Board Members Present: Arnold Koehler, John Kaufman, Charles Wentworth, Stephen Mulhall
Alternate Members Present: Stephen Sackter, David Michaud
Absent Members: Charles Dorman
Others Present: William Donovan – Land Use Inspector, Diane Lauber – Clerk
Chairman Arnold Koehler called the meeting to order at 7: 00 p.m. The meeting was taped. Stephen Sackter was seated for C. Dorman.
Approval of Minutes: Motion by S. Sackter, seconded by S. Mulhall to approve the minutes of March 12, 2007 meeting as amended. Unanimous.
Communications:
1. Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions, Inc. – “The Habitat”, Winter 2007.
Old Business:
a. LTF Builders, LLC, 157A Summit Road. Amendment to Inland Wetlands Permit for “Woodmont Estates” Subdivision to Add Additional Regulated Activities. Chairman Koehler stated that a site walk was held on March 14, 2007 and that the Commissioners were satisfied with the brook crossing but the stone wall became an issue. Attorney Warren Hess, representing the applicant, Roland Desrosiers, the applicant’s engineer and Larry Farrell of LTF Builders were in attendance. Attorney Hess stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission is requiring a road connection heading north from the abutting Capanna Subdivision to Woodmont Estates Subdivision. Attorney Hess feels that the IWC agrees with the applicant that the proposed crossing is in the best location. Mr. Desrosiers detailed the plan revised through 3/16/07 including two 24-inch pipes at the brook crossing as requested by the IWC. Attorney Hess stated that the applicant looked at moving the road to the east or the west in order to save some ledge. That alternative, however, would put the route directly through wetlands and proposed open space, thereby being the least prudent and the least feasible causing a direct intrusive impact to the wetlands. Attorney Hess could not recommend to his client a proposal that could be challenged, require more permitting, and clearly being the most intrusive impact on the wetlands. In keeping the road where it was proposed at the last meeting, the preferred plan has been revised to move the retaining wall to the east, closer to the wetlands but not in the wetlands, and the length of the retaining wall has been reduced by 100 feet and lowered. The wall would now reach a maximum height of 6 feet for twenty feet and most of the wall would be approximately 2-3 feet in height. Mr. Desrosiers described the wall submitting copies of the “Stone Strong System”. It’s the applicant’s view from an overall planning prospective and the least impact on wetlands and open space, that this is the best plan. Mr. Desrosiers reviewed an alternate plan moving the road to the west in an effort to saving the ledge, stating a cut of 20 feet versus an 8 foot cut on the preferred plan would be required and there would be more intrusion into the proposed open space. Mr. Desrosiers stated that another area of ledge was found further upland that in his opinion was as aesthetically appealing as the ledge in the preferred crossing area. Attorney Hess submitted pictures of both ledge formations. S. Sackter asked whether the preferred plan or the alternate plan effected the number of lots. Mr. Desrosiers said the number of lots was not effected. J. Kaufman asked about an additional future connection from the Woodmont Estates Subdivision to the Miller property and wondered why the Planning & Zoning Commission wanted another connection rather than just one to combine all three properties. W. Donovan stated that the slopes for a second road connection into the Miller property are very steep and there would have to be an enormous amount of blasting and cutting to get a road through to connect to Woodmont Estates. Mr. Desrosiers indicated that the proposed subdivision plan had to provide a 50-foot wide access strip to the property to the north of the Woodmont Estates Subdivision per the Planning and Zoning Commission for possible future development of that property. J. Kaufman stated that he wasn’t aware that there was another ledge outcrop up further. A. Koehler stated he would rather the 8-foot cut rather than a 20-foot cut. J. Kaufman asked whether the retaining wall would have a footing. Mr. Desrosiers stated that the wall would have a crushed stone footing. A. Koehler asked about water flow in this area. Mr. Desrosiers stated that he reviewed the issue of water with Gene McCarthy, Assistant Director of Public Works, who indicated that an underdrain may need to be installed to protect the roadway in case they hit unexpected water. Attorney Hess submitted the preferred plan revised through 3/16/07 and Mr. Desrosiers will get additional copies to W. Donovan. C. Wentworth asked how far it is from the pavement to the top of the wall. Mr. Desrosiers stated it was about 10 feet and that the apron would consist of loam and seed with a guardrail along the edge of the road. Mr. Desrosiers reviewed the drainage flow stating there is no additional impact to the drainage. C. Wentworth stated that he would have liked to hear from Gene McCarthy. J. Kaufman stated that G. McCarthy wanted this road connection, and in light of the fact that the applicant has reduced the size of the retaining wall, is not impacting the wetlands and the applicant’s preferred plan calls for an 8-foot cut for the crossing versus a 20-foot cut, he feels the applicant’s preferred plan would be the more prudent plan. A. Koehler agreed. Motion by S. Sackter, seconded by J. Kaufman to amend the approved permit for “Woodmont Estates Subdivision” (Application #10-06) to add regulated activities as shown on plan submitted, signed and dated by the applicant with revisions through 3/16/07, stipulating that the rock will be hammered away, not blasted, underdrains will be installed where required by Public Works and the retaining wall will be built using Stone Strong Systems as presented. Under discussion, J. Kaufman noted that this proposed plan is the more prudent alternative, with no intrusion in the wetlands and a reduction in the size of the retaining wall. The alternative method reviewed would have a much larger impact on the wetlands and open space. The vote on the motion was Unanimous.
b. Reilly Pond, 179 Union City Road. Significant Sedimentation in Pond. W. Donovan stated that he sent George Logan copies from the Boulder Brook file with notes on the forebay and minutes of previous meetings. W. Donovan stated that he asked Mr. Logan to call him at least 24 hours in advance of visiting the Reilly pond to allow for the Commissioners to visit the site with him. A. Koehler asked W. Donovan to see if Mr. Logan could make a site visit before the next regular meeting. W. Donovan will notify the Commissioners with a date and time.
New Business:
a. Herminio & Kathleen Nunes, 41 Juggernaut Road. Storage Shed within a Regulated Area. Herminio Nunes was in attendance. W. Donovan stated that he was made aware that Mr. Nunes was building a small structure on his property and there was no permit for it. The building is about three-quarters complete and within 75 feet of a pond that is on the eastern side of Mr. Nunes property. Mr. Nunes was asked to file an application and give the IWC the opportunity to look at the building. Mr. Nunes stated that the shed is 24’ X 16’ and on a concrete slab. Mr. Nunes was not aware that he was constructing the shed within a regulated area. The shed will be used for tools and gardening supplies. J. Kaufman asked if there was a reason why the shed was placed so close to the pond. Mr. Nunes stated he wanted to make it look like a cottage near the pond. Motion by C. Wentworth, seconded by J. Kaufman to accept Application #01-07, Herminio & Kathleen Nunes, 41, Juggernaut Road, for a storage shed within a regulated area. Under discussion, J. Kaufman felt the application shouldn’t be accepted until it was determined whether there is a violation. W. Donovan suggested accepting the application, setting a site visit and then the Commission could vote to deny the application if it is determined that there is a violation. D. Michaud noted that the application needed Mr. Nunes’ signature. C. Wentworth asked if there was a zoning violation as well. W. Donovan stated that a zoning permit has not been issued and would not be until a permit is issued from the IWC. The vote on the motion was 4 votes in favor, A. Koehler, C. Wentworth, S. Sackter and S. Mulhall. J. Kaufman was opposed. Motion Carried. A site walk was scheduled for April 2, 2007 at 5:30 p.m.
Enforcement Hearings:
8:10 p.m. Stephen & Karri Lombardo, 84 Union City Road. Violation of Permit #03-06. A. Koehler read the Cease and Desist order sent to Mr. & Mrs. Lombardo regarding the violation of their permit and referenced the minutes of July 24, 2006 stating “It was recommended there is to be no disturbance to the embankment.” A. Koehler stated that a site walk was held on March 14, 2007 and that it appeared that the embankment had been totally altered and it seems that Mr. Lombardo has filled the embankment further than what was originally there. A. Koehler stated that they were not quite sure how close to the wetlands the embankment is now. Stephen Lombardo stated that the silt fence is 75 feet from the house. A. Koehler stated that his recollection is that the wetlands are 75 feet from the house. Mr. Lombardo stated the silt fence is the original fence, they just added to it. Mr. Lombardo indicated that because the project isn’t done, everything is disrupted. J. Kaufman stated that it seems that the fill is up to the siltation fence and also further down the driveway. A. Koehler stated that the original application showed a driveway going over wetlands and the applicant was to provide an additional wetlands area, but even that area looks to have been filled in. A. Koehler suggested that he, W. Donovan and J. Kaufman visit the site tomorrow to take measurements of everything that was done to determine what has been filled. J. Kaufman asked Mr. Lombardo if he could tell the Commission when the fill was brought in and where it came from. Mr. Lombardo stated that the contractor moved the soil around when he dug out for the pool. J. Kaufman stated that the contractor should be familiar with regulations and should be aware of the conditions in Mr. Lombardo’s permit. A. Koehler specifically recalled during the application process for the pool, that the location of the pool was moved closer to the house to get away from the edge of the embankment so that it wouldn’t be touched. S. Sackter recalled that last summer there was very little room for a small shed near the pool and now there is an abundance of room. J. Kaufman asked Mr. Lombardo if he understood that the grading that has taken place is a violation of his permit. Mr. Lombardo stated that he did understand. W. Donovan, A. Koehler and possibly J. Kaufman will do a site visit on March 13th at 1:00 p.m. If other commissioners want to visit, they can contact W. Donovan to set a time. C. Wentworth asked if updated maps were submitted showing the final location of the pool as requested at the time of the original permit. W. Donovan stated there were problems with the liner of the pool that delayed installation. Mr. Lombardo stated that he thought he had given the necessary dimensions to W. Donovan. W. Donovan stated that he would still need an as-built diagram. C. Wentworth also recommended that Planning & Zoning be contacted to have Mr. Lombardo put up a temporary fence around the pool now that it is thawed. Mr. Lombardo stated that he has a fence there now. C. Wentworth stated that Planning & Zoning might also require a permit for the fill that was trucked in if it was more than 100 yards.
c. Inland Wetlands Regulation Revisions. A. Koehler stated that the proposed additions submitted by C. Wentworth at the last meeting were fine as submitted. W. Donovan will add the language to the proposed revisions. J. Kaufman submitted proposed language changes for consideration as discussed at the special meeting held on February 26, 2007. W. Donovan quoted from the D.E.P. regarding “Upland Review Areas – Setbacks and Buffers” stating, “In a number of municipal Inland Wetlands Regulations, upland review areas are referred to as setbacks or buffers. We choose the term “upland review area” to describe the non-wetland and non-watercourse area in which certain activities would be regulated because it best conveys the regulatory scheme under the wetlands statutes wherein a wetland agency reviews regulated activities case by case and approves or disapproves them on their merits. The Inland Wetlands Statutes do not authorize a blanket prohibition on all activities either in the wetlands or upland review, buffer or setback areas.” W. Donovan stated that the Commission could ask the applicant as a “request” to consider these areas for conservation easements, but could not “require” this as a condition of approval. A. Koehler suggested that W. Donovan send what he has thus far regarding the proposed changes to the State for review and the Commission could continue discussion in the meanwhile. J. Kaufman stated that he was trying to list things that the Commission could look more closely at, more like a 100-foot regulated area and where there may be sensitive areas. W. Donovan stated that the proposed regulation changes would regulate all activities within 100 feet of wetlands. J. Kaufman also feels that the IWC should look at things that serve as an impediment to water flow, such as fencing or posts. J. Kaufman stated he submitted updates to Planning & Zoning as action agenda items. It was suggested that the IWC be apprised of pre-application reviews along with the Planning & Zoning Commission to allow for comments on larger subdivision applications prior to the actual application.
Public Hearings: None
Public Participation: None
Land Use Inspector’s Report: None
Motion by S. Sackter, seconded by J. Kaufman to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. Unanimous.
Arnold Koehler
Chairman