TOWN OF WILLINGTON
INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
K. METZLER CALLED A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 7:39 P.M. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 AT THE TOWN OFFICE BUILDING, 40 OLD FARMS ROAD, WILLINGTON.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
K. Metzler J. Csiki, alt. (exc.)
D. Schreiber
G. Blessing
F. Dirrigl
T. Gutowski, alt.
G. Jones, assistant agent
L. Decker, recording clerk
D. SCHREIBER MOVED TO SEAT T. GUTOWSKI FOR THE MEETING.
SECONDED BY G. BLESSING. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
NEW BUSINESS:
None.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. File #W2000-55-Application for the construction of a single-family home with a portion of the driveway and septic system in the regulated area located off Willington Hill Road (Route 320) (Map 8, Lot 23, 2.03 acres). Stephan M. Amedy & Keith & Andrea Schmeiske owners/Stephan M. Amedy, applicant. (Received on 11/13/00, no decision before 11/27/00, hearing or decision by 01/08/01).
K. Metzler said a sitewalk needs to be set and deferred that action until the end of the meeting.
2. File #W2000-53- Application for a wetlands permit for a logging operation including wetlands crossings. Dan Donahue, applicant/Arthur Godbout, owner. (Received on 11/13/00, no decision before 11/27/00, hearing or decision by 01/08/01).
K. Metzler asked Mr. Donahue if he had received the memo from staff.
D. Donahue said he had. The list of abutters was submitted and alternatives have been considered.
G. Blessing asked what the alternatives referred to.
D. Donahue said they referred to the crossings.
G. Jones said a few things were also needed on the DEP reporting form.
K. Metzler read the memo response.
D. Donahue said the only other alternative would really be to not have a harvest.
G. Blessing asked about the site map.
D. Donahue said it is in the file. The property is located between Route 74 and Meadow Lane, about 150 acres. It is near the Willington/Ashford town line. He reviewed the map and showed the wetlands crossings. He said he has managed this property for about 13 years and this is the third harvest that has been done. It is a selective harvest.
He described the locations of the wetlands crossings. Crossing #2 intersects the watercourse and he would ask for a temporary bridge there.
K. Metzler asked for details of the bridge.
D. Donahue said it would likely be a pre-fabricated bridge. If not, it would be two logs linked together with a looping chain with small logs in between. It would be parallel to the road and perpendicular to the stream.
The third area is just a soft soil crossing. All the trails have been used before. Crossing #4 may not even be used. If it is, it will have the least traffic. The main access road has been used over the years. He will be marking the trees himself and will supervise the harvest. He will notify the town before the work starts.
T. Gutowski asked what the anticipated time period was.
D. Donahue said the contract is for about one year, and the harvest itself should take about 6-8 weeks. If it is done this winter, the restoration phase will be in the spring. If it is done later, the restoration phase will likely be next fall.
T. Gutowski asked if the wetlands areas were flagged.
D. Donahue said no, the crossing is in Ashford. He reviewed the map.
K. Metzler asked if there would be any harvesting in the wetlands.
D. Donahue said No.
K. Metzler asked if there was any type of buffer.
D. Donahue said Yes, he incorporates that in all the harvests he does.
K. Metzler asked Gary if he had been on site.
G. Jones said No.
D. Donahue described the boundaries and buffer lines. They are not going anywhere near the nearby apartments and will be respectful toward the neighbors. They do not want to go too close to the boundaries. He reviewed the cutting area on the map. Of all the crossings, the most significant is #2, with the most amount of water. Even though work was done in the past it was still reviewed again for the best location, and what was used before is still the best. There is a fairly long-standing management plan with this property and the family is interested in keeping it so.
G. BLESSING MOVED TO APPROVE FILE #W2000-53-APPLICATION FOR A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR A LOGGING OPERATION INCLUDING WETLANDS CROSSINGS. DAN DONAHUE, APPLICANT/ARTHUR GODBOUT, OWNER. (RECEIVED ON 11/13/00, NO DECISION BEFORE 11/27/00, HEARING OR DECISION BY 01/08/01), WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1) A statement will be added to the narrative noting that there will be no harvesting activity in the wetlands
2) A realistic buffer will be maintained throughout the property
3) Staff will be notified at the start of the project
SECONDED BY D. SCHREIBER. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The commission asked about the types of markings Mr. Donahue uses.
D. Donahue said he would submit a list to staff.
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 file.
Steve Arnold reviewed photos of the property with the commission and described the culvert area.
D. SCHREIBER MOVED TO APPROVE 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), WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
1) The drive location including culvert and elevations to be included on the as-built.
SECONDED BY G. BLESSING. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
4. File #W2000-32-Application for a wetlands permit to replace an 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 06/26/0, public hearing on 09/11/00, continued to 10/23/00, decision by 11/27/00).
T. Gutowski noted for the record that she received a phone call from from Linda Hotham seeking information on this application . T. Gutowski realized this conversation would be considered “ex-parte” and immediately informed Ms. Hotham, that the commission had yet to act on this application. T. Gutowski suggested to Ms. Hotham to go to the Town office to review the file.
K. Metzler said he spoke with Brian Murphy of the DEP Fisheries unit, and his opinion is that regardless of what they do, the habitat will no longer be there.
G. Blessing asked why.
K. Metzler said it is because the fish can’t go upstream and to go down stream there is a steep slope. K. Metzler suggested that there is no reason to believe it is a breeding population. He said Mr. Murphy believes there is natural trout breeding area up above that is the other side of the southerly side of I-84 and the conditions are right to get them to Roaring Brook.
The commission discussed the fish and stream flow.
K. Metzler said Mr. Murphy’s main concern it that a lot of streams are getting short-changed because of projects like this.
F. Dirrigl said the area where the fish are parked right now will be gone.
The commission reviewed maps of the plan and information stated at public hearing.
K. Metzler said basically, the habitat that now exists will be lost.
The commission discussed possibilities and alternatives to avoid and or mitigate the loss of the fisheries and wetland habitat.
K. Metzler said Mr. Murphy suggested a number of mitigation measures including a pre-cast arch structure that might minimize impact to the streambed. The arch would go over the stream, and the road on top. It keeps the habitat in tact, but it will still be modified by the added shade. The pre-cast structure would have a cost involved, and the commission would need to balance that price with the fact that this is a very small habitat.
G. Blessing said there is also no guarantee that it will work.
The commission further discussed alternatives and the layout of the site.
T. Gutowski said the DOT is not at all sensitive to the environment. They just said “Here’s a bridge, let’s replace it.”
G. Blessing said that’s the DOT. The question the commission must answer is how much they want to prescribe the mitigation.
F. Dirrigl said the applicants offered no mitigation to begin with.
K. Metzler said Mr. Murphy said he may be able to help get some mitigation approved with the project, but mitigation is expensive to do it right. The town will likely end up paying.
G. Blessing said if the town is going to pay for a mitigation project he would rather see that happen in an area like this one.
K. Metzler said his main concern is the loss of habitat.
D. Schreiber reviewed the possibility of doing a right angle turn that may help recreate the habitat area.
K. Metzler said if the commission does approve this with the loss of habitat and does require mitigation there is still the unresolved issue of additional cost involved and who is going to do the work.
T. Gutowski said if the commission had been made aware the issues concerning the unmanned tributary and trout earlier, they (project engineers) may have been able to incorporate some of it into the overall design.
K. Metzler said the DOT did provide a narrative on this a couple of years ago, but then the bridge was moved upstream.
T. Gutowski said this still should have been part of the proposal.
D. Schreiber said the commission should be aware they may be saddling the town with a large mitigation bill.
G. Blessing said either way, the town would have ended up with the bill.
T. Gutowski said she thinks the town should petition DOT to incorporate mitigation cost as part of the project.
D. Schreiber said everyone agrees we need the bridge.
G. Blessing asked how much would be lost distance-wise.
G. Jones said about 72 feet.
G. Blessing said it can be approved with a condition that a mitigation plan be developed and presented to the commission, that provides re-creation of the lost habitat as a result of the project. The IWWC should review and approve it before it goes to DOT for approval.
K. Metzler asked if it was for off-site or on.
G. Blessing said for on-site. Depending on what they will pay they could do a good job or a bad job. The can create a slope and channel grades similar to what is there now to get the same type of flow.
T. Gutowski said during construction phase the road engineers are going to be in there anyway to take out the old bridge. Earth-moving equipment will be there. It seems feasible they should be able to do something.
G. Blessing said if it is done right it could be very costly.
K. Metzler said there is still no guarantee it will work. K. Metzler referenced the RPS site and stated that they were supposed to recreate a stream and fish habitat and they couldn’t even get water to flow through.
T. Gutowski said she feels uncomfortable about losing the habitat and something has to be done.
D. Schreiber said it should also be required that reasonable planting be done as was in the old area.
The commission discussed mitigation possibilities and how much should be prescribed by the commission.
D. Schreiber said he cannot see how they can do anything good (mitigation) for the area that is cost-effective, and still build this bridge.
K. Metzler said the commission does have the option to deny the application and have them come back with a better plan.
T. Gutowski said she thinks there is no other place for the bridge to be located and meet the DOT road requirements. If it is denied, what else could be designed?
D. Schreiber said it would be nice to see something like the bridge over the Mt. Hope in Mansfield.
K. Metzler said with that, the difference is that they do not have to reconstruct the approach ways.
The commission reviewed the plans and discussed re-negotiation of the habitat and history of the bridge.
K. Metzler said his opinion is, lose the habitat and put all the money into proper re-vegetation of the area.
T. Gutowski said she feels they should look at creating a habitat. Vegetation with regard to slope is a given.
K. Metzler said he agrees, but thinks they would be creating a marginal habitat.
G. Blessing said the town has other possibilities for the habitat, such as near the new ball fields. There is an existing wetlands area there. It does not support fish, but could be upgraded as part of a different application.
The commission discussed mitigation possibilities.
T. Gutowski again stated that the mitigation issues should have been part of the plan and the town should not have to pay the cost.
D. Schreiber said for that to happen, they would have to come back with another plan.
K. Metzler said he thinks re-vegetation is possible, but restoring the habitat is likely not. There is a large potential for erosion. Brian Murphy said if the commission does go ahead with this, he would help relocate the fish population.
G. BLESSING MOVED THAT THE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE HILL ROAD BRIDGE PROJECT NOT BE LIMITED TO FISHERIES-BASED ISSUES.
SECONDED BY D. SCHREIBER.
YES: G. Blessing, D. Schreiber, K. Metzler, F. Dirrigl
NO: T. Gutowski
G. BLESSING MOVED TO APPROVE FILE #W2000-32-APPLICATION FOR A WETLANDS PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 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, AND TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING BRIDGE, WITH CONDITIONS. THE COMMISSION MAKES THIS MOTION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SET FORTH IN SECTION 10, SUBSECTION 10.2 OF THE TOWN OF WILLINGTON, INLAND WETLAND AND WATERCOURSES REGULATIONS, THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THERE ARE NO FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES TO THE PLAN SUBMITTED AFTER THE MODIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CONDITIONS PLACED UPON THIS APPLICATION HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED. CONDITIONS:
1) A professionally-developed mitigation plan for on-site and/or the area within the watershed area and corridor must be submitted by the applicant, and reviewed and approved by the commission, prior to the start of any construction. The plan shall be developed with the intent of successful re-vegetation and recreation of the wetlands and/or watercourse habitat that will be lost due to construction.
2) Limits of the construction will be field flagged prior to any activity, contractor shall notify the office upon completion of flagging.
3) Silt fence or hay bales are to be appropriately and securely placed prior to any activity on site and must be properly maintained throughout all construction phases. Contractor shall notify the office for inspection of erosion controls prior to activity (minimum of 72 hours warning).
4) All slopes 3-to-1 or greater are to be stabilized with Jute mesh or its equivalent immediately after grading.
5) A comprehensive vegetation restoration plan including seeding and woody species planting shall be professionally developed by the applicant and approved by the commission prior to any activity occurring on site.
6) The applicant is to comply with the plans noted in the October 27, 2000 letter from A&N Engineers which state that “The drainage design is in accordance with the requirements of ConnDOT in terms of pipe slopes and velocities. However, we will comply with the draft recommendations from DEP to provide deeper sumps. A six foot sump will be provided at the outlet point and four foot sumps will be provided at all other catch basins in the project.”
7) Oil-Sediment separator unit shall be installed for treating the storm water collected at curve #2 (between station 160 and 200) (specifications attached), and, Oil-Sediment separator unit shall be installed for treating the storm water collected at station 1 + 234. (specifications attached).
8) Details of the Construction Staging Plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the commission prior to project start.
9) Prior to construction, the applicant is to coordinate with the DEP Fisheries Unit for relocation of the exiting native trout population.
10) The IWWC approval motion is to be added to the plan.
Discussion: The commission concurred that this was the best outcome that they can get from this proposal.
SECONDED BY D. SCHREIBER. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
CORRESPONDENCE:
1. Tolland County Soil and Water Conservation District Annual Report 1999-2000
2. 11/13 memo from John Patton, re: capital project update for FY02 Budget and Long Range Planning, with informational packet
MINUTES:
Deferred.
STAFF REPORT AND DISCUSSION:
The commission agreed that members would individually walk the site for file #W2000-55. Gary said that he would ask that the driveway and test pits be flagged by Saturday.
G. Blessing said the silt fences are still up at Ruby Pond and at the Truck Stop property. The need to be removed.
The Mihaliak property by Lohse Road is in need of a silt fence.
D. SCHREIBER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MEETING SCHEDULE FOR YEAR 2001.
SECONDED BY G. BLESSING. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
T. GUTOWSKI MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:00 P.M.
SECONDED BY F. DIRRIGL. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
| 
