SOMERS,
CT 06071
WEDNESDAY,
NOVEMBER 1, 2006
7:00
p.m.
TownHall
a. Wetlands Application #558, Driveway
Crossing Wetlands for
Single Family Residence, 99 White Oak Road, Richard A. McCullough, Inc.
Builders
Chairman Joan Formeister
opened the public hearing at 7:01 p.m.
Wetlands Agent David Askew read the public hearing notice dated October
5, 2006 and published October 18 and 24, 2006 in the Journal
Inquirer.
Attorney Joseph Caposella
spoke on behalf of Richard A. McCullough, Inc. Builders. He provided a history of the
application, explaining that previous applications to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for a variance and an application to Conservation Commission for a
wetland permit were denied. The
existing lot is approximately 62 acres and is part of a previous subdivision
with access from Hall Hill Road and Bridle Path Drive. The proposal includes splitting the lot
into two lots of 42 acres and 16 acres.
The 16-acre parcel would have access from Hall Hill Road and the 42-acre
parcel would be accessed from White Oak Road with a crossing of
wetland.
Recently, a variance was
granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals after Mr. McCullough purchased a small
piece of property at the end of White Oak Road. In addition, septic testing has been
done on the lot. The plan includes
a one-for-one replication of the proposed 5,000 square foot wetland
disturbance.
Environmental Consultant
Mike Mocko outlined his report to the Commission dated October 9, 2006. The proposal includes access to a single
family residence with approximately 275 feet of driveway crossing a forested
wetland. A number of the
Commissioners walked the site previously and were able to see the proposed
disturbed area of the wetlands. The
driveway elevation will be 1 to 2 feet above the wetland, except at the
cul-de-sac. It is proposed that
less than one-tenth of one acre, or just slightly less than 5,000 square feet,
of wetlands will be filled in order to construct the driveway. As mitigation for the loss of wetland,
the applicant will provide a replication area in an upland site. Mr. Mocko explained in detail where the
new wetland area would be situated and how the replicated area would be
constructed.
Mr.
Mocko explained that the crossing is on the fringe of the wetland and the
proposal does not bisect the wetland.
Mr. Mocko outlined the various alternatives to the plan that were
considered, and he explained why each one was not chosen, including one which
would bring a farm road across the middle of the wetland to use the upland 25
acres for agricultural purposes, such as horses. This alternative was cast aside because
it would involve more extensive land clearing
Mr.
Askew asked about a potential conservation easement. The applicant is agreeable to having a
conservation easement placed on approximately 30 acres of the parcel. Mr. Askew noted that a conservation
easement would protect the land would from certain permitted uses of right, such
as pasturing horses or logging.
Concern was expressed about
the potential for future re-subdivision and development of the parcel. It was noted that the length of the
cul-de-sac would prohibit a road being constructed in the area. Also, the frontage requirements would
not be met.
Discussion followed about
the size of the parcel to be included in the conservation easement and the
applicant was asked to consider extending the acreage to the eastern line of the
wetland. Mr. McCullough stated that
he would be agreeable to this. Mr.
Askew suggested that the public hearing be kept open until the next meeting in
order to allow time for the applicant to provide a map showing the exact
location of the proposed conservation easement.
Karl Walton asked about the
need for a turnout on the driveway and the specific requirements of the fire
department were. Mr. Mocko had
nothing in writing from the fire chief, but commented that he did speak with him
and was told that a turnout is required.
The driveway is approximately 600 feet long and the turnout is to be at
280 feet, which is situated just outside of the wetlands.
Todd Whitford asked why the
mitigation area is being constructed disconnected from the natural wetland. Mr. Mocko explained that the 10-foot
separation will allow the basin to act as a stormwater retention
area.
Mr.
Walton asked about the depth of fill at the cul-de-sac. Mr. Mocko explained the design and noted
that the fill would be a depth of 5 feet at the deepest point. He also explained the drainage system
and existing drainage patterns. His
calculations have been done for a 100-year storm.
Joan Formeister asked if
there was public comment on the proposal.
Following is a summary of public comment:
Anthony Liquori, 20 Valley
View Drive, spoke to Mr. McCullough’s
character and gave a few examples of how Mr. McCullough had fulfilled a contract
with him in the past. He also noted
that Mr. McCullough is a fine neighbor and takes care of his
property.
Denise Shewokis, 61 White
Oak Road, spoke in opposition to the
application and submitted a report for the record. She spoke about Section 211 of the
Inland Wetland Regulations. She
noted approving this application could have a significant adverse impact on the
wetlands. She expressed concern
about the size of the house and where the water runoff will go. She added that Mr. Watson, a neighbor
not present, has spoken to her about his concern for standing water pooling at
the end of the cul-de-sac. She
referred to Section 211-2, explaining that the wetland meets the criteria for
continual flow. Water can be seen
in the area for extended periods during the year. She also commented that the
Commissioners’ visit to the site occurred during the annual drought period. She submitted photos for the record
showing water in the area. She is
concerned about the endangered wildlife and endangered species in the area and
what impact the loss of wetland area will have for them.
She
noted that the taxpayers will have to pay the Town to ensure that the culverts
are cleaned.
She
also expressed concern about the impact of the project on Wright’s Brook and the
possible spread of Lyme Disease and West Nile Virus resulting from wildlife
displacement. She noted that the
applicant’s newspaper advertisement highlights the property as a possible horse
farm. She is also concerned about
the impact this application will have on State owned land near the
prison.
She
presented maps from the somersnow.com website which show the area as being
poorly drained and within an important conservation area. She added that the website states that
protecting these areas is an objective of the POCD.
Mrs. Shewokis’ White Oak
Road neighbors, the Wojacks, have what appears to be a vernal pool, with ducks
living on their property at least 8 months of the year.
Nancy Cox, 565 Hall Hill
Road,
asked that if Mr. McCullough doesn’t receive his permit and decides to sell the
property, will whoever buys it be able to do whatever they want to do without
first coming before the Commission.
She asked if the land will be more protected if kept as one parcel, as
opposed to being divided and the proposed conservation easement being put in
place. She was told the results
would vary depending on what the landowner would seek to do with the land. Certainly, they would be expected to
comply with all Town and State regulations.
Denise Shewokis, 61 White
Oak Road, inquired about a note in
the application file that the wetlands area had changed. Dave Askew replied that these resulted
from a few discrepancies discovered when checking the wetlands in 2004. At the most, this would involve
approximately 2 to 3 acres.
Ed Cunningham, 77 White Oak
Road,
whose house is at the end of the cul-de-sac, stated that his back yard, in the
last 4 years, has been sinking. He
has lived on the property for 26 years.
He is concerned that if changes are made to the land, they will make his
situation worse.
Attorney Caposella submitted
letters included with the original application from Jerry Young, Anica Young and
Linda Pease, all speaking in favor of the application. Mr. Walton commented that these letters
addressed the previous application, rather than the current
one.
Mr.
McCullough stated that the home at 77 White Oak is about ¼ mile from the site
proposed in the application. Mr.
Mocko noted that all of the changes to the wetland will occur downhill of the
area which the neighbors are speaking of.
Mr. Mocko noted that the photos submitted do not involve the area of
wetland area involved with this application. Discussion followed regarding the
location of the photographs relative to the project area. Mr. Askew noted that entire area being
discussed is all visible from the end of the cul-de-sac and that the location of
the driveway is slightly up-gradient from the location of some of the
pictures.
A
motion was made by Karl Walton, seconded by Henry Broer and unanimously voted to
continue the public hearing to December 6, 2006 at 7:00
p.m.
Chairman
Joan Formeister called the regular meeting to order at 9:20 p.m. Members Candace Aleks, Henry Broer, Joan
Formeister, Dan Fraro, Karl Walton and Alternate Member Daniel Fraro were
present and constituted a quorum.
Wetlands Agent David Askew and Eric Bedan were also present.
III. OLD
BUSINESS
a. Discussion/Possible Decision: Wetlands Application #558, Driveway
Crossing Wetlands for Single Family Residence, 99 White Oak Road, Richard A.
McCullough, Inc. Builders
This
item was deferred because the public hearing was
continued.
b. Discussion/Possible Decision: Wetlands Application #559, Dredging of
Pond and Stream Inlet and Stream Bank Stabilization, 9 Somerset Lane, 392
Turnpike Road and 5 Somerset Lane, Driscoll and
Gibbs
Mr.
Mocko, representing the applicant, stated that the plans are not yet
available. He will submit a letter
regarding an additional extension.
c. Modification of Wetlands Application
#528, 23-Lot Subdivision in Upland Review Area, Battle Street and Bailey Lane,
KRL Builders
Rick
Leno stated that nothing has changed with regard to the application but he has
questions regarding Mr. Strauss’s comments with respect to proposed stormwater
structures. David Askew felt that
staff could address the issues and that the wetland application could
proceed.
Mr.
Askew explained that the application modification involves the relocation of the
road closer to the wetland than previously approved. The centerline of the road was flagged
in the field and Mr. Askew noted that the existing wooded buffer around the
wetland will not be disturbed. Mr.
Askew requested that the wetlands be permanently delineated in the field. The erosion control bond will be handled
through the Planning Commission.
A
motion was made by Karl Walton, seconded by Todd Whitford and unanimously voted
to approve KRL Builders’ modification to wetlands application #528 with the
provision that the wetland boundary be permanently delineated at every 100 feet
or at each significant turn.
d. Wetlands Application #562, New House in
Hall Hill Estates Subdivision (Lot 18 Tabb Property) in Upland Review Area, 32
Applewood Drive, Dan Roulier & Associates,
Inc.
Environmental
Consultant Mike Mocko spoke on behalf of the applicant and explained that no
changes have been made since the last meeting. Mr. Askew stated that he has no issue
with the application and a motion was made by Karl Walton, seconded by Henry
Broer and unanimously voted to approve Dan Roulier & Associates, Inc.’s
application #562 for a new house at 32 Applewood Drive.
e. Wetlands Application #563, New Houses in
Hall Hill Estates Subdivision (Lots 10 & 14) in Upland Review Area, 67 &
93 Brittany Lane, Dan Roulier & Associates, Inc. (application #565
added)
Concern
was expressed that the lots should be submitted under separate applications and
it was agreed to move forward. Mr.
Mocko confirmed that separate applications and checks had been filed. Discussion followed about application
numbers and it was decided to address Lot 14, 93 Brittany Lane as Application
#565 and would be discussed first.
Mr.
Mocko explained that the proposed plan included the preservation of all wetlands
on the site. The 100-year flood
limit and the wetlands lines have been identified and designated on the
plans. There will be a silt fence
installed to ensure that no work is done outside of the designated areas. In addition, there is a deed of open
space with an easement in favor of the Town. The applicant is observing a
limit-of-work line that is inside of the open space
easement.
Mr.
Askew noted that he has no outstanding issues with the
application.
A
motion was made by Todd Whitford, seconded by Candy Aleks and unanimously voted
to approve Dan Roulier & Associates, Inc.’s application #565 for a new house
in the upland review area at 93 Brittany Lane, Hall Hill
Estates.
g. Other
– Application #563, New House in Hall
Hill Estates, Subdivision (Lot 10) in Upland Review Area, 67 Brittany Lane, Dan
Roulier & Associates, Inc.
Environmental
Consultant Mike Mocko explained that the application is generic at this time
because there is no definitive footprint for the house. All work is to be done within the buffer
zone and they have identified the 100-year flood limit. The wetlands lines have been
determined.
A
conservation easement is delineated through the proposed back yard and the silt
fence is approximately 30 to 40 feet uphill from the
wetlands.
A
motion was made by Todd Whitford, seconded by Candy Alecks and unanimously voted
to approve Dan Roulier & Associates, Inc.’s application #563 for a new house
in the upland review area at 67 Brittany Lane, Hall Hill
Estates.
A
motion was made by Todd Whitford, seconded by Dan Fraro, and unanimously
approved to take Item a, New Business, out of
order.
IV. NEW
BUSINESS
a. Wetlands Application #565, ARH in Upland
Review Area, 23 Eleanor Road, Eleanor Road, LLC
Becky
Meier, Project Engineer from Design Professionals, spoke on behalf of the
applicant. The project involves the
22.5-acre parcel of land remaining from the 2 residential lot subdivision. They propose using a 10.5-acre portion
of the parcel for an age restricted housing development. The area is primarily deciduous woodland
and a 6.7-acre portion of wetlands is associated with a stream that runs north
to south.
The
applicant proposes a 26-foot wide private cul-de-sac approximately 875 feet long
extending from Eleanor Road. There
will be 17 units, 33 bedrooms total, serviced by public water and private septic
systems. The majority of the site
drains around the higher edges of the perimeter into a channel that drains to
the south. A small portion of the
runoff drains into the adjacent industrial area. To handle any increase in water runoff,
the applicant proposes a storm water pond.
The pond is designed to receive all of the runoff from the newly
developed areas via catch basins and yard drains, discharging into the storm
water pond and eventually into the channel. The storm water pond will treat the
water before allowing it to move into the channel and will have a maximum level
of about one foot. Plants and
grasses will be used to treat the water before it goes through a weir catch
basin to an energy dissipater. The
pond was designed to a 100-year storm event. A maintenance schedule has been included
with the plan.
A
1.9-acre portion of upland review area will be disturbed. Erosion control fencing will be
installed down gradient of all disturbed areas.
David
Askew noted that the plans have been received by staff, but have not yet been
thoroughly reviewed. He noted that
there is no fee structure for ARH’s currently in the regulations, but in the
past a fee was determined by charging the $180 base fee plus $45 per acre of
total disturbance. Ms. Meier will
get in touch with David Askew to take care of payment.
Dan
Fraro commented that he thought that Age Restricted Housing had to have public
sewer and not septic and he suggested that this be looked into further by the
applicanted.
III. OLD
BUSINESS (cont.)
f. Discussion: Possible Enforcement Action for Grower
Direct
David
Askew explained that at the last meeting he was asked pursue enforcement
action. Karl Walton, Joan
Formeister, and Mr. Askew met with the First Selectman after last month’s
meeting and pursuing the issue with the Town Attorney was discussed. Attorney Landolina’s recommendation was
that court action not be undertaken unless a Cease and Desist Order is first
issued.
Mr.
Askew spoke with Attorney Landolina to discuss the specifics of a potential
Cease and Desist order. He
recommended that if the discharge is going anywhere other than where it was
initially proposed in the application, then this would be an activity which the
Commission can require to cease because the applicant is not in compliance with
the original approval. Mr. Askew
stated that the Town Attorney has suggested that if the Commission so requests,
the next step would be to draft a Cease and Desist Order to be reviewed by Mr.
Landolina before it is served. If
Grower Direct does not comply with the Order, then additional enforcement action
would be warranted.
Leonard
Van Wingerden noted that the activities taking place on his site involve two
other individuals. He added that he
has done all the things he can that the Commission has asked him to do, but he
cannot force the other individuals to comply with the
regulations.
Mr.
Askew noted that erosion controls that were proposed as part of the approved
permit issued last December have not been maintained, including the stone berm
along the main access route. He
also noted that the sediment basin had not been constructed as proposed and that
erosion was occurring within the basin.
Silty discharge was noted from the pond in the last
rain.
Mr.
Van Wingerden noted that he met with Mr. Bealey, who showed him the affected
pond. Mr. Van Wingerden assured Mr.
Bealey that Mike Mocko would assess the situation and whatever damage caused by
the activities of Grower Direct would be repaired. He is planning to submit permit requests
for the pond dredging and repair once damages are evaluated and plans are
made.
Mr.
Van Wingerden has also written letters regarding the situation to both Herb
Holden and Bruce Wood, and has asked for their cooperation in remedying the
situation. Mr. Holden has built
swales as required and Mr. Van Wingerden believes that all work will be
completed on his property within a week.
Mike
Mocko submitted his monthly report, commenting that the focus has been on
eliminating any sediment. Cleaning
Mr. Bealey’s pond before the sediment issue is corrected would be
unwise.
The
gravel bank needs to be vegetated and it is his objective to trap all run off,
directing it to a temporary swale and then sending it to a better location,
while cleaning the water as it moves along. New floc logs will be
added.
Mr.
Askew asked for an updated site sketch, and Mr. Mocko will submit
one.
Mr.
Mocko added that this week they are working to resurface the road and to direct
stormwater into treatment areas.
They are providing bleed-offs at the edge of the road, which are directed
into vegetated areas.
IV. NEW
BUSINESS (cont.)
b. Review/Adopt 2007 Meeting
Dates
A
motion was made by Karl Walton, seconded by Todd Whitford and unanimously voted
to approve the 2007 Conservation Commission meeting dates as
proposed.
c. Other
– No other New Business was presented.
David Askew presented the
Inland Wetland Agent’s Report for the Commissioner’s
review.
Mr.
Askew reported that Eric Bedan has completed the required DEP classes, making
him eligible for designation as an authorized agent for the Commission. A motion was made by Karl Walton,
seconded by Todd Whitford and unanimously voted to designate Eric Bedan as an
authorized agent for the Conservation Commission and also to approve Mr. Askew’s
report as written.
A
motion was made by Karl Walton, seconded by Todd Whitford and unanimously voted
to approve the minutes of the October 4, 2006 Conservation Commission as
presented.
A
motion was made by Karl Walton, seconded by Dan Fraro and unanimously voted to
adjourn the November 1, 2006 Conservation meeting at 10:39
p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Lise
Wood, Secretary
Robin Timmons, Recording Secretary
MINUTES
ARE NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVAL AT A SUBSEQUENT
MEETING.