Conservation Commission / IWWA Minutes 12/15/2015
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS
AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY MINUTES
DECEMBER 15, 2015
REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
Margery Winters, Chairperson, opened the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices. Other members and alternates in attendance were Andrew O’Connor, Darren Cunningham, Jim Morrison, Donna Beinstein, and Donald Rieger. Also present were Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
ROLL CALL
Appointment of Alternates
Chairperson Winters seated Commissioner Beinstein for the vacancy.
APPLICATIONS
Administrative Approvals
None.
Discussion and Possible Action:
a. Application #15-48 of John M. Lightfoot, Applicant; Nancy Onken, Owner; for the construction of an addition to the existing residence on the property located at 35 Lucy Way (Assessor's Map H13, Block 109, Lot 023). Zone R-80. (received 12/01/2015; decision must be rendered by 02/04/2016)
Application #15-48 was read into the record.
The Applicant proposed an addition to the existing home and provided an updated map. The Applicant indicated the addition would be for a half-court basketball gymnasium with 25-foot high ceiling and an electronic golf simulation and entertainment room with a staircase between; the grade would move 12-feet from the driveway to a plateau in order to maintain the visual line; there would be a full foundation and a full 12-foot structural retaining wall; the yard behind the house is flat with a walkout area filled about 6 feet at elevation 116 feet. Town Staff confirmed the green hatched map area shows the 2002 wetland map amendment; the distance from the structure to mapped wetland flag #3 is about 40 feet from the foundation, but there is grading within 5 feet of the wetlands. Town Staff was concerned about the very steep slope and 22-foot grade change from the top of the plateau to the slope toe; also there is not a full picture of either corner of the proposed 3500 sq. ft. addition on a slope with a 22-foot grade change. The Applicant noted there is a 6-foot grade drop at the addition center and they are working to stay away from the wetlands utilizing silt fence and hay bale reinforcement. The Commissioners noted everything under the building would be fill. The Applicant indicated they would contour the grade to the building corners with the foundation going 4 feet into the ground and 1 foot above and stepping with the grade. The Applicant noted material that would be pushed out, filled and regraded; the sloped area in Exhibit 3 (which did not contain the 2002 wetland map amendment) was described as brush and rough lawn and not mowed; the purple area indicated silt fence and hay bales and the blue area indicated roof leaders and footing drains. The Applicant noted an unfinished rough grass area in brown sloping down from the driveway to the deck front. The Applicant confirmed the topographical survey was done 11/18/15. Regarding a landscaping plan to stabilize the slope long term, the Applicant assumed it would be a rough grassy hillside; however, the Commissioners were concerned that would not be sufficient to stabilize the slope long term. The Applicant responded that was a valid concern and a landscaping plan could be developed. Regarding putting in retaining walls on the slope, the Applicant noted that their engineer suggested it as an option and they would be amenable to doing that. The Applicant noted the need for high windows for the basketball portion and showed the Commissioners the locations of doors which would have grass up to them given the existence of other decks. The Applicant indicated the golf simulation room floor would be at the same level as the existing house main floor; the roof would match the house with the same eave height.
The Applicant is a design builder and hired an engineer to draw plans and the map. The Commissioners indicated a credentialed package providing more certainty needs to be presented to the Commission. The Commissioners were concerned regarding how machinery would enter and move around the property given tight proposed grading up to the wetlands with grading on the bare slope done first and all the machinery at the slope top. The Commissioners noted that best practices suggest the need for a proper vegetative buffer to the wetland. The Applicant noted the protection of the silt fence and hay bales and that most excavation would come from the other side on firm ground with trucks on the upslope. However, the Commissioners were concerned with the difficulty of the slope angle leading down to the silt fence and noted an excavator would not have a 40-foot reach. The Commissioners indicated a preference for regrading away from the wetlands; while 40 feet is already tight, it is dramatically increased by the grading. The Applicant indicated in some areas the excavator would be walked down the slope; the Commissioners requested an explanation for that and a planting plan for the slope. The Applicant confirmed prescribed septic fill would be brought in to the site to modify the septic system, which could be written into the permit; and along with the fill on site, some top soil would also be brought in.
Regarding whether silt fence is sufficient to protect the slope in a strong rain storm, Town Staff confirmed the 2002 EMS Manual for slopes exceeding 3:1 requires erosion matting blankets in addition to protection at the toe, which relates to when construction is initiated; there is also concern regarding periods of rain and a roof structure on open soil and roof leaders reaching the pipes in place; and concern regarding the additional pipe shown with piping from roof leaders from a portion of the structure in an enclosed system daylighting to the slope toe and small splash pad and requested the engineer review whether a level spreader or plunge pool is required to deal with continual flow in a significant velocity rain event vs. a footing drain. The Applicant suggested, as a condition of inspection, utilizing the catch basin for roof water and putting roof gutters up before roof sheeting in order to protect the soil. Regarding the rip rap and detention basins coming out in two places – one in front and one in back, the Applicant preferred they all go to the back. The Applicant noted that there is an existing detention basin currently taking water from the house.
In order to move toward a decision, the Commissioners summarized the need for: 1) a soil scientist’s work to understand wetland water flows, etc.; 2) an engineer to specifically understand wetlands impacts and storm water; 3) a detailed construction narrative; and 4) a planting plan with improved vegetative buffer between the maintained land and adjacent to the wetland.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to table Application #15-48.
Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Receipt of New Applications
None.
GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS
Correspondence
Letter to Mss. Winters and Fielding, 11/25/2015
The letter discussed Town Staff getting back to the Commission regarding general pesticide use and Town Staff believed that could potentially occur in January 2016. The Commissioners believed Dr. Fielding provided an article to the First Selectman regarding whether there is a known disease vector in the area posing a real threat; if so, the application of pesticide could be considered along with its effectiveness vs. risk; but if there is no known vector, it may not be appropriate to apply those chemicals and it may also not be appropriate to use pesticides where children play in this area.
Charter Revision Draft, 12/15/2015
The Commissioners discussed a recent newspaper article regarding combining the Planning and Zoning Commissions into one group noting the Connecticut Legislature does not require that. It was also noted there has been dissatisfaction in towns where those commissions were combined, and CACIWC opposes such combinations. The Commissioners noted their reliance on the Planning Commission doing its job well, along with their upcoming revision of the POCD; if Planning Commission efforts were in a mode to only deal with applications that would result in less time for equally important longer-term objectives. Similarly, this Commission acknowledges that dealing with wetland agency work drives the schedule more than the equally-important conservation side. The Commissioners noted that the past Charter Revision Commission did not think combining Planning and Zoning was a good idea, and Commissioners who have served on the Planning Commission thought it was a bad idea given the amount of work that comes before Planning noting the last POCD revision was a couple of years late. The proposed letter was signed by individuals and not by the Commission.
Commission Education/Workshop
Town Staff noted the new Director of Planning would like to begin education workshops for all of the commissions, potentially including CLEAR from UCONN if there are 15 interested people.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the December 1, 2015 regular meeting
On Line 202, the minutes are corrected to insert the motion for the letter regarding complex applications, as follows:
“Commissioner Rieger made a motion that the Conservation Commission send the proposed letter to the First Selectman for further discussion with the Board of Selectmen.
Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.”
Chairperson Winters accepted the December 1, 2015 minutes, as amended.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Commissioner O’Connor seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.