Board Members Present:Arnold Koehler, Charles Wentworth, John Kaufman
Alternates Present: Stephen Sackter
Absent Members: George Carrington, Charles Dorman (alt)
Others Present: Bill Donovan, Land Use Inspector/Clerk
Chairman Koehler called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. S. Sackter was seated for G. Carrington.
Communications (1) Attorney Robert J. Uskevich, Southbury, CT: Letter seeking commission’s review of pending application for a new restaurant at 126 Waterbury Road. (see “New Business” page 3); (2) Donna Seresin, CT DEP: (Fax copy) Enforcement letter dated January 20, 2006 and documents regarding Prospect Estates Subdivision: (3) Land-Tech Consultants, Inc., Southbury CT: Engineering review letter (see Public Hearing).
Old Business:
a. Dinis & Maria Marques, 12 Woodland Terrace. Filling in wetland without permit. (Continued from the January 9th meeting). Chairman Koehler read a letter from William Donovan, IW Agent, dated January 20, 2006 to Mr. Marques citing wetlands violations on his property and requesting Mr. Marques attend this meeting with his excavator, Daniel Dinis. Mr. Marques stated he removed fill materials in front of the town storm water pipe that discharges onto his property because he was told not to block off the pipe. He stated again that he does not know who dumped a lot of the materials onto his property. Mr. Dinis admitted he brought in rock and cement from a retaining wall on Woodland Terrace that the homeowner was demolishing. Commissioners stated at the site walk held on December 31st they observed asphalt and pressure treated lumber dumped over wetlands that were in turn partially covered over with wood chips. J. Kaufman stated he finds it extremely hard to believe that Mr. Marques has no idea who has been dumping on his property for such an extended period of time, but regardless of who brought in these materials the property owner is ultimately responsible for matters involving wetlands on his property. Chairman Koehler stated the violation needs to be rectified and directed Mr. Marques to contact a soils scientist to locate and map the wetlands that have been filled over on his property. A “Cease &Desist” enforcement order will be issued directing Mr. Marques to not remove any materials at this time, but to gather information on the extent of the fill area and the composition of the materials comprising the fill. Mr. Marques was asked to attend the next meeting scheduled for February 13th.
b. Application 13-05: Finno Development, Inc., 80 Cook Road. Application for a proposed 28-lot residential subdivision with regulated activities. Chairman Koehler stated he understood a petition for a public hearing on this application is forthcoming. In response, two separate petitions, with a total signature count of 54 were submitted to the chairman. Chairman Koehler accepted the petitions and set a public hearing on this application for February 13th at 7:45 p.m. Dennis McMorrow of Berkshire Engineering & Surveying, LLC represented the applicant. Mr. McMorrow stated he was aware of the concerns that property owners located downstream of this development are having with potential increased flooding conditions resulting from increased storm water runoff. As a result, he has met with Land-Tech Consultants, who are performing the engineering review of this project for Prospect, and Gene McCarthy, Assistant Director of Prospect’s Public Works Department to explore options to reduce total water volume discharge to Roaring Brook by re-routing storm water runoff via town storm water piping in Cook Road to a discharge point north of the intersection with Roaring Brook Road and Cook Road. He is also looking into design alternatives of directing storm water discharge into the underlying sand and gravel substrata located on 80 Cook Road. B. Donovan stated Mr. Finno has submitted verification of his notice to the Regional Water Authority of the proposed subdivision as required by state statutes. He mentioned that as 80 Cook Road is located within a public water supply watershed area, the water company may not want to see an existing source of public drinking water re-directed off their watershed. Michael Guaglianone, who represents the Regional Water Company, was in attendance and submitted a written statement on behalf of the water company in response to Mr. Finno’s notification. He stated he would be at the public hearing and comment further on the project, but confirmed B. Donovan’s statement that the water company would prefer the water to stay within the Roaring Brook watershed. Mr. McMorrow stated that in response to the commission’s concerns with the close proximity of the house and septic to the wetlands and watercourse on Lot 18, that they have eliminated Lot 18 and will combine this area with an abutting lot or lots.
c. Application 14-05: William Day, 19, Alison Court. Application for a detached garage within regulated area. Mr. Day was not in attendance. Chairman Koehler stated a site walk of this property was made on January 14th. It was observed that the proposed location of the detached garage is close to a watercourse. J. Kaufman asked if other locations are feasible. Chairman Koehler stated the house, septic, topography and extensive wetlands on the property limit possible locations. No action was taken.
d. Timothy O’Rourke, 15 Mixville Road: Thinning of trees/brush in wetlands and filling of wetlands to accommodate storage building and outside storage. Mr. O’Rourke was not in attendance.
New Business:
a. American General Investor, 44-50 Waterbury Road. Storm water discharge to wetlands area. David Carson, OCC Design Consortium, Cheshire, CT represented the applicant. Mr. Carson stated the applicant is proposing to construct a second commercial building within a commercial plaza at 44-50 Waterbury Road. There are approximately 4.7 acres of wetlands on the property located east and north of the proposed development. Regulated activities consist of storm water discharge to wetlands via a water quality swale and level spreader. There is no direct disturbance to wetlands. J. Kaufman asked if an oil/water separator was included in the storm water system. Mr. Carson stated there is none. J. Kaufman asked about sumps in the catch basins. Mr. Carson stated there is a 2-foot sump. J. Kaufman asked for a map showing how water moves through and away from this property. A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, January 28th at 9:00 a.m. Motion by S. Sackter, seconded by J. Kaufman to accept Application 15-05 of American General Investors for regulated activities at 44-50 Waterbury Road. Unanimous.
Public Hearings:
a. 8:02 p.m. Application 12-05: Toll Brothers, Inc. for regulated activities associated with a proposed 366-unit Elderly Housing Development at 120 Scott Road. (continued from January 9th). Attorney Edward Fitzpatrick represented the applicant. He presented a letter of consent as the attorney for Toll Brothers, Inc. to extend the public hearing on this application an additional 35 days. Attorney Fitzpatrick reviewed the general scope of the project before the board as a proposed 366-unit elderly housing development on 171 acres of land in Prospect and approximately 7 acres of land in Waterbury. The development will be serviced by public water and a private sewer connection. Approximately 52% of the total parcel area will be left undisturbed from this development that includes an additional 4 ˝ acres of undisturbed land resulting from recent design changes as recommended by Land-Tech, Inc. Chairman Koehler read into the record a letter from Land-Tech Consultants, Inc. dated January 20, 2006 stating they are in general agreement with the changes made to the plans to date. John Mancini of BL Co. described in detail the newest changes made to their plans. As a result of these changes they were able to re-capture 5+ acres of land as undisturbed by decreasing the amount of grading in certain areas and grading out other areas at a steeper slope (2:1 from 3:1) to reduce slope lengths. Mr. Mancini presented a record summary plan of total regulated activities--both direct and indirect. Regulated activities on the plan are combined in separate zones for clarity. Mr. Mancini summarized the activities by stating there are 42.79 acres of wetlands within the parcel in Prospect. Total upland review area is 41.86 acres. 47.7% of the total 171 acres will be disturbed. Total wetlands disturbance in Prospect is 4,563.37 SF (.1 acres) resulting from two road crossings and two utility installations. There are 98 individual buildings housing 366 individual living units. Approximately 1% of the total 41.86 acres of upland review area (.44 acres) contains building units. Approximately 4% (1.67 acres) of the total upland review area (41.86 acres) will have impervious disturbance such as a roads, sidewalks on one side of the road, buildings, pool or decks. The remaining disturbed regulated area (12.25 acres) or 29.9 % of the total 41.86 acres, including storm water management basins, will be re-vegetated. There will also be an established wetlands conservation boundary to be approximately 25-30 feet off the nearest part of a building, including decks, that will be marked and border landscaped for protection from lawn or other encroachments getting closer to wetlands. Chairman Koehler asked for comments from the public. Gary Baldowski, representing the Prospect Conservation Commission asked if the biologist for the applicant was to have been at this meeting. Attorney Fitzpatrick stated Ms. Chase was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Baldowski expressed his disappointment in the biologist’s absence as there were questions he had planned to ask. Mr. Mancini stated he would write down any questions of Mr. Baldowski and present them to the biologist. Mr. Baldowski indicated he would withhold his questions for now. He also questioned the term “peak flow rates” and how are they monitored or tested. Mr. Mancini described how a storm water plan, including the storm water plan presented with the application, is created using established engineering principles and practices. Attorney Fitzpatrick further stated the town’s reviewing engineers have reviewed and accepted the storm water plan as presented. Discussion followed on the difficulties of obtaining an accurate test of the storm water volume after the development has been built out. Mr. Baldowski questioned the total disturbance within the regulated area. Mr. Mancini summarized his earlier presentation on the type and degree of regulated activities. J. Kaufman informed Mr. Baldowski of the right of any developer or applicant to work within the 75 foot wetlands regulated area provided permits are approved by the commission. Mr. Baldowski questioned differences between Land-Tech’s report and the ecologist’s report and the applicant’s term “open space”. Ann Stein, Cook Road questioned the commission’s knowledge of differences between the Land Tech and ecologist’s report on this project. She also questioned separating distances of grading and buildings to wetlands and changes made. Mr. Mancini stated there is no disturbance at all within 25 feet of wetlands. Further, there will be controls on the lawn maintenance aspects through an IPM or Insect Pest Management plan controlled by a Home Owners Association. J. Kaufman added his explanation on guidelines and procedure the commission follows in reviewing this and other applications. Ms. Stein did not feel the commission has eliminated all encroachments into the regulated area that could be eliminated consistent with reasonable protection of the wetlands. She asked if an independent study by the Connecticut Environmental Review Team would be a consideration for further review of this project. Chairman Koehler stated he is satisfied with Land-Tech’s review at this time. Mr. Mancini restated Land Tech did not have the ecologist’s review, and therefore no wetlands assessment report was available prior to their initial written review dated December 12, 2005. However, after Land-Tech received and reviewed the wetlands assessment report from Jody Chase they met with the ecologist, discussed her report, and have agreed with her assessments of the wetlands. J. Kaufman stated he would like to have the ecologist present at the next meeting on February 13th to respond to any questions. With no further comments Chairman Koehler extended the public hearing to February 13, 2005 at 7:15 p.m. (Note: the February 13th meeting was cancelled due to the Federal Holiday. A Special Meeting was scheduled for February 22nd. The public hearing is at 7:15 p.m.).
New Business (cont)
b. Inland Wetlands Budget Review for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. Commissioners reviewed the current status of expenses to date for items shown on the Inland-Wetlands Budget. Bill Donovan requested the commission consider an increase in the clerk’s salary that has remained unchanged for several years. The commission concurred to propose an increase of the current budget amount for “Clerk” from $2,300.00 to $2,550.00. An increase in “Supplies” was also proposed from $200.00 to $250.00 to allow for the purchase of reference materials relative to wetlands issues. Other budget items remained unchanged or were reduced. Final proposed 2006-2007 budget is $6,400.00, with in an increase of $225.00 over the 2205-2006 budget.
c. Attorney Robert J. Uskevich, Southbury, CT: Letter seeking commission’s review of pending application for a new restaurant at 126 Waterbury Road. Chairman Koehler read a letter from Attorney Robert J. Uskevich regarding a proposed restaurant at 126 Waterbury Road. Commissioners reviewed a set of plans for the project and determined there are no impacts to wetlands and does not require an Inland Wetlands Permit. J. Kaufman mentioned that should Planning & Zoning approve the restaurant, he recommends a condition of approval to require the owner to adhere to a maintenance schedule for the oil/grit separator connected onto the 18” storm water piping and place adequate sedimentation barriers around the temporary soils stockpile and temporary sedimentation dewatering basin. A letter noting these recommendations will be sent to Planning & Zoning.
Public Participation: None
Land Use Inspector’s Report:
Chairman Koehler referenced the faxed letter and documents from Donna Seresin, CT DEP he received regarding enforcement matters at the Prospect Estates Subdivision. The Chairman commented it would be preferable that the commission by consensus, rather than individual members, initiate contact with the DEP or other organizations to assist in inspection services or enforcement matters concerning any project or activity that has received prior inland wetlands approval.
Adjournment: Motion by S. Sackter, seconded by J. Kaufman to adjourn at 9:55 p.m. Unanimous.
Arnold Koehler, Chairman
WD/clk