TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND WATERCOURSE AGENCY
November 1, 2006
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Linda Kehoe called the regular meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. at the East Windsor Town Hall, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Members Present: Linda Kehoe, Richard Osborn, Michael Ceppetelli,
Michael Koczera, Rene Thibodeau, John Malin, Tina McCarter,
Alternate
Members Absent: Michael Sawka, Janice Warren
Also present was Nancy J. Rudek, Zoning/Wetland Enforcement Official.
III. AGENDA ADDITIONS
1 Agenda item added:
- Winkler Road – LTP Realty 5 lot single family residential subdivision.
MOTION: To accept the agenda addition.
Mr. Osborn / Mr. Koczera
Vote: Unanimous
Motion Carried
IV APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Table the meeting minutes of October 2006.
It was noted that Len Norton was not able to be at this meeting due to unexpected business obligations. He is planning to attend the next meeting on October 4th.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
MOTION: To go out of agenda order and move public hearings to after Section 7 Miscellaneous and to hear the Continued Applications or Business.
Mr. Koczera/ Mr. Osborn
Vote: Unanimous
Motion Carried
None / no discussions
OUT OF AGENDA ORDER
CONTINUED APPLICATIONS OR BUSINESS
221 North Road –
James Strempfer – Appeared before the commission and provided a map of the property which marked the wetlands and dry areas. He wants to construction of a single family home in a piece of the land that is the driest. It is 100ft out of the regulated area and the septic system would be 84 ft vs. 100 ft. The property would be accessed off Route 140 and there was a house and barn there previously.
The Commission pointed out that there is a 150-foot regulated area and the map should reflect that correct regulated area on all sides where there are wetlands. The applicant has already been through North Central and was stamped with their approval. North Central is satisfied with where the septic is proposed and provided a letter indicating the best suitable place for it. The septic spot chosen was the highest and sandiest spot on the property.
There is going to be horses on the property and they will be connected to the barn.
The Commission suggested that the applicant come in with revised plans.
A Commission member questioned if there are any intentions and should they be on the map for marking the wetlands. And questioned the existing gravel driveway, if they will be changing the grade, etc. The applicant indicated that he intends to keep it the same grade and will pave it sometime in the future when they can afford to. They will strip out the sand and add process but will keep it the same grade.
The commission pointed out that by affecting the grade of the driveway, it could ultimately affect the flow of water. The map shows a culvert and the applicant indicated that the culvert would remain untouched.
The property is zoned as agricultural and the applicant intends to have workhorses, draft horses, do carriage rides. Since the plan will be revised, it was suggested that it have a legend with the existing and proposed elevations. The engineer should call Nancy Rudek. The drainage will still flow West. The map should clarify the erosion controls.
MOTION: To continue the application to next month.
Mr. Koczera/ Mr. Osborn
Vote: Unanimous
Motion Carried
None / no discussions
RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS
Inland Wetland Permit To Conduct Regulated Uses
62 Scantic Road –
Mr. Guy Begin came before the Commission with Mike & Cindy Joselin. The Joselin’s want to put in an addition as originally approved. There will be no impact to the wetlands, minimal grading, nothing changing. The dilenia wetlands are maintained by the lawn. They will not be stockpiling material.
There is a concern with the heavy rains, there are puddles and water issues, etc. When the original subdivision was put in there was no disturbance when all done. When it was sold, they were told that they could not disturb the wetlands. The new buyers began filling, water flow was changed to the Joselin’s property.
There are some problems in the front. There were no culvert’s put in the driveways. Begin homes purchased it after it went through the approval process. They followed to the letter when building.
They will not be disturbing the wetlands and will be within the 150 feet regulated area. They will be crossing the regular road to come in. It was decided not to do that, there were too many risks. The applicant decided that they can withdraw their application. Asking if possible to get on agenda tonight and not postpone due to the time of year.
The town will take care of the road drainage. Len is trying to contact the State. The builder will put in sill fence and keep a radius for trucks to turn.
After the discussions, it was decided that the applicant is asking to withdraw its application and make an agent decision or value it tonight.
MOTION: To allow Nancy Rudek to make jurisdiction ruling.
Mr. Koczera/ Mr. Osborn
Vote: Unanimous
Motion Carried
Discussion: Applicant requested to withdraw application. Given to Nancy in writing. No application received.
North Road –
Mansions at Canyon Ridge – Dorian Famiglietti of Kahan, Kerensky & Capossela appeared before the Commission along with Jay of J.R. Russo & Associates. The proposed apartments had a change of name, however, is still owned and operated by Sumner Chapman.
In 2005, a 220 apartment development redesigned the sewers to bring to Broad Brook and the need a wetlands permit because North Road has some wetlands. Most are in the State’s right of way. Not deemed a significant activity. No major affect or disturbance to the wetlands, in regulated zones.
There was a question regarding a public hearing. There is no need for presentations until they know they need it.
Most of the wetlands are on State property, but some of it is not on State property. A Public hearing would allow people to object to it. They have a right to put in the sewer line, the Commission didn’t feel that a Public Hearing was necessary, that it is only going to lead people to believe that they can stop the apartments.
There would be questions from DEP and the crossing of the waterway with the sewer. A lot of sewers actually go right through the rivers. The thought was that the best way was to hang pipe off the bridge, heated, etc so it won’t disturb the waterway.
MOTION: Application is deemed not a significant activity and no Public Hearing is necessary.
Mr. Koczera/ Mr. Osborn
Vote: Unanimous
Motion Carried
Discussions: Line will be owned by the Town of East Windsor and will be a public sewer line.
Mike Granulotti
MOTION: To continue to the December 6th meeting.
Mr. Koczera/ Mr. Osborn
Vote: Unanimous
Motion Carried
None / no discussions
Winkler Road-
Just added in for receipt.
MOTION: To receive LTP Realty application.
Mr. Osborn/ Mr. Koczera
Vote: Unanimous
Motion Carried
None / no discussions
PUBLIC HEARINGS
East Windsor Inland Wetland & Watercourse Regulations
MOTION: To continue the Public Hearing of East Windsor Inland Wetland Watercourse Regulations.
Mr. Koczera/ Mr. Osborn
Vote: Unanimous
Motion Carried
None / no discussions
RETURN TO AGENDA ORDER
MOTION: For a 5-minute recess.
Mr. Koczera/ Mr. Osborn
Vote: Unanimous
Motion Carried
None / no discussions
Meeting Called back to order at 8:39
MISCELLANEOUS
Inland Wetland By-Laws – Review of Revisions
The commission decided to spend 45 minutes going over the regulations.
The Town of East Windsor Inland Wetland and Watercourse Regulations in draft presented by Nancy Rudek. 12/11/2000 was the last set of regs we have. We will be working from a draft dated 9/7/06. Jan Warren could not be here tonight, however, she emailed her comments.
Section 1.1 – This paragraph has been in the State Statutes forever, has never changed.
1.2 – okay
1.3 – okay
1.4 – okay
Section 2.1 – Agriculture – in italic is ok
The farming Statute is keeping consistent with Planning and Zoning.
Italics = our regs or another Towns reg type from state regs.
Grazing – animals feeding on growing herbage in a field
Regulated Activity – changing on State level – 150ft regulated area – state changed.
There was discussion amongst the commission that this would affect applicants that are out of the regulated area but may ultimately affect wetlands. Could end up being before this commission. Who determines what will impact wetlands? Everything would then end up a regulated activity.
Page 2 & 3 of June 1997 model definitions of regulated activity – go over before the next meeting with opinions of what we want definition to be.
Flood Plain – where does it fit into – regulated wetland soil designated by State. A new copy of the wetland map will be available for the next meeting. The question arose as to whether we want to regulate flood plain? Discuss flood plain at the next meeting within regulated area.
Add a definition of flood plain – flood – that which floods - significant impact – Okay, leave as is.
Continue on Section 3.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing on the regulations to the December meeting.
Mr. Koczera/ Mr. Osborn
Vote: Unanimous
Motion Carried
None / no discussions
2007 Meeting Schedule – Commission decided to stay with the 7:30 start time.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting at 9:34pm.
Mr. Osborn / Mr. Koczera
Vote: Unanimous
Motion Carried
None / no discussions
Respectfully submitted,
Lori P. Holden
| 
