TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS
WATERCOURSE AGENCY
Regular Meeting - September 2, 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, Richard Osborn, Ron Savaria, Michael Sawka, Robert Slate, and Alternate Members Alan Baker, John Burnham, and Kathryn Roloff.
Unable to Attend: Regular Member John Malin.
Chairman Ceppetelli noted the establishment of a quorum with six Regular Members and three Alternate members present. Chairman Ceppetelli reported Alternate members would follow a sequence of rotation while sitting in on all Items of Business being reviewed this evening. In the case of continuing Applications whomever of the Alternate Members sat in during discussion at the previous meeting should sit in on that specific Application this evening. Also present was Wetlands Agent Newton.
LET THE RECORD SHOW Selectmen Richard Pippin, the Board of Selectmen’s liaison to this Commission, also attended the meeting. Also present in the audience was Kathy Pippin, Board of Finance Alternate.
ADDED AGENDA ITEMS:
Wetlands Agent Newton requested the addition of discussion of the Wetlands Ordinance that was presented to Town Meeting last night, but failed to be adopted. Discussion to occur under CONFERENCES/SEMINARS/TRAINING.
MOTION: To ADD discussion of the proposed Wetlands Ordinance under CONFERENCES/SEMINARS/TRAINING.
Savaria moved/Burnham seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 8/5/09:
MOTION: To ACCEPT the Minutes of Regular Meeting dated August 5, 2009 with the following amendments:
* NEW BUSINESS/1) Winkler Road - Application of Paul & Mary Szabo:
PAGE 2, Paragraph 2, Line #68: “........ Commissions Commissioners for discussion of this Item of Business.”
PAGE 2, Paragraph 3, Line #73: “.....Associates (profession professional engineer), and George Logan, (soil scientist).
PAGE 3, Paragraph 4, Line #124: “.....water quality of or quantity,......”
* VIOLATIONS (for action or show-cause hearing)/1) Newberry Road - Violation of Newberry Road Enterprises: PAGE 7, Paragraph 3, Line #300: “......Wetlands Agent Newton that he will dig a trench along the road;.......”
PAGE 7, Paragraph 5, Line #321: “.........and wetlands so a person has to have their ok to clear wetlands.......”
Savaria moved/Slate seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Ceppetelli/Koczera/Osborn/Savaria/Slate/Baker/Burnham/Roloff
NEW BUSINESS/1) Winkler Road - Application of Paul & Mary Szabo for activities associated with construction of two residential homes. Total parcel area is 5.83 acres, to be served by public water and sewer. [Map 16, Block 24, Lot 71] (Application period ends 9/4/09):
Chairman Ceppetelli read the description of this Item of Business. LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Koczera stepped down from service on the Board on this item. Alternates Baker and Roloff joined their fellow Commissioners for discussion of this Agenda item.
Appearing to represent the Applicant was Jay Ussery, professional engineer, of J. R. Russo & Associates. Also present in the audience was Paul Szabo, applicant, and George Logan, soil scientist.
Mr. Ussery opened discussion by summarizing the following concerns raised at the previous meeting: 1) addition of a Conservation Easement on the plans; 2) better clarification of the location of the silt fence on the plans; 3) erosion controls to be shown on the plans. Mr. Ussery noted this Application is for the construction of two single family homes on a parcel located near the trolley tracks. The parcel exceeds 5 acres in size; the proposal is to split the total parcel into two single family building lots.
Mr. Ussery noted the wetlands delineation has been done by RHEMA/George Logan. At the previous meeting the Commission and Wetlands Agent Newton had requested the submission of a written wetlands report for the Application record; that report, which supported Mr. Logan’s verbal presentation, has now been submitted. Mr. Ussery referenced the plot plan and noted the locations of the various wetlands areas. He indicated the only wetlands disturbance will be for the equalization pipe under the culvert. That activity will cause approximately 262 square feet of direct wetlands disturbance. Lot #1 will contain 4.2 acres, including 57,000 square feet of upland review area. Mr. Ussery indicated they have moved the location of the shed closer to the center of the rear yard at the
request of Town Engineer Norton and Wetlands Agent Newton. He also referenced the new location of the lot line which was moved at the Commission’s request. Lot #2 will contain 1.52 acres, including 31,200 square feet of upland review area. The proposed shed location for this lot has now been moved to behind the house. Both lots will be served by sanitary sewer and “city” water. Commissioner Roloff felt the houses were being squeezed into the lot areas.
Mr. Ussery noted the plans now reflect 5 areas of Conservation Easements; he referenced the locations on the plan and noted the size of each respective area. These Conservation Easements generally follow the wetlands lines. The various Conservation Easements will be noted on the deeds, and the Land Records, and each location will be marked in the field by placement of medallions every 50’ along the boundary line so the homeowners will be aware of the Conservation Easements.
Chairman Ceppetelli noted the Commission has received the Wetlands Assessment Report as requested from Mr. Logan. Wetlands Agent Newton concurred that the report essentially followed the material presented verbally at the previous meeting by Mr. Logan.
Commissioner Roloff initiated discussion occurred regarding the proposed locations for the water lines; a separate water line serves each lot. Mr. Ussery reiterated his comments from the previous meeting. The locations of the water lines are designed to meet the requirements of the Connecticut Water Company - water lines must enter through the lots they will serve. He reiterated the process to acquire an exemption or waiver from the Department of Public Utilities Control, noting awarding of an exemption is not an easy process.
Chairman Ceppetelli noted that Wetlands Agent Newton had requested that she be notified of when the location of the houses occurs. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested the notification should occur when they actually stake out the area of clearing; she requested that this activity be a condition of approval.
Mr. Ussery suggested if there is a substantial change in the building footprint or the size it would require an individual plot plan modification. Chairman Ceppetelli felt that change could be handled as an Agent decision; she would return the change to the Commission if she felt it was necessary. The Commission concurred.
MOTION: To APPROVE the Application of Paul & Mary Szabo for activities associated with construction of two residential homes. Total parcel area is 5.83 acres, to be served by public water and sewer. [Map 16, Block 24, Lot 71]. Approval includes the following condition: 1) The contractor/builder needs to stake in the field their limits of clearing so as to not encroach on the wetlands; Wetlands Agent Newton should be notified prior to the actual clearing of the land.
Osborn moved/Slate seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Ceppetelli/Osborn/Savaria/Sawka/Slate/Baker
Opposed: Roloff
Abstained: No one
NEW APPLICATION TO BE RECEIVED/1) Winkler Road - Application of Gerald Wilcox for activities associated with the construction of a single family home. Total parcel area is 3.22 acres, to be served by public water and private septic. [Map #7, Block #24, Lot #33-A, 73-4]. (Application period ends 10/9/09):
Chairman Ceppetelli read the description of this new Application. LET THE RECORD SHOW Regular Commissioner Koczera stepped down from service. Alternates Burnham, and Roloff joined their fellow Commissioners for discussion of this Item of Business.
Appearing to discuss this Application was Jay Ussery, professional engineer, of J. R. Russo & Associates, who indicated he was representing the Applicant, Gerald Wilcox. The Application is to conduct a regulated activity for the construction of a single family house on the northside of Winkler Road near the trolley tracks and the intersection of Borrup and Winkler Roads. A large red Colonial home has already been built next to this lot. Mr. Ussery indicated this parcel is a portion of a larger parcel of land previously owned by Gordon and Nancy Carter which was approved for subdivision in the 70s. The original parcel was part of the family farm, as was the land on which Newberry Village is being constructed. The Miller lot on Borrup Road was also part of this parcel. Several lots in
between those lots exist; nothing was done with them because of septic issues. Mr. Wilcox has now purchased several of those lots; he received approval a year ago for one lot, and has now received approval for a septic system for a 3 bedroom home on the subject parcel from the North Central Health District (NCHD). Mr. Wilcox previously received approval for the construction of a road as an agricultural activity. The wetlands have been delineated by George Logan; they are reflected on the plan by the blue line. The wetlands are an intermittent watercourse which extends onto adjacent properties. Mr. Logan has submitted a Wetlands Assessment Report for the Application file.
Mr. Ussery reported that the 150’ uplands review area encompasses this parcel, and a good part of the other lots originally owned by Gordon Carter.
The Application has been reviewed by Town Engineer Norton, and Wetlands Agent Newton. It has been requested that a Conservation Easement will be granted around the pond.
Commissioner Burnham questioned if the parcels that were split have now been combined? Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively, noting the subject parcel has been combined with parcel #4 of Gordon Carter; this parcel now contains approximately 1 3/4 acres.
Commissioner Roloff questioned what type of barrier will be installed to prevent something draining into the wetlands from the road? Mr. Ussery indicated there is nothing there now; the water comes pretty close to the roadway, which is gravel. Sand will be installed around the pipe. He felt there should be no problem with anything draining the wetlands down. Mr. Ussery suggested you might hit some clay if you go down deep enough, but most of the material is sandy loam. The area is relatively flat; there isn’t much gradient. Commissioner Roloff questioned where the stockpiling would be located? Mr. Ussery indicated along the side of the trench.
Chairman Ceppetelli questioned if Wetlands Agent Newton had had an opportunity to review Mr. Logan’s Wetlands Assessment Report? Wetlands Agent Newton reported the issues she raised last month have been addressed: 1) they have put in the area of Conservation Easement which she requested, 2) she would allow dredging of the pond under this permit if necessary, 3) the silt fence will be backed up by hay bales in the areas she requested, and 4) hay bales will be installed along the leaching field.
Mr. Ussery described the subject parcel as containing 1.67 acres, which includes 72,000 square feet of upland review area; the wetlands area includes the pond. A Conservation Easement has been installed around the pond. There is approximately 1.4 acre of uplands review area which will surround the house.
Commissioner Savaria questioned that they have been advised to install a specific type of septic system? Wetlands Agent Newton indicated the NCHD has specified the type of septic system to be used for this lot. The installation of the septic system is under the jurisdiction of the NCHD. Wetlands Agent Newton reported she spoke extensively with the NCHD before this septic system was approved.
Commissioner Roloff cited concern for the use of herbicides. Mr. Ussery indicated he didn’t feel there would be a problem with the run off from the single family home polluting the pond.
MOTION: To APPROVE the Application of Winkler Road - Application of Gerald Wilcox for activities associated with the construction of a single family home. Total parcel area is 3.22 acres, to be served by public water and private septic. [Map #7, Block #24, Lot #33-A, 73-4]. Approval includes the following condition: 1) Wetlands Agent Newton to be advised/notified when installation of silt fences is proposed.
Osborn moved/Slate seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous/Ceppetelli/Osborn/Savaria/Sawka/Slate/Burnham/Roloff
LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Koczera returned to service on the Board.
MOTION: To GO OUT OF ORDER to take the Status Report on Newberry Village.
Osborn moved/Slate seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
STATUS REPORTS/1) Newberry Village - Site inspections/Updates:
Wetlands Agent Newton reported she and Jim Giorgio signed an agreement to correct 14+/- items within two weeks; he was subsequently granted an additional week for completion of the items. As of last Friday several things were still not done. He was then given a Cease and Correct Order. He has done some things but they are basic erosion controls. The Building Department won’t give Mr. Giorgio any permits until the work is rectified. Wetlands Agent Newton reported she has talked to Mr. Giorgio, and gone out to the site twice a week. The site has extensive wetlands; monitoring that site probably takes up 65% of her time. The Commission has no recourse to charge him for her time, or to fine him.
Wetlands Agent Newton also gave the Commission an update on the Dearborn Violation. He had been issued a Cease and Desist Order. There is no additional information available at this time. Wetlands Agent Newton has spoken to Rachel Dearborn, engineer for Steve Dearborn; Rachel Dearborn indicted they are still dealing with the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE). Wetlands Agent Newton recommended that the Dearborn Violation be continued as an Agenda item until there is more information to report.
MOTION: To GO BACK IN ORDER as posted on the Agenda.
Slate moved/Osborn seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
NEW APPLICATIONS TO BE RECEIVED: None.
MISCELLANEOUS: Nothing presented.
AGENT DECISIONS: None
VIOLATIONS (for action or show-cause hearing): None
CONFERENCES/SEMINARS/TRAINING/1) Board Development - Training/Topics /1) Wetlands Ordinance:
Chairman Ceppetelli noted Commissioner Baker will be a voting member on this Item of Business.
The Wetlands Ordinance as proposed by this Commission was not adopted last night at Town Meeting. Commissioner Burnham and Selectman Pippin were both vocal in their opposition to the ordinance. Wetlands Agent Newton questioned if people understood the checks and balances proposed in the ordinance; she understood many people speaking hadn’t read the ordinance.
In response to discussion she has made the following changes: 1) the paragraph which Commissioner Burnham was opposed to has been taken out; the ordinance now makes mention only of the violator, not the property owner.
Commissioner Savaria opened discussion by asking if a conflict of interest had occurred? The Inland/Wetlands Commission voted and approved the ordinance as presented last night, then a Inland/Wetlands Board member, who identified himself as a member of the Board, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Wetlands Agent Newton felt it was a conflict of interest when speaking as a Board member; the proper choice would have been to speak as a resident. Commissioner Savaria felt that when someone chooses to join a board that person looses some of their rights as a resident. Chairman Ceppetelli reported another board on which he serves was advised not to identify yourself as a board member when you speak; get another family member or an attorney to speak for you.
Chairman Ceppetelli noted Wetlands Agent Newton has made changes to the proposed ordinance. He polled members for their opinion regarding the changes: Commissioner Osborn indicated he has been an Inland/Wetlands Board member for a long time, as has Commissioner Sawka. When you sit on a board you work together and try to resolve issues. At this point this Commission has no power to fine violators; the violator may do little things to be able to keep going but they don’t do what they should. Commissioner Osborn indicated he was in favor of initiating the fines; he felt the fines probably wouldn’t be imposed that often but the fines ordinance gives the Commission some leverage. While building is down presently if the economy turns around the Town is wide open.
Commissioner Sawka suggested he has seen many things since he has been on the Board. He questioned fining people, and felt the “service of a notice by a State Marshal” was strong language. Wetlands Agent Newton reported she uses Certified Mail or makes a personal delivery to notify a violator. The use of a Marshal is just another option to serve the citation to the the violator. Chairman Ceppetelli felt if the Cease & Desist Order is left on until they comply it will hit the violator in the pocketbook. Another area of concern for the Commission is if the violator fills on the property and that fill causes problems on someone else’s property. The Commission discussed various projects which have caused problems, and for which resolution has been less than satisfactory. Commissioner Koczera cited an example of tires being dumped on his property; he got no help from the Town with removal because the
tires had been dumped on private property. Wetlands Agent Newton clarified that for items dumped on private property to be a concern under this ordinance the materials must be dumped in a wetlands. Wetlands Agent Newton further suggested that dumping tires or furniture in the wetlands wouldn’t result in a Citation Notice; an activity that would be a concern from a wetlands perspective would be filling wetlands, re-direction of watercourses, silt fence is down and silt is going into a wetlands.
Commissioner Sawka questioned if other towns have fine ordinances? Wetlands Agent Newton reported she personally looked up 32 towns which have fine schedules. Commissioner Burnham suggested out of 169 towns in Connecticut only a small number have fines schedules, his estimation is between 15% and 17%. Commissioner Koczera gave examples of problem projects; he felt the potential to fine residents is what has scared people off on the ordinance.
Wetlands Agent Newton felt everyone was making the assumption that nothing happens before a person gets cited; that isn’t the case. She indicated she initially works with the property owner, and sends out letters identifying the violation and citing remedies. The Cease & Desist is issued instead of going to court. The proposed ordinance would be another tool to seek resolution. Fining a violator would be the last resort for remediation rather than going to court. Chairman Ceppetelli noted that even if the fines have been issued there is another step that benefits the violator. If the violator feels they have been wronged by the Wetlands Official and/or the Board can request a review before a Hearing Official to have the fines reduced or eliminated.
Chairman Ceppetelli also noted the draft ordinance was reviewed by the Town Attorney prior to adoption by this Commission and referral to the Board of Selectmen.
Commissioner Burnham questioned where the language for the ordinance came from? Wetlands Agent Newton noted the language was taken from the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS). She concurred that the language of the ordinance was reviewed by the Town Attorney. The language of the ordinance must match the CGS. The Commission has the authority to dictate a fines schedule; at the recommendation of the Town Attorney the wetlands fines schedule has not been made a part of the ordinance so the fines schedule can be revised as necessary. A Wetlands Agent doesn’t need permission from the Commission to write a Notice of Violation, a Cease & Desist Order, or issue a fine. Under the ordinance the Citation Procedures gives the violator 30 days to correct the violation; Wetlands Agent
Newton indicated she is always willing to work with people on their problems. If the violator fails to remedy the situation another Citation Notice is sent out. Commissioner Burnhamn queried that Wetlands Agent Newton has all that authority already; he questioned that that was the way the CGS are written? Wetlands Agent Newton replied affirmatively. She noted she is also the Zoning Enforcement Officer for the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) but doesn’t appear at their meetings; she submits a written report to the Commission. Her physical attendance isn’t required due to the way the CGS are written with regard to the PZC. Commissioner Baker indicated the power comes from the CGS, which the Commission can’t change. Wetlands Agent Newton replied affirmatively, but noted the Commission could approach legislatures to make changes in the CGS.
Chairman Ceppetelli addressed Commissioner Burnham; he noted Commissioner Burnham had been a vocal opponent at the Town Meeting, and had a considerable amount of property he presumably wanted to protect. He questioned if Commissioner Burnham was more comfortable with the language revisions now? Commissioner Burnham questioned how many unresolved issues/situations have occurred since October 1973? Wetlands Agent Newton noted she wasn’t employed by East Windsor during 1973 but cited there are currently four (4) unresolved issues/situations. Commissioner Osborn suggested situations may have been resolved but not satisfactorily, in his opinion. He cited Scantic Glen which had a significant run off issue of material going into the Scantic River. Commissioner
Burnham questioned why the developer wasn’t advised? Commissioner Osborn reported a Cease & Desist Order was issued on Scantic Glen but the developer went to the judge and the Cease & Desist Order was taken off. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested not having to use the Wetlands Violations Ordinance frequently wasn’t a reason not to have such an ordinance. Chairman Ceppetelli cited an example of someone being a farmer, and they rely on a streambed for irrigation. Somewhere up the road a developer decides to block that stream, and now you, the farmer, no longer has access to that water. What recourse presently does the Town, or this Board, have; what will you, the farmer, do for irrigation in the meantime? Commissioner Burnham felt that even if you went to court it was a 50/50 chance of winning. Commissioner Koczera gave an example of someone digging across a road; he felt the Town would fix that situation
and send the violator to jail. It was noted that that example didn’t address a wetlands issue; Wetlands Agent Newton reported someone can walk up the center of a watercourse but it is private property. You, or the Town, can’t just go in and fix the problem.
Commissioner Sawka reiterated he was looking for other towns that use similar ordinances. Wetlands Agent Newton cited Ellington has just enacted such an ordinance; she gave examples of fines imposed. She also noted Suffield issues Cease & Desist Orders and gives a violator 30 days to comply, then the Town Attorney would take the violator to court. She noted East Windsor doesn’t have that option.
Commissioner Savaria felt the Commission was being extremely fair when utilizing this ordinance. It’s a step between a Cease & Desist Order and going to court, and is a much less expensive step. Commissioner Burnham felt the ultimate judge is one person (the Hearing Officer) appointed by the First Selectman. Commissioner Osborn felt a violator who was faced with significant fines would be more willing to negotiate with a Hearing Officer than go to court. Commissioner Burnham felt the Commission would ultimately go to the landowner if they couldn’t fine the violator. Commissioner Baker felt East Windsor didn’t have that many absentee landowners; he felt someone like Commissioner Burnham knows everyone; we should be able to identify the violators. Commissioner
Roloff suggested if it wasn’t the landowners fault then ok; Commissioner Baker felt the fine wouldn’t be levied. Commissioner Slate questioned how this ordinance would apply to an existing violation within floodplain along one of the Town’s major highways? Wetlands Agent Newton reported that property owner has an Order from the DEP, and still has not complied. Commissioner Burnham questioned that this ordinance would address that issue better? Wetlands Agent Newton reported the Commission could fine the landowner and then put a lien on the property. She also noted that violation has been going for two (2) years. Commissioner Slate suggested something like that situation is one of the most compelling reasons we need this ordinance. Commissioner Baker noted he attended many meetings as a citizen; this ordinance is like a common sense issue to him. If violations can be worked out then the fines wouldn’t be imposed, but something like this issue being discussed is a legal
issue that needs a legal resolution. It’s a situation that is happening here, and should be resolved here. This ordinance will help the Commission do the service to the Town they are charged with, and will protect the taxpayers in the town. Commissioner Roloff felt the main problem at the Town Meeting was that people didn’t know what the ordinance was about. They felt they were being attacked but didn’t realize the Commission doesn’t want to impose fines or liens, but that the Commission has no recourse in severe situations.
Discussion of the process working up to the citations was revisited. Wetlands Agent Newton reported that if someone fills in a wetlands she goes out to the property and verifies the complaint. If the violator is known she writes them a Notice of Violation and cites what needs to be done to correct the violation. Then the situation comes before the Board. If the person says this is what they will do and then goes out and does nothing Wetlands Agent Newton would issue a Cease & Correct Order which ceases all activity except what is needed to correct what was agreed on. If the violator still ignores coming to the Board for direction the Commission would vote on issuing a Citation Notice, which spells out what will happen and sites a timeframe for compliance. Chairman Ceppetelli
reiterated the Town currently has a situation where thousands of yards of fill has been put in the flood plain and wetlands; no one can identify where the fill came from or what is in it. He questioned if the Commission felt it was ok for that fill to remain on that site? He cited the difficulty the Commission is presently facing with regard to that violation. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested that most people are not going to get to a situation of dealing with fines; most people will comply after issuance of the Citation Notice. She suggested someone can do irreparable harm to wetlands or watercourses by illegally filling, etc.; to say this ordinance is not necessary is foolish. She questioned why anyone would be on this Board if they didn’t think such an ordinance was necessary?
Chairman Ceppetelli polled the Commission for their consideration on the revised ordinance.
MOTION: To APPROVE THE AMENDED Wetland Violation Citations & Procedures, Ordinance #2009-________.
Osborn moved/Slate seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Ceppetelli/Osborn/Koczera/Savaria/Slate/Sawka/Baker/Roloff
Commissioner Savaria questioned the Commission’s plan for resubmission of this ordinance for passage? Chairman Ceppetelli suggested that when the Commission adopts the revised ordinance it would then be referred back to the Board of Selectmen. The Commission discussed explaining situations pertinent to this ordinance, the need to distinguish between dumping of furniture, etc. along the road (which would not be an activity subject to this ordinance) vs. a wetlands impact. Commissioner Burnham questioned that the ordinance has been revised to reflect that all fines will go against the violator; Wetlands Agent Newton replied affirmatively. Commissioner Baker questioned if it was ok for the Commission to remove reference to the property owner? Wetlands Agent Newton reported she
has spoken with the Town Attorney, he has said if you go to court the property owner will be listed as a defendant but if the property owner isn’t the same as the violator then the violator would be the responsible party. Commissioner Baker questioned if he dumped a mattress in the wetlands and said it wasn’t him - go find the violator; how would that be addressed? Wetlands Agent Newton reported there is a lot of dumping down by the Scantic River; she and the Building Inspector go through that trash to find receipts, etc. She indicated 99% of the time the violator will be the property owner. Commissioner Baker felt it was his responsibility as the property owner to identify the violator.
Commissioner Burnham indicated the same thing happened tonight as happened last time; he didn’t get to vote as an Alternate. Chairman Ceppetelli noted he allowed everyone to give their opinions, both last time and tonight. And as a resident you have a right to an opinion; the recommendation from numerous attorneys was to get someone else to present those opinions for you, and not make comments as a Commissioner.
Chairman Ceppetelli indicated this revised ordinance will be returned to the Board of Selectmen for consideration for adoption. Noting he had been very vocal at the Town Meeting Chairman Ceppetelli queried Selectman Pippin if he had read the previous proposed ordinance prior to the Town Meeting? Selectman Pippin replied he had not read the ordinance but he agreed with Commissioner Burnham’s suggested change from fining the property owner. Chairman Ceppetelli questioned if Selectman Pippin was personally more comfortable with the change? Selectman Pippin indicated Section C doesn’t say what type of violation will result in a citation. Wetlands Agent Newton reported the type of violations are listed in the Schedule of Fines, which the Commission was told by the Town
Attorney not to attach to the ordinance so the fines could be changed as necessary without readoption of a new ordinance. Selectman Pippin hoped they would be nominal fines in the beginning. Wetlands Agent Newton reported the amount of the fine depends on the type of violation. Selectman Pippin noted that on his Wetlands approval last year he must clean up materials dumped on his lots; he felt that was “out of line”. Chairman Ceppetelli suggested Selectman Pippin could sell the property, as he believed was now the case; the Commission wants to be sure the property is clean. Selectman Pippin stated the ordinance makes more sense now; the Commission is always picking on the property owner. Commissioner Savaria suggested the Commission isn’t trying to pick on anyone, they are trying to protect the wetlands.
Commissioner Burnham referenced paragraph D; he questioned if everyone was happy with that? Wetlands Agent Newton reported that language is verbatim as to what must be done by the CGS. That’s not the way it’s handled in the Planning Office, but it is what the CGS says you can do. If you send the notification by registered mail, and after four (4) days it’s considered officially delivered.
Chairman Ceppetelli hoped that Selectman Pippin can bring this revised ordinance to the Board of Selectman with a favorable recommendation. Selectman Pippin suggested he thought the magic word was “violation”; he can support this ordinance.
CORRESPONDENCE: None
GENERAL BOARD DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Roloff suggested as an Alternate, it’s a grey area. She understands there are a number of things she can’t vote on; she accepts that. Commissioner Koczera questioned that every time he steps down he can’t voice his opinion? Wetlands Agent Newton replied he can not; there has been a recent court case that indicates if you step down you can not speak. As a commissioner you give up certain rights as a resident. It goes for any member of any board, alternates or regulars. You can resign your position but you can’t come back on the board.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Osborn moved/Slate seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________________________________________________________
Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary, Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Watercourse Agency
| 
