TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/
WETLANDS WATERCOURSE AGENCY
Regular Meeting
April 4, 2007
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Chairwoman Kehoe called the Meeting to Order at 7:45 p. m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
Chairwoman Linda Kehoe, Vice Chairman Michael Ceppetelli, Regular Members
Richard Osborn, and Rene Thibodeau.
Chairwoman Kehoe noted 4 Regular Members are present to establish a quorum; she thanked Commissioner Thibodeau for coming in although he was not feeling well as his attendance completes the quorum.
Unable to Attend: Regular Members Michael Koczera, John Malin, and Michael Sawka, and Alternate Members Tina McCarter and Jan Warren.
Also present was Nancy Rudek, Assistant Town Planner/Zoning Enforcement Officer, and Town Engineer Norton.
III. AGENDA ADDITIONS:
Chairwoman Kehoe noted two new applications – 1) Hayfield Lane, Rye Street, and 2) 68 Newberry Road, have been received and will be added under Section VIII.
MOTION: To APPROVE the Added Agenda Items.
Osborn moved/Thibodeau seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – 3/7/07 including amendments to 11/01/06, 12/6/06, and 1/3/07:
Chairwoman Kehoe reported that Lori Holden has resigned as the Commission’s Recording Secretary; the Commission thanks her for her time with them.
Chairwoman Kehoe noted the Minutes for March 7, 2007 are available for approval but not all members in attendance are present this evening.
MOTION: To TABLE the Minutes of March 7, 2007 until the Commission’s next meeting.
Ceppetelli moved/Osborn seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION: To GO OUT OF ORDER to take the scheduled Hearing for 58, 64, 70, 76, and 82 Winkler Road prior to the other Hearings.
Ceppetelli moved/Osborn seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (On Inland Wetlands Applications)/B. 58, 64, 70, 76, & 82 Winkler Road – Continued Public Hearing on the application of LTP Realty, Inc., (Peter Nguyen) to conduct regulated activities associated with a 5 lot single family residential re-subdivision. Total parcel is 17.32 acres, served by public water and sewer. (28 day extended deadline to close hearing ends 4/4/07):
MOTION: To CONTINUE the Public Hearing on the Application of LTP Realty, Inc., (Peter Nguyen) to conduct regulated activities associated with a 5-lot single family residential re-subdivision. Total parcel is 17.32 acres, served by public water and sewer.
Osborn moved/Thibodeau seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Present to give a presentation was Attorney Dorry Famiglietti of Kahan and Capossella; David Kuzmak, representative for the Applicant; Jay Ussery and Tim Coon of J. R. Russo & Associates; and George Logan of REMA Ecological Services, soil scientist.
Attorney Famiglietti reported that their presentation started on February 7th, was continued to March 7th, and was continued to tonight to enable them to come up with plan alternatives for the 5 residential locations, as nearly all of the site is within the 150’ buffer area.
Plans revised to 4/3/2007 should be referenced as submitted that evening which reflects Lots #2 and #4 with a shared driveway.
Mr. Ussery began his presentation with discussion of Lot 5, noting that at the previous meeting some Commissioners voiced concerns that the access area coming in the driveway wasn’t wide enough for buffer plantings. Mr. Ussery indicated they are proposing a 12’ wide driveway, with 6’ of snow shelf on each side which effectively gives the location a 24’ driveway. Outside of that they will install native buffer plantings and shrubs as proposed by George Logan; the wetlands begin outside the buffer area. The cross-hatched area shown on the sketch is the Conservation Easement. Mr. Ussery indicated it’s their opinion that they have plenty of room; Attorney Famiglietti suggested the 6’ snow shelf was an extension and they then pushed out the buffer
plantings to protect the plantings further.
Referencing his sketch again, Mr. Ussery noted the “selected thinning area” which would be an area within the lot where they are leaving larger canopy trees for shade. They would then leave most of the remaining area woods.
Mr. Ussery noted the Commissioners had also expressed concern regarding livability space within the lots. With regard to Lot #5, they are showing the ability to have a 16’ x 12’ shed, the area back from the house which could be utilized as lawn is 4100 square feet, and there is 2,500 square feet of selected thinning area, for a total of 6,600 square feet of livability area. As a comparison Mr. Ussery suggested this amount of livability space is approximately 6 times the size of this meeting room; that amount of area should be enough room for the average homeowners for a back yard. As an additional measure to mark the buffer area Mr. Ussery noted they have added split rail fencing starting at the Conservation Easement and running along the buffer plantings and continuing to the front of the
lot where it stops at the beginning of the driveway. The split rail fence lets the homeowners know they can’t encroach beyond that point. Attorney Famiglietti suggested they have proposed the fence, at the suggestion of George Logan, so it will be easy for the homeowners to delineate the Conservation Easement, although there will be language on the deed as well.
Mr. Ussery summarized that Lot #5 is a total of 3.05 acres in which there is 1.63 acres of upland area; there is no wetlands disturbance involved on this lot.
Attorney Famiglietti also noted that Commissioner Osborn was concerned that the drainage from the driveway would run out onto Winkler Road which has no drainage itself. She indicated they are now proposing to drain the runoff away from Winkler Road.
Mr. Ussery then referenced Lot #1, which is south of the railroad tracks. He noted they have added more area to the rear yard; from the back of the house to the rear is 5,100 square feet of livability space. They are also showing the ability to have a 16’ x 12’ shed. Mr. Ussery noted the amount of livability space for Lot #1 is 5 times the area of this meeting room. They have also added additional buffer plantings in the rear along the back of the lawn, and the split rail fence along the north side going to the back and inside the buffer plantings. On the other side of the lot they have added some buffer plantings on the lower side of the retaining wall proposed to the rear of the house. Mr. Ussery indicated they are showing a house footprint of
30’ x 40’. Attorney Famiglietti suggested the concern voiced by the Commission previously was that the plantings on the high side of the retaining wall were not within the Conservation Easement. They felt the best solution was to move the conservation plantings into the Conservation Easement; the split rail fence replaces the conservation plantings on the top of the wall. The mitigation plantings have now been moved to the bottom of the retaining wall and are now in the wetlands. Where there are spaces between the shrubs they would add inter-plantings as suggested by George Logan to create a denser habitat Mr. Ussery suggested Lot #1 contains 4.5 acres, with 1.68 acres within the upland area. Mr. Ussery noted the garage
floor elevation is 110 so the driveway will grade back and run off to the side and into the wetlands rather than running into the street.
With regard to Lots #2, #3, and #4 Mr. Ussery noted the Commission was concerned with the run off from the driveways crossing lots and collecting in Winkler Road. Mr. Ussery indicated they have created a common driveway for Lots #2 and Lots #4, and will be bringing the utilities in the same way. Lot #4 will have in excess of 10,000 square feet of lawn area, which will give the homeowner the ability to have the same 16’ x 12’ shed. Attorney Famiglietti suggested that most of the 10,000 square foot area is relatively open now. They are also showing a split rail fence to delineate the wetlands area on Lot #4. Lot #4 contains 4.32 acres, with 1.4 acres of upland area.
With regard to Lot #2, there is 9,000 square feet of area to the back of the proposed house; Mr. Ussery suggested they are showing the ability for the homeowner to have the same 16’ x 12’ shed. The wetlands are to the north; they are also showing the split rail fence running along the lawn 200’ in length and ending at the driveway. The total area of Lot #2 is 4.5 acres, with an upland area of 3.03 acres.
Mr. Ussery noted they are proposing 7000 square feet of lawn area for Lot #3 and 5,500 square feet of selective thinning area for a livability space in excess of 12,000 square feet; the homeowner would have the ability to have the same 16’ x 12’ shed.
Attorney Famiglietti noted that they have added new areas to the Conservation Easement on Lots #2 and#4 where they have taken some area away from the Conservation Easement as previously proposed. They were offering 12. 2 acres of Conservation Easement previously; now they are proposing 12.81 acres as Conservation Easement which is 70% of the site. Mr. Ussery suggested that most of the increase came from eliminating the driveway to the back lot and creating the common driveway to Lots #2 and Lot #4. Mr. Coon suggested there is another area in the upland corner of Lot #2 which was previously not included; it’s separated from the rest of the lot and has no use for development so they are including that area in the Conservation Easement as well.
Also, with regard to the drainage run off from Lot 3, they previously had the driveway on both sides which produced sheet flow off to the north and south. By removing that driveway it will continue the sheet flow into the wetlands on the north side. They discussed Town Engineer Norton’s recommendation to put in a swale to collect the run off before it gets to the driveway. Mr. Coon suggested they presented a similar plan at the last meeting, but with the development of the shared driveway it will add a cushion where the swale was to collect the run off from Lot #3 and there will be a right-do-drain from Lot #3 to Lot #2 and on Lot #4 to Lot #2.
With regard to the grading, Mr. Coon indicated that the long driveway was graded with a bump to keep the run off from running into Winkler Road, the shorter driveway now will
run water to the south. That is sandy soil and the area is flat; most rainwater that falls will go into the ground. They will have one concentrated run off into the swale.
Mr. Coon also noted they have added the following notes to the plans:
1) regarding the concern about brush and chips and clearing debris, the note indicates demolition debris must be taken off site.
2) with regard to accessory buildings they have added sheds which are conceptual items and would be subject to return this Commission for a change of location.
Attorney Famiglietti noted the sheds have been shown on the plans to show there is livability space on these lots, and to demonstrate there is useful area in the land. They wanted to note the locations of the sheds and house footprints but any change in location would be subject to approval by this Commission.
Mr. Coon further indicated that notes have been added to the plans that native plantings must be used.
Town Engineer Norton, speaking from the audience, noted he has reviewed the plans with the Applicant and is happy with the revisions. He wanted piping under the driveways and they are now proposing that situation; that change will make staff’s lives much more pleasant when it rains and during the Winter.
George Logan joined the presentation, noting their role was to come up with alternatives. He felt the map being used for the presentation helped everyone a great deal; using the different colors made it easier to see the livability space and snow shelf and the split rail fence is a reminder of the land which is not to be touched. He was excited about getting rid of the impervious surface by eliminating one driveway which then gave them more Conservation Easement. He suggested there is a small space on Lot #3 in the Conservation Easement that could be filled in with plantings. Mr. Logan suggested this alternative enhances his opinion that the soil being sandy and the flow path to the wetlands being long enough and the lack of severe slopes – the end result is there is no adverse impact
on the wetlands from the minute run off on Lot #1.
Commissioner Ceppetelli felt the addition of the split rail fence to delineate the wetlands was a good idea as it will last for 10 or 15 years but he questioned how long the fence would last?
Commissioner Ceppetelli questioned that the retaining wall on Lot #1 is outside the Conservation Easement and the plantings on top are inside the Conservation Easement? Wetlands Agent Rudek suggested the fence is part of the plan filed with the Subdivision
and Site Plan and is enforceable. With the wetlands it’s only a 5 year requirement. Mr. Ussery noted that with the Kingshire Estates Subdivision (Rye Street) they were required to install a fence along the back of the property for safety issues because of the proximity of the gun club beyond the Conservation Easement; that fence is reflected on the Subdivision Plan. Mr. Ceppetelli agreed it was understandable when the roads and the houses are built but he questioned if the homeowners can be forced to replace the fence in the future? Attorney Famiglietti suggested the Inland/Wetlands Commission is giving a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) on the Subdivision Plans, so if you wanted to give a recommendation that the mitigation plantings and split rail fence
be retained that would be workable. Wetlands Agent Rudek suggested that technically the Conservation Easement is a referral to the PZC as well.
Commissioner Ceppetelli questioned that when the Applicant purchased this parcel it was part of the Newberry Village project? Mr. Ussery suggested there were multiple parcels that were put together and purchased at the same time by the Applicant; he didn’t recall if this parcel was a separate piece. There were probably 3 to 4 parcels put together for Newberry village; this parcel was left out of Newberry Village. Chairwoman Kehoe concurred that notations indicated “this piece was left out of Newberry Village for possible future development.”
Commissioner Ceppetelli recommended a condition mandating “no pools” be placed on Lots #1 and Lot #5; he would actually like to see that condition on every lot possible because of the proximity to the wetlands. Attorney Famiglietti indicated the Applicant had no objection to the condition on Lots #1 and #5, and the other lots, if the Commission felt it was necessary.
Commissioner Osborn noted the area nearby Lot #5 where people dump unwanted materials; he felt it will be tough to regulate that dumping later on. People will be back there doing the same thing and who will see it until it’s too late.
Chairwoman Kehoe cited Mr. Logan’s report and the conclusions stated within. She referenced his comments regarding the huge pressure put on homeowners to have a pretty green yard. She sited Agway was packed before the rain by people wanting to get Step One (fertilizer) down. Chairwoman Kehoe cited she referred to the “Considerations for Decisions” the Commission reviews, noting that the short term impact to the site - once you get in and start the actual construction process you go in through the envelopes, which is good. The long term impact is constantly more grading and pushing out the boundaries of the yards.
Chairwoman Kehoe suggested the whole of Lots #2, #3, and #4 are completely within the upland review area. She really liked the elimination of the one driveway within those lots. Chairwoman Kehoe felt Lots #2, #3, and #4 have great livability area and any impact in the yard area is doable; a real family can live in that house and she isn’t worried about the impact on the wetlands.
Chairwoman Kehoe requested clarification of the acreage and size of the upland review area for Lot #1. Mr. Ussery suggested Lot #1 contains 4.5 acres, with 1.68 acres within the upland area. Chairwoman Kehoe referenced Section 9.2(f) under “Consideration for Decisions” - Impacts reasonably related to proposed regulated activity – with regard to Lots #1 and #5, you have done much to make them livable but the footprint of the house is such that – at 2400 square feet – especially in Lot #5 they are sandwiched between significant wetlands and she is still not in a place where she is comfortable. Chairwoman Kehoe suggested she loved the proposal for the split rail fences but agreed with Commissioner Ceppetelli that they are short term solutions.
Chairwoman Kehoe indicated she was comfortable with the culvert vs. the sheet flow issue.
Mr. Ussery suggested the back yard for Lot #5 is about 135’ wide from wetland to wetland, then it gets a little narrower to about 110’; he noted that much of the wetlands are in the Conservation Easement. Mr. Ussery felt 110’ is large enough to have a useable back yard. Commissioner Ceppetelli questioned the depth of that area? Mr. Ussery replied it would be about 50’ of maintained lawn. Chairwoman Kehoe suggested that even though it’s a nice sized lawn it’s sandwiched between sizeable wetlands; it’s Spring and it’s wet. Mr. Ussery suggested he drove by there today; there are a few pocketed areas of wetlands but there is no sitting water where the houses would be.
Mr. Coon suggested that all basement floors for the 5 houses will include footing drains that will drain to the wetlands. Chairwoman Kehoe cited a current problem with homes on Rockville Road with similar situations. Wetlands Agent Rudek noted she has visited the property with the North Central Health District (NCHD); they found the water table to be very high. She suggested that as the enforcement person who gets the complaints she wants to be assured the basements won’t fill with water. Mr. Ussery reviewed the basement elevations of each lot in relation to the existing ground. Commissioner Osborn questioned if they will be bringing much fill into the property? Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively.
Chairwoman Kehoe noted the report did bring up the issue of possible pools on the adjacent property, and she noted the Conservation Easements join with the upland habitat provided by Lot #5. She suggested the area removed concerns her. Commissioner Ceppetelli questioned the distance from the house and wall from the wetlands on Lot #5? Mr. Ussery noted the closest point is the garage at 20’, the back corner of the house is 26’ to 27’ from the upland review area, and it’s 36’ from the back corner of the house to the wall.
Chairwoman Kehoe queried the audience for comments; no one requested to speak.
Attorney Famiglietti asked to clarify that with regard to Lot #5 she was hearing concern about activity within the buffer, such as fertilization and maintenance of the yard, will have an adverse impact on the buffer? Chairwoman Kehoe concurred, and added the homeowners habits would have an impact as well. Attorney Famiglietti felt it was hard to assess potential homeowners habits; it’s a speculative issue. She suggested they can try to build conditions of approval with the Inland/Wetlands and Planning and Zoning Commissions to encourage the homeowners to be good stewards.
Mr. Logan stepped forward to address the issue of the impact of fertilization of the lawns. He suggested the issue is the nitrogen that is soluble, and the vertical sensitivity of the wetlands. With regard to Lot #5 Mr. Logan felt they will have a lawn for which the nutrients will fan out; if it did have an impact it would be at the edge of the wetlands and then would spread out and it couldn’t be measured. With regard to Lot #1 Mr. Logan felt you might see some impact but not an adverse impact.
Commissioner Ceppetelli questioned about the impact of pesticides and mosquito control sprays? Mr. Logan felt it would be silly to spray in the wetlands; people might spray on the perimeter. Commissioner Ceppetelli questioned the impact of the worse case scenario – using the worse materials? Mr. Logan suggested then they would kill all insects and the food chain will break down and some species will die off.
Attorney Famiglietti felt the Commission also expressed concern with removal of upland habitat on Lot #5 and the effect on vernal pools, etc. on Newberry Road. Chairwoman Kehoe suggested the Commission is looking to not remove any upland review area, as she felt that was unnecessary. Attorney Famiglietti felt the removal of the uplands area wouldn’t have an adverse impact on any wetlands it surrounds. She suggested this is a 17.32 acre site; she felt it’s a low density development with creation of the 5 lots; 12.81 acres - 70% of the site - will be retained in a Conservation Easement. Attorney Familigetti suggested there is no activity within the wetlands; the activity is limited to 150’ buffer area and it is 2.46 acres of disturbance which is less than the 2.66
acres of disturbance originally proposed. She felt they have reached a nice balance of keeping the property in its native state and development. Attorney Famiglietti suggested they are proposing nothing that will have a corresponding adverse impact on the surrounding wetlands. She reiterated she felt the human impact is difficult to assess as you don’t know who will be a good or a bad stewards. She felt even the bad apples can be contained.
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Osborn moved/Ceppetelli seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 9:20 p.m. and RECONVENED at 9:30 p.m.
Attorney Famiglietti reiterated they feel they have built in enough checks to protect the wetlands from bad apples by giving enough livable area. She noted the least livable space is 5,100 square feet, which is significant; they will also be notifying homeowners legally in the deed that the plans are subject to Conservation Easements which are visually apparent by wetlands markers and the fence. Attorney Famiglietti suggested the Town also has enforcement ability, although they feel they have designed the lots such that enforcement won’t be an issue. Attorney Famiglietti suggested they are avoiding any direct impact on the wetlands; the only impact will be working within the buffer and those activities shall end. Long term there will be no adverse impact on the
wetlands. Attorney Famiglietti reiterated again that she feels this is a low density development; they are proposing over 70% of the site will be protected by a Conservation Easement. She restated they feel they have struck a good balance between protection of the wetlands and development.
Chairwoman Kehoe conferred with the Commission, noting they could close the Hearing tonight and make a decision within 35 days.
MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of LTP Realty, Inc., (Peter Nguyen) for 58, 64, 70, 76, & 82 Winkler Road to conduct regulated activities associated with a 5-lot single family residential re-subdivision. Total parcel is 17.32 acres, served by public water and sewer.
Osborn moved/Thibodeau seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION: To APPROVE the Application of LTP Realty, Inc., (Peter Nguyen) for 58, 64, 70, 76, & 82 Winkler Road with the elimination of Lot #1 and Lot #5.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ceppetelli questioned if the Commission should Deny the entire Application without Prejudice as the Commission has made it apparent in past meetings that those two lots were unacceptable. Chairwoman Kehoe thanked the Applicant for proposing options down there; she felt the Applicant has done the best they could with that end of the site. Chairwoman Kehoe applauded the Applicant for the significant amount of Conservation Easement and the fences, but noted that whatever you do down there, and the Commission has reasonably stated in the Public Hearings, that lot (#5) isn’t viable. Chairwoman Kehoe felt Lots #2, #3, and #4 were great lots. Commissioner Ceppetelli questioned the legality of approving less than what was submitted; Wetlands Agent
Rudek advised the Commission they were within their legal right to approve less than what has been submitted. Commissioner Ceppetelli concurred that the 3 lots in the middle (Lots #2, #3, and #4) are feasible and decent size. Commissioner Osborn had no additional comments. Chairwoman Kehoe suggested that Lots #2, #3, and #4, especially with the second driveway removed – she felt everyone was comfortable with those lots. She suggested the Commission has stated clearly their concerns for the homeowners habits. Chairwoman Kehoe suggested that even with the smaller houses – the Applicant has done a lot to make useable space but it still makes Lot #5 less than ideal. She felt that under the Considerations for Decision Lot #5 still won’t make it under the future impacts that could be reasonably related to the homeowners activities. Discussion continued regarding revision of the proposed Application;
Chairwoman Kehoe felt approving the Application with the elimination of Lots #1 and #5 was a good choice. Commissioner Osborn felt approval of Lot #5 could have an adverse affect on the wetlands; Commissioner Ceppetelli concurred that the potential was there on both lots. The Commission discussed the conditions prohibiting pools on lots, fencing must remain on buffer area, modification of condition #13, page 2 of 9 of the plans to include: “accessory structures and potential pools require review by the Inland/Wetlands Agency.” Chairwoman Kehoe suggested page 19 of REMA’s report dated 10/30/2006 by George Logan makes reference to a Reminder Notice to be provided annually for the first 2 years after purchase to homeowners; that note should now include notation that “accessory structures and potential pools require review by the Inland/Wetlands Agency.”
Chairwoman Kehoe volunteered to write the necessary letter.
The approval motion then reads:
MOTION: To APPROVE the Application of LTP Realty, Inc., (Peter Nguyen) for 58, 64, 70, 76, & 82 Winkler Road with the elimination of Lot #1 and Lot #5.
CONDITIONS:
1) Approval is subject to the elimination of Lots 1 and 5, thus remaining lots for wetland approval will be Lots 2, 3, & 4 or as addressed as 64, 70, 76 Winkler Road.
2) A note is to be added to the final plans that states: “Any proposed accessory
structures require review by the East Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency prior to receiving a zoning or building permit.
3) Note #13 on Map page 2 of 9 to be modified to include swimming pools.
4) Note #13 will also be included in the “Reminder Notice” that will be provided annually to homeowners for the first two years after purchase. Reminder Notice to be written by the Chairman and become part of the file for future homeowners.
Osborn moved/Ceppetelli seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
VI. CONTINUED APPLICATIONS OR BUSINESS: None.
VII. NEW BUSINESS/A. 68 Newberry Road – Request for modification to existing permit #1391 for an expansion of parking and storage areas for contractors storage yard and addition of volume reduction facilities:
Chairman Kehoe read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this permit modification was Steve Dearborn.
Mr. Dearborn advised the Commission he has not expanded anything, he didn’t touch anything, he hasn’t gone any further into the wetlands than what was approved the last time. Mr. Dearborn referenced on the plan where his activities are occurring. Chairwoman Kehoe questioned that the area marked yellow on the plan was the upland review area? Mr. Dearborn referenced his plan again, citing he didn’t feel he had to return to the Commission as he didn’t do anything; the red area is where he was; he went out into the light green area with his expansion. Chairwoman Kehoe noted anything within the 150’ area needs to come before the Commission; if the Applicant is back to the wetlands with his activities any run off will impact that wetlands. Mr.
Dearborn indicated it will be a cornfield.
Chairwoman Kehoe suggested that when Mr. Dearborn came in previously they were under the impression it would be a contractor’s storage yard; now she understands he is to put in a sewer hook up and bathrooms. Mr. Dearborn indicated he didn’t want to do the sewer because he has a well. Wetlands Agent Rudek reported she understood the well was polluted; Mr. Dearborn suggested he has no report saying that. Chairwoman Kehoe requested Mr. Dearborn provide the Commission with a letter saying the water is good; Mr. Dearborn replied he would provide that letter.
Chairwoman Kehoe advised Mr. Dearborn that he needs to locate the existing well on the plan before them. She further advised Mr. Dearborn that it was her understanding from the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) that they might require the Applicant to hook up to the WPCA; she advised Mr. Dearborn he needs to provide the Commission with a letter from the WPCA regarding their position, and the sewer hookup needs to be added to the plan. Chairwoman Kehoe questioned if Mr. Dearborn was using a septic system? Mr. Dearborn stated he wasn’t required to hook up to the sewer until the bathroom fails. Chairwoman Kehoe advised Mr. Dearborn that the Application is at the point where a full plan, as is required of anyone else, is required from him; the plan must show the location of the
wetlands, the location of the septic/sewer and well and if the well is adjacent to wetlands.
Chairwoman Kehoe questioned Mr. Dearborn what he was doing with a berm? Mr. Dearborn opposed the need to do these requirements; he suggested he did his expansion without going into the wetlands so it would work for him, now he’s hearing he needs to show all these locations. Discussion continued, heatedly at times; Wetlands Agent Rudek noted these are requirements of the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) as well. Approval/letter of feasibility is needed from NCHD for the well and the bathroom; Wetlands Agent Rudek felt Mr. Dearborn will be required to hook up to the WPCA. Commissioner Ceppetelli noted if the sewer line is within the 150’ buffer area it will impact it. Chairwoman Kehoe suggested Mr. Dearborn had an existing permit; he could continue to work within the
previous approval. Mr. Dearborn noted he needs to go before the PZC for a recycling permit (permit being applied for is actually a volume reduction permit).
Chairwoman Kehoe returned discussion to the berm. She noted that a berm stops the run off from going anywhere; her concern is expanding that any further. Mr. Dearborn suggested he wants to plant corn; a planted field will stop the run off. Wetlands Agent Rudek referenced Town Engineer Norton’s comments from his memo of 3/28/2007 recommending installation of silt fencing. Chairwoman Kehoe suggested if there is no physical delineation of the piles they will expand; one of the reasons for the installation of silt fence is to see where you will stop. Commissioner Osborn suggested installation of jersey barriers as a serious boundary that won’t be expanded. Chairwoman Kehoe questioned Mr. Dearborn if he was amenable to putting in jersey barriers; Mr. Dearborn
replied affirmatively. Discussion continued regarding the areas of installation. Wetlands Agent Rudek noted the southern boundary where jersey barriers will replace the previously recommended silt fence must also be shown on the plans.
The Commission determined installation of a sewer hook up would be a separate application.
Chairwoman Kehoe reiterated the requirements previously stated: revised plans showing location of well, proximity of well to wetlands, location of wetlands, location of septic system, letter of approval/feasibility from the North Central Health District regarding well and septic system, and location along southern boundary of jersey barriers where silt fence is now shown.
MOTION: To APPROVE the Application of Steven Dearborn for 68 Newberry Road – Request for modification to existing permit #1391 for an expansion of parking and storage areas for contractors storage yard and addition of volume reduction facilities:
CONDITIONS/ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS:
Revised plans will be submitted to depict:
· Jersey barriers to replace the silt fence shown on the plan along the southern boundary between the edge of the business location and the wetlands. The barriers will be positioned in the same location and equivalent length as the silt fence.
· Location of the septic system and well to be shown on plans, if use is approved by the North Central District Health Department.
· Location of sewer line to be shown on plans if hook-up to sanitary sewer is required.
· Submittal of applicable approval letter from either WPCA or NCHD for sewage disposal.
Osborn moved/Ceppetelli seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Chairwoman Kehoe noted the time is 10:30 p.m.; the Commission bylaws require consideration of continuation or adjournment of the meeting.
MOTION: To CONTINUE THIS MEETING until 11:00 p.m.
Osborn moved/Ceppetelli seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION: To CONTINUE the Application for 256 & 260 Scantic Road – Application of Frances Borys to conduct regulated activities associated with a 2-lot subdivision. Total parcel is 12.97 acres, served by private well and septic system.
Thibodeau moved/Osborn seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
VIII. NEW APPLICATIONS TO BE RECEIVED/A. 256 & 260 Scantic Road – Application of Frances Borys to conduct regulated activities associated with a 2-lot subdivision. Total parcel is 12.97 acres, served by private well and septic system:
Chairwoman Kehoe read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Todd Clark of Aschelmann Engineering.
Mr. Clark indicated the house is set back from the road into a regulated area because they have an approved septic system back there and the proposed building area is approved. Testing was done by the North Central Health District (NCHD) from February through June 2006; they were not satisfied with the results and want to test for another year. Mrs. Borys needs to sell so they are coming in with the 2 lots now, with the potential for a 3rd lot in the future. Wetlands Agent Rudek requested clarification that they are looking to subdivide the property? Mr. Clark replied affirmatively. He suggested the front lots are ok from an engineering aspect but the NCHD is cautious. Mr. Clark indicated they have 274’ between the wetlands and the house location.
Chairwoman Kehoe noted that if they subdivide the property with the house in the regulated area the livable space gets severely decreased. Mr. Clark felt the Commission had the option to deny that at the point of presentation.
Mr. Clark indicated that Wetlands Agent Rudek suggested creation of a Conservation Easement; they are agreeable to that suggestion.
Wetlands Agent Rudek questioned the chances of having more information in the next month? Mr. Clark reiterated NCHD went into June last year; testing usually goes into April. Wetlands Agent Rudek felt it was a tough call for the Commission to approve a house this close to the wetlands with so much tentative information.
MOTION: To ACCEPT RECEIPT OF APPLICATION for 256 & 260 Scantic Road – Application of Frances Borys to conduct regulated activities associated with a 2-lot subdivision. Total parcel is 12.97 acres, served by private well and septic system.
Osborn moved/Thibodeau seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION: To ACCEPT RECEIPT OF APPLICATION for:
Hayfield Lane – Application of Gaeton Letourneau to conduct regulated activities associated with 10 single family lots. Total parcel is 16.32 acres, located on the west side of Rye Street approximately 1500 feet from Norton Road, served by public water and septic system.
AND
96 Newberry Road – Application of East Windsor Limited Partnership to conduct regulated activities associates with a 6-lot industrial subdivision with reconstruction of approximately 2700 feet of roadway to meet town standards. Total parcel is 91.37 acres, served by public water and sewer.
Osborn moved/Thibodeau seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
IX. MISCELLANEOUS: Nothing.
X. AGENT DECISIONS: No discussion.
XI. VIOLATIONS (for action or show-cause hearing)/A. Property located north side of Chamberlain Road:
Wetlands Agent Rudek reported she has spoken to the engineer for Rejean Realty and Mr. Jacques; both have said the activity is over 150’ away from the wetlands area of concern. The engineer has attached a map to support his claim. Wetlands Agent Rudek indicated they will be coming in for a Special Use Permit and will come before the Commission at that time. She noted that the farm road was raised, as a result there was a lot of run off, which caused her concerns.
XII. STATUS REPORTS/A. Status of farming activities on Town owned land:
Wetlands Agent Rudek reported if Mr. Reichle plans to dredge the pond on the Kogut property then he must go through numerous steps with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Mr. Reichle is coming in and they will meet with First Selectman
Filipone to decide if they want to continue the agreement. Wetlands Agent Rudek indicated there is not enough Town staff to work through this proposal; Mr. Reichle needs to work with the environmental professionals.
Chairwoman Kehoe noted concern has been raised that work on this pond, which feeds the Reservoir/East Windsor Park, will contaminate the water which comprises a major portion of the park’s attraction. Commissioner Thibodeau questioned what the pond was needed for? Wetlands Agent Rudek felt perhaps it was for irrigation. Commissioner Ceppetelli cited another concern, noting that if there is not enough water flow into the Reservoir/East Windsor Park then the bacteria count will go up. The park is a Town facility, as is the Kogut property. If Mr. Reichle is dredging the pond or using it as a water source for irrigation that will affect the situation at the park.
Chairwoman Kehoe advised Wetlands Agent Rudek that the Commission feels if the pond is to be used as irrigation or to be dredged Mr. Reichle needs to go through the DEP.
On a second issue Wetlands Agent Rudek reported she received a message from the DEP asking why a lot of fill from Blue Back Square is being dropped at 237 Main Street. Wetlands Agent Rudek will follow up on this issue.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (On Inland Wetlands Applications)/A. East Windsor Inland Wetland & Watercourse Regulations – Continued Public Hearing on proposed amendments Regulations:
MOTION: To OPEN THE HEARING ON the East Windsor Inland Wetland & Watercourse Regulations – Continued Public Hearing on proposed amendments Regulations.
Ceppetelli moved/Thibodeau seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION: To CONTINUE the Public Hearing on the East Windsor Inland Wetland & Watercourse Regulations – Continued Public Hearing on proposed amendments Regulations.
Ceppetelli moved/Thibodeau seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
XII. CONFERENCES/SEMINARS/TRAINING/2007 Municipal Inland Wetland Commissioners Training Program:
Chairwoman Kehoe reported Session II will be held at the DEP on July 10th, in Dayville, CT. The following members have confirmed their desire to attend – Chairwoman Kehoe and Commissioners Warren and Ceppetelli – and Commissioner Thibodeau is considering attending.
XIV. CORRESPONDENCE: None.
XV. ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Ceppetelli moved/Thibodeau seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary, East Windsor Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Watercourse Agency
| 
