MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 7:30 p.m.
1st Floor Conference Room
Town Hall, 302 Main Street
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman, Paul Smith, called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present
Paul Smith, Chairman
Charles Sohl
William Pollock
Janis Esty
Brendan McKeown
Charles Wehrly
Judith Preston
Members Absent
Kimberley Gallagher
Janice Holland
Staff Present
Sandy Prisloe, Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer
Kathleen Noyes, Administrative Clerk
P. Smith stated that all members present at the meeting would be voting.
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. 11-015 “Reed” Regulated activity for residential improvement
(application to maintain bridge constructed without a permit)
13 Fox Hollow Road (Map 55 / Lot 15-14) Applicant: David & Stacy Reed
P. Smith noted that many of the IWWC Commissioners attended a site walk on Saturday, 2/25/12 at 13 Fox Hollow Road. S. Prisloe also was present as were two members of the public.
J. Preston expressed concerns about the bridge being too intensive a use in a sensitive wetlands area, and in a big storm, the bridge could be an obstruction to the passage of water.
C. Sohl said the bridge is well constructed, but he has concerns about how deep the ruts are within the wetlands adjacent to the bridge.
C. Wehrly is concerned about the intensive activity of the ATVs. Also, while on the site walk, he saw that on both sides of the bridge in the stream, there were orange balls, which he later discovered were probably paintballs.
D. Reed said the paintballs are not his and, they may belong to his neighbor who owns a paintball gun.
P. Smith said he was concerned that the applicant did not provide any hydraulic analysis of the bridge to see what the flooding of the watercourse would be, and if the bridge could pass a 100-year storm. If it was determined the bridge could not, certain measures would need to be taken to prevent damage to adjacent properties. There is no evidence as to whether or not this bridge will act as an obstruction, however, there was debris noted during the site walk on the upstream side of the bridge, which could be a result of water flow being restrained by the bridge. The applicant stated that the bridge is not anchored to the ground, thus it could float away during a storm event.
P. Smith reminded Commissioners that the bridge is considered a violation at this point. Commissioners are being asked to vote on whether or not the applicant can maintain the bridge. Also, Commissioners cannot regulate the use of the bridge. That would have to be determined by other agencies, not the IWWC.
W. Pollock said this waterway is an important waterway in town coming off of Pequot Pond. He said he wished the applicant had come before this commission with an application before he had constructed this bridge. He is concerned that the removal of the bridge may cause more harm to this waterway than letting it remain. If the bridge were to be relocated during a storm, the applicant would have to come before the IWWC to reinstall the bridge. He prefers that the bridge remain and be maintained.
J. Preston also said she’s concerned that the process of removing the bridge will be destructive. However, there could be modifications that could be made to make changes to the bridge and its location. An alternative would be to better engineer the bridge to make it longer and taller.
MOTION to deny application #11-015 “Reed” Regulated Activity for residential improvement (application to maintain bridge constructed without a permit); 13 Fox Hollow Road (M55 /L 15-14), Applicant: David & Stacy Reed; The structure must be removed in the presence of S. Prisloe so that there are assurances that proper erosion protections be put into place so further erosion doesn’t occur.; MADE by P. Smith; SECONDED by W. Pollock; VOTED IN FAVOR:
C. Wehrly, J. Esty, J. Preston; OPPOSED: C. Sohl, W. Pollock; ABSTAINED: B. McKeown, P. Smith; APPROVED: 3-2-2.
The motion to deny the application is approved. Therefore, the application to keep the existing bridge is denied.
D. Reed felt that he had not heard a valid reason for the denial, and he stated that according to the IWWC regulations, there needed to be a valid reason. He claimed there was no evidence of erosion, and he felt the Commissioners had no conclusive proof of erosion.
P. Smith directed D. Reed to contact Town Hall staff to arrange for either S. Prisloe or C. Costa to be present during the removal of the bridge. D. Reed said he would be removing the bridge on Friday, March 16, 2012, and he asked S. Prisloe to be present.
A. 12-004 “Bessoni” Regulated activity for residential improvement
210 Ingham Hill Road (Map 56 / Lot 7-21)
Applicant: George J. Bessoni, Sr.
J. Wren, P.E., reviewed the site plan with Commissioners. The applicant would like to construct a 16’ x 22’ garage. There are wetlands on the property, which have been flagged by Richard Snarski, Soil Scientist. The driveway needs a small modification. There is an existing turnaround area so there would be no extension of the paved driveway. This would be slab on grade with minimal excavation. The garage will be going on an open lawn area. No trees will be removed. There is a fence enclosure so there will be no migration to the pond area.
J. Wren explained that the current fence is in a state of disrepair. It is a stockade fence, which goes around the pool. P. Smith suggested closing the loop on the silt fence and tying it around to the existing stockade fence.
P. Smith was disappointed that there was not more contour detail for the western side of the property towards the pond. P. Smith asked why there were no 1 -foot contours shown to the west. J. Wren said the reason for that is because the survey was already completed when J. Wren was brought on to the project at which time he suggested relocating the garage. The eastern side was mapped in more detail because it was where the garage was originally going to be placed.
J. Preston asked for clarity regarding the slope from the existing shed to the wetland, and if there was vegetation there. The tree line depicts the trees, but she asked if there was ground growth vegetation as well. J. Wren said there is maintained grass west of the shed and a wooded area from the shed eastward to the wetlands. J. Preston wanted to be sure that if there were a storm, there would be something in place to stop the flow of water traveling toward the wetlands under the canopy.
P. Smith noted that during construction there would be a silt fence toward the wetlands.
C. Sohl asked if there would be gutters on the garage to direct the water away from the slope. J. Wren said there are no proposed gutters.
MOTION to accept application #12-004 “Bessoni” Regulated Activity for residential improvement; 210 Ingham Hill Road (M56 /L 7-21), Applicant: George J. Bessoni, Sr. and to deem this is not a significant activity and no Ordinance 71 fees are required; MADE by J. Preston; SECONDED by C. Sohl; VOTED IN FAVOR: P. Smith, C. Sohl, C. Wehrly, W. Pollock, J. Esty, J. Preston; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: B. McKeown; APPROVED: 6-0-1.
P. Smith advised J. Wren that the application would be heard at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission scheduled for Thursday, April 19, 2012 at 7:30 p.m., Town Hall, 302 Main Street, 1st Floor Conference Room.
B. 12-005 “Kolodziejczyk” Regulated activity for residential improvement
96 Sea Lane (Map 19 / Lot 238)
Applicant: Mark Reeves, Builder; Owner: Andy & Patti Kowdziejczyk
M. Reeves, building contractor, presented for the applicant. He said the applicant contacted him about two weeks after Tropical Storm Irene, when there was water backed up into the existing house. The applicant’s property is 800 feet from Long Island Sound.
P. Smith said that this commission does not regulate tidal wetlands, and there is no certified soil scientist’s report showing there are inland wetlands on this property. This commission may not have the authority to issue a permit for regulated activity on this property.
M. Reeves explained that FEMA mandated that this house be raised. During the ZBA process, neighbors were notified, and one neighbor said there were wetlands on the property. There is no evidence of wetlands on this property, but M. Reeves was told he may need a permit from the IWWC.
S. Prisloe stated that the town mapping does show wetlands on an abutting property to the east. C. Costa’s and S. Prisloe’s assumption was that the applicant’s property would be within the 100’ upland review area. They also thought this might be handled administratively. S. Prisloe went out and looked at the property. There was evidence of phragmites on the eastern side of the property. The eastern side of the property is lower and it was wet.
P. Smith said the commission needs to see where the wetlands are, and until they know what the impact will be on the wetlands in the area, the IWWC cannot accept the application. The IWWC needs to see a report from a certified soil scientist to identify if there are inland wetlands on or adjacent to this property, or if the property is less than100 feet from any wetland boundary or watercourse.
M. Reeves stated that FEMA has mandated that the first floor of the house be raised to an elevation of 11 feet. If this property is within the Inland Wetland & Watercourses Commission’s purview, he asked what measures needed to be taken on site to protect the wetlands during construction since FEMA and ZBA have already approved raising the structure. He expressed frustration because this is a government mandated activity, and he felt the IWWC should be able to handle this matter administratively.
S. Prisloe said the entire property is developed. Because there’s no high quality functioning wetland on or adjacent to the property, he and C. Costa discussed how this might be handled administratively.
P. Smith said the only way an administrative permit can be administered is if there is minimal activity.
S. Prisloe had a copy of a 2008 map from the ZBA hearing, which does show flagged wetlands on the abutting property to the east.. On the southeastern corner, the flagged wetlands appear to cross onto the applicant’s property. The map S. Prisloe referred to was not part of the Applicant’s IWWC application, but was in the ZBA file. The southeast corner of the house measured approximately 58 feet from the southeast property corner; so most of the house is within the IWWC upland review area.
P. Smith said the map in the ZBA folder is dated 2008, but there is no legend noting who flagged the wetlands.
J. Preston suggested that because there will be more of these mandates from FEMA, it would be useful to see if this could be handled administratively because of the time, expense and stress that the standard IWWC permitting process would require for the applicant.
B. McKeown suggested clarifying this with town legal counsel to make sure the IWWC is in compliance with regulations for the town and the federal government.
B. McKeown asked M. Reeves how he is proposing to lift the structure. M. Reeves said it would be routine and not disruptive. There’s no demolition to parts of the house. Once the house is raised 11 or 12 feet off of grade, the rubble stone foundation has to be removed, and a new foundation with stone base will be constructed. The house will be air jacked. M. Reeves said because of the elevation of the site, he would be accessing the house from the street side, which is the driest portion of the ground. The elevation of the finished basement floor is anticipated to be approximately 1.0; but, the exact elevation may change depending on site conditions such as groundwater elevations.
P. Smith said the IWWC needed to know the types and quantities of materials to be removed from and delivered onto the site. Also, they need to know if heavy equipment will be used. The information needs to be in writing or on the drawing. Until the IWWC has that information, the application cannot move forward. M. Reeves said his confusion is that this is being mandated by FEMA so he is not seeking approval because the approval has been granted by FEMA and the ZBA.
M. Reeves stated that he was considering withdrawal of the application, and P. Smith advised against it because it appears that the property is within 100’ of a regulated area, and the IWWC needs to be sure the wetland is protected.
M. Reeves said he would use silt fencing. P. Smith noted that there is no evidence of silt fencing on the plans. M. Reeves pledged to use all of the standard practices including placing a silt fence and hay bales to protect the wetland.
MOTION to accept application #12-005 “Kolodziejczyk” Regulated Activity for residential improvement; 96 Sea Lane (M19 /L 238), Applicant: Mark Reeves, Builder; Owner: Andy & Patti Kolodziejczyk; with the stipulation that it be handled by the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission; MADE by P.Smith; SECONDED by C. Sohl; VOTED IN FAVOR: P. Smith, C. Sohl ,J. Esty, J. Preston; OPPOSED: W. Pollock, C. Wehrly; ABSTAINED: B. McKeown; APPROVED: 4-2-1.
P. Smith advised M. Reeves that the application will be heard by the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, April 19, 2012, at 7:30 p.m., Old Saybrook Town Hall, 1st Floor Conference Room.
P. Smith listed what M. Reeves would be required to provide for the next meeting as follows: a certified soil scientist needs to flag the wetlands and show them on the site plan, the wetlands and silt fencing need to be shown, both the material to be removed from the site and the material to be brought into the site need to be identified, the map should be updated, it should be noted where the materials removed will be deposited because they need to be deposited in an appropriate place approved by the state of CT. Revised mapping should be submitted to Town Hall staff one week before the meeting with full size graphics, not half size.
MOTION to amend the agenda to move item A. Minutes to the end of Regular Business; MADE by P. Smith; SECONDED by C. Sohl; VOTED IN FAVOR: P. Smith, C. Wehrly, C. Sohl, W. Pollock, J. Esty, J. Preston; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: B. McKeown; APPROVED: 6-0-1.
MOTION to amend the agenda to act on the IWWC Minutes of both 2/16/2012 and 2/25/2012; MADE by P. Smith; SECONDED by J. Preston; VOTED IN FAVOR: C. Wehrly, C. Sohl, W. Pollock, J. Esty, J. Preston, P. Smith; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: B. McKeown; APPROVED: 6-0-1.
REGULAR BUSINESS
Commissioners received information regarding CLEAR training. If Commissioners would like to attend either of the training sessions and have the costs covered by the IWWC, they need to notify the Land Use Department Staff as soon as possible. The trainings are on March 31, 2012 and April 21, 2012.
Commissioners received copy of a notice through S. Becker, Town Clerk, from Heidi Wallace in Westbrook regarding an application for development on Spencer Plain Road, owned by G. Bessoni. There is meeting Tuesday, April 3, 2012 at 7:00 p.m in Westbrook. P. Smith said the Old Saybrook IWWC is not taking any further action on the application. S. Prisloe explained that there is a small section of upland review area in Old Saybrook in the rear of the property which will be lawn. This will be handled administratively.
- Committee, Representative & Staff Reports
There were no representative reports.
S. Prisloe distributed R. Snarski’s annual monitoring report on the status of 23 Quarry Street. Some plants have died, and there is some replanting being required of the landowner.
P. Smith asked S. Prisloe to contact the property owner at 23 Quarry Street to be sure she has received this report and that she is aware of R. Snarski’s recommendations for the plantings she needs to replace.
P. Smith asked S. Prisloe to contact R. Snarski to ask him about third year monitoring for the area behind the Cukoo’s Nest Restaurant.
S. Prisloe updated Commissioners regarding the Colvest/West Marine site. None of the plantings have been planted yet because of concern of frost. P. LaPointe, of Colvest, asked S. Prisloe if he should put mulch down. P. Smith said if it looks like there is a threat of erosion, then they should put mulch down, mesh netting or quick growing rye as a stopgap between excavation and vegetation.
S. Prisloe reported there were violations at Obed Heights reservoir. His intention was to send a letter to the property owners notifying them that any future activity would require permits. Mark Piontkowski, a neighbor, said he did not feel the property owners should be allowed to put docks in. Putting a dock in is a regulated activity. One of the violations involves a shed. Removal of the shed might cause more environmental damage than allowance of the shed to remain. S. Prisloe said he would check with town legal counsel to make sure he has the proper wording on the correspondence.
S. Prisloe received a complaint about clear cutting within the 100’ upland review area at 267 Schoolhouse Road from abutting property owner Karina Julius. The owners of this property have been before the IWWC before when they had requested to put a bridge in. Photos have been submitted showing the clear cutting. S. Prisloe asked Commissioners if he should issue a cease and desist order in which case, the IWWC would have to schedule a show cause hearing within 10 days of the order. For the hearing, P. Smith would like S. Prisloe to obtain the original graphic and overlay it to superimpose from a visual observation the area that has been clear-cut so Commissioners can see the area in proximity to the wetland. S. Prisloe said he would check with Commissioners for their availability before scheduling the date for
the hearing.
S. Prisloe reported that the Land Use Department is trying to get the new FEMA flood information out to the public with the change for the 100 -year flood boundaries. With the proposed changes to the maps, there will be about 700 properties in town not previously in the flood zone which now are in the flood zone.
S. Prisloe discussed the property on the corner of Fordham Drive and Obed Heights. The property owner has been notified by mail about pushing debris into the wetland. S. Prisloe has not gotten a response. If he does not hear anything from the property owner soon, he will issue another cease and desist order.
Minutes – February 16, 2012 & February 25, 2012
MOTION to approve the regular meeting minutes of February 16, 2012 as presented; MADE by J. Preston; SECONDED by J. Esty; VOTED IN FAVOR: C. Wehrly, C. Sohl, W. Pollock, J. Preston, J. Esty; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: P. Smith, B. McKeown; APPROVED: 5-0-2.
MOTION to approve the special meeting minutes of February 25, 2012 with the following correction: the date was Saturday, February 25, 2012 not Thursday, February 25, 2012; MADE by C. Wehrly; SECONDED by J. Preston; VOTED IN FAVOR: C. Wehrly, C. Sohl, W. Pollock, J. Preston, J. Esty; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: P. Smith, B. McKeown; APPROVED: 5-0-2.
The chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:27 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen Noyes
| 
