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
April 23 •April 9 •March 26 •March 12 •February 27 •January 23 •January 9 Previous years: 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: May 3, 2008 April 23, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, Mr. Wilson
Mr. Picton called the Meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: New Application: Pinover/12 Senff Road/Stonework and Landscaping and Other Business: Discussion Re: Land Use Administration. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 4/9/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 10: 4th line under Ebner: Insert: "wide" after "50 ft."
Page 10: 1st line: Change "not" to "no."
MOTION: To accept the 4/9/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Picton abstained.
Pending Applications
Gruson/62 Frisbie Road/#IW-08-10/Pond Maintenance: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented a revised plan, "Pond Maintenance Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 4/18/08, which included a deposit area on the west side of old Frisbie Road in a more gently sloping area than where it had originally been proposed. Mr. Neff explained that the top soil would be stripped, the excavated material spread, and then the top soil would be respread. Mr. Picton asked if the top soil could remain in place. Mr. Neff responded that it would be too compressed if not removed. He noted the work would be done quickly during the driest time of year so that the area would be unstable for only a brief time. A second revision was a note that red maples would be planted to provide shade around the northeast third of the pond. Mr. Neff stated that this would be in addition to the 1:4 side slopes at the north end of the pond to support emergent plant growth. Details on the repair of the dam were modified in the sequence of construction to include a 6 ft. reinforced concrete extension of the dam into the bank on the east side where the erosion was occurring. Mr. LaMuniere noted the drain would not be opened to flush out the pond, but asked if it would remain. Mr. Neff said the notes on the plan indicated it would remain because it is sealed now and if disturbed there would be the potential that a lot of sediment could wash downstream. In response to Mr. Picton's suggestion made at the last meeting, Mr. Neff stated that the pond was not large enough to attempt to save some of the wildlife by doing the work in sections. He noted, too, that even if the work was done in sections, there was no way to ensure the wildlife would move to safety on its own. He said the fish would be netted and taken to another pond. Mr. Picton noted for the record that the plans state that the drain would not be opened and there would be no increase in the size of the pond.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-10 submitted by Mr. Gruson for pond maintenance at 62 Frisbie Road as proposed on the map, "Pond Maintenance Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 4/18/08. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Hock-Fiedorowicz/49 Mt. Tom Road/#IW-08-15/Driveway Crossing: Mr. Wilson, engineer, submitted his revised map, "Driveway Wetland Crossing," revised to 4/21/08. He said it now showed the limit of clearing and grading. He explained the proposed culvert would be covered with a minimum of 24 inches of material; 18 inches of which would be the coarse base. Mr. Picton asked if this could be reduced to 12 inches. Mr. Wilson said, no, because a minimum of 18 inches was required to spread the weight over the culvert so it would not be crushed by heavy vehicles. He also said that 24 inches would accommodate utility lines in the future. He noted the size of the new culvert was double the capacity of the existing culvert, which would increase the speed of the runoff and so require the rip rapped outlet. Mr. LaMuniere asked if a second culvert would be necessary. Mr. Wilson said the area Mr. LaMuniere was concerned about was a forebay for the pond to take road runoff and he would prefer to leave it as is so it could be used for infiltration. Mr. LaMuniere asked if the soils were porous enough to enable the runoff to infiltrate. Mr. Wilson said, yes, it was gravel. Mr. Wilson explained the silt fence had been placed along the contour below the limit of grading, but above the wetlands. The area immediately adjacent to the driveway, about 8 feet on each side, would not have silt fence, but was very rocky and would be seeded and mulched as soon as possible. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to go out to the site to inspect during construction and to require improvements if necessary. Mr. LaMuniere asked what would be done with the stone from the cuts. Mr. Wilson said it would be used elsewhere on site. After a brief discussion, it was determined that no bond would be required. However, Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to look into a system for the routine requirement of bonds to ensure the successful completion of Inland Wetlands permitted projects.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-15 submitted by Ms. Hock and Mr. Fiedorowicz for a driveway crossing at 49 Mt. Tom Road per the map, "Driveway Wetland Crossing," by Mr. Wilson, revised to 4/21/08. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, passed 5-0.
Redstone/83 West Morris Road/#IW-08-16/Inground Pool: It was noted there was no new information and there had been no questions raised at the last meeting. Mr. Picton stated that the applicant had been asked to move the silt fence half way between the pool and the wetlands. Mr. Ajello said this would not be a problem because the area was lawn with heavy grass close to the wetlands.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-16 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Redstone for an inground pool at 83 West Morris Road with the conditions that in order to create an undisturbed natural area at least 35 ft. wide along the wetlands, that the silt fence be the limit of disturbance and that it be installed no less than 35 feet from the wetlands. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Lancaster/244 West Shore Road/#IW-08-17/Floating Dock Replacement: Mr. Neff, engineer, submitted the map, "Floating Dock Replacement Plan," dated 4/21/08. Mr. Picton noted that the Commission had concluded that the clearing that had previously been done on this property had not caused so much damage that enforcement action had to be taken. Photos of the shoreline were circulated and Mr. Neff explained that the dock would be tucked into the inlet. He said this was a flat area that was terraced out with existing walls and he proposed a 2 ft. deep concrete anchor block at the edge of the shoreline. This would be higher than the elevation of the old concrete dock. Mr. Neff said the anchor would be set flush with the grade and the slope. He reviewed the detailed sequence of construction. Mr. Picton did not think a site inspection would be necessary. Mr. Neff noted this was a very visible location if individual members wanted to see it before the next meeting.
Pinover/12 Senff Road/#IW-08-18/Retaining walls, Landscaping: The 4/22/08 letter from Mr. Rosiello, contractor, to the Commission and his plans, Stone Retaining Wall, Cross Section Detail," undated and "Retaining Fieldstone Walls and Planting, Pinover Residence," dated April 2008 were reviewed. It appeared the closest the proposed work would come to the stream would be 35 ft. Mr. Ajello said he had not recently inspected the site and Mr. Picton asked that he do so before the next meeting. Mr. LaMuniere thought the Commission should conduct a site inspection because the property is so steep. The Commission decided to wait to do so until it learned whether Mr. Ajello had any concerns.
Other Business
John Dorr Nature Lab/220 Nettleton Hollow Road/Permit #IW-07-11/ Reduction in Scope of Project: The Commission compared the latest plan, "Utility Plan," by Arthur Howland & Assoc., dated 3/18/08 with a previous map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Arthur Howland Assoc., revised to 4/11/07 and reviewed the 4/17/08 letter from Mr. Szymanski, which detailed the six revisions to the original approved plan. Mr. Ajello noted that two of the more significant revisions were that a bunkhouse had been moved from its location 20 feet from a stream to over 100 feet away and a building footprint was reduced by 700 sq. ft. The commissioners considered whether to ask Mr. Ajello to study the revisions before the next meeting to determine whether there was any increase in scope in relation to the wetlands on the property or whether it could act tonight. Mr. Ajello noted that many of the proposed activities were approximately 300 ft. from the wetlands and said he had informed the applicant that a formal request to revise the permit was not required because the proposal was a clear reduction in scope. Mrs. D. Hill disagreed, saying that all revisions require approval by the Commission and that a $25 revision fee was due. After a brief review, it was the consensus that the revisions were a net improvement and that the stormwater management plan had been thoroughly reviewed when the application was first submitted.
MOTION: To approve revisions to Permit #IW-07-11 issued to the John Dorr Nature Lab/220 Nettleton Hollow Road, which reduce the scope of the project as detailed in Mr. Szymanski's 4/17/08 letter and his map, U-1, revised to 3/18/08. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Discussion Re: Dock Augers: Mr. Ajello advised the Commission about a new kind of dock anchor; an auger that screws into the bottom of the lake and may be removed seasonally. Mr. Picton said he was not concerned if the auger only went down 1 ft. into the lake bottom, was less than 6 inches in diameter, did not stir up much silt, and was temporary. Mr. LaMuniere, however, was concerned because the installation would stir up an unknown amount of sediment and it was not known how wave action would affect the augers. Mr. Picton noted that the Zoning Commission had not asked the Inland Wetlands Commission for input on anchoring systems for floating docks. Mr. Bedini thought the Zoning Commission should be concerned about who owns the lake bottom before granting permission for the use of these augers.
Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road: Mr. Ajello reported that Mr. Andersson proposed to plant a buffer in the upland review area to screen his property from the adjoining property.
Brown/127 West Shore Road: Mr. Ajello noted he had received a draft "injunction," which he would review for Atty. Olson before it was issued. Mr. Picton asked to review Mr. Ajello's analysis before it was sent to Atty. Olson. Mr. LaMuniere pointed out that the area to be restored was the 33 ft. section of wall to the east of the dock.
Carron/58 Gunn Hill Road: Mr. Ajello will inspect the ongoing work.
DiBenedetto/214 Calhoun Street: Mr. Picton noted it was the Commission's goal to make sure the forestry work being done was consistent with Land Tech's restoration plan. He said Land Tech's latest report discussed substantial changes in the trees marked to be cut on the DiBenedetto property, found the project was progressing in a manner consistent with its recommendations, and noted the planting of a lot of plant material was imminent. Mr. Thomson thought that Land Tech's plan was in keeping with best management practices and that Mr. DiBenedetto had demonstrated his willingness to work within Land Tech's well designed program, and so there would be no point in delaying the resumption of work. He did recommend, however, that Mr. Ajello reinspect the site and confirm that only the trees still marked would be cut. He admitted there previously had been problems with cutting done by the workers, but said now there were flags posted on site and the workers were being more closely managed. Mr. LaMuniere agreed with this approach. He did not think the Commission should monitor the newly planted material for two years before allowing the remainder of the trees to be cut. Mr. Picton and Mrs. D. Hill thought there should be another formal inspection before the cutting resumed to see that some of the replanting had actually been done, to make sure the trees to be cut were correctly marked, and to ensure there would be no cutting on the steep slopes. They noted this would cause only a two week delay in which time a great deal of vegetation could be planted. Mr. Bedini offered a compromise that the cutting be allowed to resume with a site inspection scheduled prior to the next meeting, and if it was found during the site inspection that the work was not progressing as promised, they would be immediately ordered to stop.
MOTION: To schedule a site inspection of the DiBenedetto property at 212-214 Calhoun Street before the next meeting to check on the replanting and the marking of the trees to be cut and at the next meeting to consider the findings of the site inspection and to take any action needed regarding this project at that time. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill.
A lengthy discussion followed. The points raised included: Planting could be continued in sections 1, 2, and 3 but this could interfere with the removal of the trees still to be cut in the interior sections 4 and 5. The Commission was paying Land Tech from the $10,000 bond posted by Mr. DiBenedetto, which was to be used partly for the consultants' fees and partly to ensure the work was properly completed. Mr. Picton said he wanted to make sure that some of the restoration planting was in place before more trees were cut as the entire bond would not be available to ensure replanting. Mr. Thomson thought it was important that the owner know that the Commission was pleased with the progress made to date. Mr. Ajello advised the Commission that Mr. DiBenedetto was anxious to start cutting again, especially now while there was dry weather. Mr. LaMuniere recommended that the Commission continue to monitor the denuded area, to schedule a reinspection as soon as possible, and to meet on site with Land Tech to learn more about the restoration/reforestation process. Ms. Turoczi's 4/22/08 "Sketch," planting plan was noted. Mr. Picton revised his motion as follows:
MOTION: To schedule a site inspection of the DiBenedetto property at 212-214 Calhoun Street as soon as possible and if the Commission is satisfied with the planting in sections 1, 2, and 3 and with the cutting of trees in the back, the project can proceed as marked on the sketch plan by Ms. Turoczi. By Mr. Picton.
Mr. Thomson then made the motion below and Mr. Picton withdrew both of his motions.
MOTION: To allow Mr. DiBenedetto to proceed with the cutting of trees and replanting of the forest as planned by Land Tech and Ms. Turoczi, noting that in addition to the reforestation project, the removal of invasives is a primary concern, which is a separate issue and which also must be addressed by Mr. DiBenedetto. By Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere.
Mr. Thomson thought if the Commission was not willing to accept Land Tech's opinion, it should hire a different consultant. He also felt that Mr. DiBenedetto's most recent actions were evidence of his cooperation and that it appeared he had complied with Land Tech's plan. Mr. Bedini said he would vote, yes, because when a site inspection was conducted, if the work was not according to plan, he could be ordered to stop.
Vote: 3-2. Mr. Picton and Mrs. D. Hill voted, No, because they wanted verification that the ongoing work to date satisfactorily complied with the plans by Land Tech before granting permission for the work to proceed.
Mr. Thomson noted it was the responsibility of the Enforcement Officer to inspect the site regularly to ensure compliance with the Land Tech plan. He asked Mr. Ajello to make frequent inspections. Mr. Picton and Mr. LaMuniere said the commissioners should also monitor the site.
Ebner/18A Mt. Tom Road: Mr. Ajello said he would soon send Mr. Ebner a letter with the Commission's instructions as had been requested at the last meeting.
Gray-Dunlap/26 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-07-V18: It was noted that no one attended the scheduled site inspection. Mr. Picton said he had asked Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, for specific information on the depth of the soil, where the watercourse would be rerouted, and a restoration plan. He noted it looked like the clearing had been done without any changes in grade. Mr. Picton recommended that the natural biological wetlands system be restored to within 8 ft. of both sides of the driveway. In response to a question from Mr. Ajello, he said a wood chip path and a narrow footbridge would not bother him. Mr. Ajello noted he had sent a notice of violation, not an enforcement order.
Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-07-V12: Mr. Ajello said he had contacted the Army Corps of Engineers and would soon send it a copy of the file. Mr. LaMuniere stated that he estimated that between 8,000 and 10,000 sq. ft. had been disturbed; the threshold for Army Corps involvement is 5000 sq. ft.
Peloquin/1 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-07-V13: Mr. Ajello said Mr. Peloquin had submitted a landscaping plan, "Planting Plan," dated 4/18/08 and he read the 4/21/08 letter from Ms. Ashbaugh, landscape architect. He asked if from the Commission's point of view the proposed 35 ft. X 30 ft. stone patio with 2 to 3 inches of grass growing between the stones would be considered an impervious surface. He noted considering the proposed garden areas, the landscaping was 50% permeable. It was the consensus that would be OK, but that an application to correct a violation was required.
Rumsey Hall School/184 Romford Road: Mr. Ajello said the site was in good condition.
Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane: Mr. Ajello said the owner would soon submit a revised application. Mr. Bedini asked the other commissioners if they had considered moving the septic system to the front yard to be mitigation for a larger house footprint. Mr. Picton said he did not. He said the back yard had to be restored and the front yard septic location was a feasible and prudent alternative that had to be considered. The commissioners reviewed their opinions expressed at the last meeting regarding whether such a large expansion of a house located entirely in wetlands should be approved. Both Mr. Bedini and Mr. LaMuniere referred to the DEP statement read at the last meeting that degradation of a site does not justify further degradation. Most of the commissioners supported a second story addition over the existing house rather than an expansion of the footprint.
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road: Mr. Ajello is waiting for Mr. Wright to plant the hillside.
Rubler/240 Wykeham Road: Mr. Ajello reported new upland clearing on flat areas and selective clearing along the road. He will monitor the property for erosion problems and noted the Commission is still holding a bond.
Janco/11 June Road/#IW-07-V9: Mr. Ajello is waiting for further action regarding the removal of the stairs and platform.
Howard/99 West Shore Road: This enforcement matter has been sent to Atty. Zizka.
Mrs. D. Hill questioned why Reinhardt and Rubler were not included in the EO report. Mr. Picton asked that all enforcement actions be included in the report.
Other Business
Revision of the Regulations: Work on the revisions continues.
Administrative Business: Mr. Picton reported that he had talked to the First Selectman regarding hiring a consultant to review how the Commission and staff conduct their business and what improvements could be made. Because Mr. Lyon had not yet responded, Mr. Bedini will contact him again.
Legal Matters: All of the pending enforcement issues that had been forwarded to Atty. Zizka were noted. The commissioners thought that Atty. Zizka had discussed some constructive approaches when he met with the Commission in executive session on April 16.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Bedini.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: April 19, 2008 April 9, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Bohan
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Fleishmann, Atty. Malley, Mr. Nadeau, Nr. Neff, Mr. McMorrow, Mr./Mrs. Redstone, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Guliano, Mr. Dunlap, Ms. Gray
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: Enforcement: Gray-Dunlap/26 Painter Ridge Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Soil Disturbance. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 3/26/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Add: Mrs. Lancaster and Mrs. Pollock to those present.
Page 1: 2nd line from bottom: "hat" should be "had."
Page 6: Under Hock-Fiedorowicz: 5 lines from bottom: After "proposed" insert: "to be affected by road drainage...."
Page 6: At the end of the same line: After "major" add: "stormwater" issues....
Page 11: Last line: Change: "hearing" to "meeting."
MOTION: To accept the 3/26/08 Regular Meeting minutes as amended. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Regarding the 3/12/08 Regular Meeting minutes, Mrs. D. Hill said regarding DiBenedetto that she had seen bluebirds, but did not say they were actually nesting on site and regarding Slaymaker that she did, indeed, consider the proposed construction of the addition in wetlands to be a significant activity.
The 4/1/08 Gruson/62 Frisbie Road site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. In the third paragraph it should refer to: "the old Frisbie Road."
MOTION: To accept the 4/1/08 Gruson site inspection minutes as amended. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 4/1/08 Hock-Fiedorowicz site inspection minutes as submitted. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 4/1/08 Ebner site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 4/1/08 Lancaster site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Fleishmann/219 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-05/Construct House and Barn, Remove Shed, Relocate Caboose: The maps, "Excavation and Drainage Plan," by Mr. Riordan, revised to 4/9/08 and "Inland Wetland Application," revised to 4/9/08 and the 4/9/08 report by Mr. Temple were reviewed. Mr. Temple found that 1) the seepage along Rt. 199 was not a wetland and 2) the man made pond was not a vernal pool because it has a permanent outlet. Mr. Fleishmann pointed out the proposed areas of regrading and filling and the location of silt fencing, which, he said was also the limit of disturbance. Mr. Picton asked him to add a notation that the silt fence was the limit of disturbance line and Mr. Fleishmann did so. He also added a notation to the map that there would be no filling outside the proposed excavation area. Mr. Picton also asked for the addition of a note to state that the limit of disturbance line was also the limit of clearing line. The commissioners reviewed the list of information that Mr. Fleishmann had been asked to provide to make sure it had all been submitted. It was noted that the intermittent watercourse flowing in and out of the pond was not shown on either map and that information about who had done the original wetlands flagging had not been provided. Mr. LaMuniere said that although the maps were not as precise as those usually submitted to the Commission, the added notations provided the necessary specificity. Mr. Picton noted that the Commission had not identified any immediate wetlands concerns. Mrs. D. Hill noted it was understood that the caboose was not to traverse the wetlands when it was moved.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-05 submitted by Mr. Fleishmann to construct a house and barn, remove a shed, and relocate the caboose at 219 Roxbury Road per the map with handwritten notations dated 4/9/08. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Gruson/62 Frisbie Road/#IW-08-10/Pond Maintenance: Mr. Neff, engineer, said the breach on the east side of the dam had grown from 6 to 8 inches wide to 3 feet wide. He said he would submit revised plans to extend the dam 5 to 6 feet into the bank to more safely hold it. The map, "Pond Maintenance Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 2/20/08 was reviewed. In response to the concerns raised by the Commission at the last meeting, he suggested that the deposition area could be moved across the road to a 100 ft. by 300 ft. area, where the excavated material would be spread to a depth of 6 inches. Mr. Bedini noted the construction sequence called for stripping the top soil, spreading the excavated material, and then putting the top soil back. He asked if this would be stable in case of a heavy rain. Mr. Neff stated that the work would be done during the dry time of year, the material would be spread along the contour line, and that time of year was good for germination. In contrast, Mr. Picton pointed out that the originally proposed location could be unstable for over a month on a 20% to 25% slope. Mr. Picton asked if it was the best solution to create basin sides all around the pond. Mr. Neff said that he did not propose to alter the existing sides, would not over excavate in terms of depth, and would excavate approximately 500 yards of material. The most appropriate location for the deposition of this material was again considered. Mr. Neff noted that the grades were better on the other side of Frisbie Road, but it was farther to truck the material there. Mrs. D. Hill asked if the seeps near the originally proposed area were significant. Mr. Picton said that due to the location of these seeps and evidence of scouring in this area, he was not comfortable with using it as the deposition area. Mr. Bedini said a temporary gravel access would be needed for equipment to reach the deposition site on the other side of Frisbie Road, but Mr. Ajello said this would not be needed if a track excavator was used. It was agreed that if the field originally proposed for the spoils was to be used, the wetlands would have to be flagged. Mr. Neff stated that the owner was hesitant to provide a "full blown planting plan" because his application was only for pond maintenance and repair of the dam. Mrs. D. Hill thought that Mr. Gruson should agree to plant some plants without necessarily submitting a complete planting plan. Mr. Picton proposed an emergent area at the north inlet with one third of the underwater slopes at 4:1 so they would be shallow enough to support a variety of aquatic plants to help maintain the ecology of the pond and an area around one third of the perimeter of the pond where native shrubs would be planted to provide shade. He noted this was an opportunity to enhance the wetlands environment and to mitigate the accumulated affects of one dimensional landscaping. Mr. Neff said he would discuss this with Mr. Gruson. Mr. Picton asked for more information on how the pond would be flushed. Mr. Neff referred to the sequence of construction and said the drain would not be opened. Mr. Picton asked that this specifically be stated on the plan. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Neff to try to come up with a plan for pumping out the pond that would leave an undisturbed basin for underwater ecology rather than removing the entire underwater ecosystem. Mr. Neff was not sure if this would be possible because the pond was only 2/10 of an acre. This application will be discussed again at the next meeting.
Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/#IW-08-13/Repair Septic System, Construct Addition to Existing Dwelling: New maps by Berkshire Engineering entitled, "B100a Sketch Prepared for Adept Builders," dated 4/4/08 were reviewed. Mr. McMorrow, engineer, stated there had been good perc test results in the front yard and so he had designed a septic system plan for 2 bedrooms for that area. He noted the current system is in wetlands, while the proposed new front yard system would be smaller and 19 feet from the wetlands. He also noted it would be a pumped system, the existing wells would have to be abandoned, and a new well would be drilled in the back. Mr. Picton stated that this plan was an improvement. Mr. Picton asked who had decided to drain the back yard. Mr. McMorrow said it had been indicated on the 1993 septic plan by Mr. Neff and the Health Dept. had been involved. Mr. Picton noted that this current violation was a good example of why the Inland Wetlands Commission should be involved in septic designs in or near wetlands, adding that both the WEO and the Health Dept. should consider wetlands early in the application process and the property owner should know the regulations and complete the application process before doing any site work. It was noted the other two aspects of the application were the proposed addition and restoration of the disturbed areas in the back portion of the property. Mr. Picton asked if the scope of the addition had been revised. Atty. Malley stated that due to the proposed septic improvements, the size of the proposed addition had not been decreased. Mr. Bedini, however, saw the improved septic plan as mitigation for the unauthorized curtain drain and tree clearing, which, he said, had been done without an indication that the septic system had been failing in the first place and without the exploration of feasible and prudent alternatives. Mr. LaMuniere voiced his concern that the approval of the proposed addition would establish a precedent for the Commission. He noted the addition was a significant increase in the size of the house, twice the size of the existing floor plan, and would be completely in wetlands. Mr. Bedini noted that the Commission had not allowed new construction in wetlands and said he did not support doing so now when the owner could propose a second story addition on the same footprint. Mr. Picton noted that the DEP publication, "Guidelines, Upland Review Area Regulations, Connecticut's Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act," states that degraded conditions should not be used to justify further degradations and said that the size of the addition was very large compared to the existing structure. Mrs. D. Hill noted the proposed addition was two times the size of the existing dwelling and would require additional driveway. She recommended that the applicant investigate how to enlarge the building without increasing its footprint. Mr. Picton suggested another alternative might be to increase the size of the house by adding a few feet all around the perimeter in the area immediately surrounding the house, which had previously been regraded and was not functioning as wetlands. Mr. Ajello noted there was a deck on the previous plan that was not shown on the current map. Atty. Malley asked what the Commission thought about construction on piers. Mr. LaMuniere still thought it would require a lot of work to build up on the existing foundation, but that sono tubes for a deck would not cause too much damage. Mr. Picton thought construction on piers would be a significant activity in the wetlands. Mr. Bedini thought that if a new foundation was needed, piers would make sense, but said he was against increasing the size of the footprint whether it was on piers or not because new construction in the wetlands could not be justified. He added that it would be unfair to say that the owner could not rebuild on the existing footprint. Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, and Mr. Picton agreed. Atty. Malley complained that the Commission was not taking into account the quality of the wetlands, which was lawn, nor the proposal to improve the septic system. He also thought it was unfair of the Commission to think that the owner should have known the regulations before purchasing the property. Mr. Picton responded that if someone buys a bungalow, he can't be sure he's got a house until he gets all the required permits. Atty. Malley said his client was applying only to moderately expand his house and to provide mitigation in the back. Mr. Bedini asked how the wetlands were enhanced by the installation of the curtain drain. Mr. Nadeau, contractor, said his client did not want to decrease the size of the addition, pointed out that the wetlands had been disturbed for "80 years," and offered to plant additional trees in the back. Mr. Picton asked if the commissioners thought enough material had been submitted to approve the new septic system. Mr. Bedini stated there was no point in having separate votes on the addition and the septic system because if the addition was not approved, the owner would not install the new septic system. Mr. Picton noted that the commissioners had discussed the proposed addition and the majority had spoken against it and said he did not find the authority in the regulations for the Commission to approve a new structure in the wetlands. Mr. Thomson, Mr. LaMuniere, and Mr. Bedini said they were prepared to act on the application. Mr. Nadeau asked whether the Commission believed that removing the existing septic system would result in further degradation of the wetlands; he did not think so. Mr. Picton replied that the expansion of the house was not an offset to the replacement of an antique septic system.
MOTION: To deny Application #IW-08-13 submitted by Mr. Slaymaker to repair the septic system and build an addition to the existing dwelling at 17 Sunset Lane as proposed on the map, "B100a Sketch," by Berkshire Engineering and Surveying, dated 4/4/08 because: 1. the addition is proposed in wetlands and its construction would be a significant activity in the wetlands, 2. the addition is very large; approximately two times the size of the existing footprint, 3. the Commission has never approved new construction in a wetlands and does not want to set a precedent by doing so, 4. the applicant has feasible and prudent alternatives he could propose such as decreasing the size of the addition, changing the configuration of the addition, adding a second story addition over the existing foundation, etc., and 5. the Commission cites the June 1997 DEP document, "Guidelines, Upland Review Area Regulations, Connecticut's Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act," which states that degraded conditions should not be used to justify further degradations. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0. (Motion approved, Application denied)
Mr. Picton noted that a cease and desist order was still in place (actually, a notice of violation had been issued), no further work should be conducted in the wetlands, and the wetlands must be restored.
Guliano/19 Winston Drive/#IW-08-14/Replace Pool: Mr. Picton noted that this application had been discussed at the last meeting and the Commission was not waiting for any additional information. Mr. Guliano presented the sketch plan dated 3/18/08 and noted the distance from the side of the house to the proposed pool was 17 feet. The plan was not drawn to scale so he wrote in this measurement on it. Mr. Picton asked if Mr. Ajello had reviewed the application and determined it was complete, and Mr. Ajello responded that he had. It was noted the existing pool is 846 sq. feet, while the proposed pool will be 828 sq. ft.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-14 submitted by Mr. Guliano to replace the swimming pool at 19 Winston Drive per the map dated 3/18/08 with notes revised to 4/9/08. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Hock/Fiedorowicz/49 Mt. Tom Road/#IW-08-15/Driveway Crossing: The map, "Driveway Wetlands Crossing," by Mr. Wilson, dated January 2008 was reviewed. It was noted the existing 18 ft. long culvert would be replaced with a 30 ft. culvert, which would be long enough to accommodate the necessary regrading along the side of the driveway. It was also noted that silt fencing was shown on the map and that a construction detail sheet had been submitted. Mr. Ajello noted there were wetland areas on both sides of the driveway approximately 100 ft. in from Mt. Tom Road and guessed they were connected and that another culvert would be required. He also thought other cross culverts would be required further along the access. It was the consensus to ask Mr. Wilson, engineer, to investigate both of these issues. Mr. Bedini also asked what would be done with the rock removed from the ledge and how the water would be handled on the south side of the driveway. Mr. Ajello noted that the plan should show the limit of disturbance and clearing and these should be kept as close to the driveway as possible. Mr. Picton asked that all work, including installation of the silt fence, be kept a minimum of 20 feet from the wetlands except within 50 feet of the crossing and that the depth of fill over the culvert be provided.
Also on the adjoining property, the commissioners thought logging was being done directly in wetlands. Mrs. D. Hill asked if Mr. Ajello had signed off on a timber harvesting application. Mr. Ajello said he would make an inspection.
New Applications
Redstone/83 West Morris Road/#IW-08-16/Inground Pool: The sketch map by the owner and the survey map, "Map Prepared for Mark E. and James F. Picton," by Mr. Howland, dated October 1988, which showed the location of the flagged wetlands, were reviewed. Mr. Picton said he had not owned the property for 16 years and so did not have a conflict of interest. It was noted the proposed pool was 70 feet from the flagged wetlands. Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the property, the house location was "high and dry," and the proposed pool location was in an area that was already lawn. Mrs. Redstone said that no additional clearing would be required. Mr. Bedini asked if the limit of disturbance was defined by the location of the silt fence and whether a 20 to 25 ft. wide area around the pool was a large enough area in which to work. Mr. Ajello said it would be tight, but it would work. He noted that construction equipment would enter from the south and that the excavated material would be transported to a site sloping away from the wetlands. Mr. Picton asked for "plenty" of buffer area between the pool and the wetlands. Mr. Ajello noted that the existing vegetation within 35 feet of the wetlands was long grasses and ferns. It was noted the proposed pool was 16 ft. by 40 ft. plus a 4 ft. wide deck. Mrs. Redstone explained that alternate locations for the pool would not work because elsewhere the line of vision from the house to the pool would be blocked by a hill or the garage. Mr. LaMuniere asked if a cartridge filter would be used. Mrs. Redstone said it would. The commissioners determined that a site inspection was not necessary.
Enforcement
Gray-Dunlap/26 Painter Ridge Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Soil Disturbance: Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the recent work, noted there were three intermittent streams and a wetland on the property, and advised the Commission that a notice of violation had been mailed yesterday. Mr. Picton read this letter dated 4/8/08. Mr. Ajello said that Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, had been hired, but had not yet had time to draw up a restoration plan. Mr. Picton asked for specific information on the extent of the fill, the drainage work, the redirection of the drainage flow, and the reestablishment of the native understory. Mr. Dunlap noted that top soil had been deposited along both sides of the driveway and trees and shrubs had been cut. He thought many of these plants would regrow on their own. He also noted that the porch on the house had to be replaced due to settling and that Mr. Ajello had advised him a Wetlands permit was required. He said that Mr. Sabin would include the porch work in his mitigation plan. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.
Lancaster/244 West Shore Road/#IW-07-V16/Unauthorized Clearing: Mr. Picton reported that Mr. Pollock had given the Commission a complete explanation of the strategy of the recent clearing, noting that 75% of the canopy of the larger trees along the lake had been maintained and that invasives and several smaller sized trees had been removed. He thought Mr. Ajello and Mr. Pollock had had a misunderstanding about the cutting of the larger material. In the future he asked Mr. Ajello to take on site notes on a carbon pad so that each party would have an immediate record of what transpired. Mr. Ajello said he was pleased that Mr. Lancaster responded to the notice of violation and that he wanted him to understand that the lake shore buffer is important and should be respected. He said he had a problem with the removal of the invasives on the steep shoreline slope and he encouraged replanting there to hold the soil. Mr. Picton stated the activity that occurred should have had a permit. Mr. LaMuniere agreed, saying that all work along the shore line needs a permit. Atty. Kelly specifically asked the Commission if it considered the work done to be a regulated activity. The five seated commissioners said, yes. Mr. Bedini added that although everyone agreed a permit was required, it did not mean that "wholesale destruction" had taken place. Mr. Picton said the Commission would make a list of recommendations for maintaining a healthy natural buffer along the lake shore. Atty. Kelly said that would be OK if it was advisory only. Mr. Ajello noted he had already sent Mr. Lancaster streamside buffer literature. The list of recommendations was reviewed: 1) No further removal of trees or woody understory except for the suppression on invasive species on the lake shore bank. 2) Allow the natural wood understory growth to fill in on the bank. 3) The shoreline vegetation west of the large oak should not be removed. 4) Plant native woody shrubs or trees in the depression in the bank that needs stabilization. 5) There should be no further unpermitted work. Atty. Kelly said his clients would be disappointed that the Commission considered this a violation. He asked what the minimum acreage was in which landscaping can occur as an unregulated activity and thought the Commission should not have made the determination that the work done was a regulated activity without first knowing the answer. Mr. LaMuniere thought the Commission and Atty. Kelly differed on the definition of "landscaping." Atty. Kelly referred the Commission to Section 4 of the Regulations. He stated the Commission had not right to regulate landscaping that may pose a risk to the wetlands if it was done on a minimum sized lot. Mr. Bedini read Section 4.1.d and asked Atty. Kelly if he thought that gave the property owner the right to do whatever he wants even though it is regulated elsewhere in the document. Atty. Kelly said, yes, that was his position. He then submitted a letter dated 4/9/08, which he said was a compilation of responses to Mr. Ajello's enforcement letter.
Brown/127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work Along Shoreline: It was noted that Atty. Kelly and Mr. Ajello had met to try to resolve this matter. Atty. Kelly said he was trying to determine which areas were subject to restoration and was trying to find photos of the area between the boat launch and the stairs. A photo dated 9/06 was reviewed. Mr. Picton stated that the restoration work done to date was a good example of shoreline restoration.
Mr. Bedini asked Atty, Kelly if there was a legal definition of "shoreline." Atty. Kelly thought that any surveyor would have this information and he would pass it on to the Commission if he found it.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory: It was noted that Mr. Ajello had sent a letter to Mr. DiBenedetto as had been requested at the last meeting.
Ebner/18A Mt. Tom Road/Unauthorized Shoreline Clearing: The 4/1/08 site inspection minutes were reviewed. It was noted that Mr. Ebner had been instructed that there could be no further cutting of trees, the view could be maintained in the 50 ft. corridor between the deck and the pond, but outside this corridor and except for the septic area, the understory should be allowed to reestablish, there could be no stump removal, and there could be no soil disturbance. Mr. Picton asked that Mr. Ajello write to Mr. Ebner to inform him of these restrictions and that he include a copy of the 4/1 minutes with the letter. Mrs. D. Hill asked if a citation should be issued. Mr. Ajello did not think so because there was no earthwork, nor was there massive clearing, and Mr. Ebner had responded promptly when asked to stop.
25 Mt. Tom Road/New Dwelling: Mrs. D. Hill reported activity near the pond, away from the new house, which was out of the upland review area. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to inspect the site. Mr. Ajello said there had been no disturbance near the pond.
Peloquin/1 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-07-V13/Unauthorized Clearcutting, Excavation, Stonework: The site plan that Mr. Peloquin promised still had not been submitted. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to write to him to instruct him to immediately seed and hay all disturbed areas.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of the Understory: The 4/5/08 letter from Mr. DiBenedetto to Mr. Ajello was circulated. Generally, the commissioners thought that Mr. DiBenedetto did not understand why the Commission wanted the areas that had been cut to be restored before additional areas were cut. Mr. LaMuniere noted that the consensus of the commissioners had been that too many trees had been cut. Mr. Picton noted Mr. DiBenedetto had been asked to follow up with restoration work for each phase before going on to the next phase. Mr. Ajello explained that Mr. DiBenedetto was anxious to complete the cutting and then begin replanting this year; that he objected to waiting three years to see whether the restoration efforts were successful before he could resume removing trees. Mr. Picton and Mr. LaMuniere thought it was important to ensure that the invasives were under control, because if they weren't, nothing else would be able to grow. Mr. Picton added that native shrubs that could have been left were cut along with the invasives. Mr. Ajello said that Mr. DiBenedetto was concerned that the Commission, rather than Land Tech, was managing the project. Mr. Picton noted the Commission had asked Land Tech that the work be carried out in stages, but Mr. Ajello said Land Tech wanted to proceed with the cutting now. Mr. Picton said this property had a history where restorations previously ordered had not been successfully completed, and so the Commission needed to see results before any more cutting was done. A lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. Bedini suggested that Mr. Ajello ask Land Tech to support the phasing of the project and that Land Tech then advise Mr. DiBenedetto on how the work should proceed. Mr. Picton said he would call Land Tech as soon as possible.
Administrative Business
Revision of the Regulations: The commissioners discussed how to define the upland review area. Increasing the upland review area to within 200 ft. of wetlands and watercourse, increasing it to 200 feet only when the proposed activity is within 100 ft. of slopes exceeding 12%, or leaving it at 100 feet with a more specific definition of steep slopes and under what conditions the upland review area could be expanded were considered. Upon receiving input, Mr. Picton said he would compose a draft, which would be circulated prior to the next meeting. It was also suggested that timber harvesting be added to the list of regulated activities or at least add a reference to the Town Timber Harvesting Ordinance.
Application Form: The updated form had been circulated prior to the meeting. The one suggestion received was that "Use Form B for Exemptions" should be added to page 1.
Communications
The Commission asked Mr. Ajello to try to set up a meeting with Dr. Kortmann on shoreline ecology.
MOTION: To go into Executive Session at 11:07 p.m. to discuss pending litigation: Andersson. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end Executive Session at 11:17 p.m. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, passed 5-0
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Picton.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: April 5, 2008 March 26, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Barbieri, Atty. Malley, Mr. McMorrow, Mr. Guliano, Mr. Gruson, Mr. Nadeau, Mr. Ebner Mrs. Branson, Mr. Stafford, Mr. McGowan, Mr. Lancaster, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Pollock, Mr. Washington, Mr. Wilson
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: New Application: B. Hock- Fiedorowicz/49 Mt. Tom Road/#IW-08-15/Driveway Crossing, Other Business: Ficalora/10 Sunrise Lane/Request to Extend Permit #IW-03-05, Enforcement: R. Lancaster/244 West Shore Rd./ #IW-07-V16/Unauthorized Shoreline Clearing. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 3/12/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 7: 8th line under Slaymaker: Add: "...and clearing in front of wetlands."
MOTION: To accept the 3/12/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Picton abstained because he hat not attended the meeting.
MOTION: To add the consideration of the 3/26/08 DiBenedetto site inspection minutes to the agenda. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 3/26/08 DiBenedetto site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Fleishmann/219 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-05/Construct House and Barn, Remove Shed, Move Caboose: Mr. Fleishmann had submitted a new map showing improved erosion and sedimentation controls, but did not yet have a report from a soil scientist. Mr. Thomson noted he would soon inspect the fire pond to determine whether it shows signs of functioning as a vernal pool.
Gruson/62 Frisbie Road/#IW-08-10/Pond Maintenance: Mr. Ajello said he had inspected the site with Mr. Gruson and had found the proposed deposition area between the two wetlands was located at least 75 ft. from both. He noted one wetland area was an intermittent stream and the other was a mowed meadow. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Picton said he wanted to make sure the spoils area was not too close to the wetlands and would not become an erosion problem. Mr. Gruson stated that there was a stone wall and woods that would trap sediment downgrade of the deposition site. Mrs. D. Hill asked if there was a planting plan. Mr. Gruson said that plantings were not part of the pond maintenance being applied for, but that he would investigate the possibility. Mrs. Hill pointed out that plantings would be beneficial to the pond and Mr. Ajello noted that they would help to stabilize the disturbed soils and so could be included as part of the maintenance plan.
Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/#IW-08-13/Repair Septic System, Construct Addition: The map, "Wetlands Mitigation Plan," by Ms. Barbieri, dated 2/7/08 was reviewed. Mr. Bedini asked several questions. 1. Did the septic system fail in the 1990's? Mr. McMorrow, engineer, showed a copy of an old septic plan by Mr. Neff, dated 8/11/93, which, he said, had never been implemented. 2. Mr. Bedini asked what was the current nature of the failure. He noted that Ms. Von Holt, Sanitarian, had been to the property twice and had not seen a failure. Mr. Nadeau, contractor, said that because he had been told by the Health Dept. that the existing system does not meet the current state Health Code and because it smelled, he assumed it was failing and so informed the Commission. Mr. Bedini said that if the system was actually failing he thought that the owner would not wait until the summer to fix it or would have it pumped periodically now. 3) Was effluent actually running into the wetlands? Mr. Nadeau did not know, but again said the area smelled. 4) Was the curtain drain installed to drain the portion of the property where the existing house is located? Mr. McMorrow said the purpose is to lower the water table immediately downhill of the drain. He noted it had been monitored for three weeks and the water table remained higher than the 18" minimum required by the state Health Code. He said it would be monitored for two more weeks and the results would determine whether a more compact septic system could be installed close to the house. 5) Mr. Picton asked what the existing system consisted of and whether there could be some relatively minor maintenance such as removal of a root that could be blocking it or repair of a crushed pipe that would be effective instead of installing a completely new system. Mr. McMorrow did not know what the existing system consisted of or whether there was a blockage. He did say, however, that it was known that the system was in the same plane as the water table, which was not good for the functioning of a septic system. 6) Mr. Bedini asked why the tank was not being pumped out on a regular basis so that no effluent would reach the wetlands. Mr. McMorrow said that was up to the Health Dept. and that property owners were given a certain amount of time in which to make repairs. Mr. Bedini thought it looked like the owner was trying to make his back yard larger and trying to dry it up. Mr. Picton found the current application was "short on information." He asked that the nature of the system and of its failure be established first and that a determination then be made regarding whether it could be repaired by perhaps installing a curtain drain on three sides or by removing a blockage. If it was found that the system could not be repaired, then the next step would be to design a new system. He advised the applicant that it had applied for a new system in wetlands without data to prove that it was, indeed, necessary. Mr. Bedini agreed that facts were needed to substantiate the request. Mr. Nadeau said it was a fact that 1) the existing septic does not meet the current Health Code and 2) the installation of a new system that meets at least 50% of the current Health Code is required in order to construct the proposed addition. He said if the addition was not approved, the septic repairs would not be made. Mr. Picton said the next level of consideration would be whether an addition is appropriate in wetlands. Existing versus proposed size of the house was discussed. Atty. Malley said the proposed addition had been decreased in size since the last meeting to 24' X 32', which would result in 1676 total sq. ft. Mr. LaMuniere asked if there were zoning issues. Mr. Ajello said that Zoning requires a 50 ft. setback from wetlands. Mr. Picton said that the applicant should make an effort to minimize the footprint. He asked if there was some kind of standard for minimum sized dwellings such as 900 sq. ft. for three bedrooms. Mr. Bedini asked if the addition could go up over the existing footprint since the house is located in wetlands. Mr. Nadeau did not think the existing foundation could support it. Discussion continued about what percentage of an increase might be appropriate for a house in wetlands. Mr. Picton noted that an increase to 900 sq. ft. would be over a 100% increase in size and perhaps would not be supported by all of the commissioners. Mr. Ajello noted that another alternative would be to locate the septic in front of the house out of the wetlands soils; the Town Sanitarian will supervise perc tests here to determine whether this is feasible. Mr. Bedini noted that although the Commission had asked for substantiating data and a review of feasible and prudent alternatives, it did not guarantee that the proposed addition would be approved. Mr. Picton agreed, noting there are some sites that are not suitable for the standard American home. Mr. LaMuniere thought the main question to be addressed was how much more stress would be put on the wetlands due to the increased size of both the house and septic. Mr. Ajello pointed out that it was not just size and/or the number of bedrooms that would control the use of the house. He noted the proposed floor plan includes a laundry, which the existing house does not have. Mr. Bedini noted that if the septic system was failing, repairs were proposed, and an addition was not proposed, or if the addition was going up on the existing footprint, he would have no objections. Ms. Barbieri noted there were nine other houses in the area that had been built on wetlands soils and said she would submit information on their type and size. She also asked if the septic could be placed out of wetlands in the front of the house and more of the back yard restored, would it affect the Commission's view about the addition. The commissioners noted they would still favor a minimally sized addition on the existing footprint. Ms. Barbieri asked if it would make a difference whether the addition had a foundation or was on piers. It was noted that this would probably affect the drainage and the Health Dept. approval. Mr. McMorrow submitted proof that he had notified the Town of New Milford of the application.
Town of Washington/59 East Shore Road/#IW-08-12/Construct Compressor Building: Mr. McGowan submitted the plans, "Site Plan" and "Compressor Building for the Lake Waramaug Task Force," both by Mr. Lasar, dated 3/20/08 and the document, "Explanation of Modifications to Application #IW-08-12/Compressor Shed, Town of Washington/59 East Shore Road," unsigned, dated 3/26/08. He briefly described the changes made since the application was discussed at the last meeting. The location of the building would shift slightly so that it would have a common wall with the ramp wall and would have a full foundation. Mr. McGowan said that potential noise from the compressor had been discussed at the ZBA hearing. A canopy can be placed over the compressor to suppress the noise, but the width of the building had to be increased to 11 ft. to accommodate it. He noted that even with the increased footprint, the total impervious surface would decrease due to the shared wall. Mr. Picton asked if the compressor could be located in the basement of the beach house or elsewhere. Mr. Ajello noted the utility lines already exist and the Town did not want to have to put new ones in through the septic system. Mr. McGowan responded that all of the space in the beach house was being used and since there was a residence in the beach house it would be too noisy with the compressor in the basement. Mr. LaMuniere asked if fuel would be stored in the building. Mr. McGowan said the compressor was electric powered. Mr. Picton noted the Commission expects to review the future plans for the beach house and the reconfiguration of the parking area. He also noted the proposed building is on a completely redeveloped, not a natural site.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-12 submitted by the Town of Washington to construct a compressor building at 59 East Shore Road per #ZBA-0802. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Picton abstained because he had not been present for the discussion at the last meeting.
New Applications
Guliano/19 Winston Drive/#IW-08-14/Replace Pool: Mr. Guliano presented sketch maps showing the existing pool, dated 7/31/03 and the proposed pool, dated 3/17/08. He noted the total coverage would be reduced. Mr. Picton remembered that there had been drainage problems on that side of the property in the past. Mr. Guliano discussed the installation plans; no regrading would be required because the area was already level and a non discharge filter having a cartridge system without backwash would be installed. It was noted the pool was farther than 50 ft. from the upgrade wetlands, there was a treed buffer area between the pool and the wetlands, and that a 2007 soils report by Mr. Temple was in the file. Mr. Guliano was asked to draw a limit of work area on the sketch plan and to keep this as far from the wetlands as possible. Mr. Picton noted that the Commission would rely on Mr. Ajello's site inspection rather than schedule one of its own and would act on the application at the next meeting.
Hock-Fiedorowicz/49 Mt. Tom Road/#IW-08-15/Driveway Crossing: Mr. Wilson, engineer, submitted the plans, "Driveway Wetlands Crossing," by Mr. Wilson, dated January 2008. He explained the old deteriorated culvert would be replaced and the level of the driveway elevated. He also stated that the crossing was required to access the building site on the 22 acre parcel and that there was no other appropriate location for the driveway. The driveway grade would be 13% at its steepest point. Mrs. Hill asked if the proposed culvert would be strong enough to support construction equipment. Mr Picton stated that a wide swath of the hillside was not proposed and no cuts were necessary so there were no major issues to consider. Mr. Wilson noted the watershed area was small and that a gutter was proposed on the upper side of the driveway to channel some of the runoff. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 4:30 p.m/
Other Business
Steep Rock Assn./124 Christian Street/Request to Amend Permit #IW-08-01/Herbicide Application: Representing Steep Rock, Mr. Stafford explained the request was to increase the size of the area where the herbicide would be applied. Originally there had not been funds available, but Steep Rock recently was awarded a Dept. of Agriculture Wildlife Habitat grant to treat the entire 16 acres. He noted the success rate for the eradication of the reed canary grass would be greater if all 16 acres were treated. The equipment to be used and method of application would not change.
MOTION: To approve the request submitted by Steep Rock Assn. to revise Permit #IW-08-01 for the application of herbicides at 124 Christian Street. By Mr. LaMuniere, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Applications for Aquatic Pesticides: Mr. Picton asked if these applications were being submitted to the Commission as required. Mr. Ajello reported that all property owners for which he had received notification from the state DEP had been sent letters to notify them that they must apply for a local permit, but so far none had done so. Mrs. J. Hill noted that she sent a letter to the DEP to ask it to inform applicants that a local permit is also required, but said she had not received a response.
Ficalora/10 Sunrise Lane/Request to Renew Permit #IW-03-55/ Construct Single Family Dwelling: The map, "Proposed Sanitary Disposal System Plan Prepared for Church Hill Corp., Lot 56A," by Mr. Howland, revised to 8/6/03 was reviewed. Mr. Picton noted that the application had been approved in 2003, all proposed activities were more than 100 ft. from wetlands, and the grade of the property was not very steep. He also presumed that the line of silt fencing was the limit of disturbance line. It was the consensus that there was no reason to grant anything less than a 5 year renewal.
MOTION: To approve the request submitted by Mr. Ficalora to renew Permit #IW-03-55 to construct a house at 10 Sunrise Lane: the extension granted is for 5 years. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Ebner/18A Mt. Tom Road/Unauthorized Shoreline Clearing: Mr. Ebner stated that he had improved his property and reinstalled a fence and that all sound trees had been left in place to provide a wildlife habitat. Mr. Bedini asked if the understory had been cleared. Mr. Ebner said that saplings had been cut. Mr. Picton read a portion of Mr. Ajello's 3/20/08 notice of violation letter. Photos of the site were circulated. Mr. Ajello said he thought there were flood plain and wetlands soils in the area where the clearing was done. Mr. Picton explained that vegetative cover is an integral part of wetlands and that clearing it changes the hydrological and biological function of the wetlands. Mr. Ebner stated there used to be a beach in this area and he had no plans to do any more clearing. It was noted the high canopy had not been completely removed and the lower vegetation could be restored. A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.
Lancaster/244 West Shore Road/#IW-07-V16/Unauthorized Shoreline Clearing: Mr. Ajello showed 2006 and 2007 photos of the property and compared them with photos he had recently taken. He said he had been consulted about clearing invasives, had spoken to Mr. Lancaster and Mr. Pollock, contractor, about the importance of preserving the shoreline buffer, and had sent a notice of violation as soon as it was evident that part of the shoreline had been cleared to provide a view of the lake. Mr. Lancaster said that he had consulted with Mr. Ajello prior to doing any work, had been trying to establish a safe property and had not changed any of the natural properties along the shoreline. He objected to what he considered to be inaccuracies in the 3/10/08 notice of violation sent by Mr. Ajello. Atty. Kelly noted for the record that the current owners had not purchased the property until 12/28/07 and so any work done before that date was not their responsibility, Mr. Lancaster had contacted Mr. Ajello prior to doing any work, and he objected to speculation in the 3/10/08 letter that made it appear that anyone who tried to enhance his view did not care about the water quality of the lake. He asked the Commission 1) was this a violation and 2) if so, was there anything the Commission wanted Mr. Lancaster to do. Atty. Kelly submitted photos of the property, which he concluded, showed that the shoreline had not been clear cut and that approximately 75% of the canopy remained. He spoke about landscaping allowed by right. Mr. Picton assured Mr. Lancaster that the Commission would get the facts before making any conclusion about the work done and advised Atty. Kelly that if landscaping affects the wetlands, the Commission has jurisdiction no matter what the lot size. Mr. Washington, contractor, said he had discussed only construction matters with Mr. Ajello and Mr. Pollock, contractor, made a brief statement that he abides by the law in regulated areas and had thought he had carried out Mr. Ajello's recommendations for the area. Mr. Picton recommended that in the future on site recommendations be written down so there can be no misunderstanding about them. A site inspection was scheduled for April 1, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. Atty. Kelly asked the Commission to determine what had been done and whether the property owner had the right to do it. He noted there had been no soil disturbance. Mr. Lancaster again said that he believes he did nothing wrong and that once that had been confirmed by the Commission he would be willing to educate himself about the proper methods for maintenance of the shoreline.
Enforcement
Brown/127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work Along Shoreline: Mr. Ajello reported that Atty. Kelly would be in soon to discuss a solution. Mr. LaMuniere recommended that Dr. Kortmann brief the Commission on shoreline preservation, and suggested that all Lake Waramaug residents could be invited to attend. Mr. Ajello said he would again contact Mr. McGowan to see if such a meeting with Dr. Kortmann could be scheduled.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory: Having inspected the site, it was the consensus of the commissioners that further cutting of the canopy should not be allowed until the areas that have already been cut have been properly replanted and restored to woodland with natural functions. Mr. Picton thought that a one to three year observation period would be adequate to determine whether the forest had been restored to the Land Tech guidelines and the invasives controlled. He noted that the more the canopy is cut, the more difficult it is to control invasives. Mr. LaMuniere asked if Mr. DiBendetto would be capable of managing the understory growth and controlling the invasives in the interim period. Mr. Picton said that before any mowing, Land Tech would tag plants to be saved and afterwards it would follow up to see if the maintenance work had been properly done. For the restoration, Mr. DiBendetto would select the plants to be planted, but Land Tech would specify where they were to be located. Mr. Picton noted that Land Tech would stay involved in a directive way. Mr. LaMuniere suggested that the Commission should inspect the site at the end of each growing season and that stabilization of the banks of the intermittent stream should be included in the restoration efforts. Mr. Ajello will draft a letter to advise Mr. DiBendetto of the work to be done and the work that should not be done until the area is restored. Mr. Picton will review it before it is sent.
Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-07-V12/Unauthorized Excavation: This matter has been referred to Atty. Zizka.
Peloquin/1 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-07-V13/Unauthorized Clearcutting, Stonework, and Excavation: A landscape architect is now working on plans to stabilize the disturbed areas.
Rumsey Hall School/200 Romford Road: Mr. Picton noted that even though reports are sent in by the contractor, Mr. Ajello should inspect the work site on a routine basis.
Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/Unauthorized Drainage Work and Excavation: Several different opinions were expressed regarding whether the Commission should allow an addition to a dwelling located directly in wetlands. Mr. Bedini thought a second story addition would be possible, but to be consistent, an expansion of the footprint should not be permitted. Mr. Ajello thought a modest increase was proposed and that moving the septic system out of the wetlands, while permitting an addition in the wetlands, would be a reasonable exchange. Mr. Bohan noted the area immediately surrounding the house is disturbed soils and asked whether adding to all sides of the house in its current location could be considered rather than constructing an addition in undisturbed soil off to one side. Mr. Picton noted the house is located in wetlands, but thought perhaps if the proposed expansion was on filled, non functioning wetlands soils, it might be less of a problem. Mrs. J. Hill asked if a public hearing would still be held. The Commission will decide at the April 9th meeting whether to schedule a hearing.
Etherington/49 Wheaton Road/#IW-08-V15/Maintenance of Sediment Pond: Mr. Ajello reported although he had determined that Mr. Etherington had exceeded the terms of his permit, he had not fined him.
Adminstrative Business
Processing of New Applications: It was noted that the Commission will not discuss a new application until Mr. Ajello has had the opportunity to inspect the property. Therefore, applications submitted only a day or two prior to a meeting, may not be discussed at the first meeting.
Revision of the Regulations: Mr. Picton said he was still waiting to hear from Atty. Zizka regarding the question of increasing the wetlands setback. Mr. Bedini noted that the current Regulations state that jurisdiction may be increased due to on site conditions, but that it is "easier" to specify a distance. There was a brief discussion regarding what the setback should be increased to. While most thought the current 100 feet was arbitrary and was not wide enough to include activities that could impact wetlands and watercourses, some thought it would be difficult to justify an increase to 500 feet, for example. It was also noted that a large increase would greatly increase the Commission's workload. Discussion then circled back to a 100 ft. upland review area except in areas where there are site conditions such as steep slopes. Mrs. D. Hill said the Commission had been advised that this was not specific enough. Mr. Picton suggested that Section 2.3.4 could be reworded to state that steep slopes and/or unusual drainage conditions would trigger a wider review area. Mrs. J. Hill recommended a definition of "steep slope" be added. Mr. Picton suggested a 12% grade. Mrs. D. Hill said that the second paragraph in the definition of "regulated activity" should also be revised.
Application Form: The new draft form will be circulated to members for review for final approval at the next meeting.
Commission Organization: Mr. Picton and Mr. Bedini said they had been discussing the hiring of a consultant who would review the organization of the Commission and its staff and then make recommendations on how to improve management and process. Mrs. D. Hill and Mr. Thomson thought this was a good idea. It was noted that the First Selectman thought that if a consultant was hired, he should review the entire land use department, not just the Inland Wetlands Commission. The commissioners thought they needed help now whether or not the other land use boards do and that when reviewing the Wetlands Comm. the consultant might come up with ways to better coordinate the actions of the various land use commissions. It was also suggested that a review of the Wetlands Commission could be a "pilot program" or a first step in a subsequent review of the entire dept.
2008-2009 Budget: Mr. Picton noted he had not yet heard from the Selectmen's Office about whether the Commission's budget request had been approved. It was noted that while the request could be cut, the expenses would remain the same.
MOTION: To enter into Executive Session at 10:55 p.m. to discuss Pending Litigation. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end Executive Session at 11:03 p.m. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Region #12 School District/159 South Street/Reconstruct Track: Mr. Ajello noted that Mr. Dirienzo of the Roxbury Inland Wetlands Commission had sent information about mercury gasses emitted from the materials to be used to reconstruct the track. He noted he had asked for additional information and that this issue would be included in the 4/14/08 Zoning public hearing.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Picton.
Mr. Picton closed the hearing at 11:10 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: March 20, 2008 March 12, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Thomson
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Picton
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Bohan
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Smith, Atty. Malley, Ms. Barbieri, Atty. Coploff, Ms. Habib, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Lasar, Mr. McGowan, Mr. Neff, Mr. Nadeau, Mr. Clark, Mr. McMorrow
Mr. Bedini called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, and Thomson and Alternate Wadelton for Mr. Picton.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: New Application: C. Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/#IW-08-13/Violation - Septic Repair and Addition to Dwelling, Other Business: D. Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation, and Enforcement: Q. Lancaster/244 West Shore Road/#IW-07-16V/ Unauthorized Clearing. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 2/27/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 3: Newman: 2 lines from end: Change: "to scale" to "...accurate because the wetlands were not located by a soil scientist, but this may be sufficient for the purposes of this application...."
Page 3: Fleishmann: 14th line from bottom: Change: "this map" to "the Riordan map...."
Page 5: Rumsey Hall: 16th line: Insert after "crushed stone:" "and recharge structures...."
Page 8: Under Communications: Insert after "Report:" "from the Ct. DEP...."
MOTION: To accept the 2/27/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Wadelton, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not attended the meeting.
MOTION: To accept the Freese 3/5/08 site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not attended the inspection.
MOTION: To accept the Del Nin 3/5/08 site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not attended the inspection.
MOTION: To accept the DiBenedetto 3/5/08 site inspection minutes as written and photographed. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not attended the inspection.
Pending Applications
Newman/20 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-08-04/Drainage Improvements, Driveway Renovation: Mr. Ajello reported that the $30 state tax had been paid and that the application was now complete.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-04 submitted by Mr. Newman for drainage improvements and driveway renovation at 20 Painter Ridge Road. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not been present during previous discussions of this application.
Fleishmann/219 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-05/Construct House and Barn, Remove Shed, Move Caboose: Mrs. J. Hill said she had sent Mr. Fleishmann a letter listing all of the information the Commission had requested. Mr. Ajello said there had been no response. Mr. Thomson noted that he would ask Mr. Fleishmann for permission to inspect the possible vernal pool. Further discussion was tabled.
Freese/187 Shearer Road/#IW-08-06/Construct House: Mr. Neff, engineer, noted that since the site inspection, he had revised the plans to include a barricade fence along the limit of disturbance line near the wetlands. The map, "Proposed Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 3/6/08 was reviewed. Mr. Ajello was concerned that drainage from the construction site would run onto Shearer Road and recommended the installation of an anti tracking pad at the driveway entrance even though Shearer Road is a dirt road. Mrs. D. Hill noted this was an area that was not under the Commission's jurisdiction. Mr. Bedini asked if Mr. Neff would oversee the project. Mr. Neff said he would only if it were made a condition of approval. It was the consensus of the Commission that the anti tracking pad would be made a condition of approval and Mr. Neff said he would submit a revised plan.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-06 submitted by Mr. Freese to construct a house at 187 Shearer Road with the condition that a 20 ft. long anti tracking pad must be installed at the driveway entrance from Shearer Road. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Region #12 School District/159 South Street/#IW-08-07/Reconstruct Track: A representative from Milone and MacBroom stated there had been no revisions to the plans since the last meeting. The map, "Site Plan - Layout," by Milone & MacBroom, dated 12/15/08 was reviewed. He noted the bleacher pad would be composed of compacted crushed stone and he wrote this on the plan and initialed and dated the revision. Mrs. D. Hill stated that the plan was basically the same one that had been approved by the Commission in 2000.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-07 submitted by Region #12 School District to reconstruct the outdoor track at 159 South Street as indicated per the plans, "Reconstruction of Running Track," 8 sheets, by Milone and MacBroom, revised with handwritten notes to 3/12/08. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
Rumsey Hall School/200 Romford Road/#IW-08-08/Construct Dormitory and Hockey Rink and Extend Driveway: Mr. Bedini noted the receipt of the 3/12/08 letter from Land Tech, which stated that the latest revisions to the plans adequately addressed Land Tech's recommendations and the Commission's concerns. Mr. Smith, surveyor, said the applicant had nothing to add. The map, "Cover Sheet and Location Map," by Smith & Co., revised to 2/25/08 was reviewed. Possible conditions of approval were discussed at length with Mr. Smith and Ms. Habib, Business Manager, and the following motion was made:
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-08 submitted by Rumsey Hall School to construct a hockey rink and dormitory, and extend the driveway at 200 Romford Road subject to the following conditions: 1. a monitoring plan shall be implemented, which shall include weekly reports to the Inland Wetlands Commission on site progress, condition, stability, and erosion and sedimentation control measures status until full stabilization of the site, including revegetation, has been completed, 2. a $20,000 bond shall be posted to guarantee full completion of the work specified and any remediation, restoration, or additional protective measures, which may become necessary during the duration of the project; the bond may be released in stages, with some amount retained to secure the longer term provisions and contingencies for remedial work, 3. reimbursement shall be paid to the Commission for the costs of its consultant, and the school shall continue to reimburse the Commission's costs for review of project compliance, 4. a report on the completion of the project and an as-built verification by the project engineer shall be submitted to the Commission and it shall be confirmed by a site inspection and report from the Commission's engineer upon completion of the project, 5. at the one year anniversary following full stabilization of the site, a report from the project engineer on the performance of the storm runoff and erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be submitted to the Commission and a site inspection may be scheduled for the Commission, the WEO, and/or the Commission's consultant. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. LaMuniere abstained because he had not been present for most of the discussion of this application.
Mr. Bedini thanked Rumsey Hall School for its cooperation and asked that a long range, overall plan be submitted for the Commission's review. He said it was the Commission's goal to avoid reviews done in a piecemeal approach.
Del Nin/32 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-09/Inground Pool: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his revised plans, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," revised to 3/6/08. He had added a silt fence along the turn in the driveway as requested and a barricade fence to control the work zone. He noted, too, that the plans called for a temporary hay bale barrier to be installed at the end of each work day across the entrance of the construction access. Mr. Thomson thought Mr. Neff had done a good job drafting plans to protect the wetlands during construction.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-09 submitted by Mr. Del Nin to install an inground pool at 32 Wykeham Road per the plans, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 3/6/08. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Gruson/62 Frisbie Road/#IW-08-10/Pond Maintenance: A site inspection had not been scheduled at the last meeting because the ground had been covered with snow. Mr. Neff, engineer, noted there was a conservation easement on the property and that the Roxbury Land Trust had OK'd the proposed activity. Mr. Bedini asked if a planting plan had been submitted. Mr. Neff and Mr. Ajello said they had discussed the possibility of a planting plan with the owner who was now considering his options. It was noted that the pond would not be cleaned until the dry season and so there was no hurry to act on the application.
New Applications
Klauer/102 East Street/#IW-08-11/2 Lot Subdivision: Atty. Fisher presented the map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 2/15/08. He noted the location of the approximate 80 acre parcel, and said that except for two building envelopes the property was under a conservation easement in favor of Steep Rock. He said that a portion of the larger building envelope was within the regulated area, although there were no activities proposed there. He said that the owner understood that a permit would be required if an activity were proposed in this area in the future. Mr. Bedini asked if there was a house site in the building envelope that was both out of the regulated area and that met the zoning requirements. Atty. Fisher said there was. He added that the property was very level and so there would be no runoff problems. Mrs. D. Hill thought the subdivision application was feasible, but advised the applicant that the Commission would have to approve specific plans once they were proposed for the site.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-08-11 submitted by Ms. Klauer for a two lot subdivision at 102 East Street as a feasible subdivision as no regulated activities are proposed and it appears there is plenty of room for development, with the condition that when the lot is to be developed the Commission shall review the plans. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road/Unauthorized Clearing, Trenching in Wetlands: Atty. Fisher advised the Commission that Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, had proposed the creation of a "pot pond" as an easy way to increase the size of the wetlands and to simultaneously get rid of the phragmites. He asked the commissioners to discuss this proposal with Atty. Zizka.
New Applications
Town of Washington/59 East Shore Road/#IW-08-12/Compressor Shed: Mr. Lyon, First Selectman, Mr. Lasar, architect, and Mr. McGowan, Director of the Lake Waramaug Task Force, were present. It was noted that although the compressor building was one component of the overall plan for the Town Beach, it was being applied for separately time because the compressor had to be relocated and in operation by June 1. Mr. Bedini asked if there would be a line from the compressor to the lake. Mr. Lyon said it had already been partly installed and Mr. McGowan said its location would not change. The plan, "Compressor Building Site Plan," by Mr. Lasar, dated 3/8/08 was reviewed. Mr. McGowan pointed out that the existing retaining wall would be relocated and have a slightly different alignment and that the foundation for this building and the renovated beach house would be done at the same time. The location of the compressor building between the retaining wall and the beach house was noted. The map, "Boat Ramp," by Mr. Wilson that had been approved for Phase I was also reviewed as were the elevations and floor plans by Mr. Lasar dated 2/20/08 and plans by Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, that were not to scale. Mr. Lasar stated that the building would be one story on slab with the floor elevation at 698. Mr. LaMuniere stated that the compressor was integral to the health of the water quality of the lake. Interested commissioners will inspect the site on their own before the next meeting.
Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/#IW-08-13/Septic Repair and Addition to Dwelling: Ms. Barbieri, agent, Mr. Nadeau, contractor, Mr. McMorrow, engineer, and Atty. Malley were present. Two maps, "Wetland Mitigation Plan - Alternate #1," by Ms. Barbieri, dated 2/7/08 and "Wetland Mitigation Plan," also by Ms. Barbieri, dated 2/7/08 were presented. Ms. Barbieri gave a brief history of the violation; the non authorized installation of curtain drains in a wetlands. She pointed out where the curtain drain presently empties and proposed that this area be rock lined so the runoff would dissipate into the ground. She noted the property is 95% wetlands and that the existing 16' X 24' house had been built in the wetlands. Mr. Slaymaker proposed to repair the failing septic system and to construct a 32' X 24' addition to the dwelling. Ms. Barbieri noted that it would not be known until the curtain drains had been monitored through the end of May, which of the proposed septic repair plans would be required by the Health Department. If they were found to work effectively, then a compact 2 BR system with less impact to the wetlands could be installed. In contrast, if they were not effective, 60 feet more of the woods would have to be cleared and three 85' long leaching fields would have to be positioned at least 50 ft. apart down grade of the house. Ms. Barbieri reviewed the "Wetland Mitigation Notes" included on both of the above referenced plans and Mr. McMorrow reviewed the curtain drain specifications. He noted that the current water table is at 10" and it was hoped the installation of the curtain drains would lower it to 18". Mr. Thomson thought the application should be delayed until it was known which plan would be applied for, but Atty. Malley said that since the existing septic was failing, the applicant did not want to wait to begin the permit process. Ms. Barbieri noted that a Wetlands permit would also be required for the proposed addition. Mr. Ajello asked if the front yard had been considered for the septic system. Mr. McMorrow said the well was located in front of the house. Mr. Ajello noted there were better soils in front and suggested that the Health Dept. could require the abandonment of the well so that the septic could be installed there. Mr. Bedini asked if a basement was proposed for the addition. Mr. Nadeau said the proposed basement would match the height of the existing basement and that it would resemble a crawl space. Mrs. D. Hill asked if the addition was necessary. Ms. Barbieri stated the addition would add living space, not bedrooms and Mr. McMorrow noted it would be two stories. It was noted the total footprint of the proposed dwelling would be 1152 sq. ft. and its total living area 1920 sq. ft. Mrs. D. Hill asked if that much space was needed. Mr. McMorrow stated that the new septic system would be installed during the dry season whether or not the addition was approved. Mr. Ajello noted that the curtain drain now empties into a basin only 15 feet from the stream that flows through the property and asked why it was so close. Mr. McMorrow agreed to move it away and to stagger the galleys so the curtain drain would not have to be extended. Ms. Barbieri briefly discussed feasible and prudent alternatives and asked whether a smaller addition would make that much difference to the wetlands. However, she said she would ask Mr. Slaymaker to consider "tightening up" the plans for the addition and/or would consider moving the septic system farther from the stream. Mrs. D. Hill noted the Commission had never denied an application for a septic repair, but said the proposed size of the addition was a problem for her. Mr. Bedini and Mr. LaMuniere agreed, especially because it would be entirely in the wetlands. Mr. LaMuniere stressed that the Inland Wetlands Commission and Health Dept. should work closely together on this application. Mr. Thomson expressed his concern that effluent was currently reaching the stream and asked if some kind of preventative measures could be taken such as the installation of a portable toilet. Mr. Ajello thought that even though the house with addition would still have only two bedrooms, that the increase in size would allow it to be used by more people. He also asked if the proposed septic and addition would cause a significant impact to the wetlands and whether the Commission would schedule a public hearing. In addition to considering a smaller house, Mr. Bedini asked the applicant to consider whether the septic plans could be improved by relocating the well.
Other Business
Aragi/9 Wilbur Road/Preliminary Discussion/Trenching: Mr. Clark, engineer, presented Sheet 3 of 3 of the "Test Curtain Drain Plan," by CJOJ, LLC., dated 2/29/08. The purpose of the two proposed curtain drains, he said, was to determine whether the groundwater level could be lowered in the areas proposed for the septic systems. He noted the nearest wetlands were 192 feet from the proposed trenches and he described how the trenches would be installed. They would be 5 ft. deep and 170 - 175 ft. long, a synthetic filter fabric would be used in each, modular pipes would be surrounded by porous material and the filter fabric, only a small track excavator and bob cat machine would be used, and the equipment would be brought in over existing trails. Mr. Ajello said he thought the testing was a non regulated activity. The commissioners agreed and Mr. Bedini stated that after a review of the map the Commission had determined the proposed activity would cause no impacts to the wetlands.
Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane/#IW-08-13/Repair Septic System, Construct Addition: Mr. Thomson noted the failing septic system was flowing into the watercourse and so asked if in the interests of protecting the wetlands, the worst case scenario septic plan should be installed immediately rather than waiting to see if the best case scenario could be installed in July. Mr. Bedini did not know whether the Health Dept. would sign off on the worst case system before all of the curtain drain data was in. He wondered why the Health Dept. allowed the owner to continue to live in a dwelling with a failing septic. Mr. Ajello noted that the Health Dept. could order that the septic tank be pumped out on a weekly basis and Mr. Bedini and Mr. Thomson asked him to contact the Health Dept. as soon as possible to ask that it issue such an order. It was the consensus that if the Health Dept. did not order that the tank be pumped, the Commission would consult Atty. Zizka regarding what measures it could take on its own to protect the wetlands. Mr. Ajello noted there was evidence in the file that the system had failed in the 1990's but had never been repaired. Mr. LaMuniere questioned whether the property owner had the right to more than double the size of his house, which is located in wetlands. Most of the commissioners agreed with Mr. Ajello that the proposed activities were significant and that a public hearing should be scheduled. Mrs. D. Hill was the lone dissenter because she did not think the addition was significant and there was no question that the septic system had to be repaired. Mr. Ajello will check to determine whether the Slaymaker property is within 500 ft. of the New Milford town line.
Other Business
Steep Rock Assn./124 Christian Street/#IW-08-01/Changes to Permit: Mr. Ajello noted that an application to eradicate reed canary grass had been approved earlier this year. Steep Rock had been given permission to first mow the infested area with conventional equipment when the ground was frozen and then to spray the new growth in April. However, the ground never sufficiently froze. Steep Rock then asked for permission to use low impact equipment similar to a small track excavator to do the mowing. Mr. Bedini noted that track equipment puts very little pressure on the ground. Mrs. D. Hill said that the revisions to the permit should be specified in writing for the file and she asked Mr. Ajello to make sure this was done
.
MOTION: Re: Permit # IW-08-01 issued to Steep Rock for herbicide application at 124 Christian Street, to allow Steep Rock to change the equipment to be used because there is no apparent negative impact to the wetlands with the change in equipment. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Pasch/29 Buffum Road/Aquatic Pesticide Permit: Mr. Ajello said he had notified both the homeowner and the agent that a local permit is required and that the other property owners around Lemonade Lake would have to grant permission for the application of the pesticide. To date there has been no response.
Enforcement
Lancaster/244 West Shore Road/Tree Removal/#IW-07-16V: Mr. Ajello circulated photos of the clearing and limb cutting and of the stumps and brush removed from the bank of the lake and compared them to photos that he had taken last year of the same area. He said he was concerned that the natural buffer along the shoreline was not being maintained. It was noted that a notice of violation had been sent and that the property owner had been told to stop cutting. Mr. Bedini suggested that a site inspection be scheduled, but Mr. Ajello said that Mr. Lancaster was consulting with his attorney before granting permission for an inspection. Mr. Ajello recommended that a citation be issued to both the property owner and to the contractor. Mr. Bedini asked Mr. Ajello to wait 3 or 4 days and then to contact Mr. Lancaster by letter to reiterate that he agreed to stop cutting and to tell him that he should not proceed with any additional regulated activities along the shoreline until he hears from the Commission.
Brown/127 West Shore Road/Unauthorized Work Along Shoreline: Atty. Zizka has been asked to begin legal proceedings.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street/Restoration of Understory: Mr. Ajello reported that Mr. Allan had inspected the site since the last meeting and had said the work done was what Mr. DiBenedetto had been directed to do. Mr. Thomson and Mrs. D. Hill thought that too many trees had been cut down if the goal was to maintain the forest. She noted that she had observed that bluebirds were now nesting in the cleared area and said that bluebirds do not nest in forests. When the Commission meets on site with Land Tech the agenda will be noticed as a discussion on forest management practices so that the matter may be freely discussed.
Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike/#IW-07-V12/Unauthorized Excavation: This file has been sent to Atty. Zizka to begin enforcement action.
Peloquin/1 New Preston Hill Road/#IW-07-V13: Mr. Ajello noted the disturbed soil was still bare and said he would call Mr. Peloquin to ask that it be stabilized.
Plourde/East Shore Road: Mr. Ajello reported that Mrs. Smith, adjoining property owner, had asked that this property be cleaned up. It was noted a notice of violation had already been filed on the Land Records.
Mnuchin/Nettleton Hollow Road/DEP Aquatic Pesticide Permit: Mr. Ajello explained that Mr. Mnuchin had been notified that an Inland Wetlands permit is required.
Etherington/49 Wheaton Road/#IW-07-V15/Maintenance of Sediment Pond: Mr. Bedini noted that at the last meeting Mr. Ajello had been asked to determine whether Mr. Etherington had exceeded the scope of his permit and so should be issued a citation. Mr. Thomson noted that Mr. Etherington had used equipment that was too large, and that this had caused more disturbance than would normally have been expected. Mrs. D. Hill asked if the scope of the work done exceeded the permit. Mr. Ajello said he wouldn't have issued a notice of violation if it had not. Mrs. D. Hill said, then, that per the request made at the last meeting, a citation should be issued.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/unauthorized Clearcutting, Filling: Mrs. D. Hill asked what the next step would be to collect the citation issued to Mr. Moore. Mr. Ajello said he would send a letter, Mr. Moore would have ten days to respond to it, and if there was no response the matter would be sent to the Commission's attorney for legal action.
Administrative Business
Revision of Ordinance #720: Fine Schedule: Mr. Bedini asked Mrs. Hill to find out whether the revised fine schedule is on the agenda for the 3/20 Town Special Meeting.
Revision of the Regulations: Once the fine schedule is approved at a Town Meeting, the subcommittee will finalize the revision of the Regulations and a draft will be circulated so that all of the commissioners will have an opportunity for input.
Revision of the Application Form: Mrs. Hill was asked to email the commissioners a copy of the final form.
Communications
Mr. and Mrs. Wellings sent a letter dated 3/10/08 to complain about construction site maintenance around Lake Waramaug. Mr. Ajello said he had checked the sites they complained about and only one had an erosion problem.
MOTION: To enter Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To close Executive Session. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Bedini.
Mr. Bedini adjourned the meeting at 11:03 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: March 7, 2008 February 27, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. LaMuniere
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Bohan, Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sabin, Mr. Gruson, Mr. Kozak, Mr. Farmen, Mr. Smith, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Solley, Press,
Atty. Coploff
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Picton called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, Picton, and Thomson and Alternate Bohan for Mr. LaMuniere
MOTION: To include the following subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 2/14/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 2: Town of Washington: Line 3: Change: Hurlbut" to "Lyon"
P. 4: 2nd line from top: Change: "normal" to "frequent"
5th line from top: Change: "between" to "behind"
Last sentence before motion: Change to: "...as the same area of shoreline was being filled and paved."
P. 8: Paragraph under motion: 4th line: Insert: "either 50 or 75 feet up hill of" before "the 798 ft. contour...."
Paragraph under motion: 5th line: Add new sentence after "work line:" "These lines would be flagged and Mr. Picton would make a field inspection and judge which line would be used."
Andersson: Line 3: Delete: "court issued"
P. 10: Brown: 4th line: Insert: "to Atty. Zizka" after "request"
Brown: 2nd line from bottom: Change: "amp" to "map"
MOTION: To accept the 2/14/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Picton, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 2/19/08 Newman site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Picton abstained because he had not attended the inspection.
MOTION: To accept the 2/19/08 Fleishmann site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Thomson, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Picton abstained because he had not attended the inspection.
The Fleishmann site inspection was briefly discussed. Mr. Thomson had questioned whether the fire pond was, in fact, a vernal pool and said if so, the proposed drainage system should not empty into it.
Pending Applications
Newman/20 Painter Ridge Road/#IW-08-04/Drainage Improvements, Driveway Renovation: Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, presented his 2/27/08 memo to the Commission and the plan, "Final Preliminary Concept," revised to 2/27/08. The memo included the amounts of materials to be used for the new drainage swale; approx. 30 c.y. of 18" to 2' diameter boulders to be placed along the sides and approx. 6 c.y. of 3" to 4" minus tailings to be placed in a 12" layer along the bottom, and a cross section of the "dry stream." He added a 20 ft. section of silt fence at the end of the swale. This would remain in place until construction was completed. He noted this drainage swale was needed to prevent runoff from flowing over the driveway and that it would have a 5 to 6 ft. level spreader at its end. Although the proposed channel would be deep, the commissioners thought it was necessary and that it would be hazardous if it was installed along the driveway. Mr. Bedini thought that this was the solution that would cause the least amount of disturbance. Mr. Picton asked if the swale's outlet could be moved 20 ft. farther from the stream. Mr. Sabin said this was not possible because runoff would still be able to reach the driveway. He described the headwall construction. Mrs. D. Hill asked about landscaping plans within 100 ft. of wetlands and whether erosion controls were needed. Mr. Sabin responded that pea stone would be spread on the driveway, a hammerhead turnaround installed, and a patio and walkway built. He noted that although they would be within the 100 ft. review area, that most of the activities would take place where there was existing lawn. He said all work would be done on the existing grade and the largest piece of equipment that would be used would be a small backhoe. Mr. Picton noted that the measurements to the wetlands were not to scale and that the $30 state tax had not yet been submitted. Further discussion was tabled to the next meeting.
Fleishmann/219 Roxbury Road/#IW-08-05/Construct House and Barn, Remove Shed, Move Caboose: Mr. Bedini noted that the information requested by the Commission had not yet been submitted. This included the limit of disturbance line, limit of clearing line, areas of deposition, regrading contours, location of the utility trenches, construction sequence, and yards of material to be removed. Based on observations during the site inspection, it was noted there was a seep area in the vicinity near Roxbury Road where Mr. Fleishmann proposed to deposit some of the excavated material. The Commission asked that a soil scientist map this area. In addition, the Commission asked that a soil scientist who is also qualified as a biologist or ecologist inspect the fire pond to determine whether it is a vernal pool and if it is, to specify what measures should be taken to protect it. Mr. Thomson noted he had attended a vernal pool training session and he thought this was a vernal pool. Mr. Bedini said if this were so none of the runoff from the house should be directed there. The map, "Topographic Survey," by Mr. Riordan, dated 6/15/07 with the proposed buildings drawn in by hand was reviewed. Mr. Thomson and Mrs. D. Hill recalled that a different map had previously shown more wetlands in the front of the property. It was noted that this map was not signed and sealed and that its accuracy needed to be confirmed. The accuracy of the wetlands flags on site was also questioned. Mr. Bedini thought the wetlands had been flagged in 1999 and the Mr. Fleishmann had recently put up new flags to show where the originals had been. Mr. Bedini recommended that the soil scientist be asked to confirm that all of the wetlands on the property have been accurately flagged. Mr. Picton asked if there was any area of concern directly below the proposed house site. Mr. Ajello said there was not. Mr. Bedini said that removing the shed and moving the caboose would have no impact on the wetlands. Mr. Picton asked Mrs. J. Hill to review all past minutes, compile the list of information the Commission has asked for, and send the list to Mr. Fleishmann. Further discussion was tabled to the next meeting.
New Applications
Freese/187 Shearer Road/#IW-08-06/Construct House: Mr. Neff, engineer, pointed out on his map, "Proposed Site Plan," dated 2/21/08, the location of the wetlands in the SW corner of the 2.8 acre lot at the corner of Shearer and West Morris Roads. He noted that the limit of disturbance was at least 100 feet from the watercourse and the wetlands, which had been flagged by Mr. Temple. Mr. Neff said he had found good soils on site. Mr. Ajello noted that he had not yet inspected the property. Mr. Picton asked that he make inspections for new applications prior to the meeting so that it could be determined in advance whether it would be necessary for the Commission to conduct a site inspection, what the issues were, what additional information was needed, etc. Mr. Bedini agreed, saying that this procedure would be more productive because if it was found that there was not enough information in the file, the Commission would not schedule an inspection. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.
Region #12 School District/159 School Street/#IW-08-07/Outdoor Track: Mr. McDermott, engineer, represented the applicant. He advised the Commission that the school had applied for the same activity in October of 2000 and that the only change to the approved plan was the size of one of the drainage pipes. The plans, "Reconstruction of Running Track," 8 sheets, by Milone and MacBroom, revised to 2/22/08, was reviewed. The work proposed included converting the existing cinder track to an all weather surface, adding two sprinting lanes on the east side, paving the high jump area, and installing a perimeter sidewalk, emergency driveway, and handicapped access. He noted there would be no change to the perimeter drainage inside the track. Mr. McDermott pointed out the stockpile areas to be used during construction, sedimentation and erosion control plans, anti tracking pads, construction narrative, soil scientist's report, location of swales to capture surface runoff and direct it to the perimeter drains, location and direction of runoff flow, bleacher pad, etc. He said runoff would be picked up as it bled off the hill and would be piped to existing manholes. He said that no outdoor lighting was proposed at this time, but that a dead conduit would be installed in case lighting was proposed in the future. Mr. McDermott noted the proposed duration of the project was three months; from Memorial Day to the opening of school. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to familiarize himself with the site and to review the application and construction sequence for completeness before the next meeting.
Rumsey Hall School/200 Romford Road/#IW-08-08/Hockey Rink, Extend Driveway, Dormitory, Parking, Etc.: Mr. Picton noted the application had been submitted as had been requested at the last meeting. He advised the Commission of the 2/26/08 letter from Mr. Williams of Shipman & Goodwin, which stated that although the school was cooperating, the submission of the application did not mean that it conceded it was conducting regulated activities or that the Commission had jurisdiction in this matter. The second letter received since the last meeting was dated 2/11/08 to Mr. Picton from Mr. Smith and Mr. Riefenhauser and it responded to Land Tech's 2/4/08 review. In short, the applicant agreed to all of Land Tech's recommendations except #1 and #4. The plans, "Proposed Ice Rink and Dormitory," 9 sheets, by Smith and Co., revised to 2/11/08, were reviewed. The revisions detailed by Mr. Smith, surveyor, included rotating the rink building 18 feet (the nearest corner of the building had been 471 ft. from the river, but would now be 490 ft. away), reducing the width of the circular driveway from 24 to 22 feet, adding crushed stone under the parking lot to act as a recharge area for the first inch of rainfall, moving the retention basin 45 feet up the slope, moving the level spreader 12 ft. up the hill, and slightly reducing the size of the retention basin due to the recharge area under the parking lot. Mr. Smith said he had met with Land Tech and that both firms were in agreement about the revisions. He said that at the last meeting and in his detailed letter in the file, Mr. Buck, engineer, had addressed the reasons why the retention basin could not be relocated to the west, and he briefly reviewed them. Mr. Picton asked if the reason the width of the driveway could not be reduced further was to allow two lanes for emergency vehicle access. Mr. Smith said it was, adding that reducing the width any more would mean the driveway would have to be one way, which would cause traffic circulation problems. Mr. Smith noted that a maintenance schedule had been added to the plans to address concerns raised by the Commission at the last meeting. Mr. Picton said the Commission had not yet received advice from Land Tech about the amount of the bond to be posted, but suggested that $20,000 might be appropriate. He also noted that weekly reports from the contractor should be filed with the Commission until all disturbed areas are stabilized. Mr. Picton asked the commissioners to study the file before the next meeting and Mr. Ajello to get the final report from Land Tech.
Del Nin/32 Wykeham Road/#IW-08-09/Inground Pool: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his map, "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," revised to 2/24/08. He noted the location of the proposed 18' X 36' pool and of the wetlands along the eastern boundary line of the 2.27 acre property. The limit of disturbance line was noted. Mr. Neff stated that the pool had been moved closer to the existing house in order to decrease the area of disturbance. He noted cuts and fills would be required for the pool site, but that this would be outside the 100 ft. review area. Mr. Ajello was concerned about the large equipment operating near the wetlands on the sharp curve of the driveway and so recommended that a row of silt fence be installed here to protect the wetlands from the driveway runoff. Mr. Neff was commended for working with the applicant to site the pool to avoid impacting the wetlands. A site inspection was scheduled for Wed., March 5, 2008 at 4:30 p.m.
Gruson/62 Frisbie Road/#IW-08-10/Pond Maintenance: Mr. Neff, engineer, presented the map, "Pond Maintenance Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 2/20/08, noted the property was within 500 ft. of the Roxbury town line, and said he had notified Roxbury of the application. Mrs. D. Hill thought the Commission was required to notify Roxbury and asked the secretary to find out if this was so. Mr. Neff pointed out the location of the proposed dewatering area next to the pond and said the excavated material would be spread over the hayfield. He noted that the concrete base for the diving board and the stone patio at the SW corner would be removed to give the pond a more natural look. He also proposed to deposit some clay on the east side of the dam to repair a leak. The work was proposed for mid summer during the dry season. Mr. Picton asked if the pond would be made larger or deeper. Mr. Neff said it would be deeper, that approx. 3 to 4 ft. of material would be removed from the center, a total 500 cu. yrds. would be removed, and the 1:3 sideslopes would remain. Mr. Picton said this would be good for plant growth around the edge, but it was noted there was no planting proposed. Mrs. D. Hill requested a planting plan. Mr. Picton agreed that it would be a higher quality wetland if there was vegetation around the perimeter. It was noted the wetlands above drain down into the pond and there is a watercourse below it. Mr. Picton asked how the flow might affect the work plan and whether there were any other wetland pockets nearby. A site inspection will be scheduled at the next meeting when hopefully, the snow will be melted.
Mnuchin and Douglas Herbicide Applications: It was noted that these two property owners had been advised that they are required to apply for a local Inland Wetland permit prior to the application of herbicides or pesticides in a watercourse. Mr. Ajello also notified Mr. Gambino, their agent. Mr. Picton noted that in the past the Commission had written to the DEP to ask that it not approve herbicide applications unless it could be proven that the chemical(s) would not migrate out of the pond. He said there were other environmentally sound methods for managing ponds. Mrs. J. Hill will send another letter to the DEP, this time to the attention of the new commissioner.
Enforcement
Andersson/35-45 Gunn Hill Road: Litigation is pending. This was discussed under Executive Session.
Brown/127 West Shore Road: It was noted this file had already been sent to Atty. Zizka and that it appeared that Mr. Brown would be cooperative. Mr. Picton hoped that a restoration plan would soon be agreed upon and that the work could be done this year when the water level was low. Mr. Bedini noted that the Commission should ask Atty. Zizka for the legal definition of "shoreline." Mr. Picton thought if there was no legal definition, the full range of highest water level to lowest water level should be used rather than just one average line. It was the consensus that applicants should be required to show the full range of the shoreline on their property.
DiBenedetto/212-214 Calhoun Street: Mr. Ajello reported that the invasives had been removed and that the dead, diseased, and crowded trees were now being cut. A site inspection was scheduled for Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 4:45 p.m.
Howard/99 West Shore Road: Mr. Picton noted the Commission had asked that this file be forwarded to Atty. Zizka and asked Mr. Ajello to send it as soon as possible.
Lodsin/78 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. LaMuniere had reviewed the many Inland Wetlands files for 78 Litchfield Turnpike and compiled a history of the property. This and the content of the current file were recently mailed to Atty. Zizka.
Kessler/West Mountain Road: Mr. Ajello reported that the wattles that had been installed in some places instead of silt fencing were working well.
Peloquin/1 New Preston Hill Road: Mr. Picton noted that all disturbed areas needed to be seeded and mulched.
Slaymaker/17 Sunset Lane: Mr. Ajello noted that soil tests had confirmed that the house and a section of the existing driveway are located in wetlands. An application is expected for the next meeting.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Ajello said he would inspect the property again in the spring to determine whether more plantings were needed. It was noted there was an outstanding fine that Mr. Moore had not challenged, but had not yet paid. Mr. Picton asked Mr. Ajello to look up what the next step is in the proper procedure to collect fines.
Wright/59 Scofield Hill Road: Mr. Ajello said the restoration work was almost done. He said he would inspect the site in the spring to determine whether more plantings were needed.
Etherington/49 Wheaton Road: Mr. Ajello said that no work had been done since the last meeting due to weather conditions. It was noted that Mr. Ajello had been asked to determine whether Mr. Etherington had exceeded the scope of his permit, and if so, to issue a citation.
Other Business
Revision of Section 20: Appendix C/Proposed Increase in Fines for Violations and Enforcement Matters: Mrs. J. Hill will submit the approved language to the Selectmen's Office as soon as possible so that this matter may be included on the agenda for the next Town Meeting.
Revision of the Regulations: This work is ongoing.
Application to Correct a Violation: Mr. Bedini and Mrs. D. Hill reported they had drafted a new application form that included a checklist of proposed activities so that there would be one standard form that was used for all applications. Mr. Bedini will get the final version to Mrs. J. Hill so that the Commission can begin to use it immediately.
Commission Jurisdiction Beyond the 100 Ft. Review Area: Mr. Picton reported that he had talked to Atty. Zizka about the need to improve and clarify the current language in the Regulations regarding under what circumstances the Commission has jurisdiction outside/beyond the 100 ft. review area. Mr. Bedini noted the Town of Roxbury regulates activities within 500 ft. of wetlands and watercourses and Mr. Picton noted Burlington regulates activities within 200 yards. It was noted that the Roxbury Inland Wetlands Commission has jurisdiction over groundwater and also has a category for degraded wetlands.
Regional School District #12/159 South Street/Outdoor Track: Mr. Bohan asked if a bond would be required, noting the work would be closer to wetlands than that at Rumsey Hall School. Mr. Picton said this would be discussed at the next meeting.
Communications
It was noted the 2004 Municipal Inland Wetlands Report was available for review.
MOTION: To enter Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. By Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To exit Executive Session. By Mr. Thomson, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Picton.
Mr. Picton adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully Submitted, Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: January 31, 2008 January 23, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Picton, Mr. Thomson
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Bohan
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Wadelton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello and Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Klein, Mr. Neff, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hurlburt, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Papsin,
Mr. Riefenhauser, Mr. Farmen, Ms. Habib,
Mr. Charles, Press
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Picton called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and seated Members Bedini, Hill, LaMuniere, Picton, and Thomson.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: Miscellaneous Administrative Issues and Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation and Personnel. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 1/9/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 1: Include under Also Present: Mr. Stafford, Atty. Malley, Mr. and Mrs. Swanson, Atty. Olson, Mr. Nadeau, and Mr. Klein.
P. 2: 4 lines from bottom: Change: "change" to "charge."
P. 2: 3 lines from bottom: Insert: "if needed" after "fees."
P. 3: Line 1: Change: "Restill" to "Restin."
P. 5: Line 19 under Kessler: Delete: "would be removed."
P. 6: Line 11 under Bradley: Change: "stream" to "streambank."
Line 16 under Bradley: After "cut" insert: "and that it was contiguous to an active hayfield."
P. 8: Line 19 under Mello: Change: "prematurely" to "improperly."
P. 9: Add to the end of the last sentence on the page: "...but that it would not be practical for Mr. Jontos to stay there."
p. 11: 3rd line from bottom of page: After "Zizka's" insert: "...explanation of this issue and also to review the..." and after "language" insert: "...for Ordinance #720, Citations,..."
MOTION: To accept the 1/9/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
The 1/16/08 Klein-Cannizzaro site inspection minutes were corrected. The correct spelling of Stewart Klein's name was noted.
MOTION: To accept the 1/16/08 Klein-Cannizzaro site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
The 1/16/08 Slaymaker site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. The correct address is 17 Sunset Lane.
MOTION: To accept the 1/16/08 Slaymaker site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Picton, seconded by Mr. Bedini, and passed 5-0.
The 1/16/06 Steep Rock Assn. site inspection minutes were accepted as corrected. Under Others Present: Change: "Clifford" to: "Gifford."
MOTION: To accept the 1/16/08 Steep Rock Assn. site inspection minutes as corrected. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mrs. Hill, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/#IW-07-66/2 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Neff noted that at the last site inspection there had been a question regarding the possibility of the existence of wetlands at the higher end of the property. In response, a soil scientist tested along the tree line at the edge of the woods and found no wetlands. He submitted the "Supplemental Soil Report for the Klein/Cannizzaro Subdvision," by Mr. Stansfield, dated 1/23/08. The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," 13 Sheets, by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/5/08 was reviewed. Mr. LaMuniere asked how many culverts would be required for the driveway route as shown. Mr. Neff stated there would be two collection points; one at the center and the other at the sharp corner. Each would handle a 2 to 3 acre drainage area and have a 16' X 16' rip rapped apron at the outlet. The driveway details on Sheet #11 of the 1/5/08 plans were reviewed and it was noted the details for the rip rapped swale were included on the erosion and sedimentation control plan. Mr. Neff pointed out that the discharge point for the culvert at the curve was 30 ft. from the boundary line. Mr. LaMuniere asked if any of the existing canopy would be cut. Mr. Neff pointed out the limit of disturbance lines. The driveway grade as shown on Sheet #7 was discussed. As proposed it would be approximately 10% through the field with one 100 ft. area at 12%, and then would decrease in grade to 5% near the house site. Mr. Picton saw no potential impacts to wetlands because he thought if siltation did occur, the silt would settle on the flatter ground. Mr. Neff pointed out that the vegetation would also filter out any silt. Mr. Neff stated that he had considered possible alternatives and that the driveway from Tinker Hill Road would be the access least likely to impact wetlands. Mr. Picton noted that the property owners had also considered changing the proposed boundary lines, but that did not work with their plans.
MOTION: To approve Application #IW-07-66 submitted by Mrs. Klein and Ms. Cannizzaro for a two lot subdivision at 285 West Shore Road as presented in the plans, "Proposed Site Development Plan," 13 sheets, by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/5/08 subject to the following condition: before any construction begins on site, final, detailed site plans must be reviewed by the Commission. By Mr. Bedini, seconded by Mr. LaMuniere, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. Klein asked if it was normal procedure for the Commission to review final plans. Mr. Picton said it was because there are often changes and/or more details provided when construction is proposed.
Steep Rock Assn./124 Christian Street/#IW-08-01/Herbicide Application: Mr. Stafford was present. The application review by Mr. Ajello dated 1/9/08 was reviewed. Mr. LaMuniere noted a low dose of herbicide would be used and said he thought it was a cautious approach. Mr. Ajello said there were no feasible and prudent alternatives. Mr. Stafford noted that this application was for Phase I and that eradication of other areas of canary reed grass would