INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
Thursday, January 17, 2012 at 7:30 p.m.
1st Floor Conference Room Town Hall
302 Main Street
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman, Paul Smith, called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present
Paul Smith, Chairman
Janis Esty
Kimberley Gallagher
Judith Preston
Charles Wehrly
William Pollock, Secretary
Charles Sohl, Vice Chairman
Carl Fortuna, First Selectman, Ex Officio Member
Members Absent
Janis Holland
Brendan McKeown
Staff Present
Sandy Prisloe, Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer
Meryl Tsagronis, Administrative Clerk
Michael Cronin, Esq., Attorney to the IWWC
III. PUBLIC HEARING
A. 12-018 “TRACTOR Supply Company” Reg. Activity for Commercial Construction
401 Middlesex Turnpike (Map 52 / Lot 96)
Applicant: New England Retail Properties, Inc.; Agent: James Cassidy, PE
Charles Sohl and William Pollock recused themselves from the public hearing for Tractor Supply Company.
James Cassidy, PE with Hallisey, Pearson & Cassidy of Rocky Hill, CT, represented the Applicant. Also present was Mark D’Addabbo. Mr. Cassidy informed the Commission that all abutting property owners were notified of the public hearing, and a sign was posted on the property.
J. Cassidy stated that the Applicant, New England Retail Properties, seeks to obtain a wetlands permit in order to conduct a regulated activity in the upland review area. Applicant plans to develop a new Tractor Supply retail store on this site, a B4 business-zoned land. There is a small wetlands area on the property, consisting of about 412 sq. ft., which is part of a larger wetlands system. Mr. Cassidy has been told that the wetlands are classified as a “carlyle muck”.
The applicant proposes to construct a new building, 19,097 sq. ft., with a side yard display area, and parking lot.
Referencing Sheet #3, dated Oct 19, 2012 / Exhibit A3, J. Cassidy explained that per zoning regulations, they need to provide 124 parking spaces, however, applicant plans to request a deferral from the Town, to construct 72 parking spaces, placing the remaining number of spaces in reserve.
Regarding drainage of the parking lot, J. Cassidy explained that it slopes away from Middlesex Turnpike and presently drains down northwesterly toward the wetlands. The drainage design consists of a series of catch basins within the parking lot to collect the run-off, and from there the run-off is conveyed to a storm water quality basin.
Referencing Sheet #7, Oct 19, 2012 revised Jan 14, 2013 / Exhibit A4, J. Cassidy explained that the storm water quality basin is designed to act as an infiltration basin. They propose to line this basin with clay for added filtration, so that the water that infiltrates will be filtered out through an outlet structure, not allowed to discharge directly to the groundwater table. He described a modification, recommended by soil scientist Richard Snarski, of an additional 16” in depth, allowing for a layer of pea stone, and a foot layer of crushed stone, as well as a perforated pipe. He explained that the discharge would pass through a series of concrete galleries.
Referencing Exhibit A5, J. Cassidy discussed the upland review area and plans for minimizing the impact to this area, which includes some regrading and removal of boulders.
J. Cassidy discussed drainage, explaining that the drainage basin was designed to handle the first inch of run-off. The site will be serviced by a newly built septic system, including a new septic tank and pump chamber. He noted the building will be serviced by public water.
J. Cassidy discussed the concerns of the CT Water Company, referencing a letter to Robert Freidman, Chairman of the Zoning Commission, dated Nov 26, 2012. He stated that he had met with the Water Company and had come up with reasonable solutions to meet their concerns.
The three concerns of the CT Water Company are:
- storage of hazardous chemicals, risk of spills during delivery and off-loading of chemicals, and potential for spills during any outside fueling.
- discharge of storm water toward wetlands with potential of unacceptable levels of iron and manganese.
- amount of impervious surface proposed on the site
The recommended solutions addressing these concerns are outlined in a letter to Cindy Gaudino of the CT Water Company dated December 24, 2012. The Applicant expects to receive a favorable letter in support of this project from the Water Company in a matter of days.
P. Smith stated that because the Applicant has not yet received a letter of approval from the CT Water Company, this hearing will be continued to next month to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the IWWC Commission on February 21, 2013. He asked that the Applicant request in writing an extension to continue the public hearing. The Commission also needs to receive the updated plans.
Mark D’Addabbo stated he will request in writing an extension of the hearing.
P. Smith invited members of the audience to speak. Larry Bonin, of 282 School House Road spoke in favor of the building of Tractor Supply, stating he has visited a few of the Tractor Supply Stores in CT and found them to run a clean operation. He believes Tractor Supply is good for the site.
First Selectman Carl Fortuna attended a conference of the Council of CT Small Towns, at which he spoke with a representative of the CT Water Company and learned that the Water Company appears to be satisfied with the application.
Attorney Michael Cronin, attorney for the Commission, spoke to advise the Commission that the plan has not been reviewed by their own engineer, stating the engineer’s report must be submitted to the Applicant before the next meeting. P. Smith concurred that an outside consultant must review the plan, provide his findings, and the Commission needs to receive the response from the Water Company, all of which is to be discussed at the next meeting.
Judith Preston asked where the carlyle muck is located. J. Cassidy identified the area on the wetlands map, noting much of it is off the site. J. Preston asked for clarification about the nature of the soil on the property. J. Cassidy responded the soils on the property look to be gravel, mixed with loam, and slabs of rock. The permeable soil is down below, which is why they propose to line the storm water quality basin with clay.
J. Preston asked for clarification of the clay liner and the infiltration system. J. Cassidy referenced Exhibit A3 showing the infiltration box. J. Cassidy explained the clay lining and the discharge path.
J. Preston asked about the rip-rap rock and if it could be replaced with vegetation. J. Cassidy explained the rock helps dissipate the energy of the water. J. Preston asked to have vegetation planted to the extent it is possible.
J. Preston asked for clarification about the thickness of the concrete edge on the concrete pad. J. Cassidy explained that they plan to add a 6” high curb to the edge of the concrete pad, forming a containment area, so if something spills, it gets trapped there. He further explained this loading area will have a roof extension to protect from rain and weather events, and side walls to enclose the area on 3 sides. He stated the pad is 8” thick with a plastic membrane.
J. Preston asked about the life and maintenance of the concrete pad. J. Cassidy explained that trucks do not drive on the pad, but back up to the structure.
J. Preston asked if there is an emergency plan. J. Cassidy stated that Tractor Supply has a hazardous material handling plan, which was previously submitted to the Commission.
Charles Wehrly stated he is encouraged by the modifications the applicant has proposed to address the concerns of the CT Water Company. He referred the agent to past concerns from the CT Valley Rail about runoff and asked about potential impact to the rail tracks. J. Cassidy explained that they have done an extensive drainage analysis and expects no impact.
Kimberley Gallagher asked what pollutants are to be expected. J. Cassidy said some of the pollutants to expect are chemicals from de-icing of the parking lot, oil and antifreeze from vehicles, salt carried from cars coming off highways, litter, paper, and other floating material.
K. Gallagher asked where snow removed from the parking lot will go. J. Cassidy replied snow will be placed along the perimeter, and other areas have been identified as snow storage areas.
K. Gallagher asked how they plan to treat the parking lot. J. Cassidy replied that de-icing agents will be needed, that they will use as little as possible. He reminded the members that the basin is designed to treat those chemicals. K. Gallagher expressed concern that the nearby vegetation may not survive a winter in which the parking lots have received a lot of de-icing treatment. K. Gallagher asked if the storm water treatment is the best technology available. J. Cassidy responded that he believes it’s the best solution for this area, and noted the infiltration basin will be able to treat almost double the capacity it was originally intended to meet, almost 2” of run-off rather than 1”. He noted that they had hired scientist Rich Snarski to take a look at it, to see how it would impact the
wetlands; and, he thought this was a state of the art treatment for this particular site. Snarski also made recommendations for modifications to the retention pond, which J. Cassidy has incorporated into the plan.
P. Smith asked when the drainage report was submitted to the Commission’s Engineer. J. Cassidy replied it was submitted in November 2012; but that the Applicant requested a hold on the project in December. J. Cassidy stated he met with Jeff Jacobsen today on January 17th and hopes to receive the Jacobsen report next week. P. Smith asked S. Prisloe to confirm that Jeff Jacobsen’s report will be received shortly. He asked that the Commissioners receive a packet of material containing revised drainage report, any revised plans, and the letter from the CT Water Company.
P. Smith stated the public hearing for Tractor Supply will be continued to Thursday, Feb 21, 2013, 7:30pm, 1st floor conference room, Town Hall, without further notice.
W. Pollock and C. Sohl returned to the meeting.
B. 12-019 “Max’s Place” Modification of Original Permit
Corner of Boston Post Road, Spencer Plain Road & Center Road West (Map 25, 26 / Lots 2, 28, 29, 30 / 6-10, 6-11, 6-12, 32, 32-1)
Applicant: Max’s Place, LLC; Agent: Attorney David M. Royston
S. Prisloe stated the application was received, application fees were paid, Ordinance 71 fees were assessed, request for estimates were sent to Attorney Cronin and Jeff Jacobsen for their time, the estimates were forwarded to the Applicant, and Ordinance 71 fees were paid. He noted that public notice to abutters was not made, nor was a sign posted on the property.
Attorney David Royston, agent for the Applicant, requested postponement of the pubic hearing due to lack of notices.
P. Smith stated the public hearing for Max’s Place LLC will be postponed to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Feb 21, 2013. He asked staff to renotice announcement of the public hearing. He requested that D. Royston advise the Applicant to notify abutting property owners and post the required sign on the property.
P. Smith requested that S. Prisloe ask Jeff Jacobsen for a status of their report on this application.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
None
V. NEW BUSINESS
13-001 “Dolan” Regulated Activity for Residential Construction
100 Chalker Beach Road (Map 18 / Lot 87)
Applicant: Robert & Patricia Dolan; Agent: Joseph Wren, PE
Seamus Moran of Indigo Land Design represented the Applicant’s agent, Joseph Wren. Mr. Moran presented the details of the application to the Commission, stating the Applicant proposes to demolish the existing 3-bedroom dwelling and construct a new 3-bedroom dwelling with attached, covered porch, and a 10’x12’ shed. A new septic system will be installed in the rear of the property. He noted that a shed with wood ramp was recently removed, although the flooring of that shed remains.
S. Moran indicated that he is not a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Connecticut. P Smith advised him that a Registered Professional Engineer will be required to give testimony on this application when it is heard, beginning next month.
The owner/applicant proposes to knock down the existing house, and reorient a new house along the property line. S. Moran explained that the southern setback would be increased slightly; the northern setback would be decreased slightly. They propose to replace the septic tank system, with a combination concrete septic tank and pump chamber. Per regulations, the septic system must meet 50% of required effective leeching area and 50% of minimum leeching spread. S. Moran explained their plan meets 59% of leeching area and 70% of the spread. They propose a landscape retaining wall along the northern property line, and to locate the septic system there, further away from the wetlands. S. Moran added that with a retaining wall, per regulations, the septic system can be within 10’ of the retaining wall. The system will
be above existing grade. To meet the requirements of having 10’ from the edge of the system for fill, this results in fill for the system in the wetland area. They propose 6 to 7 cubic yards of fill in the wetlands area. He noted that the applicant believes the quality of the wetlands is poor.
The proposed new shed is to be located outside of the wetlands.
An existing shed that has been mostly removed, was located in wetlands.
Richard Snarski identified 2500 sq ft of wetlands on the property; with 900sq ft of inland wetlands, and 1600 sq ft of tidal wetlands.
P. Smith asked for clarification of the word “existing” on SP-1. S. Moran explained that the existing shed had been removed and a new shed has been placed on the property near the driveway. The owners intend to have the shed relocated to the rear of the property as noted on SP-1. P Smith stated that the owner is in violation of regulations because he brought the new shed on site without permission. P. Smith asked S. Moran to let the Applicants know that they are in violation of the Commission’s regulations due to this violation.
K. Gallagher asked for clarification of labeling on the plan, and asked that the plan be redrawn to accurately reflect items on the property.
A discussion ensued regarding the shed and what items had been removed. It was determined that some of the existing shed had been removed and that the shed floor and ramp remain. P. Smith asked for a revised plan to show what the site actually looks like. The Commissioners will need to receive the revised plan, SP-1, with adequate time for review, clarifying the status of the shed. He suggested that ‘existing shed location’ be replaced with ‘proposed shed location’.
K. Gallagher asked for clarification about the proposed leeching field, as well as the location of the new shed. P. Smith asked that the applicant not remove anything further from the site, prior to meeting with the Commission.
William Pollock asked if the wetlands were flagged by a soil scientist. S. Moran replied that Richard Snarski reviewed them on July 17, 2012. W. Pollock asked for clarification of Wetland flags as shown in the legend. He also asked what the source of the water is coming into the inland wetlands. S. Moran replied that it is Hagar Creek.
C. Wehrly remarked that the house will need to be built to flood standards and asked for clarification about the entrance to the house, and the location of the existing leeching field. He asked if other locations were considered for the leeching system. S. Moran explained that the proposed location is the only viable one. C. Wehrly asked if technologies other than the Geomatrix were considered. S. Moran stated that Geomatrix was preferred for this property, for its thinness at 6”.
A discussion of the retaining wall on the north side ensued. C. Wehrly and P. Smith asked for clarification and determined that the marked elevations on the plan are incorrect. P. Smith asked for an accurate depiction on the plan of the heights of the wall, marked beginning and end. He asked to see the proposed elevation at top of wall on the revised plan. He also asked for an existing ground shot of the adjacent property.
C. Wehrly asked for clarification of the septic tank and pump chamber on Sheet 3, and wants to know dimensions of the risers. S. Moran is to provide those dimensions for the next meeting. S. Moran replied that the risers will be at grade. C. Wehrly noted that 81% of the tank would be below maximum ground water.
P. Smith expressed that he believed the Applicant had not approached the Water Pollution Control Authority yet; and that they could advise which waste water system to use. P. Smith advised the Agent that the system must be one that the WPCA can sign off on, or the owner may risk having to replace it. The Agent noted they need to get WPCA approval.
The Commission deliberated whether to accept the application, noting concerns with the septic system and the location of the shed. A motion was made to accept the application with conditions.
MOTION to accept Application with conditions that the septic system design as it relates to proposed elevations on the north side of the site be corrected, reevaluated, and the plan revised accordingly; and, that the plan accurately reflect existing conditions, specifically as relates to the ramp and the shed. #13-001 “Dolan” Regulated Activity for Residential Construction, 100 Chalker Beach Road (Map 18 / Lot 87); Applicant: Robert & Patricia Dolan; Agent: Joseph Wren, PE; MADE by K. Gallagher; SECONDED by J. Preston; VOTED IN FAVOR: P. Smith, C. Wehrly, J. Esty, K. Gallagher, J. Preston, W. Pollock, C. Sohl; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 7-0-0.
MOTION to deem this application a significant activity and to require Ordinance 71 fees for engineering and legal counsel services. Application #13-001 “Dolan” Regulated Activity for Residential Construction, 100 Chalker Beach Road (Map 18 / Lot 87; Applicant: Robert & Patricia Dolan; Agent: Joseph Wren, PE; MADE by K. Gallagher; SECONDED by W. Pollock; VOTED IN FAVOR: P. Smith, C. Wehrly, J. Esty, K. Gallagher, J. Preston, W. Pollock, C. Sohl; OPPOSED:
none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 7-0-0.
S. Prisloe reminded S. Moran that the Applicant needs to post a sign on the property that a public hearing is to take place, and to notify abutters.
VI. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. Minutes – December 20, 2012
Approval of minutes is deferred to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
The following amendments are proposed for the meeting minutes of December 20, 2012:
Pg 2., 2nd paragraph from bottom, delete “clarified” and replace with “noted”: Paul Smith “noted”
Pg 2, 2nd paragraph from bottom, delete “and that the Commission is not hearing this matter.”
Pg 2, last paragraph, delete “has been relocated,” and replace with “property has been transferred”, to read: “The cul de sac property has been transferred”
Pg 2, last paragraph, insert “their portion of” after “which includes removal of”
Pg 2, last paragraph, revise the fifth sentence to read: The second permit was for the activities involved on the property itself related to development and disturbance to existing wetlands and an intermittent watercourse.
Pg 3, 1st sentence, revise to read: In 2006, the permits were granted and provided for filling of the intermittent stream, and modification of a wetlands area for a detention pond.
Pg 3, paragraph 1, 2nd sentence, delete “but rather” and add “and to”
Pg 3, paragraph 2, 1st sentence: delete “which was not a requirement of the permit.”
Pg 3, paragraph 2, last sentence: delete “tie”, replace with “tide”
Pg 3, paragraph 3, 1st sentence: change “building” to “buildings”
Pg 3, paragraph 3, last sentence, revise sentence to read: The new permit reconfigures the number, size and locations of buildings on-site with some reconfiguration of the parking lot.
Pg 3, paragraph 4, insert at end of 1st sentence: “to comply with a requirement of the seller when Max’s Place LLC bought the property.”
Pg 3, paragraph 4, 2nd sentence, insert “now” after “Big Y has”
Pg 3, paragraph 4, 4th sentence, delete “at 54,000 sq feet” and replace with “and proposes a 54,000 sq ft facility here.”
Pg 3, paragraph 4, last sentence, revise to read: They will be at the prominent location at the center of the site, joined by Kohls at 55,000 sq. ft; and, two smaller buildings will be in front along Spencer Plain Road, which will frame the entrance.
Pg 3, paragraph 6, revise 1st sentence to read: D. Ziaks explained the proposed development is now as follows:”
Pg 3, paragraph 6, after “Phase 2” insert: “An additional 20,745 sq ft for a total of”
Pg 3, paragraph 7, delete last sentence.
Pg 4, paragraph 1, last sentence, after “last phase of development” add “ as part of their application.”
Pg 4, paragraph 5, 2nd sentence, revise to read: P. Smith noted for the record that sheet WI-1 was to be labeled as Exhibit A-3, dated 12/12/12, with no revisions.
Pg 4, paragraph 5, delete last sentence and replace with: “Sheet MA-1 had been labeled Exhibit A-2 revised through Revision 7 dated 12/12/12.
Pg 4, paragraph 7, replace with: D. Ziaks discussed the intermittent water course, which consists of a drainage ditch running along a stone wall. This application changes nothing from the original permit to fill this ditch.
Pg 4, replace paragraph 8 with: “D. Ziaks explained that the real change in this application is the change resulting from moving the Big Y store. There is some shuffling of disturbed areas involved in the upland review area; but there is no direct discharge to Wetlands #1. Onsite drainage and utility lines need to shift; but this does not affect macro drainage.”
Pg 4, paragraph 9, delete last sentence.
Pg 4, paragraph 11, delete 1st sentence.
Pg 5, paragraph 1, delete 1st sentence.
Pg 5, paragraph 1, 2nd sentence, delete “He”, replace with “P. Smith”
Pg 5, paragraph 1, last sentence, revise “Commissioners are” to “Commission was”
Pg 5, paragraph 2, delete “of modifications”. Revise “permit” to “permits”
Pg 5, paragraph 9, replace with “P. Smith asked what phase of development the treatment facility and sub surface disposal area were sized for; phase 1 or phase 2.”
Pg 5, paragraph 10, delete “though he was not certain of” with “and he will confirm”
Pg 5, last paragraph, delete second sentence.
Pg 6, delete paragraph 1 “P. Smith clarified… “
Pg 6, paragraph 2, replace with: W. Pollock asked if there is site access from the east for fire trucks and emergency equipment to reach the property from the cul de sac.
Pg 6, paragraph 5, revise 2nd sentence to read: “Any modification would also go to 2014.
Pg 6, delete paragraphs 6, 8, 10, 11.
Pg 6, paragraph 12, 1st sentence, insert “Commission’s” after “P. Smith stated the”
Pg 7, paragraph 1, 1st sentence, insert “now” after “access as”
Pg 7, paragraph 5. Revise 1st sentence to read: “D. Royston explained that the re-subdivision has taken place, but the map has not been filed on the land records.”
Pg 7, paragraph 5, 1st sentence, delete “and a”, and replace with “The”, beginning a new sentence with “The portion of Center Road West…”
Pg 7, paragraph 5, replace 2nd sentence with: “ Those deeds are being held in escrow pending their filing on the Land Records; because once Max’s Place files them on the Land Records they have merged the parcels, and before they do that they needed a grocery store tenant for a developable project.
Pg 7, paragraph 6, 1st sentence, delete “and emergency vehicles,” and replace with “plant location”; add a period after Big Y. Begin new sentence with “He asked if there… “
Pg 7, last paragraph, delete “P. Smith” and replace with “The Commission”;
Delete “He also made a” and begin last sentence with “A request was made…”
Pg 8, 1st Motion: delete “as” and replace with “the application”
Pg 8, 2nd Motion: delete “review” and replace with “and legal counsel”
Pg 8, delete the third Motion.
Pg 8, paragraph 1, replace with “P. Smith summarized by stating that the public hearing for application #12-019 is scheduled for Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 7:30pm in the Old Saybrook Town Hall, first floor conference room.”
Pg 9, section D. Committee, Representative & Staff Reports, replace “Conservation Commission” with “Wetlands Commission”
B. Election of Officers
W. Pollock nominated J. Preston for Secretary.
MOTION to elect Judith Preston for Secretary of Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission for 2013. MADE by W. Pollock; SECONDED by K. Gallagher; VOTING IN FAVOR: P. Smith, C. Wehrly, J. Esty, K. Gallagher, J. Preston, W. Pollock, C. Sohl; OPPOSED: None; ABSTAINING: None; APPROVED: 7-0-0.
C. Wehrly nominated K. Gallagher for Vice Chairman.
MOTION to elect Kimberley Gallagher for Vice Chairman of Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission for 2013. MADE by C. Wehrly; SECONDED by W. Pollock; VOTING IN FAVOR: P. Smith, C. Wehrly, J. Esty, K. Gallagher, J. Preston, W. Pollock, C. Sohl; OPPOSED: None; ABSTAINING: NONE; APPROVED: 7-0-0.
K. Gallagher nominated P. Smith for Chairman.
MOTION to elect Paul Smith Chairman of Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission for 2013. MADE by K. Gallagher; SECONDED by J. Preston; VOTING IN FAVOR: C. Wehrly, J. Esty, K. Gallagher, J. Preston, W. Pollock, C. Sohl; OPPOSED: None; ABSTAINING: P. Smith; APPROVED: 6-0-1.
C. Correspondence
P. Smith encouraged Commissioners to attend a program of the CT Land Use Law for Municipal Agencies, Boards and Commissions.
D. Committee, Representative & Staff Reports
S. Prisloe updated the Commission on the violation on the Charles Barnes property. The violation notice was returned as undeliverable. The next step will be to have the violation notice delivered to owner by the Sheriff.
Concerning the Dolan application, S. Prisloe would like to talk to Attorney Cronin for guidance prior to asking Jacobsen and Associates to review the application.
MOTION to change the regularly scheduled meeting start time of the Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission to 7pm beginning in March for 2013. MADE by J. Preston; SECONDED by K. Gallagher; VOTING IN FAVOR: P. Smith, J. Esty, K. Gallagher, J. Preston, W. Pollock, C. Sohl; OPPOSED: C. Wehrly; ABSTAINING: None; APPROVED: 6-1-0.
K. Gallagher asked S. Prisloe about the status of the land at Fenwick and the cutting down of trees that had been observed there. S. Prisloe replied Fenwick is a unique jurisdiction and is exempt from IWWC review.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:47 P.M. until the next Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission which will be on Thursday, February 21, 2013, at 7:30p.m. in the 1st Floor Conference Room, Town Hall, 302 Main Street; MADE by K. Gallagher; SECONDED by J. Preston; VOTED IN FAVOR: J. Esty, W. Pollock, J. Preston, P. Smith, K. Gallagher, C. Wehrly, C. Sohl; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED:
7-0-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Meryl Tsagronis
| 
