INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 13, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Newtown Municipal Center, 3 Primrose Street, Newtown, CT
Commissioners Present: Salling, Curran, Hammar, Kotch, and Pieragostini
Staff Present: George Benson, Director of Planning and Land Use; Ann Astarita, Conservation Official
and Tammy Hazen, Clerk
Commissioner Salling convened the meeting at 7:30 pm.
CEASE AND DESIST
IW Vio #10-04 7 Russett Road, Sandy Hook, Susan Ludwig & Dean Harrell.
Ms. Astarita submitted and reviewed her report to the Inland Wetlands Commission dated 10/13/10 regarding Inland Wetlands Violation #10-04, 7 Russett Road in Sandy Hook. After discussion, Commissioner Pieragostini motioned to uphold the Cease and Desist Order. Motion seconded by Commissioner Hammar. Motion approved unanimously.
IW Vio #08-33 55 Botsford Hill Road, Newtown, David Butz & Shannon Pixley.
Ms. Astarita submitted and reviewed her report to the Inland Wetlands Commission dated 10/13/10 regarding Inland Wetlands Violation #08-33, 55 Botsford Hill Road in Newtown. After discussion, Commissioner Kotch motioned to uphold the Cease and Desist Order. Motion seconded by Commissioner Hammar. Motion approved unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
IW #10-22 12 Sugar Street, Newtown Hook & Ladder. Application for the construction of a new Fire Station.
Atty. Christopher Smith from Shipman & Goodwin in Hartford submitted a clarification of the authorization letter from R. Scudder Smith and responses to comments from Land Tech and Matt Popp were discussed as well, including information on the wetlands and watercourses, erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, and landscaping.
Commissioner Curran asked about the location of the retaining wall being so close to the stream. Atty. Smith said they modified the detail and they still believe it is realistic. Where there is soft soil they recommend stone base. He said the wall is more site specific as far as installation.
Commissioner Kotch asked for installation details and the fact that it is going into wetland soil. Atty. Smith said the wall is a gravity wall using large blocks, there will be two feet of stone below the wall with no expectations of it settling significantly. Megan Raymond with William Kenny Associates said that although there are some areas where there are wetland soils, a majority of the length of the wall is not comprised of wetland soils and where there are wetland soils, there will be fill in place.
Christian DeAngelis with Cabezas DeAngelis Engineers & Surveyors, said the wetland soil will be excavated and removed and replaced with fill. Commissioner Pieragostini asked if the wall was staked. Mr. DeAngelis said the stakes are placed as specific angle points. The wall is roughly 300 feet long and is proposed to be eight feet high.
Mr. DeAngelis discussed the sequence of construction. After the wall is built and site is filled, they will put in the pavement to eliminate erosion. The construction of the wall would take a couple of weeks and it would be a quick operation to get the grade up to rough elevation to start the building. Commissioner Salling asked if they will use only silt fence for temporary erosion controls. Mr. DeAngelis said strictly silt fence but that the wall would be put up quickly. Commissioner Salling asked about hay bales. Mr. DeAngelis said once the wall is up there will be no water passing through.
Mr. DeAngelis discussed the stormwater management system. Commissioner Pieragostini asked how much fill they are proposing. Mr. DeAngelis said approximately 8,000 cubic yards of fill. He then discussed cuts and fills.
Commissioner Kotch asked for clarification of the elevation of the property next to the brook. He said with the retaining wall, the level of the land next to the brook will be 7.5 foot higher. Mr. DeAngelis said the wall is more expensive but has less impact to the environment. Mr. DeAngelis explained the area has to be the same elevation of the road and the height was predicated on getting the trucks out of the station. Mr. DeAngelis further reviewed his responses to comments made by Land Tech Consultants.
Commissioner Kotch asked how the project will affect the stream, Ram Pasture and ultimately Deep Brook. He asked if there will be increased flow through the stream or alternatively dry it up. Mr. DeAngelis discussed the infiltration system and storm water quality management. Ms. Raymond discussed the hydrology of the stream and said that the 5,000 sq feet of disturbance is less than 1.5 percent of the total wetlands on the site. Mr. DeAngelis then discussed his response to Environmental Land Solutions.
Commissioner Hammar asked about their reference to trucks being washed outside the building. Rob Manna, Chief Engineer for Newtown Hook & Ladder explained when vehicles return from a call in inclement weather, they rinse the trucks off before they go back into the bay. There is no cleaning of undercarriage, just the exterior of the vehicles (the paint and glass) and environmentally-friendly products would be used.
Ms. Raymond discussed proposed mitigation of plantings behind the proposed retaining wall. She discussed a stream bank restoration adjacent to the proposed projects and the removal of invasives. She said mitigation is exclusively relating to vegetation. Commissioner Kotch asked if the shrubs are to be planted prior to the building of the wall. Mr. DeAngelis said once the wall is set in the invasives will be removed by hand and the new plantings will be planted in by hand.
Commissioner Salling asked about the amount of impervious surface with concerns over raising the temperature of the water. Ms. Raymond said they will manage all run-offs as to not increase the temperature or cause thermal pollution. Mr. DeAngelis felt they have over compensated with their storm water management system.
Commissioner Curran asked about the fill behind the building. Mr. DeAngelis said it will be clean fill because existing soil is too fine. He then described the cuts and fills and that the building is almost 50% of the site and made it as small and condensed as possible.
Commissioner Kotch asked about the groundwater drainage and stated concerns over there being no detail for the wall system. Mr. DeAngelis explained the contours and drains and said that Carrier Wall Systems can provide more details.
Commissioner Salling stated concerns over activities and the wall being so close to the watercourse. Mr. Manna said the same wall system was used at Treadwell Park, Eichler's Cove and Hawleyville Post Office.
Public Comments
Alan Shepard, Engineer, living at One Glover Avenue, shared concerns with the project and the retaining wall being built within the wetlands and so close to the stream. He feels a structural engineer should provide the information and there should be a site specific design of the wall. He said it is important for the Board to ask it be signed by professional engineers. He is concerned over the amount of watershed coming through the property and how it will impact the wall. He also spoke with John Carrier who said they don’t carry this product anymore. Another distributor told him that anything over a certain height should involve a civil engineer. He also does not see stamped shop drawings of the design. He feels the commission should ask for a detailed construction sequence
and detailed narrative.
Francois DeBrantes said there is standing water where the wall will be placed. He feels there is a great deal of run-off and that his property is on top of the hill and the run off from his property is significant. He said the applicants should offer alternatives and feels there are other alternatives that would not infringe on the wetlands. He submitted a list of alternatives.
Robert Hall, a land use attorney from Newtown, said he owns property opposite the site. He asked that the applicant have the opportunity to produce changes. He felt that it is the commission’s task to balance the benefits of project against the impact of the wetlands and water courses. He felt the application has a public benefit. Commissioner Salling said they cannot consider the purpose of the project, they have to look at the merits of the application and are duty bound not to consider the nature of the building. The commission cannot consider other elements. Atty. Hall said it’s clear that the need is present and if there is a need, the commission is in a position to consider that the need outweighs the damage.
Atty. Catherine Cuggino of Chipman, Mazzucco, Land & Pennarola, LLC, representing Francois and Natalie DeBrantes of 13 Sugar Street, said if they are not closing the hearing, they will hold Matt Popp’s comments to the next meeting.
The next hearing will be Wednesday, October 27, 2010.
IW #10-21 12, 38, 40 Cold Spring Road, Norman Nagy. Application to restore and repair existing dam and perform maintenance of the pond - Item Tabled.
IW #10-23 31 Swamp Road, Todd Bolmer. Application related to a removal of a violation and a permit for an access road. - Item Tabled.
IW #10-27 52 Great Quarter Road, Mike Bohnet. Application related to a removal of a violation and installation of a dock mounts on ledge at water’s edge; make stairs from rock platform to path; thin trees and create path to dock access. - Item Tabled.
IW #10-28 82 Great Quarter Road, Kim Danziger. Application for the installation of a geothermal infiltrator trench, including a water discharge and the construction of a new seawall.
Kim Danziger provided an overview of his application. After discussion, Commissioner Pieragostini motioned to approve the application with standard conditions A, B, C, and D and (1) Site Plan prepared for Sandra Kuzmich, 82 Great Quarter Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut dated revised 8/27/10 Geothermal Well Overflow. A quarterly status report on forms provided on the Town of Newtown website or in the Land Use office will be submitted to the commission until the project is complete. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hammar. Motion carried unanimously.
IW #10-29 40 South Main Street, Daniel Amaral. Application to repair retaining wall.
Commissioner Pieragostini stated concerns about water run off from the property and asked if the area could be protected more. Ms. Astarita asked about mitigation plans. Mr. Amaral said he would like to get started on the project and is concerned about timing with the weather. The commissioners discussed having the wall replaced as well as planting vegetation to prevent toxins before it goes into the stream. Commissioner Pieragostini was concerned over the temperature and velocity of the stream. Ms. Astarita said the temperature is warmer in that area and that a detention basin may increase the water quality. Commissioner Kotch said they noticed other factors with the water drainage and concerns over the stream. He felt repairing the wall is a Band-Aid it won’t handle the
wetlands requirements. Ms. Astarita said the commission is asking the applicant to consider improvements to benefit the water quality, i.e., a detention basin to filter the contaminants, or consider hiring an expert to get ideas (Engineer, landscape architect or wetlands scientist). Mr. Amaral was asked to return with a hand drawn planting plan.
OTHER BUSINESS
Approval of Minutes – Commissioner Curran motioned to approve the minutes of September 22, 2010 . Motion seconded by Commissioner Salling. The minutes were approved unanimously as amended.
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
| 
