SOMERS,
CT 06071
WEDNESDAY,
DECEMBER 6, 2006
TOWN
HALL – 7:00 P.M.
a.
Wetlands Application #558, Driveway Crossing
Wetlands for
Single Family Residence, 99 White Oak Road, Richard A. McCullough, Inc.
Builders
Chairman Joan Formeister
brought the public hearing, a continuation of the hearing opened on November, 1,
2006, to order at 7:00 p.m.
Environmental Consultant Mike Mocko presented revised plans showing the
proposed conservation easement, as discussed during the first portion of the
public hearing. The easement
includes the wetland and some adjacent upland area. It consists of 30 acres from the subject
parcel, as well as 4.23 acres of adjoining land from Lot 4, and 6 acres from Lot
3.
Attorney Joseph Capossela
spoke on behalf of the applicant noting that the conservation easement consists
of 40 acres, leaving an approximately 32-acre house site for
development.
Karl Walton questioned the
size of turnaround requested by the Fire Marshal, to be sure that it was in
accordance with Fire Department requirements. It was noted that the size specified in
the Fire Marshall’s letter was 50 feet in length and 15 feet wide. Attorney Capossela stated that it was
the applicant’s intent to meet the requirements and the Fire Marshall. It was concluded that the turnaround
could be modified during construction and that the change in the size of the
turnaround would not affect wetlands, provided the additional area is on the
“upland end” of the turnaround.
Wetlands Agent David Askew
asked if there were any provisions for handling stormwater runoff from the
driveway along the area through the wetland. Mr. Mocko stated that the runoff from
the driveway will not be concentrated, but rather disbursed to the driveway
edges. The road is crowned and
there is adequate shoulder to handle any flow. Any potential impact is likely to be
minor.
Mr.
Mocko also explained that a 100-year drainage analysis was done and no part of
the driveway was shown as being inundated.
Mr.
Capossela submitted photos taken by Mr. McCullough on both November 9, 2006 and
today. They were of the driveway
area, with the centerline flagged, and no flooding was visible. The photos taken November 9th
were taken a few days after a significant rainstorm. Mr. McCullough commented that the photos
submitted by an audience member at the previous portion of the public hearing
did not show the area where the driveway is proposed. Total rainfall for the month of November
was 5 inches, which is about an inch above average.
Deanise Shewokis, 61 White
Oak Road,
submitted
photos taken in early November of the area. She noted that there was standing
water. She also presented photos of
property at 72 White Oak Road containing what she determined to be a vernal
pool, and where there is standing water.
The photos included a mallard duck family.
She
also submitted information from the EPA about what sand and salt does to the
environment and she noted that the Town and State return to pick up the sand and
salt that is left at the side of the road.
She also submitted a letter from Jim De Lorge, 69 White Oak
Road, which noted his
opposition to the application.
She
expressed concern that the culvert going under the proposed driveway will
deteriorate over time due to year-round water flows. If fire trucks were to attempt to cross
the driveway above the culvert, the culver may collapse and the trucks may fall
through, injuring the firefighters and/or damaging the trucks. Mr. Walton noted that culvert design had
to meet the standards of the Fire Chief, who has addressed this issue in his
response to the application.
Ms.
Shewokis also asked about the need to have a buffer zone along the state prison
property. Mr. Askew stated that he
is not aware of such a requirement.
Notice to adjacent towns is required when the project is within 500 of
the town line.
She
also was concerned because previous minutes stated that Mr. McCullough owns the
extra land that he has proposed to buy from Pease, but when she checked at the
Town Hall, the Town Clerk stated that there has been no land transfer. She commented that Mr. McCullough does
not own the land, but only has a 50-foot easement and the minutes should reflect
that.
Attorney Capossela noted
that the photos submitted by Ms. Shewokis do not necessarily depict a vernal
pool and that he felt the photos were not relevant to the driveway or the
application.
Anthony Liquori, 20 Valley
View Drive,
spoke to Mr.
McCullough’s character as a builder and as a neighbor.
A
motion was made by Karl Walton, seconded by Lise Wood and unanimously approved
to close the public hearing at 7:29 p.m.
Chairman
Joan Formeister called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Henry Broer, Joan Formeister,
Dan Fraro, Karl Walton, Lise Wood and Alternate Member Daniel Fraro (seated for
Todd Whitford), were present and constituted a quorum. Wetlands Agent David Askew and Wetland
Agent 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
Mr.
Askew presented copies of the regulations showing the section for Criteria for
Decision. He also presented a list
of possible motions and findings for the application. He explained that since this is a public
hearing and the Commission previously determined the project to be a significant
activity, if a motion is made to approve, the Commission needs to state on the
record that there is not a feasible and prudent alternative to the
application. He also noted that if
the Commission decides to deny based on there being prudent and feasible
alternatives, it needs to be stated on the record, and in writing what those
alternatives are so that the applicant is afforded the opportunity to re-submit
an alternative proposal. If a
decision is made to deny the application based on wetland impacts, and is not
based on alternatives presented, then the record should reflect that
finding.
A
motion was made by Joan Formeister and seconded by Lise Wood to approve Richard
A. McCullough Builders, Inc.’s Wetlands Application #558 for a driveway crossing
wetlands for a single family residence at 99 White Oak Road, with the following
findings:
1. Based on the record, a feasible and
prudent alternative to the driveway crossing does not exist. Alternative access to the developable
area is limited to a longer wetland crossing with access from Hall Hill
Road. The applicant has
demonstrated that the proposed crossing is at the narrowest location possible
within the wetland. The no-build
alternative does not allow development of a large area of upland within the
lot.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that
construction of the driveway will not alter existing drainage
patterns.
3. The loss of wetlands will be mitigated
at a 1:1 ratio in the upland area of the property.
4. Additional mitigation is proposed by a
conservation easement placed on the remaining wetlands on the lot and wetlands
on adjacent parcels east of the subject parcel. The conservation easement will protect
the wetlands from exempt activities such as logging, grazing and
agriculture.
Mr.
Fraro asked why the original application was denied. Mr. Askew explained that the previous
application did not pass because the Commission felt that the impact to the
wetlands was too significant. He
noted that this application provides a different mitigation
proposal.
The
motion carried by a vote of 4 in favor, 1 opposed (Walton), and 0
abstentions.
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 spoke on behalf of the applicants, explaining that the purpose of the
application is to remove road sand and debris from the pond and inlet stream,
and stream bank restoration on eroded areas. The plan includes details for work to be
done in the stream channel with riprap and rock re-enforcement, as well as
details for channeling water and allowing for continuous flow to the brook
during construction. This includes
a berm that sends the brook water around the pond during construction and a sump
to be utilized for dewatering during construction and re-filling of the pond
when complete.
The
pond construction involves two fore-bays to trap sand. They have included a pond bottom profile
with the application showing existing and proposed grades. The procedure will take place during low
flow period. They have also
included re-vegetation plan and erosion control plans. Mr. Mocko noted that there is
approximately 600 cubic-yards of material to be removed from the pond and
another 100 yards in the streambed.
Mr.
Askew commented that the brook is loaded with trout so special care must be
taken to prevent sedimentation and to maintain streamflow during the entire
construction period. The erosion
control plan is paramount because this is a sensitive area. He recommends a pre-construction meeting
between Mike Mocko, the contractor and himself, as well as daily supervision by
Mr. Mocko and/or someone equally qualified. Mr. Askew added that downstream flow
must be maintained during the entire operation, including
re-filling.
Mr.
Askew will discuss the application with the Public Works Department because one
end of the project may be in a Town drainage easement and Mr. Askew wants to be
sure that there is no conflict. The
applicant noted that the pipe going from one of the catch basins to the pond is
breaking down and the Town may want to repair the pipe at the same time this
work is being done.
A
motion was made by Karl Walton, seconded by Dan Fraro, and unanimously voted to
approve Driscoll and Gibbs’ Wetlands Application #559 for dredging of the pond
and stream inlet and stream bank stabilization at 9 Somerset Lane/392 Turnpike
Road and 5 Somerset Lane, with the conditions that 1) there be a pre-construction meeting
with Mike Mocko, David Askew and the contractor, 2) there be daily supervision by Mr.
Mocko, or someone comparable, during construction, 3) the flow out of the pond be
maintained during construction, and
4) the work is completed during low-flow periods.
c.
Discussion/Possible Decision:
Wetlands Application #564, ARH in Upland Review Area, 23 Eleanor Road,
Eleanor Road, LLC
Becky
Meier, Project Engineer from Design Professionals, reviewed the information
previously presented, explaining that age-restricted housing is proposed for a
site containing 10.5 acres. The
property is a portion of a 22.5-acre parcel located on the western side of a
stream associated with a 6.7–acre parcel of wetland.
The
wetlands were flagged in 1987 by Highland Soils and verified in May, 2006. The existing Eleanor Road will be
extended 875 feet. The applicant
proposes 17 units (33 bedrooms) serviced by public water and private septic
systems.
The
site drains from northeast to southwest, with a small portion of one area
draining overland. Storm sewers and
yard drains are shown on the plans directing water into a storm water treatment
pond before discharging into a 19-inch pipe. The riprap pad of approximately 500
square feet is the only disturbance proposed in the wetlands. There is no alternative to wetland
impact, due to the elevation of the basin and discharge pipe. Approximately 1.9 acres of upland review
area will be disturbed and all grading will be kept at least 50 feet away from
the wetlands.
Erosion
control will include silt fence downgrade of any disturbed areas and around
stockpiled material, a construction entrance pad, use of the storm water pond as
a temporary sediment basin during construction and seeding and mulching of the
disturbed areas as soon as possible once work is
completed.
Mr.
Askew asked if the pond will be permanently inundated. According to the 100-year flow analysis,
Ms. Meier noted a maximum depth of 3 feet of water for 20 minutes. For the 10-year flow there is
approximately a foot of water. She
is expecting that because of the good soils most of the water will
infiltrate. A worst-case scenario
would be 6 to 8 inches of water after large storm events.
A
30-foot landscape buffer of trees will be included at the rear of the
units. An association will maintain
the property.
Mr.
Askew noted that there is no need to permanently delineate the wetland since the
land will be held in-common.
A
motion was made by Karl Walton, seconded by Lise Wood, and unanimously voted to
approve Eleanor Road, LLc’s Wetlands Application #564 for Age Restricted Housing
in an upland review area at 23 Eleanor Road with the condition that there be a
pre-construction meeting.
d.
Other
– There was no other Old Business.
IV. NEW
BUSINESS
a.
Wetlands Application #566, NRCS Stream Restoration, 232 Stafford Road
(Property of Fedorowich), Town of Somers
David
Askew presented plans for the Town of Somers, noting that this is the first of 3
projects and it is federally funded.
This property is on the north side of Grower Direct Farms and south of
Stafford Road. It was one of the
areas flooded in October 2005. The
flooding of the stream cracked the foundation of Mr. Fedorowich’s garage. Grade control riprap structures tied
into the banks will be installed across the area preventing down-cutting of the
stream.
Mr.
Askew has no concerns or outstanding issues with the
project.
b.
Determination of Permitted Use of Right, Clearing for Pasture, Hurlburt
Road, Hurlburt Road, LLC
David Palmberg from William
R. Palmberg and Associates Surveyors, and John Belsky Manager of Lindy Farms
spoke regarding a proposed pasture on Hurlburt Road, which was previously part
of a farm. Some of the land was
formerly used as a vegetable farm and they are in the process of converting it
for use as a horse pasture. They
are seeking input on a possible project entailing work within a wooded area at
the north end of Hurlburt Road. Two
intermittent watercourses have been recently identified, as well as a large area
of wetland. They have met with
David Askew at the site and are considering clearing an area along the roadway,
leaving a vegetated island in the middle.
Additionally, they are considering clearing and re-vegetating an area of
the trees to make it safer for horse crossing. They would maintain the drainage course
with a swale, using a geo-textile fabric.
A portion of the area would remain wooded and the entire area would be
fenced.
Mr.
Askew noted that work within the wetland involving re-grading is not permitted
as of right because it constitutes “reclamation of wetland”, a regulated
activity. In addition, the
applicant has proposed stream modifications that do not appear to meet the
definition of permitted uses. Once
they get the delineation of the wetlands completed, they can start clearing
within the upland areas. Other work
will have to wait until permits are obtained.
c.
Other
– No other New Business was presented.
David Askew presented the
Inland Wetland Agent’s Report for the Commissioner’s review. A motion was made by Lise Wood, seconded
by Karl Walton and unanimously voted to approve the
report.
Mike Mocko presented his
monthly report on Grower Direct Farms.
The roadway was reconstructed with processed gravel eliminating a large
problem with tracking of mud.
A
bill was received from the Journal Inquirer for the public notices in the amount
of $251.84. A motion was made by
Lise Wood, seconded by Dan Fraro and unanimously voted to pay the bill as
presented.
A
general notice was also received from the DEP.
A
change was made to Page 1, second to last paragraph: The word “would” was stricken. Two changes were made to Page 5: Item IV.a. #565 changed to
#564 and Item IV, a.:
“applicanted” was changed to “applicant”. A motion was made by Karl Walton,
seconded by Dan Fraro and unanimously voted to approve the minutes as
amended.
A
motion was made by Karl Walton, seconded by Lise Wood, and unanimously voted to
adjourn the December 6, 2006 Conservation meeting at 8:50
p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Lise
Wood, Secretary
Robin Timmons, Recording Secretary
MINUTES
ARE NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVAL AT A SUBSEQUENT
MEETING.