Board Members Present: Stephen Sackter, John Kaufman, Charles Wentworth, Stephen Mulhall & David Celotto
Alternate Members Present: Lisa Mason
Absent Members: David Michaud & Anthony Dorso III
Others Present: William Donovan – Land Use Inspector & Diane Lauber – Clerk
Chairman S. Sackter called the meeting to order at 7: 03 p.m. The meeting was taped.
Approval of Minutes:
Motion by C. Wentworth, seconded by J. Kaufman to approve the minutes of the May 11, 2009 meeting as amended. Unanimous.
Communications: None
Old Business:
a. Review of Regulations/Fee Schedule. Set public hearing date. The commissioners reviewed language provided by W. Donovan for proposed amendments to Inland Wetlands Regulations and Fee Schedule. The amendment would require applicants to notify by mail all abutting property owners of the time, date and place of a public hearing and provide evidence of such notice to the commission. The proposed fee is for an additional $100.00 per regulated activity where no permit has been approved. W. Donovan reminded the commissioners that the D.E.P. doesn’t recognize this “after-the-fact” fee as a fine, but the fee would be justified due to added administrative costs incurred to process the application. W. Donovan stated that the D.E.P. and abutting municipalities need to be notified at least thirty days prior to the public hearing of the proposed amendments. J. Kaufman stated that he had submitted proposed language regarding the open space plan as a possible amendment to the regulations. J. Kaufman indicated that the Open Space Committee will be presenting the proposed open space plan at a joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 17, 2009. During that meeting discussion will be held on whether the IWC should have language in the regulations addressing open space when considering applications. Motion by D. Celotto, seconded by C. Wentworth to schedule a public hearing on August 10th at 7:15 p.m. for amendments to the Inland Wetlands Regulations and Fee Schedule. Unanimous. W. Donovan stated that he spoke with Steve Testatori at the Water Resources Division of the D.E.P. who indicated that there is no legal basis for putting open space within the wetlands regulations because the statutes don’t allow the IWC to regulate open space or use open space in a way that it would influence an applicant to deviate from what it is that they are presenting to the commission. J. Kaufman stated that the purpose for the open space language in the regulations would be to not allow a proposal for open space within a wetlands area unless the IWC makes a recommendation that it should be. J. Kaufman acknowledged that it wouldn’t affect many applications, however he feels it would put something in place allowing the IWC to determine whether the wetlands should be included in open space when the Planning & Zoning Commission is reviewing subdivision applications. W. Donovan stated that the subdivision regulations require a report from the Inland Wetlands Commission and in his opinion that would give the IWC the ability to ask for consideration that wetlands should be a part of open space. J. Kaufman commented that possibly the Planning & Zoning Commission could include the open space language in their regulations and that it could be discussed at the joint meeting. W. Donovan asked J. Kaufman to prepare a draft of the recommended language for the next meeting.
Enforcements: None
New Business:
a. Prospect Estates Subdivision, Lot 5 & 6 Stream Crossing. Modification to the approved permit. Scott Poryanda of Connecticut Consulting Engineers, represented the applicant and presented a plan of a driveway stream crossing constructed out in the field. Mr. Poryanda explained that when he looked at the original plan for the stream crossing there was an extremely large culvert proposed that didn’t depict all of the work that was required for the culvert to be constructed. Mr. Poryanda explained that when reviewing the stream crossing with the developer and Gene McCarthy, the Assistant Director of Public Works, they determined what size pipes would work for a 100-year storm with a lot less impact than what was required to construct the large box culvert. It was determined that two 24-inch pipes would handle the 100-year storm. Mr. Poryanda stated that what has been designed could handle approximately 50% more capacity than what would be required with a 100-year storm and showed the commissioners pictures of the work that was done. J. Kaufman explained for Mr. Poryanda that the reason for requiring the box culvert was because of fragile soils in the area and that further down past the detention basin there are two watersheds. The soils in that area are very marshy and the commission asked for the crossing in order to prevent narrowing down the natural flow that goes through that area that would increase the velocity and possibly favor one watershed or the other. The safest thing to do was to make a very wide crossing to minimize the disturbance in the area and let the soils naturally take the water the way they always had. The commissioners discussed concerns with the increased velocity. Mr. Poryanda stated that the original proposal and the work that would have been required was not practical. C. Wentworth stated that Mr. Poryanda should have come to the IWC to discuss his concerns with the approved plan and gotten the commission’s approval for a modification. J. Kaufman stated that his main concern is that the flow from the two pipes is favoring the northeast. The flow should be equal so that the two watersheds get the proper amount of discharge. S. Mulhall stated that the commission had previously determined that the stream would require a culvert and that the pipes are not adequate for the stream. L. Mason stated that there was a set of criteria given to the developer to follow as approved by the IWC and it doesn’t sound like that criteria was followed at all. L. Mason noted that J. Kaufman is now going through a whole new set of criteria because the developer didn’t follow the approved plan. D. Celotto agreed that what he’s hearing sounds like a whole new project that needs further review. S. Sackter read a letter dated June 1, 2009 from W. Donovan to Harb Developers, LLC, confirming that the developer would be allowed to complete the installation of the stream crossing as designed by the engineer noting that because the installation differs from what was presented to the commission, they would need to provide a detailed plan of the installation at tonight’s meeting. The letter further stated that because the installation took place without the benefit of the Town’s consulting engineer’s review, Harb Developers would be fully responsible for any immediate or future inland wetlands or watercourse impacts as a result of this installation for a minimum one-year period beginning June 1, 2009. Also read into the record was Harb Developers’ acknowledgment of receipt of the letter and their agreement to comply with any and all requirements as noted in the letter. It was agreed to let the engineer propose what he felt could work and the Town’s engineer would need to review the plan prior to IWC approval. Mr. Poryanda stated that he would provide a revised set of plans for W. Donovan to send to the Town’s review engineer keeping in mind that the work needs to be done during the summer. The developer will have to cover the Town’s cost for the re-review. C. Wentworth asked Mr. Harb about wood chips that have been used to fill an area on the easterly side of the driveway crossing just past the culvert. Mr. Harb stated that he felt the wood chips would absorb more and make it look better. C. Wentworth questioned absorption of the chips and indicated that the wood chips should be removed. C. Wentworth also noted that both back building lots have been grubbed and there is no silt fencing to prevent soils from running into the wetlands. Mr. Harb stated he would have the silt fencing installed. No other work will be done regarding the crossing except for the siltation controls until a new plan is approved. C. Wentworth also stated that during the transfer of the permit on January 12, 2009, Mr. Harb stated that “his company would comply with all requirements as noted on the permit.” Also at that time, C. Wentworth had asked that all areas at the existing home on Saddle Court be stabilized before the Spring rain and W. Donovan had indicated that the cul-de-sac needed to be cleaned as well because sedimentation has collected there. C. Wentworth stated that neither of the two areas have been addressed as of this time either.
b. Donald Paradis, l Laura Avenue. Schedule hearing to call the bond. W. Donovan spoke with the Town attorney today who indicated that there is no need for a hearing because the town has a passbook savings account. Therefore, Mr. Paradis just needs to be noticed that the bond will be extended out.
Public Hearings: None
Public Participation: None
Land Use Inspector’s Report:
W. Donovan has been to the Andrews’ property on Spring Road and the grading came out very nice. The embankment is seeded and covered with mulch. The lower silt fence has been re-established and a new silt fence has been placed along the top of the embankment. The dry well has not been installed yet. In Bill’s opinion there is no further threat to the abutting wetlands at this time. Bill spoke with the Mayor to see if the Town would be willing to get involved with the storm pipe at the Brundage property on Plank Road. The Mayor indicated that he would like to determine whether the pipe is actually a perforated pipe or not. The Mayor had further indicated to Bill that there has been times when they’ve been down there and worked on the stream discharge. Once you get to a certain point there is ledge in the wetlands itself and it might be the ledge that’s holding back the water from free flowing out of the area. J. Kaufman stated that if there is a health issue it needs to be addressed. W. Donovan encouraged the commissioners to make every attempt to attend scheduled meetings throughout the summer to ensure that there will be a quorum present. S. Sackter asked Bill if he had checked out the Bainer property on Cook Road. Bill stated that Mr. Bainer has a permit for the pool which was taken out last year and that the pool is at least 100 feet from a regulated area and he feels there is no impact to the wetlands. Bill verified today that it seems that Mr. Sima on Sherwood Drive has brought in new material. Bill will follow up with a notice of violation letter.
Motion by S. Mulhall, seconded by D. Celotto to adjourn at 8:24 p.m. Unanimous.
Stephen Sackter, Chairman