Loading...
2012-06-11 INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2012 A special meeting of the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Commission was called to order by Chairman Michael Balinskas at 7:05 p.m. on Monday, June 11, 2012 in Room 8 of the Berlin Town Hall, Berlin, CT. ATTENDANCE: Present: Chairman Michael Balinskas, Commissioners Marc Laviana, Michael Cassetta, Mark Rochette, and Richard Poudrier. Absent: Scott Skates. Staff: Art Simonian. PUBLIC HEARING Application 12-01W - Proposal by Carl and Patricia Ciarcia to construct an eight (8) lot subdivision, place fill, discharge drainage, and construct utilities, within and alongside, a wetland area on Lot 1/ Block 72 opposite #1324 Kensington Road. Chairman Balinskas reminded the public that this meeting is solely for the purpose of continuing the public hearing for Application 12-01W and collecting all final information within the time frame. William Root of Milone and MacBroom was present to discuss his review of the application. He submitted a detailed document addressing responses to the information that has been submitted by the Applicant. He also submitted a vernal pool assessment sheet from a Best Development Practices document to accompany his discussion of vernal pool characteristics. (These documents are all on file.) Some of the points of his discussion include: Page 3 - Mr. Root visited the site and found the boundaries/maps to be substantially correct, the wetland flagging that has been submitted are accurate. There is a pronounced “rill” that drains to Kensington Road. There is another wet depression north of Wetland B. It is similar in character but somewhat smaller with another discharge “rill”. Wetland B is small, not much of a wetland, but it is a wetland. It has interesting plants and water coming up from the trap rock. It is isolated and it would be rated fairly low. Wetland A should be treated as a Tier III (lowest category) vernal pool. Some years it is wetter than others. Mr. Root was interested to hear testimony from a resident that she use to skate in that area as a child. The wetland/vernal pool merits protection and Mr. Root feels that the engineer and applicant have indeed given an effort to protect that wetland, and applauds them for that. Page 4 - Mr. Root was asked about the affects of blasting on the wetlands, and concurs with the conclusions relative to the hydrology of Wetland A and Wetland B that blasting and ripping of the basalt bedrock will not likely alter the hydrologic budgets of the wetlands, although it is understood that Wetland B is proposed to be removed via grading. Page 5 – The grading plan is difficult to interpret along the ridgeline between Wetland A and the home sites. Even though the proposed loss of watershed is 4%, an alternative is proposed, possibly a retaining wall or reducing the setback from Kensington Road. Mr. Logan’s suggestion for mitigation in the original plan was a good one, but is no longer being considered. Alternative concepts to maintain watershed area to Wetland A include less grading behind the proposed homes. Suggestions were given more for the Zoning Commission review. Page 1 of 4 Page 7 point 9 – Mr. Root commented that the Statutes are written to help scrutinize the value of a wetland and it very difficult for an applicant to hurdle. The alternative “grouped housing” concept plan looked like a conceptual exercise and the applicant didn’t include financial information, but it is discussed as ideas are thrown around. Another concept apparently not explored would be to keep the proposed four private-access lots south of Wetland B with minor revisions and then cluster two, three, or four lots in the northern section of the property. This would essentially relocate proposed Lots 1-4 northward, avoiding impacts to Wetland B and also the watershed of Wetland A as much as possible. Page 8 point 10- Mr. Root again pointed out that Wetland B is small but is still a wetland. He liked Mr. Logan’s first mitigation concept but it has been changed for the better by enlarging Wetland A by 2,100 sf. within the trough that is feeding in to the north. The compensation package seems to be competent and well thought out. Commissioner Rochette questioned if there seems to be any impact on Wetland A. Mr. Root answered that during the construction phase it is possible, but in the long term, no. If approved, Milone and MacBroom suggested an early fall implementation to avoid possible impacts to vernal pool habitat utilization [in the spring] within Wetland A. Lastly, Page 10 – Mr. Root questioned why the erosion control barriers were placed so far away from the activity, and it is indicated in the Applicant’s report that the Commission wanted measures taken to prevent any unforeseen problems with blasting and large rocks moving about. A construction sequence should be provided. Chairman Balinskas requested clarification on the length of time needed for ecological monitoring. Mr. Root answered that the State and Federal requirements and Army Corp often require 5 to 10 year monitoring, but on a project of this size, it should be fine to stay within the 3 to 5 year timeframe (sometimes small bonds are taken out for the cost/guarantee of plantings). Attorney Furey was present for the Applicant. He commented on Mr. Root’s responses as follows: The applicant may agree or disagree with the characterizations of the vernal pool but will continue to offer preservation efforts for that area. In terms of amphibian migration, Mr. Logan has put his verbal testimony into a written response for the record. Comment 4 regarding the 4% loss of watershed to Wetlands A is outside of the jurisdictional areas, but they have decreased it from 15% to 4%. There are several comments which pertain more to Zoning, but certainly they are willing to work on additional measures with an engineer regarding the grading and slope near the vertical rock faces. Mr. Root’s suggestion to move the driveways forward would increase the impact on Kensington Road. They felt 4% was acceptable and would not affect the hydrology. Chairman Balinskas clarified that the Commission does have jurisdiction over the watershed in the area even beyond a 50’ review area. Attorney Furey continued that there is zero impact of driveway runoff to Kensington Road. He brought document samples of Covenant Restrictions typically used for developments like this and explained the document. Mr. Logan also included an informational packet that would be given to the property owners. The micropools would be installed with the grading before homeowners move in. Infiltration units have been designed and submitted to Mr. Horbal. Other items relate to subdivision approvals. In terms of the alternatives, a second set of conceptual revisions have been submitted but grouped or cluster housing is still not feasible for this development. George Logan, REMA Consultant for the Applicant, presented a document that verified his Amphibian Survey (previously discussed verbally with the Commission) regarding Wetland B. There is nothing special in that area. Mr. Logan explained the lack of feasibility of clustering. He doesn’t have a problem monitoring the area for five years (as previously discussed). Issues with Page 2 of 4 freezing- micropools are glorified rain gardens and through design will never freeze if they are infiltrating correctly. Mr. Logan also commented on the standards for slopes being 3 to 1 but that is if there is soil, and this area is rock face. Commissioner Laviana questioned what happens to the water drainage on the south end of the property. Mr. Logan answered that it continues on down to the next property and then a channel on to a pond. Attorney Furey added that nothing will change from the existing flows as they currently exist. Commissioner Rochette questioned the possibility of a natural berm/dam forming with debris build- up and could the edge of the pooled area expand and contract with events. Mr. Logan explained that it would take a large event to make a dam area that would retain water for any period of time. Jack Guilmartin, JL Surveying, explained that Mr. Horbal had requested that the plans include some additional notes. One regarding storm drain recharge for pervious and impervious areas will be submitted for each plot. Other notes are placed on the plan regarding the corners to be pinned and grading specifications, etc.. There are notes regarding Deed Restrictions and Tree line locations. George’s signature was put on the boundary map. Stockpiling notes placed for construction purposes. No one area will be opened out for long and debris would be taken away as work is occurring. Mr. Guilmartin further discussed the lack of feasibility of cluster or group housing development. He pointed out that most of the applications that come before the Commission deal with water flowing downhill, but the uniqueness of this project is that the wetlands are on the other side of the ridge. Attorney Furey summarized that the north end of the property cannot be clustered. To accommodate the loss of Wetland B, it is proposed to enlarge Wetland A and create a Conservation Easement alongside Wetland A in the rear of the property. We have no problem accommodating a five year monitoring plan and providing a bond for the plantings (as suggested by Mr. Root). Regarding the off-site drainage, the drainage chambers will be designed specifically for each home and are designed for a 25 year storm event. In terms of the woodchip berm, snow fence, and silt fence for sedimentation controls, we were previously asked by the Commission to make them further away for more control. Chairman Balinskas commented that it was going to be further down slope to catch possible larger rocks that might roll. Attorney Furey replied that they can accommodate the requests. Art Simonian, Town Engineer, questioned future sewer line access as far as maintenance is concerned when possibly having to work around the wetlands. Attorney Furey suggested that language in an easement could address the matter. Commissioner Rochette questioned the consequences of a ruptured sewer line. Mr. Guilmartin explained how the sewer mains are installed by today’s standards and Mr. Simonian added that a cleanout is placed every 250’ so lines don’t have to be totally excavated anymore. Grinder units will be installed in each house. These items will be addressed with the Water Control Commission. Commissioner Rochette questioned the language of the Covenant in Section 20 – who is responsible for enforcement. Attorney Furey answered that they are merely trying to offer tools of agreement regarding the use of pesticides etc. Commissioner Rochette did not understand that the Developer has the responsibility to enforce it, but at the same time is not to be held responsible. Attorney Furey answered that this is a Best Management Practice for the owner to follow. Mr. Simonian added that the homeowner will be held responsible for upholding the information on the deed. Attorney Furey added further explanation of the Covenant. In closing, Attorney Furey commented that Milone and MacBroom has commended the Applicant for a good, thought-out mitigation plan. Secondly, the Applicant doesn’t feel that it is necessary to lose several homes in order to try to cluster, it is not feasible. Thirdly the sewer line has already been Page 3 of 4 moved to avoid the impact to the wetlands and feel that they have done the best they can with the mitigation plan. Attorney Dennis Kern, for the Berlin Land Trust as Intervener, submitted a letter and alternative plan for the record and discussed that submission. He felt that there is value in a cluster development because it could lead to a homeowners association and it could control the conservation easement and covenants and restrictions. A simpler development plan would save Wetlands B and the water shed by using the same approach as the Developer but it would eliminate one lot. A Conservation Easement would not be adequate to protect the woodlands so that is problematic. The neighbors have come out time and again to ask the Commission to save the wetlands. Chairman Balinskas questioned the division of the lots on the proposed plan. Attorney Kern answered that it is a conceptual drawing, just as the other two alternative proposals that the applicant has shown. The Land Trust feels Wetland B should be saved. Sarah Caliandri of 19 Butternut Lane stated that her family was the former owner of the property and for the record prudence and reasonableness has come up a lot during the hearing. When the Caliandri’s sold the property, they were under the impression there would be one single house. The Ciarcia’s bought the property for much less than what he plans to make on the development. Attorney Furey commented that it is irrelevant (to the standard of law) how much the Ciarcia’s paid for the property and he has invested in solid expertise for the development of this property. Attorney Furey continued to explain the use of easements and covenants of restriction on the property owner. They are nice tools. Chairman Balinskas questioned the feasibility of a homeowners association for perpetuity. Attorney Furey answered that insurance is problematic for associations. Covenants are covered under homeowner’s policies. George Logan wanted to comment on the Intervener’s proposal. There are a couple of problems. They are not protecting the water shed of Wetland B, half would be eliminated. The second is the sewer service going through that open space during construction. There are knolls in the area. Separate sewer lines are not a good alternative either. Chairman Balinskas summarized that all the information has been received for the record by the Applicant, a conceptual alternative and testimony by the Intervener, and the information by Milone and MacBroom as a third party review. Last call for information and testimony. A motion was made by Commissioner Cassetta to close the Public Hearing for Application 12-01W. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rochette and unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Cassetta moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:22 p.m.. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rochette. The motion was unanimously approved. Lecia Paonessa Recording Secretary Page 4 of 4