TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND WATERCOURSE AGENCY
Regular Meeting
April 7, 2010
CALL TO ORDER: The Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT. by Chairman Ceppetelli.
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
Present: Regular Members Michael Ceppetelli (Chairman), Richard Osborn, Michael Koczera, Michael Sawka, John Malin, and Robert Slate, and Alternate Members – Alan Baker, and Ron Hocutt.
Unable to Attend: Regular Member Ron Savaria and Alternate Member Katherine Roloff.
Chairman Ceppetelli noted the establishment of a quorum with six Regular Members. Chairman Ceppetelli reported the Regular Members will be voting on Items of Business this evening; Alternate Members Baker and Hocutt would alternate sitting in on Items of Business as necessary.
Also present was Wetlands Agent Newton.
ADDED AGENDA ITEMS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES/March 3, 2010:
MOTION: To APPROVE the Minutes of Regular Meeting dated March 3, 2010 with the following AMENDMENTS:
VIOLATIONS (for action or show-cause hearing/3. 68 Newberry Road – Notice Violation and Correction Order – Removal of Lower 120 feet of farm road – Hearing and Decision, Page 5, MOTION TO APPROVE CORRECTION ORDER AS WRITTEN, Line 186, “1. The removal and regarding REGRADING of the lower portion of the farm road must be completed by March 30, 2010.”
VIOLATIONS (for action or show-cause hearing/3. 68 Newberry Road – Notice Violation and Correction Order – Filling of a Wetlands Area and Upland Review Area Immediately North of Farm Pond – Hearing and Decision, Page 6, Line 249, Line 249, “Attorney Brignole advised the Commission they are THE APPLICANT IS dealing with the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE);”
NEW BUSINESS/3. Mansions at Canyon Ridge (North Road) – The Mansions at Canyon Ridge, LLC is requesting an extension of their Inland Wetland Watercourse Permit #1360 to
conduct regulated activities associated with the construction of a 220 unit apartment development. This development is located on the north side of North Road nearest intersection being Yosky Road. This development is served by public water and sewer. Assessor’s Map #9, Block #36, Lot #46, Page14, Line 571, “She visited the silt SITE last week………..”
Koczera moved/Slate seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
No opposition/no abstentions
NEW PUBLIC HEARING (on Inland Wetland applications): None.
NEW BUSINESS/1. 86 Winkler Road – Application of G-III Holdings, LLC for the construction of a Single Family Home and shed located within the 150’ upland review area. Total parcel consists of 3.08 acres. Assessor’s Map #15, Block #17, Lot #19-5. This property is located in the west side of Winkler Road nearest intersection being Newberry Road. This property will be serviced by public water and sewer. (65 day Application period ends April 7, 2010):
Chairman Ceppetelli read the description of this Item of Business. Alternate Commissioner Baker also sat in on this Application. Appearing to represent the Applicant was Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates, and Attorney Carl Landolina. The Applicant, Jim Giorgio, was also present.
Chairman Ceppetelli recalled that Mr. Ussery had previously presented two alternate plans for the Commission’s consideration. The Commission had concerns regarding the amount of useable lot area, and the proximity of the proposed dwelling locations to the wetlands. Mr. Ussery has returned this evening to address those concerns.
Mr. Ussery summarized that the previous plans had reflected two alternatives. The first showed the house location closer to the road; the house footprint, which is now a raised ranch on a slab rather than a dwelling with a basement, was also smaller and was a different style than was originally proposed. There is also less grading around the dwelling. The area for the rear yard was proposed to be 80’ x 100’ (8,000 square feet). The Commission’s concern was that the rear yard was too small.
Mr. Ussery indicated the second plan was similar, but the house location was pushed further back into the lot and provided more width in the upland area. This proposal allows a rear lot area of 70’ x 100’ (7,000 square feet). Mr. Ussery felt one of the Commission’s concerns with regard to this lot was that the dwelling footprint was 300’ back from the road.
Mr. Ussery noted that the plan submitted tonight shows that the house location has been turned a bit to get it further from the wetlands. The rear area, which could be lawn, is also now further from the upland area. Mr. Ussery suggested the total parcel contains 3.08 acres
and is located within an A-2 Zone, which calls for a 1 acre, or 43,000 square foot, lot size.
Under this proposal 1.65 acres (8,000+/- square feet) of that is upland area and 1.43 acres is wetlands. Approximately 2.3 acres of the lot is being proposed to be a Conservation Easement. Approximately 6,000+/- square feet is proposed for the driveway, while the area in front adjacent to the drive will contain 4,180 square feet. The house footprint is proposed at 2,160 square feet. Mr. Ussery indicated that the proposal submitted tonight is a substantial increase over the plan submitted at the previous meeting. He noted the owner has suggested some buyers might find the rear area too large to maintain as a lawn. Mr. Ussery noted there will not be any wetlands disturbance from the construction of the driveway, house, or rear yard. Mr. Ussery indicated that they are still showing buffer
plantings and a rail fence surrounding the entire house location. He felt that the plantings and fence, as well as the Conservation disks, will delineate the wetlands and regulated area for the owners.
Commissioner Osborn questioned if this lot being proposed this evening is the same lot 5 which was proposed under the original subdivision plan submitted previously? Chairman Ceppetelli summarized that approximately 1 year ago the applicant submitted a plan for a 5-lot subdivision. He noted Minutes for that application were available tonight. To clarify, Mr. Ussery suggested that under the original submission Lot 1 and Lot 5 were withdrawn as the Commission had concerns regarding their impact on wetlands. Under the original submission Lot 1 showed a house location closer to the road, and may have included a retaining wall. The Commission had concerns regarding the distance between the wetlands area with regard to Lot 5. Mr. Ussery recalled that the developer wanted to move forward with
the approval so he withdraw submission of Lots 1 and 5.
Chairman Ceppetelli noted the present owner is GIII Holdings; he questioned if that was the same owner as the original applicant? Attorney Landolina stepped forward, noting he was present to represent the current owner, GIII Holdings, LLC. Attorney Landolina indicated that the previous owner was LTC Realty, which is not associated with GIII Holdings, LLC., who acquired the 5 parcels; Attorney Landolina noted 3 of the lots received approval. Commissioner Osborn questioned if the owner was aware that these lots had come before the Commission previously and were refused? Attorney Landolina felt the previous applicant withdrew the 2 lots to acquire approval for the other 3 lots. Attorney Landolina suggested it was their understanding that the issues for Lots 1 and 5 were to be left for
consideration at a later date.
Commissioner Slate felt one of the biggest changes under the current proposal is this dwelling type does not include a cellar. Commissioner Osborn suggested water problems can still occur with a raised ranch. Chairman Ceppetelli noted that one of the Commission’s concerns under the original submission was that water that normally flowed from one lot to the wetlands would no longer be able to occur. Mr. Ussery clarified that there is no water flow going onto the adjacent lots with this proposal. The existing grade for inside the house is at elevation 100 or 101, while the garage floor is at elevation 102. Mr. Ussery suggested they can grade for the water to go off into the wetlands. Commissioner Osborn questioned if
any of the other houses which have been built had water problems? Mr. Ussery replied
negatively.
Chairman Ceppetelli recalled that during the previous meeting the ability to access the back yard was questioned. He questioned what was the proposed distance from the house or fence to the Conservation Easement? Mr. Ussery indicated there is 10’ between the house and fence, and then they have kept a distance of 10’ to the edge of the wetlands line. He suggested it is 25’ from the corner of the house to the wetlands. If a homeowner wanted to put a shed in the rear yard they might want to put it in before the fence was installed, or build the shed later in sections.
Commissioner Slate questioned if the proposed house is smaller than the original submission? Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively. He noted no footing drains are proposed as there is no basement; roof water would flow into the ground and then flow to either side of the dwelling.
Commissioner Baker questioned that with the water flowing into the wetlands are any restrictions proposed with regard to pesticides or fertilizer? Wetlands Agent Newton suggested the Conservation Easement contains restrictions, but conditions regarding restrictions could also be added to the approval motion as well. A note could also be added to the plan, as that information would appear on the Land Records to alert the buyer. She noted that one of the functions of the wetlands surrounding this lot is to take nitrates out of the water. She felt it would require a high concentration of pesticides to cause problems. Chairman Ceppetelli questioned the ability to enforce such restrictions? Wetlands Agent Newton indicated that if a note is added to the plans then the restrictions are
enforceable.
MOTION: To APPROVE 86 Winkler Road – Application of G-III Holdings, LLC for the construction of a Single Family Home and shed located within the 150’ upland review area. Total parcel consists of 3.08 acres. Assessor’s Map #15, Block #17, Lot #19-5. This property is located in the west side of Winkler Road nearest intersection being Newberry Road. This property will be serviced by public water and sewer.
DISCUSSION: Chairman Ceppetelli noted the Applicant did a good job of meeting the Commission’s concerns. Personally Chairman Ceppetelli felt there were a number of issues raised during the previous application that caused the Commission to think this lot was not buildable but there are a number of things that have been changed and the Applicant has done a good job of showing the lot can be built on. Commissioner Osborn noted Wetlands Agent Newton had felt that pesticides and fertilizers would not be a deterrent to the wetlands; additional conditions regarding restrictions on use of pesticides and fertilizers appear unnecessary.
Osborn moved/Slate seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Ceppetelli/Osborn/Koczera/Malin/Sawka/Slate/Baker)
No opposition/no abstentions
NEW BUSINESS/2. 247 South Water Street – Application of Steven Farmer for the construction of 2 Single Family Homes to be served by public water and public sewer. Total parcel is 5.1 acres. Assessor’s Map #13, Block 5, Lot 33. This property is located on the south side of South Water Street nearest intersection being Wagner Lane. (65 day application period ends 5/5/2010):
Chairman Ceppetelli read the description of this Item of Business. Commissioner Koczera stepped down from service, as he had another meeting he must attend. Alternate Commissioner Baker continued to sit in on business; Alternate Commissioner Hocutt also joined the Commission. Appearing to discuss this Application was Steve Farmer, of 247 South Water Street. Mr. Farmer is also the owner of the property under discussion.
Mr. Farmer identified the property as being previously owned by the Kadeikes family. There are two existing homes, which are served by septic systems, on the parcel at present; his proposal is to split off two additional building lots. He has received approval from the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) to install a single sewer line to serve both the existing and new homes. There is an existing Town sewer line currently on the property.
Mr. Farmer recalled during the previous meeting he and the Commission discussed the addition of a Conservation Easement for the back of the property from the slope down; he indicated he had no problem with that request. Mr. Farmer indicated he had spoken with Wetlands Agent Newton regarding the Conservation Easement, and has received a definition of what constitutes a conservation easement. Mr. Farmer felt that the way the plans are drawn whoever buys the property will want to push the house back towards the slope to get a view of the river, then they would have to come back for reapproval of this plan to move the house back. Mr. Farmer indicated he now wants to move the house location back and move the Conservation Easement back to the edge of the wetlands.
Mr. Farmer also noted Chairman Ceppetelli had asked if the existing sewer line was covered; it is not covered in a couple of places. Mr. Farmer suggested that in order to run the new line over the existing line he will have to add fill, as he isn’t trenching the sewer line. Mr. Farmer advised the Commission J. R. Russo drew a second manhole because of the topography of the slope. Mr. Farmer questioned if the Commission would consider leveling “this” area off to lessen the grade to eliminate “this” manhole. Mr. Farmer indicated he could go back to J. R. Russo with the Commission’s requests.
Chairman Ceppetelli noted the slopes under discussion are terrace escarpment slopes; filling of those slopes would be a major undertaking. Wetlands Agent Newton agreed, noting that filling will cause more erosion on the terrace escarpment slopes. She suggested Mr. Farmer may also get into the area of the channel encroachment for the Connecticut River, which would require approvals from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE).
Wetlands Agent Newton referenced the dwelling footing drains shown on plans; those drains
are shown coming out of the terrace escarpment slopes. She noted the footing drains as proposed would cause more erosion; the footing drains should be stopped 20’ from the crest of the slope to eliminate erosion. Mr. Farmer referenced the condominiums adjacent to his property which literally sit on the slope and a neighboring property under construction. Chairman Ceppetelli clarified that he wouldn’t recommend doing what the individual referenced has done; that individual has been told not to fill on the slope and is in violation as well. Mr. Farmer reitereated some fill will be going into that area because the existing sewer pipe sits up above the grade. Discussion continued regarding the DEP and ACOE approval requirements. Wetlands Agent Newton clarified that it’s the applicant’s responsibility to get DEP and ACOE approval; if it’s not done then the owner would be in violation of the DEP and ACOE requirements. Wetlands Agent Newton noted any approval granted by the Town
doesn’t mean the DEP and/or ACOE requirements have been met.
Commissioner Osborn questioned if a representative of J. R. Russo was present this evening to explain the plan as Mr. Farmer seems not to understand some of the components of the plan. Mr. Farmer indicated he will go back to J. R. Russo with the Commission’s suggestions. Commissioner Osborn suggested the proposal would progress better if the Commission understands the proposal correctly; usually an engineering representative is present during the application presentation. Mr. Farmer indicated he is still looking for suggestions; he thought the proposal would be pretty straightforward. Commissioner Osborn suggested involving the slopes and the channel encroachment lines is difficult. Mr. Farmer suggested if he got approval for the houses he could come back to move the houses back;
he has no plans to build now but probably should push the locations back now.
Chairman Ceppetelli suggested he felt the Commission will want the following: 1) a Conservation Easement at the top of the terrace escarpment slopes; 2) they will not want the tress cut done as has been done next door as that causes erosion of the slope; 3) moving the houses back probably won’t help that issue because presently the plans have the footing drains going into the terrace escarpment slopes. Chairman Ceppetelli suggested the houses should be set back 40’ from the slope. Wetlands Agent Newton concurred regarding the footing drains. She also noted there is no Construction Sequence detail (for installing the sewer line) on the plans which would indicate how the slopes will be kept stabilized during construction. Mr. Farmer questioned if Wetlands Agent
Newton preferred the manholes?
Wetlands Agent Newton noted the manhole issue isn’t her purview but should be discussed with Town Engineer Norton and the WPCA; she indicated the areas for which she is concerned are the terrace escarpment slopes and the wetlands. Regarding moving the houses back Wetlands Agent Newton suggested there is some room for relocation, but not much; with regard to Lot #33-1 the dwelling location could be moved back maybe 15’, and for Lot #33-2 maybe 35’ from the crest of the slope. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested that if someone comes in with a plan different than what is shown during this application it may or may not get approved. She noted that when the condominiums and the older homes were built the issue of the terrace escarpment slopes wasn’t known. The
Commission’s concerns are for the future protection of the new homeowners; they want the homes as far from the
slopes as possible. Commissioners Osborn and Baker recommended moving the homes back from the slope; Commissioner Baker agreed the Conservation Easement needs to be at the top of the slope.
Chairman Ceppetelli reiterated for Mr. Farmer that the Commission is looking for a proposal as to what the WPCA wants regarding the sewer line. Mr. Farmer reiterated he felt they will be digging on the slope and will be filling from this manhole “here” where it flattens out. Chairman Ceppetelli queried if it was safe to say Mr. Farmer would be filling in the channel encroachment line; if so then the applicant needs to provide documentation for the Commission that Mr. Farmer will be getting approvals from the other agencies mentioned. Mr. Farmer indicated he will return to J. R. Russo and ask that they speak with Wetlands Agent Newton. Chairman Ceppetelli indicated the recommendation from the Board is for a representative from J. R. Russo to attend the next meeting to discuss the
proposed plan.
MOTION: To CONTINUE 247 South Water Street – Application of Steven Farmer for the construction of 2 Single Family Homes to be served by public water and public
sewer. Total parcel is 5.1 acres. Assessor’s Map #13, Block 5, Lot 33. This property is located on the south side of South Water Street nearest intersection being Wagner Lane. Application continued to the Commission’s next regularly scheduled Meeting on May 5, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
Baker moved/Slate seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Ceppetelli/Osborn/Malin/Sawka/Slate/Baker/Hocutt)
No opposition/no abstentions
NEW APPLICATIONS TO BE RECEIVED: None.
MISCELLANEOUS:
Wetlands Agent noted there is no funding available through the Town for DEP Municipal Inland/Wetlands training for the Commissioners. As an alternative she is working with David Ashkew of the North Central Health District to come to a future meeting to offer training to the Commission.
AGENT DECISIONS: None.
STAFF REPORTS:
Wetlands Agent Newton reported she has visited the Newberry Village site 4 times. The buckets are up, and they have relocated several spotted salamanders and wood frogs. There are also many egg masses in the vernal pools. (Soil Scientist) George Logan has also visited the site; the report requested May annually as a condition of approval should be available for the Commission’s next meeting.
Chairman Ceppetelli questioned if any progress has been made with regard to the violation issues at 247 South Main Street? Wetlands Agent Newton reported DEP has been trying to
contact her; she felt they may have information on the final order. Wetlands Agent Newton suggested one of the reasons DEP was delaying was because the owner couldn’t start any fill removal before July due to the nesting season for eagles which are located in the area.
EXECUTIVE SESSION – PENDING LITIGATION:
MOTION: To GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 7:55 P.M. Attending Executive Session: Chairman Ceppetelli, Commissioners Osborn, Slate, Malin, Sawka, Baker, Hocutt; Wetlands Agent Newton; Recording Secretary Hoffman.
Slate moved/Baker seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
No opposition/no abstentions
MOTION: To COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 8:20 P.M.
Slate moved/Osborn seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
No opposition/no abstentions
CONFERENCES/SEMINARS/TRAINING: None.
CORRESPONDENCE: None.
GENERAL BOARD DISCUSSION: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 8:21 p.m.
Sawka moved/Slate seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
No opposition/no abstentions
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________________________________________
Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary, East Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission
| 
