Town of East Windsor
Conservation Commission/
Inland Wetland Watercourse Agency
Town Hall, 11 Rye Street, P.O. Box 389, Broad Brook, CT 06016 Tel: (860) 623-2302 Fax: (860) 623-4798
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
MAY 4, 2005
I. Chairman Maslak called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. at the East Windsor Town Hall
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
Present: John Maslak, Chairman, Linda Kehoe, John Malin, Michael Koczera, Rene Thibodeau and Richard Osborn.
Unable to Attend: Michael Ceppetelli, John Sawka
Also Present: Nancy Rudek, Zoning Enforcement Officer
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – ( 3/2/05 & 4/6/05)
MOTION: To approve the minutes of March 2, 2005, as submitted
Made by Mr. Koczera, seconded by Mr. Thibodeau
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: To approve the minutes of April 6, 2005
Made by Mr. Koczera, seconded by Mr. Thibodeau
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED
IV. AGENDA ADDITIONS
MOTION: To add the following agenda item under Receipt of Application, Inland Wetland Permit to Conduct Regulated Uses:
A. Newberry Road: Application of BT Properties, LLC to conduct regulated activities associated with the construction of a 10,382 s.f. commercial building with associated parking and storage for a landscaping business. Total parcel is 30.71 acres, served by public water and sewer. Total wetland disturbance is 4,378 square feet.
Made by Mr. Koczera, seconded by Mr. Osborn
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (on Inland Wetland applications)
A. 247 Rye Street (Farnham Estates) – Application of KF Realty LLC to conduct regulated
activities associated with an 8 lot planned residential development. Total parcel is 16.88
acres, served by public water and septic system. Total wetland disturbance is 0.002 acres.
(35-day deadline to close hearing ends 6/8/05)
MOTION: To open the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Made by Mr. Koczera, seconded by Mr. Thibodeau
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Rudek read the legal notice out loud. Mr. Maslak relayed the course of action for holding the public hearing, including the applicant’s presentation and the public comments for or against the project.
Correspondence:
A. Letter from John and Madeleine Thompson, 259 Rye Street, dated April 27, 2005
Becky Myer, Project Engineer and Galen ??, Director of Design Professionals came before the Commission and presented the specifics on the site, including the layout of the site and the proposed basin. The site is 16.8 acres, there are no evidence of vernal pool wetlands. This is for eight lots, 800 foot cul-du-sac, a water quality basin proposed at the rear of the site. The site will be serviced by public water and private septic. They acknowledged the proximity to Ketchbrook and stated that these concerns were considered at the time of design. The visits to the site during the wet season took place, the slopes are stable and Health codes complied with. To minimize the amount of disturbance they propose adding a retaining wall instead of clear cutting. Standard sedimentation and erosion
controls will be in place. The Farnham Estates will have a home owner’s association which will maintain the basin.
Explanation of the Ketchbrook watershed and surrounding area was given. This site will not have a detention basin, and that rationale was explained. The water quality basin is to treat the run off from the road and most driveways. It treats the first flush, which enters the basin, a permanent wet pool, makes contact with the vegetation, sediment is dropped out and the storm run off is cleaned. The basin discharges into a large flat wetland area. The area chosen adds an additional measure between the basin and the river itself.
JAMES PASTULA - 241 Rye Street
He had inquiries regarding where the water run off would be in relation to his property, both during and after construction. How was this going to effect his house, as he will be 57’ from the proposed road.
A: There will not be a burm along the flow. The cul-du-sac area is below grade and the natural flow will not be hampered. Hay bales will be present during construction to cleanse the water. The roadway during construction will be sloped into the road which will take the water
The right of way is adjacent to this property, stockpiles are delineated on the maps. One temporary stock pile is near the property owner.
JOHN THOMPSON, 259 RYE STREET *correspondence dated April 27, 2005 part of file
Mr. Thompson stated that he is opposed to this project due to the environmental impact on Ketchbrook and the surrounding area. The potential accelerated run off will make the basin ineffective. He believes the Association will not have the funds to clean out the basin in a timely manner. Allowing construction on the slopes will have a negative impact on Ketchbrook. He asked that the severe slopes be looked at. He felt this would have a negative effect on Ketchbrook, one of the most valuable assets East Windsor has and there was a need to preserve this for the present and future generations.
BARARA SMIEGEL, 215/219 MELROSE ROAD
Ms. Smiegel noted that the presentation did not reflect her concerns. Contour lines – any watercourse – assessed at what level? Is there any distinction between a wetland and a watercourse. She is concerned about the type of soils and how these effect the drainage. To determine true escarpment there is a need to know more about the soils. The septic system reservers and galleys appear to be a lot – why? Are there septic issues with the drainage? Ms. Smiegel also posed drainage flow rate questions.
A: The site has fairly significant slopes and moderate slopes, which are outlined on the map. The project stays away from the significant slopes. As for the moderate slopes they disagree that these are true terrace escarpment slope soils. Galen outlined what constitutes a TEE and the ground water monitoring that was done. There is little indication in the soils, there is deep ground water there. The slopes show no signs of breakout. The clay layer is deep at the moderate slopes. Septic design test found deep sands, great for septic. The septic is at the minimum size to meet the health code requirements, the reserve area meets the requirements for the health code. There is no wrong soils, good perk, low ground water depths.
Difference between a watercourse vs. a wetland Ketchbrook watercourse is delineated on the site, no others were delineated by the soil scientist, who would have flagged any if they were noted. There is no flow of a watercourse other than Ketchbrook. The retaining walls are to minimize the grading outside 150’ upland review limit – they tried to minimize the footprint impact on the site.
The flow rate questions are confusing, run off into the basin, used as a sediment during construction, in addition to other areas. Once the site is stabilized the basin will be clean out and finally used as a water quality basin. There will be an Association in place, with yearly fees, to pay for maintenance of the water quality basin.
This is proposed as a public road – the drainage will be maintained by the Town, but the water quality basin will be maintained by the Association. If the Town wants an easement to monitor the basin, that can be discussed. The thought was not to burden the Town with the responsibility. The Association is also for the common driveway and walking path.
B. SMIEGEL
For basin maintenance how will there be access to the basin?
A: There is a proposed storm drain to the basin, gravel access road over the pipe will allow access to the basin. Once stabilized, maintenance to the basin will be fairly straight forward and insignificant. There is a need to make sure there is no woody growth, so that will be cleaned out ½ year, sediment is removed every 15/20 years – this is not a case of daily and/or weekly maintenance.
Question: Sited staged development?
A: No more than one phase:
· Establish basin, construct and stabilize
· Storm system
· Road
· Development
MICHAEL TERNAN, 259 RYE STREET
The basin outlet, where will the water come out?
A: The outlet structure pipe is settling area within a small settling impact area
Q: Could run off with a hard rain and/or snow be a problem?
A: The statistical analysis shows that a 90% storm event has 1 inch run off or less. The initial first flush carries away the constituents.
CATHERINE GALLIOT, 263 RYE STREET
The recreation area and the proximity to the basin is a concern with liter for two reasons, pollution and the potential to clog the filtration system.
A: This is a passive walking trail, not a ball field where there will be a large congregation of people. Input will be received from PZC as to the course of action with the open space/recreation areas.
C. GALLIOT
Ms. Galliot further outlined the problems currently with recreation vehicles and parties at the site, liquor bottles, etc, on this which is now private property. There is a concern if this is considered a recreation area, and it has access from all over, the problem will worsen as people will be encouraged to hang out at this site. Extensive discussion took place regarding the current problems with the recreation use of the site and concerns with liability due to this unsolicited recreation use.
J. THOMPSON
He sought some clarification on the basin and the run off in proximity to Ketchbrook. There is no control of the rate of flow. How is it possible for a homeowner association to maintain a basin – this will be expensive and beyond the means of an association, with no way to monitor it is being done. This is a dangerous situation to the Ketchbrook area.
A: Once or twice a year the vegetation will be trimmed.
QUESTION: What if the sedimentation into the basin is beyond what can be envisioned, further down clays are exhibited.
A: Once the site is stabilized the sedimentation levels can be determined, which will not be heavy. The water quality basin is a well established principle and has DEP recommendations, including 10-15 year typical sedimentation removal.
Question: How do they propose the Town enforce maintenance of the basin.
A: An association will be established with funds to maintain the basin. Approval of the project will have to meet Town requirements. There can be a stipulation that if the basin not maintained the Town can charge the Association or there can be an easement for the Town to the basin. The intent is for the cost to be covered by the Association.
LOUISE TERNAN, 257 RYE STREET
Ketchbrook is beautiful, clean and clear. Who will be responsible if it is polluted?
A: The water quality basin is an established practice, with the latest technology, it has been documented and has DEP requirements. It is well over 90% effective. It was advised that Ketchbrook currently gets run off from a number of single family residences, town roads and Ellington Farm activities. It is a nice watercourse and the concern with protection is understood. This site will provide better protection than it receives in other areas.
Question: Who pays?
A: The taxpayer. Ketchbrook watershed has may items with in it and it is hard to say that the impact of one road and eight residences would have measurable impact on Ketchbrook.
MICHAEL TEDFORD, 30A FOLKSTONE ROAD
He stated that there is concern with the eight house impact, but all the people speaking have houses in this area, what kind of impact did construction of their homes have on Ketchbrook?
CATHY RYBEK, 225 RYE STREET
FYI – The former owner, Marshall Lomenzo, previously went for a two house lot subdivision and the Town was against it.
ELISE SPIELBERG, 244 RYE STREET
She is against this project due to Ketchbrook and the unique vegetation present. Is this a private road or a town road?
A: It is a private road with a shared driveway. The Town is not responsible for the trash for a shared driveway.
E. SPIELBERG
There will be eight residences - it is hard to get anyone to do anything. How can it be assured that the Association is going to maintain the basin?
A: Typically a landscaping firm is hired to do the maintenance as an ongoing service. This is not a lot of work for the Association.
Ms. Spielberg disagreed that it is not a homeowner responsibility, someone needs to supervise to make sure the work gets done.
MARK BARBIERI, 99 RYE STREET
He suggested that an easement in the green area on the map would alleviate many of the issues, a conservation easement puts restrictions on the open space, including issues with the recreation vehicles. It is a good way to help.
B. SMIEGEL
She renewed her question about the pipe velocity.
A: The town engineer asked that they cut down the slope of the pipe, flatten the pipes out and they will work on that.
J. THOMPSON
It was implied that the current residences are within close proximity to the Ketchbrook, they are not they are a 2 to 3 mile walk. He questioned the grade of the road.
A: It is standard town road, catch basins on both sides.
Per the Chairman, the project will be sent to the soil conservation service for comment.
Commissioner questions fielded:
The curve in the road is a cape cod style – per the Town Engineer – all the water goes to the catch basins, not the properties. Hoods in the catch basins could be proposed to add another safety measure.
The private driveway will not have curves, a single cross slope and a couple of drainage basins. The sediment basin is in the upland area.
The town engineer wants the basin further away from the wetlands and this will be discussed. The basin will be excavated so no fill proposed.
The woody growth clean out from the basin is done physically (brush hog). You do not want the growth to take away from volume of water flow – do not want to remove/kill all vegetation as it helps with the water quality.
Conservation easement issues can be discussed and worked out.
There will be one developer of the site for the roads and lots.
It is stated there are no TEE slopes present, the Commission was encouraged to look at this on a site walk.
The minimal buildable lot waiver sought for 4, 5, 6, and 7 was discussed. The plans try to maintain the historic house, so a significant block of land was set aside and the plans try to work around the home.
It was asked why the water was not put toward Rye Street and existing drainage. That alternative was not looked at, the water might be a problem to treat. Ms. Rudek will discuss the alternative with the Town Engineer.
There is no approval for the septic at this point from North Central.
Basin concerns during construction – there can be a performance bond in place. Prior to release of that bond the basin is inspected. Also there can be a condition that the Association provide the Town with a report.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to the June meeting
Made by Mr. Koczera, seconded by Ms. Kehoe
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
Public hearing closed 9:10 p.m.
Brief five minute recess
MOTION: To go out of order to Jurisdictional Ruling
Made by Ms. Kehoe, seconded by Mr. Malin
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
A. 271 Scantic Road – Application of Colleen Riggott, requesting a Ruling of No Jurisdiction
for a single family home. Total parcel is 3.14 acres, served by private well and septic
system.
Marek Kement came before the Commission. The soil scientist letter and the revised plans were reviewed. No work is done within a wetland or a regulated area.
MOTION: To make a ruling of No Jurisdiction for 271 Scantic Road
Made by Mr. Koczera, seconded by Mr. Osborne
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: To return to agenda order
Made by Ms. Kehoe, seconded by Mr. Malin
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
VI. CONTINUED APPLICATIONS OR BUSINESS
? Inland Wetland Permit to Conduct Regulated Uses
A. 119, 123, 127, 129 Tromley Road – Homes by Guarino – Continued application for a
proposed 4-lot single family residential subdivision served by private well and public sewer.
Total parcel is 6.52 acres, owned by Paul Guarino and located on the north side of Tromley
Road, approximately 2,300 feet from Scantic Road. (65-day application period ends 5/11/05)
Marek Kement and Paul Guarino came before the commission and presented and reviewed REVISED plans and parameters for this project. They outlined removal of lot 4 due to previous concerns – lot 4 will not be a building lot and there is no proposed activity on the lot. It is unknown at this time what will be done with the land of lot 4, but several potential options were discussed, as well as potential PZC action.
MOTION: To approve the application for 119, 123, 127, 129 Tromley Road – Homes by Guarino, as presented on REVISED plans dated May 2, 2005 with the following condition: No building on Lot 4 as assured by the applicant.
Made by Ms. Kehoe, seconded by Mr. Thibodeau
In favor: Maslak, Kehoe, Thibodeau, Malin, Osborne
Opposed: Koczera
MOTION CARRIED.
B. 93 Depot Street (Meadow Farms) - Continued application of Housing LTD, LLC to conduct
regulated activities associated with a 10 lot subdivision including 9 single family homes and
a 44 unit active adult housing complex. Total parcel is 28.69 acres, served by public water
and sewer. Total wetland disturbance is 332 +/- square feet.
(65-day application period ends 6/10/05)
Jay Ussery of JR Russo & Associates and John Reverezzi came before the Commission and presented plans and outlined in detail the project for this active adult housing project, similar to those built in Hillside. The Town Road created would be a four way intersection at the current intersection of Depot and Skinner.
The 332 sq. ft disturbance occurs adjacent to the water course and is associated with the outlet for the storm drain. The watercourse, existing peak flow, farm pond and access road and their direction and flow were discussed in detail.
The drainage and water quality basin, four bay sedimentation and vegetative swale were discussed and the run off outlined. This will be maintained by the Town and will not be private. The positive aspects of alleviating existing water/drainage problems in the area were discussed. The existing tree line will not be changed.
The Town Engineer comments were discussed. The Commissioners want to do a site walk of the property.
MOTION: To table this application to the June regular meeting
Made by Ms. Kehoe, seconded by Mr. Koczera
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Rye Street (Norton Fields) – Continued application of Letourneau Builders to conduct regulated activities associated with a 57 unit active adult housing development. Total parcel
is 16.3 acres, served by public water and sewer. Property is located on the west side of Rye Street, approximately 3,000 feet from Old Ellington Rd. (65-day application period ends 6/10/05)
Attorney Mark Barbieri and Guy Letourneau came before the Commission to present plans and outline the project for 54 units. Attorney Barbieri introduced Mr. Letourneau and gave a brief history of the project. Also present were Sandy Aeshleman, surveyor and John Martucci, Engineer. There will be sewer and water service. There is no activity within the wetland, but disturbance within the regulated area with the detention basin. The plan will be to reduce/control the current run off. The Engineers suggested changes regarding wetlands were made. The plans presented at the meeting reflect the Town Engineer’s comments.
Mr. Martucci explained the storm water control detention basin. The peak flow off the site will be slightly less than current run off. The four bay sediment basin is a dry pad. Construction of the detention basin will create pond disturbance. The wood line will remain, no clearing is proposed. Generally the soils on site are dense.
MOTION: To approve the application of Rye Street (Norton Fields)
Made by Mr. Thibodeau, seconded by Mr. Osborn
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
VII. RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS
A. Newberry Road: Application of BT Properties, LLC to conduct regulated activities associated with the construction of a 10,382 s.f. commercial building with associated parking and storage for a landscaping business. Total parcel is 30.71 acres, served by public water and sewer. Total wetland disturbance is 4,378 square feet.
MOTION: To accept the application of BT Properties, LLC
Made by Mr . Malin, seconded by Ms. Kehoe
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED
MOTION: To schedule a public hearing for the June meeting for this application as it is deemed to have significant activity
Made by Mr. Osborn, seconded by Mr. Thibodeau
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED
? Amendment/Extension of Existing Permit
? Permitted Use As Of Right
? Jurisdictional Ruling (determination of permit needed)
A. 271 Scantic Road – Application of Colleen Riggott, requesting a Ruling of No Jurisdiction
for a single family home. Total parcel is 3.14 acres, served by private well and septic
system.
*Application ruled on above, out of order.
? Inland Wetland Permit to Conduct Regulated Uses
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Aquatic Plant Survey - For Commission’s information
IX. AGENT DECISIONS
X. VIOLATIONS (for action or show-cause hearing)
A. 202 Main Street, Warehouse Point (Donald Wagner)
Ms. Rudek outlined the violations and Mr. Wagner’s cooperation with her office in resolving this matter.
B. 53 Newberry Road (Aqua Pool)
Ms. Rudek outlined the violations and the remedy by the owner.
XI. STATUS REPORTS
XII. BUDGET
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: To adjourn at 10:50 p.m.
Made by Ms. Kehoe, seconded by Mr. Osborn
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted
/cdc/
Cynthia D. Croxford
Recording Secretary
| 
