Town of East Windsor
Conservation Commission/
Inland Wetland Watercourse Agency
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2005
I. CALL TO ORDER - 7:30 p.m.
Ms. Kehoe called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. at the East Windsor Town Hall, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Present: Linda Kehoe, Vice Chairman, Michael Ceppetelli, Rene Thibodeau, John Malin Richard Osborn and Janice Warren
Unable to Attend: John Maslak, Chairman Michael Koczera, John Sawka
Also Present: Nancy Rudek, Zoning Enforcement Officer
Ms. Kehoe announced, with regret, the resignation of John Maslak from the Commission. A letter will be sent to him to thank him for his 20 years of service to the Town of East Windsor.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – (08/3/05)
MOTION: To approve the regular meeting minutes of August 3, 2005 as submitted
Made by Mr. Osborn, seconded by Ms. Warren
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
IV. AGENDA ADDITIONS
MOTION: To add under Receipt of Applications,
94 South Main Street – Application of M&L Development Corporation to conduct regulated activities associated with the development of an 18 unit condominium project. Total parcel is 5.65 acres, served by public water and public sewer.
And
To add under Miscellaneous: CACIWC annual meeting
Made by Mr. Osborn, seconded by Mr. Thibodeau
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (on Inland Wetland applications) - NONE
VI. CONTINUED APPLICATIONS OR BUSINESS
* Inland Wetland Permit to Conduct Regulated Uses
A. 247 Rye Street (Farnham Estates) – Closed public hearing (8/3/05) on the 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 for decision ends 9/7/05)
Ms. Kehoe announced that tonight ends the 35 day deadline for a decision. She requested that comments made regarding this application be linked to the testimony heard. The Commission must address the Intervener’s Position as well as the application. Ms. Kehoe referenced the Exhibits presented as well throughout the testimony, specifically reading all the six point a set forth in Exhibit C, The Intervener’s June 29, 2005 Petition for Intervention under Connecticut General Statutes Section 22a-19(a), specific points A-F.
Each Commission member was polled to discuss their views, comments and/or concerns with testimony given in this matter.
Mr. Ceppetelli indicated that if the Petition for Intervention is denied, the Commission would have to approve the application. He cannot see how they can deny the Petition for Intervention. The issues brought forth by the Intervener are issues the Commission would raise. “Unreasonable pollution” – what is that? Ed Pawluk testimony was that the brook was not one of the cleanest around, and had testimony of nitrogen content and so further use in the area would be no big deal. Mr. Ceppetelli took offense, the Town needs to pay attention. In this instance it is already high, any additional would result in an adverse effect. Pawluk concluded that one cannot assume pesticides would be used, but that is foolish to assume pesticides will not be used. Also there was an
extreme amount of expert testimony for both sides, the Intervener’s will adamantly propose what they don’t want to happen and the developer has financial gain. The reality is some where in between. The areas critical wetland function was covered in statements as well. The questions on pollutants were never significantly answered regarding the water quality basin and its specifics. Upon review of the May 6 tape and upon his attendance at all the meetings, Mr. Ceppetelli never heard it stated that this was above the 100 year flood level. If it is not, he cannot see how it will function correctly during a big storm. Erosion control is critical in the initial phase of development and there are a lot of unknowns with weather and if construction crews will take appropriate S&E controls. One needs to err on the conservative side and in this instance there are more than enough unknowns which could be a factor. Maintenance of the
basin could be a big problem with the Association scenario. Monies need to be collected to maintain the basin and the Association governs itself, and it might not have enough integrity reasonably assure timely clean out of the basin. Mr. Sawka of the Commission has first hand knowledge of runoff in the area and it was in great contrast to what the applicant stated. The applicant was 10/15 year difference in what Commission member Sawka stated, who lives there. Studies do not compare to common sense.
Ms. Warren concurred with Mr. Ceppetelli’s statements. She added that Ketchbrook has been restored to a point and this is an additional reason to pay attention to it. The state and federal government have spent money and investigations prove the Scantic is important to the local environment and the Connecticut River. An environmental assessment was done and it is a catch 22 because neither side did an adequate assessment. To walk through the site and not include animals is inadequate. A diminished capacity can be determined by a site walk. She could not see how erosion could be managed at the site long term construction. There is no way the storm water run off in an event would not harm fish life.
Mr. Thibodeau concurred with Commission members assessment so far. He did a site walk on this steep site and anything done at the property will have a long term effect on the stream. The gravel and material is loose, not stable, and trees are holding it back now. The driveway salt down the slope into the catch basin, in the event of overflow will go right into the stream. If it is protected during the construction phase, there are long term problems foreseeable with pools and erosion after the houses are built. It is not a good idea to build in this area.
Mr. Osborn concurred with Commission members assessments so far. He added that it is a tough site, specifically on three lots to keep the slopes stable. He agreed with the Intervener assessment of the site and the effect on the stream. He agreed that a farm has been above the site, but a bulldozer has a greater effect he felt.
Mr. Malin concurred with the Commission members assessments so far. He added that he has concerns regarding the nitrogen and pesticide loading from agriculture and trash and he has concerns with the slopes. He has been there and has a history with this site.
Ms. Kehoe concluded Commission concerns, comments and observations by adding information. Exhibit 3C references chart buffer area with forest as positive, lawn area negative. The septic output below 10 mg/liter – what happens when you add numbers to the nitrogen in lawn fertilizer, is it acceptable? There is no way to control this. The environmental assessments done by experts of REMA and CT Ecosystem do have extensive background education but they were on the site one day. The testimony of people who have lived in the area for 30 years weighs heavier. Both sides refer to polluted water. The applicants testimony by Mr. Pawluk in Exhibit 3C, Page 4, has stated agricultural chemicals have contributed to the brook, so it is safe to say lawn chemicals will do so as well.
In Dr. Welti gave his resume and reputation which has a lot of weight, but Ms. Kehoe is leery of erosion qualifying words, such as “extra requirements”. Mr. Semprebon agreed in public hearing to more inspection, more often and it was no problem. In Dr. Welti’s report a qualifying word regarding basin excavation was “may be result”, the Commission wants to see reports with words like “highly likely” not “maybe”. The applicant was given prudent and feasible alternatives the Intervener proposed swales, Mr. Semprebon felt those were not an option – why not? The Intervener also suggested cutting out a few lots this was not investigated by the applicant.
Mr. Ceppetelli added that it is unfortunate, because usually the Commission and the applicant have a give and take relationship, where the Commission voices its thoughts and changes and the applicant complies. This applicant did not see fit to hear the voice of the Commission regarding their concerns, i.e. Lot 5. There are prudent, feasible alternatives that were not investigated. Common sense dictated that removal of lots changes many things with the application. The Commission would be remiss if they accepted this application as presented.
MOTION: Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §22a-19 and 22a-19a, the Commission makes the following findings based on evidence as submitted into the record: The Commission finds that the proposal as presented is reasonably likely to have the effect of unreasonably polluting impairing or destroying the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources as stated in discussions this evening and, therefore, vote in favor of the Intervener’s Petition.
Made by Ms. Warren, seconded by Mr. Osborn
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: To deny, without prejudice, the application of KF Realty LLC, 247 Rye Street (Farnham Estates).
Made by Ms. Osborn, seconded by Mr. Ceppetelli
DISCUSSION: The Commission members were polled to state their rationale for denial of the application of KF Realty LLC, 247 Rye Street (Farnham Estates):
Mr. Ceppetelli stated:
· Questions remain regarding the water quality basin 100 year flood levels;
· Questions remain about cleaning the basin, who will maintain it, how the mechanism works, many unanswered specifics;
· It was established through expert testimony that there is a likelihood for additional nitrogen content, chemical pesticides could enter Ketchbrook and that would have an adverse effect on wetland function current in the area;
· Questions remain regarding erosion control. Expert testimony showed evidence down stream of significant erosion due to run off from an agricultural field. There is a concern that there is a potential for more run off during the construction phase with asphalt, roofing and impervious coverage areas. If nothing is done to prevent erosion, the possibility exists for catastrophe.
Ms. Warren concurs with the reasons stated and added:
· Questions remain regarding the topsoil piles and water absorption around the piles;
· Concerns remain regarding the septic on some of the lots. Perhaps fewer lots would resolve some of these concerns;
· There was a lack of a thorough environmental assessment;
· There are erosion concerns not only during, but after construction;
· Concerns remain regarding the vague details on management of the basin.
Mr. Thibodeau concurred with reasons stated and added:
· This is a bad area, it is really steep. There is a lot of run off. He did not feel it was a good idea for the site.
Mr. Osborn concurred with reasons stated and added:
· Concerns remain regarding the run off on the steep slopes, even a wood chuck hole can create a problem;
· The evidence presented of erosion upstream was scary;
· No alternative was presented regarding the three lots on the slopes;
· The concept of changing direction of the drainage to Rye Street should have been further investigated;
· It is not feasible to build over these slopes, with the greatest concern being erosion.
Mr. Malin concurred with the reasons stated and added:
· He has concerns with the slopes, the topography and potential erosion;
Ms. Kehoe added the following:
· She did not believe the applicant had provided prudent and feasible alternatives, even on small items, while for example the applicant absolutely agreed to extra erosions controls, other suggestions were not investigated or discussed;
· There could be a cluster development at the top of the slope, eliminating the lowering lots. This was not examined;
· This Town has a history with TE slopes. There have been applications approved with TE slopes, but all are moved back from the slope. She gave specific examples of what the Commission has required in the past with regard to applications involving slopes. Given the Commission’s history of stipulations regarding slopes, she could not see how the Commission can approve this application, in the middle of the slope.
· A huge volume of information was given at the August, 2005 public hearing, thus promoting numerous questions. The applicant’s expert, Dr. Welti was not present at the meeting to field questions. Some specific inquiries include: on Page Three of Dr. Welti’s report the height of the basin bottom is not stated, but conclusions seem to be the basin is wet 1’ above.
· Regarding erodibility of the slope - what if rooted trees are removed, stumps and roots hold the slope, how will removal of those systems affect the slope banks.
· Exhibit 8 – Town Engineer’s recommendation was not met;
· Basin is close to a 2-1 slope.
· Comments regarding Ketchbrook’s current state were heard from many sources, from DEP personnel to fisherman. The Commission does not want to go backwards.
· The Commission needs to balance the owner’s right to develop with the regulations. There is not enough cause to support this application
VOTE: ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION TO DENY APPLICATION WITHOUT PREDJUDICE CARRIED.
RECESS 8:35 – 8:45
B. 9 Sharon Lane – Continued application of Shawn & Nicole Keel to conduct regulated
activities associated with a 18 X 36 In-Ground Pool. Total parcel is 1.12 acres, served
by private well and public sewer. (65-day application period ends 10/7/05)
*Mr. Thibodeau stepped down as he is an abutting neighbor
Nicole Keel came before the Commission and presented plans and outlined changes. The Commission had questions about the winter draw down procedures as well as the specific location of the pool on the site. The significant line of vegetation and swale were outlined on the subdivision plan by Ms. Rudek to the Commission. The applicant discussed the layout of the yard and the reason for the location of the pool. The Commission asked that Ms. Keel come back with a realistic drawing of her site, the house, location of the pool and deck. When she returns she needs to provide a drawing to scale, include the proposed shed on the plan and information on the filter system and why there is no need for winter draw down.
MOTION: To table this application to the next regularly scheduled meeting
Made by Mr. Ceppetelli, seconded by Ms. Warren
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
C. 17 North Road – Continued application of John Silva to conduct regulated activities
associated with the construction of a 2,080 s.f. building and parking lot. Total parcel is
0.93 acres, served by public water and sewer. (65-day application period ends 10/7/05)
Jay Ussery of JR Russo and Associates and John Silva came before the Commission and presented plans, outlined the location of the wetlands and drainage on the site. There will be a drive through out back, the utilities are in place and there will be a Storm Tek Subsurface system in place under the parking lot. It will serve as detention and a water quality basin. A picture of the system was shown and the dynamics explained in detail. There will be a silt fence wrapping the site during construction. The landscape plan was discussed. There will be no disturbance to the wetland, but there is work within the regulated area. The history of this lot before the PZC in the late 80’s was discussed. There is not much left of valuable wetland on the site, the principal
function is for storm water. The filters will be cleaned through a manhole and vacuumed out. These will undergo yearly inspections.
MOTION: To approve the application for 17 North Road, as presented
Made by Mr. Osborn, seconded by Mr. Thibodeau
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
VII. RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS
* Amendment/Extension of Existing Permit
* Permitted Use As Of Right
* Jurisdictional Ruling (determination of permit needed)
* Inland Wetland Permit to Conduct Regulated Uses
A. 18 & 20 East Road – Application of Myers Nursery, Inc. to conduct regulated activities
associated with the development of 2 building lots for single family homes. Total parcel is
34.53 acres, served by private well and septic system.
Dave Palmberg of William Palmberg Surveyors and Cal Myers came before the Commission and presented plans and briefly outlined the application. The site is currently used for farming. Letters from Michael Gragnolati and North Central were presented. There will be one lot with standard frontage and a second rear lot with access by driveway. There is no activity within the wetland, but some activity within the 150’ buffer, septic, footing drains and a well. Having the engineer pull the septic out of the regulated area will be reviewed at the next meeting.
MOTION: To accept receipt of application for 18 & 20 East Road.
Made by Mr. Osborn, seconded by Mr. Thibodeau
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED
B. 202 Main Street – Application of Donald Wagner to conduct regulated activities associated
with the widening of existing driveways to allow for emergency equipment to access rear
house at 204 Main Street.
Donald Wagner presented plans regarding 202 Main Street, the house in the rear built in the 1950’s. The problems currently seen were brought to his attention by his insurer as he cannot get insurance because fire apparatus cannot get to the residence. The driveway is there, he just plans on improving it. Ms. Rudek and Ms. Kehoe walked the site. There is an old detention basin from the industrial building on the site. From that it is hard to tell what is there and what is proposed. What is happening with going over the wetland crossing. This is a legal non conforming lot with two structures. This is not a fire marshall issue, it is Mr. Wagner’s insurance company issue. The stability of the slopes is an issue which was raised. The plan needs
elevation specifics. The Commission would also like to know what clearing has been done to date, what is there and what is coming out. The intermittent stream and wetland need to be delineated. There will be no digging out stumps, they will be ground and the driveway will be gravel. The Commission also asked that the building be to scale on the plan, the details of the driveway included, the brush and clippings need to be pulled out of the wetland and if fill is to be brought in, how much?
MOTION: To accept receipt of application for 202 Main Street.
Made by Mr. Osborn, seconded by Ms. Warren
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED
C. 94 South Main Street – Application of M&L Development Corporation to conduct regulated activities associated with the development of an 18 unit condominium project. Total parcel is 5.65 acres, served by public water and public sewer.
MOTION: To accept receipt of application for 94 South Main Street
Made by Ms. Warren, seconded by Mr. Osborn
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Terrace Escarpment Meeting - September 15th at 7 pm at the East Windsor Town Hall.
If interested members can contact Ms. Rudek who can registered interested people.
B. 130 Newberry Road (BT Properties) – Review of Conservation Easement Plan
The Commission had approved this application, with conditions that the conservation easement be defined and the Commission be given the opportunity to provide its blessing. The Commission reviewed the proposed conservation easement line. They were not happy with the conservation easement boundary suggested the line more squared off, so it would be easier to mark.
C. CACIWC
This is to be held November 5, 2005 and provides good information for the Members. Members interested need to be registered by October 20. The Commission’s budget covers the cost to attend.
IX. AGENT DECISIONS
A. 79 Rye Street (James & Susan Russo) – for Jurisdictional Ruling on single family home.
Based on review of the plans there was no wetland and no jurisdiction.
B. 47 Plantation Road (Plantation Properties, LLC) – for Jurisdictional Ruling on an 8,500 s.f.
addition to existing industrial building.
Based on review of the plans there was no wetland and no jurisdiction.
X. VIOLATIONS (for action or show-cause hearing)
XI. STATUS REPORTS
Abbe Road – Tribble Horse Farm
The clearing is less than approved and the pond is also smaller. Complaints were received that upstream is dry, but that is due to lack of rain, not this site work.
Windsorville Road
Ms. Kehoe had a question of dock construction taking place at the rear lot on Windsorville Road previously before the Commission. Ms. Rudek will investigate
Old Ellington Road
Fill issues versus road sweepings on the embankment were discussed.
XII. BUDGET
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: To adjourn at 10:00 p.m.
Made by Mr. Thibodeau, seconded by Ms. Warren
ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted
Cynthia D. Croxford
Recording Secretary
| 
