Add to the reason for the application: Driveway Improvements and Utility ConduitMOTION:
To accept the 1/19/10 Site Inspection minutes as corrected.
By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0.
Pending Applications
Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road/#IW-09-44/Bridge and Driveway:
The Public Hearing was continued to Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.Nettleton/81 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-10-02/2 Lot Subdivision, Driveway Improvements, Utility Conduit:
Mr. Riefenhauser, engineer, stated there had been no revisions since the last meeting. He said the underground utilities would be installed along the north side of the driveway and in the center of the driveway where it crosses the wetlands. He noted a sub base would be put down and the driveway would be paved after the site development had been completed. Mr. Bohan asked if details for the culvert had been submitted. Mr. Riefenhauser said, no, because it had already been installed. The utilities would go over the top of the culvert in a metal conduit. Mr. Ajello recommended double silt fencing along the wetlands crossing. Mr. Nettleton noted to date the existing driveway had remained stable during storms, due at least in part to the water breaks, which slow the runoff. He said he expected to maintain them. Mr. Bedini noted a 2 year permit would be issued.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-02 submitted by Mr. Nettleton for a 2 lot subdivision, driveway improvements, and installation of conduit at 81 Painter Ridge Road subject to the following condition: that silt fence be installed along both sides of the driveway at the wetlands crossing before the driveway improvements and conduit installation has begun and remain in place for the duration of construction and until the driveway is paved.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 5-0.Lyons-Gray/82 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-10-03/Removal of Vegetation:
Mr. Neff, engineer, represented the property owners. His plan, “Invasive Vegetation Removal Plan,” revised to 1/22/10 was reviewed. Mr. Neff noted the revisions:
1) The limit of the work zone and limit of clearing were described.
2) A note was added to the sequence of construction that all the invasives to be removed would be identified and tagged prior to an on site pre work meeting with Mr. Neff, the WEO, and the contractor.
3) A note was added to the project narrative that there would be no removal or cutting of native vegetation. Mr. Neff stated these “tightened” specifications would elimination problems during implementation of the work on the 3.5 acre site.
It was noted the only activity proposed in the area to the south where the wetlands had not been flagged was removal of invasives and that most of the work would be done by hand. Mr. Neff said most of the work would be done in the winter and would be followed up during the growing season with a treatment of Roundup brushed on by hand on plants in the wetlands. Mr. Ajello said it was important that the person identifying the vegetation to be removed have a knowledge of plants and that the work crew be careful and informed. He thought it was important, too, to preserve the native woody shrub growth in the wetlands. Mr. Neff noted that no planting was proposed. A site inspection was scheduled on Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.
New Applications
Barist/22 South Fenn Hill Road/#IW-10-04/Clearing, Restoration:
The map, “Pearson Farm,” by Mr. Bertaccini, dated December 1986 was reviewed. Using the map, Mr. Barist described the existing conditions on the property and where the cutting had occurred and was proposed. He noted only dead and fallen trees and invasives had been removed, the work was being done by a licensed arborist who was on site every day, the work had not begun until January 8 after the ground was frozen, no work was proposed on the far side of the stream, and no construction or diversion of water was proposed. Mr. Barist said he did not think a permit was required because he was not clearcutting. He said after the dead trees were removed he planned to let the forest restore itself. Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the work done to date. He said that some of the work done was in actual wetlands and that he thought activities close to the streambanks could cause them to cave in. He recommended that woody shrub growth in the wetlands be encouraged and that snags be left in place for wildlife habitat. A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. Mr. Barist again said that he had read the Regulations and did not think they applied, but said he would cooperate with the Commission. Mr. Bedini said the Commission would inspect the site and then let Mr. Barist know if an application was required. Mrs. Hill noted that the contractor, Mr. Wanag, was familiar with the Regulations and knew that activities near and in wetlands must be reviewed by the Commission.Carter/141 Shinar Mountain Road/#IW-10-05/Addition to Existing Dwelling:
The application is for a second story addition to an existing dwelling located approximately 50 feet from Walker Brook. It was noted there was flat lawn area between the house and the brook and that all work would be done on the existing footprint so there would be no soil disturbance. The map, “Site Development Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 1/20/10 was reviewed. The limit of disturbance line and row of staked hay bales were noted. Mr. Ajello assumed the equipment would access the site from the SE in order not to enter the property near the brook. Mrs. J. Hill noted three items were missing from the proposed construction sequence; 1) to require the land use office be notified 48 hours prior to the start of work so that the WEO can inspect and approve the erosion controls, 2) who will be responsible for inspection and maintenance of the erosion controls, and 3) that the WEO must inspect the site to make sure it is fully stabilized before the erosion controls are removed. Mr. Ajello said he would contact the owner’s agent to request these revisions.
Other Business
Walker Brook Farm, New Milford and Impacts to Walker Brook:
Mr. Bedini noted there had been heavy sedimentation of Walker Brook during the storm on Sunday and Monday, January 24-25, and that five complaints had been received, even though Walker Brook Farm is not under Washington’s jurisdiction. He said he requested that a letter with photos of the conditions on site and the log of complaints be sent to Mayor Murphy with a copy to the First Selectman. Mr. Ajello reviewed the recent history of the site and said that Mr. Ferlow, the New Milford WEO, had sent out a notice of violation at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday. The goal, he said, was to develop a better erosion control plan under the direction of the notice of violation. Photos of the site taken by Mr. Hayden of NCD were circulated. Mr. Ajello stressed that progress was being made. Mr. Charles noted that the NCD had written several reports about the erosion problems on this property and observed that those who had made complaints were respected and well informed.Subdivision in Litchfield:
Mrs. Hill complained that the Commission had not been informed of the current subdivision application on Old Mt. Tom Road in Litchfield. Mr. Ajello and Mrs. Hill noted that although it may not have been discussed at a Commission meeting, Litchfield had notified Washington months ago, Mr. Lyon had contacted Litchfield about drainage and sight line issues, and Mr. Ajello had been assured by Land Tech that improvements to the proposed stormwater management system had been incorporated in the plans. Mrs. Hill thought this proposal was similar to Walker Brook Farm and so the Commission should “keep an eye on it.”Martin-Andersson/Gunn Hill Road/Drainage Issues:
It was reported that Ms. Martin had complained that the large stonewall built on the neighboring Andersson property blocked the flow of runoff to the wetlands on the Andersson property, which would cause them to dry up, backed this runoff onto her property, and caused runoff problems and icing on Gunn Hill Road. Mr. Wadelton read her letter dated 1/26/10 and photos she sent of the drainage conditions on both properties were studied. The wall is dry stacked so the commissioners did not think it blocked the flow of water, although it did slow it down. They thought the decrease in velocity would result in more of the water slowly infiltrating into the ground and reaching the wetlands and less of the water flowing off site. It was the consensus that the runoff in question was sheet flow, that it was not under the Commission’s jurisdiction until it reaches the wetlands, and the wall that had been built was not illegal. A letter will be sent to Ms. Martin to explain how infiltration works and to advise her that if she does not agree with the Commission’s opinion, she can hire a consultant to study the situation.Mello/183 Woodbury Road/Drill Well:
Mr. Ajello presented the map, “Zoning Location Survey,” by Mr. Gee, dated 12/8/05. He pointed out the location of the contaminated well and the location the Health Dept. had approved for a new well 50 feet from the brook. Mr. Ajello noted he had discussed the proposed activity with Mr. Foss, well driller, but it had been too late to make the submission deadline. Mr. Foss planned to construct a rough road bed, drill the well, trench and put in a line to the house, regrade, and spread hay while the ground was frozen. Mr. Ajello asked if the Commission would be comfortable letting him handle the application as an Agent Approval. It was the consensus that it would be good to get the work done while the ground was frozen as long as adequate erosion control measures were implemented. Mr. Ajello described how hay bales and silt fences would be doubled up and how the water flushed from the well would infiltrate before reaching the hay bales. An Agent Approval will be conditioned upon installation of such erosion control measures.
Enforcement Report
Barist/22 South Fenn Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing:
Mr. Ajello noted the wood chips resulting from the work on this property should be spread in a thin layer so regrowth of the understory would not be hampered. He also advised the Commission that he had received a complaint from an adjoining property owner, had inspected the site, and had then issued a notice of violation.Brose/213 Roxbury Road/Unauthorized Clearcutting, Structure/ #IW-08-V5:
The draft settlement proposal was discussed. Mr. Bedini thought a $500 bond was not enough and that there should be a time limit specified in which the required work must be completed. Mr. Ajello thought a low bond was sufficient because the enforcement order had been filed on the Land Records. It was the consensus that January 1, 2011 would be the date by which the work must be completed and if not, the agreement would become null and void and the matter sent to the Commission’s attorney for enforcement of the enforcement order. Other revisions agreed upon included the deletion of the word, “gratefully” in the cover letter and the addition in item #2 that the environmental monitor selected must be satisfactory to the Commission. Also it was the consensus that Mr. Ajello should send the agreement to Atty. Zizka for review.Delancy/79 Litchfield Turnpike/Clearcutting/#IW-08-V6:
There was nothing new to report. It was the consensus to give Mr. Delancy a little more time to respond to the Commission’s requests, and if he doesn’t, the citation will be reissued.Bol/Slaughterhouse Road:
Mrs. Hill noted there had been no reports on this permitted activity. Mr. Ajello said the work was going well.Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Excavation/#IW-07-V12:
There was nothing new to report.Potolsky/131 West Shore Road/Driveway:
The driveway held up during last week’s storm.Town of Washington/Plumb Hill Road:
There are problems with the road shoulders that will have to be addressed in the spring.Washington Partners, LLC./108 New Milford Turnpike:
The disturbed areas have been regraded and hayed.
Administrative Business
Workshop:
Mr. Bedini reported that he had contacted Atty. Branse who had advised him that the Ct. Bar Association would provide the Commission with speakers for no charge. He then sent a second email requesting Atty. Branse and listing the topics the Commission would like covered in the workshop. He has not yet received a reply.2010-2011 Budget:
1) There was a brief discussion regarding whether to include the $575 line item for membership in the Northwest Conservation District. The Selectmen’s Office had asked whether the NCD was being used and if it was worth the expenditure. It was the consensus that although the Commission had not lately used the services offered by the NCD, it would look into doing so more often in the future, and more importantly, it valued its professional alliance with the District and wanted to continue to support its conservation work and environmental policies. The $575 was included in the budget request.
2) Possible monitoring of the water quality of Walker Brook and establishing base line data was discussed. Hydro Technologies had recommended testing four times a year at five locations, which would cost approx. $1500. It was agreed that obtaining this information about the overall health of the brook could be helpful, especially in light of the ongoing sedimentation problems associated with Walker Brook Farm in New Milford, and that the $1500 would be included in the budget. Mr. Ajello suggested that other downstream towns should get involved in the efforts to protect the brook. Mr. Bedini also thought Mr. Lyon should address this matter with Mayor Murphy.MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Bohan.Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 10:08 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: January 21, 2010 January 13, 2010
Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
5:00 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bohan
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sonder, Mr. Trinkaus, Mr. Boling, Mrs. Canning, Mr. Charles, Mr. Wadelton, Mr. Meyer, Mr./Mrs. Condon, Ms. Johnson, Mr. Dunbar, Residents
PUBLIC HEARING
Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road (Juniper Meadow Road)/#IW-09-44 /Construct Bridge and Driveway
Mr. Bedini called the public hearing to order at 5:03 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, and LaMuniere. He noted Mr. Wadelton had recused himself. He then read the legal notice that was published in Voices on 12/30/09 and 1/10/10. Mrs. J. Hill read the list of documents in the file.
Mr. Bedini asked if the $250 public hearing fee and the consulting bond had been received. Mrs. J. Hill said they had not. Mr. Charles submitted a check for $250 and said the $4950 consulting bond would be submitted the next day.
Mr. Sonder read part of the 12/09/09 minutes and noted the options the Commission had regarding opening and closing of the hearing if the applicant did not post the consulting bond. He stated he wanted the consulting engineer’s report in the file before the start of the hearing so that he and his consultants would have an opportunity to review it and comment on it first. He thought without the consultant’s review, the Commission would not be in a fully informed position to consider the applicant’s presentation. Mr. Bedini responded that ideally the consultant’s review would have been available prior to the start of the hearing, but that the hearing would be opened, the applicant’s presentation made, and all the information referred to Milone and MacBroom as soon as the bond was paid. Mr. Sonder said that he had prepared an extensive review of the application, that his engineer still had disagreements with the applicant’s proposal, that an independent engineering review was necessary, and he had wanted his engineer present for the presentation of the application, but had thought from reading the minutes, that this would not take place until the Milone and MacBroom report had been received. He also wanted to make sure his engineer, Mr. Battista, would have an opportunity to respond to the consultant’s report.
Mr. Bedini stated that having differing views from engineers was common, that the Commission would make the final decision regarding whether the applicant’s proposal was adequate, and the Commission would proceed with the hearing.
Mr. LaMuniere said the Commission would strive to learn as much about the application as it could and would not make a decision until the consulting engineering report was in.
Mr. Boling noted the public hearing was being held to consider the application for a driveway and bridge to access the 13+ acre interior lot over the only legal access to the lot. He said there was no development plan for the property at this time. He explained the 24 ft. wide bridge was proposed because it was the minimum width recommended for safety by the Fire Department. He also noted that Mr. Trinkaus’ 12/16/09 report responded to both the issues raised at the site inspection and to those raised by Mr. Battista in the 11/22/09 review from Lenard Engineering.
Mr. Trinkaus, engineer, presented his map, “Wetlands Crossing for Access Driveway,” revised to 12/20/09. He pointed out Chaple Brook and the two small wetland areas, which had been delineated by Mr. Miles of Arthur H. Howland and Assoc. in the vicinity of the proposed crossing. An 18 ft. wide gravel driveway and 24 ft. wide concrete deck bridge were proposed. He noted the portion of the driveway on the far side of the brook would be paved due to the steep grade. He explained why it was best to cross at the narrowest point and the limited impact development (LID) concepts he proposed to implement. These included swales with check dams, a level spreader outletting towards the brook, and a diversion swale along the stonewall. Mr. Trinkaus explained he had originally proposed a bridge with a 20 ft. span, but due to concerns raised by Mr. Battista and Mr. LaMuniere, he had lengthened it. The abutments had been pulled back, but the elevation had not changed.
Mr. Trinkaus responded to many of the points raised in Mr. Battista’s review including 1) the excavated trench was defined as three feet on either side of the abutment, 2) he pointed out two lines of erosion control measures; silt fence and wattles, 3) he discussed how the abutments could be dug out with a small excavator from the opposite side of the stream, 4) a complete erosion control plan was included on Sheet #4 of the plans, 5) only the bridge and the driveway were being applied for, the applicant would have to return to the Commission for any other future activities, 6) the applicant could not delineate the wetlands on the Bee Brook Condo property without permission of the property owner, 7) there were no wetlands within 100 feet of the proposed activity on the east side of Chaple Brook, 8) the soil types at the site and their characteristics were described, 9) all finished contours had been labeled, 10) all typical cross sections had been provided, and 11) Mr. Trinkaus detailed the wetlands crossing; geotextile fabric would be put down and stones placed on top so the wetlands could be crossed without compacting their soils. Also, 12) he said a map of such a small watershed was not necessary because only one side of the driveway would drain into the wetlands and the proposed swale would slow the flow of the runoff to a non erosive velocity, 13) the proposed PVC pipes would handle both 2 year and 10 year storm events, 14) the downhill edge of the swale was not weak and would not fail and since it is an engineered swale, 2:1 side slopes can be used, 15) the area near the existing septic system could be regraded, but this was not proposed in order to save the existing trees, and 16) the submitted bridge design is conceptual; more specific drawings would be submitted if the application is approved, but the walls and footings for the bridge would not change. In addition, in response to a concern about downstream flooding, Mr. Trinkaus stated the channel would not be altered and that Chaple Brook is located in Zone X with no defined flood boundaries specified. He stated that flood levels in the brook would be well below the bottom of the bridge’s steel beam and that scour analysis of the channel was not required because the abutments would be located completely outside the stream. Regarding feasible and prudent alternatives, Mr. Trinkaus stated the crossing was proposed within the legal right of way and that using any type of culvert would impact the channel, whereas the bridge would have no long term impacts. He noted that filling in the wetlands was unavoidable since the crossing had to be in the right of way and that the crossing was at the narrowest section of the channel and could not be moved due to property lines and steep slopes. Mr. Trinkaus read section 22a-367 and other sections of the CGS to respond to Mr. Battista’s concerns about water diversion, stating that by definition, the applicant was not moving water from one location to another and to show that since less than 5000 sq. ft. would be disturbed, review by the Army Corps of Engineers was not required.
Mr. Bedini asked how close the bridge abutments would be to the stream. Mr. Trinkaus stated that on the east side they would average 12 ft from the stream and on the west side, about 8 to 12 ft. from the stream on the west side. He added that the abutments would be 4 ft. below the existing grade.
Mr. Bedini asked if the space between the streambed and the excavated area would be protected. Mr. Trinkaus said, yes, with two rows of erosion control barriers.
Mr. LaMuniere read from the 1/13/10 letter from Atty. Yoxall, which stated there were feasible and prudent alternatives, which would have less impact. Mr. Trinkaus disagreed, saying that the proposed plan would have the least impact because the other alternatives would significantly impact the bottom of the channel or require more filling of the wetlands.
Mr. Bedini asked the applicant to submit a written review of the feasible and prudent alternatives and why each had been proposed or eliminated.
Mr. Dunbar said he was concerned about what would happen during a heavy rainfall as in the past there had been flooding, which had eroded the east bank and had required fill for repairs. He thought the runoff from a paved driveway would aggravate the situation. Mr. Trinkaus noted the specific LID techniques he would utilize for stormwater management and explained since they would enable the runoff to infiltrate into the ground, it would not contribute to flooding or erosion. He stated this project would not change the flow characteristics in the stream.
Mr. Bedini asked about the soil types in the crossing area. Mr. Trinkaus said they were Charlton soils, which were good infiltrating soils.
Mr. Meyer asked if the stormwater management system would require maintenance. Mr. Trinkaus stated that annual maintenance would be needed and the grass in the swale would have to be cut. He said it would require less maintenance than would catch basins and culverts.
Mr. Sonder asked what would keep the check dams in place when the road was plowed. Mr. Trinkaus drew a diagram and said the plows would not be near the check dams.
Ms. Johnson asked if the proposed bridge would be suitable for a subdivision and if it would meet the state safety requirements. Mr. Trinkaus said it would.
Mr. Sonder said he did not agree that there were no feasible and prudent alternatives and he also disagreed with many of Mr. Trinkaus’ technical statements. He said a narrower bridge would result in less impact to the brook and wetlands and there was no evidence presented that an 18 ft. wide driveway was needed to access the property. He said, too, that the proposed 3000 sq. ft. of wetlands filling could be reduced if the driveway width was reduced to 10 ft. He urged the Commission to approve the alternative with the least impact.
Mr. Bedini advised Mr. Sonder that it was not sufficient to say the proposed activity would have an adverse impact, specific information showing how the brook and wetlands would be impacted was required. Mr. LaMuniere noted that recent Supreme Court decisions required evidence of negative impact to the physical character of the wetlands. Mr. Sonder said he would provide details.
Mr. Sonder also spoke of a disparity between Mr. Trinkaus’ drawings and what would happen on site in reality. He said the plans actually showed a 50 ft. wide swath of clearing to accommodate such a wide driveway and side slopes of 6%, not 2% as Mr. Trinkaus claimed. He said he did not believe the project as proposed would “work properly.” Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Sonder to submit all of his concerns in writing.
Mr. Meyer voiced his concern about the good intentions of the applicant and asked the Commission to diligently review the plans.
Regarding the proposed width of the driveway, Mr. Trinkaus stated it was not yet known how the property would be developed, and if a single dwelling would be constructed, a narrower driveway would be installed. He also noted that if the owner decided to put the property under a conservation easement, a 12 ft. wide driveway might not be sufficient for IRS tax deduction purposes. He assured the Commission an 18 ft. wide driveway to nowhere would not be built.
Mr. Bedini noted the time constraints for consideration of the application per state statute and again asked the applicant to post the consulting bond as soon as possible.
Mr. Charles responded to several points in the 11/22/09 letter from Lenard Engineering. He noted the photo submitted of flooding was of an area 800 feet below the proposed stream crossing. Regarding Mr. Battista’s concern about the septic system, Mr. Charles stated there was no as-built for that system in the Health Dept. file, but if it had been installed as proposed, there would be no problem. He also noted the retaining wall was proposed so that more trees could be preserved.
Mr. Sonder read a portion of the 11/24/09 minutes and said information to tie together all of the soils reports had not been submitted as required. Mr. Bedini responded that if all of the required information was not submitted, the application would be denied for lack of information.
Mr. Bedini continued the public hearing to Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
This public hearing was recorded. The audio is available to the public upon request.
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Bohan, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Papsin, Ms. Turozi, Mr. Rieffenhauser, Mr. Weaver, Mr. Nettleton, Mr. Neff, Mr. SonderMr. Bedini called the Meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Bohan, Hill, and LaMuniere.
MOTION:
To add the following subsequent business not already posted on the agenda:
V. New Applications:
C. Lyons-Gray/82 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-10-03/Remove Invasives and Other Vegetation,
VIII. Administrative Business:
D. Workshops,
E. 2010-2011 Budget.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bohan, and passed 4-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 12/9/09 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Add to those present: Mr. and Mrs. Johnson
Page 4: Under Long: Line 4: Change: “recommendations” to “observations.”
Page 5: Under Spring Hill: Line 2: Change: “discussion” to “observations.”
Under Spring Hill: Line 18: Insert: “utility” before “pole.”
Page 10: Line 24: Insert: “for all planting areas” after “plan.”MOTION:
To accept the 12/9/09 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.The 12/22/09 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as amended.
Page 1: Line 1: Insert: “vice chairman” after “Mr. Wadelton.”
Page 1: last line: Change: “construction” to “building reconstruction.”MOTION: To accept the 12/22/09 Special Meeting minutes as amended. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 3-0-1. Mr. Bedini abstained because he had not been present at the meeting.
Pending Application
Straw Man, LLC./135 Bee Brook Road/#IW-09-44/Bridge, Driveway:
The public hearing was continued to Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
New Applications
Rowe/44 Kielwasser Road/#IW-10-01/Resubdivision Feasibility:
Mr. Neff, engineer, represented the property owner. The map was reviewed. Mr. Neff explained a 5.33 acre lot was proposed. He pointed out feasible sites for a house, well, and septic system and the location of wetlands down grade of the proposed development area. He noted no activities were proposed within 100 feet of the wetlands and no tree cutting would be required to build the house. The curb cut to the existing house would be shared. He also noted the farm road shown on the plan was existing and was used for maintenance. Again it was noted this plan was for feasibility only; no development was proposed at this time and there was no need for a site inspection.MOTION:
To approve Application #IW-10-01 submitted by Mrs. Rowe for the feasibility of a one lot resubdivision at 44 Kielwasser Road.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 4-0.Nettleton/81 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-10-02/2 Lot Subdivision, Upgrade Driveway, Install Conduit:
Mr. Rieffenhauser, engineer, presented the plan, “Nettleton Subdivision,” 4 sheets, by Smith and Company, dated 12/16/09. He proposed to create a 12.19 acre lot from the existing 17.24 acre parcel with dwelling. The existing driveway would be extended and paved due to steep grades and used to access the development site in the western portion of the proposed lot. Underground utilities were also proposed in a conduit that would run down the centerline of the driveway. Mr. Rieffenhauser noted that 65 feet of the driveway would be in the regulated area and that no other regulated activities were proposed. Mr. Ajello noted the existing wetlands crossing is narrow and would have to be widened for the installation of the driveway. Mr. Rieffenhauser showed the driveway design that had been done several years ago and said the stone envelope and pipe beneath the driveway had already been installed. Mr. Ajello thought a section of the driveway might exceed the 15% grade permitted. Mr. Rieffenhauser said he would investigate. Mr. Nettleton noted a conservation easement would be placed on the property. Mr. Rieiffenhauser responded to the application review dated 1/13/09. He said Mr. Nettleton was the property owner and there were no feasible and prudent alternatives as the driveway was already in place. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 3:00 p.m.Lyons-Gray/82 Old Litchfield Road/#IW-10-03/Removal of Vegetation:
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his plan, “Invasive Vegetation Removal Plan,” dated 12/6/09. He pointed out the locations where limbs would be cut from trees, two dead trees removed, invasive species removed, and where the wetlands had been flagged. He noted the invasives would be cut in a 2 to 3 acre area along the entire edge of the property and that a stonewall existed between the wetlands and the work zone. Mr. Neff stated the invasives would be removed by hand in the regulated area. Mrs. D. Hill asked if native vegetation would be left in place. Mr. Neff said some of it would remain. Mr. LaMuniere asked for a map showing the exact size and location of the area where the invasives would be removed. Mr. Ajello was concerned that native plants would be removed as well as invasives, especially because there was no limit line shown on the map and no person specified who would be in charge of the work. Mr. LaMuniere said the work crew must have a capable supervisor who can differentiate the invasive from the native plants. Mr. Neff offered to have the plants to be removed marked in the field by an expert before the work begins or to note on the plan that the invasive plants must be identified before the cutting begins. Mr. Ajello noted that the applicant proposed to do this work in the winter when it was more difficult to distinguish native from invasive plants, and that no planting was proposed. Mr. Bedini stated that if the land is clearcut, the owner will be required to properly restore the land. Mr. Neff said he had informed the owner that clearcutting is not an option. Mr. Ajello suggested he meet on site with the supervisor before any work begins. Further discussion will take place at the next meeting.
Enforcement
Weaver/176 East Shore Road/#IW-09-V3/Unauthorized Clearcutting:
Ms. Turozi, agent, circulated aerial photos of the property, and pointed out the section between the road and the lake where the clearing had occurred. She noted there were invasives in the area and that the owner had cut down a Norway maple that had ended up in the lake. She submitted a written statement with site plan dated 1/12/10, in which described Mr. Weaver’s goal to remove the non native plants and to replace them with minimal soil disturbance. Several photos of the plants now on site were reviewed. Mr. Bedini asked how the plants would be removed. Ms. Turozi said the trees would be girdled so when dead they would provide wildlife habitat. She stated that only the trees that were potential safety hazards would be removed. Mr. Ajello said he had consulted with the DOT who maintained that Mr. Weaver had no control over the property and the Commission could not approve his proposal because it was almost entirely within the state right of way. Ms. Turozi said she would try to get permission from the DOT and then return to the Commission with an application.
Other Business
Possible Impact of Rt. 109, New Milford, Walker Brook Subdivision on Walker Brook:
Mrs. J. Hill said she had called Hydro Technologies as had been discussed at the last meeting, and was still waiting for them to get back to her with the information she requested. She will contact them again and report back at the next meeting.
Enforcement Report
Auth/329 West Shore Road/Utility Trench:
The work has been completed.Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road:
The stonewall work has been completed.Brose/213 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-V5/Unauthorized Clearcutting and Structures:
Ms. Brose has not yet returned Mr. Ajello’s phone call regarding agreement to the proposed restoration plan, which includes the removal of the stone patio and lower stairs. He said if she refuses the settlement offer, he will forward the matter to Atty. Zizka to begin enforcement proceedings.Charvillat/96 Roxbury Road:
Mrs. Charvillat did not respond to Mr. Ajello’s October letter. He was directed to send another letter and if this one is not answered, to issue a notice of violation.Delancy/79 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-09-V6:
It was noted that Mr. Delancy was not in attendance and had not submitted the documentation that had been requested at the last meeting. Mr. Bedini noted Mr. Delancy had to prove to the Commission that he would actually farm the property. Mr. Ajello recommended the commissioners read the article on farming exemptions in the latest issue of The Habitat.Donovan/53 Kinney Hill Road:
The piers for the deck are in.King/153 Lower Church Hill Road:
An application to dredge the pond and remove invasives is expected.Molinari/59 South Fenn Hill Road:
Mr. Molinari cleared some of his neighbor’s property, but did not do extensive damage.Moriniere/22 Wheaton Road:
Work to reconstruct the dwelling has begun and an application for a drainage system is expected.Rosen/304 Nettleton Hollow Road/#IW-08-V2:
The Army Corps of Engineers sent another enforcement letter to Mr. Rosen.Showah/311 Bee Brook Road/#IW-09-V2:
Mr. Ajello sent Mrs. Showah an application for an exemption, but she has not yet responded.Washington Partners, LLC./108 New Milford Turnpike:
The clean up work continues as there was more debris on site than expected.Weaver/176 East Shore Road:
It was decided to wait and see whether Mr. Auth returns to the Commission with an application before deciding whether to fine him.Angell/47 West Shore Road/#IW-09-V1:
Mr. Angell paid his citation, but has not yet submitted an application.
Administrative Business
Education:
Mr. Bedini said he had contacted Atty. Branse to see if he would be willing to address the Commission on various issues such as creating the record, public hearing procedure, avoiding court, etc. and Atty. Branse had written that the Ct. Bar Assoc. provides speakers for no charge. After hearing suggestions from the commissioners, Mr. Bedini said he would try to schedule a speaker on these issues: creating the record, public hearing procedures, agricultural exemptions, and plant and animal inventories. There was a brief discussion about whether to invite wetlands commissions from other towns, but it was thought that the fewer people in attendance, the more specific the issues that could be addressed.Public Hearing Procedures:
Mrs. Hill circulated her document, dated 1/12/10 regarding public hearing policies with an attached newspaper article regarding creative thinking for problem solving.Criteria for Consulting Reviews:
Mr. LaMuniere noted a consultant must be given specific questions/issues to address. Mr. Bedini agreed and stated these would include short and long term impacts and feasible and prudent alternatives and their impact on the physical character of the wetlands. Specifically regarding Straw Man, LLC., the commissioners were asked to write down any questions they had for Milone and MacBroom and to get them to Mrs. J. Hill as soon as possible.
MOTION:
To go into Executive Session at 9:32 p.m. to discuss pending litigation:
the Brown and Peacocke appeals.
By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 4-0.MOTION:
To end Executive Session at 9:42 p.m.
By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0.MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. LaMuniere.Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m. FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Meetings in 2009