TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
INLAND/WETLANDS WATERCOURSE AGENCY
Regular Meeting
June 3, 2009
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ceppetelli called the Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
Present: Regular Members Michael Ceppetelli (Chairman), Michael Koczera, John Malin, Richard Osborn, Michael Sawka, Ron Savaria, and Alternate Members Alan Baker, John Burnham, and Kathryn Roloff.
Unable to Attend: Regular Member Robert Slate.
Chairman Ceppetelli noted the establishment of a quorum with six Regular Members and three Alternate members. Chairman Ceppetelli reported the Alternates will serve, in rotation, on each application as it comes before the Board. Also present was Wetlands Agent Newton.
LET THE RECORD SHOW Deputy Selectman Gil Hayes, the Board of Selectmen’s liaison to this Commission, also attended the meeting.
ADDED AGENDA ITEMS: None.
Chairman Ceppetelli reported Wetlands Agent Newton’s advisement that the Agenda Item Newberry Village - Site Inspections posted on the Agenda under STATUS REPORTS should actually be reflected under VIOLATIONS.
MOTION: To MOVE Newberry Village - Site Inspections from the heading STATUS REPORTS to VIOLATIONS (FOR ACTION OR SHOW-CAUSE HEARING).
Savaria moved/Osborn seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 5/6/09:
MOTION: To ACCEPT the Minutes of Regular Meeting dated May 6, 2009 with the following amendments:
NEW PUBLIC HEARING (on Inland Wetlands Applications/1) North Road - Page 3, Paragraph One: “......There is a guardrail and wetlands on the north side of North Road in this location; the line will go back into the shoulder.......”(comma changed to semi-colon); same paragraph, final sentence: The sewer line will range from 6” laterals to a 24” pipe at the pump station; the depth of disturbance is 6’ to 50’ 15’. Paragraph 5, Page 3: request for review of the spelling of “fragmities” vs. “phragmities”, spellcheck continues to show spelling as “fragmities”. Paragraph 9, Page 3, final sentence: “Wetlands Agent Newton clarified that the
permit would be good for 5 years, but work in the regulated area needs to be finished start in 1 year”. Page 4, Paragraph 9: “Wetlands Agent Newton recommended adding a condition to extend the 1 year start requirement to 5 years.” Page 4, Paragraph 10/MOTION: “.........Additional Conditions: 1) incorporate use of seed mixture blankets in close proximity to the wetlands, and 2) extend to five (5) years the one (1) year requirement to finish start the regulated activity.”
NEW PUBLIC HEARING (on Inland Wetlands applications/2) 10 Shoham Road: Page 6, Paragraph 5: “Commissioner Roloff requested identified identification of the test pits on a larger map.” Page 8, Paragraph 6: “........The installation of the new plunge pool was noted; it was felt that most likely the installation occurred over the property line.” Page 10, Paragraph 7, final sentence: “That dentition detention basin was built for that particular facility and functioned as it was designed.” Page 11, Paragraph 5, final sentence: “Commissioner Roloff reported she has a baccalaureate in environmental
chemistry.”
Osborn moved/Savaria seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Ceppetelli/Koczera/Osborn/Savaria/Baker/Burnham/Roloff
Opposed: No one
Abstained: Malin/Sawka
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (on Inland Wetland applications)/1): 244 & 246 South Main Street - Application of All American Products Corp. to conduct regulated activities associated with culvert extension and backfill to create a storage area. Total parcel is 42.6 acres. (Public Hearing period ends June 3, 2009):
Chairman Ceppetelli read the Hearing description. Commissioner Baker recalled he had rounded out the Board regarding this Application during a previous meeting.
Wetlands Agent Newton noted the Applicant has requested an extension to the Commission’s next regularly scheduled meeting. Chairman Ceppetelli noted the Commission has two options: 1) grant the Applicant’s request to extend the Hearing, or 2) to deny the Application without prejudice which allows the Applicant to return with a new Application. Wetlands Agent Newton reported the Application has been before the Commission for two months; no new information has been submitted. The Commission is within its rights to deny the Application without prejudice. The Commission has acted on the violation issue; that won’t affect the DEP review. This is a totally new application.
Mr. Ussery, (of J. R. Russo and Associates) who had represented the Applicant regarding this Application, advised the Commission they have located another site to take this material; that site does not involve wetlands. Development of a plan requires them to work with the Planning Office. As of today the Applicant has not authorized J. R. Russo to go ahead with that plan.
MOTION: To DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Application for 244 & 246 South Main Street - Application of All American products Corp. to conduct regulated activities associated with culvert extension and backfill to create a storage area. Total parcel is 42.6 acres. Application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to lack of information.
Savaria moved/Osborn seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Ceppetelli/Koczera/Osborn/Savaria/Malin/Sawka/Baker)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (on Inland Wetlands applications/2) 10 Shoham Road - Application of U. S. A. Hauling & Recycling, Inc., for activities associated with drainage improvements to a storage area created on fill placed in regulated area. Total parcel is 9.2 acres served by public water and public sewer. (35-day Public Hearing period ends June 10, 2009):
Chairman Ceppetelli read the Hearing description. LET THE RECORD SHOW Alternate Commissioner Roloff joined the Regular Commission Members with regard to actions taken on this Application.
Wetlands Agent Newton submitted a packet of new information to the Commission at this Meeting. (The packet include two letters dated June 2, 2009 from Attorney Charles D. Houlihan, Jr., representing Down Realty, LLC [Intervenor], two memos dated June 3, 2009 from Town Engineer Norton in response to Attorney Houlihan’s letters, one letter from Michael Gragnolati [soil scientist] responding to Wetlands Agent Newton’s request for information dated May 28, 2009, and Wetlands Agent Newton’s memo dated June 3, 2009 to the Inland/Wetlands Commission). Wetlands Agent Newton noted she had received two e-mails, which were essentially Attorney Houlihan’s letters, yesterday afternoon when she was not present in the Planning Office. She asked Town Engineer Norton to review
the documents today; he stayed until 6 p.m. to prepare the responses for the Commission’s review at this Meeting.
Chairman Ceppetelli questioned Attorney Houlihan why he submitted this information yesterday, as they’ve had two months to respond to this Application? Attorney Houlihan indicated he had submitted other information earlier, but just found out this week that there were two drainage maps under review. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested the Commission take a fifteen minute recess to review the information before proceeding with the Hearing.
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK TO REVIEW NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED AT THIS MEETING ON JUNE 3, 2009
Roloff moved/Osborn seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 7:20 p.m.
MOTION: To RECONVENE this Meeting at 7:36 p.m.
Roloff moved/Savaria seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECONVENED the Meeting at 7:36 p.m.
Wetlands Agent Newton reported that after the last meeting additional information was submitted, some in response to her request for more information, and some in response to information brought up during the last Public Hearing. One of the issues under discussion was the Intervenor status. The Town Attorney said the first Notice of Intervention was not done properly with regard to CGSA statutes. There was also a question as to when the drainage issue began. Michael Gragnolati, Soil Scientist, provided a letter regarding the affect of filling adjacent to the wetlands in the upland review area.. There was another letter dated May 28, 2009 from Attorney Houlian regarding the drainage on the site; a response to that letter including drainage calculations and site maps was
submitted by J. R. Russo. Wetlands Agent Newton noted she then requested more specific wetlands information from Michael Gragnolati. Town Engineer Norton reviewed both sets of plans. Wetlands Agent Newton reported she received two e-mails in the Planning Office today from Attorney Houlihan, one being a 4 page letter regarding drainage issues. Town Engineer Norton has responded to the issues raised in that letter. Wetlands Agent Newton also received a memo from Michael Gragnolati regarding the impact on the adjacent wetlands if the application was approved, and also the impact on the wetlands adjacent to Route 140. Wetlands Agent Newton also received another letter regarding the Intervenor Status; the Commission’s packet includes her memo addressing the Intervenor Status.
Chairman Ceppetelli summarized that the Commission must act on the request for Intervenor status by accepting either all facts listed or specific comments, or deny the request completely. Wetlands Agent Newton has made a recommendation that the Commission approve the Intervenor Status with regard to items #7, 11, 12, and 15 as specified in Attorney Houlihan’s letter dated June 2, 2009 as those items apply to the Commission’s jurisdiction, and all other items are specific to drainage issues.
Chairman Ceppetelli questioned Attorney Houlihan if his allegations regarding drainage calculations had been reviewed by a professional engineer? Attorney Houlihan suggested he submitted a letter at the last meeting which included comments made during analysis of the map with Ed Lally. Wetlands Agent Newton advised the Commission she had advised Attorney Houlihan to submit the comments on the letterhead of a professional engineer; the information submitted to the Commission are comments made by Attorney Houlihan. Chairman Ceppetelli suggested it’s difficult for the Commission to accept information unless it comes from a professional engineer or soil scientist, etc. Attorney Houlihan reported Mr. Lally had a conflict tonight; Chairman Ceppetelli suggested he could have submitted a letter
for the Commission’s review. Attorney Houlihan suggested they can make a presentation this evening.
Wetlands Agent Newton recommended the Commission take testimony regarding items #7, 11, 12, and 15 of Attorney Houlihan’s letter dated June 2, 2009. The comments were sent to the Town Attorney for his review. She later spoke with the Town Attorney; she and the Town Attorney are of the opinion that the drainage issues are meant for the consideration of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Town Attorney has cautioned the Commission not to address those issues unless they strictly pertain to the impact of the wetlands or watercourses. Chairman Ceppetelli asked Attorney Houlihan why all the items concerning drainage were included as part of the Wetlands Intervenor request as they are Planning and Zoning issues? Attorney Houlihan answered that he included as much as possible to see what
would be accepted and realizes that many of the items were Planning and Zoning issues.
MOTION: To ACCEPT THE INTERVENOR STATUS WITH REGARD TO ITEMS #7, 11, 12, AND 15 LISTED UNDER THE NOTICE OF INTERVENTION DATED JUNE 2, 2009 for the Application for 10 Shoham Road - Application of U. S. A. Hauling & Recycling, Inc., for activities associated with drainage improvements to a storage area created on fill placed in regulated area. Total parcel is 9.2 acres served by public water and public sewer.
Roloff moved/Koczera seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: (Ceppetelli/Koczera/Osborn/Savaria/Malin/Sawka/Roloff)
Present to discuss this Application was Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo and Associates, representing the Applicant. Also present was Tim Coon, the engineer who prepared the plan, also of J. R. Russo and Associates. Scott Atkin, LEP, of Anchor Engineering, was present to provide additional information regarding the soil testing. John Pisamenti, of U.S.A. Hauling is also available.
Mr. Ussery felt the information regarding the soil testing is probably the issue on everyone’s mind this evening. Mr. Atkin stepped forward, noting he submitted the report today because he received the lab reports on Friday, reviewed the information on Monday and Tuesday, and drafted his letter to the Commission yesterday. Mr. Atkin reported they visited the site in January in response to a letter they received from Wetlands Agent Newton questioning the quality of the fill materials on site. In response they dug 10 test pits. The Application for which Wetlands Agent Newton had requested the information in January was “pulled”; they did additional test pits and submitted information last month in response to the current Application. Mr. Atkin referenced a map
included in his current report; that map shows the locations of 16 test pits. He noted test pits number 11 through 16 were done in May. Mr. Atkin reported they acquired the As-built plans from the Penske Application, and compared that plan to the current topographic map to get an estimate of the depth of the soil. Mr. Atkins referenced the map, noting the various color-coded locations and the representative depth of those pits.
Mr. Atkin noted Commissioner Roloff had questioned why they didn’t prepare more test pits in the center of the site? As indicated in Mr. Atkin’s letter dated June 3, 2009 test pits were dug in locations ranging from relatively flat areas where containers are stored, to the toe of the slope to areas where material was stored in piles, and to an area on the edge of the “travel way” near where the area slopes down towards the basin. Mr. Atkin reported that originally they tried to stay close to the 150’ regulated area. The materials in the test pits ranged from clay to rock and possible road base materials. Mr. Atkin reported the material was sent to a lab for testing; the results of those tests are indicated in Mr. Atkin’s letter dated June 3, 2009. Mr. Atkin gave a detailed discussion of those results, noting no volatile organic compounds were found. The lab did find extractable total petroleum hydrocarbons but was unable to identify the specific source perhaps because the
materials have been mixed or have weathered. Mr. Atkin felt the materials that are present on the site are typical of materials that would be removed from a volume reduction facility under a solid waste permit as clean fill.
Mr. Ussery suggested the Commission had asked if there were concerns about the material leaching from the fill; was there anything that could be done about it? Mr. Atkin suggested paving the area would limit the amount of material that would infiltrate through and possibly leach out; it would be essentially capping the area.
Mr. Atkin reported another question raised by Commissioner Roloff involved the QA/QC reports (quality analysis/quality control). The response to those questions is addressed in Mr. Atkin’s letter of June 3, 2009; he discussed the testing process in detail during the Meeting. Commissioner Roloff questioned Mr. Atkin’s credentials; Mr. Atkin reported he has a Civil Engineering BS from UMASS, and is a Licensed Environmental Professional licensed by the Department of Environmental Protection to investigate and oversee remediation of contaminated sites. Mr. Atkin also indicated he has 20 years experience working on solid waste projects, many of which were landfills which required various protocols for testing and monitoring the sites.
Commissioner Savaria questioned Commissioner Roloff if she was comfortable with the results of the test pits provided for the Commission? Commissioner Roloff indicated she is far more comfortable with the depth of the samples as presented in the present report. They were asked to determine if they were any hazardous materials in the fill and the tests show it’s perfectly reasonable material. The report shows the Commission has nothing to be concerned about; she is comfortable with the depth of the samples taken.
Mr. Ussery recalled that at the last meeting the Commission had asked that Mike Gragnolati (soil scientist) appear this evening, but Mr. Gragnolati ran into health problems and just got out of the hospital. Mr. Ussery noted the Commission had been presented with considerable correspondence that they had to review tonight. He suggested it’s their professional opinion that the prepared plan, that includes a drainage system, will alleviate drainage issues on the site and protect the wetlands on the site.
Chairman Ceppetelli recalled that Mr. Ussery or Mr. Coon talked about sumps being installed in the catch basins. Mr. Ussery clarified that they are “inserts”. Chairman Ceppetelli requested clarification that the sumps would be installed at 2’ ? Mr. Ussery indicated that normally a system is designed with 2’ sumps but they could go to 4’. It’s probably a belt and suspenders approach but they could do it. Chairman Ceppetelli suggested he didn’t see the sumps reflected on the plan. Mr. Ussery concurred, noting they have not been added yet but the Applicant will agree to that addition. He suggested that the reason for the sumps are to collect sedimentation, etc. from leaving the drainage system, so if you have 4’ sumps you would have 2 more feet before the discharge begins. Chairman Ceppetelli questioned if a Maintenance Schedule is provided on the plan? Mr. Coon replied affirmatively, noting the plan is presented as recommended by the manufacturer.
Chairman Ceppetelli opened discussion to the audience:
Attorney Charles Houlihan, representing Down Realty, an abutter, requested to speak. Assisting him with his display of drainage plans was Jonathan Shoham. Attorney Houlihan suggested they have a different drainage plan today than they did at the start of the Public Hearing, the (different) plan was filed by the Applicant on Friday. Mr. Coon advised the Commission that they had received comments from Attorney Houlihan who requested a breakdown for each structure. To prepare that response they took the original drainage map and modified it to show the breakdown. Mr. Coon reported they also provided the calculations. Attorney Houlihan reiterated the drainage today is different than the drainage area the Applicant had a month go. Chairman Ceppetelli
questioned if this information is based on input from your engineer? Attorney Houlihan replied affirmatively. He suggested their concern was that they thought they had the full file regarding the Application and then discovered this different plan. Chairman Cepptelli noted the site development dates back several years. Attorney Houlihan suggested they have a pre-development and post-development map. Chairman Ceppetelli questioned that “this” shows the site as it is now? Attorney Houlihan concurred, noting one shows how the site flow would have been today. Chairman Ceppetelli suggested that would show the site as it is because nothing has been done yet. Attorney Houlihan replied negatively, noting they have built the road without approval, so you have to go back to the last approved drainage. If you look at the pre-development (map) they were concerned with
drainage and there was supposed to be a 4’ drainage ditch which ran from the detention pond. Jonathan Shoham suggested the drainage swale has been filled in. Attorney Houlihan felt there was a wetlands problem to be resolved. The water flowing across the Marks property and Down Realty carries dirt, etc. with it, which is a problem for the wetlands going forward. Attorney Houlihan suggested “this” is what they are proposing. The idea is that they are going to improve the conditions by stopping the flow of water onto adjacent properties and route it through a detention pond with filters and sending the water to the wetlands near the Killiam property. The key is if the detention pond is adequately designed to handle the volume of water. Attorney Houlihan suggested that by looking at “this” there are not a lot of contours listed. He suggested water is collected in the northern tier that isn’t being dispersed; in the winter it overflows because the water freezes and you have
snow. Attorney Houlihan suggested “this” water isn’t addressed in any fashion; he didn’t feel the plan showed the water moving as proposed. He suggested that Shoham Road isn’t within this drainage area because that water is handled differently; he suggested the detention basin is to handle the water in the “bracketed” area outside the drainage area. Attorney Houlihan suggested you can see descending elevations - 140 - 138 - 136 - so the water is flowing outside the drainage area. Because there are no contours (on the “new” drainage map) they don’t know how much water will be flowing off the property; they can’t adequately tell if the detention pond will overflow and bring water into the wetlands. Attorney Houlihan felt the Commission doesn’t have the information before it to determine if the detention basin works. He suggested this system works
if it moves the water to the Killiam property, but without the contours they can’t determine that it does. Commissioner Savaria noted “this” section of the plan is full of contours. Attorney Houlihan suggested there are no numbers.
Mr. Coon reported he has corrected the map when he went back to do the individual areas for the catch basins and looked more closely at “this” area to the north; it wouldn’t have drained into the detention basin. Town Engineer Norton’s comments addressed that concern. Mr. Coon referenced the map and showed the direction of flow. He suggested the revised map has a lesser drainage area so the original map was more conservative; therefore, the calculations submitted to Town Engineer Norton last week shows that the catch basins are adequate.
Mr. Ussery referenced Attorney Houlihan and Mr. Shoham’s comment questioning if the swale on the drainage map was ever actually there. Mr. Ussery indicated he could tell everyone it was there; it is on the “As-built” plan. It was built as designed and approved as designed and it did work. A good part of this site drained onto their land before this detention basin was designed and built, and if this plan is implemented as it’s designed it will improve the conditions. They are using standard engineering practices, and the plans have been reviewed by the Town Engineer. Mr. Coon suggested this is a conservatively designed system. The total drainage area size is smaller than what was calculated. If you take the area from the north and
removed it from the drainage area, and then add the area to the south, then the drainage area is smaller, and it also included the upstream area. Attorney Houlihan suggested his point is that when the Applicant comes in for a Wetlands Permit the Commission should have the information it needs; he felt the Commission can’t measure that because they don’t have the contours on the map. Attorney Houlihan felt they are removing the area of flood protection. Mr. Ussery suggested Attorney Houlihan should have a professional engineer review the plans with him; everything he is saying is incorrect. Chairman Ceppetelli indicated the Commission has had testimony from the two engineers presenting the Application, and the proposal has been reviewed by the Town Engineer. The Commission needs to be provided with information from a professional engineer, on his or her letterhead, to support Attorney Houlihan’s information.
This is an Application in progress. Referencing one of the plans Mr. Ussery noted there is curbing “here” so the water can’t go onto your (the Shoham’s) property. Chairman Ceppetelli suggested Attorney Houlihan needs to bring his professional engineer to the meeting to discuss this information; Attorney Houlihan is not qualified to discuss the engineering details.
John Pisamenti, of U.S.A. Hauling, requested to speak. Mr. Pisamenti questioned if the Commission has been provided with Wetlands Agent Newton’s memo? Wetlands Agent Newton replied it had been included in the Commission’s packet. Mr. Pisamenti indicated he didn’t understand. If the concern is the violation and pollution - they have been in violation and why haven’t they rectified their issue? Chairman Ceppetelli recalled that the Commission saw a video of a person walking through the parking lot knee-deep in water. Wetlands Agent Newton reported she doesn’t know if the flooding still would have occurred, or if it was just the run off from U.S.A. Hauling, but they have their own issues; they have tenants with materials going
into the catch basins. There is a Violation File dating from 2006 when previous Wetlands Agent Rudik was dealing with the issue. Wetlands Agent Newton reported she went out to the site last Thursday, and those conditions do still exist on the (Down Realty) site. Chairman Ceppetelli suggested the Shohams have been notified of those issues over the last couple of years, and nothing has been done to remediate them. Attorney Houlihan indicated they have asked the tenant who operates the granite business to explain his operation; he has a report to submit to the Commission this evening.
Wetlands Agent Newton reported she has spoken with the Town Attorney regarding these proceedings. All the Commission has heard tonight is drainage issues, with no information submitted from Attorney Houlihan concerning wetland impacts. There are wetlands there. The Commission has information from a soil scientist who has addressed the impact on the wetlands. This Commission isn’t the drainage board. Someone (representing Down Realty) needs to provide an engineering report that addresses the wetlands. There is nothing out there that will negatively impact the wetlands adjacent to this site, or Route 140. Down Realty needs to provide information regarding the impact on the wetlands. This information has been requested of the Intervenor and still
hasn’t been submitted.
Commissioner Baker suggested there may be valid concerns with the drainage issues but Commissioner Baker agreed this Commission doesn’t address those issues. There was also the concern about the water quality raised at the last meeting but after the additional presentation tonight he is now comfortable with that information. Commissioner Roloff suggested Mr. Atkin addressed those issues tonight; his report is fine.
Commissioner Koczera felt the issue involved a combination of drainage and wetlands issues. Wetlands Agent Newton agreed, but indicated that information should have been provided by a soil scientist to submit a report to the Commission; that hasn’t been done.
Chairman Ceppetelli referenced the Hearing timeline; he noted that presently the Commission needs to close the Public Hearing by June 10th. Wetlands Agent Newton reported the Commission would need an extension from the Applicant to continue further. Mr. Ussery concurred that as Wetlands Agent Newton has said this discussion should involve wetlands issues, not drainage. The Shohams will have an opportunity to address the drainage issues with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Ussery felt the Applicant has provided everything the Commission has asked for. Attorney Houlihan hasn’t provided the information requested. Mr. Ussery would like to see the Commission go forward with their decision. Chairman Ceppetelli requested clarification that the Applicant
would rather not give the extension? Mr. Ussery suggested if it was the preference of the Commission the Applicant would grant the extension but he felt they had provided the necessary information. Commissioner Burnham felt the Commission should act on the information before them. Commissioner Koczera felt the Hearing should be extended. Commissioner Roloff and Sawka felt the Commission should act tonight. Commissioner Savaria felt the Applicant has done their job.
Chairman Ceppetelli queried the audience again; no one requested to speak.
MOTION: To CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING on the Application of 10 Shoham Road - Application of U. S. A. Hauling & Recycling, Inc., for activities associated with drainage improvements to a storage area created on fill placed in regulated area. Total parcel is 9.2 acres served by public water and public sewer.
Osborn moved/Roloff seconded/
VOTE:In Favor: Ceppetelli/Osborn/Savaria/Malin/Sawka/Roloff
Opposed: Koczera
Abstained: No one
MOTION: To APPROVE the Application of 10 Shoham Road - Application of U. S. A. Hauling & Recycling, Inc., for activities associated with drainage improvements to a storage area created on fill placed in regulated area. Total parcel is 9.2 acres served by public water and public sewer.
Osborn moved/Savaria seconded:
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Koczera felt too much information was submitted at this Meeting to be able to digest the information before making a decision. Chairman Ceppetelli concurred that a considerable amount of additional information was submitted at this Meeting, he questioned Wetlands Agent Newton if she was comfortable with the information provided for the Commission? Wetlands Agent Newton indicated she is very comfortable with the information as submitted. She had been waiting for correspondence from Soil Scientist Michael Gragnolati regarding the placement of the fill near the wetlands, and the water quality of the wetlands adjacent to Route 140 - that information has now been provided, with Mr. Gragnolati suggesting the proposed work will improve the water
quality of the wetlands. Town Engineer Norton has noted (in his memo of 6/3/2009) that he takes exception to the implication that the Town Staff has not done a proper job in reviewing the application in reference to drainage and has agreed with the drainage information that was submitted by the Applicant. Wetlands Agent Newton reiterated she is comfortable that with regard to the wetlands she sees no issues and no impact to the wetlands with what’s being proposed. Commissioner Baker agreed, noting the proposal is an improvement and taking the fill out wouldn’t be a better resolution. Commissioner Roloff noted the fill is “clean fill.” Wetlands Agent Newton noted the fill meets the definition of “clean fill”. Also, the Applicant is proposing inserts to the drainage system; she agrees with the comments that were made that as the water goes through the proposed drainage system it will be
cleaner than what’s happening today. Commissioner Koczera noted he is uncomfortable with what he interprets to be conflicting comments - it is drainage that is going through the wetlands. Chairman Ceppetelli agreed, but noted those drainage issues would be considered during the Application being heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Koczera suggested he has no problem with leaving the fill material on the site but he has concerns with where the water goes.
VOTE: In Favor: Ceppetelli/Osborn/Savaria/Malin/Sawka/Roloff
Opposed: Koczera
Abstained: No one
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Savaria moved/Baker seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 9:05 p.m.
MOTION: To RECONVENE the Meeting at 9:13 p.m.
Savaria moved/Baker seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECONVENED this Meeting at 9:13 p.m.
NEW PUBLIC HEARING (on Inland Wetlands applications): None.
CONTINUED APPLICATIONS OR BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS/1) 9 Cemetery Road - Application of Beverly Tyler to request a Ruling of the Agency for Non-regulated Use:
Chairman Ceppetelli read the description of this Item of Business. LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Baker joined the Regular Commission Members with regard to actions taken on this Application. Appearing to discuss this Application was David Tyler, d/b/a Ka Be Farm.
Wetlands Agent Newton reported she has provided the following additional information for the Commission’s review: 1) USDA Wetlands Delineation for Farmed Wetlands pasture (FWP), and a GIS aerial of the subject area.
Mr. Tyler reported the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is a Federal agency which aids the farmer. They are trying to control manure run off from entering the wetlands. Mr. Tyler noted his barnyards have slopes, which allow manure run off to get into the watershed and eventually the Scantic River. The NRCS came to him to propose a 75% sharing of the cost to construct a level area (known as a covered level use area) to prevent run off from the horse barnyard flowing into the watershed. The manure is collected, and spread onto the fields before plowing, or on the hayfields after harvesting the crop. The NRCS has delineated the pasture and barnyard, and found there is no wetlands vegetation, just wetlands soils.
Chairman Ceppetelli noted Wetlands Agent Newton has recommended the Commission make a ruling of No Jurisdiction. Wetlands Agent Newton concurred, noting that in most cases farming is not within wetlands jurisdiction; it’s an exempt non-regulated use under farming. The new building would be behind the existing horse barn, which is behind the hay storage barn. Mr. Tyler would be able to store 100% of the manure during the Winter. Mr. Tyler indicated the cow manure is used on the farm, while the horse manure goes to another farmer who raises tomatoes.
MOTION: THAT THE COMMISSION MAKE A RULING OF NO JURISDICTION on the Application of 9 Cemetery Road - Application of Beverly Tyler to request a Ruling of the Agency for Non-regulated Use.
Osborn moved/Savaria seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Ceppetelli/Koczera/Osborn/Savaria/Malin/Sawka/Baker
NEW APPLICATIONS TO BE RECEIVED: None.
MISCELLANEOUS/1) Eric Spongin - Discussion of possible wetlands mitigation:
Appearing to discuss this issue was Eric Spongin, and Jeff Caberera of Konover.
Mr. Spongin reported he is in partnership regarding a parcel which fronts on Prospect Hill Road and Newberry Road; the property borders Edy’s Ice Cream and the Wood Group. He appeared before the Commission perhaps a year ago to apply to the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) as the 14.4 acre parcel contains in excess of 2.3 acres of wetlands. Under new regulations if the wetlands is isolated and there is no connection to a river the wetlands could be considered low quality. At that time the ACOE denied their request. Subsequently, the ACOE asked to bring people out to this site to review the area, and as a result they reversed their decision, which would now give this Commission jurisdiction to consider mitigation on another site in exchange for filling this low quality isolated wetlands which is
not connected to a watercourse. Mr. Spongin reported they have considered various areas which would benefit from mitigation. Wetlands Agent Newton and Town Planner Whitten felt the best focus for this consideration, and the best way to help the Town, would be to consider a property which experiences silt filling a pond every year. Mr. Spongin reported his engineers visited the site and have a positive analysis to improve the run off of silt; he is here to discuss this proposal with the Commission.
Wetlands Agent Newton reported the pond came up because there was a letter in file from previous Wetlands Agent Bednaz regarding the existing problem. Town Planner Whitten suggested something to mitigate the silt coming into the swimming area. Mr. Spongin indicated there were several suggestions but Town Planner Whitten felt the swimming area was the one to concentrate on. Wetlands Agent Newton concurred, noting she felt this is a great project. She questioned the Commissioners if they knew of any other projects which might be beneficial also.
Commissioner Savaria questioned if the wetlands under discussion on Mr. Spongin’s property are really insignificant? Wetlands Agent Newton reported she has not visited the site yet but she did review the ACOE letter and the Planning and Zoning folder, and it appears the area is a low quality wetlands. Mr. Spongin suggested the area is really a place where water accumulates. Wetlands Agent Newton reported that in reviewing the file it appeared that previous Wetlands Agent Bednaz had been to the site and agreed this was a low quality wetlands.
Commissioner Roloff suggested considering the Broad Brook Pond. Chairman Ceppetelli also noted the pond behind Elaine’s Pizza (known as Butternut Pond), but noted that is not a Town-owned property. Wetlands Agent Newton advised the Commission that projects involving dams require more than just going to the State.
Mr. Spongin suggested they were open to anything but Town Planner Whitten suggested the pond would be the most beneficial to the Town. Wetlands Agent Newton indicated they are present to discuss the concept of offsite mitigation; she questioned if the Commission were agreeable to that concept? Chairman Ceppetelli polled the various Commissioners; everyone was in agreement to consider offsite mitigation in exchange for filling a low quality wetlands area. Chairman Ceppetelli indicated the Commission will consider optional sites until the next meeting. He suggested the property behind Elaine’s property is in more disarray; Wetlands Agent Newton noted that is a privately owned property. Chairman Ceppetelli reiterated the Broad Brook Pond is another option but another dam
is involved. The Commission discussed the approval process and eventual referral to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Spongin will return to the Commission’s July 1st Meeting for further discussion.
MISCELLANEOUS/2) J. R. Russo - Subdivision on Winkler Road;
Appearing to discuss this Item of Business was Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates. Also present were the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Szabo.
Mr. Ussery described the location of the 5 1/2 acre property, which backs up to the trolley tracks. The property contains substantial wetlands, which have been delineated by George Logan. Mr. Ussery suggested the concept, which is similar to the Pippin property on East Road, is for 2 houses on the 5 1/2 acre parcel. Mr. and Mrs. Szabo would like to build a house for themselves, and another for possible sale. Mr. Ussery suggested the proposal is not for a conventional lot configuration; they could have either two driveways or a shared driveway. Either the house locations, or the driveway(s), would be in close proximity to the wetlands. Mr. Ussery suggested the Szabos are looking for the Commission’s input regarding a proposal for either one or two lots.
Commissioner Burnham felt they could make it with 2 lots. Commissioner Savaria would like to see the driveways put together (as a shared driveway), or side by side. Commissioner Roloff liked the side by side driveway configuration as it keeps the disturbance out of the wetlands.
Wetlands Agent Newton reported she has seen the site, and is not in favor of moving the driveway where the Commission is suggesting. She felt one driveway is tight but it could be taken care of with a Conservation Easement. The Commission felt two lots was workable.
AGENT DECISIONS: None.
VIOLATIONS/1) Newberry Village - Site Inspections:
Appearing to discuss this Item of Business was George Logan, of REMA, Soil Scientist; and Jim and Peter Giorgio, developers of Newberry Village.
Mr. Logan indicated he was submitting a report regarding the monitoring of the vernal pools in Phase I and Phase II, the first two phases of construction. The report shows a study of vernal pools, and potential vernal pools. Mr. Logan suggested this a sensitive site; a permit condition included continuing monitoring of the site. They held a pre-construction meeting in 2007 and began monitoring the site in early Spring. Silt fence was installed around Phase I, and they placed (collection) buckets along the silt fence every 50’ to collect wood frogs, and salamanders, etc. Those species collected during the migration season were then released on the other side of the silt fence. Mr. Logan reported that in 2008 they went out during April, which is the proper time. Mr. Logan reported he didn’t produce a narrative as part of the report as he thought then Wetlands Agent Bednaz was comfortable with what was found during the inspections. Mr. Logan reported they visited the site in
April of 2009 but didn’t do the bucket procedure. Jim Giorgio suggested the reason the bucket procedure wasn’t done was because of the condition of the land, and the early frost which continued through the breeding period, and then they had torrential rains for days.
Chairman Ceppetelli suggested it was his understanding that Mr. Logan was to monitor the site on a yearly basis. Jim Giorgio suggested that was his responsibility. Discussion followed regarding who is responsible for monitoring the site and submitting the report; Jim Giorgio continued to suggest the responsibility fell to him. Mr. Logan suggested that at the end of the report is data regarding 18+/- vernal pools for 2008 and 2009. Mr. Logan referenced his report and identified the results of the monitoring as reflected via various color-coded areas. He suggested that the status of some potential vernal pools have not changed, while the status of some vernal pools have changed to non-vernal pools. Chairman Ceppetelli questioned what that might be attributed to?
Mr. Logan suggested that potential vernal pools which are changing to vernal pools suggest the critters are using them; there is also one new vernal pool containing wood frogs. Mr. Logan suggested the critters that have been released are looking for areas more suitable for vernal pools because areas are being cleared next to them.
Chairman Ceppetelli recalled Mr. Logan came before the Board to convince everyone that there would be no changes due to construction. Mr. Logan felt he said there would be changes. Commissioner Baker indicated he had been a member of the audience during that presentation; he was surprised to hear that development was being considered and people were being told there would be no impact. Jim Giorgio questioned what the negative impact is as one area has twice the number of species as it previously did. Chairman Ceppetelli clarified he hadn’t said there was negative impact; he had said the Commission was told repeatedly there would be no impact. Mr. Logan continued with his presentation of data collected from various vernal pools. He suggested vernal
pool #21 was devoid of wood frogs or spotted salamanders in 2008 and 2009; Mr. Giorgio had told him that area has dried up today. He noted one area identified as vernal pool #7 had shown evidence of wood frogs in 2003 but in 2009 there was evidence of egg masses which were not viable. He suggested that while he didn’t fully understand the cause he speculated it may have been due to the release of fine silt which would have smothered the egg masses. Chairman Ceppetelli noted that there had been repeated breaches of erosion controls in that area. Mr. Logan agreed that could have been a contributing factor but it could have been the silt, or it could have been a vernal pool with wood frogs that annexed early in the season, and with an early frost, the egg masses didn’t survive. Mr. Logan referenced potential vernal pool #17 which is next to an existing house; water comes off the roadway and some silt could get into that
potential vernal pool but there was a phtethora of egg mass activity this year.
The Commission paused to consider extending the meeting to continue discussion of remaining Agenda items.
MOTION: To EXTEND THIS MEETING PAST 10 O’CLOCK.
Savaria moved/Baker seconded/
VOTE:In Favor: Ceppetelli/Osborn/Savaria/Sawka/Malin/Baker/Burnham
Opposed: Koczera/Roloff
Abstained: No one
The Commission reviewed the site map to consider the location of development. Jim Giorgio suggested that since the weather has broken they have made tremendous strides with the site. Chairman Ceppetelli suggested there was a breach at the site recently. Jim Giorgio agreed, noting it will be repaired in a few days. Chairman Ceppetelli noted the development is under a Cease and Desist Order. Jim Giorgio suggested the Cease and Desist is for site work; the heavy rain has caused the breaches. He is planning to install silt socks to reduce erosion; he needs to install curb controls to direct water the way it was designed to flow.
Wetlands Agent Newton reported she has been out to the site many times, and has been in contact with Jim Giorgio by phone and e-mail. There are constant erosion and sedimentation issues out there; it’s because of the amount of run off from the road. It seems what was thought would work out there isn’t working. There is run off, and depth of water in the pools, that is much greater than was anticipated. Wetlands Agent Newton felt the silt fence isn’t viable there; she had suggested the use of silt socks. She has spoken to David Askew and asked him to walk the site with her to discuss other options. She indicated that she visited the site one day with Commissioner Burnham, and two days later there were erosion problems. Jim Giorgio suggested there is curbing
in some areas and not in others; he needs to be able to something “here”. Chairman Ceppetelli recalled that one of the reasons for the lack of curbing was for the critters to get across the vernal pools. Jim Giorgio suggested he wants to do what’s best and wants to promote catching the critters. Wetlands Agent Newton noted for Mr. Logan that some of the curbs were left out to encourage migration; she questioned what his opinion is now? Mr. Logan suggested the site is still in the construction phase, but there has been a big change to potential vernal pool #17. They have had 1 1/2’ more water than what was predicted; they need to install curbing. Chairman Ceppetelli noted there has been less rainfall this year than last year; many of these points were brought up during the approval process. Mr. Logan suggested the Commission was to have no jurisdiction over the critters; he
referenced Avalon Bay. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested the Statutes have changed since Avalon Bay; if there is a vernal pool the Commission can take jurisdictional control. Mr. Logan suggested not the critters but the habitat. Wetlands Agent Newton noted the habitat has changed. Mr. Logan felt to go in now is too late; the damage is done. His recommendation is to look in August or September.
Commissioner Baker noted the report has been submitted; where is the plan? Mr. Logan indicated the plan is not there as he was asked to look at the vernal pools. Chairman Ceppetelli questioned if Mr. Logan had an inspection log; Mr. Logan replied affirmatively. Chairman Ceppetelli asked if that information could be provided? Mr. Logan suggested some of that data can’t be released because it’s the property of the Connecticut Wetlands Scientists. Wetlands Agent Newton reported that Mr. Logan went out there with members of CWS and didn’t look at all the vernal pools because he thought that information could be shared. They felt that a condition of this development was that they had to put this in the vernal pool monitoring program. Mr.
Logan suggested the reason that the CWS doesn’t share the information is because they don’t want to expose private property owners to detrimental issues. He got them to share some of the numbers but he wasn’t aware they didn’t share the information.
Jim Giorgio suggested the plan is that they are monitoring the erosion and sedimentation controls every day, and after every rain storm. They are looking into the use of silt socks in sensitive areas, and re-seeding the ponds. He would like to wait until August or September when the ponds dry up and, with the supervision of Wetlands Agent Newton and Mr. Logan, they would then follow their recommendations. Jim Giorgio suggested this is a difficult site; where it’s done it’s a beautiful site. They have lost a couple of vernal pools but have gained a couple as well. Chairman Ceppetelli questioned where the most sensitive areas are? Mr. Logan suggested they are in the middle of them now.
Wetlands Agent Newton reported that with regard to drainage the plan file which shows how water gets into these pools is wrong; what was stated as to what would be happening is not what’s happening. She suggested bringing the engineer back to walk the site; it’s apparent where the catch basins are not working. She indicated that there are many comments on file where George Logan was saying where he thought the drainage was going to go. Mr. Logan felt the issue was the base map with the topographic information wasn’t up to snuff. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested that needs to be addressed. She noted she also say a foundation that had been dug and had filled with water, and that water was being discharged into the wetlands; she would rather see
that discharged into a detention basin. Jim Giorgio suggested he had no problem discharging into a detention basin.
Chairman Ceppetelli questioned if the Applicant would be submitting an application to correct the drainage issues for the next meeting? Jim Giorgio questioned the need for another application; Wetlands Agent Newton noted at least a modification should be filed as the map is being changed. Commissioner Baker felt there should be something further submitted to reflect this discussion and potential solutions.
Wetlands Agent Newton that sidewalks have been approved for this development. Jim Giorgio wasn’t sure the Planning and Zoning Commission would want the sidewalks eliminated. Some would be installed in the area near the utilities or near vernal pools; he is not in favor of sidewalks. Wetlands Agent Newton indicated that would be a change to the plan which she felt would be a favorable change. She indicated FOR THE RECORD she is in favor of eliminating the sidewalks.
Attorney Carl Landolina, representing the Giorgios, approached the Commission. He indicated he has heard many things the Applicant must do; the requirement for the annual report is clear, Mr. Giorgio inherited the site and is building it as designed. Attorney Landolina requested that the Cease and Desist Order be lifted as Mr. Giorgio has a contract for sale of a unit pending. He felt the condition of the Cease and Desist Order was to provide the report, and that has been submitted. Chairman Ceppetelli noted the Commission has not had an opportunity to read the requested material. Commissioner Koczera felt the reason for the Cease and Desist Order was because the erosion controls were not being fixed; he opposed lifting the Cease & Desist Order. Wetlands Agent
Newton clarified that the Cease & Desist Order issued at the last meeting was for lack of submission of the report which has been submitted this evening. The Commission could lift the Cease and Desist Order. Regarding the other issues, as long as staff can visit the site, and she gets cooperation from the developer regarding work on erosion controls, and a plan modification is submitted by next meeting then Wetlands Agent Newton would recommend lifting the Cease and Desist Order.
MOTION: To LIFT THE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AGAINST Newberry Village as a report has now been submitted.
VOTE: In Favor: Osborn/Savaria/Sawka/Malin/Koczera/Roloff
Opposed: Ceppetelli
Abstained: No one
STATUS REPORTS: None (See motion moving Newberry Village - Site Inspections to VIOLATIONS).
CONFERENCES/SEMINARS/TRAINING/1) Board Development - Training/Topics Schedule: Nothing presented.
CORRESPONDENCE: None.
GENERAL BOARD DISCUSSION:
Wetlands Agent Newton reported she won’t be in attendance at the next Commission Meeting. She will provide information for the Commissioner’s packets regarding a seminar involving legal issues she would recommend the members consider attending.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Osborn moved/Roloff seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________________________
Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary, Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Watercourse Agency
| 
