TOWN OF WILLINGTON
INLAND WETLAND AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2005
REGULAR MEETING:
A. Call to Order
called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
B. Roll Call
Present:
Absent:
D. Schreiber, Vice Chairman K. Metzler, Chairman
F. Dirrigl K. Pacholski (alt.)
L. Kouyoumjian
G. Blessing
Also Present: G. Jones, Assistant Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agent
M. Benjamin, Recording Clerk
C. Seat Alternates
D. New Business
W2005-23 – Application to modify existing permit W2004-38 Rd. (Map 46, Lot 1) Owner/Applicant: D. W. Fish Builders, LLC. (Received 7/25/05, Decision by 9/26/05)
Eric Peterson, representing the applicant showed the commission the approved PZC map. There are now two cul-de-sacs, which were created due to traffic concerns. The Open Space remains the same. An analysis of the catch basin and headwater conditions for a 100-year storm caused the design of the basin to be modified. It has been regarded and will be deeper. The location has been changed. When water goes into the catch basin and then out from it, this will not disrupt the flow out of the pipes. There is a 12” by 2 ½ “ rectangle for the inflow, and the outlet pipe will be a 3-foot pipe. Schreiber noted that this amended plan would allow 6 inches of space below the bottom of the square opening for inflow. Blessing noted that the catch basin is the inlet control, and that with the changed location of the
pipe that the area of disturbance is about the same and in a regulated area. Dr. Dirrigl inquired if there were a manhole structure (yes, according to Mr. Peterson) and how often it would need to be cleaned. Mr. Peterson replied that it would be done “as needed”, probably twice annually. Blessing stated that the town would not be cleaning the pipes as there was no trap in the manhole.
Schreiber commented that it would be prudent to put in a deeper sump pump before the catch basin and asked if the town engineer had reviewed this latest revised plan. Mr. Peterson did not know if the engineer had done a review of this plan.
Mr. Blessing noted that the road now comes in at a different location, and that stormwater runoff would go to the back of Spak Road after going through the wetlands.
There was no further discussion.
MOTION: TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Any modifications required by the engineer must be performed;
2. A maintenance plan be developed for the detention structure which must be reviewed and approved by the town engineer and by the director of public works; and
3. The manhole cover must be secured/bolted.
By: Blessing
Second: Dr. Dirrigl
RESULT: MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
W2005-24 – Application for a re-subdivision to divide Lot 1/ 2 on property at Spak Rd. (Map 46, Lot 1) Owner/Applicant: D. W. Fish Builders, LLC. (Received 7/25/05, Decision by 9/26/05)
Eric Peterson representing the applicant stated that this parcel is the same one previously discussed in the meeting. There is PZC approval for the re-subdivision. The reason for this is due to an application and noticing issue. 14 lots were requested rather than the 15 desired. Lot 1/2 will become Lot 1 and Lot 2 with the commission’s approval. The wetlands are located in the back of this parcel. No additional work in a regulated or wetlands area will be required with this re-subdivision. Mr. Jones asked if the buildable area would be sufficient after the conservation easement area is subtracted. Mr. Peterson showed the calculations that showed that there are 80,000 square feet.
MOTION TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION.
By: Blessing
Second: Dr. Dirrigl
RESULT: MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
W 2005-25 Application to construct a single family dwelling within the upland review area on property at Ruby Road (Map 33, Lot 17) Owner: Ruby Road Associates; Applicant: BHS Construction. (Received 7/25/05, Site Walk 10/23 at 10:15am; Decision by 9/26/05)
Mr. William Tracy, Esq. and Ms. Annette Turnquist, engineer, appeared for the applicant. The plans have been revised based on the results of soil testing. Wetlands are located in the southwest area of the property, and are caused by periodic flooding more than by the soil. There is a crossing on the property where two threads of a stream meet. There is a revision for the crossing – there will be two structures over the streambeds. The clearing limits for a house are 10 acres; the land disturbance is 1 acre.
The Ruby Road wetlands are deep and wide. Just to the north of the wetlands there are steep slopes which would require grading and more erosion control. The narrowest part of the streams is located here, but it is not the best location to construct a crossing. There will be two aluminum culverts with a 6-foot span and a rise of 1 foot 10 inches. The bottom of the culvert will be kept open as this causes less disturbance. The health department requested revisions, and these were made. The district Health Department has approved this plan.
Blessing gave a copy of the town engineer’s memo to Ms. Turnquist. There would be a 3300 foot wetlands disturbance with this plan.
Ms. Turnquist then passed out information on the proposed aluminum arches to the commission. Blessing expressed his concern about runoff on Ruby Road. Ms. Turnquist said that spot grades could be added to plans in that area. Blessing asked if the slopes to the west and south of the proposed building were over 15%. This was confirmed. Ms. Turnquist added that the house would be located as far away from the wetlands as is possible.
The abutting properties were then discussed. According to Mr. Tracy, Ruby Road Associates own this parcel and the one abutting to the east. BHS Construction has an option to purchase the property from Ruby Road Associates. Ms. Turnquist stated that the driveway for this proposed home would cross wetlands even if the parcel to the east – which has frontage on Ruby Road - were used. Schreiber expressed his concern that if these properties were combined, it would mean that the commission would be dealing with the total property piece by piece rather than as a whole.
Dr. Dirrigl stated for the record that he is an Associate Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Connecticut. He asked if there had been a survey for vernal pools, and was told by Ms. Turnquist that she believed the survey was thorough. Dr. Dirrigl then asked if any DEP checks had been made with regard to the fishery aspect of this stream, as the results of such surveys often turn out to be important. Dr. Dirrigl asked if there were any plan for the creation of a sub-strait beneath the culvert and if a biological survey had been performed. With a biological survey, it was possible to ensure that biological activity within the stream area would be mimicked after the disturbance, so that it would remain as it had been before any disturbance. Dr. Dirrigl stated that no survey had been done for these two
streams. He added that one area of water splitting into two areas of water was very unusual. A crossing of over 3000 square feet in such an area could have a significant impact on it. Schreiber added that there are many issues, and that a Public Hearing would be required should a “significant impact” determination be made by the commission.
Mr. Tracy stated that he would like to have the applicant’s professionals to review and comment on these issues prior to the determination of significant impact. Detailed comments will be sent to the commission. Schreiber replied that such comments could be made at a public hearing for this application.
Blessing noted that there were no drainage calculations. He wanted to have more information on flow and on the sort of watershed. Mr. Tracy stated that a formal report could be prepared for the next meeting. Blessing also stated that a 1-foot 10-inch opening was small. There will be siltation that would require significant maintenance. Blessing asked how much siltation existed, and if future development had been taken into account when the pipe size had been determined. Ms. Turnquist stated that it had been, but not for any uplands. She stated that she would write up a report and send it to the commission.
Dr. Dirrigl noted that the culvert size could be affected by animals. It could be affected by light. Blessing noted that there is a limited clearing in this application. The slopes would need to be protected after a house was built. Blessing wanted to be sure that the yard would not be enlarged in the future, and thought that a conservation easement could be granted on the property. Mr. Tracy stated that a clearing restriction could be placed on the deed. Mr. Blessing requested the specific wording for such a restriction as it was very important that controls would be in place for future owners of this property.
Dr. Dirrigl stated that two streams would be impacted. The applicant would have the opportunity to prove his case at a “significant impact” public hearing. Mr. Tracy stated that he would prefer to request an extension and agreed to a public hearing for the application. If after this hearing significant impact were determined, then such a hearing would take place. Mr. Jones stated that by statute, up to 65 days of extension could be granted. Mr. Tracy will formally request an extension of that duration. The public hearing for this application was set for October 24, 2005.
Dr. Dirrigl asked if input from the Conservation Commission could be obtained. He was concerned that they know the details of this application. Blessing stated that he would like to see alternatives proposed for any matters involving biological evaluation and watercourse characteristics as outlined in page 20 of the town’s IWW regulations. He added that driveway grading is needed as a small cut has been made for this. There is potential erosion, which would required an easement. No such easement has been requested. Schreiber noted that more than half of a stone wall on the southern edge of the driveway. Blessing asked if there plans to restore them (no). Schreiber informed Ms. Tunquist and Mr. Tracy that stone walls were very important to the town. A site walk will be scheduled before the public hearing.
W 2005-27 Application to establish a Forest Stewardship Plan for property at 96 Spak Road [Map 46, Lot 1A; Map 52, Lot 29A ]. Owner/Applicant: James & AnneMarie Poole ; (Received 9/12/05, Site Walk 9/25 at 10:45am; Decision by 11/4/05)
Schreiber and Dr. Dirrigl commented on the site walk that they had taken on Mr. Poole’s property. They went to the house, continued on the path behind the barn and walked past the intermittent stream and went to the area designated for the logging. Everything was flagged. There was no further discussion.
MOTION TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION
By: Dr. Dirrigl
Second: Kouyoumjian
RESULT: MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
All of the commission complimented the thoroughness and overall excellence of Mr. Poole’s plan. Blessing suggested that the town try to get Mr. Poole’s permission to have copies on hand for future applicants with stewardship plans as this application truly is a model to be emulated.
W 2005-29 Application to construct Phase II Willington Senior Housing [32 unit]. Complex on property at 60 Old Farms Road [Map 17, Lot 1], Owner: Town of Willington; Applicant: Access Senior Housing of Willington, Inc. (Received 9/12/05, Decision by 11/14/05)
No one appeared on behalf of the applicant. Karl, the town engineer will be meeting with the applicant about drainage issues. Tabled.
W2005-30 Application to upgrade and construct gravel driveway associated with a subdivision application for property at 150 Village Hill Road [Map 43, Lot 124] Owner: KMC, LLC. Applicant: RF Crossen Contractors, LLC (Received 9/12/05, Site Walk 9/25 at 10:15am; Decision by 11/14/05)
Schreiber and Dr. Dirrigl described the site walk that they had taken, and commented that there were many flags, but that it was impossible to determine what the flags were marking off. The colors and placement were very confusing.
Eric Peterson appeared on behalf of the applicant. He stated that on the grounds of the compound that there would be five lots with frontage on Village Hill Road. Four would be north of the lake, and one would be in the southwest of the property. The owner of the property would like to give the lake, one building at the lake and 30 acres to the town. The existing driveway will be replaced, and will be widened except at the area of the brook to minimize disturbance. There will be a new gravel drive, road widening and easements so lots can have a common driveway. The reason for the delineation of the four back lots is for frontage.
Mr. Jones commented that there are many issues in this application that need to be ironed out. There is insufficient information for this commission as stands. The center line and house sites need to be properly flagged. He recommended that Mr. Peterson work with the town engineer on the many complex issues contained in the town engineer’s memo regarding this application. As stands, houses cannot be built.
Screiber noted that the gravel road goes through a regulated area, and that a driveway for recreational use is much different than a housing development driveway. Much more is required for a housing development driveway, and this entire driveway will need to be reviewed. He also wanted to know if the DEP were interested in the existing dam as a safety issue. As this will be located in a subdivision, everything will be scrutinized.
Mr. Jones added that adequate space for emergency vehicles is needed, and that this requirement could change the area of disturbance on the property. The owner needs to remedy the issue of the dam, which is a classified by the state DEP as a Hazard Level B. The area of disturbance would include a 10-11 foot wide area of usable surface. The driveways will need to be 14 feet wide.
Dr. Dirrigl commented that the current proposal would keep the bridge “as is”. There would be no widening, but crushed stone would be added. He noted that the siltation on both sides is at an incredible level. He expressed his concern that the development around the stream would have a significant impact on wildlife, and stated that a biological survey needs to be done. The commission needs to know precisely what is occurring in that area. The crossings, the building, the repair of the dam and an extensive area of the property will need to be reviewed. Blessing said that the commission needed to see alternatives to the current approach in this application.
Mr. Peterson stated that this application is very time sensitive. He strenuously argued that the IWW should take action quickly and requested a public hearing on the earliest date possible. Mr. Peterson asked the commission to schedule this hearing at the next meeting. He would work with the town on all of the issues. The sooner the public hearing takes place, the better for all concerned.
After some discussion the commission scheduled the public hearing on this matter for November 14, 2005 to Mr. Peterson’s disappointment.
E. Pre-applications
None
F. Applications received after post agenda filing:
None
G. Old Business
Cease and Desist Order issued to Joseph Vorobil Re: Clover Springs Subdivision Wetlands Permit #2004-04 off Battye Road.
There has been much progress made on this subdivision. Mr. Jones advised Mr. Voboril to speak with Ms. Yorgenson about any current issues.
File #2003-49 – Notice of Violation: TravelCenters of America (the Lessee) and George Giguere of Royce Properties (the owner) of property located at 327 Ruby Road.
No discussion. Tabled.
H. Correspondence
1. The Habitat Summer 2005 newsletter.
I. Approval of minutes
The minutes for September 12 werte approved, as amended.
J. Staff report and Discussion
Mr. Jones informed the commission that he has issued one permit for the Clover Hills subdivision, and that two more have been received and will be signed. The road is bonded, and there is a maintenance bond. Lot 21 on Birch Meadow will need to be reseeded.
K. Adjournment
MOTION: To adjourn at 10:20 p.m.
By: Blessing
Second: Dr. Dirrigl
Result: Motion passes unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Maura Benjamin
Recording Clerk
| 
