MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
Thursday, April 19, 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
Charles Wehrly
Judith Preston
Members Absent
Kimberley Gallagher
Brendan McKeown
Janice Holland
Staff Present
Sandy Prisloe, Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer
Kathleen Noyes, Administrative Clerk
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. 12-004 “Bessoni” Regulated activity for residential improvement
210 Ingham Hill Road (Map 56 / Lot 7-21)
Applicant: George J. Bessoni, Sr.
Joe Wren, PE, presented for property owner and applicant, G. Bessoni. Per the suggestions from Commissioners at the March 15, 2012 IWWC meeting, J. Wren extended the silt fence on the drawing, PP-1 dated 2/29/12 with no revisions noted, closing the loop on the silt fence and tying it around the existing stockade fence which goes around the pool.
MOTION to approve application #12-004 “Bessoni” Regulated Activity for residential improvement; 210 Ingham Hill Road (M56 /L 7-21), Applicant: George J. Bessoni, Sr. with the condition that the silt fence be continued on the northern side so it connects to the existing stockade fencing that would have the capability of trapping any sediment. MADE by P. Smith; SECONDED by W. Pollock; VOTED IN FAVOR: P. Smith, C. Sohl, C. Wehrly, W. Pollock, J. Esty, J. Preston; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 6-0-0.
B. 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
Joe Wren, PE, presented for the applicant, David Reed, who was also present.
P. Smith explained to D. Reed that the original notice of violation was 12/1/12, and the Commission on 12/15/12 received the IWWC application. There is normally a 65 -day period of acceptance and review with an option for an additional 65 -day extension. Last month, the initial application was denied. P. Smith verified with D. Reed that he was requesting another 65 -day extension. D. Reed said that he was. P. Smith further explained that the total allowed lapsed time on an IWWC application is 130 days. P. Smith advised Commissioners to try and act on this matter this evening so they would stay within the 130- day limit.
J. Wren distributed photos taken today, 4/19/12, at the culvert crossing and at the stream crossing. Also, at tonight’s meeting, Commissioners received a letter from J. Wren dated 4/16/12 with the following attachments: Appendix A: Maps, Appendix B: Hydrology, Appendix C: Culvert Hydraulics, and Appendix D: Bridge Hydraulics.
J. Wren stated that a hydrologic analysis and a hydraulic analysis were done. The 36” reinforced concrete culvert north and east of the applicant’ property, under the common driveway, was not shown on the initial drawings. The stream flows in a southwesterly direction. It drains through a forested area. Based on the 172 -acre watershed, flow rates were determined.
The bridge was evaluated for a 25 -year storm. Using the 25 -year storm data, the flow rate was 114 cubic feet per second. The buildup of water upstream of the existing culvert causes erosive velocities just downstream of the culvert. The stream flows from NE to the SW and, there’s a 96 contour at each end of the stream on the Reed property. Therefore, the watercourse is a zero gradient stream. The velocity slows down to less than 3 feet per second.
P. Smith said there is a full report attached to the letter with the hydraulic cross sections. Three copies were provided to Commissioners, which they reviewed at the meeting. P. Smith said it was a detailed review, and the information from the reports supports the statements in the three- page letter from J. Wren dated 4/16/12.
J. Wren stated that in the Public Improvement Section of the Town of Old Saybrook Regulations, public roads must be evaluated for 25- year storms. If a 25 -year storm were to occur, the main portion of the bridge would not be overtopped. In the event of a 50-year storm, the water would just go over the highest point of the bridge.
Richard Snarski, Soil Scientist, submitted a letter dated 4/19/12. The three recommendations he made are included in the recommendations made by J. Wren, which are as follows:
- It would be best to leave the bridge in its present location due to the existing trails, and because the bridge is very heavy and stable, it is not likely to float away. It would be best to put in 1 inch galvanized rebar at each corner of the bridge which would be pounded into the ground 2 – 3 feet to prevent it from becoming dislodged.
- The property owner shall remove accumulated debris from the bridge and the adjacent stream channel as necessary.
- An adequate layer of wood chips should be maintained to inhibit erosion and/or sedimentation and to prevent bare soil.
- Uphill of the bridge, there’s a small rock to the side of the path. There’s a cedar log there. It should be cut and imbedded on the uphill side of the rock for stability. It will act as a speed bump, and any runoff would be diverted to the woodland to the east prior to entering the stream.
There’s a 20 -foot scour hole, which is approximately two feet deep, located just downstream of the existing culvert, just off the Reed property. The Town has expressed some interest in preventing scour in this area. P. Smith suggested that the property owner contact the Town to have some additional riprap placed.
J. Wren said because of the zero gradient in the stream, there’s the opportunity for debris to settle. The edges of the stream bank are undercut in a lot of areas. At higher flows, that will add sediment to the stream too.
J. Wren emphasized that the velocity of the water coming out of the culvert slows down significantly when it reaches the bridge.
D. Reed responded to J. Preston’s question about using stone instead of woodchips on the paths approaching the bridge. D. Reed said he’s not opposed to stone, but on the northern side, woodchips, if maintained as recommended by R. Snarski, would work well.
P. Smith said the reports and analyses by J. Wren and R. Snarski have satisfied his concerns. P. Smith then asked D. Reed if he read J. Wren’s report. D. Reed said he did. P. Smith asked D. Reed if he agreed with and was willing to comply with the recommendations contained in the letter, which echoed R. Snarski’s recommendations. D. Reed said he will comply.
J. Preston asked S. Prisloe if he would be monitoring the bridge. He said when the IWWC takes action to grant a permit, after the permit expires; the IWWC has no long term monitoring capability. There’s no routine inspection after the permit is issued.
MOTION to approve #11-015 “Reed” Reconsideration of denial of regulated activity for residential
improvement (application to construct a bridge); 13 Fox Hollow Road (M55 /L 15-14), Applicant: David & Stacy Reed; with the stipulation that the applicant incorporate the four suggestions detailed in the letter dated 4/16/12 from Indigo Land Design, LLC, made by J. Wren, PE, and R. Snarski, Soil Scientist, and that there be a time limit of 30 days for these conditions to be carried out. D. Reed should notify S. Prisloe when these conditions have been met; MADE by W. Pollock; SECONDED by J. Esty; VOTED IN FAVOR: C. Wehrly, J. Esty, P. Smith, W. Pollock, C. Sohl, J. Preston; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 6-0-0.
A. “Morin” Violation
267 Schoolhouse Road (Map 50 / Lot 8)
Property Owner: Cynthia Morin
Attorney Edward Cassella, and C. Morin, were both present.
E. Cassella provided a map and photographs for Commissioners to review during the meeting. He then gave Commissioners a history of the Morin’s property. In 2003, the IWWC granted a permit for a bridge over a stream crossing so the Morin’s could build their home. Their property straddles Old Saybrook and Westbrook, and it used to be a farm. The Morin’s have decided they would like to start utilizing their property as a farm more actively. They want to plant fruit and nut trees. They’ve cleared 2 trees, 1 of which is in the upland review area. They’ve done some grading and grubbing of their property, which led to the notice of violation. Once the Morin’s received the letter of violation, they stopped all clearing activity. They’ve installed silt fencing on the NW portion
of the property. They have also graded, seeded and hay mulched it.
The Morin’s would like to plant fruit trees in the upland review area shown in two photos submitted to the Commission, looking eastward toward Schoolhouse Road for both of the photographs.
They plan to plant fruit trees on the property in three phases. C. Morin is filing an application for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and she’s filed paperwork with the Town Assessor under Chapter 490 which allows for farm exemption for taxes. The Morin’s are also now members of the CT Farm Bureau.
Atty Cassella said Section 4.4 of IWWC Regulations allows farming. He explained that there is no activity being done in the wetland or watercourse at this time. Some of the activity is in the upland review area, and some is outside of it.
S. Prisloe said he received a call from the health district notifying him that there was large equipment (a large forklift) at the northwest property corner of the adjacent property owner, K. Julius. Also, K. Julius filed a formal complaint of a wetlands violation. At that time, there were trees down, and a lot of the underbrush had been removed. Vegetation had been cleared in the upland review area.
Atty Cassella met with S. Prisloe, stating that the property owner was planning to conduct agricultural activity, and S. Prisloe told him that the property owner would need to come before the IWWC.
There was no silt fence in place at the time of this first meeting. The silt fence is in response to the meeting between Atty Cassella and S. Prisloe.
C. Morin said when the adjacent property owners filed the complaint; they assumed everything was being done in the upland review area.
S. Prisloe said the bigger concern was that the vegetation had been removed.
P. Smith asked C. Morin what type of heavy equipment would be needed to complete Stage 1 of the work of planting fruit trees. She said a backhoe on wheels with a bucket on one side and a claw on the other would need to be used in the upland review area. They are hoping to complete Stage 1 by the middle to the end of June.
P. Smith next asked about Stage 3, which C. Morin said would be completed in the fall.
P. Smith said farming activities are an “as of right” use, and require no permit from the IWWC. The farming definition is defined by the legislature.
P. Smith suggested that the applicant put up silt fencing to the west side of Area 3 adjacent to the wetland, and to maintain the silt fencing on the north side of Area 1 as to such time as ground cover is established so erosion is minimized or eliminated. Ground cover needs to be established as quickly as possible.
P. Smith said the applicant should have reported the activity to the Town, but the violation should be removed because the applicant does not need a permit for agricultural activity. P. Smith advised the applicant to keep the town staff informed of further activities.
MOTION to withdraw or void the violation that’s been issued at 267 Schoolhouse Road (M50 /L 8), Property Owner: Cynthia Morin on the basis of the testimony that the clearing in the upland review area is in anticipation of a farming activity. Therefore, no permit is required by this commission.; MADE by P. Smith; SECONDED by C. Sohl; VOTED IN FAVOR: P. Smith, C. Sohl, C. Wehrly, W. Pollock, J. Esty; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: J. Preston; APPROVED: 5-0-1.
B. “Wood” Violation
31 Obed Heights (Map 58 / Lot 39A)
Property Owner: Henry Wood
S. Prisloe reported that the violation on this property, which is on the corner of Obed Heights and Fordham Trail, has been an ongoing matter since January or February. The complaint was that brush, leaves and dirt had been pushed down the hill into the upland review area near the wetland. This was natural material, not garbage.
S. Prisloe sent a letter to H. Wood, but he didn’t respond. S. Prisloe then sent a notice of violation. H. Wood came in and spoke to S. Prisloe about two weeks ago. He said he’s in the process of putting in a well, and that’s the reason for a lot of this debris. He indicated that there was additional work on his property that he wanted to do, and that he wanted to apply for an IWWC permit.
H. Wood agreed to remove the material, and he said he would hire a landscaper to put together a landscaping plan. He said he would be unable to attend tonight’s meeting. S. Prisloe has not yet received a landscaping plan.
Carl Smith, 4 Fordham Trail, neighbor was in attendance at tonight’s meeting. He said there’s a considerable amount of brush, soil and trees on the property.
P. Smith asked C. Smith if the activity was recent or not. C. Smith stated that the activity was new. There’s not a history of pushing brush into the wetland.
P. Smith asked S. Prisloe to follow up with H. Wood. There is bare soil in the area, and there is concern about erosion and bare soil on steep slopes. There needs to be action taken to improve the bare slope so it does not erode into the wetland. S. Prisloe showed Commissioners a photo taken on 12/22/12 showing the material that was pushed into the wetland.
Commissioners agreed to continue this matter at the next IWWC meeting.
V. REGULAR BUSINESS
P. Smith updated Commissioners on the status of the application that was filed and reviewed at the March 15, 2012 IWWC meeting regarding 96 Sea Lane. Town Attorney, Michael Cronin, made a determination this was an as of right activity for the raising of the house, therefore, an IWWC permit was not required. S. Prisloe sent a letter to M. Reeves, builder, letting him know that this determination was made.
S. Prisloe addressed the letter received from Mr. Sussman of 55 Hartford Avenue regarding the 96 Sea Lane property. S. Prisloe advised Mr. Sussman to talk with Attorney Cronin, and he explained to him that the issues of concern to Mr. Sussman are not under the IWWC’s purview, and that if he wants to pursue it, it would be a civil matter.
- Committee, Representative & Staff Reports
S. Prisloe has recently been out to inspect the Colvest property. Mulch has been placed. The northwest corner, where the level spreader was, looks nice.
S. Prisloe received an anonymous complaint about heavy equipment on 57 Bokum Road which is two parcels up from the electrical substation. The property contains wetlands and upland review area. He will be following up on this.
S. Prisloe received correspondence regarding Amos Pond on 273 Schoolhouse Road. They have submitted an application to the DEEP to apply aquatic pesticides.
C. Minutes – March 15, 2012
MOTION to approve the regular meeting minutes of March 15, 2012 as presented; MADE by J. Preston; SECONDED by C. Sohl; VOTED IN FAVOR: C. Wehrly, C. Sohl, W. Pollock, P. Smith, J. Preston, J. Esty; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 6-0-0.
MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 P.M. until the next Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission scheduled for, Thursday, May 17, 2012, Town Hall, 302 Main Street, 1st Floor Conference Room; MADE by J. Preston; SECONDED by C. Sohl; VOTED IN FAVOR: C. Wehrly, C. Sohl, W. Pollock, P. Smith, J. Preston, J. Esty; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 6-0-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen Noyes
| 
