Inland Wetland and Watercourse Commission
40 Old Farms Road, Willington, CT 06279
February 11, 2008
AMENDED Minutes
Members Present:
Ken Metzler, Chairman
Dave Schreiber, Co-Chair
Greg Blessing
Tess Gutowski
Frank Dirrigl
Members Absent:
Roger Peloquin
Leon Kouyoumjian
Also present:
Eric Knapp, Willington Land Use Attorney
Susan Yorgensen, Wetlands Agent
K. Metzler called the meeting to order at 7:45 PM. G. Blessing motioned to seat T. Gutowski. D. Schreiber seconded the motion. Unanimous.
W2008-1 Application to install dry hydrant for use as a water source at 45 Cowles Road (Map 16 Lot 24 Zone R80) Owner: John Flanagan Applicant: Willington Hill Fire Dept (Received Jan 28, 2008 Public Hearing or Decision by March 24, 2008.)
Applicant Willington Hill Fire Dept. representative Jim Harvey was present. K. Metzler asked if they were going to protect the head. Mr. Harvey said they would with a 2 X 4. He said it would be a pipe buried 4 feet underground. G. Blessing asked if it was a duck pond and Mr. Harvey said that it was. G. Blessing asked if it was wetlands and Mr. Harvey commented that he did not know. K. Metzler requested a report from G. Jones.
Application received. Application tabled until the commission receives the report from staff.
Request for permit determination Kucko Road Sightline Improvement
K. Metzler commented that they want to know if they need to get a wetland permit. G. Blessing asked why they have this. S. Yorgensen commented that the area is circled on the drainage report. She said there is a piece of the road, by the curb, where they want to take off the hill. She thought about 18 inches. Not widen the road but take down the hill. G. Blessing asked if this is where Lohse comes off Kucko. S. Yorgensen said she believes so and they thought they needed a wetland permit. G. Blessing said he did not think it was wetlands and that there was spring run off. S. Yorgensen commented that she believes the closest wetland is at the end of the Crossen property. G. Blessing asked why it was not part of the original application. K. Metzler commented that the
application was for the road improvements that they were putting and anything additional was going to be an application at a later date. S. Yorgensen said that K. Acimovic commented that it was a safety hazard. G. Blessing said they could take a look and evaluate. He commented that it looks like it is going to be handled as 3 separate projects. S. Yorgensen said that was true. G. Blessing commented that nothing in the report talks about the sightline evaluation. G. Blessing said he would like K. Acimovic to explain.
K. Metzler tabled the application until the next meeting.
Signing of Mylars for “Love Veterinary Center” 451 River Road.
K. Metlzer tabled this item.
W2008-4 Application to place 12'X30' horse stall in regulated area and fencing for horses 160 Willington Hill Rd (Map 13 Lot 29 Zone R80) Owner/Applicant: Edward D’Agata II (Received February 11, 2008 Public Hearing or Decision by March 24, 2008.)
Applicant Edward D’Agata was present. K. Metzler asked him to point out the wetland flags. G. Blessing commented that it looks like it is flagged out as an upland area. S. Yorgensen commented that the rest is wetlands. K. Metzler asked if there are any wetlands that remain. Mr. D’Agata commented that it is diversion ground. K.
Metzler asked if it already existed and Mr. D’Agata said that it was. K. Metzler asked how they got the stall in and Mr. D’Agata said they drove it down the hill and that it’s not that wet. T. Gutowski asked how many horses and Mr. D’Agata said two. K. Metzler asked if they had electric wire fence. Mr. D’Agata said he has not put it in yet, he only has T-posts. K. Metzler asked if T. Gutowski would go out and take a look. T. Gutowski said she would. K. Metzler asked where they are storing the hay and Mr. D’Agata said it’s stored in one of the stalls. T. Gutowski said she would go out to the site on Saturday and report back to the commission.
W2007-36 Application for drainage improvements at 28 River Road south of~Baxter Road (Map 10 Lot 29 & 30 Zone R80) Owner/Applicant: Willington River Corp. (Received Oct 22, 2007 Public Hearing Dec 10, 2007, continue to Jan 14, 2008, Decision by February 11, 2008)
G. Blessing commented that the agenda was incorrect. The applicant is Willington River and the Owner is Ouellette.
The commission looked at the maps. G. Blessing commented that they had previously discussed this application. A discussion was held on why application W2007-36 and W2007-37 were separated.
F. Dirrigl commented that he listened to the tapes of Dec. 10th and Jan 14th and he had read the minutes from both meeting.
K. Metzler commented that they would deal with application W2007-36 and that they could make the assumption that all the activity on W2007-36 is on the Ouellette property.
K. Metzler asked the commission if they had a chance to look at all the engineering reports, staff reports and look at the file and they commented that they had.
K. Metzler commented that the application was referenced on page 4 of the December JEP Report and page 3 of the 01/25/08 JEP Report. A discussion was held on the direction of the water flow. E. Knapp asked if W2007-36 just dealt with the Ouellette property. K. Metzler said yes, that’s right and commented that they are talking about the drainage improvements proposed to the Ouellette property.
A discussion was held on the supplemental JEP Engineering Co. Report dated 1/25/08. Page 3 had two comments about drainage improvements on 28 River Rd in which he read to the commission. K. Metzler commented that there was a question on if 28 River Rd and the Ouellette property are the same. D. Schreiber said he believes they are. The commission looked at the maps. G. Blessing commented that there are two different catch basins. A discussion was held on the Type CL at 28 River Road. G. Blessing questioned if there were two. The map revision dates were read by the commission. A discussion was held on the two catch basins labeled on the map and the numbers were compared. G. Blessing commented that the detail of theType CL at 28 River Road is wrong. K. Metzler said that can be
changed on the plans. He also commented that the drawings need to be correctly labeled.
The commission referenced the first comment on page 3 of the JEP Report dated 01/25/08. G. Blessing explained the types of metal piping. He commented that the RCP pipe is normally what towns put in. K. Metzler asked about the north-south segment of proposed HDPE being acceptable. S. Yorgensen said it was because of the adjoining septic. G. Blessing said this was in Mr. Polulech’s original report.
G. Blessing said during the public hearing they discussed the value of connecting the drainage together. He explained his concern of the proposed and existing drainage along Baxter Rd to the intersection of Baxter Road and Rte 32.
D. Schreiber commented that from an engineering standpoint and from wetlands stand point; you don’t want to mess with the wetlands here (in which he pointed out on the map). It looks to me like it is fairly functional wetlands. G. Blessing commented what’s going to happen when the town improves the culvert here and creates a situation on now more water. What may happen is they go ahead and re-do this and let the water go down here without any forethought of what’s going to happen to this network. G. Blessing said that none of the work proposed solves the problem. K. Metzler commented that what you are saying is that you don’t have the information to make a determination. G. Blessing said he has no idea. You are fixing the end of pipe and no idea what is going to happen.
K. Metzler commented that a huge volume flow runs down Baxter Rd. G. Blessing commented that it is all subject to change involving variables not engineered. He said his concern over this application solves an issue but does not solve the overall problem. He commented that he is not convinced that this system will handle more water. G. Blessing commented that the engineering solutions to the drainage issue in this area are still outstanding. K. Metzler asked if he felt the proposed activities are an improvement to the existing system. G. Blessing said yes. K. Metzler asked them to step back, look at application W2007-36 and look at the improvements that the engineer has suggested.
T. Gutowski expressed her concern about the town maintaining the system.
The commission reviewed the Draft Motions. A discussion was held on item 1. D. Schreiber commented that when they went out to take a look, they found the culvert is not well placed. K. Metzler commented on water coming down in which is a town issue. G. Blessing said that peak flow may not be increasing but the volume of water is increasing. A discussion was held on what would happen if they tried to make it all work together.
E. Knapp commented that if there are issues on flooding that are not wetland related, it’s out of this commission’s jurisdiction. He said they need to limit their views to the wetland areas of this application. G. Blessing commented that he understands. E. Knapp asked the commission to refer to the Regulations. S. Yorgensen said it was in
the criteria that she handed out. E. Knapp asked the commission to refer to the Considerations for Decisions.
G. Blessing made a motion to approve on the following 5 conditions.
1. Easement incorporating the maintenance agreement be submitted and approved by Inlands Wetland and Watercourse and their attorney.
2. Bond is submitted to the commission to insure maintenance. Bond to be approved by Inlands Wetlands and Watercourses and their attorney.
3. Revisions to sheet 12 and the detail that its Type CL catch basin at 28 River Rd the top of frame needs to be revised. The discrepancy between the plans needs to be worked out. Invert discrepancy needs to be worked out. The revision date is 1/10/08
4. Include 4 ft. minimum sump rather than 2 ft. min sump.
5. HDPR pipe running east west be placed with the appropriately sized RCP pipe with Rubber Gasketed Joints.
D. Schreiber seconded the motion.
T. Gutoswki asked for clarification on the easement agreement and maintenance plan. She also had a question on the bond and how long a bond stays in place. S. Yorgensen said you could put a time limit. Discussion followed on how long that could be.
E. Knapp said you need to put a firm end date. K. Metzler commented that they could work out the details.
K. Metzler commented that they’ve had a lot of discussion about alternatives to drainage improvements. If the 18-inch culvert is replaced on Baxter Road, it could have an adverse effect on the wetlands.
All in favor. Motion carried.
W2007- 37 Application for activity related to 60 single family condominium project Winterberry Hill at River Road and Baxter Road (Map 10 Lot 21-DA ~Zone R80) Owner/Applicant: Willington River Corp.(Received Oct 22, 2007 Public Hearing ~Dec 10, 2007, continue to Jan 14, 2008 ~Decision by February 11, 2008).
F. Dirrigl commented that he had reviewed the tapes, correspondence, and minutes of 12/10/07 and 1/14/08. He felt he had adequate knowledge of the application.
K. Metzler commented on the concern of the impact, if any, on the receiving wetlands on the Fortier property that would be handled by the proposed and existing catch basins on Baxter Road.
G. Blessing commented on his concern about sedimentation and erosion control, mostly during the construction phase.
K. Metzler commented that he did not believe the commission had any jurisdiction on the drainage issue and the sedimentation issues associated with the access road areas. There are two areas where we do have jurisdiction, all on storm water discharge, one is the easement on Fortier’s property and the second is the discharge that is associated with the conservation easement along Old South Road.
S. Yorgensen commented that in your report to Planning and Zoning, you could include your concerns on the drainage issues and sedimentation and erosion controls.
T. Gutowski expressed her concern of putting wastewater on another property. G. Blessing commented that they are not putting their wastewater on to Fortier’s property. It is infiltrated on their property; the storm water comes down and is infiltrated. He also commented that urban run off can be highly polluted.
A discussion was held on the dilution and drainage discharge easement. A discussion was held on the roof water run off and why rain gardens were not used on this application.
K. Metzler brought up a point of discussion. He asked the commission to look at the comments from JEP Engineering dated January 25, 2008. Some points, made by the engineer, have not been incorporated into the plan. He also commented on the Pinecrest Report, dated 12/21/07, and concerns of items not being addressed by the applicant. G. Blessing commented that there are numerous comments that were not addressed.
S. Yorgensen commented that supplemental exhibits were submitted at the 1/14/08 meeting. K. Metzler said that some revisions were made to the plan on comments made.
F. Dirrigl stated, for the record, that his resume is on file. He is a Wetland Biologist for Fuss and O’Neill. He looked over the Pinecrest report, dated 12/21/2007. In terms of the concerns he mentioned, he felt the applicant addressed them, particularly with Mr. Iannini’s presentation. In terms of the need for a biological survey, he never
felt there was a specific need for a full-blown biological survey.
K. Metzler said he felt the concerns are more hydrological.
K. Metzler commented on the water flow and the two level spreaders on the plan. The two small concentration points are a concern and it is unclear as to where all the storm water will end up.
F. Dirrigl asked if the level spreaders are long enough so that it will dissipate the flow of water out of those two points.
A discussion was held on the water flow impact in regards to peak water flow, ground water and surface water. G. Blessing explained level spreaders and how they are expected to work. He said the impervious area that is now infiltrating will now be concentrated. G. Blessing explained the water flow on the map.
G. Blessing commented that the storage units are the same but the issue is that discharge point is now a level spreader. You are slowing the peak flow down.
F. Dirrigl asked that in looking at the system they have proposed, are there other engineering alternatives that could have been explored by the applicant.
D. Schreiber commented about making the level spreaders longer. He said the longer they are, the more they are mimicking the system they have now.
G. Blessing commented that, as it stands now, we have questions on the impact to the wetlands and watercourses and the magnitude. Is it small or is it large?
K. Knapp commented that if you feel that there are other alternatives more prudent, then that’s what you have to look at. He requested the commission review the Considerations for Decisions.
The commission discussed the Considerations for Decisions.
F. Dirrigl commented that there could be more information out there that would raise their comfort level.
K. Metzler read Mr. Sonnichsen’s report on the previous denial.
E. Knapp explained their choices - yes, they were responsive, or not responsive, therefore, our concerns are out there and were not addressed. You need to explain, if there was testimony from experts, why you are not persuaded by that testimony. Give the reasons why. You could say evidence on the record is not sufficient to support statement.
F. Dirrigl made a motion to deny this permit, without prejudice, based on the lack of supporting evidence that does not support the following in Consideration For Decisions, section 10-2, item a, item c and item d. D. Schreiber seconded the motion.
Discussion was held on the Regulations in which those sections of Considerations for Decisions were not addressed. The applicant failed to present substantial evidence to support compliance with the criteria of the Regulations and thus did not sustain its burden of proof as an applicant.
D. Schreiber said he is not convinced that the level spreaders are adequately sized to allow the water to reach all parts of the wetland equally as they are now. Therefore, there exists potential for adverse impact of the proposed regulated activity on the wetlands and watercourses. D. Schreiber expressed specific concerns that, with the greater detail of mapping now provided, the “fingers” of the wetlands each received water separately, and that the proposal would likely increase water to certain fingers while decreasing it to others, with the net result that the functionality of the wetlands would be impaired.
E. Knapp asked the Commission to consider if there are feasible and prudent alternatives. And, if the answer is you don’t have enough information to decide if there are feasible and prudent alternatives, you can put that in the motion.
F. Dirrigl amended the motion to include 10-2, item b. D. Schreiber seconded the motion.
F. Dirrigl commented that they do not know the short term and long-term impact based on the information provided by the applicant.
F. Dirrigl commented that we still do not know if there is going to be an increase or decrease in the amount of water the wetland receives.
D. Schreiber commented that this works back to the level spreaders functioning as point sources.
F. Dirrigl commented on the potential for some sort of Hydrological study, other than exhibit 4 that was submitted, that would give them a better understanding of that. He commented that exhibit 4 addresses engineering information but not necessarily whether there is going to be irreversible loss of wetlands.
T. Gutowski commented that issues were raised in regards to Mr. Polulech’s recommendations in the Pinecrest Report, Exhibit 5, page 4 that were not addressed. Ms. Gutowski is also concerned about the maintenance and would like the Storm Water Maintenance Plan submitted and reviewed. Page 6 of the Pinecrest Report, Sedimentation and Erosion control is also a concern.
F. Dirrigl commented that there is additional information that needs to be explored to address their concerns.
G. Blessing commented that the applicant had discussed alternatives in the past and stated that there really weren’t any. Basically what we heard was, this is our proposal. Alternatives were not discussed. K. Metzler stated that there were feasible and prudent alternatives of which the Commission had been made aware. K. Metzler specifically noted that the lot had already been approved for a single family house, that it could be subdivided into several single family homes and that some lesser number of units on the site could have a smaller impact on the wetlands. The applicant’s testimony regarding how fewer condominium units would not have a measurable beneficial impact on the wetlands as compared to the number proposed was not seen as credible. This testimony dealt mostly with the erosion
control issues, and did not address how less point discharge through the level spreaders may improve the distribution of water throughout the wetlands.
D. Schreiber voiced concerns that more water from the site would be coming across the “horse pasture” and not passing under Baxter Road, which had the possibility of altering the characteristics of the wetlands on the easterly side of Baxter Road.
T. Gutowski wanted to remind the commission that R. Sonnichsen did provide exhibit 3.
K. Metzler brought the motion to a vote. K. Metzler, D. Schreiber, F. Dirrigl, and Tess Gutowski voted yes. Greg Blessing voted no. 4 yes, 1 no. Motion to deny application carried.
Review of Operation and Maintenance for Storm Water Systems at Town Library.
F. Dirrigl explained that he feels there is work to be done to revise the document. S. Yorgensen commented on writing a letter to selectmen. K. Metzler said that he would call S. Yorgensen in the morning on writing a letter to the selectmen.
W2003-49 Notice of Violation: Travel Centers of America (the Lessee) and George Giguere of Royce Properties (the Owner) of property located at 327 Ruby Road. Site walk Nov. 18, 2007 at 11:00 A.M.
S. Yorgensen commented that it is not finished.
Approval of Minutes dated January 28, 2008. D. Schreiber made a motion to approve the minutes. F. Dirrigl seconded the motion.
Meeting adjourned at 11:33 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michele Manas
Recording Clerk
| 
