TOWN OF WILLINGTON
INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
OCTOBER 23, 2000
K. METZLER RECONVENED A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE WILLINGTON INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION AT 7:40 P.M. OCTOBER 23, 2000 AT THE TOWN OFFICE BUILDING, 40 OLD FARMS ROAD, WILLINGTON.
PRESENT:
K. Metzler
G. Blessing
D. Schreiber
F. Dirrigl (arr. 7:54 p.m.)
T. Gutowski, alt.
J. Csiki, alt. (not seated)
G. Jones, assistant agent
L. Decker, recording clerk
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. File # W2000-32-Application for a wetlands permit to replace existing bridge with a new bridge on Village Hill Road approximately one-third of a mile east of the intersection with Route 32 where it crosses Roaring Brook. Town of Willington owners/applicants. (Received on 06/12/00, no decision before 06/26/00, public hearing on 09/11/00, continued to 10/23/00, decision by 11/27/00).
Donald Wurst, project engineer, spoke on behalf of the applicants.
K. Metzler asked Mr. Wurst if he had seen the memo from Sue regarding items of issue.
D. Wurst said he had seen it and has responded.
K. Metzler asked for a summary of the responses.
D. Wurst said he has already received a response from the conservation commission on items 1&2.
K. Metzler noted that no response has been received from DEP.
D. Wurst said regarding item #4, the plans do include mitigation measures. There will be prevention of debris getting into the brook and S&E measures are included on the plans. The catch basins also have sumps to trap road sediment. Details of the splash pads are also shown. Regarding reforestation of the slope, yes, the town can plant whatever it feels appropriate. Unfortunately, however, that would be beyond the intent of the local bridge program and any improvements beyond the basic scope will probably not be funded by the federal or DOT funds. They will not share that cost.
K. Metzler asked if Mr. Wurst was aware of any other options for that type of funding.
D. Wurst said they may be out there, but he is not aware.
T. Gutowski read information from the bridge program manual and asked if this was a grant or a loan.
D. Wurst said the copy he submitted is for the fiscal year 2000, while the town entered this program in 1995. Funding for this is coming from federal and state funds with no cost to the town except for the additional length that the town chose to implement.
T. Gutowski asked if the $396,000 total was correct.
D. Wurst said that is about right, but with the additional roadwork it is more.
T. Gutowski asked if there was a budget somewhere to take down the old bridge.
D. Wurst said the estimated total price when it is all done is about $1 million.
T. Gutowski asked for a breakdown of the construction costs.
D. Wurst said he did not have that with him but he could send it.
D. Wurst said regarding item #6, how much fill will be brought on site, the total fill quantity is 2370 cubic meters. There will be 1600 cubic meters available, and the other 770 cubic meters must be brought in. Regarding item #7, many pages of DOT standard specifications have been submitted, including information on earth and rock excavation. He showed the entire specification book that the contractors must abide by.
First Selectman John Patton said all state projects are based on that book of standards, which has been compiled over a number of years.
D. Wurst said regarding item #8 and what can be done about stabilizing the slopes, there are a variety of materials out there for stabilization. If the commission feels the need to require more than what is proposed or considered necessary by DOT, the request may fall beyond what a normal DOT job calls for and (the town) may therefore have to pay for it.
K. Metzler asked what the DOT’s normal procedure was for slopes.
D. Wurst said the DOT feels anything up to 2-1 is stable. He described the stabilization process. If it is not controlled or draining well, a decision would be made in the field to upgrade it.
D. Schreiber said the commission is supposed to be in the business of preventing that from happening in the first place. This proposal is making it very difficult to do that.
(F. Dirrigl arrived at 7:54 p.m.)
D. Wurst said the plans call for a jute mesh if it is more than 2-1.
T. Gutowski asked about the concerns from the Tolland County Soil & Water Conservation District.
D. Wurst said fill will not be running into the stream.
T. Gutowski asked if the DOT commissioner had leeway on this.
D. Wurst said the commissioner has leeway to rule on any project. If the commission wants more, they can certainly require it on the permit.
K. Metzler asked if that happens, will it be reflected in the budget, or will the town have to pay?
J. Patton said it is up to them to decide if they want to fund it or not. It depends on how generous they feel and how much they have. If they feel it is not necessary and is not standard, it will fall back on a business decision and they will tell the town to fund it.
D. Wurst said the commission will not know until they ask.
G. Blessing said if the commission asks and it is approved, should they assume it is paid for?
J. Patton said it goes back to the state’s engineers and would be negotiated. It is matter of how tight money is and how outlandish the request is.
D. Wurst said regarding the borings, they are shown on the plan. For item #10, there are a few differences with the year 2000 plan but the basic concept remains the same. There are a lot of issues out there that are not in the book, and he encouraged the commission to contact the DOT for further specifications on where the money comes from.
D. Wurst said regarding #11, the geotechnical report has been turned in.
T. Gutowski asked why the report is dated September 2000.
D. Wurst said due to all the changes, it was not finalized until recently.
T. Gutowski asked if the things in the report were incorporated into the design.
D. Wurst said Yes. If items are not included, they are being included.
T. Gutowski asked about blasting.
D. Wurst said a minimal amount may be required, but most should be removable by mechanical means. The specifications will probably give the contractor the option and he will follow the DOT guidelines.
T. Gutowski asked about the splash pads.
D. Wurst reviewed the map and plans.
D. Wurst said regarding items #12 & 13, he has submitted all the correspondence over the years that lead them to arrive at this plan, with the town sharing a portion of the cost.
G. Blessing asked how change orders go through and who pays for them in the event of field decisions.
J. Patton said CJM gets involved if there is a change order. If it is necessary due to site conditions and they say Yes, the state would pay. If it is something the town wants because it looks nicer, the town will pay. They determine whether or not the changes are functionally necessary. If CJM says it is necessary, the state will likely pick up the cost.
G. Blessing asked who pays if the commission makes a decision and permit condition that there must be riprap, and then they say no.
D. Wurst said the commission will know those decisions prior to construction.
T. Gutowski said she is concerned that the plans call for average conditions rather than site specific conditions. This is a high quality area and she is concerned that information from CEE and Tolland County Soil is being ignored.
D. Wurst said regarding CEE’s comments, Yes, the new alignment does have an impact on the environment. The area will be disturbed and trees cut down. It is necessary to provide a safer geometry that meets with state and federal guidelines. The alignment has been moved as much as it can be. It may be possible to save select trees by tree wells if they are close to the slope, but deeper into the embankment there is no option. Regarding warming of the surface water, the water does move through there fairly quickly and there are not a lot of pools to warm. Also, the bridge itself will provide more shade than the existing one and that will account for some of the loss of canopy. He reviewed measures that will be taken for wildlife passageway.
D. Wurst said S&E specifications are on the plans and in the specifications. Regarding technical design comments, turf will be reestablished within the standard specifications. With a project this small they typically do not provide a turf plan. This will all be established turf. There will be no sodding.
D. Wurst said regarding the large pipe into the ditch, they are not changing the flow, they are simply extending it under the embankment. The impact is very minor. Regarding details of the stairs, they are shown on the plans. Bituminous paving will be done as shown also.
G. Blessing asked about the splash pool at 160.
D. Wurst said they are not changing the flow, just extending the pipe. For Item #10, the info is included in the drainage calculations. He reviewed the design criteria for #11 and showed the info on the plans for items 13-19 and noted that all catch basins will have sumps and scouring holes, and anything that goes past the sump will go the hole and not reach Roaring Brook.
G. Blessing said since it is steep, the velocity will be high and there will be a lot of sedimentation sitting in the sumps. He asked if there was a special design for areas this steep with high velocity.
D. Wurst said the drainage calculations include the velocity. Sediment trapped can be pumped out 1-2 times a year.
J. Patton asked how that could be done.
D. Wurst said a truck vacuum can take care of it.
K. Metzler asked for response to the Tolland County Soil letter.
D. Wurst said the plans allow for either silt fence or hay bales, whichever will be more appropriate in the situation.
G. Blessing asked how the hay bales would be kept in place.
D. Wurst said dirt could be piled up behind them. Regarding the issue of seepage, in areas where there is some now, it may still be there upon completion.
T. Gutowski asked Mr. Wurst if he felt that based on these issues, aren’t better S&E controls needed?
D. Wurst said again, the contractor is required to provide an adequate system to prevent sedimentation from reaching the brook. If the commission feels this is very significant, they should consider it as a condition on the permit. Whether it gets paid for or not will not be known until they ask. Regarding road sand coming down, if necessary, the sumps can be installed deeper and they can go with 4-foot sumps. Again, if the commission feels this is necessary it should make it part of the approval and the plans will be changed accordingly.
T. Gutowski asked if the person who did the drainage calculations ever visited the site.
D. Wurst said he did not know.
T. Gutowski asked if he could find out.
D. Wurst said he could. Regarding clearing and flagging, it will be done as called for in the specifications, and anything beyond the slope will not be cleared. The contractor is required to flag before anything is removed and a site inspection will be done to determine what is necessary.
T. Gutowski asked if they could put clearing limits on the plan.
D. Wurst said it could be added.
T. Gutowski asked if Mr. Wurst had been on the site.
D. Wurst said he had.
T. Gutowski asked Mr. Wurst to address the agent’s comments.
D. Wurst said the soil report information is in the geotechnical report. There is a section on wetlands on page 3. There are areas considered wetlands because of an eroded channel rather than because of the soils.
T. Gutowski said there are no alternatives diagramed and asked if there were any others.
D. Wurst said the original alignment was farther out, but there are really no other alternatives within this program and within this funding if the town wants to get this built.
G. Blessing said there was also a 2-span bridge that was an original alternative.
K. Metzler asked if there were any questions or comments from the public.
Jack Lewis of Schoefield Road said this project has been in the works since before 1995. There have been a lot of changes because of concerns over the environment and wetlands. Now the town has a plan and the funds. How much longer can there be indecision before we lose the project? He said he is very concerned the town is going to lose this project if we do not get going.
D. Wurst said he doesn’t know if there is an exact answer. When this was submitted, the state committed to funding it. They will honor that, but they will not guarantee that if we stall or prolong the process that as soon as the town is ready, the money will still be there. If this is not done for two months, they may say they have no money at that point and the town must wait. They will likely not ever say that the town waited too long.
J. Lewis said the money was not there for several years, and now it is. If the town waits two more months they could lose it.
D. Wurst said there is the potential they will say there is no money because the plans were not done on time.
J. Lewis said the town could then lose it.
D. Wurst said they would not lose it forever, but they may likely lose it until next year.
K. Metzler said the commission must decide by November 27th.
T. Gutowski asked the total project cost.
D. Wurst said it is approximately $1 million.
T. Gutowski asked where the other money was coming from.
D. Wurst said it is all done as one project and will be bid as such.
J. Patton said the reason the project grew is because under the federal geometry guidelines for the roads, it was necessary that it be improved to meet those guidelines.
T. Gutowski asked if the cost included the removal of the existing bridge.
J. Patton said Yes.
T. Gutowski asked if there was a design for the removal.
D. Wurst said there is only criteria of how to safely remove it and how to protect the environment.
T. Gutowski asked if the only additional cost to the town was $35,000.
J. Patton said Yes, and that funding has already been approved by Town Meeting vote. All additional monies have been approved, as he did not want to get caught with his funding down.
T. Gutowski asked if there was money for re-vegetation.
J. Patton said if they make it a condition they must make the assumption the town will have to pay for it, or it may be able to be done later as a public works project. But the state will likely not pay.
T. Gutowski asked if the commission could get the 1995 criteria.
K. Metzler said even though there are a few items still unclear, he agreed to close the hearing with the understanding that the information will be made public.
G. BLESSING MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FILE #W2000-32-APPLICATION FOR A WETLANDS PERMIT TO REPLACE EXISTING BRIDGE WITH A NEW BRIDGE ON VILLAGE HILL ROAD APPROXIMATELY ONE-THIRD OF A MILE EAST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 32 WHERE IT CROSSES ROARING BROOK. TOWN OF WILLINGTON OWNERS/APPLICANTS. (RECEIVED ON 06/12/00, NO DECISION BEFORE 06/26/00, PUBLIC HEARING ON 09/11/00, CONTINUED TO 10/23/00, DECISION BY 11/27/00), WITH THE UNDERSTANDING OF BOTH THE APPLICANT AND COMMISSION THAT #1.) THE DEP FISHERIES REPORT IS STILL TO BE RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED BY BOTH PARTIES, AND THAT #2.) CLARIFICATION WILL BE SUBMITTED ON INFORMATION ALREADY RECEIVED INCLUDING:
a) whether or not the hydrologist visited the site prior to developing his report
b) budget details on construction
c) engineer’s report from 1995 in addition to that of 2000
SECONDED BY K. METZLER.
YES: K. Metzler, G. Blessing, F. Dirrigl, J. Csiki
NO: T. Gutowski
(D. Schrieber not present at first session of hearing)
K. Metzler called the regular meeting to order at 9:15 p.m.
D. SCHREIBER MOVED TO SEAT T. GUTOWSKI.
SECONDED BY F. DIRRIGL. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Request for an extension of a wetlands permit approved on December 12, 1994 for a single-family home located off Willington Hill Road, Steve Amedy owner. Five-year approval expired on December 12, 1999.
Hank Torcellini of Gardner & Petersen spoke on behalf of the applicant.
H. Torcellini said approval was given for this in 1994 for a lot between Cisar & Pinney Hill. He reviewed the original map showing the buffer and septic areas previously approved. The file was subsequently denied by the PZC mainly because of lot size issues. Some alterations have been made, one of which was the purchase of land to make the required frontage and minimum buildable area. This process took a lot of time. He showed the new maps with the additional acreage. The soil tests have been redone and the septic has been moved up a little. Mr. Amedy is looking to extend the permit which he had before. There is actually less infringement now on the regulated area with the new changes.
K. Metzler asked if the activity was the same.
H. Torcellini said it is basically the same and reviewed the new plan.
G. Blessing asked if there was sanitarian approval for the new septic location.
H. Torcellini said Dave was out there with them, and the soils are better this time. He reviewed the footing drains and grading.
G. Blessing asked if it was an engineered system.
H. Torcellini said Yes.
K. Metzler said the commission must decide to approve the extension or view this as a new application.
T. Gutowski said the regulations state the time period within a specific limit, and since that has expired this should be a new application.
D. Schreiber said the commission has previously turned down other renewal requests since they were past the time limits.
G. Blessing asked about the denial.
H. Torcellini said the PZC’s concern was the small lot. The way it is set up now, however, it meets the buildable criteria. The only way to fix it was to acquire more land.
D. Schreiber said it sounds like they have been pursuing it since the denial.
H. Torcellini said Yes, and they finally got the deed with the people next door. The wetlands issues are of less impact because of the new land.
G. Blessing said there is additional land to review and things have been moved around. If the septic were in the same location they may be able to consider a renewal, but that is not the case.
G. BLESSING MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A WETLANDS PERMIT APPROVED ON DECEMBER 12, 1994 FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME LOCATED OFF WILLINGTON HILL ROAD, STEVE AMEDY, OWNER. (FIVE-YEAR APPROVAL EXPIRED ON DECEMBER 12, 1999).
SECONDED BY T. GUTOWSKI. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. Request from Charter Communications for trenching on a portion of Daleville Road.
Robert Brown of Charter Communications said they began construction on Daleville Road, not recognizing that they were within the buffer area, so the project was stopped and they are now requesting a permit. The work is between utility poles #2473 & #1263. It is a span of 1015 feet, and they need to plow in .875 inches for coaxial cable for homes on the street. The purpose of the project is part of the current upgrade which is defining town borders. Each town will have its own channel, and meetings such as this will be broadcast in Willington only. Right now some homes on the southern area of the street are fed from Mansfield, so that needs to be corrected. If it is not changed, people in that area of the street would be viewing Mansfield town meetings instead of Willington.
K. Metzler asked if they were being required to do this.
R. Brown said Yes, it is a DPUC requirement.
K. Metzler asked for an explanation of the process.
R. Brown said they dig in, dump the line to the side of the trench and put the cable in, then back fill.
K. Metzler asked the time frame.
R. Brown said it is about two days. He described the procedure.
D. Schreiber asked if they needed a town permit to dig in the road.
R. Brown said it is a utility easement. He described the area and said this is a very urgent situation. They did not intentionally start without a permit and the process is understood. However, the upgrade is already in process in Willington and it needs to be done in 2-3 weeks.
K. Metzler asked how long the spoiled material would be out of the trench.
R. Brown said it is cleaned up every day and the road is packed back and completely cleaned.
T. Gutowski asked where else in town they were working.
R. Brown said they have done an area of Turnpike Road, and they have a permit for that and it is bonded.
K. Metzler said he feels this can be remanded to staff.
T. Gutowski said she thinks the area should be re-seeded.
D. Schreiber said there is no reseeding to do because this is a gravel area.
G. BLESSING MOVED TO REMAND TO STAFF FOR DECISION A REQUEST FROM CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS FOR TRENCHING IN A WETLANDS AREA OF DALEVILLE ROAD.
SECONDED BY D. SCHREIBER. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
3. File #W2000-50-Application for a wetlands permit to construct a driveway including underground utilities for a single-family home located off Fisher Hill Road (Map 19, Lot 21-1, 33.704 acres). Steve Arnold owner/applicant. (Received on 10/23/00, no decision before 11/06/00, hearing or decision by 12/11/00).
The commission reviewed the maps.
G. Blessing said a sitewalk should be scheduled.
The commission scheduled a sitewalk for File #W2000-50 for 9:30 a.m. Saturday, November 4.
OLD BUSINESS:
The commission agreed to swap items #1&2 under Old Business.
1. File #W2000-34- Application for a wetlands permit for the construction of a single-family home including driveway and septic off Spak Road (Map 51, Lot 1A, 20.57 acres). Michelle Wittenzellner owner/applicant. (Received on 07/24/00, no decision before 08/07/00, 65-day extension requested and approved, hearing or decision by 12/11/00).
Steve Klimkoski of Filip Associates spoke on behalf of the applicant.
S. Klimkoski said Sue gave a report on this and revisions have been made to the plans based on her concerns. He noted there is now a letter from the soil scientist (which he submitted) outlining why this specific location was picked. There is a wetlands report addressing the alternatives. He read from the report.
S. Klimkoski said the well location has been added to the map, as has a note regarding the concerns about affluent. He reviewed each of Sue’s notes and showed how they had been addressed and added. An additional note was added that the existing drive would be loamed and seeded, though it is grown in right now.
T. Gutowski asked why it would be disturbed if it was already vegetated.
The commission concurred it would be best to leave it alone and not have it loamed and seeded, and the note newly added should be taken off the plan.
S. Klimkoski reviewed the stockpile location and S&E controls in the narrative. Regarding Karl’s notes about silt fence, this was added and highlighted.
K. Metzler said he was concerned about the overflow and emergency spillway.
S. Klimkoski reviewed the pond area during maximum flood elevations for a 100-year storm.
D. SCHREIBER MOVED TO APPROVE FILE #W2000-34-APPLICATION FOR A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME INCLUDING DRIVEWAY AND SEPTIC OFF SPAK ROAD (MAP 51, LOT 1A, 20.57 ACRES). MICHELLE WITTENZELLNER OWNER/APPLICANT. (RECEIVED ON 07/24/00, NO DECISION BEFORE 08/07/00, 65-DAY EXTENSION REQUESTED AND APPROVED, HEARING OR DECISION BY 12/11/00) WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
1) THAT THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY WILL BE ABANDONED AND ALLOWED TO NATURALLY REVEGETATE.
SECONDED BY F. DIRRIGL. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. File # W2000-32-Application for a wetlands permit to replace existing bridge with a new bridge on Village Hill Road approximately one-third of a mile east of the intersection with Route 32 where it crosses Roaring Brook. Town of Willington owners/applicants. (Received on 06/12/00, no decision before 06/26/00, public hearing on 09/11/00, continued to 10/23/00, decision by 11/27/00).
K. Metzler said this is not a bad design but it could be better. We should get mitigation regardless of who will pay.
G. Blessing said the points he noted to be addressed were:
a) field flagging
b) some alternate method of staking hay bales other than just placing dirt behind them
c) putting jute mesh on anything greater than 3-1
d) pipe velocity needs to be evaluated to determine if 4-foot sumps are necessary or if sediment trapping is necessary.
e) they should maintain a plan for riprap. It is there for construction but should be there 3 months after to be evaluated
f) a seasonal planting, restoration plan should be in place. If it is not submitted with the application it should be conditioned that the applicant provide it within one year
g) there should be riprap protection for the southern culvert to minimize erosion.
K. Metzler said he thinks outlet protection is necessary prior to getting to the swale. Also, there should be a detailed narrative regarding demolition of the old bridge.
J. Csiki said this will probably cost the town money.
The commission agreed that mitigation is necessary.
F. Dirrigl said he thinks a lot of information is outstanding and the engineering firm should have provided it. Without it, the commission is forced to depended on the DEP. The town or engineer should have addressed a lot of these issues and it was not done.
K. Metzler said when you apply for this type of funding, this is what you get.
T. Gutowski said a lot of experts were retained and their comments are being disregarded.
The commission discussed alternate designs.
Further discussion was deferred.
CORRESPONDENCE:
1. 9/26/00 letter from Tolland County Soil, re: Village Hill bridge replacement
2. Filer from Unilock New York, Inc.
3. UCONN College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Journal, July/Aug/Sept. 2000
4. Endangered Species & Wetlands Report, September 2000
5. Connecticut Wildlife
6. CC 9/27/00 letter to R. Hisey, re: response to complaints
MINUTES:
Deferred.
STAFF REPORT & DISCUSSION:
Deferred.
K. METZLER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:39 P.M.
SECONDED BY D. SCHREIBER. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
| 
