CONSERVATION
COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 308
Wednesday, July 13,
2005
7:00 p.m. Town
Hall
I.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman
Formeister called the regular meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Members Joan Formeister, Dan Fraro, Karl
Walton and Lise Wood were present and constituted a quorum. Also in attendance: David Askew, Wetland
Agent.
a.
Discussion/Possible Decision:
Wetlands Application #521, Garage in Upland Review Area, 45 Hall Hill
Road, Urbon
Mr.
Askew explained that the applicant would like to build a garage at the site,
which already contains a home. The
parcel, which is located at the south end of Hall Hill Road, has a small stream
which flows behind the house. Fill
has been placed about 50 feet from the stream and the applicant has been
notified not to extend it any further.
Mr. Askew noted that there was no adverse impact on the wetlands and he
has no other issues with the application.
A
motion was made by Karl Walton, seconded by Lise Wood and unanimously voted to
approve the application.
b.
Other
There
was no other Old Business.
III.
NEW
BUSINESS
a.
Wetlands Application #522, 1-Lot Subdivision and Driveway in Upland
Review Area, 119 Parker Road, Buck Builders LLC
Blaine
Buck and Brian Buck presented plans for a home to be built at 119 Parker Road,
which includes a steep driveway approximately 720 feet in length. At the base of the driveway and
extending across Parker Road is a stream.
David
Askew spoke with Sandy Aeschlimann regarding erosion control and the possibility
of sediment dumping onto the neighbor’s property. Mr. Askew requested that a stone-lined
ditch be placed along the driveway.
In addition, a sediment trap or plunge pool should be installed at the
base of the driveway. An erosion
control plan must be developed before final approval.
b.
Wetlands Application #523, Land Clearing Within Wetland and Upland Review
Area (Determination of Use), 65 Scully Road, Roulier
Joan
Formeister confirmed that Mr. Askew had sent a letter to Mr. Roulier requesting
his attendance at this meeting.
Attorney Eric Dellutri from Kahan, Kerensky and Capossella spoke on
behalf of Mr. Roulier, noting that the applicant decided that legal
representation was required in order to appropriately respond to the
Commission’s questions.
Environmental
Consultant Mike Mocko had prepared plans of the 4.2-acre parcel and presented
them to the Commission.
Attorney
Dellutri explained that at issue was the determination of use for the property
so as to decide whether the proposed orchard activity is exempt from requiring a
permit. He sited Section 221-40 of
town regulations, and 211-4a-1 and 211-4c of the current state regulations as
indicating that such activities were a permitted use of right. The Commission reviewed these
regulations and discussed them.
Discussion
also followed regarding the dirt road which has been constructed. Attorney Dellutri concluded that the
road constructed is to be directly used for a farming operation and is exempt
from the current regulation. Karl
Walton noted that no farming operation currently exists on the property so the
exemption does not apply in this situation.
Attorney
Dellutri noted that the applicant may decide to use the area for horse grazing
which was also an incidental use of the property.
Mr.
Mocko commented that regarding work completed on the site during the wet season,
care was taken to ensure that only minimal impact to the wetlands would
occur. The area had been reinforced
with wood chips and only 6 or 7 trees had been removed from the wetland
area. Roughly 90% of the activity
took place in the upland area.
Mr.
Mocko added that should the Commission decide to require a permit Mr. Roulier
would submit an application in a good faith effort to comply with the
regulation.
Attorney
Dellutri noted that in his opinion, the work falls under incidental use and
agricultural use exceptions and no permit should be required. Mr. Walton noted that the exception
allowed for the expansion of a cropland, but Mr. Roulier was not expanding. His clearing of the property constituted
reclamation of wetland, not expansion of cropland.
A
motion was made by Karl Walton and seconded by Lise Wood to require a permit for
this activity from the applicant.
The vote was 2 in favor (Walton, Wood) and one opposed (Fraro). The motion
carried.
Mr.
Mocko again referred to his plan for the applicant and submitted an application
with an attached narrative describing the intended use of the parcel. He indicated the buffer zone, noting
that it was intended to revert to its natural state. His maintenance program includes mowing
of the area once per year so that it will stay a tall grass environment. The orchard itself would be planted with
grass once the trees are planted.
The
road would be suitable for seasonal traffic and the wood chips lining it
replaced once per year. Mr. Askew
noted that there is ponding at the second crossing. It was determined that a crushed stone
aggregate would be used with a fabric cover, allowing the water to pass
through.
Mr.
Askew observed that since the area has been cleared, noxious knotweed has taken
root as part of the natural regeneration.
He discussed with Mr. Mocko the use of blueberry bush, elderberry bush
and other shrub plantings, coupled with weed killing Roundup as a strategy for
alleviating this problem. Mr. Mocko
will come up with a planting plan and numbers for the next
meeting.
c.
Modification of Permit #507, New House, Inground Pool and Septic in
Upland Review Area, 53 Stafford Road, Torcia
Mr.
Askew presented plans for the site, reminding the Commission of Michael Kane’s
previous application on the Stafford Road subdivision, which included this
lot. At that time this site was
approved for a house to be constructed within 50 feet of the wetlands. Now the applicant would like to install
a pool. In addition, the house is
longer than previously approved and is approximately 30 feet from the
wetland. Such changes require a
modification to the permit allowing work within 30 feet of the
wetlands.
He
also noted only the upper reaches of the wetland area are involved, and he
doesn’t have any issues with the permit as shown as long as the applicant is
willing to put in a fence indicating where the wetlands are. The applicant has stated that he is
agreeable to installing a split rail fence along the wetlands. The location of the fence is shown on
the plan.
d.
Wetlands Application #524, Grading in Upland Review Area, Pond Dredging
and Filling of Wetland, 64 Hampden Road, Grower Direct
Environmental
Consultant Mike Mocko spoke on behalf of Leonard Van Wingerden, who was
unavailable to attend the meeting.
Mr. Mocko presented a completed application and reviewed copies of his
preliminary plans with the Commission.
He explained that Grower Direct is applying to extend its growing area to
three times its current size. The
plans include reclaiming a large gravel area and installing 3 terraced and
irrigated sections to be utilized for growing nursery stock. Portions of the expansion area are
within the upland review area.
The
access road will need to be relocated because the new beds will interfere with
its current location. The grading
required to do this will including filling a strip of wetlands. They are also requesting to remove trees
located in an area of wetland because of a shading problem. It is anticipated that the wetland soils
will remain in tact and only the taller trees are to be
removed.
The
application includes dredging sediment from the existing pond so as to restore
it to its original condition.
Presently, detailed plans for such dredging are incomplete but Mr. Mocko
intends to have them available by the next meeting. It is hoped that the dredging work can
be done in August and September when the area is dry.
Mr.
Askew noted that the applicant was instructed to put in a sediment pond and he
visited the site and saw the pond when it was completed. However, by his next visit to the site,
the pond had been filled in. They
were then instructed to rebuild the sediment pond. Compliance continues to be an issue, as
does sedimentation in he mitigation pond.
e.
Wetlands Application #525, ARH in Upland Review Area with Wetland
Crossings, Shaker Road, Gingras
Aris
Stalis, Design Engineer of BSC Group in Glastonbury, and Tom Carenzo, Gingras
Development, presented the proposed plan for the 80-unit Age Restricted Housing
development to be situated on 45 acres off of Shaker Road. Gingras Development is seeking the
Commissions approval to construct a stream crossing which will impact
approximately 1,400 square feet of wetland area at the Shaker Road entrance to
the development.
When
asked about the storm drainage system, Mr. Stalis explained that the system is
designed so that there will actually be a decrease in the amount of water
discharging from the site.
He
noted that while the site contains 45 acres, disturbance will be limited to 23
acres and it is their intention to leave as much of the site in its natural
state as possible.
Mr.
Askew mentioned that he had walked the site recently and noticed a lot of
erosion along the stream corridor.
He requested that Mr. Stalis evaluate the situation prior to the next
meeting. Plans were just recently
submitted so Mr. Askew did not have the opportunity to review them prior to the
meeting.
f.
Wetlands Application #526, In-ground Pool in Upland Review Area, 24
Goodwin Drive, Damon
Mr.
Damon and David Askew presented plans and photos showing the proposed in-ground
pool site. Mr. Askew explained that
the applicant had come in for a house addition in April and the wetlands are
situated about 25 feet off the corner of the addition. The pool will be within the regulated
area. Mr. Askew will check out the
soil on the site.
g.
Other – Fee Schedule
Mr.
Askew noted that current regulations make it difficult to determine the
application fee for Age Restricted Housing. He suggested that an amendment be made
to the regulation to clarify this situation as soon as possible. Upon reviewing the regulation, the
Commission consensus was to discuss such a modification at the next
meeting.
IV.
AUDIENCE
PARTICIPATION
There
was none.
VI.
STAFF/COMMISSIONER
REPORTS
Dave
Askew presented his Wetland Agent Report for the Commission’s review. A motion was made by Lise Wood, seconded
by Karl Walton and unanimously voted to accept the report as
presented.
It
has come to Mr. Askew’s attention that for legal reasons when future motions are
made to approve applications, there is a need to always have on the record that
there is no adverse impact on the wetlands resulting from the
application.
A bill was received from CACIWIC for
membership fees in the amount of $60.00.
A motion was made by Karl Walton,
seconded by Lise Wood and unanimously voted to pay the bill.
VIII. MINUTES
APPROVAL
A motion was
made by Karl Walton, seconded by Dan Fraro and unanimously voted to approve the
minutes of the June 1, 2005 meeting as written.
A motion was
made by Lise Wood, seconded by Dan Fraro and unanimously voted to adjourn the
July 13, 2005 Conservation Commission meeting at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Lise Wood,
Secretary
Robin Timmons, Recording Secretary
MINUTES ARE NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVAL
AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING.