CORNWALL INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING JUNE 3, 2008 CORNWALL TOWN OFFICE BUILDING
Present: Regular members D. Stevenson Hedden, Adam Fischer, William Hurlburt, Celia Senzer, Roger Kane and Land Use staff Karen Griswold Nelson
Absent: Regular member Doc Simont and alternate Andrew MacDavid.
Chairman Hedden called the meeting to order at 8:00PM in Cornwall Town Hall with a quorum established. Alternate Roger Kane was seated for regular member Doc Simont.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May regular meeting
Motion Mr. Hurlburt, second Mr. Kane to approve the minutes of the May minutes with the correction of the list of attendees to include Adam Fischer; unanimously approved.
PENDING APPLICATIONS:
App 512 – H. R. DePolo architect – applicant/owner – Site activities associated with the construction of a single family residence near Mill Brook – Corner of Dibble Hill Road and Route 128.
Patrick Hackett, PE, Attorney William Manasse, Mr. Harry DePolo applicant, and Daphne Naylor, representative for the applicant, were in attendance to address the application.
In response to questions, it was stated that a curb cut had been applied for but that the file did not contain any correspondence from the First Selectman’s Office regarding the plans submitted. Mr. Hedden advised the applicant that past practice was that the commission receives a tentative curb cut approval prior to action on any application.
In response to the request that the site be field staked for locational purposes, it was stated that the yellow flags were the footprint of the residence and the blue flags the area of the proposed deck. In response to questions, Mr. Hackett confirmed that the two large maple trees were within the footprint of the home site with the plan design showing the trees to be removed to stump level as close to the ground as possible, the stumps to remain and the home to be constructed over the stumps.
In response to questions from Mr. Hedden as to the location of the home being so far down the hill, Mr. Hackett and Mr. DePolo addressed septic design issues, with note made that the house was sited entirely within the building envelope and therefore would not require a variance from the ZBA.
In response to questions from Mr. Hurlburt as to the amount of rock and ledge on site and how such would be treated during the construction of the home, Mr. Hackett suggested that if one hit something substantial, that additional or alternate means of support might be needed. Mr. Hurlburt suggested that such resulted in the potential for more than just auger holes on the banks.
In response to questions from Mrs. Senzer as to the house location from the stream and setbacks and compliance with zoning, Mr. Hackett stated that the house was 50 feet from the edge of the stream and that the lot contained no buildable area as defined in the zoning regulations. Mr. Hackett pointed out that there was no required setback for a septic system from the state road with clarification given as to the setbacks on the lot for the state road. Mrs. Senzer expressed her concerns (“I’m very skeptical”) regarding one constructing a house without trees or debris ending up in the brook and the siting of vehicles necessary to remove trees, drill holes and construct the residence not ending up in the brook
In response to Mrs. Senzer’s stated concerns, Mr. DePolo advised that commission that Michael Root (arborist from Root Tree Services, West Cornwall) was to do the work.
The commission and Mr. DePolo and his representatives discussed the perceived hazards in the site development plan, including the positioning of vehicles during construction activities in close proximity to the brook, the amount of ledge and rock on the site and the lack of information as to all of the excavation needed to position the home.
In response to all of the concerns expressed, Mr. Hedden summarized the open issues remaining, including 1. The commission’s practice for the receipt of a tentative curb cut, 2. The building official’s response to a single family residence/and or pole barn being constructed over stumps, 3. The issue of site development and in particular drilling post and the positioning of an auger truck and 4. The person responsible for making decisions when one hit sold ground during the installation of the posts necessary for the construction of the residence.
In response, Mr. Hackett stated that the possibility of running into a large area of ledge did exist, adding that all of the posts as shown were not necessary for the support of the pole barn/house but rather for the ease of constructing the house. Mr. Hedden reiterated the need for fairly detailed information on the construction process.
In response to concerns raised regarding the stability of the bank for the placement of construction vehicles, Mr. DePolo stated that Pat Redmond was expected to do the work. It was suggested that information regarding the site construction (from Mr. Redmond) be made part of the file.
With reiteration from Mr. Hedden and the commission at large that is was their intent to make sure that none of the proposed activities resulted in anything ending up in the brook, and with reiteration from Mr. Hurlburt regarding his issues with the amount of ledge and rock:
Motion Mr. Fisher, second Mr. Kane to table further discussion and decision on App 512 – H. R. DePolo architect – applicant/owner – Site activities associated with the construction of a single family residence near Mill Brook – Corner of Dibble Hill Road and Route 128 to the July regularly scheduled meeting. (To be listed under “Pending applications”)
App 513 – Sunset View LLC applicant/owner – Stabilization of an existing fill slope, deposition of excavated material to re-construct a driveway, removal of accumulated sediment from an existing pond and abandonment of a small sediment pond – Furnace Brook Farm – 344 Furnace Brook Road.
Ms. Griswold Nelson advised the commission of abutting neighbors personally contacted regarding the pending application including Dorothy Wolfe-Clark and Julia Schieffelin.
Bart Clark, PE from Oakwood Environmental Associates and representative for the property owner re-addressed the site plan presented at the May meeting, noting that the site “was begging for the right storm to cause impact”. Mr. Clark addressed questions raised during the May meeting, stating that a drainage report had been submitted for review as well as a photo log from the site contractor, Stuart Tracy from TRACS Inc, New Preston showing the development and construction activities for a similar driveway constructed in New Milford.
Mr. Clark submitted construction estimates as requested by staff (Griswold Nelson) for bonding purposes, addressing the 5 proposed phases of construction and noting that the estimates constituted an engineer’s estimates and not a contractor’s estimates. Stating the total expected cost was approximately $420,000.00 with 15,000 cubic yards of material to be moved from the lower bank to the upper bank and compacted and/or stabilized or stockpiled on site, Mr. Bart estimated the temporary erosion and sedimentation controls overall to be $95,000.00.
As relating to site design, Mr. Clark addressed the diversion trenches shown on the plan, the plans to split water run-off between Route 4 and the woods and the plans as designed to return the pre-existing drainage patterns back to their original watershed.
As relating to “surprises” that might be found on site including buried structures or other hazardous materials, Mr. Clark stated that Mr. Tracy’s credentials as a contractor licensed to handle hazardous materials had been made part of the file.
In response to questions from Mr. Hurlburt, Mr. Clark stated that 9,000 of the 15, 000 yards of excavated material were to go into the driveway and the balance sited on a pad below the hedgerow on the top part of the site. Mr. Clark addressed the perimeter drains and rock dam and silt dams as part of the plans, stating that such structures were more effective in a large area.
Mr. Kane stated that he had reviewed the drainage calculations supplied and that in his professional opinion as a licensed engineer, they seemed reasonable for a 25 year storm.
As relating to the bonding, Mr. Hedden stated his wishes to see a bond in an amount that in the worse situation would provide the town adequate funding to close the site up. In response, Mr. Clark addressed the property owner’s wish to post a bond for temporary erosion and sedimentation controls for each phase and not to proceed to the next project phase until the area was under control. Mr. Clark addressed the consideration of 10% to a 90% roll-over, stating that the initial phase was estimated at $13,000.00.and that the property owner was willing to post a cash bond. In response to questions that a surety bond be considered, Mr. Clark stated his belief that a surety bond could be difficult and untimely to work with.
Mr. Hedden opened the floor to Ms. Dorothy Clark Wolfe and her son, Jay Wolfe for their comments on the plans. Mr. Wolfe addressed modifications made to the Wolfe property to address the changes made to the site by the previous owner and in particular in the area of the outlet drain. In response, Mr. Clark stated that no changes were planned to the outlet structure. It was agreed that Mr. Clark and Mr. Wolfe should meet on site with staff to address any and all concerns.
With agreement that all concerns had been satisfied
Motion Mr. Kane, second Mr. Hurlburt, to approve App 513 – Sunset View LLC applicant/owner – Stabilization of an existing fill slope, deposition of excavated material to re-construct a driveway, removal of accumulated sediment from an existing pond and abandonment of a small sediment pond – Furnace Brook Farm – 344 Furnace Brook Road as per the oral and written testimony of the applicant/owner’s representatives and as per the site plan submitted, “Sunset View Farm LLC – Site Plan, sheets, 1-5 including phasing plan, driveway profile, sections and details, prepared by Oakwood Environmental Associates, dated 4/27/2007” with the following conditions:
A cash bond in the amount of $35,000.00 in an acceptable form to the Town of Cornwall be provided with access to said funds as the sole discretion of the Inland Wetlands commission.
The concerned neighbors visit the site with the Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer and if any issues are raised that are not covered by the permit, that the permit will be suspended until reviewed and approved by the commission.
The project engineer is to provide project supervision and assume the responsibility for erosion and sedimentation controls as the expense of the landowner.
The Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer will have the authority to require changes in the plans to cover any unforeseen issues.
The project engineer is to provide project supervision, at the landowner’s expense, sufficient to maintain control of the project.
Motion unanimously approved and with consensus, as stated after the approval, that the project as planned and completed would be an improvement.
NEW APPLICATIONS:
App 514 – Maria Bonetti applicant/owner – Development of a single family residence with required report from Inland Wetlands Commission for special exception approval – property off Town Street.
The commission reviewed the plans as submitted with Mr. George Johannesen, PE and principle from Allied Engineering. Mr. Johannesen addressed the requirement for a report from the Inland Wetlands Commission as part of a consideration and approval of a Special permit application to the Planning and Zoning Commission. With agreement that the plans as prepared with details for the driveway construction, a construction narrative and details for the construction activities needed for the proposed construction of a single family residence satisfied the concerns of the commission:
Motion Mr. Hurlburt, second Mr. Fisher, that the commission has determined that App 514 – Maria Bonetti applicant/owner – Development of a single family residence with required report from Inland Wetlands Commission for special exception approval – property off Town Street as constructed as per the oral and written testimony of the applicant and as per the site plan presented
“Proposed site Plan prepared for Maria Bonetti” sheets C-2,.ES- 1and ES- 2 by Allied Engineering, dated 5/5/2008” will not have any impact to the wetlands and water body around the site and that the minutes of the meeting constitute the report to the Planning & Zoning Commission for consideration of the special exception permit being sought: unanimously approved.
CORRECT AND RESTORE – App 515 - Cornwall Conservation Trust owner – Activities as approved by the IWEO to lower and maintain unsafe water levels created by beaver activity on the Conservation Trust Land – land east of the meadow that borders Rattlesnake and Cogswell Roads.
Ms. Griswold Nelson advised the commission of administrative actions taken to allow Denny Frost to lower water levels created by long ongoing beaver activity on the Conservation Trust Land. Ms. Griswold Nelson stated that permission for the corrective work had been given days after the receipt of the application but that the corrective action done by Mr. Frost was needed prior to the planned work to install beaver deceiver devises by beaver specialist, Mr. Hilliker. Mrs. Senzer, noting that the final work had been completed, addressed her displeasure with the final results including the water level now being too low and suggested that the process had not worked properly and should not be allowed again in the future.
Motion Mr. Hedden, second Mr. Hurlburt, to approve App 515 - Cornwall Conservation Trust owner – Activities as approved by the IWEO to lower and maintain unsafe water levels created by beaver activity on the Conservation Trust Land – land east of the meadow that borders Rattlesnake and Cogswell Roads as per the oral testimony of staff and written testimony in the application submitted prior to the “Correct and Restore” actions taken by the applicant’s representatives: approved Mr.’s Hedden, Kane, Hurlburt and Fisher. Mrs. Senzer opposed the application based on her belief that the activities had resulted in in-appropriate water levels and that future approved activities might not properly correct the situation.
OTHER BUSINESS PROPER TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
INLAND WETLANDS OFFICER REPORT.
Ms. Griswold Nelson advised the commission of an application in process by Shoreline, a hydro-raking company out of Massachusetts to address the removal of vegetation in the Stern/Art Schor Flat Rocks Road pond. Commission asked that the application include information as to how turbidity was to be controlled during the hydro-raking process, the water level needed for the work to be done and the E&S controls to be used to prevent any turbidity from going downstream.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion Mr. Kane, second Mr. Hurlburt, to adjourn at 9:15Pm; unanimously approved.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Griswold Nelson