2012-06-05
INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 5, 2012
A meeting of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission was called to order by Chairman
Michael Balinskas at 7:05 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, 2012 in Room 8 of the Berlin Town Hall,
Berlin, CT.
ATTENDANCE:
Present: Chairman Michael Balinskas, Commissioners Marc Laviana, Scott Skates, Mark Rochette,
and Richard Poudrier. Absent: Michael Cassetta. Staff: James Horbal.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the May 3, 2012 special meeting were previously distributed for review in the
Commissioner’s packets. The minutes were approved by common consent.
AUDIENCE OF CITIZENS:
None
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 is a continued public hearing and the Commission
will hear the Applicant, the Intervener, and the Public tonight.
Attorney Furey was present for the Applicant and reported that they revised the plans with the
comments from the Commission and submitted the information to the Town and to Mr. Root from
Milone and MacBroom for review. Mr. Root indicated that he would be at the meeting, but is not
present tonight. Attorney Furey believes they are substantially prepared to address the Commission.
One of the first things discussed was a feasible and prudent alternative to this application. Attorney
Furey submitted for the record the previously sited Tarullo vs. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses
Commission, 263 Conn. 572 May, 2003 case and quoted a section that he feels is overlooked. In
Samperi v. Inland Wetlands Agency, supra, 226 Conn. 592-93, we established that it is sufficient for
a commission to consider as many alternatives as necessary until the balance between economic
development and wetlands and watercourses protection has been achieved. “[F]or a wetlands permit
to issue the local inland wetlands agency must determine that the alternative presented by the
applicant is not only sound from an engineering standpoint but is also economically reasonable in
light of the social benefits derived from the activity…An alternative will be deemed to be a feasible
and prudent alternative only if it meets both criteria.” The developer also is not required to submit
plans or drawings for all alternatives proposed. Attorney Furey also added that ‘prudent’ involves a
consideration of economic reasonableness. Attorney Furey further explained the attempts of the
Applicant to provide alternatives. From the first meeting, they have moved all activity out of the area
of Wetland A. There is no impact. We have eliminated the limited berm in the area of Wetlands A.
As a proposed mitigation on Wetland B, which is a 1,000 puddle, a double area near Wetlands A will
be discussed by Mr. Logan. Further, we have extended the proposed Conservation Easement to the
end of the property which is basically just a good management practice, because we could. It
Page 1 of 12
permanently preserves a larger area of the wetlands area. 4.33 acres plus an additional .8 acres, so on
a site of 12 acres, almost half is proposed as a conservation area. Attorney Furey provided a format
for a permanent easement that would be placed on the land records showing what activity would be
allowed by the property owner. Placards would be provided. Chairman Balinskas questioned who
would be responsible for maintaining this easement long term, not necessarily the Town. Attorney
Furey answered that the property owner would be responsible for implementing the easement.
Nothing but debris would be able to be removed. This plan has worked in surrounding communities.
Consistent with the Commissions request, the homes have been moved forward. The hydrologist
reviewed the impacts. Detailed drainage reports have been submitted by the Applicant (but not
commented on) by Mr. Root, as of yet. Rain gardens have been placed as best management practices
because we could; they are a Best Management Practice and “an overkill”. The use of pesticides are
not easily controlled, but guidelines will be provided to future homeowners.
George Logan was invited to speak regarding the Mitigation of Wetland A. (Report submitted to Mr.
Horbal and Mr. Root – on file). We have chosen to go the more traditional route. The site will
occupy roughly a 2,200 sq.ft. portion of the moist forested uplands to the north of Wetland A. The
targeted habitat shall be a seasonally to temporarily flooded forested wetland. Soils are moderately
well drained and clearly have favorable hydrology for wetland reaction by means of shallow soil
excavation, to be followed by replacement with salvaged high quality topsoil, and installation of
plantings, only shrubs, no trees will be planted, to create a “forest clearing” that favors floristic
diversity and attracts a variety of wildlife, including invertebrates. The created wetland will be
graded as a shallow depression with uniform depth to the seasonal high water table, about six to ten
inches deep. Surficial microtopography will allow limited seasonal and temporary ponding, with
lateral capillary action into higher elevation areas. Shrub clusters will occupy no more than 30% of
the total area. The goal is to create habitat, with comparable functions to that of the existing natural
wetland to the south (wetland A), and also be more floristically diverse and functioning than Wetland
B, which would be disturbed by development. These functions include wildlife and insect support,
aesthetics, production export via the food chain, especially nectar, invertebrates, and small mammals.
Wetland creation will increase the size of plant and insect metapopulations on the property. A variety
of nectar and wildlife food sources will also include species suited to these conditions, but not yet
present at the site. Attorney Furey questioned how they could be sure this would work? Mr. Logan
assures that barring acts of God, if he is involved in the project, it will succeed. Chairman Balinskas
questioned what could go wrong. Mr. Logan answered that missing the target hydrology and letting
invasive species go uncontrolled. There is a customized plan for the site. He and Mr. Ciarcia have
worked together in the past to create wetland-type areas. This is a two-year time span. Chairman
Balinskas asked how many trees would be removed. Mr. Logan answered 13 and some saplings;
some root systems will be left untouched. We’re incorporating some boulders. This creation is an
enhancement, a net gain. The Army Corp has a 93 page guidance document that is used to
implement a wetland area.
Attorney Furey also mentioned that the Intervener suggested that an open space cluster development
be implemented. This is to conserve 30% of the site. There is no real benefit to this plan. Mr.
Horbal commented that he doesn’t see the grading numbers on the plan. Mr. Guilmartin explained
they are not shown. Commissioner Rochette offered a couple of suggestions, but there is no
advantage to this plan. Attorney Furey commented that they are not obligated to provide statistics
and plans for all the alternatives. We have provided three sets of plans and explore using an open
space subdivision. Chairman Balinskas summarized that the Commission is still looking at the same
Page 2 of 12
alternative revised. Attorney Furey explained and summarized their revisions from the beginning of
the hearing and feel they have gone beyond what is legally expected.
Attorney Furey summarized the comments from Mr. Root (Milone & MacBroom) for the third party
review. Mr. Logan answered concerns from Mr. Root requesting an amphibian search. Mr. Logan
found frogs everywhere but no amphibians. Three were found: fingernail clams, mosquito larvae, and
worms. The data was sent to Mr. Root. Mr. Root received the Hydrologist report and will study.
The force mains and sewers are not applicable to Wetlands and Chairman Balinskas does not feel
necessary to address. Attorney Furey commented on the micro-pools. The ownership would be on
the property owner. The drywell systems have been removed from the plan but chamber systems
have been incorporated for each home based on the size and area. These are in the drainage plans but
Chairman Balinskas would like to see the notes on the plans. Mr. Horbal questioned (from Mr. Roots
comments) the test pits for the micro pools/rain gardens. Mr. Logan commented that the chamber
systems will be engineered and do not need testing. The rain gardens (from existing soils) will test
fine (from his experience with this type of soil). Mr. Root’s concern for involvement with the Army
Corp. is not necessary concerning a vernal pool and its characteristics. Mr. Root’s comment about a
ten year ecological management is not understood. Chairman Balinskas does not want the town to be
held responsible in the long term. This must be straightened out. Mr. Logan will monitor for three
years. Attorney Furey clarified that the town will not be held responsible but would enforce
encroachment violations. The drainage calculations are included with the information. Mr. Root
commented on the sedimentation control. Attorney Furey answered that there would be silt fencing,
wood chips and snow fencing. Stockpiling questions from Mr. Root. Attorney Furey answered that
there would be nothing over 70’ open at one time, and there are provisions in place. There is a multi-
phase plan in place. Sewer trench easements are not applicable to Wetlands.
Attorney Furey wanted to address the Intervener concerns geared toward the sewer line impact
through the wetland originally and cluster development feasibility. Attorney Furey addressed the
revisions. We feel that it we have done sufficient changes and the more we give, the more they want
similar to the story Give A Mouse A Cookie, nothing will be good enough. No expert testimony
given on their behalf. The blasting was addressed and the hydrology report was given. The clustering
of the subdivision is not practical and would cause impacts to the wetlands.
Commissioner Skates commented that Mr. Root seemed to be looking for officially stamped site plan
prints. Mr. Guilmartin answered that the plans will have the seal and authorized signatures.
Attorney Dennis Kern for the Intervener commented that he indeed feels he is chasing cookies, as
needed. There is no question that the engineers have indicated that Wetlands B will be destroyed.
Attorney Kern questioned the term attenuation. Mr. Logan said it should be compensatory mitigation
which in this context means creation instead of restoration. Attny Kern questioned the watershed
associated with Wetland B and being “a puddle”. Mr. Logan explained the function of the watershed
in the area. We’re looking at a wetlands that was created thousands of years ago and has a watershed
there. A watershed is not a wetland, but it is within the area of review and indirectly effected by
activity within the area. In terms of creating a wetland, a watershed will be shared with the existing
wetland. Attny Kern questioned the long-term effects of trees in the area. Mr. Logan answered that it
is all a net gain now and over time. Chairman Balinskas summarized that this wetland creation will
be beneficial by perpetuity. Attny Kern commented that the cluster alternative has been cobbled
together and is not feasible. “Dead on arrival”. Look at the front yards of all these parcels (on the site
plans handed out tonight). Zoning requires 125 feet. 151’ largest, 127’ lowest on lot 1, you could
build around the wetland by tightening up the frontage, put them closer to the road. There is a
reasonable and prudent alternative to taking up Wetlands B and its watershed. It might result in the
Page 3 of 12
loss of one lot if you tighten up the lots. Put in seven lots and still save Wetlands B. The Land Trust
does not want it destroyed.
Public Comments:
Robert Bird, 1270 Kensington Road, appreciates the time that the Commission takes to listen to the
Intervener and the Public. He has one issue that needs to be addressed. More information needs to
be obtained from Mr. Root before any decisions can be made, and those comments should be
available to the public for their review as well. Dr. Bird addressed the information given by Attny
Furey tonight. There is some improvement but much more is needed. Some of Mr. Logan’s
successes/failures were used as an example. Chairman Balinskas added for the record that Mr. Logan
backed his professionalism with the facts of his experience rates. Dr. Bird felt that Connecticut
Statutes doesn’t like creation of wetlands as a form of mitigation, it’s a last resort. Again, Chairman
Balinskas felt that Mr. Logan explained why the hydrology of this area is so important. The
Chairman doesn’t want conflicting views. Dr. Bird suggested a guaranteed success rate of total
avoidance of the wetlands. Diversity is a value. The invasive species is not always a problem. The
houses can be maneuvered to avoid the wetlands in the area. Dr. Bird would like a chance to further
study any other submitted information on the application before a final decision is made by the
Commission.
Heidi Perks, 1111 Kensington Road, regarding restrictions on individuals when they purchase the
property and did the owner know about those restrictions when he purchased the property. Chairman
Balinskas answered that the prior knowledge of the property limitations has not previously come
before the Commission.
Attorney Furey gave some closing remarks. We have gone to great lengths to offer mitigation plans.
To lose even one lot is not feasible to provide for the preservation of an 1,100 sq. ft. rock sink given
the realities of the development of this site.
Mr. George Logan stated that Dr. Bird brings some great book knowledge with him, but Mr. Logan’s
work is based on working knowledge from the private sector. He is an expert in his field, and Dr.
Bird is not.
Attorney Furey reminded the Commission that a great deal of information has been received and
comments have not been fully studied, so he would request a special meeting before the deadline of
June 15, 2012.
The applicant spoke to the public and the Commission (included with authorization by Mr. Ciarcia).
My name is Carl Ciarcia,
I presently live in Berlin and have now for over 50 years. I've owned Absolute Auto Center in
Berlin for over 29 years, and have 3 other properties in Berlin that I pay taxes on. I have been a
proud and contributing citizen of this town for my entire life and now I am looking to build my
retirement here. The project in question is not only a subdivision, it's where my wife and I want to
build our retirement home; it is our intention and hope that the 1st house built is going to be our
primary residence. I've raised my family here, ran my business here for almost 30 years, and now I
am looking to retire here.
In order to make the development more pleasing to the neighborhood and environmentally friendly,
we are going to be putting a large portion of the property into a conservation easement. This would
mean that the property behind Ms. Donaroma and her neighbors would not be seeing much, if any,
of the development.
I have always believed that if you work hard, be honest, and do the right thing, everything will
work out. I have built a successful business reputation based upon dealing fairly and honestly with
people. During this entire process I have been completely sincere, honest and forth coming with any
and all information. Unfortunately, I do not feel those opposed to the development have dealt with
Page 4 of 12
us fairly in this process. Mr. Jack Guilmartin has been coming to these meetings as a professional
on a regular basis for the past ten years. He has expressed his dismay at the amount of scrutiny
this project has been given as compared to others when this project has such a minimal impact on
wetlands. I have spent thousands and thousands of dollars have hiring the best experts to design
the project, assure we are acting responsibly, and assure we have acted in a reasonable and
prudent manner in our design as required by statute. There has been no evidence presented
inconsistent with the experts that I have retained.
Attorney Kern has used the banner, reputation and resources of the Berlin Land Trust to
intervene in this matter. I have researched the last five years of your commission meetings and
notes. I found no instances where the Land Trust has intervened before this commission despite the
fact that many applications or proposals have been much larger in scope and had a more significant
and direct impacts on wetlands. I sincerely hope that Attorney Kern is not doing this because his
daughter lives across the street.
Attorney Kern filed this intervener petition admittedly without even knowing anything about my
proposal. Without seeing a plan, walking the site, or gathering any facts. Since that initial meeting
we have been here multiple times and Attorney Kern and the Land Trust have produced no scientific
evidence or facts to dispute what my team of professionals have stated about the minimal impact on
the wetlands and the design measures to protect Wetland “A”.
Other than conjecture and speculation, no one has produced any credible evidence to counter
the conclusions of the experts that I have brought before you. Attorney Kern’s son in law, Dr. Bird,
was wrong when he told you that wetlands mitigation is never done correctly and does not work. I
am proud to say that the mitigation that I did 12 years ago in conjunction with Angeli Court was, and
still is, very successful. I came before you then with a small subdivision off Orchard Road that had a
much more significant impact on wetlands which among other impacts, required a stream crossing.
That mitigation plan was designed by Mr. Logan and I did everything that this commission asked of
me. I created several nice homes for Berlin families and added to the town’s tax base without
harming the environment. In fact, the Army Corp of Engineers was involved in that project and at its
conclusion I was complimented by the Army Corp representative for doing a commendable job in a
very sensitive area. I have pictures and proof of how well that mitigation effort worked and still
works.
I was initially hesitant to make these remarks, but I have been stalled, delayed and forced to
spend five times more than what I should have spent given the scope of the project and the minimal
impact on the wetlands. I have always done right by Berlin when it comes to building and supporting
the community. I pay attention to what goes on with land use boards and commissions in Berlin and
in surrounding towns. Your responsibility is to reasonably balance individual property rights and the
goals of the statute related to wetlands to allow development that is harmonious with the
environment. My proposal does this. I spent a lot of effort and money coming up with the best plan
that has the least negative impact on the environment and the wetlands, while still allowing me to
develop my property. The importance of individual property rights is critically important to all of us in
this room. At one point some developer or builder cleared the land and cut down trees to make
room for the houses that Ms. Donaroma and Dr. Bird live in. No one minds the land being cleared or
the trees coming down when their house was built, but everyone complains when the trees come
down to build the next house down the line. I appreciate the important work that this commission
does to protect our town and I have always come before you in a respectful, professional and
cooperative manner. I have never been here because of a violation. I just ask that I get treated in a
professional and fair manner in return, and get a decision that is based on the evidence and the law.
I appreciate the neighbors concerns, and I have retained very competent professionals to design a
responsible subdivision. When you apply the statutory criteria to this plan, act consistently, and in
the responsible manner you have in the past, my plan as amended should be approved. Thank you.
Mr. Ciarcia submitted pictures of mitigation projects with previous success with Mr. Logan.
Page 5 of 12
Dr. Bird requested closing remarks. Public vs. Private, Small vs. Large. What makes this project
different from others? Book Smarts vs. Expertise. He commended Mr. Ciarcia for speaking up
tonight. He should participate.
Attorney Kern, as Intervener, this has nothing to do with his daughter living across the street. This is
not to be personal. Whoever lives across the street is directly impacted and should be represented.
Sharon Gallo, 1461 Kensington Road, wondered what qualifies a person to be an expert. Chairman
Balinskas answered that there is no real recipe but one becomes specialized in a field and becomes
educated in a field, earning the right to become a professional. The Commission is also charged with
the responsibility of discerning expertise and making a proper decision.
Elizabeth Hrubiec, 1662 Kensington Road, questioned if the Army Corp of Engineers would
automatically come in to help the Town out to decide if the land should be developed or not?
Chairman Balinskas answered no. It is the Applicant’s burden to prove that the property is buildable.
Ms. Hrubiec questioned that there are no vernal pools on the property? Chairman Balinskas
answered that there are no expert opinions regarding the existence of vernal pool characteristics. Ms.
Hrubiec asked if the minutes of the meeting will be available. Chairman Balinskas answered that the
minutes and all information regarding this application are public information and available at all
times.
Chairman Balinskas commented that the Commission indeed received a lot of information tonight,
and due to the statutory time frame of the application, a meeting must be held by June 15, 2012. The
Commissioners were polled and there are enough men available to obtain a quorum. The
Commissioners have not requested any further changes, and are not expecting more changes.
Attorney Furey added that they would provide further information regarding why there are no
alternatives.
Chairman Balinskas commented that the Special Meeting will only deal with receiving final
information from all parties, and closing the public hearing. No further information will be received
after the closing and there will then be 65 days for deliberation.
A motion was made by Commissioner Skates to continue the Public Hearing at a Special Meeting
June 11, 2012 at 7: 00 p.m. in Room 8 of the Town Hall. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Rochette and unanimously approved.
The Commission took a ten minute recess at 9:53 p.m.
Chairman Balinskas called the meeting back to order at 10:00 p.m.
Application 12-04WF
– Proposal by JPG Partners, LLC to construct a multi-family development
and discharge drainage alongside both a wetland and flood hazard zone on Lot 47/Block 151, 319
Main Street, East Berlin.
Chairman Balinskas commented that the Legal Notice was read into the minutes at the last meeting.
Mr. Jim Cassidy principal of Hallisey, Pearson, & Cassidy in Rocky Hill was present to represent
the applicant (Mr. Pat Snow) who is also the current owner and developer of the property at 319
Main Street.
Page 6 of 12
Mr. Cassidy reviewed the responses to the REMA requests from May 3, 2012 (As stated with
permission from Mr. Cassidy).
Recommendation per REMA letter dated May 03, 2012
1.1 Recommendation:
REMA has suggested to the engineer several adjustments to rain garden locations, including
combining a few, that could further reduce encroachment into the forested buffer, at the far western
end and by the southwest corner of the middle building cluster. We also suggest numbering the rain
gardens and buildings, for greater ease in review.
Two of the Rain Gardens behind the first building have been combined to make one larger Rain
Garden (now shown as Rain Garden #1) which is located outside of the forested area. The tow
Rain Gardens behind the second building have also been combined into one larger Rain Garden
(now shown as Rain Garden #3). This revised Rain Garden has been relocated further to the east,
outside the Upland Review Area and the majority of it is outside the forested area.
The Rain Gardens have also been numbered.
2.1 Recommendation:
Change the proposed seed mix from NEWP’s Roadside Matrix Wetland Seed Mix to NEWP’s
Wetmix. The former includes shrubs which are typically not appropriate for the bottom of basins.
We also recommend that 50 each of the following emergents be planted (> 2-inch plugs): Green
bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens), and Woolgrass (Scirus cperinus).
The seed mix for the bottom of the basin has been changed from a NEWP’s Roadside Matrix to
NEWP’s Wetmix. We have also added emergents be planted (> 2-inch plugs): Green bulrush
(Scirpus atrovirens), and Woolgrass (Scirus cperinus per REMA’s recommendations. These
revisions are shown on sheet #6 of the plans.
2.2 Recommendations:
Since clearing will take place within fifteen feet of the wetland boundary, place orange construction
fence around the current patch (already flagged blue), to prevent accidental damage during basin
construction.
An 4’ high orange construction fence has been added the Erosion and Sediment Control Plans
sheets #5A and #5B.
Also we recommend control of any remaining invasive within the URA after stormwater basin
construction, and follow-up weeding of garlic mustard seedlings, at the same time that basin
plantings are monitored. We recommend that this take place in May, for the two years following
basin installation and planting (optimal time for weeding garlic mustard and for replacement
stormwater plantings if needed). An oral report and an e-mail to the wetland enforcement officer, to
be communicated to the commission shall suffice, in lieu of a monitoring formal report.
There already Monitoring Note #1 on Sheet #6 that addresses monitoring of the Stormwater
Wetlands. The only item that will need to modified in this note is changing the time frame from “in
the year following installation” to two years following installation”.
3.1.1 Recommendations:
Add sediment traps with correct sizing, per the 2004 Water Quality Manual. The applicant’s
engineer agrees that these should be added. Space is available for the traps, if the project is phased,
Page 7 of 12
with the easternmost building and associated parking, and a diversion berm would have to be also
added.
The Erosion and Sediment Control Plans for this project have been broken into two phases. The
first phase will consist of the development of the first two building on the site, the associated
parking and driveway areas in front of the building and all of the utilities, including the storm
drainage system. During this first phase, the area for the proposed third building will be used for a
Temporary Sediment Trap. This Temporary Sediment Trap was designed to collect a disturbed
area of 1.35 acres, which required a volume of 182 cu. yds. (135 cu. yds/acres x 1.35 acres) as
required by the CT DEEP -2002 E & S Guidelines. Once the construction work in the first Phase
of the project is completed and stabilized, the Temporary Sediment basin can be removed and the
third building and remaining work in E & S Plan – Phase 2 may begin.
3.1.2
Amend the S&E notes to specify a minimum of one week rather than two weeks, (consistent with the
2002 CT Manual) before stabilization of disturbed soil in inactive areas.
E & S note #13 on sheet #7 will be modified from 2 weeks to 1 week for disturbed are to be
established.
3.2.1 Recommendations:
Silt sock (leaf compost-filled tube) perimeter control system rather than hay bales should be used up-
gradient of regulated resource (southern stream and eastern wetland). An acceptable alternative is silt
fence or hay bales with compost piled down-gradient of the fence. The Erosion Control Notes on
Plan Sheet 7, mention silt socks as an option, but we recommend that their use be required, and the
applicant’s engineer concurs. The 18-inch diameter “silt socks” should be installed by a specialist
contractor, just down slope of the proposed hay bales. We recommend leaving in place post-
construction, as a compost berm to filter lawn pesticides and/or fertilizers.
“Silt Sock” has been added to the plans in all areas down gradient of the proposed disturbed areas.
They are shown on sheet #5A & #5b of the plans. These “Silt Socks” will be 18” dia. and will be
left as a compost berm post development.
4.1 Recommendation:
This open space should be protected by a conservation easement in favor of the town or the Berlin
Land Trust. The western boundary should be shown on the plan, and a model easement should be
entered into the record.
A Conservation Easement has been added to the plans. The Conservation Easement will consist of
the eastern 4.85 acres of the property. The westerly boundary is shown on sheet #2 of the plans,
and from this line it contains all of the remaining property to the east all the way to the
Mattabassett River. A copy of the model easement document has been submitted to the Town
Attorney for review.
Comments from Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission May 03, 2012 meeting:
1.Provide a copy of the model Conservation Easement Document for review.
A copy of the model easement document has been submitted to the Town Attorney for
review.
Page 8 of 12
2.Provide a Long-Term Maintenance Schedule for Stormwater Quality Basin.
There is Long-Term Maintenance Notes on sheet #6 of the Plans.
Chairman Balinskas asked the Commissioners if they had any further questions, and since this is a
Public Hearing, asked the public if they had any further comments.
Attorney Dennis Kern, on behalf of the Berlin Land Trust, complimented the Applicant and thanked
them for working with REMA to improve the plans and vastly improved over the application from
last year.
Ms. Madeline Lowry, Cromwell Wetlands Commission, also wished to commend the Applicant and
appreciates the much improved plan of development.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rochette to close the public hearing for Application
12-04WF. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Laviana. The motion was unanimously
approved.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rochette to approve Application 12-04WF with Standard
Conditions The motion was seconded by Commissioner Skates. The motion was unanimously
approved.
REGULAR MEETING
Application 12-05WF
– Proposal by Trigila Enterprises, LLC to place fill and construct drainage
within an intermittent water course on Lot 48C/Block 83 Ripple Court.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rochette to table Application 12-05WF until the next meeting.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Skates. The motion was unanimously approved.
Application 12-06WF
– Proposal by Southington Road Associates, LLC to construct a seven lot
residential subdivision alongside a wetland, watercourse, and flood hazard zone on Lot 12A/Block
15, # 57 Southington Road.
A motion was made by Commissioner Skates to table Application 12-06WF until the next meeting.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Laviana. The motion was unanimously approved.
Page 9 of 12
Application 12-07W
– Proposal by Four Rod Holdings, LLC to construct a commercial building,
associated parking, utilities and stormwater management facility alongside a wetland area on Lot
18E/Block 133 - Clark Drive.
Rosalind Page, Land Surveyor with Winterbourne Land Services in Wallingford was present for the
Applicant.
Ms. Page reported that the lot is located on south side of Clark Drive. Zone PI. Area 1.76 acres. It is
currently undeveloped. Vegetation consists of open unmaintained meadow. The topography is based
upon field survey, slopes down about 3-5% from east to west. Site was the subject of a previous
application to IWWC in 2006 for another applicant. We had wetlands re-flagged by Soil Science and
Environmental Services, located in Cheshire, CT in February of this year, and survey located by our
office in March. The area is about 1200sf. The proposal is to build a 13,920 sf one story
commercial building for applicant`s use, including parking, water and sanitary sewer utilities, and
storm water management system. A portion of the driveway will be within 50 ft of wetlands, as will
the storm water management basin. The Storm water system consists of catch basins in the parking
lot that drain into a detention basin, plus some sheet flows, the roof drains, and an under-drain from
the east side of the lot. All of this drainage will collect in the basin which will have suitable plantings,
(planting plan to be submitted soon) to encourage bio-filtration as much as possible before exiting
into storm drains in Clark Dr.(installed in the 1990`s when Clark drive was built). No storm water
will enter into the wetlands. Engineer has concerns about the capacity of the outlet for the wetlands
on the adjacent lot to the east. Some of the drainage from our site currently does enter the wetlands,
and then drains through that into the culvert that is close by and from there into the Clark Drive
system. So the drainage from our lot will end up in the same location. During construction, the basin
will function as the sediment basin for the site, with temporary check dams and traps as indicated on
the plans. The Drainage Report has been submitted with this application for Town review.
Chairman Balinskas questioned if the current topography currently feeds that wetland and if all the
water is diverted from it, would it actually endanger the wetland. Please consider the sheet flow and
the discharge drainage plan. Perhaps the Soil Scientist would do a test pit to determine the hydrology
of the wetland. It doesn’t seem to be an issue that would warrant a public hearing.
Chairman Balinskas requested that the area be staked for review before the next meeting. The
corners of the building should be staked.
Mr. Horbal suggested that the ‘AbTech’ type smart sponge be incorporated into the drainage plan.
Chairman Balinskas requested a Construction Sequence be incorporated into the plan. Ms. Page
answered that this has been incorporated.
Mr. Horbal also requested that the silt sacks be incorporated during construction for sedimentation
control.
A motion was made by Commissioner Laviana to table Application 12-07W until the next meeting.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rochette. The motion was unanimously approved.
A motion was made by Commissioner Skates to rescind the motion to table Application 12-05WF,
and let the representative for the Applicant speak. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Rochette. The motion was unanimously approved.
Page 10 of 12
Application 12-05WF
– Proposal by Trigilia Enterprises, LLC to place fill and construct drainage
within an intermittent water course on Lot 48C/Block 83 Ripple Court.
Mr. Jack Guilmartin was present for the applicant. He reported that there are no changes to the plan
and we are just waiting for the time to lapse.
A motion was made by Commissioner Laviana to approve Application 12-05WF with Standard
Conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rochette. The motion was unanimously
approved.
OTHER BUSINESS TO COME PROPERLY BEFORE THE COMMISSION:
Application 07-10W Pepin Lane
Mr. Jack Guilmartin was present with Mr. Glenn Young to request a permit modification for two lots
because they are site specific. Lot 10 is requesting a deck (14’ x 20’) be constructed. It is a walk-
out. Mr. Horbal questioned the distance from the deck to the rain garden. Mr. Young answered
about 30’ with 3 to 4 piers needed. Mr. Horbal reminded Mr.Young that this project requires
monitoring while construction is underway. Mr. Young reported that there is a pending building
permit waiting for the deck approval on Lot 10. The second deck on Lot 9 is conceptual at this point,
and measures 16’ x 25.5’.
A motion was made by Commissioner Skates to modify the existing permit for Application 07-10W
for Lot 10/Block 6B for a 14’ x 20’ deck. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rochette.
The motion was unanimously approved.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rochette to modify the existing permit for Application 07-
10W for Lot 9/Block 6B for a 16’ x 25.5’ deck. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Skates.
The motion was unanimously approved.
Notice of Violation – 85 Great Oak Drive
Mr. Horbal reported that he issued a violation letter and received a response letter from the Attorney
(for the Resident of 85 Great Oak Drive) that he would not be able to attend the meeting tonight and
requested that their appearance be postponed until the next meeting.
#58 Meadow Lane – Notice of violation – Discussion
Mr. Horbal reported that he received a letter from the Soil Scientist (John Ianni, M.S. – Highland
Soils, LLC) stating that in his professional opinion, Mr. Patel has successfully removed the material
from the wetlands, provided a stable slope and has adequately mulched and seeded the slope,
therefore meeting the requirements of the Commission.
Mr. Horbal commented that in order to meet a compromise on the Certificate of Occupancy, a
bond was retained for the plantings. Chairman Balinskas also reminded the Commissioners that there
is currently a lien on the land records that should be released when the bond is released.
Page 11 of 12
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Poudrier moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:08 p.m.. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Laviana. The motion was unanimously approved.
Lecia Paonessa
Recording Secretary
Page 12 of 12