Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out



									INLAND WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Inland Wetlands Watercourse Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, 2007 in Room 8 of the Berlin Town Hall, Berlin, CT. PRESENT: Chairman Ray Jarema, Commissioners Richard Poudrier, Michael Balinskas, Patrick Serra, Mark D‟Amore, Alternate Commissioners Neil Young, Matt Cohen and Jim Horbal, Agent to the Commission. EXCUSED: Commissioner Frank Giuliani ABSENT: Alt. Commissioner Steve Joslyn Chairman Ray Jarema apologized for not acknowledging Marie Ralph (recently resigned recording secretary) for her excellent service and many long hours devoted to the Wetlands Commission while she was there last month. Thank you, Marie. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: R. Poudrier moved to approve the minutes of the May 1, 2007 meeting as presented, seconded by M.D‟Amore. The motion carried, four in favor, two abstained. AUDIENCE OF CITIZENS: None R. Jarema entertained a motion to postpone the IWWCC regulations to the end of the public hearing. R. Poudrier moved to postpone the regulations to the end of the public hearing, seconded by M. D‟Amore. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: R. Jarema presented the Legal Notice regarding Application 07-01W: Proposal by Westview, LLC to construct a 70 unit Multi-Family Residential Development on Lot 25B/Block 153, Berlin Turnpike and Toll Gate Road. REPRESENTING THE APPLICATION: Bart Bovee, MBA Engineering, felt he was present for cleaning of the records, housekeeping items. They have modified the Best Management Practices (BMP‟s) proposal (Dated May 1, 2007 and Revised June 1, 2007) specifically pages 2 and 3, the Water Quality Protection bullets reflect concerns from the Land Trust and Staff. The last bullet point sentence says “The frequency of the yearly certifications may be reviewed by the IWWCC (upon request of the homeowner‟s association) no sooner than 5 (five) years after the completion of all construction activities on the project.” The first bullet point was amended to say they will refrain from the use and application of any inorganic type herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers. Bi-monthly inspections amended to monthly inspections, and on page 10, there is a new paragraph about inspections by a Professional Engineer during construction. Mr. Kerns submitted a letter for the record dated June 5, 2007 from the Berlin Land Trust confirming that MBA Engineering, with the developer, has addressed the concerns of the Land Trust satisfactorily. Drainage computations are completed and discussed with the Town Engineer and Jim Horbal.


Summarizing that out of the 14.3 acres, there are no wetlands, they are just looking for a drainage permit. The proposed Stormwater Management System conforms to the requirements of the 2004 Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual prepared by the DEP and meets all Water Quality Act requirements for pollutants. Extreme care has been taken to ensure post-development peak flow will not exceed pre-development conditions, and not increase flows within the existing culvert across the Berlin Turnpike. R. Jarema commented that the commissioners had not had a chance to review the new BMP‟s and requested input from J. Horbal. Mr. Horbal reported that the staff has met with MBA Engineering and is satisfied with the report as it has been presented. M. Balinskas moved to approve Application 07-01W with the record as it stands, including all of the latest pieces of information that have been filed on the record, seconded by R. Poudrier. The motion carried unanimously, with conditions. R. Jarema presented the legal notice regarding Application 07-02W: Proposal by Reservoir Hills, LLC to discharge drainage in wetland area on Lot 24, Block 12, Reservoir Road. REPRESENTING THE APPLICATION: Thomas Coccomo requested that the application be postponed to the end of the hearings. The engineer was running late. M. D‟Amore moved to accept the request to move the application to the end of the hearing, seconded by P. Serra. The motion carried unanimously. R. Jarema presented the legal notice regarding Application 07-04W: Proposal by Lovley Development Inc. to construct a seven (7) lot residential subdivision and discharge drainage alongside a wetland on Lot 79, Block 54, #94 Carbo Lane. REPRESENTING THE APPLICATION: Bart Bovee presented a revised set of plans for the proposed seven lot residential subdivision that were presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. On the east side of the site the infiltration units that were requested have been incorporated for drainage concerns, maintaining a net zero impact. The original plan shows the stormwater routing into the wetlands, then letting it drain back in to the existing 36” storm drain but after discussions with the Town Engineer and J. Horbal it was decided that rather than disturb the wetlands, stormwater would be taken out with a sedimentation structure at the intersection of Whispering Brook Dr. and Carbo Ln. In the event that there is new construction where the existing house is, they would install a stormwater discharge gallery system to enhance subsurface infiltration and reduce peak storm runoff volume. M. D'Amore had questions about the stormwater detention volumes and numbers at the last meeting. Mr. Bovee summarized that water flowing from this parcel during a peak storm would be about twenty five minutes. It's better in this condition, where you've got this site flowing into this relatively close area to the river, to get this stormwater back into the river and not deal with the outside potential, plus you have the added benefit of two natural reservoirs.


R. Jarema asked how far we are from the water course at its closest point in terms of minutes from construction. Bovee: At its closest point, 50 to 60' away, but it's also about 20' in elevation . Jarema: So there's no opportunity for equipment or spoils to find there way down that hill. Bovee: no, not really. No further questions from the public or commissioners. P. Serra moved to close the public hearing, seconded by M. Balinskas. The motion carried unanimously. M. D‟Amore moved to accept application 07-04W as presented, seconded by P. Serra. The motion passed unanimously, with conditions. R. Jarema presented the legal notice regarding Application 07-02W: Proposal by Reservoir Hills, LLC to discharge drainage in wetland area on Lot 24, Block 12, Reservoir Road. REPRESENTING THE APPLICATION: Fred Clarke, Hewitt Engineering made a lengthy presentation to the commission. R. Jarema re-stated that Mr. Clarke took an original A-1 computation of the amount of flow that was going to be going off site naturally as it currently exists through that swale, then you did a computation that took the entire site and including the development of that through the drainage system, through the detention area, and did those calculations, and you are saying that now compaired to post-development to pre-development you are 30 or 40 percent less on a peak basis than A-1 was by itself or it is currently. Take us through the computations of CSF before and CSF after. Mr. Clarke proceeded to explain the computations as submitted. R. Poudrier asked if these calculations had been presented to the Engineering Department and Mr. Clarke replied that they had indeed, but had not received feedback yet. M. Balinskas summarized that from a water quality point of view to the degree that we can retain and slow that stuff down, give it a chance to clean up before it goes out is an important fact. Don‟t they say the first quarter inch of rain contains eighty to ninety percent of the contaminants so to the degree that it is managed first and well is an important factor. Mr. Clarke continued to explain his calculations. R. Jarema wanted clarifications on the basin easements. M. Balinskas asked that over time, is there enough of a slope there or do we end up where there is a back water situation. How often does that have to be maintained before we end up creating a ponding, and the neighbor complains that the water from the detention basin is backing up in to their yard. Mr. Clarke replied that it should never happen. M. Balinskas asked what the elevation of the natural swale was and Mr. Clarke responded about in the 78 area as it drops off on to that north corner there. M. Balinskas asked how far the final clear end was from the closest wetlands. Mr. Clarke responded beyond the 50' setback. J. Horbal asked how far the outlet flaired end is off the boundary line to the north or northeast of the property. Mr. Clarke responded that the 50' rear yard is going right through the flared end. Mr. Balinskas asked if the same type of construction buffers are going to be maintained between Stockings Brook and now this flaired end and retention area. The 100' buffer around Stockings Brook. Mr. Clarke responded yes, that they shouldn't be down that far, but need to put some fill over that pipe to do that. M. Balinskas asked that they are still going to maintain the soil and erosion control and construction fence as in the plan. Mr. Clarke responded, yes.


M. Balinskas wanted it made clear to the construction crews where the "no go" zone is by adding a construction fence in addition to a silt fence to stay away from the 50' buffer zone. M. D'Amore asked if it made any sense to continue the easement around the rip-rap spillway to the edge of the property to prevent someone from putting a shed in front of the spillway in the future. R. Jarema asked if there was an easement there. Mr. Clarke answered the easement is covering the splash pad. J. Horbal commented that at least with the easement showing on the print, if someone came in for a building permit for a shed, and was required to show a plot plan with the location of it, that's going to trigger it. R. Jarema opened the hearing to the audience for questions and comments. Ronnie Asal, property owner to the North and East, wanted to know why everything drained down into his property. Mr. Clarke answered that they are working with the natural topography of the land. The drainage isn‟t going in to one spot. There is a natural swale to the East and the North. Mr. Asal said he understood, but isn‟t the contractor suppose to be draining on his own property? Mr. Clarke said it doesn‟t have to. What you have to do is not increase the peak run-off coming off that property without damaging other property. Mr. Asal commented that you don‟t build a wall, but a swale to make it go where you want. Mr. Clarke responded, Yes, we‟ve built a 27,000 cubic foot detention basin to change the flow characteristics based on the development to release it at the same rate or less than it is presently flowing off the site. M. Balinskas commented that the same amount of water is ultimately going to pass through the site, but with this development, it will be done at a lower peak rate. That‟s the regulations. Mr. Asal said he had never seen a subdivision that you could shed water on other people‟s property. R. Jarema said the regulations don‟t prevent that, and it has happened all over the Town on numerous occasions. Edward Timko goes back to ‟24 and knows the property like the back of his hand. The map is wrong. You don‟t even go to the brook here. All these houses anybody builds, the fact still remains, all the water on the roof tops you‟re diverting someplace else. Where‟s it gonna go? R. Jarema answered, Into the detention basin. Mr. Timko said “You better show me that in Black and White, Mister”. R. Jarema answered, that‟s what the prints are for. I don‟t know how else to show you. Christina Berger,678 Chamberlain Hwy, looked at the file before the meeting and is still not getting answers to many of her concerns. She feels the paperwork in the file is not clear to the general public and there are no engineering stamps and seals on several of the documents and their revisions. Does Mr. Coccomo own the property? Is there written consent? Mr. Coccomo answered that he was the property owner and, the Power of Attorney signed the consent. Ms. Berger said that collectively a lot of development is going on in our town and it‟s these little incremental steps that are adding to the flow. You‟re taking farm property and turning it into house slots with impervious surface. She‟d like to see a safety factor for expansion from future property owners. Pre-existing vegetation should be shown on plans because heavy equipment will be on the existing soils. She wanted to see the soil types, FEMA information, 100 year flood, wetland impacts, she believes there are trout living down there and doesn‟t want siltation to bother them. She feels it‟s a requirement of State Erosion and Sediment Control measures that items which require engineering input have a stamp. She wants to be assured that the detention basins live up to their expectations. She feels it sounds too good to be true, but if the Town Engineer looks at and approves of all the calculations with his stamp or seal, she will be a happy neighbor. R. Jarema asked if there were any other questions of the public.


Someone in the audience asked if this retention pond is in the wetland area? R. Jarema answered No. The only wetland portion is in the south east corner. The detention basin is used to hold the water and release it slowly rather than all at once. Someone said it‟s a high water table even if there are no wetlands. R. Jarema still wants to see the construction sequence plan, the BMP's, more detail for the public, and the Commissioners want more detail about the basin structure. The Commission will wait for verification of the approval of these numbers from the engineering department and a clear depiction of the splash pad. R. Jarema inquired about the time frame on the application. J. Horbal suggested that the applicant ask for an extension of time to continue the hearing. R. Jarema will look for closure on this by the next meeting. M. Balinskas moved to continue the hearing, seconded by M. D‟Amore. The motion carried unanimously. R. Jarema presented the Legal Notice regarding the proposal by The Town of Berlin Inland Wetland and Water Courses Commission to amend The Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Regulations of The Town of Berlin. This was not a complete re-vamp of the regulations but adding sub-section 7.3a. Identifying additional fee requirements to applicants to help with legal assistance when required. Concerns of the Commissioners included: What constitutes significant activity? Is 150% too much or not enough? Will the deposit be refunded to the applicant? Is it fair to impose more fees on the Public? This should be left to staff discretion. We [the Commissioners] must determine at the time of application that if the case goes to Public Hearing, do we anticipate a large legal fee? J. Horbal would like to incorporate this section as soon as possible to protect the Town and work out the fine details later on when the major revisions are looked at. Planning and Zoning has incorporated the same information into their regulations. J. Horbal stated that he submitted the regulation to the State DEP in a letter dated April 11, 2007 in accordance with their statutes, and asked for their review, but they responded by a letter dated April 17, 2007 that they do not have the staff to focus on regulation review at this time but would be available for questions if needed. The effective date would be the last of June. R. Poudrier moved to approve sub-section 7.3a to the Inland Wetlands Regulations as written, seconded by N. Young. The motion carried unanimously. It was requested to take a five minute break before the regular meeting. REGULAR MEETING: Application 07-06W - Proposal by Shuttle Meadow Development, LLC to construct Residential structures and related appurtenances alongside wetland areas on Lot 4-4 Lavery Lane and Lot 4-15 Conklin Way. REPRESENTING THE APPLICATION: Mr. Horbal summarized that at the time of the original approval of this sub-division, the Board placed restrictions on a number of the lots requiring them to come in on an individual plot plan by plot plan basis, so that's why these two plans are before you tonight. Mr. Jarema asked if these are different than the original proposal.


Thomas Coccomo, represented his application. He began with Lot 4-4 (Lavery Lane) and mentioned that he had a 50' buffer area he had to come back with when we cut some trees within that area. Since that time, no more work has been done, but he‟s at the point he wants to get the building permit. He has a customer that is interested in a ranch style house that is a little larger than the original proposal. He gave measurements from the wetlands and has made a "T" with the house plan in to the northern part of the property. He said the biggest concern you may have is that you asked for some signage at the 50' buffer area, square markers. There will be a patio on the NNE portion of the property. Mr. Horbal asked if the house is too big for the lot? M. Balinskas suggested that the house be angled to accommodate the markers. Mr. Coccomo clarified that when he plants the rhododendrons and seed that he could then leave it up to the owners to maintain. R. Jarema said the intent is to make sure the owner doesn't put a shed in that area in the future. J. Horbal said markers were post sub-division approval. He believes the deed restrictions specify activity in the buffer areas. The plan specifies in the wetland notes: Remove wood chips, replace top soil over seed with wildflower seeds, install 4' high, 4 x 4 P.T. Posts with sign "Caution: Wetland buffer - Any activity beyond this point must be reviewed by Berlin Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Commission". Mr. Horbal said, Essentially you're going to pull a permit, build a house, before you close on the house, the conditions of this plot plan have got to be met, the plantings have to be in place, the grading, so the future homeowner shouldn‟t have any questions this is what they‟re buying before they take possession of it. R. Poudrier asked Mr. Coccomo when he planned to start construction and Mr. Coccomo said he had to wait the 30 days. Mr. Horbal suggested that he revise the plan and get it on next month‟s agenda, but he won‟t sign off on it until the Board sees the final product 30 days from now. Mr. Coccomo then showed the plan for Lot 4-15 (Conklin Way). He explained that he has a prospect who is interested in a slightly smaller house than the one on the original print. After some discussion, it was decided that since this house is smaller, it would be less of an impact on Wetlands, so Mr. Coccomo verbally withdrew this lot from the application and will submit a letter indicating the intent. M. D‟Amore made a motion to Table the application, seconded by N. Young. The motion passed unanimously. Application 07-07WF - Proposal by Depot Crossing, LLC to construct a commercial Development and discharge drainage into a regulated area on Lots #1, 1A, and 1AA, Block 80, Farmington Avenue. REPRESENTING THE APPLICATION: Ray Kavarsky and his son Ryan (who will be the project manager) said that they have been working on this project for about a year, have good tenants, and are ready to move forward. They asked Jeff Johnson from BL Companies to present the application. He submitted his presentation for the record. This project consists of four existing tax parcels to be combined on one proposed property together these parcels, referred to as the „site‟, contain 3.44 acres. The site is situated on the south side of Farmington Avenue (Conn. Route 372) across from Depot Road and adjacent to the Kensington Fire Station. The applicant proposes to construct an 8,896 S.F. 2 ½ story building containing retail, office, medical office, restaurant and 4 residential units and an 825 S.F. restaurant building with a drive through.


The site is currently undeveloped with 1.46 acres of wetlands located in the southern portion of the site. Approximately 205 S.F. of wetland disturbance is proposed as part of this project to install an outlet pipe for the proposed storm drainage system. The total amount of impervious surface area will be increased from what currently exists on-site. As a result, underground storm water detention and recharge is proposed to match or reduce the peak rate of storm water runoff from the property. A storm drainage system will be constructed to control runoff from the property and improve the quality of runoff through a Vortechs unit oil-grit separator system, catch basin sumps, hooded catch basin outlets and drainage system maintenance. The drainage system is designed to provide a zero net increase in the peak rate of runoff. The Site is currently zoned as Commercial Core Design District 2 (CCD-2). Retail, office medical office and restaurant uses are permitted within CCD-2 zones per the Town of Berlin Zoning Regulations. Residential dwelling units and restaurants with drive-thru's require a special permit per the Town of Berlin Zoning Regulations. A residential zone abuts to the south 300 feet +/- from nearest area of development on property. The property is not located within the Coastal Area Management District, or an Aquifer Protection Zone. The site is located in Flood Hazard Zone X (areas determined to be outside 500-year flood). A parking lot, loading areas, and other site improvements will be constructed according to the requirements of the Town of Berlin Zoning Regulations. Access to the site is provided by a full access driveway located along Farmington Avenue (Conn. Route 372). A. Soil Scientist‟s Investigation A soil scientist from Soil Science and Environmental Services, Inc. was retained to delineate the wetlands on the property and immediately adjacent to the property. Wetland areas located by the soil scientist were delineated in the field according to the State of Connecticut Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act. B. Wetland Impacts The site layout and design detailed in this report and on the site drawings was completed to present no direct impacts to wetlands areas found on the property or abutting the property. However, in order to install the proposed outlet pipe and rip rap pad some temporary wetland disturbance is required. A storm water management system has been designed to collect runoff and improve the quality of the runoff prior to discharge from the property. This is accomplished by routing of storm water through a Vortechs oil-grit separator. Additional measures have been implemented to improve the quality of runoff, including catch basins with 2 foot sumps and hooded outlets and outlet protection will be in place at all drainage discharge points. The peak rate of runoff will be reduced from current conditions. A. Existing Drainage Patterns In general, the site slopes gradually from a high point in the middle of the upland area towards Farmington Avenue (Conn. Route 372), to the east abutter and to the rear of the site into the wetlands/drainage ditch. The southern half of the site is wetlands and no development is proposed in this area. This area is on the south side of an existing drainage ditch that sheet flows


to the Mattabassett River, therefore this area was not analyzed in the pre vs. post conditions. 0.647 acres of the developed area (1.98 acres) sheet flows to Farmington Avenue, 0.416 acres sheet flows to the abutting property to the east and 0.884 acres sheet flows to the south into the wetlands/drainage ditch. The site drains to these three points. B. Proposed Drainage Patterns Sheet flow runoff to Rte 372 and east abutter will be reduced to near zero. Runoff from all paved areas and the building will be collected by catch basins and routed through drainage pipes to an outlet point. The outlet will be constructed at the rear of the site and discharge into the existing drainage ditch. There is one drainage system proposed, receiving the building, and parking areas. Remaining landscaped areas to the north and east of the proposed development will sheet flow from the property as they do under current conditions. Runoff discharging to the drainage ditch located adjacent to the wetlands will be reduced under proposed conditions. This is accomplished by using the pipe network and an underground detention/recharge system. Runoff flowing directly to the abutting properties has been reduced substantially. Pre-Development vs. Post Development Peak Discharge Summary Total Discharge To Wetland Area/Drainage Ditch

Frequency 2Yr.

(Pre) 0.89 0.61 2.50 2.17 3.51 3.03 4.44 3.75 5.41 5.40 -0.28 -0.33 -0.48 -0.69 -0.01

(Post) 10Yr. (Pre) (Post) 25Yr. (Pre) (Post) 50Yr. (Pre) (Post) 100Yr. (Pre) (Post)

As a result of this comparison it was demonstrated that the proposed storm drainage system has been adequately designed to reduce the peak rate and volume of runoff from the property. This is due to the storage of storm water in the under ground detention system and the recharge of storm water into the ground. In addition, runoff to the southern and eastern property abutter is reduced from existing conditions. There are no negative impacts to the storm water system located in Farmington Avenue.


C. Storm Water Quality Along with the reduction of peak rates of storm water runoff, an important element of the proposed drainage system is to improve the quality of runoff leaving the property. To do this, numerous best management practices “BMP‟s” have been included in this design.  All catch basins will have two-foot sumps to collect sediment carried in the runoff. In addition, select catch basin outlets will be fitted with „hoods‟ which trap floating debris in the individual catch basin so they can be removed during regular maintenance. Depot Crossing, LLC will implement a site maintenance program for the storm water system. Parking lots will be swept, trash and debris collected and storm drainage structures cleaned of debris and sediment on a regular basis. A Vetch Unit will be installed after the last structure prior to discharge into the underground detention system. These types of units have been proven to improve storm water quality. Since the “first flush” of each storm event is the major carrier of pollutants, the Vortech unit is sized to achieve 80% TSS removal of the 2-year storm event. The unit for this project is designed in an “on-line” configuration and is sized, per manufacturer's recommendations, for the 100-year storm event. This sizing allows treatment of all storm events to the 100-year frequency while maintaining 80% TSS removal for the “first flush” of all storm events.



D. Summary of Storm Water Impacts With the implementation of the drainage system designed for this project, there will be no negative impacts to downstream properties, off-site storm drainage systems, wetland areas or watercourses from the proposed development. The total peak rate of runoff leaving the property will be reduced or match pre construction levels. The drainage/detention system is sized for the 100-year storm to operate without affecting the operations on-site nor off-site properties and numerous measures have been implemented to improve storm water quality. R. Jarema was wondering if a concession to the Wetlands should be made to cut back into the parking area for more separation distance between the ditch. J. Johnson said they didn‟t want to disturb the wetlands at all, so they designed the parking lot to accept the stormwater with the Vortech system. J. Horbal commented that he listed the application with a flood potential only because the ditch might back up from the Mattabassett River if it ever flooded. J. Johnson said the flood elevation is in the “X – Zone” and they‟re outside the 500. The first floor elevation of the building is at 57‟5” so they‟re like 10‟ above. They‟re not going to be worried about flooding. M. Balinskas suggested that perhaps a vegetative buffer or rain garden be planted as a buffer between the firehouse and the property. J. Johnson said they do work well, but they are too close to grade on this property to make anything else work. Art Simonian had joined the meeting at this point and the Commissioners asked if he was comfortable with this application. He commented that he had been in discussion with Jeff and was indeed okay.


M. D‟Amore moved to close the public hearing and table the application for 30 days, seconded by P. Serra. The motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS TO COME PROPERLY BEFORE THE COMMISSION: a) Application 06-04WF - Michael and Sandra Levine - request for modifications to existing permit for Carrier Enterprises. Tina Carrier represented Carrier Enterprises in a request to add a 12' x 14' raised deck at 196 Wildermere Rd. Mr. Horbal told the Commissioners that they had approved plans for this home in the past. The Carrier‟s bought the house from the Levine‟s and are looking to add the deck. T. Carrier said that there were only two posts going into the 50‟ buffer, and they would not be using heavy equipment to install them. M. Balinskas questioned about where a future pool would go, and Mr. Horbal said it would have to go to the physical rear of the house. Mr. Horbal commented that he wished all sites were as well maintained as this place. It was a pleasure to make the inspection for the CO. Tina Carrier commented that they take great pride in their work. M. D'Amore moved to accept the modifications to Application 06-04WF, seconded by M. Cohen. The motion passed unanimously with conditions.

b) Application 04-14WF - Beckley Farms - Request for modifications to existing permit. Beckley Farms, LLC is seeking to modify the approved project by changing 4 single-family units (approved as 48x50 building boxes) to 4 duplex units (41x48 building boxes). The resulting change in building (impervious) coverage is a decrease of 1,728 S.F. The current approved impervious coverage for the project is 14.986 acres. The requested modification results in a 0.26% decrease to 14.830 acres of impervious coverage for the project. With this modification approximately 9,444 S.F. of wooded area will be preserved within the project area. There are no changes being made to the roadways, or overall area of disturbance. The requested modification does not impact overall building setbacks and is in compliance with relevant Zoning requirements. An Overall Site Plan was submitted showing proposed units to be modified, along with copies of a Portion of Phasing Plan which shows Limit of Section 2 Work (PH-3), copies of a reduced size of the Overall Phasing Plan (PH-0) in color, and 1 full size copy that includes all plans listed on the cover sheet and reduced copies of revised Land Development Drawings (CV-1, VP-0, SP-0, SP-1,3,4, GD-0, GD-1,3,5, SU-0, SU-1,3,4, PH-0, EC-1,3, LL-0, LL-1,3). M. Balinskas moved to accept the modifications to Application 04-14WF, seconded by P. Serra. The motion passed unanimously with all previous conditions staying in place. c) #81 Ledge Road-Notice of Violation and d) #88 Ledge Road-Notice of Violation Mr. Thomas Pethigal and his daughter presented pictures (on file) showing the vegetation growing back, and that he had removed 70% of the soil from the area. R. Jarema asked if they followed up on getting the wetlands delineation. Mr. Pethigal said he had been brushhogging and working this field for years. It has been farmland and orchards for 300 years. He felt the leveling was an improvement to the


property. He didn‟t want to go to the expense. The Commissioners still want them to get the State Soil Conservation Service to test the soil and get the delineation so there is no question as to what may be wetlands. They were given information that there was activity in a wetlands and they don‟t want questions as to what the soil types are and if there are wetlands. Mr. Pethigal is to let the Commissioners know when he has the results and they will add him to the agenda again for closure.

d) #1854 Chamberlain Hwy - Notice of Violation - No representation. R. Poudrier suggested a strong letter to the property owner to submit the findings of the soil types in the rear of the property. e) #33 Victoria Court - Notice of Violation Mr. Jim Cassidy of Hallisey, Pearson & Cassidy, represented the home owner at Lot 15-4 Kensington Valley Estates. Tim Lawler, builder was present with the property owners. Mr. Cassidy presented a letter from Edward M. Pawlak, Registered Soil Scientist and brought pictures of affected area (on file). He said they have approached the Building Department to raise the elevation of the foundation. There is public water and sewage for the property. He maintained that the trench digging for the new foundation caused a temporary drop in water level in the wetland. The contractor was asked to fill the trench to prevent further draining. He brought in the clay type material used to pack the pond. It is believed that the wetland will resume to its normal hydrologic cycle next spring. Mr. Horbal wants assurances that restoration is going to happen in a timely fashion. M. D'Amore moved to lift the cease and desist with the understanding that the Engineering staff will review the permeability results within the next 30 days to justify the restoration of the wetlands, seconded by N. Young. The motion carried unanimously. Tim Lawler commented that sub-division maps should show where wetlands are located. The property owners may not have even bought the property. J. Horbal commented that if you‟re a developer and you‟re required to mark your parcel and abutting parcels. You‟d never get permission from everyone involved. Correspondence: none

ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Poudrier moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:55. p.m., seconded by Commissioner D‟Amore. The motion carried unanimously. The next scheduled meeting will be the second Tuesday, July 10, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Lecia Paonessa, Recording Secretary


To top