TOWN OF WILLINGTON
INLAND WETLAND AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF October 24, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Call to Order
Ken Metzler called the Public Hearing to order at 7:31 p.m.
B. Roll Call
Present: Absent:
K. Metzler, Chairman L. Kouyoumjian
D. Schreiber, Vice Chairman K. Pacholski (alt.)
þ F. Dirrigl
Absent (Excused):
G. Blessing
Also Present: G. Jones, Assistant Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agent
M. Benjamin, Recording Clerk
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)
William Tracy, Esq. appearing on behalf of the applicant stated that this application was for a single family house to be built on a parcel of land on the eastern side of Ruby Road. A road frontage of 845 feet - most of it wetlands – was proposed. Tracy described the history of this land parcel, and stated that the lot in this application has existed in its current configuration since 1959. The house would be located on the northeastern end of the property, and a driveway would be constructed that would have one wetlands crossing. He stated that the commission had been provided a report by Greg Schaffer on 9/24/05 regarding the wetlands and the configuration of the lot. He added that the regional Board of Health had approved the proposed septic.
Annette Turnquist, an engineer and Dr. Michael Klein, a soil scientist and biologist were also appearing on behalf of the applicant.
Dr. Klein passed out copies of his report to the commission. This report was entered into the record as Exhibit 1. Klein described the area as being a classic wooded swamp, and spoke of the stream channel split that existed on the property. Upstream, these rivulets join again and then a brook is formed with streams from the north and from the south. Sand comes down from the southern stream. These streams on the property are semi-perennial, depending on rainfall. Some years they are dry. The streams are typical for semi-perennial streams, providing flood storage and conveyance as well as a habitat for wildlife. Klein stated that the two metal archways that would be used have been resized to pass a 100-year flow level, and that there would be no backwater flow. The fill would be 2 ½ feet high. This would not be a
barrier to non-aquatic animals.
The proposed crossing is perpendicular to the streams, but the fill placement could be slightly readjusted. The drive would then continue upland to the house. A moderate rock cut on the eastern side was proposed, and the fill would be on the westerly side. Klein showed a map that offered two additional options. This map, dated 10/19/05, was entered into the record as Exhibit 2. The first option was to follow the existing wood road. The second option was to have the driveway bend around the property and miss all wetlands.
Metzler noted that the flagging on the lot had been unusual, and added that the wetlands to the north and had not been flagged as wetlands.
Dirrigl asked Klein to describe the streambed. Klein responded that it was smooth, not rocky. Klein added that the channel was quite well defined and consisted of coarse sand and gravel. He was unsure of the source of the sediment. The bottom of the drain bed was firm, not soft.
Metzler asked if Klein had walked the large lot to the east. The applicant owns this adjacent lot Klein had not walked this lot.
Dirrigl asked Klein to describe fish passage. Based on the flows were warm water species present? Klein suspected that the flow was at its limit as the water table was high. To the north, for a short span, trout could possibly be present. Klein added that the arched culvert would not impede smaller species of aquatic life.
Turnquist described the options in Exhibit 2 as being the longest driveway with the least wetlands disturbance (Option 1) and as a shorter driveway but with greater wetlands impact (Option 2). She introduced an additional map titled “Option 3”, dated 10/19/05, which was entered into the record as Exhibit 3. Option 3 shows another possible route for the driveway. The slopes are very steep, but the impact on wetlands would be less than the originally proposed driveway. An additional map, dated 10/19/05 showed yet another alternative driveway route, and was entered into the record as Exhibit 4. This map depicted the shortest possible driveway that could be constructed on this lot but this route would have a major impact on wetlands. Her opinion was that Options 1 and 2 were the most reasonable.
Metzler asked if there were alternatives to access the home from the eastern lot. As Metzler recalled, in a subdivision application many years ago, the spot where the driveway would lead out onto Ruby Road in this application was at the same location proposed as an access road in the previous application. Metzler asked if the wetlands had been flagged in the large lot to the east of this lot. Turnquist believed that this was the case, and added that most wetlands located were on the lot being discussed at this hearing. She added that she had done some work on the lot to the east of the lot being discussed, and that she had a preliminary plan for subdivision there. At this point in time she was working with Chairman Tulis of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Susan Jorgenson. This may become a cluster
development. A driveway out to the road would not change the wetlands crossing in this application. Metzler asked if she was familiar with the wetlands to the north. Turnquist stated that they were similar to the wetlands on this lot.
Metzler stated that the information on the lots to the north and the east would be most useful to the commission in its deliberations about the application being discussed in this public hearing.
Turnquist stated that the drainage requirements would require larger pipes, as they were a bit different. A culvert and plunge pool would be located between contours 668 and 676.
Exhibit 5 was then introducred into the record. This exhibit consists of new engineering plans,, the revision dated 10/24/05. This new plan addresses the concerns of the town engineer. In order, the concerns are:
1. A survey had not been done. This could be added.
2. A signature block had been requested and was added.
3. The addressed for Messrs Shaffer and Klein were added to the record.
4. Emergency vehicle pullouts had been requested. This has not yet been added, but can be.
5. Site lines needed to be added. They will be added.
6. Driveway slopes have been added.
7. The grading has been pulled back so that the existing stone wall will be undisturbed as requested.
8. Drainage consisting of a plunge pool and level spreader has been added so that runoff will not enter Ruby Road.
Dirrigl asked what the planned sequence for the addition of the culverts would be. Turnquist responded that there is a small footing at the end of the 7-foot arch. Disturbance will be minimal. Metzler stated that this would be placed at grade and then filled. Turnquist confirmed this. Metzler then asked Klein if any soil borings had been performed. Klein responded in the negative, and added that he would be very surprised if any of the soil were organic. The footing for the arch would be 42” deep. At that depth the soil would be of a mineral, not organic type.
Tracy, at this point, commented that alternative #3 for the driveway would cross at a narrow point, but that his expert Mr. Shafer opposed this design. The potential for erosion at that cut is much more likely at this location. He noted that the applicant also owns the property to the property to the south, and that it would not help to cross the stream to the northeast as this would result in a 1200-1300 foot driveway. Metzler commented that sketches of this other property already made for those working on behalf of the applicant would be very useful to the commission. Mr. Tracy said that he had the sketches and he would provide these to the commission. Metzler asked that staff search for the plans for the earlier subdivision that had been withdrawn for this area. He added that any decision made by the
commission may take the impact on adjacent lots into consideration.
Schreiber asked how much of this 10.6 acre lot consisted of wetlands or was located in the review area. He was told that 3 ½ acres are wetlands. There are two triangular areas that come into play. These are outside the review area, and this is where the home and the septic will be constructed. Schreiber also wanted to know when the flagging of the wetlands was done. Tracy responded that this had taken place in December, 2004 and April, 2005.
Dirrigl will make a site walk on this property, as the proposed driveway and house have been flagged according to Tracy.
Being that there were no further questions from members of the commission, Metzler asked if any of the public had comments or questions.
Kathy Demers, Vice Chairman of the Conservation Commission then spoke. She made a site walk yesterday, and brought maps and a narrative with her. The narrative was marked as Exhibit 6. Exhibit 7 was marked at this time, consisting of a map entitled “Soils Hydrology”. This map was created using GIS and DEP information according to Demers.
Demers expressed the Conservation Commission’s concerns about the 3 ½ acres of wetlands in this parcel. Exhibit 7 shows that on this lot, a stream flows to marshy wetland, and that the pond that is later formed past the point where the two streams converge then flows to Connat Brook and then to Halls Pond and then to the Willimantic River. The streams on this property and the pond are not isolated waterways. They are part of a larger system. Demers added that she had seen the pre-application for the larger parcel of land to the east, and that up to 120 houses could be built there. There are major concerns that the flow rate could be severely impacted by such development.
Exhibit 6 was then introduced, consisting of a map entitled “Ortho Photo”. This map, like the others introduced as exhibits, shows the area of Ruby Road being discussed in this present application. This particular map showed the topography of the parcels. Demers asked if there were any slopes that were greater than 15% on the parcel being discussed or the others owned by the applicant.
Turnquist responded that this could well be the case. Demers commented that most of the site is in a regulated area and that slopes of 15% or more could potentially have a major impact on the land. Speaking to Exhibit 6, Demers added that the Conservation Commission strongly supported a biological study. Demers asked if there were any vernal pools.
Klein responded that there is no evidence that vernal pools exist on this land, but that no survey was done in the spring to see if vernal pools were located there.
Demers then stated that there are usually conservation easements on all wetlands. Demers also informed the applicants that the commission would want to the area where the culverts are located to be re-vegetated with native plantings. The final concern of the Conservation Commission was that the stone walls be preserved and protected.
Dirrigl pointed out that in the Klein report that a mix of plantings is recommended. Demers’ concerns about the re-vegetation were satisfied by this plan.
Exhibit 9, an aerial photo of the Ruby Road lot and its surrounding lots was then introduced. Demers pointed out an area of large white pines, and also a mature and beautiful beech tree located along the stream. Demers expressed her concerns about the protection of the white pine trees and the beech tree.
Dave Litwyn asked if additional information received by the commission were reviewable by the public. Metzler stated that if the commission did receive more information that the public could review it. Elaine Plude said that she might have maps of the earlier subdivision proposal for this property. If so, she will contact the town.
Metzler stated that this hearing will be continued on November 14, 2005. He asked the applicants to provide sketches and other information requested on the adjacent property. Metzler asked the town to research its files to see if the earlier application file had been retained. Metzler then thanked the applicant’s representatives for appearing at this public hearing.
REGULAR MEETING:
A. Call to Order
called the meeting to order at 8:32 p.m.
B. Roll Call
Present: Absent:
K. Metzler, Chairman L. Kouyoumjian
D. Schreiber, Vice Chairman K. Pacholski (alt.)
þ F. Dirrigl
Absent (Excused):
G. Blessing
Also Present: G. Jones, Assistant Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agent
M. Benjamin, Recording Clerk
C. Seat Alternates
D. New Business
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)
Jones informed the commission that this application had been withdrawn.
W2005-34 Application to dredge pond and remove silt from existing property at 125 Tolland Turnpike [Map 29, Lot 28] Owner/Applicant: Evelyne A. Parizek (Received 10/14/05, Decision by 12/12/05)
Miss Parizek told the committee that the small pond on her property had silted in over the years. She wanted to dredge and restore the pond. There is a brook that runs through the pond, and it is about the size of the meeting room where this hearing was taking place. She had hired Mr. Hipsky to perform this work for her.
Metzler asked what she intended to do with the dredged silt. Miss Parizek plans to bring it to property she owns on Glass Factory School Road and spread it on land she leases where corn is grown. Metzler wanted to know where the silt would be de-watered and dried. Miss Parizek was unaware that this needed to be done, given the density of the silt. Metzler let her know that establishing a stockpile area for dredged silt is a much simpler method for removal. The stockpile area would need to contain the silt and water and be located in a non-wetland area. Metzler also told Miss Parizek that the best time to dredge a pond is in summer, when it is dry. Miss Parizek did not know exactly how Mr. Hipsky would do this job, but she would ask him. Schreiber let her know that should there be difficulties, the permit to dredge
the pond would be valid for 5 years. Schreiber asked if the stream involved were a year-round stream. Miss Parizek replied that it was such a stream.
Metzler advised Miss Parizek to get more information from Mr. Hipsky and to speak with town staff or have Mr. Hipsky do so. Specifically, the town needs to know:
1. if the silt would be stockpiled;
2. if so, where the silt would be stockpiled;
3. how the silt would be contained from the downstream flow of this pond, which flows under the highway);
4. the type of control to be used for flow as it presently reaches a 6”-8” pipe and then flows through it;
5. how the flow will be stopped to allow the silt to settle; and
6. the actual size of the pond.
Mr. Jones then suggested that a site walk be made. It was agreed that one would take place prior to the next meeting of the commission on November 14, 2005. Miss Parizek will be informed when this site walk is scheduled. Dirrigl commented that the silt was 3-4 feet deep. Schreiber stated that this would translate to 15-20 truckloads to be removed from the property.
E. Pre-Applications
None
F. Applications Received after post agenda filing
None
G. Old Business
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)
Already the subject of a public hearing: commission members await the information promised by the applicant’s representatives.
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)
A request for an extension will be made for this application.
Cease and Desist Order issued to Joseph Vorobil Re: Clover Springs Subdivision Wetlands Permit #2004-04 off Battye Road.
Voboril showed the commission the plans for this application, The paving, curb and final course are to be put in and completed this week. Metzler advised Voboril to perform the sweeping before the final course. Voboril stated that the final course would contain potential erosion.
Metzler wanted to know when the road could be driven upon. Jones said that this could be done almost immediately. Schreiber said that the house lots needed to comply with sedimentation and erosion controls.
Metzler pointed out that the silt fences had been blown down by the storm. These must be put in again. The planned discharge points for the area were acceptable, but the curb and drainage pathway were located in wetlands. Schreiber wanted to know when the topsoil would be spread, seeded and mulched. Voboril responded that this would occur two weeks after the curb and paving were complete. Jones commented that for the approved lots, grading, mulching and blocking had been done. Dirrigl wanted to know when the haystacks would be replaced and staked on the entire site as had been promised.
Jones stated that he had approved 3 lots of the subdivision for building. There is a house being built on Lot 20. Lot 19 is a mess. There are piles of loam, only one of which was covered. Lot 8 has water, boulders, zip wrap and drains. Lot 18 has stockpiles for builder stabilization and regarding. This material must be removed. Jones commented that most of this has been removed by Fiero. Lot 17 also has huge piles of material. Jones said that processed gravel was being made from this material with a crusher. He added that Lot 11 and 12 had been sold to Behr builders, and that the permits for lots 16 and 17 were in process at the town. An extensive discussion of the approved lots and the work done by the respective construction companies ensued.
The reason for the original cease and desist was discussed. This was ordered because the temporary dams for the road were not functioning. Voboril stated that there is a double catch basin, which then leads to a series of pipes. Jones added that on Lot 10 that there was no curb on the bottom edge on the side, and that a silt fence had been put in. As stands the catch basins definitely will have a silt problem. Schreiber commented that this entire development appeared to be an exercise in creating alluvial fens. This cease and desist was continued to the meeting of November 14, 2005.
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. A letter from the DEP to Mr. Pelletier regarding the withdrawn application.
2. A legal alert regarding cost recovery.
3. Correspondence from Tolland detailing changes to their planning and zoning regulations.
I. Approval of minutes
MOTION: To approve the minutes for September 12, 2005, as amended.
By: Schreiber Second: Dirrigl Result: Approved.
J. Staff report and Discussion
Jones will go to Clover Springs to inspect the site, and added that the haybales (which have been blown away by the winds) will need to be stacked in the agreed-upon manner.
K. Adjournment
MOTION: To adjourn at 9:14 p.m.
By: Dirrigl
Second: Schreiber
Result: Motion passes unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Maura Benjamin
Recording Clerk
| 
