Inland Wetland and Watercourse Commission
40 Old Farms Road, Willington, CT 06279
January 26, 2009 – 7:30 ~~PM
Meeting Minutes
Members Present:
Dave Schreiber, Co-Chair
Leon Kouyoumjian
Roger Peloquin
Tess Gutowski, Alternate
Members Absent:
Ken Metzler, Co-Chair
Frank Dirrigl
Greg Blessing, Alternate
Also present:
Gary Jones, Wetlands Agent
Regular Meeting
D. Schreiber called the meeting to order at 7:30.
L. Kouyoumjian motioned to seat R. Peloquin and T. Gutowski. D. Schreiber seconded the motion. All in favor.
Old Business
W2003-49 Notice of Violation: TravelCenters of America (the Lessee) and George Giguere of Royce Properties (the Owner) of property at 327 Ruby Rd.
This item was tabled for this meeting.
Correspondence
1. Connecticut Wildlife Magazine – November/December addition
2. Connecticut Federation of Lakes Incorporated News – December 2008 issue
3. CT DEP Permit Application for the Use of Pesticides in State Waters – regarding Gardner Pond
4. The Habitat – Fall 2008 Issue
5. Letter from Michael Eldredge, to Jodi Rell, regarding the Town of Willington’s “shovel ready” projects.
6. Memo from Karl Acimovic, to Mike Eldredge, regarding the Public Works & Infrastructure Project Cost Estimates.
Minutes
R. Peloquin motioned to approve the minutes with the following modifications.
Draft Aquifer Regulations, page 3, paragraph 3 should read:
T. Gutowski said the drafted Willington Regulations were based on the DEP Model Regulations and that the only thing the commission can address are the fees. She said that the commission has to take the State Level A mapping and overlay it onto the town’s map. A discussion was held on the regulated area as defined by the state’s mapping. The commission agreed that, with regard to the mapping, the boundary starts near the Hall School and ends around Fisher Hill Road. K. Metzler asked if this was based on public water supply and S. Yorgensen said yes.
Draft Regulations, page 3, paragraph 4 should read:
T. Gutowski asked if other towns have their regulations in place and S. Yorgensen said yes.
Draft Logging Regulations, page 3, paragraph 1 should read:
S. Yorgensen said the Town of Kent’s Forest Regulations will be used for the base for Willington’s proposed regulations but they will need to be edited. At this time, the state has no model regulations to use as guidance. F. Dirrigl said he will take a look at the definitions for consistency with the wetland definitions.
Draft Logging Regulations, page 3, paragraph 4, last 2 sentences should read:
T. Gutowski asked S. Yorgensen to find out how the Town of Kent handles their application process. A discussion was held on the associated fees.
T. Gutowski seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried.
Staff Report and Discussion
Draft Logging Regulations
R. Peloquin expressed his concern on whether or not the commission should adopt these regulations. T. Gutowski suggested they read them over, come back to discuss and then decide if they are comfortable with adopting the Forestry Regulations. Discussions were held on adopting the Wetland Regulations first; then see if the Forestry Regulations fit with the Wetland Regulations. D. Schreiber said there really isn’t much of an overlap between the two. Discussion was held on having separate regulations and separate applications. D. Schreiber questioned if it would matter which application went first. T. Gutowski said she would like to know what the Town of Kent’s application process is.
T. Gutowski said she would like to go through the regulations section by section and discuss them. The commission agreed to read through the regulations and write down any comments or suggestions they might have.
D. Schreiber asked if they should roll the Forestry and Inland Regulations into one and have one application. G. Jones said his understanding was the Forestry application would be instead of the Wetland application. T. Gutowski referred to section 6.7, Additional Information, and said she does not think it is the same review. She asked if S. Yorgensen could call Kent and get additional information. In reading further, G. Jones referred to section 3.4 and said he believes you have to pull a wetlands permit simultaneously. A discussion was held.
Draft Wetland Regulations
A discussion was held on the area town fee schedules that were provided by staff. T. Gutowski asked if staff could prepare a table, on one page, that shows Willington’s existing fees and then they can plug in the numbers from area towns to see the difference. She also asked for the dates of when the area town’s fees were adopted.
R. Peloquin asked how they would determine if an application was a complex application and subject to a complex application fee. G. Jones said he does not think it should be worded in that way. A discussion was held. R. Peloquin said he believes they should have the right to charge a consultant fee as determined by staff. L. Kouyoumjian was concerned if the applicant did not agree with this fee and, in a court of law, felt they were not arbitrary about it. R. Peloquin said they would have the right to appeal the application in a court of law. A discussion was held. D. Schreiber said they would deny an application because they did not get the necessary information, not because they did not get the fee.
G. Jones thoughts were, when a complicated application comes in, they’re going to find that everything is near perfect because they do not want a denial. A discussion was held on past applications. R. Peloquin expressed his concern about having to hire consultants for an application and ensuring the cost does not come out of the town’s budget. D. Schreiber said he likes the fee schedule based on the estimated cost of the project. G. Jones commented that you could have an application that is no impact to the wetlands and an application with tremendous impact to the wetlands. R. Peloquin asked if they could modify the existing fee schedule by changing the fees and adding definitions. T. Gutowski said she would like to work from the table that compares their fees and area town’s fees so they
can see where Willington falls.
The commission looked at Eastford’s fee schedule. A discussion was held on whether or not a fee should apply to Permitted Uses as of Right. G. Jones felt there should be a handling fee. He suggested Permitted Uses as of Right fee as $50 and Non-regulated Uses could be less, say $20. A discussion was held on the definitions of both. T. Gutowski suggested $30 to look at either application.
A discussion was held on the fees for Activity Related to Single Family Residential Uses. The fees are currently $100 for new and $50.00 for existing residences. The commission discussed changing the fee to $100 for both.
A discussion was held on Subdivision fees. G. Jones said he feels what they have now for Subdivision fees are fine. It covers staff review and the cost to publicize it in the paper. D. Schreiber said they should charge a publication fee. G. Jones said the only time they notice something is if there is a public hearing. T. Gutowski asked if S. Yorgensen could check on Mansfield’s fees.
The commission looked at commercial uses. G. Jones said he felt the applicant should be responsible for all the notifications/mailings and expert fees. T. Gutowski said she would like the applicant to pay for the hearing notice. R. Peloquin said he believes the fees should make it equitable; not recoup the cost. T. Gutowski said the fees should be based on the amount of time it takes to review an application. R. Peloquin said they are not going to get back the costs associated with an application and, if they attempt to, the costs will be too high. T. Gutowski said, if you take out the publications and mailings, the fees should cover the amount of time to review an application.
G. Jones said they should keep it simple but put the responsibility of notifying the abutters to the applicant. T. Gutowski said she thinks the applicant should be responsible for the public notice. She would like to see staff handle the public notice but invoice the applicant for the cost of the notice.
A discussion was held on charging a surcharge when the town engineer or a consultant reviews the application. L. Kouyoumjian questioned when you would ask the applicant for this fee. D. Schreiber said when you determine it is necessary. G. Jones said when an application is submitted, they’ll bring it to the board, and they can listen to the application and make the decision if an outside consultant is needed. G. Jones suggested they keep the fees simple, review them after a year and tweak as needed.
R. Peloquin said he believes the townspeople/taxpayers believe the staff salaries are covered by the taxes paid to the town. He feels the fees should be associated with the application but should not recoup all of the costs. G. Jones said the fees of an application should help defray the costs, not pay for it. T. Gutowski said the wording of defray the cost has been eliminated from the model fees. R. Peloquin and D. Schreiber said they would like to keep the existing fee schedule but adjust it accordingly. T. Gutowski said there is more detail in the model fees.
Draft Aquifer Regulations
D. Schreiber said he has looked through these regulations and he does not feel there is much in it that applies to this town. T. Gutowski said you can’t change too much of the language but asked if everyone could look through them so they can talk about them at the next meeting.
L. Kouyoumjian motioned to adjourn at 9:35. R. Peloquin seconded the motion. All in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michele Manas
Recording Clerk
| 
