INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
Amended Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 27, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Newtown Municipal Center, 3 Primrose Street, Newtown, CT
Commissioners Present: Curran, Kotch, Peters, Pieragostini and Salling
Staff Present: Rob Sibley, Deputy Director of Planning and Land Use;
Ann Astarita, Conservation Official and Tammy Hazen, Clerk
Commissioner Peters convened the meeting at 7:35 pm.
PUBLIC HEARING
IW #10-22 12 Sugar Street, Newtown Hook & Ladder. Application for the Construction of a New Fire Station.
Commissioner Peters opened the hearing. Chris Smith, Attorney with Shipman and Goodwin, discussed the applicant’s public hearing with the Borough Zoning Commission. Their application was referred to Planning & Zoning, which provided a unanimous favorable recommendation. Due to a zoning side yard set back concerns raised by a neighbor’s legal counsel, an alternative plan was submitted. He asked the wetlands commission to still consider the original plan for approval, but also asked that the alternative plan be approved as well (in case of an appeal). He also commented on the 10/25/10 Land Tech report, stating that although they are impacting the wetlands to the north, they are not encroaching into the stream bank or watercourse and will not be adversely impacting the stream or
associated system. He feels there is no risk of downstream flooding, that they do not require an Army Corp. review, that there are no erosion and sediment control issues, and that the stormwater management plan was signed off by the Town Engineer. Pictures of the “Redi-Rock” retaining wall currently in place at Eichler’s Cove Marina were distributed, along with a letter from Souhegan Valley Engineering stating the installation of the Redi-Rock retaining wall is appropriate for the site.
Chris DeAngelis, Engineer, discussed Souhegan Valley Engineering’s engineering reviews and distributed a diagram that shows the turning radiuses around the building. He stated that they found there will be no impacts to water courses, no significant impact to the wetlands, and no increase in or diversion of flow to the original water course.
Commissioner Salling asked if they plan to complete soil tests. Mr. DeAngelis said they felt it was not necessary since the top 2½ feet of soil will be excavated and replaced with new material.
Commissioner Kotch asked for comment of Land Tech’s statement, “The groundwater levels observed in soil borings are not a reliable indicator of seasonal high groundwater conditions since the tests were conducted during the dry season…” Mr. DeAngelis said they are a reliable indicator of groundwater in the time they were taken and are not willing to wait until Spring to test. He felt the tests show that the ground water table is over six feet deep and the technology they used has been proven. Commissioner Kotch said when he looks at the wall from flag #7 eastward, the entire wall is being built in wetlands and that all of those wetlands are being destroyed. Atty. Smith acknowledged that although they will be effecting some of the wetlands, they are not effecting the
bank of the watercourse or the watercourse itself.
Commissioner Peters asked them to explain why they feel the current plan has less impact than if they rotated the whole scope of the project 90 degrees. Atty. Smith explained there would still be an impact. Megan Raymond, Wetlands Consultant, said there are no other alternatives, there will be no impact to the stream, impairment to the stream bank, and that the small percentage of wetlands impacted would not effect the overall function of the wetlands.
Commissioner Pieragostini asked about the flood storage capacity. Ms. Raymond explained that the area in question does not show any over bank flooding.
Commissioner Peters asked about the detail of the functionality report. Ms. Raymond said she can provide additional information if needed and referred to the ecological assessment.
Commissioner Curran asked if the building is comparable in size to the present fire house and would there be future needs to expand. Rob Manna, 100 Glenn Road, said it will have the same amount of bays, but due to building codes, the footprint is increased. He said the building should accommodate their needs for the next 30 to 40 years. He also acknowledged that they may have to build a substation in the northern part of their district if development increases.
Public Comments
Joe Hovious, representing Candlewood Valley Chapter of Trout, spoke on a letter he submitted and explained that the watercourse in question is a unique cold water resource and a tributary to Deep Brook which flows into the Pootatuck River. He explained that the watercourses are classified by the CT DEP as a wild trout management Area and that temperature monitoring (completed in the area of the proposed development) shows the water temperature is very good, very cool, and is an important supplement to the cold water fisheries. He noted concerns over thermal impacts if additional impervious surfaces were added in that area and reviewed protections to consider as listed in the letter.
Matthew Popp, Environmental Land Solutions, provided a summary of his letter dated 10/27/10 responding to the applicant’s letter addressed to George Benson (dated 10/07/10), the applicant’s presentation at the 10/13/10 public hearing, and the review of the revised site plans dated 10/06/10.
Francois DeBrantes said the building itself is creating an impact, is concerned that no alternatives have been considered, and that there are no mitigation plans from the applicant. He stated the geo technical report is defective and urged the commission to reject the application.
Alan Shepard, 1 Glover Avenue, Professional Engineer, discussed the retaining wall. He is concerned over the lack of clarification on the installation of the wall and said the changes in the application are not shown on the plans. He asked if all the water courses and topo information are on the plans and said test pits should be completed using a backhoe.
Jim McManus, Certified Professional Soil Scientist, discussed his delineation of the wetlands on the site completed in 2006. He said although the area proposed seems like upland, it is actually shallow fill over wetlands. He said deep hole test pits done by a backhoe should be completed. He noted that where the wall is proposed, there are buried wetland soils with possible organics (since there are organics in the northern part) and that organic wetland soils are unique and difficult to mitigate. He said 5,000 sq ft of impact would require the Army Corps of Engineers. He suggested an alternative plan, which is to put the Fire Station where the Police Station is and move the Police Station at Fairfield Hills.
The applicant requested to hold the public hearing open until November 10, 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.
Mr. Nagy and Jim McManus, JMM Wetlands Consulting Services, were present. Mr. McManus reviewed his report dated 10-27-10 responding to Steve Danzer’s report. Commissioner Pieragostini asked if it was necessary to repair the dam at all. Mr. Nagy discussed the damage to the dam by the beavers. He also said they received approval from the DEP for a water diversion permit. Mr. Sibley said Art Christenson from the Dam Diversion Unit (DEP) called him to say that since the DEP is not taking responsibility for the dam, all engineering and safety specs for it falls to the town at the wetlands level. He said the Town will have to retain an engineer for liability purposes to review the plans since the current plans do not have enough detail. There will be more discussion with DEP.
Mr. Nagy requested an extension.
IW #10-23 31 Swamp Road, Todd Bolmer. Application related to the removal of a violation & permit for an access road. (Item Tabled)
IW #10-27 52 Great Quarter Road, Mike Bohnet. Application related to the removal of a violation and installation of a dock and access way. (Item Tabled)
IW #10-29 40 South Main Street, Daniel Amaral. Application to repair a retaining wall.
Mr. Amaral was present to discuss his application. He discussed patching the wall as a temporary solution. Ms. Astarita said there are other issues on the site that should be taken care of. He said he would like to first repair the wall and then deal with the other issues later. A plan was submitted, he will return to the next meeting.
IW #10-31 171 Huntington Road, Sticks and Stones. Application to remove tree and armoring disturbed stream banks. (Item Tabled)
IW #10-32 Commerce Road (Tech Park), Town of Newtown. Application for an Industrial Condominium Complex.
Commissioner Kotch motioned to set a public hearing for December 8, 2010. Motion seconded by Commissioner Salling. Motion carried unanimously.
IW #10-33 2 Shady Rest Boulevard, Carol Collins & J. Patrick McCombe. Application for the construction of a barn/workshop.
Carol Collins was present to discuss the application. She explained that the workshop is for additional working space and that the closest point to the stream is 60 feet. With the commissioners complimented Ms. Collins is their plans. Commissioner Salling motioned to approve the application with standard conditions A, B, C, D, E and
1. The approved map, prepared by Stuart Somers Co., LLC is entitled “Site Plan Depicting Location for New Barn, Lot 41, 2 Shady Rest Boulevard, Newtown, CT”, prepared for Carol Collins and James Patrick McCombe and dated October 11, 2010; and
2. A quarterly status report on forms provided on the Town of Newtown website or available in the Land Use office will be submitted to the commission until the project is complete.
Motion seconded by Commission Kotch. Motion approved unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Schedule for 2011 – Commissioner Salling motioned to approve the schedule of meetings for 2011. Commissioner Kotch seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Trails On Open Space – Mr. Sibley discussed a letter from a resident concerning wetlands on open space near Dickenson Park. The Trails Committee is proposing a trail from Deep Brook Road to Point O’ Rocks Road. He explained that the Land Use Agency and the Inland Wetlands Commission have always pointed towards a non regulated status within the wetlands regs, Section 4.2, for trails on town-owned land. When the Trails Committee came before the Conservation Commission for a review, a member of the public asked whether it should be considered a regulated activity under the wetland regulations. Commissioner Peters referenced the statutes and said there are clear parameters on what activities require a permit. Commissioner Pieragostini said the proposed trail will pass behind
her property and within the 100 foot review area of the wetlands. She believes it should be a regulated activity because the natural character of the land will be disturbed and the bikes will dig up the property and spread the seeds of invasive plants. Commissioner Curran said the regulations lists everything that are allowed but does not say anything about vehicular traffic. Commissioner Salling said she has a lot of questions, but unless an application is brought forth to the commission, she feels it’s not within the commission’s purview to ask those questions. Commissioner Peters said when you have to draw a line between recreational activities, she draws a line between motorized and non motorized recreation. She gave the example of allowing a stroller but not allowing a bicycle. Commissioner Pieragostini said she heard some things that are alarming. Commissioner Salling said if the building of the trail violates the statute … she’s not concerned about the non motorized
biking or walking because trails are meant for that, but if the watercourses are blocked or filled, then it becomes a regulated activity. Mr. Sibley said in the definitions of trail creation, it’s assumed that soils and rocks will be removed and trees will be cut down, but the extent of that movement is what should be reviewed. He said there are differences associated with different types of trails. Commissioner Salling would like to invite them to come in to get more information. Commissioner Peters said she doesn’t want to expand the commission’s responsibility and it is more appropriate to have staff screen the plan. Commissioner Salling said the letter should be referred to staff.
Joe Hovious, Chair of the Conservation Commission, was present to hear the discussion and said the Trails Committee is planning a Trail Building seminar this weekend. Commissioner Kotch said there is no question that this is non-regulated activity and that he’s hiked 90% of the trails in Connecticut and if they were all regulated, we’d have no trails. Ms. Astarita said some of the confusion may be because of an article in the Bee that made it sound like they were putting in BMX ramps, etc. Commissioner Peters said there is a lot of conflicting information for this plan and she feels there’s a reason recreational access is accepted.
Additional Comments – Commissioner Salling wanted to go on the record that with more intrusion and filling of wetlands, looking at it cumulatively with the decrease in the amount of wetlands, the damage to the functionality and potential damage to the water courses that generally change the face of the wetlands and watercourses functions and values in the town, she wants to go on the record that there needs to be some cumulative oversight. She said she’s lived in Newtown for many years and with each increasing wetlands encroachment, she sees the face of the wetlands and watercourses in the town change irretrievably. She also mentioned the damage of trout breeding and other conservation issues. It is her plea for the commission to be thinking more comprehensively and accumulatively
about what’s going on in Newtown. Mr. Sibley said he appreciates her comments and said the annual report qualifies the amount of wetlands applied for and mitigated and that the water quality testing shows that most of them have not degraded but have stayed the same, except for Deep Brook has had some issues. Although there will always be change, there are protocols in place.
Approval of Minutes – Commissioner Salling motioned to approve the minutes of October 13, 2010 . Motion seconded by Commissioner Kotch, Commissioner Peters abstained. The minutes were approved unanimously as amended.
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
| 
