INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2011
PRESENT WERE: Chairman Robb Linde, Dave McCulloch, Skip DiCamillo, Sabine O’Donnell, and Linda Krulikowski.
MINUTES OF MEETING DATED MARCH 22, 2011
Linda Krulikowski made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED APRIL 7, 2011
This item was tabled until the June Meeting.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED MAY 5, 2011
This item was tabled until the June Meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
THE POINT OF WOODS ASSOCIATION – RELEASE OF BOND
Brown stated the project was pretty well completed and they are currently finishing up some repair work. She noted the Zoning Commission made a motion to release the bond upon a satisfactory inspection by her. Linde asked if Brown felt the commission needed to visit the site. Brown indicated she did not feel that was necessary.
Dave McCulloch made a motion to release the bond pending an inspection. Linda Krulikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC – 05-24-11
11-15 QUESTA BUILDERS – 5-1 DAVIS ROAD EAST – CONSTRUCTION OF 2 STORY BUILDING WITHIN 100’ OF THE WETLANDS
Robert Doane, presented the application on behalf of Questa Builders. He stated the proposal is to construct a 2 story 8,600 sf building with a footprint of 4,300 sf with 45 parking spaces accessed by 2 driveways off of Davis Road. A portion of the building approximately 25 sf is within 100 ft of inland wetlands in the northeast corner of the property. Also approximately 4,000 sf of site grading and filling must take place within 100 ft. of the wetlands. He also noted there is a road going through the property today which is the emergency access to Talcott Farm and they propose to maintain that access and noted it will be incorporated into the parking lot along with a fire lane. The filling will support the northeast corner of the parking area and support a stormwater recharge system
comprising of 2 – 56 lf lines of 4 x 4 galleries which recharge the first inch of runoff from the eastern side of the proposed development. The proposed activity will have slopes that end approximately 40 ft from the wetland area.
Doane submitted revised plans of the proposal and noted he had delivered a set to Tom Metcalf as well for his review. He further noted that Questa Builders has a purchase agreement that if the application is approved he will purchase the property and seek a free split or lot line modification from the Planning Commission.
Linde asked if the development of the small parcel would prevent or limit the access to the rest of that property. Doane stated no and noted they will retain frontage on Davis Road. Linde asked what the plans were for the remainder of the property. Doane reviewed the wetland line shown on the plan essentially making a large portion of the property not buildable. Linde asked what the plans were for the parcel located to the north. Doane stated eventually they hope to seek approval for a single family residence. Linde stated he just wanted to be sure that this development in the front does not put the commission in a position where they would have to then allow access across or closer to the wetland than they prefer.
O’Donnell asked what the surface was of the access road given its close proximity to the wetlands. Doane stated it was a gravel surface and has been maintained and kept passable. O’Donnell asked why it was located there and not farther west. Doane stated given the topography of the site this was the only possible location. Doane also reviewed the drainage shown on the plan with the commission. O’Donnell asked how many parking spaces would be within the regulated zone. Doane indicated there would be four spaces. DiCamillo asked how many spaces were required for the project. Doane stated 42 spaces are required but we have proposed 45. O’Donnell asked if any provisions were being made to block off the access to the emergency roadway.
Doane stated that the gate would relocated to the front of the access.
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – 05-24-11
O’Donnell asked if the applicant had considered modifying the footprint or turning the building in order to reduce its close proximity to the wetlands. Doane stated the location has been chosen in order to meeting the zoning setback requirements and parking requirements. Doane also noted that the setbacks are increased on this particular application due to the requirements for a narrow street setback.
O’Donnell asked if any thought had been given to 3 stories in an effort to reduce the footprint. Doane stated if you go more than two floors it would involve a whole different type of construction and code requirements and he also added that he felt for an office building he felt the access was good on each floor.
Linde requested the someone be present at the site or the limits be staked with regard to the driveway. The commission agreed to set a site walk for Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 6:15 p.m .
11-16 DONALD S. BRODEUR – 64,66,68 GORTON AVENUE – PLACEMENT OF LARGE BOULDERS ALONG EASTERN PROPERTY LINE
Joe Wren, Professional Engineer representing the owner/applicant Donald Brodeur presented the proposal. Wren stated late last year there was a complaint of some boulders being dumped in the rear of these properties which are owned by Don Brodeur and his family. He stated there are three lots in Old Colony Beach two of which have homes and one is vacant. Wren reviewed the plan that he prepared with the application and also submitted photographs of the site for the commission to review. He stated the photos show the two piles of stones and their location on the property. He stated the boulders were placed along the edge of the wetlands and did not really encroach and were generally dropped on the edge of the lawn. He stated the close up photos show there is really no erosion as a
result of these boulders sitting on the lawn. He also submitted a photo that shows a pile of cut grass that was dumped on the site by a trespasser. He stated Mr. Brodeur would like to take the boulders and line them up in either a single or double row along the edge of the lawn as shown on the plan which would also prevent people from dumping anything into that area. He stated there are also some other boulders that were also placed on the site by someone else and Mr. Brodeur would propose to remove the grass piles and also line up the boulders that were dumped on the site.
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – 05-24-11
Wren stated the purpose that the boulders were originally brought to the site was anticipation of a septic repair for one of the homes. Wren further stated due to the high groundwater table therefore you have to have a mounded system raised above the existing grade so since these two adjacent homes are approximately the same age they felt it was only a matter of time before this system would fail. Wren stated he had some friends or business partners who were doing some work and had some additional boulders so he had them moved to the site so they would be there to be used should the system fail. Wren stated therefore until such time that the boulders might be needed for the repair the applicant would like to neaten them up and place them in a single or double row along the edge to act as a delineator and more
or less protect the wetlands and prevent any further dumping into the area.
O’Donnell asked if the intention was to move the boulders again at some point. Wren stated they are currently in two piles. O’Donnell asked if the septic system needs repair would it be necessary to again move the boulders. Wren stated the original reason for bringing the boulders to the property was the anticipation of the septic system failing and the ground needs to be raised and the boulders would serve as a retaining wall. Wren stated it prevents excess fill from entering the wetlands area.
Brown asked Mr. Wren if he had a soil scientist delineate the wetlands soils? Wren responded he did not. Wren stated he felt it was pretty clear from photographs and he assumed that the edge of lawn is the wetland delineation.
O’Donnell stated it is her understanding that the boulders would function as a retaining wall and therefore you would have to fill to the height of the boulders. Wren stated that ultimately you would. O’Donnell stated she did not understand how that would keep sediment back. She further stated that ideally the area would then slope and therefore would need to be a buffer as normally required. Linde stated that if and when the septic system needed to be upgraded the applicant will have to come back before the commission for an approval. Krulikowski clarified with the applicant that the permit being requested at this time is to move the boulders into a line. O’Donnell stated it would create additional disturbance if you then have to move the boulders again and it
would require heavy equipment in close proximity to the wetlands. Linde stated the commission would have to make that determination at that time.
Page 5 – Minutes
IWWC – 05-24-11
McCulloch stated he did not feel there were enough boulders on the site to make a tight retaining wall and therefore more would have to be brought or in or they would need to take some boulders from the north where you don’t contemplate building a retaining wall. Wren stated that was correct but what is proposed now is to make it look neat on the site without further encroachment for however long it may be.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 7:15 p.m. Linde asked Mr. Wren if he was not able to be present to run a line where the boulders will be placed.
11-17 ESSEX SAVINGS BANK – 101 HALLS ROAD – RERPLACEMENT OF EXISTING PARKING LOT AND CURBING
Lynn Giroux, Senior Vice President of Essex Savings Bank and their contractor Robert Dibble were present to discuss the application. Giroux distributed copies of the site plan.
Giroux also submitted photographs of the area. She noted the proposal is to replace the parking area at Essex Savings Bank. She noted there are no plans to change the footprint.
Brown noted that the adjacent property has a large vernal pool on their site.
Giroux stated they are seeking to get the commission’s approval to repave this parking lot sooner rather than later prior to the increase of summer traffic. She noted the proposal includes the placement of silt fence and hay bales around the perimeter.
O’Donnell asked where the drainage of the parking lot currently goes and if any changes are proposed. Dibble pointed out the various dry wells on the plan. He also pointed out a pipe that goes out to the state highway and the sump pump. He also noted that they don’t really know what is currently underground. He noted that DOT has approved the project but it is up to the commission as to how they would like to reconfigure the drainage. It was also noted that the basement on the site currently retains water. Linde stated it is not the commission’s role nor is the commission qualified to design the plan. He further stated that the town engineer can review the plan but it is not his role to design the plans either. He further stated that he always get concerned
when he gets a plan before him and he starts to see people writing on it stating they are going to do this and this and this, and this commission needs to know what the exact plan therefore all of these issues need to be resolved prior to the issuance of a permit. Linde stated the applicant can also do contingency plans as well stating that the plan is to leave the piping in its exact location unless we find it needs to be replaced or repaired. Dibble asked what would be required if he found a broken pipe underneath. Linde stated it is perfectly acceptable to say our plan is to include demolition, inspect and then we will proceed with either A or B and sometimes depending on what the impact of A or B is we may require an inspection by our enforcement officer but the commission needs to know what the plan is prior to any approvals.
Page 6 – Minutes
IWWC – 05-24-11
Giroux stated the original intent was to replace it as is or regrade to the original specification. She stated however, their goal is to enhance it if it is needed. Linde stated at a minimum we need the applicant to show on the plan the wetland location or the 100’ review line, the silt fence location, stockpile locations, and how you plan proceed with work.
Dibble stated he would not get into the drainage he would just leave it as it. Giroux stated that when she spoke with Ann Brown she indicated that if no changes were proposed that she might be able to ask for an Administrative Permit. Brown stated that the applicant could ask the commission but that was their decision. Giroux stated if the proposal was to comply with the commission’s guidance could they get an administrative approval. Linde stated generally administrative permits are granted on projects that involve less than 400 square feet of work/construction. He stated the commission will visit the site and then normally take action on the application at our next regularly scheduled meeting on June 28, 2011. Dibble stated then he will have to postpone the project to the fall. He stated it would be too hot at that time and too much traffic in that area.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. Linde suggested the applicant modify the existing plan and delineate the silt fence location, stock pile locations as well as the wetland review line.
11-18 JOHN T. SHINKLE – 1 CLARKS LANE – MODIFICATION OF THE VEGETATION ON THE PROPERTY
Mr. John T. Shinkle, property owner reviewed his proposed plan with the members.
He stated he was unaware of the 100’ review area until it was called to his attention recently when he began to do some work when the commission visited the fire pond area in Talcott Farm and observed this area as having been cleared. . He stated as a result of that he has now submitted an application. He stated “Area A” which is the rear and side of the house is the location where he has done a lot of work since 2007 including changing out of plants and adding additional vegetation. He stated he has also done work in the area around the pool including the removal of trees. He said it is a very rocky area. He noted they are trying to enhance the property and noted there intention is not to strip the property. He stated his proposal is to hopefully get an understanding
so that they can continue to handle this area the way it has been previously handled including changing plants and other different things when they choose to. He said the other area where they have active living essentially drains to the far corner and noted there is a very high ledge area and that high ledge continues down to a wall and noted once you cross a certain point the drainage runs towards Clarks Lane. He stated there is not a great deal of potential for spill over but it is a possibility. In the area that he has called the “gap” he
Page 7 – Minutes
IWWC – 05-24-11
has put in a few large trees along with four pines at the top and he would like to continue to add things in this area. He stated about ten days ago they began to work in this area and took down a few trees in the regulated area as well as right outside the regulated area. He stated they currently have purchased trees to be planted which are already on the property and expressed concern about their survival during the approval process.
O’Donnell asked Mr. Shinkel if he was working with a professional landscaper. Mr. Shinkel indicated that was correct. DiCamillo asked if there were final plans. Mr. Shinkel stated he would like some freedom in the location of the plantings. McCulloch stated that the process is that the applicant presents definite plans for the commission to consider otherwise it is difficult to make decisions. Mr. Shinkel stated he could come up with a more detailed plan. O’Donnell stated that any area that is located within the review zone does come under the jurisdiction of this commission. Linde suggested that the commission visit the site and noted it was not the practice of this commission do approve applications without any specifics or details.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 6:45 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
11-9 – DANIEL & HAZEL PEASE – 51 COULT LANE – ACTIVITY WITHIN THE REGULATED AREA
Fern Trembly of Angus McDonald & Gary Sharpe & Associates was present to represent Daniel & Hazel Pease. He stated the proposal is to receive approval to make the parcel an approved building lot. He noted it was part of the original subdivision in 1965. He stated at the last meeting there were issues brought up by Ann Brown with regard to the encroachment of the existing tennis court onto 53 Coult Lane. Trembly stated he believed that Brown discussed this issue with counsel and determined there was not an issue. Brown confirmed that Eric Knapp determined this not to be a zoning issue.
Tremblay stated that Chairman Linde requested that Richard Snarski determine if the wetlands had any characteristics of a vernal pool. He stated since the last meeting Snarski visited the site and has determined that neither of the wetlands on the site have characteristics of a vernal pool. He further stated at the site walk May 5, 2011 the commission requested that Mr. Snarkski delineate the edge of the wetlands on the adjacent property and he noted this has been done and shown on the plan. He also noted that the only activity proposed is the driveway which is within the upland review area and noted a silt fence will be installed along the property line to eliminate any disturbance during construction until it is established.
Page 8 – Minutes
IWWC – 05-24-11
O’Donnell asked about the flow of water from the wetland towards the driveway. Tremblay stated that the grading that is proposed on the site will incur sheet flow across the driveway and we do not foresee any problems with any erosion.
McCulloch asked about the silt fence along of the regulated zone near the building. Tremblay stated that nothing drains that way. McCulloch asked if a stockpile location is shown on the plan. Tremblay indicated there is not.
Brown noted that at the time of construction of the dwelling on this lot an application would need to come before this commission for a more specific permit. He further stated the only permit being requested at this time is the approval that this is an approved building lot.
Linde questioned the proximities of the driveway to the wetlands. Linde suggested a shared driveway which would allow the access to at least be 75 ft from the wetland as opposed to the 25 or 35 ft. presently proposed.
Brown stated the current driveway of the house actually clips the corner of the lot that were discussing. She stated that Mr. Linde has asked about the feasibility of continuing the driveway/sharing the driveway for the two lots. Brown stated the current driveway actually goes between the shed/garage and tennis courts. Linde stated he was making the assumption that if they were actually constructing a house the tennis courts could not stay there. Brown stated it is unusual feature to have in the neighbors yard. DiCamillo also supported the shared driveway.
Linde asked Brown that since the same person owns both pieces of property it is something we consider to be a feasible and prudent alternative. Brown stated that currently one property owner owns all of this and can agree to any conditions that the commission may put on and the conditions would travel with the ownership of the new property she would think but she suggested that counsel be contacted for an opinion. Brown noted that there are other driveways in this development that are shared. She further stated that the Planning Commission does not hesitate to allow shared driveways.
Linde suggested this item be tabled to allow the commission to find out if it’s within their jurisdiction or purview to consider a driveway on the property to the north as a feasible and prudent alternative. He further stated based on what he has heard tonight he felt if that was possible it would be this commission’s preference. He stated it would remove the need to have a driveway within 35’ of the upland wetland and of 50 ft of a down grading of the wetland. However, if upon advice from our counsel that’s not something we can consider we will have to review. Brown agreed to confer with counsel on this matter.
Page 9 – Minutes
IWWC – 05-24-11
11-12 – JOSEPH E. CHONTOS – 38 NECK ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A BOATHOUSE
Robert Nemergut, Professional Engineer, Andrew Santaniello, Centerbrook Architects, Penny Sharp, Environmental Consultant as well as Mr. Chontos, property owner were all present on behalf of the proposal at 38 Neck Road.
Nemergut stated he dropped off the first set of revised plans last week which address Mr. Metcalf’s comments as well at the issues raised by the commission at the site walk and prior wetlands meeting. Nemergut stated he has a newer set of revisions as a result of a letter received by Tom Metcalf dated May 21, 2011 which he felt would be of more interest in terms of discussion.
Nemergut stated one of the concerns raised by Metcalf was how the area under the raised deck and stairs would be treated. He stated we added a note on the plan stating that areas under the raised deck and stairs are to be surfaced with a 3” layer of 1-1/4 crushed stone. He stated another concern was if the tunnel jacking under Neck Road for placement of the water service line will utilize high pressure water the plans should include erosion control measures and water dispersal methods associated with the procedure. Nemergut stated that he placed a note on the plan stating spoils are to be removed by augur or compressed air. (water jetting of spoils shall not be allowed unless approved in advance the IWWC.) He further clarified by stating if field conditions did indicate that could not
be done according to the note on the plan he would have to seek approval from this commission.
Nemergut stated Metcalf has also suggested that the silt fence erosion control barrier be “backed” with 4 ft. high hi-visibility construction and this note has also been added along with a detail on Sheet 2 of the plans. He also submitted a copy of the approved septic design signed by John Flower for the record. He also provided the commission a copy of the dock permit that was issued by DEP. He also noted that the Wetlands Enforcement Officer will be notified once the silt fence is in place 48 hours prior to construction.
Nemergut reviewed some of the additional changes made to the plan based on the site walk. He stated he spoke with the Department of Environmental Protection with regard to the proposed walkway from the boat house to the water. He stated we are proposing an elevated walkway from the boathouse to the dock and a detail of the walkway is shown on Sheet 2 in detail. He stated it is 4’ feet wide supported by 6 x 6 posts on either side. He stated they have added a roof infiltration system to collect the first inch of rainfall from the roof and that would be directed into a series of infiltrator systems. He stated under the original proposal the deck had support piers and we have found structurally that we could cantilever the deck and pull the supports in three feet which will allow foot
traffic around the west side of the building and they would be walking
Page 10 – Minutes
IWWC – 05-24-11
under the deck and there would be a 3’ or so between the deck posts and the plantings that define the edge of the wetlands. He stated he also clarified that service for the electrical and telephone will be underground from the existing utility pole at the south east corner of the property.
Chontos stated that the commission had expressed concern about the way the stairs come down off the deck and go onto the walk and he noted that has changed. He stated the prior plans showed the stairs coming straight down onto the walk and now with the walk elevated the stairs are reversed which he felt creates a much tighter flow from the doorway underneath for boat storage away from the wetlands. He stated it was also noted that there was one operative door down below and he indicated that was right next to the stairs rather than using any other doors that are closer to the wetlands.
O’Donnell asked if the door that would open would be closest to the stairs. Chontos indicated that was correct.
DiCamillo asked if any planting was proposed. Sharp indicated she had provided a report which she would be reviewing with the commission.
McCulloch asked if the crushed stone would be stopped at the pillars/piers. He stated if it is run out pedestrian traffic would be half on gravel and half on grass. Nemergut stated the stone would follow the overhang of the deck and the stairs it would not have a larger footprint.
O’Donnell asked for clarification on the location of the doors. Santaniello clarified that there were panels between the posts including the one operative panel to allow boats to be moved in an out. O’Donnell asked why the panels were located so far out. Nemergut indicated that they would screen the area below the deck for boat storage. Brown stated so in essence it is a solid wall below the deck where the posts are located. O’Donnell stated it brings the building closer to the wetlands. O’Donnell stated she didn’t understand why the doors could not be recessed closer to the building. Santaniello stated the panels were for the most part decorative but it also allows for the lower deck area to be accessed for boat storage. O’Donnell
clarified that the boats would actually be stored underneath the deck. O’Donnell stated it was her understanding what was being stated was the first area wouldn’t actually be boat storage because there would be a slope underneath the building so why wouldn’t it be reversed so the opening would actually be closer to where the boats are being carried to and from the water. She further stated with non-operable doors she felt it would be very difficult to try and angle out the boats through like a narrow hallway structure. McCulloch agreed that manipulating boats in and out of this area would be difficult. Chontos stated with the height the configuration and area with the slope you would be able to get the canoes and kayaks in and out.
Page 11 – Minutes
IWWC – 05-24-11
O’Donnell continued to question how the boats would fit into the storage and strongly felt if it was reversed it would minimize activity in that area. Nemergut stated they were limited because of the septic design for the property and noted it has to be obstruction free because the flow is down grade. Chontos stated it does provide secured storage space and also does function as a barrier in favor of keeping activity away from the wetland. He stated if the doors were open he stated it would be very difficult to keep people from going in and out.
Linde noted that the plan includes a bathroom, washer, and dryer. Chontos stated the structure would only be used for recreational use and noted no stove will be installed. Linde stated his concern is that the building is being designed in such a way that would allow 24 hour use of the property and land within inches of the wetland. Linde stated the commission is required to assess any wetland with regardless of the quality of the wetland. He further stated that he understood that there is commercial property on either side of the wetland which may or may not have more impact on the wetland than what this additional use would be so he asked if construction of a boat house within a foot of a wetland or watercourse such as this or Rogers Lake or Lieutenant River was consistent with best
wetlands practices. Penny Sharp stated she did not feel this wetland could be compared to Rogers Lake. She stated that different wetlands warrant different protection. In essence in this case given this relatively low functioning wetland it cannot be compared to high functioning wetland and therefore she did not feel the activities should result in any additional impairment to the wetland. She further stated she felt the additional plantings in the review area would enhance the wetland. Linde asked Sharp what in her opinion what makes this a low functioning wetland. She stated its lack of bio-diversity, small size, isolation and very little exchange of nutrients and sometimes lack of water.
Sharp reviewed the notes she placed on the plan with regard to the plantings. Nemergut stated there are 24 plant species selected to be placed at the perimeter of the wetland area and within the wetland and they are: Silky Dogwood, Northern arrowwood, Highbush Blueberry, Shadbush and Winterbury. In addition to that there are another 19 plant species to be placed within the upland review area are: Red Chokeberry, Bayberry, Shadbush, Winterberry and Highbush Blueberry. Linde stated previously we had discussed a vegetative barrier as opposed to a buffer and he felt it appears spars enough for someone to walk through. Sharp reviewed the planting and explained how they would develop in size to create the barrier. She further noted the lawn area would only be mowed once a year in the
fall. McCulloch stated it should be noted on the plan. Nemergut agreed to place a note on the plan. Krulikowski stated she felt the plantings would increase wildlife on the site.
Page 12 – Minutes
IWWC – 05-24-11
Linde stated we have heard from the environmental consultant that in her opinion this particular wetland is low value because of its diversity, isolation, and there is no real exchange of water. Linde stated he felt the applicant has done a wonderful job with trying to meet the commission’s concerns on a project that he felt should not happen and stated it illustrates to him why he feels this town needs to be able to forbid construction within certain areas but noted that these were not the regulations today. He stated the commission could act on the application, have further discussion and act at a later date, or require a public hearing. He further stated that currently the commission does not have testimony that there is significant impact and therefore we would need to retain an additional
wetlands expert to review the area.
DiCamillo asked how additional discussion would benefit commission. Linde stated we would have to ask ourselves what piece of information we feel we don’t have and he felt the only other piece of information we could get would be an opinion from an additional wetland scientist.
Dave McCulloch made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Linda Krulikowski seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Brown stated there were two notes toward the end of the presentation that the applicant suggested might be added to the plan.
1. To describe the grass areas would be mowed only once a year.
2. The seed type to be planted in the grass areas would be a New England
Conservation Mix.
McCulloch modified his motion to include that there will be an area defined as mowed no more than once a year and a conservation mix will be used for seeding.
Linde stated he felt it was very important for the commission to act properly on this because he felt it would open the door to similar developments in Rogers Lake and the Lieutenant River so he would like the motion to include a description that this approval is being made based on the fact that it is a low value wetland, and is not contiguous with any other wetland and there is little exchange of nutrients, little bio-diversity. He further stated he wanted to be sure that we do not open the door for this type of development elsewhere at all unless it’s in a place where a wetland has almost no value at all. He further stated in Penny Sharp’s word she stated she felt this wetland has no value at all.
Page 13 – Minutes
IWWC – 05-24-11
McCulloch included the above discussion into his motion. Krulikowski seconded.
Motion passed. 4 to 1
Voting for: O’Donnell, DiCamillo, Krulikowski, McCulloch. Against: Linde
Chontos stated he appreciated the intensity of the commission’s concerns, he thanked the commission for all their suggestions to help make this a better project and not just for the approval but for a better overall project. He further stated he appreciated the basis of the concerns and decisions and respected that entirely.
11-14 – TALCOTT FARM ASSOCIATION –
This item was continued until the June meeting at the request of the applicant.
11-8 – JOHN LAWTON – 62 GRASSY HILL ROAD – RECONSTRUCT THE SEAWALL ALONG THE EDGE OF ROGERS LAKE
Keith Neilsen, Docko, Inc was present on behalf of Mr. Lawton’s proposal at 62 Grassy Hill Road. Neilsen stated that the property fronts on Rogers Lake and stated there is a seawall that is constructed of fairly small stones morted together and has suffered some damage from ice over the years.
Neilsen presented the design for the seawall. He stated it was only 2’ high and the footings will be buried with a crushed stone bedding and gravel back fill and the excavated material will be stockpiled behind the wall. He stated almost all the materials will be reused in the process. He stated it should be a very strong little wall and it should not have to be dealt with again. He stated that Mr. Lawton has indicated that he is not interested in rebuilding the stairs. He further stated that in his discussions with Ann Brown that the commissions preferences is to have something other than turf along the 10’ strip behind the wall. He stated that Richard Snarski visit the site and he recommended that sand cherries be planted in that area. He also noted that he also
discussed the 10 ft no mow strip and he preferred to plant a buffer. Neilsen stated the plan includes a dewatering apparatus and a sand barrier with a liner to keep the water at bay to prevent erosion and sediment.
Neilsen stated when he was reviewing the plans with Mr. & Mrs. Lawton this week he stated Mrs. Lawton expressed a strong desire to retain her beach area and stop the wall shorter than what was originally proposed. Neilsen stated he would have to revise the plans to stop the wall 2’ to 5’ less than what was shown. Linde asked what the transition was between the lawn and the beach. Neilsen stated there was no transition it was just grass and then sand and noted the difference in elevation was approximately 2 feet.
Page 14 – Minutes
IWWC – 05-24-11
Linde stated it was a 20 percent slope and therefore asked if they were planning on having a buffer between the lawn and the beach. Neilsen stated currently the grass just stops and then there is sand. O’Donnell stated she recalled a small beach area on the site visit. O’Donnell suggested a buffer with a 4’ wide path down to the sand. Krulikowski stated this might be a feature of the original boundary of the lake without the seawall which happens frequently with natural erosion. Neilsen stated he felt the beach area was stable and would not cause any sort of erosion problem or resource threat.
O’Donnell stated she felt the only concern was since the existing wall is being removed she envisioned some sort of drop off and therefore if you don’t rebuild in that existing area what will happen in the 2 ft drop off area where there used to be wall. He stated the purpose of the turn is so there is something to sustain the soil so that the part behind seawall is confined. Brown asked if you picked up the stones from the broken down wall would there be sand underneath it. Neilsen stated that was correct. Brown asked if it would easy to make a transition to have 5 more feet of beach there would the material on the site. Neilsen stated yes and scalped off the 5 or 6 feet of grass and just left the gravel. Neilsen asked if the area upland of the beach was also landscaped the
same as the area behind the wall would that be acceptable. Linde stated that would be his preference.
Robb Linde made a motion to approve the application contingent upon the receipt of a new plan which reflects a wall that is between 2 and 5 feet shorter showing the appropriate 10’ buffer planted with sand cherries with a path to where the steps have been and where the beach is. DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
