Simsbury, CT - Conservation Commission Minutes

Conservation Commission/ Inland Wetlands

And Watercourses Agency Minutes

Regular Meeting- Tuesday January 16, 2007

Simsbury Public Library - Program Room - 725 Hopmeadow Street

Chairman Miller called the meeting to order at 7:30pm at the Simsbury Public Library, 725 Hopmeadow Street in the Program Room. The following Commissioners were present: Commissioner Winters, Commissioner Mihalic, Commissioner Bucknam, and Commissioner Sexton. Chairman Miller arrived at 8:30 pm. Also present was Conservation Officer Beach and other interested parties.

APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

Commissioner Mihalic read the call.

PUBLIC HEARING(s), DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

Application of David Grainger, Owner, requesting a Map Amendment for property located at 15 Orchard Lane.

Mr. Grainger was present to discuss the application. He explained the project consists of creating lawn space within the wetland area at the back of the property. In clearing and extending his backyard lawn space, he was made aware that the project encroaches into the wetlands on his property. The subdivision where the home is located was built before the town deemed regulated wetland areas, and when Mr. Grainger bought the house, town maps showed no wetlands on the property. Michael Gragnolotti, soil scientist mapped the area for wetlands, and a surveyor was engaged to draw the maps. Based on the drawings submitted, the Commission established that the current town wetland maps do not show wetlands on this property, and the maps Mr. Grainger submitted reveal wetlands that weren’t previously flagged. It was stated that the mapping done is consistent with the current standards employed by a soil scientist.

Commissioner Bucknam motioned close the public hearing on this application.

Commissioner Winters seconded with all in favor.

A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam to approve the map amendment as presented on the Sanderson and Washburn map dated 9/7/2006 project number 06-37. The map adds wetlands to the town wetland maps that weren’t previously flagged, they follow the logical boundary of the previously disturbed lawn area and the topography of the areas that are indicated by the applicant and the town staff. Michael Gragnolotti, licensed soil scientist, has signed the map.

Commissioner Mihalic seconded, with all in favor.

Application of Hoffman Enterprises, Owner, T. J. Donohue, Jr., Killian & Donohue, LLC, Agent, for a Map Amendment for property located at the Hoffman Auto Park, 36 Albany Turnpike and Map A-20, Block 503, Lot 2AA, West Mountain Road.

Mr. T.J. Donahue, Attorney -Killian & Donahue, Mr. William Root, Soil Scientist- Milhone & McBroom were present to discus the map amendment.

Mr. Root explained that in surveying the wetlands on the site, he two small areas of man-made wetlands, noted as W1-7, and WA1-7, and also found an area that seemed to function as a detention basin located near West Mountain road. He explained the flow of the wetlands and soil types found. He expressed that Simsbury town maps do not show wetlands or a watercourse going through the property.

Ms. Jennifer Giannini, 5 Bushy Hill Road.

Ms. Giannini asked Mr. Root’s findings and his subsequent report are meant to reveal. The Commission firstly explained that wetlands are determined by soil type, and the findings identify two wetland areas not currently included on the town’s official wetland maps, which increasing the town’s wetland areas.

Ms. Giannini stated that her property, located across the street from the site, has a well that has run dry, adding that the DEP determined that there is trichloretheline in their water.

Conservation Officer Beach said that her issue of water contamination does not pertain to the map amendment issue, it relates more to the activities projected to take place in the wetlands and to rezoning. Mr. Beach asked Ms. Giannini to submit a report to him regarding the trichloretheline found.

Allison Swain, 245 Stratton Brook Road.

Ms. Swain expressed concern about the intended use of the property behind the site, and the wetland permits the applicant is applying for. She stated that the aquifer near the site has been contaminated in the past, and voiced concern about the zone change.

Commissioner Mihalic motioned close the public hearing on this application.

Commissioner Bucknam seconded with all in favor.

A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic to approve the map amendment based on the findings of the soil scientist, the map presented, and as per the accepted system for adding a map amendment to the Town of Simsbury.

Commissioner Sexton seconded, with all in favor.

Application of Jonathan Batterson, Owner, Gregory Maglieri, Maglieri Development, LLC, Agent, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to construct a road and homes within the regulated area on property located at 344 West Mountain Road. (continued from meeting of December 19, 2006)

No quorum for the application. Commissioners Sexton and Mihalic would have had to recuse themselves for this application, leaving only three members when Chairman Miller arrived.

It was decided that the applicant will come before the Commission at the next regular meeting scheduled for February 6, 2007. Conservation Officer Beach said that the applicant would have to grant the Commission an extension on the permit. The applicant stated that they would submit a formal letter to the town granting the extension. Mr. Beach said that files of the application are available to the public and if members of the public wish to submit something for the record and cannot make the February 6, 2007 meeting, they should send it to him and it will be made part of the record.

Chairman Miller and Commissioner Bucknam informed the public why the Commission was unable to hear the application at this meeting.

PRESENTATION(s), DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

Application of David Grainger, Owner, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to create lawn space within the regulated area on property located at 15 Orchard Lane.

Mr. Grainger was present to discuss the application.

Mr. Grainger said that when he bought the property there were no wetlands on the record. When he began the work, one of his neighbors thought Mr. Grainger’s land contained wetlands. Because of this, he spoke with Conservation Beach, who told him that a soil scientist would need to map the area. As a result, wetlands were found on the property.

The project consists of creating lawn space within the wetland area at the back of the property. The existing lawn area goes back 70-80 feet, Mr. Grainger is proposing going back 120 feet in all. The work to be done includes removing all of the trees and plants, grounding all the large trees stumps, removing all of the bigger rocks and stones, laying a 50/50 mixture of sand and topsoil on the sloped area, and finally putting down grass seed after the area is cleared. Mr. Grainger explained that the existing retaining wall close to the wetlands would be turned towards, but not into the wetlands.

Commissioner Bucknam explained that permits are not typically granted for work to be done in the wetland area itself. He stated that most applications are for projects done within 100 feet from the wetlands. Mr. Grainger stated that when he bought the property, town maps listed no wetlands on the property. He bought the property with the idea of expanding the yard for his children and stated that the materials found in the wetlands are not of high quality. He added that since the beginning he has been very cooperative with the town. Commissioner Bucknam said there is nothing prohibiting Mr. Grainger from selectively cutting or pruning limbs that are dead or unsafe.

Commissioner Winters asked if the back lot gets soggy and why 60 feet was chosen as the size of the encroachment. Mr. Grainger answered that the lot does get soggy. He stated that 60 feet is the size chosen for the site, and that he used the existing tree as the boundary.

Commissioner Winters said that trees absorb water and by removing them from a wetland area the amount of water in the area increases, especially in a lawn area. Mr. Grainger understood and added that two of the four trees in the area have been cut down already.

Commissioner Mihalic explained that since the activity is deemed significant, a public hearing is warranted. It would also give the Commission the opportunity to discuss the application with a soil scientist.

Commissioners agreed that for the project to be considered, more information is needed from the soil scientist showing among other things that the wetland is of poor quality, is isolated, does not have good habitat value, and is not part of a larger wetland system.

Commissioner Mihalic moved, pursuant to Wetland Regulation 9-1A, to schedule a public hearing on this application. Commissioner Bucknam seconded, with all in favor.

For the public’s knowledge, Commissioner Mihalic read regulation 9-1A and the definition of a wetland per noted in the Conservation Commission’s regulations.

A site walk is scheduled for Saturday February 27, 2007 at 9:30am.

b. Application of Noelle and Tim Alix, Owners, Sycamore Building Contractors, LLC, Applicant, for an Inland Wetlands Permit for construction of an addition and a deck within the regulated area on property located at 43 Minister Brook.

Mr. Richard Vance, Sycamore Builders, representing Mr. & Mrs. Alix was present to discuss the application. The project entails the removal and replacement of the existing deck with a new deck that will extend 18-feet off the rear of the house. The work will be within the 100-foot wetland review area; the house sits approximately 30 feet from the wetland line. The wetland is 20-25 feet to the closest point of the new construction. The deck will be built on piers, using sonotubes. No trees will be removed; foundation plantings will be removed and replaced. No trees will need to be cut to gain access to the site. The applicants wish to begin the project as soon as possible. There will be no stockpiling of material; the silt fence will be left up for one growing season. There will be stone material placed under the deck and 10 feet of the lawn area will be reseeded.

A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam that this is a regulated activity by reason of work and construction activity within the upland review area of a wetland.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.

A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam that this is not a significant activity due to the fact that the construction activity is a distance from the actual watercourse, and the wetland is a disturbed wetland, primarily lawn, and there is little chance for siltation into the tributary watercourses.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.

A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam to grant with the provisions noted in the staff report, silt fencing, hay mats, soil finished and graded, silt fencing remaining in place for one growing season,etc.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.

Application of Hoffman Enterprises, Owner, and Steve and Marsha Markie, Owners, T. J. Donohue, Attorney – Killian & Donohue, Agent, for an Inland Wetlands Permit for construction within the regulated area on property located at Hoffman Enterprise, 36 Albany Turnpike, and property of Steve & Marsha Markie, 395 West Mountain Road.

Mr. T.J. Donahue, Attorney -Killian & Donahue, Mr. William Root, Soil Scientist- Milone & McBroom, Mr. Mark Erigone, Soil Scientist- Milone and McBroom, and Mr. Sam Pines, Hoffman, were present to discuss the application.

Mr. Mark Erigone showed site plans and explained the changes/expansions to the site. The Best Buy building with Munson’s attached and the Nissan building are the two new additions to the site. The rear parking areas will be expanded for inventory car storage use. The entire isolated wetland is 1,580 square feet, 600 square feet of it is on the Hoffman property. The existing curb line will be maintained they will not encroach on the existing isolated wetland and there is no proposed direct impact to the wetland. Mr. Erigone stated that the second wetland area will not see any direct wetland impact either, the water uses the existing drainage system, going into a culvert and exiting the site. The encroachment within the upland review area will be 20 to 30 feet and within 5 feet of the wetland boundary. They will install a planted buffer on the side of the wetland and erect a chain link fence to stop any debris from entering the wetland.

Mr. Erigone explained the storm water management design plan and the water quality plan. The current detention basin, which they feel was not initially designed as a detention basin, will be recreated and will meet or exceed the DEP water quality regulations. He stated that based on existing soil conditions, the basin has a high infiltration rate. They will create an area to handle and have water quality functions that do no exist currently on the site, and will serve as a detention area for up to a 100-year storm. The detention basin will be completely restored, regraded and seeded with a New England wetland plant seed mix. Up slope, conservation seed mix will be used, and the higher slopes will be planted with warm seeded grass mix. He explained that the detention basin will not be a maintained one, they wish to encourage the area to turn into a wetland area. Mr. Erigone stated that the detailed sedimentation and erosion control plan is included in the application file.

Mr. Erigone read through the January 11, 2007 letter from Conservation Officer Beach. Mr. Erigone stated that the entire proposed activity near route 44 is within an already disturbed area. With the installation of a silt fence/hay bales during the repaving of the parking lot there should be no detriment to the wetlands. As for activity number two, the isolated building and the expanded parking and Honda building will come within 5 feet at the closest to point of the wetland boundary. Mr. Erigone explained that the wetland is the lowest point of a proposed greatly expanded water quality system and will result in a net improvement in the quality of water discharged from the site, and reiterated that currently there are no water quality measures on the site.

Chairman Miller asked why the detention basin is not a bio-retention basin given the soil’s infiltration rates. Mr. Erigone explained the way the outlet structure is constructed and how the water exits the 8” low flow orifice pipe. The pipe is sized based on the storm levels. He explained that the orifice will be sized so there will no increase in flow off of the site. He noted that the engineering report shows a zero net increase in flow off the site.

Chairman Miller asked what water quality measures are in place to improve the system that is in place. Mr. Erigone explained that before the water gets to the basins two buried concrete chambers will be in place to catch the smaller stones. It will be maintained 1-2 times per year. He stated that he could provide the Commission with the maintenance plan. He added that there is not currently an existing storm water management plan in place at the site.

Commissioner Winters asked about the islands in the parking lot and whether run off from the site would be used to irrigate them. Mr. Erigone said that the islands will be irrigated, but not from run-off.

Commissioner Mihalic asked about the water being directed to the detention basin. Mr. Erigone showed on the plan water the flow. He stated that the wetland system will not be impacted, but instead will possibly be improved upon.

Commissioner Winters asked how invasive species will be dealt with. Mr. Erigone said they do not have a plan for invasive species, but added that they could include one.

Conservation Officer Beach asked about the possibility of using existing trees instead of replacing them all with smaller plantings. Mr. Erigone stated that it gets very expensive to relocate trees, adding that the larger a tree is the lower the chance of survival. He stated that replanting could be considered, but the trees on the berm are most likely not worth replanting.

Commissioner Winters asked about the type of trees to be planted. Mr. Erigone said they have a species list but do not as yet have the quantities.

Commissioner Bucknam asked whether there will be a break in curbing closest to the route 44 wetland. Mr. Erigone referred him to the sedimentation and control plan, stating that there will be a water bar (temporary curb) at this area.

Commissioner Bucknam asked how close the paving come to the wetland. Mr. Erigone showed on the plan where the paving will come to, it ranges from 50 to 40 feet. Mr. Erigone said that around the curb there are three catch basins and there is no sheet flow.

Commissioner Bucknam asked if the site currently would allow for spills, oil, grease, to enter into the wetland. Mr. Erigone said that with the improvements to be made and the introduction of a water quality system/plan; the water will not enter the wetland. He noted he would be glad to provide information on the crystal stream structure to be used. Commissioner Bucknam said this information would be essential.

Chairman Miller asked if any improvements are proposed at the discharge point at the low end of the storm drain system. Mr. Erigone said that currently it exits a 36-inch rcp that exits the wetland and under West Mountain Road. Because of the proposed improvements the 3-inch pipe will be a much smaller orifice, with much less water flow impact. He added that a rip rap splash pad will not be used. He showed on the plan where the proposed outlet structure will be located where currently there is the existing 36-inch pipe where flow is uncontrolled.

Chairman Miller stated that with this new plan there will be zero increase in rate or volume of water flow and an improvement in water quality. Mr. Erigone said yes.

Commissioner Winters asked how many trucks will be needed and how much material will be removed. Mr. Erigone stated that some material will be removed from one side to be reused on another. The detention basins will require no material removal. The detention basin will possibly need to have material added to it.

Conservation Officer Beach asked if they have taken into account the impact that Lowe’s will have on Hoffman’s storm water quality. Mr. Erigone said they have been in contact with Lowe’s engineer and have accounted for the impacts on the plan proposed. Conservation Officer Beach noted that Canton has sent notification of Lowe’s application to the town of Simsbury.

Chairman Miller asked about light intensity. Mr. Erigone stated there will be full cut off lights, adding that lighting was discussed with the Design Review Board and the Board members were satisfied with the plan.

Mr. Bill Root discussed the two man-made wetland areas. The wetland along route 44is a discharge channel from the roadway, and there will be no impacts to the wetland area. The second wetland currently functions as a detention basin and will remain so.

Chairman Miller asked about the conservation easement. Mr. T.J. Donahue explained that the easement expires in 2013. Hoffman has purchased the property to the rear, and has applied to Zoning to modify the buffer strip. They have informed some of the neighbors that the applicant has agreed to burden the area with a covenant, restricting any access to it, thereby restricting the development of a through street. He added that the easement has value because it includes a berm and plantings. He noted that the plan has been approved by the Design Review Board. Mr. Sam Pines, Hoffman representative, said they hope to begin construction Spring 2007.

Chairman Miller asked if the applicant has considered implementing a rain garden or other bio-retention mechanism, voiced concern about the amount of impervious surface, and also asked about the berm. Mr. Erigone explained that some of the berm’s bottom dead growth will be cleared and then filled with understory vegetation to enhance the screening. He answered that there is a lot of impervious surface because of the nature of the use of the site. He stated that per discussions with the Design Review Board there will be grassed landscape islands with an enhanced number of shrubs on the islands and the front of the building. He explained that because the parking area is large they chose to use a storm water detention basin to enhance water quality. Mr. Donahue said the Design Review unanimously endorsed the parking plan.

Commissioner Winters asked about the detention basin. Mr. Root said that because of the pitch and the way it functions, the basin is not a detention basin in any way. Mr. Erigone said that the original intent of the site was most likely to capture the water in catch basins and dump it into the “appearing looking” detention basin. Mr. Beach expressed that the basin was initially built to act as a siltation basin, but has never served as a detention basin.

Mr. Beach said that the applicant should schedule a time to see him regarding the well water reports and possible contaminants, but stated that the issue is not under the purview of the Commission. Mr. Donahue expressed that the applicant would be happy to oblige.

Some members of the public made comments, but the Commission stated that this part of the application is not open for public comment.

The Commission discussed whether a public hearing is deemed necessary to discuss wetland issues, or if the time for the public comments would be more relevant to the Zoning Hearing. Mr. Donahue asked the Commission to seriously consider whether it falls within the Commission’s criteria to have a public hearing. He stated that the project is going before Zoning on February 5, 2007.

Mr. Beach stated that if there is no significant impact and there are improvement in water quality, there is zero net increase, there should be no issues with regards to wetlands.

The Commission asked whether public concerns at this meeting will not be challenged by the applicant at the Zoning meeting. Mr. Donahue said that questions from the public would not contested.

Commissioner Sexton asked whether the storm water management plan has to be filed. Mr. Erigone said they will be applying to DEP with the plan.

A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic that this is a regulated activity by reason of work and construction activity within the upland review area of a wetland.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam, and carried unanimously.

A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic that this is not a significant activity based upon the applicant’s representation to the Commission, the extensive stormwater management practices to be put in place during and after the construction.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam, and carried unanimously.

A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic to grant the application subject to the Commission’s recommendations to the Zoning Board concerning the public interest in the project, the storm water management plan, the conditions set forth by town staff, the implementation of an invasive species plan for the plan for the retention basin, and with the recommendation that the applicant consider the detention basin aspect, and that the applicant agrees not to contest the questions brought up by the public.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam, and carried unanimously.

d. Application of Diana Kalamarides, Owner, John J. & Diana L. Kalamarides, Applicants, for an Inland Wetlands Permit for construction of a driveway and reserve septic within the regulated area on property located at 7 Up The Road.

Mr. Dave Whitney-Engineer, and Mr. Jaime Kalamarides were present to discuss the application.

Mr. Kalamarides stated that the site is part of a re-subdivision of 5 Up the Road and is subject to ten conditions by the Planning Commission. The driveway construction within the upland review area but not within the conservation easement, and the issue of the primary septic placement in the upland review area, but not within the conservation easement are the two conditions that require the Commission’s attention. There are three easements, one for the driveway, one for extra area for storm water management, and the conservation easement.

The site requires at least a 3,000 square foot house with and an attached 2-car garage. The previous plan for the site has the house in a “basin” and possesses a two-foot high retaining wall. The proposed plan eliminates the retaining wall, and places the 5-bedroom home on the flat upper plateau. A condition of the property states that they must maintain some major trees on the property. An arborist has said that except for a 40-inch oak and possibly a 26- inch birch tree, all of the trees are viable if they are well maintained. The site is steeply sloped, with a flat grade, and stone walls which will be keep. The driveway will pass slightly into the upland review area, but not into the conservation easement. Mr. Kalamarides said this plan will preserve most of the major trees, create a buffer to the neighbor’s houses, preserve the rock walls, and have a manageable storm water run-off system.

Mr. Whitney stated that they have applied for an application is into Zoning to allow a 25-foot variance of the 50-foot rear yard to allow the house to be built on the flatter area. As a condition of the subdivision the four main trees must be kept, but most of the tress on the buffer will remain. The septic system will be larger than the previous system due to their large family, and it will be sized for a 10-20 minute range. The closet point to the wetlands will be about 60 feet. A corner of the driveway will encroach into the upland review area will be 70 feet. The total amount of fill will be 212 cubic yards. Any sedimentation from construction will flow downward and not towards the wetlands.

Mr. Whitney explained the storm water management plan. They are proposing drains around the house, possible underdrain around the backyard, and possibly an underdrain for the driveway and above the septic system. He explained what type of storm drainage is proposed, stating that all of the water flows in an easterly direction. The storm water plan is being reviewed by Mr. Sawitkze, who expressed that in concept the plan seems feasible.

Chairman Miller asked about slope stabilization. Mr. Whitney said that the steepest slope is about 6,000 square feet, and the front of the house will be cleared.

The Commission discussed the issue of slope percentages and its’ basis as a way of determining whether an activity is significant. Mr. Beach explained that if a slope is over 20%, the upland review area is expanded an additional .01% for everything above a 10% pitch. Mr. Whitney acknowledged that some of the water from the site goes into the wetlands. Commissioner Mihalic referred the applicant to Regulation 10.2A10.

Mr. Whitney explained that the driveway will be at grade, and there will be no excessive cuts and fills. He added that any run-off can be handled, noting that a sedimentation basin could be put in place to contain the run-off.

The Commission discussed the possibility that the slope could destabilize because of the clearing to be done, and the fact that a down-gradient wetland might be impacted by erosion/sedimentation especially during a storm. Mr. Whitney said that by keeping the 4 feet thick stone walls, having the driveway, the swale, and erecting a temporary sedimentation basin they can manage the disturbance of the steep slope. Commissioner Winters said that the swale is key to managing the sediment. Mr. Whitney said another temporary sediment basin could be used as well.

Chairman Miller expressed concern about issues that have arisen with other sites regarding siltation. Mr. Kalamarides said that the original plan had many siltation issues, but this plan better addresses those issues.

Mr. Kalamarides asked the Commission if they would grant conditional approval of the two items taking place in the regulated area and they will return after the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for final review with town staff.

Mr. Beach explained that the Planning Commission worded the approval of the site such that nothing could be approved on the site until the Conservation Commission looked at the plan as well.

Commissioners agreed that the applicant should return after having filed a new storm water management plan adding a sedimentation chamber with the town. The Commissioners asked to see the landscaping plan. It was acknowledged that after the applicant hears the ZBA decision there could be changes to the plan, and with this, knowledge the applicant will better understand what the specifications and issues.

The application was withdrawn. The applicant will refile the application.

Commissioner Mihalic motioned to waive the application fee.

Commissioner Winters seconded, with all in favor.

e. Application of Mark and Ieke Scully, Owners, for an Inland Wetlands Permit for construction of a garage addition (and removal of old garage) within the regulated area on property located at 29 Notch Road.

Mr. Scully was present to discuss the application. They are proposing to build a new one story detached garage built on a concrete slab, within the regulated area 23 feet from the wetlands. They will remove the existing garage. A circular paved driveway will be constructed. They will use a siltation fence to impede siltation into the wetland. Equipment used will not be staged within 30 feet of the wetland, excess material will be removed off-site, and any excess stockpiled material, to be used for grading, will not located within 30 feet of the wetlands and will be surrounded by silt fence and be seeded as necessary.

Commissioner Mihalic asked how far the top half of the proposed driveway will be to the wetlands, and also where the grading will be done. Mr. Scully showed on the plan where the driveway is to be located and where grading will be done.

A motion was made by Commissioner Winters that this is a regulated activity by reason of work and construction activity within the upland review area of a wetland.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam, and carried unanimously.

A motion was made by Commissioner Winters that this is not a significant activity because there is an erosion control plan.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam, and carried unanimously.

A motion was made by Commissioner Winters to grant the application subject to conditions set forth in the staff report, and there is proper sediment control.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam, and carried unanimously.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES of December 12, 2006 and December 19, 2006.

Administrative issuance of an Inland Wetlands Permit on the application of Janet and Ron Bruehlman, Owners, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to construct a pool house within the 100-foot upland review area to a wetland on property located at 3 Woodchuck Hill Road.

Administrative issuance of an Inland Wetlands Permit on the application of Glenn and Barbra Anderson, Owners, Kenneth J. Giebfried, Giebfried’s Remodeling, Agent, for an Inland Wetlands Permit for the replacement of a deck within the 100-foot upland review area to a wetland on property located at 19 Hoskins Road.

Conservation Officer Beach stated that based on the new regulations permitting the Conservation Officer to issue permits after consultation with the Chairman, these two applications were granted administratively. Mr. Rich Sawitzke was consulted as well and it was made known that there will be no impacts to wetlands.

CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS

Commissioner Bucknam made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:40PM.

Commissioner Winters seconded with all in favor.

Respectfully Submitted,

__________________________________

Commissioner Ryan Mihalic, Secretary