TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
INLAND/WETLANDS WATERCOURSE AGENCY
Regular Meeting
November 4, 2009
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Osborn 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 Richard Osborn (Vice Chairman), Michael Koczera, Ron Savaria, Robert Slate, and Alternate Members Alan Baker, John Burnham and Kathryn Roloff.
Unable to Attend: Regular Members Michael Ceppetelli, John Malin, and Michael
Sawka.
Guests: Selectman Pippin, the Board of Selectmen’s liaison to this Commission; Kathy Pippin, member of the Board of Finance; and Deputy Selectman Hayes (arrived at 7:45 p.m.)
Vice Chairman Osborn noted the establishment of a quorum with four Regular Members and three Alternate members. LET THE RECORD SHOW Alternate Commissioner Roloff will join the Regular Members on decisions this evening. Also present was Wetlands Agent Newton.
AGENDA ADDITIONS:
MOTION: To ADD TO THE AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 4, 2009, the following AGENDA ADDITIONS: 1) Agent Decisions/1) 13-15 Mill Street - Application of Martha B. O’Donnell & Edward J. Benicak for construction of a driveway and parking lot. Total parcel is approximately 1.8 acres served by private well and public sewer; and 2) 24 Holcomb Terrace - Application of David and Valencia Chicoine for construction of two farm stream crossings. Total parcel is 4.27 acres served by private well and public sewer.
Koczera moved/Slate seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 9/2/09:
MOTION: To ACCEPT the Minutes of Regular Meeting dated September 2, 2009 with the following amendments: PAGE 9, CONFERENCES/SEMINARS/ TRAINING/1) Board Development - Training/Topics/1) Wetlands Ordinance, Paragraph 3, “.........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 local resolution........”; AND, PAGE 2, 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], Paragraph 3, final sentence “........There is approximately 1.4 acre acres of uplands review area which will surround the house.”
Savaria moved/Slate seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (on Inland Wetland applications):
Not an Agenda Item this evening; no Public Hearing in progress.
NEW PUBLIC HEARING (on Inland Wetlands applications):
No new Applications requiring a Public Hearing on the Agenda.
CONTINUED APPLICATIONS OR BUSINESS):
Not an Agenda Item this evening; no continued Applications or Business before the Commission at this time.
NEW BUSINESS:
No New Business before the Commission this evening.
NEW APPLICATIONS TO BE RECEIVED:
No New Applications received in the Planning Office for receipt at this Meeting.
MISCELLANEOUS/a) Vote on Adoption of 2010 Meeting Schedule:
Wetlands Agent Newton reported she had been asked to present 2 meeting schedules to the Commission for consideration and approval - one schedule offers the present schedule of one meeting/month, while the second schedule offers two meetings/month. The problem scheduling the second meeting is the Commission would not have a dedicated meeting space as this room is presently being used on Wednesday evenings; this Commission would probably meet on an “as needed” basis and would probably have to meet at the Broad Brook Elementary School. Commissioner Savaria questioned if there would also be an issue with finances? Wetlands Agent Newton suggested that would be an issue. For other Commissions, such as the Board of Finance, members of the Commission sometimes take minutes, or the
Commission might be able to go for an additional appropriation.
Wetlands Agent Newton reported the two meetings/month would expedite the application/review process, especially for commercial businesses. If an application were accepted at the first meeting, and no one appealed the application during the 15 day appeal timeframe it would enable the Commission to near the application on the second meeting. Commissioner Roloff concurred this issue had been discussed previously; it would alleviate late meetings as well as expedite the application process.
Wetlands Agent Newton reported the Commission Chairman had requested the Commission discuss the two meeting schedule at the next meeting, but the Commission could approve the one meeting schedule and revise its decision subsequently.
MOTION: To ACCEPT the 2010 Meeting Schedule - meetings to be held on the first Wednesday of each month - as presented.
Roloff moved/Savaria seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MISCELLANEOUS/B) Report from the NRPC (Natural Resources Preservation Committee):
Commissioner Slate reported the NRPC operates as an extension of the Wetlands Commission currently. In order for the NRPC to continue to apply for farmland grants from the State the NRPC must be separated from the Wetlands Commission. The NRPC has worked vigorously from January to August to evaluate the farms in town. They have identified two properties for which the Town could offer to purchase the development rights. The properties must be surveyed. Due to the current economy the bids for the survey were half of what would be expected. Commissioner Slate noted the NRPC started this work 2 years ago; work must be completed in January, 2010. The Town must come up with some of the money to purchase development rights; other funds can be acquired through grants. To qualify for the grants the NRPC - as a commission for farmland preservation - must be separated from the Wetlands Commission. Commissioner Slate reported the following upcoming meetings regarding the farm
regulations: November 10 with the Planning and Zoning Commission, and November 18th which is a regular meeting for the NRPC.
AGENT DECISIONS/1) 13-15 Mill Street - Application of Martha B. O’Donnell & Edward J. Benicak for construction of a driveway and parking lot. Total parcel is approximately 1.8 acres served by private well and public sewer; and 2) 24 Holcomb Terrace - Application of David and Valencia Chicoine for construction of two farm stream crossings. Total parcel is 4.27 acres served by private well and public sewer:
Wetlands Agent Newton reported she has made the following Agent Decisions:
1) 10 Prospect Hill Terrace/Cohoes Commons:
Wetlands Agent Newton reported this item hadn’t been placed on the Agenda as she was out of the office on training when the agenda was prepared; she will offer this report on the status of this issue. Cohoes applied for a Zoning Permit for the installation of a monopole sign to be located in an area of the parking lot facing I-91; the location is within the uplands review area, however, Cohoes was not aware they needed to apply for a Wetlands Permit as well as the Zoning Permit Wetlands Agent Newton indicated they will be tearing up an area of the parking lot larger than they anticipated; she has asked them to install erosion controls during construction. She is also concerned with the installation of a catch basin and seepage of water; Cohoes will also install hay bales as well.
2) 24 Holcomb Terrace - Application of David and Valencia Chicoine:
Wetlands Agent Newton reported the Chiciones are basically rebuilding/repairing an existing cattle crossing; they will be putting in hay bales on the upstream side of the crossings. They have hired a contractor to make these repairs.
3) 13-15 Mill Street - Application of Martha B. O’Donnell & Edward J. Benicak:
Wetlands Agent Newton reported this is one of the old lots on Mill Street which presently contains 2 existing homes; the lots existed prior to the establishment of zoning regulations. The applicants are planning to sell off one of the homes and must create two lots out of the parcel which conform to zoning requirements. People are currently parking in the area between the two homes. They will be creating a gravel parking lot in the uplands review area of Chestnut Brook. Wetlands Agent Newton reported there is not a lot of impact from these activities.
MOTION: To ACCEPT the AGENT DECISIONS as presented by Inland/Wetlands Agent Newton.
Slate moved/Koczera seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
VIOLATIONS (for action or show-cause hearing): No new violations to report this evening.
STATUS REPORTS/1) 68 Newberry Road-Cease and Desist Status Update:
Wetlands Agent Newton presented the Board with the following support documentation: 1) her memo dated November 2, 2009 which summarizes the activities which have occurred, through to date, on the subject site; and 2) letter dated November 2, 2009 from the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) summarizing their concerns and unpermitted activities which have already occurred at the subject site. Wetlands Agent Newton reported she and other staff have been working with Rachel Dearborn (land surveyor) to develop a solution which will meet everyone’s needs. She indicated resolution is difficult; what needs to be done from a wetlands perspective probably will not be allowed by the ACOE.
Mrs. Dearborn referenced a plan, which shows areas in which the recycled millings are presently located. She indicated the water sheet flows off into the rest of the farm. Mr. Dearborn has received a Cease & Desist Order from the Zoning Commission (PZC) because the site plan was too detailed with regard to specific locations for the type of piles and the grinder, which is actually a portable grinder. Mrs. Dearborn indicated they will be returning to the Zoning Commission (PZC) for a plan that indicates any of the facility can be used for the recycling. They also lack a permit for the millings because the area occupied by the millings was designed to be a gravel area. Mrs. Dearborn suggested they have designed a swale to run on the south side of the millings; they also want to extend the
millings to the west property line. They also want to have the water discharge into the wetlands area and to keep the pond to irrigate the rest of the farm. They would like to expand the area of the pond from the existing 10,000 square feet to approximately 26,000 square feet, but, because of the ACOE involvement they can’t touch the wetlands pocket which would discharge the swale between the 2 wetlands pockets. Mrs. Dearborn indicated this would be a temporary solution, because they erode over time. Mr. Dearborn needs more room for more millings. Mrs. Dearborn suggested it would be in everyone’s best interest to allow expansion to the west rather than to the east and the wetlands. Mrs. Dearborn indicated the ACOE has shown the violations with flag numbers to identify same. Mrs. Dearborn suggested she is looking for the Commission’s recommendation before presenting a plan.
Commissioner Roloff questioned why the ACOE got involved with this property? Wetlands Agent Newton reported the ACOE received the same complaints the Planning Office received. This parcel falls within the ACOE jurisdiction because the wetlands is a tributary to a named brook (Namerick Brook). Also, the area “down here” was a red maple swamp which was cleared for expansion. While the swamp could have been cleared for farmland the area was not a “registered farm crop” with the ACOE. The dredging of the farm pond and the clearing of the red maple swamp falls within the ACOE’s jurisdiction.
The issue of who’s jurisdiction takes precedent was addressed. Wetlands Agent Newton reported this Commission could give Mr. Dearborn a permit to address the run off issue but he can’t do anything to resolve the issue because of the ACOE Cease & Desist Order. The Town is bound by the ACOE orders, and the ACOE is bound by ours. Wetlands Agent Newton reported she understands the ACOE can only take jurisdiction if there is a connection, or a nexus, to a brook. They are looking at the run off/discharge into that area; they can do that. He filled; he dredged; they can look at the issue. Even if the Town grants permits Mr. Dearborn must still deal with the ACOE issues.
Mrs. Dearborn and Wetlands Agent Newton both agreed that the farm road is a road to nowhere. If he needs a road to access the pond maybe he should be looking elsewhere on the parcel. The pond isn’t finished; there is talk about using it for a detention basin but the ACOE won’t let him do that. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested she is looking for the farm road to be taken out as it is causing drainage issues. Also, the wetlands has been substantially filled in; there is no reason for that unless he is expanding the business allowed by this Commission.
Wetlands Agent Newton reported another issue Mrs. Dearborn and she discussed with Mr. Dearborn is a 5-year plan. If Mr. Dearborn needs to expand there is an upland area that could be used as passage to another uplands area that could be used for another storage area. The request is that he show what he needs up front; if you say you will be putting millings in a specific area say so. Wetlands Agent Newton indicated it’s allowed/permitted; just say so and develop a long range plan. That plan can then be presented to the ACOE; Wetlands Agent Newton suggested she can’t imagine that the ACOE won’t let Mr. Dearborn do what he needs to do to take of his issues. She suggested this isn’t all that complicated if they can get everyone on board.
Commissioner Savaria questioned how often Mr. Dearborn rotates the mulch piles? Mrs. Dearborn indicated she was not sure but would inquire for the next meeting.
Vice Chairman Osborn indicated when Mr. Dearborn came before the Board he only came in for part of what he is doing presently; this came in as he is only going to do this much, he’s only going to have the business “here”, he is only going to do this much, he is only going to do that. It never came in as a full plan. Vice Chairman Osborn felt Wetlands Agent Newton was correct; the Commission needs a full plan for the whole parcel and what’s going to happen there. Wetlands Agent Newton indicated that’s been the problem. It’s been difficult, and she understands the need for expansion, and she understands the point. She and Town Planner Whitten are not saying these are not permitted activities; they are permitted. Mr. Dearborn can
certainly get a permit for them but he must come in and get the permit; he can’t just go and do them. If you want to expand the footprint of your activities, or you want to go from gravel or processed stone or millings - which are more like pavement - then you need to come back and do a modification to your permit. A lot of what Mr. Dearborn has been doing, with the exception of the filling of the wetlands to the north of the pond, are pretty much permitted activities, and the Commission would have given him a permit. He is doing really well out there; it’s just prudent to look at it long term - what does he need long term on the site? Wetlands Agent Newton suggested Mr. Dearborn should add the expansion as a phase on the permit.
Commissioner Baker referenced the pond in the corner as being the area where Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Dearborn are having a dispute regarding run off. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested they still have a dispute going on; it’s part of the issue. He questioned if Mr. Wilcox will be in on the discussion as to how this will be settled? Wetlands Agent Newton suggested the Commission can require a Public Hearing, which would allow Mr. Wilcox to express his comments. If the farm road and the fill come out it will address the drainage issues because the run off will run through the swale. All the drainage that’s being blocked - Wetlands Agent Newton reported it is being blocked, she’s been out to the site - if you return the area to its natural height it will address the
drainage issues.
Vice Chairman Osborn felt the pond wasn’t large enough to provide irrigation; it could be pumped down in 2 hours. Wetlands Agent Newton reported she has read the minutes of previous meetings for the farm road; she doesn’t know on what grounds the farm exemption was given. The pond hasn’t been built; she questions how essential it is to the farming operation. Wetlands Agent Newton reported she has not addressed the issue of the farm pond as she felt the ACOE will ask Mr. Dearborn to fill it in. The Inland/Wetlands Commission should require that the pond be built to size and install a pump - if the pond is allowed to remain - but the pond needs to be stabilized around the banks.
Mrs. Dearborn indicated she is looking for direction from this Board. Vice Chairman Osborn suggested this Board needs to know what the ACOE wants. Mrs. Dearborn reported the ACOE won’t respond by this Commission’s next meeting; she would like to come in with a partial plan but she is hearing this Commission wants a full plan. Wetlands Agent Newton reported if Mrs. Dearborn can get an idea of the expansion plan from Mr. Dearborn and they put in a driveway between the 2 wetlands pockets there would not be a lot of run off or buffer but they could put in curbing.
Vice Chairman Osborn questioned if the PZC will allow the millings? Mrs. Dearborn indicated she can’t go to the PZC before the Inland/Wetlands Commission, and the Inland/Wetlands Commission must make a decision because we are in the wetlands buffer. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested Mrs. Dearborn could go to the next PZC Meeting for a preliminary discussion as is occurring this evening before this Commission. Vice Chairman Osborn felt that would be beneficial, as the PZC thought Mr. Dearborn was doing mulching. Mrs. Dearborn suggested Mr. Dearborn is using the millings as blacktop; he isn’t selling them. Wetlands Agent Newton reported there is an
approved plan issued through the PZC which lists specific locations for the stockpiles, the grinder, and more stockpiles. If the neighbor complains regarding the locations of any of those items everyone is stuck with those specifications. Wetlands Agent Newton reported she has asked Mr. Dearborn, from a zoning perspective, to generalize what will be located in that area related to the recycling facility, which may eliminate some of the complaints. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested it seems like a tedious thing, but it’s so technical that if someone sues the Town it does make a difference; she must enforce the approved plan. The meeting minutes for both the Inland/Wetlands and the Zoning Commission said processed stone rather than millings - which have a different run off rate.
There are also EPA and DEP issues regarding run off below 4”, and that needs to be addressed through wetlands. It sounds complicated but you need to deal with it in layers - Wetlands, Zoning, and ACOE. Now Mr. Dearborn has 2 separate permits with violations on both, and additional violations on top of those permits.
Commissioner Burnham questioned that the Cease & Desist Order doesn’t stop his business activities? Wetlands Agent Newton reported the Planning Office worded the Cease and Desist Order so it wouldn’t stop him (Mr. Dearborn) from being being able to use his mulching facility; we were very careful how we worded it. The Cease & Desist could have stopped the mulching facility and suspended activities but she didn’t do that. The Cease & Desist for the Inland/Commission was for all activities in “this” area, and the PZC Cease & Desist was that the approved plan didn’t allow for the addition of millings, and Mr. Dearborn put the millings where he said he wouldn’t put anything. Now Mr. Dearborn must come in with a modification of the
approved Site Plan
Mrs. Dearborn suggested she would like to present a partial plan with the “as-built” conditions, and then show how to deal with the Zoning violations, and deal with the farm issues and the expansion issues separately. Vice Chairman Osborn suggested Mrs. Dearborn touch base with the PZC before the next Inland/Wetlands Meeting. Wetlands Agent Newton indicated the next PZC Meeting is this next Tuesday, November 10th; she will ask Planning Staff to put Mrs. Dearborn on the Agenda.
Commissioner Burnham questioned Mrs. Dearborn if she had her choice - the “Santa Clause of wetlands” - what would you like to do to expedite the whole process? Mrs. Dearborn suggested she would like to show a plan tonight to expand “this”, and to show the discharge into the uplands - nothing is touching the wetlands; then to accept the plan as she is showing it tonight - which doesn’t show the farm road but does show the piles. Commissioner Burnham suggested that would “trip you up again for another 30 days”; Mrs. Dearborn agreed the process was lengthy. He questioned what the Commission can do to expedite this whole process; what can the Commission do tonight to make this happen? Can the Commission give Wetlands Agent Newton more authority with
regard to Agent Decisions? Commissioner Burnham commented “back to Zoning, back to Wetlands, back to Zoning, and back to Wetlands”. Vice Chairman Osborn noted that wasn’t the Commission’s fault; this has been going on for some time. Wetlands Agent Newton reported when she started her employment the Commission gave her authority to make decisions on specific issues, such as sign-offs on sheds, decks, and garages. The purpose of that restriction was for the Commission to get a perspective on her decisions. That authority hasn’t been expanded, although the intent was to hold that discussion during the Commission’s December Meeting.
Vice Chairman Osborn noted Mrs. Dearborn could have come in with a plan this evening; she can prepare an application for the next meeting. Mrs. Dearborn suggested she was fine with that, but she would like to get an ok from Zoning; she felt there was no point in applying if they are not happy with the proposal. Commissioner Burnham questioned if Mrs. Dearborn was asking if the Commission was happy with the direction she is taking? Mrs. Dearborn replied affirmatively. Commissioner Burnham questioned if there was any reason why the Commission couldn’t do that. Commissioner Baker felt the Commission has given Mrs. Dearborn direction. Commissioner Baker suggested this isn’t cut and dried like putting a shed someplace; this is a lot more complicated than
that. The Commission can’t just go off expediting these issues. Wetlands Agent Newton indicated Mrs. Dearborn needs to know if the Commission will accept a piecemeal approach to address the discharge from the millings? Wetlands Agent Newton indicated Mrs. Dearborn is in the process of proposing a finished swale to: 1) address the drainage issues, and 2) address Wetlands Agent Newton’s concerns about the run off from the millings going into the wetlands and possibly causing pollution. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested Mrs. Dearborn’s proposal addresses the Inland/Wetlands and Zoning permits. Wetlands Agent Newton clarified that the proposal doesn’t address the violations but those are ACOE violations and those can be dealt with separately as long as the applicant understands that there can be no more work in that area. Mrs. Dearborn indicated they want the Zoning Cease & Desist to be gone; she felt the
Wetlands violation will be a life long experience for this farm. Mrs. Dearborn would like to install a berm in the uplands review area which should have been done a couple of years ago; that would take care of the Zoning violation. Commissioner Savaria questioned how much of this work would address Mr. Wilcox’s concerns? Wetlands Agent Newton reported the farm road can come out, which would address some of the issues; the fill can’t come out unless the ACOE agrees. Wetlands Agent Newton reiterated that she felt removal of the farm road would address many of the drainage issues.
Commissioner Baker agreed with Wetlands Agent Newton’s suggestions but questioned that if someone else who did not have all these violations came in with an application and said they wanted to put in a berm/swale next to someone else’s property, would the abutting property owner be notified? Wetlands Agent Newton replied no, not unless the Commission asked for a Public Hearing, which would be triggered by significant activities, a petition of 25 signatures or more, or activities of significant public interest. . Commissioner Baker questioned that the activities cited wouldn’t be significant activities? Wetlands Agent Newton replied, no; it would not trigger a Public Hearing. Commissioner Baker questioned if the ACOE would attend the Commission’s meeting? Wetlands
Agent Newton indicated that would make sense, but she didn’t feel that would happen. Wetlands Agent Newton indicated she will call the ACOE and ask if they would lift the Cease & Desist on the part of the property that affects East Windsor but she couldn’t say if the ACOE would agree to that.
Wetlands Agent Newton reiterated Mrs. Dearborn will be asking on behalf of Mr. Dearborn to modify the plan as shown tonight to expand the corn field to take millings and address the drainage; she questioned if the Commission would be ok with an Agent Decision? Commissioner Slate was in agreement; Commissioners Savaria, Koczera, Roloff, Baker, and Vice Chairman Osborn preferred that a full plan be submitted. Commissioner Savaria questioned why the Commission should be asked to expedite something for someone who hasn’t worked with the Commission in the past; Commissioner Baker suggested there isn’t the level of trust for someone who wasn’t willing to work with the Commission on past issues. There is nothing in writing submitted; there is open violation; the broken trust is an issue. Commissioner Koczera reiterated he wanted to see a full plan. Commissioner Savaria clarified that the plan is to include work to take care of existing wetlands violations. Commissioner Baker
questioned why an application wasn’t presented tonight if it was to be done immediately? It would have been in writing, and the Commission would have acted on it tonight. If there is no application everyone is just talking tonight. Mrs. Dearborn suggested there is the issue of permitted activities with the Town, and that’s not the ACOE. Vice Chairman Osborn suggested if the Commission had been presented a plan for the whole parcel......; Mrs. Dearborn agreed, if the Commission had a plan for the whole parcel most of this would have not happened. She noted there is an approved plan on file. Vice Chairman Osborn and Wetlands Agent Newton clarified that the approved plan has not been followed.
Commissioner Roloff questioned if Wetlands Agent Newton would be happy with the proposal for the swale? Wetlands Agent Newton clarified that because of the issues with the ACOE a plan needs to be presented; everyone is in a holding pattern with the ACOE to remove the farm road, and the berm/swale addresses the drainage backing up into the neighbor’s property and also alleviates pollution caused by the millings into the wetlands. The proposal under discussion would address some of those issues; the wetlands Cease & Desist Order is still on but it would lift the Cease & Desist from Zoning. Mr. Dearborn needs to get a Wetlands Permit approval to go to the Zoning Commission. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested she would be ok with the proposal under discussion, with the understanding
that the Cease & Desist would remain in affect. Wetlands Agent Newton noted removal of the farm road absolutely has to be a part of it.
Commissioner Savaria suggested the swale is just moving the pollution further down. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested the grass swale would be discharging into the uplands area. They don’t know where the millings came from, and they are not necessarily polluted but because of their size they are not considered clean fill by the DEP so you don’t want to see them discharge into the wetlands. Commissioner Baker questioned if the calculations have been done to prove the drainage will work properly? Mrs. Dearborn suggested the run off will be contained in the swale in a 25 year storm; it will keep it in there and not run onto other people’s properties. Wetlands Agent Newton reported she asked David Askew to review the property and he also talked about a swale. He agreed that the fill “in this area” needs to be removed; there is no need for the fill to be there; it needs to be removed. Wetlands Agent Newton agreed the grass lined swale will address the issue of pollution. Vice
Chairman Osborn questioned the width of the proposed swale? Mrs. Dearborn suggested it’s proposed to be 8’ on the bottom, and 12’ on the top, and a height of 4’ with 3’ of water contained in a 25 year storm. Commissioner Roloff noted it’s presently November; what type of grass will grow now? Wetlands Agent Newton concurred, noting no matter if this is made as an Agent Decision or a Commission approval the swale can’t go in at this time of year. Mrs. Dearborn suggested the construction could occur and the hay bales could go in; Wetlands Agent Newton indicated she would not recommend that work begin before winter.
Wetlands Agent Newton offered this consideration - that Mrs. Dearborn come in with two (2) applications - one with the grass lined swale as discussed tonight, and the second to address the removal of the fill. They would be different applications for different permits. The applicant can move on to the Zoning Board while this Board gets to see the whole plan. The Applicant would have five (5) years to start the work; that would address the Cease & Desist Order and getting the fill out of the wetlands. Then she can work with the ACOE. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested “this” is separate from any permitted activity; it’s a separate violation. Filling the wetlands is a new violation; he wouldn’t need a permit for the farming application.
There is a farming exemption, and a whole new violation. The violation isn’t associated with the permit currently. Both are separate issues. There is no purpose for the fill; the crop was growing there before the area was filled in. You can have one overall plan but submit two applications.
Commissioner Roloff indicated she wanted to see a full plan. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested Mr. Dearborn needs to get approval for the work, and he needs to set a timeframe to complete the work. Vice Chairman Osborn clarified that the Commission had set a timeframe previously but the timeframes were not adhered to.
Wetlands Agent Newton reported she and Commissioner Burnham attended the third session of the DEP Certificate Program; at that program a handout was given which defines what is allowed and what is not allowed with regard to farming exemptions, and clarifies how you as Commission members can interpret it. At least the Commission knows that it does have the authority to say someone has an exemption, or that they don’t - that people can’t just go out and do it. The handout recommends that a Commission make a separate ruling with regard to the farm exemption which is separate to the wetlands permit. The person requesting the exemption must explain why the exemption applies, and must acquire a ruling from the Board. This process would reduce the need for a regular application. Wetlands Agent Newton referenced page 3, item #6 which indicates what isn’t permitted as-of-right, and what is required for a full application. She referenced for the Board the following items items NOT
permitted as-of-right, which then requires a full application: item #6.2 - “farm ponds of 3 acres or less not essential to the farming operation”, and item #6.3 - “road construction not directly related to the farming operation.” Wetlands Agent Newton clarified that the Commission determines what is or isn’t essential.
CONFERENCES/SEMINARS/TRAINING/1) Board Development - Training/Topics Schedule:
Nothing presented for discussion.
CORRESPONDENCE: Nothing presented this evening.
GENERAL BOARD DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Savaria requested to speak. He initiated discussion by congratulating everyone present in the audience who won the elections yesterday, but noted the Commission itself has an on-going issue with something a Board member did which Commissioner Savaria felt was unethical. Commissioner Roloff agreed. Commissioner Savaria noted that (during the first Town Meeting regarding the proposed Wetlands Ordinance) he was surprised to hear Commissioner Burnham identify himself as a Wetlands Commissioner and then proceeded to speak against the ordinance. It was explained to Commissioner Burnham that as a Commissioner he has some obligations and limits as to what he can and can not do. Commissioner Savaria indicated that Commissioner Burnham had been told (at a subsequent
Commission Meeting) how his opinion could be presented. Commissioner Savaria acknowledged that Commissioner Burnham was entitled to his opinion, actually some of Commissioner Burnham’s comments were valid, but when the Board makes a decision you/Commissioner Burnham should be bound by that decision. Commissioner Savaria suggested Commissioner Burnham’s oath of office states that you are supposed to uphold the duties of your Commission. To go to a meeting and say “you know people who would rather cut off their right arm than come to the Commission” - whether it was true or not - it completely undermines what the Commission does. Commissioner Baker questioned why Commissioner Burnham joined the Commission (if he can’t support its decisions?) Commissioner Baker felt for Commissioner Burnham to be openly hostile to the Commission - why do you want to be on the Commission? Commissioner Savaria noted the
Commission has nothing to gain by serving on this Board; they are not running for public office, they’re not trying to get out of paying fines for continuing violations, they are just volunteering, they are just trying to uphold the law. Commissioner Savaria continued the he gets no benefit from this; they are just trying to do what the law says, and to cut our feet out from under us. When the Commission takes a vote..............................
Commissioner Burnham countered that when the Commission took a vote on the revised ordinance, the first time you/the Commission chastised him for recognizing himself for speaking as a Board member. The second time he did not make that mistake, although others in this room identified themselves and spoke. He was careful not to identify himself as a Board (member); he was speaking as a citizen of the town on an ordinance being proposed by this Commission. During the previous (Commission) meeting he was out of the decision-making process; he stated his objections which were in the minutes, and one of them was “B4”, which Eileen Wagner brought up. Commissioner Burnham suggested he was just as shocked to see as many (people) at the meeting; he requested the RECORD SHOW he didn’t
gather these people and bring them to into the room. He was prepared to speak as a citizen and as an informed person as to what he feels is going to be a wrong direction for this Commission and for this town. Commissioner Burnham reported he did not approve any of that at any of those meetings. There were 5 people that spoke from this Commission; you (Commissioner Savaria) were one of them. If you can speak as a Board member in favor why can’t he (Commissioner Burnham) speak in opposition? Commissioner Burnham said people come up to him as a member of this Commission and ask him to do something. Commissioner Savaria indicated you’re a Board member; violators/people are going to come to you. Commissioner Burnham replied the people seeking him out were not violators. Commissioner Savaria turned to Selectman Pippin, noting he had been before the Board on a personal application. Commissioner Savaria questioned
Selectman Pippin on his opinion of his experience. Selectman Pippin said “it took long enough, the Commission was nitpicking, the Commission “drug” it s feet, and the Commission created more damage than he did. Selectman Pippin contended that a lot of time was wasted, it cost us a lot of extra money that it shouldn’t have because certain people didn’t deal with the facts. Selectman Pippin indicated he was sorry; but truthfully you guys created more damage to the wetlands than he ever could by some of the stuff you didn’t do.” Commissioner Savaria clarified that Selectman Pippin could have created less damage if he had proposed one lot. Selectman Pippin then suggested he could have put in a pig farm also, and started his discourse on zoning designations for various types of parcels. Discussion continued regarding farmland; Vice Chairman Osborn suggested Selectman Pippin wasn’t a
member of this Commission and the current discussion should be taken up at another time. Selectman Pippin requested that THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Savaria addressed him.
Commissioner Koczera noted that everyone knows he owns the airport, and when there is discussion around there he steps down. He noted Wetlands Agent Newton’s comments from a previous Inland/Wetlands Commission Meeting regarding Commissioner Burnham’s right to speak at a public meeting; he referenced comments made at a previous meeting regarding the need for someone to resign from a board in order to speak of his opinion, and that the person could then not come back on the board on which he had served. Wetlands Agent Newton noted Commissioner Burnham had attended the same training conference (Session II) she had, and at which the court case she was referencing had been mentioned. Commissioner Burnham questioned Wetlands Agent Newton if she thought he was out of line speaking as a citizen at
the (recent) Town Meeting? Wetlands Agent Newton replied that she thought - “in line with the court cases they heard about in Session II at their training classes, yes, Commissioner Burnham was out of line speaking at the Town Meeting. Even though he didn’t address himself as a member of this Board people who knew him in town knew him as a member of this Board. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested that if Commissioner Burnham wanted to openly speak out against a decision that this Board made in the positive - that Commissioner Burnham didn’t agree with - then Commissioner Burnham rightfully should have resigned his position as was stated in the court case that they heard, and them he could have spoken out against the ordinance. Commissioner Savaria suggested even though you didn’t address yourself as a member (of this Commission) people in town know you are related to this Board; you should have resigned (from the
Commission) and then you could have spoken.
Commissioner Roloff indicated she didn’t see Commissioner Burnham as a shy person; why didn’t you say you were against it? Commissioner Burnham suggested that twice when the ordinance was addressed there were 7 people in agreement who would be voting on the ordinance, and the one person - himself - who had issues with the ordinance didn’t vote. Vice Chairman Osborn noted Commissioner Burnham was an Alternate Member who wasn’t serving on that issue. Commissioner Burnham felt the vote didn’t reflect his dissension. Commissioner Baker felt the decision of the Board is the decision of the Board. The first time Commissioner Burnham spoke against it Commissioner Burnham spoke as a Board member. It didn’t matter the second time because everyone
knew Commissioner Burnham was a member of the Board, and he was speaking against the ordinance. From an ethical standpoint Commissioner Baker indicated he now has a different view of Commissioner Burnham than he used to; he thought Commissioner Burnham had a certain set of ethics that Commissioner Baker didn’t think Commissioner Burnham had now. Commissioner Baker indicated that what concerns him is now Commissioner Burnham is a selectman, too. Where does it stop? Who benefits, and whatnot? Commissioner Baker suggested he felt that Commissioner Burnham violated the Board’s trust and it says in the ethics, you can’t do that; we discussed that. You said “I didn’t get to vote” and then we (the Commission) voted again. It’s not all there exactly in the minutes what was said but we (the Commission) addressed that issue. It’s just the way it works. The Board itself, as a whole, which you
are a member of, voted for this ordinance. You’re bound by that decision, whether you like it or not, and if you don’t like it then you can resign from the Board and say this is stupid, and I’m against it, and you can do all that but you can’t just walk away and do what you did. Not as a Board member.
Commissioner Burnham questioned if anyone ever had any confusion as to his opinion? Regarding the ethics issue, he didn’t change his position. And, he will look up tomorrow the information regarding the court case cited; he has the information from the seminar. With regard to training, what’s right today and in 6 months it changes.
Commissioner Roloff noted that at the second (Commission) meeting after the first Town Meeting/”referendum” vote the Board questioned what type of wording would it take for Commissioner Burnham to accept the ordinance, and the Commission made those changes, - one change being “landowner” - so you didn’t make it clear you were against the ordinance. We (the Commission) made changes that you (Commissioner Burnham) suggested. Commissioner Roloff noted Commissioner Burnham had said he would accept those changes, and they were made, and he lied. Commissioner Baker noted that Selectman Pippin agreed with those changes also.
Vice Chairman Osborn felt that Commissioner Burnham didn’t do this intentionally, but as a member of the Board, and the Board votes one way the only way you can remain loyal to the Board is to resign. Commissioner Burnham indicated he doesn’t work for this Board, he works for the people of this town. Several Commissioners noted their job is to protect the wetlands. Vice Chairman Osborn suggested you can’t get things done that way; there is no credibility; no one has any credibility. Commissioner Burnham suggested what was being said was if you don’t agree with the general view of the Board you must resign? You must leave the Board, and what you’re left with is all people who agree. Vice Chairman Osborn suggested it isn’t what the Commission says; it’s the law. If you want to change the laws you need to go to the legislature. Commissioner Baker concurred, what the Commission is doing is to uphold the Connecticut State Statutes, not the East Windsor laws, it’s not what the
Republicans think or the Democrats think or what anybody thinks. Commissioner Burnham questioned if he isn’t a Commissioner to look out for the well being of the people what is he “here” for? Vice Chairman Osborn suggested Commissioner Burnham was here to uphold the wetlands laws. Commissioner Baker concurred - the inland/wetlands and watercourses; Vice Chairman Osborn concurred - that’s what you are here for; you’re here to protect the wetlands... He questioned that he was wrong because at a Town Meeting he spoke against this ordinance? Commissioner Roloff and Koczera indicated the issue was that you are a member of a Board. Commissioner Burnham suggested if he had been asked that night he would have said exactly what he said (at the Town Meeting). Commissioner Roloff referenced the minutes of the meeting, noting the Commission tried to address the issue. Commissioner Savaria
suggested the issue isn’t about Commissioner Burnham’s opinion, he noted he had said earlier that some of his comments had been good ones; the issue is the way it was done. Discussion continued, with opposing views expressed. Commissioner Burnham suggested the Commission sue him.
Although the topic under discussion is General Board Discussion rather than a public participation item Selectmen Pippin and Hayes and Mrs. Pippin expressed their opinions - from the audience - that Commissioner Burnham’s behavior was being unfairly discussed in a public forum; they felt this issue should be dealt with in Executive Session as it was a “personal” issue. Wetlands Agent Newton clarified this discussion was not subject to an Executive Session. The Commission agreed obviously nothing was being accomplished with this discussion.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Slate moved/Roloff seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________________________________________________
Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary, Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Watercourse Agency
| 
