MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Betty Warren, Audrey Delnicki, Barbara Kelly, Richard Muller, Jack Phillips and Audrey Wasik
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Donald Gates sitting for Philip Forzley
STAFF PRESENT: Kelli Holmes, Recording Secretary
ITEM: Correspondence and Reports
The Commission received a letter form Fuss & O’Neil on behalf of the Casle Corporation. They have withdrawn their application, which was scheduled to be heard in January. They have requested that the Commission have a work session in order to discuss the overall Evergreen Walk site.
At the Town Council meeting held on December 16, 2002, the Town Council voted to name the viewing blind at the Kelly/Waldron/Willard property in honor of Sherwood Waldron.
ITEM: Bonds
Appl. #00-53P – Watson Farm
Motion to: reduce the bond from $25,000 to $10,000 for appl. #00-53P – Watson Farm
Was made by Commissioner Phillips
Seconded by Commissioner Wasik
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Wetland Officers Report
Attachment A
Christmas Party
There was a minimum impact application on Clinton Drive, which has been approved at the Staff level.
The Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission will have their holiday dinner on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 at Calarmri’s at 6:00 p.m.
ITEM: Show Cause Hearing
Appl. #02-37P - Charbonneau – Sandra Drive
There was no one present for the show cause hearing.
Public
Ms. Sharon SZestakowwasi 6, Old Parish Drive. She explained that her property abuts the Charbonneau property. She was told there would be a meeting concerning this property and would like to know the violations and the resolution to the violations. The applicant has taken down the fence that had been erected and now is clearing closer to their property line.
Chairperson Warren stated the violations:
They have exceeded their permit.
They have gone beyond the limits of clearing.
E & S measures have not been provided.
Materials have been pushed into the wetlands.
No pre-construction meetings have been held, as required.
No bonds have been posted, as required.
The applicant will have to make the restorations to the area.
Mr. Will Szestakowwasi, 6 Old Parish Drive. He explained that as the applicant has been leveling for the building, they are filling in a brook that feeds into the Bancroft.
Mr. Stanley Grivers, 32 Old Parish Drive. Mr. Grivers explained that you can see directly through and agrees with everything that has been stated.
Commission members discussed at length the procedures for such a hearing.
Motion to: uphold the cease and desist order issued to appl. #012-37P on December 13, 2002 from Jeff Folger.
Was made by Commissioner Phillips
Seconded by Commissioner Kelly
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Motion to: revoke the IWA/CC permit for appl. #02-37P – Sandra Drive lots 6 and 7.
Was made by Commissioner Wasik
Seconded by Commissioner Delnicki
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Public Hearing
Appl. #02-59P – Expo Design Center – Buckland Road
Town Attorney Barry Guliano came before the Commission to address the intervenor’s petition. Attorney Guliano explained that a revised verification has been received. He suggested that before giving his legal opinion, the Commission may want to hear from the petitioner. The petitioner should indicate why they feel they should be allowed to intervene. The applicant should then have the opportunity to respond.
Attorney Jack King representing Pavillions at Buckland Hills, LLC came before the Commission. He stated that the petition filed with this Commission has a number of factual allegations indicating why intervention is necessary. It explains the issues being raised and what issues the Commission is being asked to address. Attorney King then went on to request the Commission take whatever steps necessary so there can be intervention on this application.
Attorney John Mallin representing the applicant came before the Commission. He explained that they have objections and reservations in regards to the verification. Attorney Mallin stated that this Commission can only consider matters relating to inland wetland issues and felt that the petition filed goes well beyond the jurisdiction of this agency. The intervenor also is attempting to make the application something other than what has been presented to the Commission. Therefore, we would request that the Commission reject this request for intervention.
Attorney King responded by stating they believe that sufficient allegations have been made in order to be an intervenor.
Attorney Guliano told Commission members that intervention is a two step process. First, the Commission must determine if the petitioner has followed the statute to the point where they should be awarded intervenor status. The second issue the Commission would need to look at is after the
public hearing closes, the Commission will have to make a finding on the record of whether or not the conduct involved in this application is reasonably likely to have an effect of unreasonably polluting, impairing or destroying resources of this Commission’s jurisdiction. If there is no evidence on the record of unreasonable pollution, that would be the end of the finding in respect to the intervention. The Commission would then act on the application. If there is a finding of unreasonable pollution, the Commission would look to see if there is a feasible and prudent alternative. Attorney Guliano commented that if the Commission does allow intervenor status, it does not increase or add to the Commissions jurisdiction. Attorney Guliano also stated that the intervenor can not refashion the application in
any way. Attorney Guliano recommended to the Commission that they grant intervenor status.
Commissioner Wasik stated that she agrees that enough has been stated to allow the petitioner intervenor status, but by no means does this mean the Commission agrees with the petitioner. Commissioner Wasik also stated that this Commission has no desire to expand their role.
Chairperson Warren noted that there are comments that were stated that do not apply to this application.
Motion to: allow the Pavillions at Buckland Hills, LLC intervenor status for appl. #02-59P – Expo Design Center.
Was made by Commissioner Wasik
Seconded by Commissioner Phillips
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Public Hearing
Appl. #02-59P Expo Design Center
Commission members decided after a lengthy conversation that they would hear the intervenors presentation first. The Commission would hear this application until 9:00 p.m. This would allow the Commission to finish agenda items.
Chairperson Warren asked the intervenor to limit their presentation to IWA/CC’s issues.
Attorney King from Updike, Kelly & Spellacy came before the Commission to make his presentation. He explained it is their belief that this application is deficient and in violation of the regulation. This application also may have a significant impact on the environment and therefore under the regulations it states that this Commission can not act on this unless the Commission finds a prudent and feasible alternative does not exist. Attorney King also stated that the application is insufficient because it is representing a piece meal approach.
Attorney Mallin from Cummings & Lockwood stated that he felt the intervenor does not have the authority to restyle the matter before the Commission.
Attorney Guliano recommended that the Commission allow the intervenor to continue, but limit it. The Commission does not want to spend a lot of time listening to legal argument.
Attorney King continued his presentation explaining that it is the intervenors view that the application is insufficient and in violation of the regulations, by not disclosing the impacts and sequence of activities. The proposed parcel does not exist as a legal parcel; the application will implicate the wetlands because it is a much larger parcel. In Mr. Lowry’s letter, he stated that it was his understanding that the general plan of development did not come before this Commission for your review. Mr. Lowry is suggesting that this application is part of a larger project and there will be accumulative impacts to the wetlands due to the sequence of activities on the entire project.
Attorney James O’Connor from Updike, Kelly & Spellacy presented to the Commission three deeds from the Evergreen Walk property. When considering feasible and prudent alternatives, the Commission is only looking at the 11-acre parcel, but the parcel is much larger.
Attorney Tom DeMille, representing the intervenor added that this Commissions duty environmentally is to look at more than the 11 acres. There is a 75-acre piece that a lot of activity will be taking place on.
After a lengthy discussion, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to hear Mr. Lowry’s presentation, continue the public hearing until the next meeting and address the rest of the agenda.
Mr. Dennis Lowry, a Wetlands Ecologist representing the intervenor came before the Commission. Mr. Lowry gave the Commission a summary regarding his background. He stated he would like to review the bulleted items on his letter and believes there are important information for this Commission to have before them in order to evaluate the proposal. These items will pertain to the 230 acres which is felt should be available to the Commission in order for them to make a reasonable decision on prudent and feasible alternatives and understand the environmental impacts of wetlands and water issues.
Mr. Lowry stated from the letter (Attachment B) their concerns in regards to this application.
Continued the public hearing to the next schedule meeting on January 8, 2003.
Appl. #02-75W – Stone Crest Construction
Mr. Peter DeMallie from Design Professionals came before the Commission to represent this application. Mr. DeMallie explained that Hai and Linh Dang have purchased an existing subdivision and will be building homes on behalf of purchasers for each lot. John Ianni from Highland Soils has flagged the wetlands and has determined there is a vernal pool on lots 5 and 6. It is being proposed to eliminate lot #3 from the plans. The northerly portion of lot #3 could be conveyed to lot #2, which is already occupied. There would be mitigation measures taken in that area along with a portion of lot #3 which will become a conservation easement. Between lot #5 and #6 there will be a permanent conservation easement as well as in the rear of both lots. All house lots will be on public sewer and public
water.
Mr. Galen Sempebon, Director of Engineering with Design Professionals came before the Commission to review the landscaping proposed for these lots and reviewed the proposed E & S measures that will be taking place.
Commission members and the applicant’s representative had a lengthy discussion regarding the proposed conservation easement being moved 20’ further away from the wetlands and vernal pool. Chairperson Warren also stated she would like the pool on lot #5 removed from the plans because if it stays on the plans it can be mistakenly implied that it is approved.
Motion to: extend the meeting past 10:30 p.m. in order to finish agenda items.
Was made by Commissioner Wasik
Seconded by Commissioner Phillips
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Mr. DeMallie explained that he has spoken with two of the prospective buyers and would like to know if it would be acceptable to the Commission to extend the conservation easement halfway to 10’ instead of 20’.
Commission members discussed the suggestion of the conservation easement, but there were concerns about the chemicals and fertilizers that can be used especially with a vernal pool being involved. Chairperson Warren stated that she would like to see all of the lots have the same conservation easement because there is a tendency for neighbors to clear their backyards to the same point as another neighbor.
Motion to: approve with conditions appl 02-75W, Stone Crest Construction Bancroft Lane Lots #3-6 – Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission permit for the construction of three residential houses, lot grading, and associated improvements on property located easterly of Bancroft Lane and southerly of Strong Road. Residential zone A-40 open space
Was made by Commissioner Phillips
Seconded by Commissioner Kelly
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Conditions:
1. One blueprint copy of the entire set of plans and this letter reproduced thereon, must be submitted to this Commission. This must be completed within 65 days of approval prior to any construction activity on the site. Plans submitted to Planning & Zoning Commission shall be considered having met this requirement.
2. The application shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town of South Windsor against any liability, which might result from the proposed operation or use.
3. The permit is valid for five years and shall expire on December 18, 2007. It is the landowner(s)/applicant(s) responsibility to track expiration dates and notify the Commission of a renewal request at least 65 days prior to expiration.
4. All approvals required must be obtained and submitted prior to any activity on the site.
5. A contact person shall be identified on the plans.
6. The conservation easement on the easterly side of the property shall be extended 20 feet further westerly than currently shown on lots 5 and 6.
Lot #3 shall be conveyed in whole or in part to lot #2 and/or lot #4.
The pool shown on lot #5 shall be removed.
Orange construction fencing shall be placed at the limits of clearing prior to start of construction.
Conservation notations shall be added to the deed indicating the conservation easement.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to: adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
Was made by Commissioner Phillips
Seconded b Commissioner Kelly
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Respectfully submitted
_________________________________ ____________________
Deborah W. Reid Date approved
Recording Secretary
| 
