IWWC

Inland Wetland and Watercourse Commission

40 Old Farms Road Willington, CT 06279

May 20, 2019 – 7:30 PM

Town Hall Common Room

 Meeting Minutes

Members Present:

Dave Schreiber – Chairman

Tess Gutowski – Co-Chairman

Patrick Lord

Mark Drobney

Members Absent:

Also Present:

Mike D’Amato – Zoning Agent

Emily Perko – Assistant Zoning and Wetland Agent

Ken Slater – Attorney

D. Schreiber called meeting to order at 7:44.

Approval of Agenda

M. D’Amato spoke with applicant of IW-19-5: 20 Kollar Road requesting he wait until the next meeting to discuss his application with the commission. T. Gutowski made a motion to move the application to the next regularly scheduled meeting. All in favor.

IW-19-1 Application for modification of existing approved permit at 3 Polster Road Owner/Applicant: Love’s Travel Stops & Country Store (Received January 28, 2019

Public Hearing or decision within 65 days)

D. Schreiber asked for Fuss and O’Neil to finish with their presentation from the Special Meeting on May 13, 2019.

Matt Germine, professional engineer at Fuss and O’Neil, continued going through the response to the comments submitted at the May 13, 2019 special meeting. Specifically discussing the impacts to the wetlands H, I and J, prior PZC and IWWC approvals.

T. Gutowski questioned M. Germine’s statement that the impact to the wetland was considered marginal.

M. Germine stated the increase from what was approved to the modification being sought was only a fraction of the entire site. He continued describing the septic system design and stated a bedrock fissure is believed to be downgradient of the leaching field. However, the system was designed as if this fissure was not there and to prevent the water from prematurely surfacing 10-15 ft. of soil will be placed on top of the engineered fill. Germine continued, discussion Brian Murphy’s comments stating Roaring Brook is a class 3 wild trout management area. Meaning the waters are stocked versus a class 1 which naturally supports trout. He continued by stating the proposed modification will not have an adverse impact on inland wetland or watercourses including thermal impact from ground water in the system. Issued for long lasting impacts have been examined in depth and all issues were addressed in the adjudication process during the DEEP hearings.  

T. Gutowski asked how would you classify wetlands I and J

Josh Wilson, professional wetland and certified soil scientist at Fuss and O’Neil, stated I provides a limited amount of ground water recharge and discharge and would be classified as a moderate-low. J is fed by ground and surface water, provides nutrient and sediment retention classifying it as moderate.

Brian Murphy, Senior fish habitat biologist with Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, addressed classes of trout management areas relate to the amount of wild trout in a system and the ability to produce sustainable fishery. Classes 2 and 3 have wild trout reproduction but not significant enough for a wild harvest. Many colder water tributaries, like Wetland H, provide a thermal refuge for wild fish reproduction. Water temperature monitoring stations were put in place last year up and downgradient of the proposed development and in Wetland H to develop a baseline temperature and confirm Wetland H discharges colder water into Roaring Brook. The southern exposure side of the stream is more susceptible to impacts related to water temperature. Although ambient water conditions will be leaving the SWAS there is still a concern and monitoring before and after construction is advised. In order to contain sediment on site during and after construction an undisturbed vegetated buffer zone of 50 ft. along intermittent stream and 100 ft. along perennial stream was recommended.  

D. Schreiber asked if the vegetation planted would grow into trees

M. Germine stated there would be a diversity in vegetation planted.

J. Wilson, a table in the original report documents the current vegetation species on the site and similar species would be replanted in the area. Directed a question to B. Murphy if his buffer recommendation around streams was the same around a wetland?

B. Murphy recommendation is from the edge of the channel or wetland edge, stating this is a policy established in 1991.

P. Lord, Wetland J receives surface runoff from Polster Road, proposed plan has several catch basins directing storm water to Wetland J. Is warm surface water a concern as it enters the wetland?

B. Murphy unsure of impact it will have, only speculation through modeling.

M. Germine soil permeability in the area is not very high and the amount of infiltration will not be very substantial. New exhibit entered into the record, report from Fuss & O’Neil responding to comments from meeting on May 13, 2019. Began with discussing annotated aerial photograph of SWAS, specifically the leaching area explaining the 50 ft. buffer will be minimally impacted with the current design. A second proposal was displayed shortening the leaching field by 8 ft. and allowing for almost no impact within the 50 ft. buffer and reducing the amount of clearing necessary by about 75%. During excavation a sediment trap is proposed down gradient of septic location to prevent erosion from entering the wetland in addition to silt fence and hay bales. Rip rap or crushed stone can be added if necessary.   

T. Gutowski if the system were to fail what would happen

M. Germine DEEP permit is good for 10 years then needs to be renewed. Operation logs, system performance, and modifications will be reviewed and made prior to permit renewal. Continued discussing criteria for decision with DEEP. The weight of the soil on the liner along with 20-30 feet of material down gradient holding the soil in place. Asked Brian Murphy on opinion of shortening the leaching field to reduce disturbance in buffer area.

B. Murphy in favor of anything that can be done to reduce the amount of clearing necessary. Further asked the distance from edge of system to Roaring Brook.

J. Wilson total distance is 225 ft.

Edward Pawlak, owner of Connecticut Ecosystems, registered soil scientist, and certified professional wetlands scientist. Entered a review letter dated May 17, 2019 into the record following up from May 13, 2019 meeting. The letter was read and included responses to construction phasing requests due to a potential for erosion and sedimentation control failures during storm events. A bio survey was requested for Wetland H of the head water stream to determine aquatic biota. Recommended buffer for Wetland H to be 100 ft. wide based on scientific literature and Best Management Practices. Based on the plans submitted, root systems of the trees up gradient of Wetland H will be smothered based on the amount of top soil proposed to be added. The planting of trees proposed to be replanted in the buffer will not functionally replace what will be removed. Bio survey was recommended for Wetlands I & J to determine functional value. Nitrogen drinking water standards were met during DEEP review, however ecological standards were not. Nutrient over enrichment negatively impacts water quality of rivers and streams. Requesting applicant analyze the impact of total nitrogen released from SWAS upon headwater stream of Wetland H and into Roaring Brook.

Kathy Demers of the Conservation Commission, asked if sheet CU-105B was updated to depict the seasonal high and low water table, and if a temporary sediment trap was added to CE-101 phase 1. Arouse concerns that a shortened leaching field which may allow the ground water table to surface. Reinforced the importance of a 100 ft. buffer. In addition, temperature was not in the water quality monitoring report and inconsistencies were pointed out in some of the responses to comments from the previous meeting. Phasing of construction was discussed along with construction of the swale downgradient of wetland J. It is believed DEEP only reviewed for groundwater discharge during the adjudication and not for wetlands impact.

Dan Donahue, Professional Forester for 38 years, stated replanting above wetland H will not replicate the forest cover provided to wetland H currently. Due to this there should be a 100 ft. buffer around wetland H.

Charles McCaughtry, Thames Valley Trout Unlimited, stated his concerns and asked the life time of the liner.

M. Germine, lower grade liners last 10-15 years, higher quality lasts decades and HTPE lines which is being used on this site will last indefinitely for all intensive purposes.

Melissa Miller of 55 Mihilak Road, read and entered a letter into the exhibit outlining her concerns with the project, specifically the drinking water standards, top soil suffocating root systems, and potential liter control issues.

Ralph Tulis, 47 Village Hill Road, discussed the Fuss & O’Neil response letter from the May 13, 2019 meeting, specifically the response to the Conservation Commission comments. Spoke in favor of a denser curtain of shade and asked if Fuss & O’Neil has provided the commission with the updated material they stated they would. Further recommended placing hay bales along sensitive areas up to a season before construction to create impenetrable barrier.

M. Germine reviewed Attachment E and F of the response letter that was submitted at the beginning of the meeting. Explaining the groundwater contour map and believed location of a bedrock fracture downgradient of the leaching field. The proposed septic system was compared to septic systems of 10-single family homes on the same site illustrating the nitrogen discharge would be 3.7 time higher. A photo of wetland H was displayed depicting full sunlight, it was further explained that Best Management Practices do not apply to slopes over 10 percent. The slope at this location if over 30.

J. Wilson discussed the concerns of potential failure of silt fences during construction, stating the potential failure is 0.19%. Further stated, in his professional opinion, there will be no direct impact to wetlands or watercourses.

Greg McCracken, Love’s Travel Stop land use counsel, stated substantial evidence is required to make a decision. Evidence of general environmental impacts, speculation or concerns do not constitute substantial evidence. The evidence has to display a direct negative impact to wetlands or watercourses.  

T. Gutowski motioned to close the public hearing. P. Lord second. All in favor.

New Business

IW-19-5 Application for new construction in the upland review area at 20 Kollar Road (Map 24 Lot 21-1 Zone R80) Owner/Applicant: John Holden (Received April 29, 2019 Public Hearing or decision within 65 days)

Tabled until next regularly scheduled meeting

Old Business

IW-19-1 Application for modification of existing approved permit at 3 Polster Road Owner/Applicant: Love’s Travel Stops & Country Store (Received January 28, 2019 Public Hearing March 25, 2019 decision within 35 days after close of P.H.)

Tabled until next regularly scheduled meeting

Meeting adjourned at 11:10.

Respectfully Submitted,

Emily Perko

Assistant Land Use Agent