Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
05-26-10

INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION

MINUTES
Regular Meeting of May 26, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Newtown Municipal Center, 3 Primrose Street, Newtown, CT

Commissioners Present: Peters, Salling, Pieragostini, Kotch, Curran, Bryan, and Hammar
Staff Present: Ann Astarita, Conservation Official and Tammy Hazen, Clerk

Commissioner Peters convened the meeting at 7:40 pm.  

PUBLIC HEARING

IW #10-04   Housatonic Railroad Company, 30 Hawleyville Road.  Activities related to the operations associated with a rail yard transfer station.

Commissioner Peters provided the background on this application and noted that the public hearing should be closed at this meeting unless the applicant requests an extension.  She also noted the commission’s expert report is expected the first week of June.  Commissioner Pieragostini read the Notice of Intervention.  Commissioner Bryan recused himself.

Edward Rodriguez, Executive Vice President and General Counsel for the Housatonic Railroad Company, asked if there were any questions and then provided answers from questions posed at the last meeting.  Regarding concerns over storm water management southeast of the track, he said a storm water management plan is being developed with the DEP.  Regarding the collapsed roof on their storage building, they hope to have it repaired in June.  Regarding statutory requirements for showing prudent and feasibly alternatives, he stated there are no other alternatives to be presented.  In regards to concerns over the filling of wetlands, he believes there have not been any filling of wetlands, but did acknowledge that a significant amount of fill was placed within the upland review area.  He emphasized that the application is not related to a waste transfer facility.  

Commissioner Curran stated concerns of witnessing large trucks transferring construction and demolition (C & D) debris into rail cars and that she was surprised to see such a large amount of debris when the applicant clearly indicated that they will only handle lumber.  Atty. Rodriguez stated the area in question is not part of this application, that it is not operating within the area of the proposed track extension, and that it is a pre-existing operation.  He stated they currently have an application pending with the DEP.

Commissioner Peters said there is strong concern over the C & D activity having an adverse effect to the wetlands.  She then said the railroad had a Notice of Violation placed on them in 2007 relating to C & D debris blowing into the wetlands and that as long as activities on the site could adversely effect the wetlands, it falls within the jurisdiction of the commission.  Atty. Rodriguez stated that at the time of the violation, the commission did not have jurisdiction over the activity, and that although the law has changed, he is unsure to what extent the commission has jurisdiction.  He said that although the work is not within the project boundaries, it can be addressed.  He then explained plans to having loading activities held within a building.

Ms. Astarita said currently the C & D is dumped out in the open, run over by bulldozers, then loaded into rail cars, which are then covered by mesh construction fence.  She is concerned over the waste being open to the air, water, and elements and that it is directly adjacent to wetlands.  She then asked if they plan to continue current handling practices, what the composition of the waste is, and how they plan to mitigate.  Atty. Rodriguez said that material will be outside until the roof is repaired, then the unloading will be done inside.  Ms. Astarita asked what is being done now to protect the wetlands.  Atty. Rodriguez said there is a storm water management plan before the DEP.  

Commissioner Kotch asked how Atty. Rodriguez can assure the commission that the loading of C & D debris will not take place on the proposed extended track bed, if the track extension was approved.  Atty. Rodriguez said he is not a policeman and cannot control everything Housatonic Railroad does, but in order to load C & D debris in a different location, they would require a DEP permit.  

Ms. Astarita said that the railroad’s C & D activities have increased and because the waste is being stored in the open, it affects storm water that goes directly into the wetlands.  Atty. Rodriguez disagreed that activities have increased, but acknowledged that storm water can run into the wetlands.  Ms. Astarita said that their plans would have to address mitigation.  Atty. Rodriguez said they can supply the storm water management plan.  

Commissioner Peters stated strong concerns over the protection of the wetlands to the east, that the track is close to the wetlands, the slope is very steep and the fill is inorganic.  She also noted that the surface of the fill is compacted and asked how the wetlands are being protected.

Commissioner Pieragostini asked about the staking of the retaining wall along the east side of the track.  Commissioner Peters asked about the jersey barriers on the west side.  Commissioner Kotch asked how much top soil is to be brought in.  Commissioner Hammar asked if the remainder of the fill being removed will be used to maintain a grade necessary for the new track.  

Commissioner Kotch asked Mr. Kenny for a narrative detailed summary of mitigation plans and stated concerns over the composition of the fill and how it will effect the wetlands.  Mr. Kenny explained the restoration plans, include the removing of fill, removing invasive materials, then he explained the plant cover (meadow, shrub and tree plantings).  Mr. Garcia explained how they intend to place railroad ballast rock along the slope.  He noted the fill is clean fill as pertains to DEP regulations.

Commissioner Peters asked about a monitoring plan for the vegetation and if the silt fence and hay bales will be removed on the east side.  Mr. Garcia said once it’s stabilized with trap rock, the erosion controls would be removed.  Atty. Rodriguez explained how the lumber cars would be loaded and unloaded and the new proposed track would be used for switching and short term storage.  

Jim Mitchell, 17 Butterfield Road, asked if the commission had the authority to issue an injunction against the railroad.  Commissioner Peters explained the process of the Cease and Desist order and the limits of the commission’s jurisdiction.  Mr. Mitchell stated concerns over the trash on the property.  

Atty. Keith Ainsworth stated the applicant is defying the Cease and Desist Order and that their maps do not indicate the wetlands to the east.  He shared concerns over the buffer between the proposed work and the Winkler’s property, the effects of the C & D debris on the wetlands, and said the applicant has not acknowledge the encroachment along the eastern border.  There is still concern over what the fill has covered and he feels the applicant should do core sampling.

Ann Marie Mitchell, 17 Butterfield Road, asked what the Ph level of the compacted C & D debris is and said there is a discrepancy between what was submitted to the DEP vs. what was submitted to the Inland Wetlands Commission.  She asked about storm water management on the property and if the building is to be reconstructed under DEP regulations.

Jim Ruopp, 46 Hawleyville Road, asked what commodities are being handled on the property.  He discussed storm water calculations, the detention pond, and concerns over standing water over frozen ground.  He asked how it can be assured that the tracks will not be used for waste management.  

Helga Jenson-Ruopp, 46 Hawleyville Road, shared concerns over dust from trucks, noise, and the effects of the operation on the wetlands and the Ph level.  She stated concerns for the wildlife and requested that all of the fill be removed and the wetlands be remediated.  

Wally Waterman, 46 Hawleyville Road, discussed their shallow surface well and is concerned over contaminants seeping into their drinking water and flooding on their property.

Mike Sanchez, 135 Currituck Road, discussed concerns over the filling of wetlands and reiterated a previous statement by Atty. Rodriguez’ stating his embarrassment over the filling of wetlands.  He discussed how de-icers are used on switches and feels that significant core samples should be taken.

The applicant’s team left to discuss a possible extension of the public hearing and returned later with a request to extend the public hearing to June 23rd.  Commissioner Kotch then motioned to extend the public hearing until June 23rd.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Pieragostini.  Motion approved unanimously.

PENDING APPLICATIONS

IW #10-06   15 Sherman Street, Pandolfi.  Application to remove trees, create pasture, improve drainage in the regulated wetland area.  

Commissioner Salling recused herself from this application.  Commissioner Pieragostini motioned to approve the application with standard conditions A, B, C, D, E, F, and

  • The approved plans are “Drainage Improvements, Repair and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan” for 15 Sherman Street, Newtown as prepared for S. Pandolfi, dated 5/3/10.
  • Quarterly reports will be submitted on forms provided on the Town of Newtown website or in the Land Use office until the permitted activity is completed.  The completed plan will be approved by the Conservation Official.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Kotch.  Motion carried unanimously.

IW #10-07   25  Shepard Hill Road, Bernard Cieniawa.  Application for the removal of a violation.

Item tabled.  

IW #10-08   6A Russett Road, Robert & Valerie Frate.  Application to remove trees and create a trench from a culvert to a pond.

Robert and Valerie Frate were present to discuss their application.  The commissioners questioned the removal of the healthy trees because the area is wet and that trees drink a great deal of water and asked if they plan to bring in equipment.  It was explained that the trees will be removed without equipment.  It was recommended that the applicant hire an expert to assist with more detailed plans.  The commission also asked for a more detailed planting plan.  Mr. Frate asked about removing tree limbs overhanging their deck.  It was suggested they discuss this with staff for a field decision.  

IW #10-09   11  Edmond Road, Advanced Fusion Systems.  Application for a building addition, outdoor substation, additional parking and related utilities.

Public hearing is set for June 9th, 2010.

IW #10-10   2, 4, 6, 8 Riverside Road (Sandy Hook Villa) Verdat Kala.  Application for the construction of a new bank building, a new day care building, and two future commercial retail buildings.

Commissioner Kotch motioned to set a public hearing for June 23, 2010.  Commissioner Salling seconded the motion.  Motion approved unanimously.

IW #10-11   Commerce Road (Newtown Technology Park) Town of Newtown.  Application for the construction of an industrial condominium complex.

Commissioner Pieragostini motioned to set a public hearing for July 14, 2010.  Commissioner Kotch seconded the motion.  Motion approved 6 to 1.  

OTHER BUSINESS

Acceptance of New Applications

Approval of Minutes:  Commissioner Salling motioned to approve the minutes of April 28, 2010.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Hammar.  Motion approved unanimously.  Commissioner Kotch motioned to approve the minutes of May 12, 2010.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Pieragostini.  Commissioner Bryan, Curran and Peters abstained.  Motion approved unanimously.

Adjournment:  Commissioner Kotch motioned to adjourn the Inland Wetlands meeting at 10:25 pm.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Bryan.  Motion carried unanimously.  

AQUIFER PROTECTION REVIEW

The Aquifer Protection Review meeting opened at 10:26 pm.

AQUIFER PROTECTION REVIEW

APR #10-01   2, 4, 6, 8 Riverside Road (Sandy Hook Villa) Verdat Kala - Referral from P & Z for a special exception to construct a new bank building. new day care building and two future commercial retail buildings.

Commissioner Pieragostini motioned that APR #10-01 has not met the following criteria:
  • Detailed written document concerning the environmental assessment and impacts of the proposed activity.  The environmental assessment shall address direct and indirect effects, both short-term and long-term, which would result from the implementation of a proposed action and shall contain sufficient detail for the purposes of determining environmental significance of the activity on the environment in general and the aquifer in particular.
  • Locations of adjacent (within 500 ft of property line) private drinking water supply wells.  Location of public water supply wells within 1,000 feet of property line.  Distance to Class AA streams (tributary to public drinking water supply).
Therefore, the Aquifer Protection Agency rules that the application is incomplete.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Kotch.  Motion carried unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 9:50 pm.