 |  |  |
|
|
CITY OF NORWALK
NORWALK CONSERVATION
COMMISSION
AUGUST 26, 2008
PRESENT: D.
Seeley Hubbard, Chair; Ed Holowinko; Emily Wilson; Matthew Caputo; Anne
Cagnina; Gwen
Briggs; Elizabeth Ackerman
STAFF: Alexis
Cherichetti; Yari Bletsas
OTHERS: Leslie
Lawrence; Neil Moskow; Fred Canaveri; Herb Neporent; Seth Benjamin; John Picco;
Peter Torrano; Lori Torrano;
Laura Skutch; Kent Pierce
I.
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Hubbard called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
II.
ROLL CALL
Ms. Cherichetti took the roll call.
III.
PERMIT MODIFICATION or EXTENSION
a)
#S07-319A – 18 Range Road – Lawrence – Modification of
permit to include demolition of existing residence and construction of new
residence adjacent to a wetland and watercourse
Ms. Cherichetti showed the proposed plan and explained that
the applicant had been approved in June, 2008 for an addition to the existing
residence.
Leslie Lawrence, the applicant, stated that she had decided
that building a new residence was a better alternative than making an addition. She discussed the details of the proposal,
including solar panels and a rain garden. She said that the house would be moved further away from the pond.
Ms. Cagnina asked if the applicant had a more detailed
planting plan. Ms. Lawrence said that she
did, pointing it out on the landscaping plan.
Mr. Hubbard asked when the construction would begin. Ms. Lawrence said it would begin in one
month.
Ms. Ackerman asked if the rain garden were new to the
proposal. Ms. Lawrence said yes. There was a discussion of the rain garden.
Ms. Cherichetti discussed certain details of the proposal,
including the location of the silt fence and a pump chamber. Ms. Cagnina pointed out that the plans for
the rain garden should include dimensions, as well as the number and type of
plantings. Ms. Cherichetti agreed to add
these details as condition #7.
Ms. Ackerman asked if the new residence were the same size
as the other residence. Ms. Lawrence
said that it would be slightly larger.
** MR.
HUBBARD MOVED TO APPROVE THE PERMIT MODIFICATION WITH CONDITIONS #1 THROUGH
#6 OF THE ORIGINAL, PLUS CONDITION
#7 AS OUTLINED TONIGHT.
** MR. CAPUTO SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
IV. DISCUSSION &/or DECISION I
a)
#S08-325 – 29
Bonnybrook Road - DiPasquale – Deposition
of boulder revetment in and adjacent to Five Mile River
Ms. Cherichetti stated that the applicants had not submitted
the requested information regarding the amount of material to be deposited at
the site. She also said that they had
not yet paid the filing fee. Mr.
Hubbard asked if an application were deemed incomplete if the fee has not been
paid. Mr. Caputo asked if the fee waiver
had been rejected. Ms. Cherichetti
stated that it had been rejected on July 22, 2008. Mr. Hubbard pointed out that the applicant
had only presented a hand-drawn, incomplete plan.
Ms. Cherichetti explained and described the potential impact
on bank stabilization and flow velocity.
** MR. CAPUTO MOVED TO DENY THE
APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BECAUSE
OF THE APPLICANT’S FAILURE TO PAY THE
FILING FEE AND BECAUSE OF THE INCOMPLETENESS OF THE APPLICATION.
** MS. ACKERMAN SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
b)
#S08-326 – 115
Maywood Road – Barringer – Corrective Action deposition of woodchips in and
adjacent to a wetland and watercourse
Ms. Cherichetti stated that she had not heard back from the
applicant.
c)
#S08-327 – 85
Maywood Road – Sheed – Installation of a replacement on-site septic system
adjacent to a wetland and watercourse
Ms. Cherichetti stated that the application had already been
approved and apologized for the application’s reappearance on the agenda.
Ms. Cherichetti requested an amendment to the agenda to
include a discussion of the bond involving Rowayton Woods Condominiums.
** MR. HUBBARD MOTIONED TO AMEND THE AGENDA.
** MS. ACKERMAN SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The Commission discussed Rowayton Woods Condominium’s
request to post an insurance bond, as it was ready to begin work on the
overflow channel at the site. Ms.
Ackerman asked what the downside of granting the bond would be. Mr. Caputo explained that if the work were
not performed, the bond would then need to be called. He also discussed concerns about setting a
precedent as far as granting bonds. Ms.
Cherichetti stated that since the Commission had changed the regulations, they
had granted one non-cash bond and that, unfortunately, there have been
difficulties with that application and bond.
The Commission discussed the issue of the bond. Mr. Caputo emphasized that the Commission was
being asked to cover for the Condominiums, with no presentation.
** MR. CAPUTO MOTIONED TO REJECT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST BY
TELEPHONE TO CHANGE A BOND REQUEST FROM A
CASH BOND TO AN INSURANCE BOND.
** MS. CAGNINA SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The Commission took a five-minute recess.
V.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (to begin at 7:00 p.m.)
a)
#S08-324 – 379
Chestnut Hill Road – Canevari/Vey – Corrective Action clear cutting and
preparation of land adjacent to a wetland
Mr. Hubbard opened the public hearing. Ms. Cherichetti took the roll call.
Attorney Moskow discussed the cease and desist order,
stating that the applicant had originally taken an appeal. He said that he believed that no permit was
required to take action on the property, as far as permitting grazing, farming
and harvesting of crops. Moskow said that the applicant had maintained
a barrier of approximately 25 feet between the wetland and the grazing
area. He also presented a document
showing the remaining trees and the removed trees, as of January, 2007.
Mr. Hubbard asked if there was a count as to how many trees
had been taken down. Mr. Moskow said
there was not a count.
Mr. Moskow described the details of the application. He provided photographs of horses grazing at
the site, explaining that the horses graze there from May to October.
Ms. Ackerman asked about a structure in the
photographs. Mr. Moskow said that it was
a neighbor’s house and that the property does have an irregular shape. Mr. Hubbard asked how big the western area of
the property was. Mr. Moskow stated that
it was ½ acre altogether. Ms.
Cherichetti clarified that the area that was cut was over ½ acre and that the
entire property was 2.8 acres. Mr. Moskow
said that he stood corrected.
Ms. Cagnina asked why there was a concern now, if the horses
had been grazing there for years. Mr. Moskow
explained that the horses had not been grazing there when the trees were on the
property. He explained that the
highlighted area on the site plan indicated what remained on the site, not what
had been removed.
Mr. Hubbard asked if any trees had been cut in the
wetland. Mr. Moskow said no, adding that
all activity had taken place in the upland review area, not in the
wetland.
Mr. Canaveri described his own acquisition of the property
in 1998. He stated that there had been
livestock on the property all along, including during the time that his
daughter had owned the property. Mr. Moskow
asked how Mr. Canaveri identified which trees would be cut and which would
remain. Mr. Canaveri discussed the rocky
area of the property, which was a concern to him due to the risk of the horses
stumbling and becoming injured on the boulders. He also explained that he had planted Timothy grass there, as it was the
horses’ preferred food.
Mr. Canaveri described his experience with a tree-cutter who
mistakenly removed a number of trees that the applicant had wanted to remain on
the property.
Mr. Hubbard asked what needed to be done to plant the
Timothy grass. Mr. Canaveri said that
the trees needed to be removed, but that the stumps could remain in place to
rot. Mr. Moskow said that the hazard to
the horses was the fallen trees, not the stumps.
Ms. Cherichetti asked what would be done next to the land. Mr. Canaveri said that when the frost hit, he
would throw down seed for the Timothy grass.
Ms. Cagnina asked what the maximum number of horses on the
property would be. Mr. Canaveri said
that there were four horses, all of which leave the property in the winter
months. He added that the area would
allow year-round grazing, but that the horses were moved due to his own
preferences for winter habitation.
Ms. Cherichetti asked if any improvements were needed to get
trucks down to the area. Mr. Canaveri
said no.
Mr. Moskow discussed a similar case, Sackler, stating that
the applicant’s use was within statutes.
Ms. Cagnina asked how long Mr. Canaveri planned to have the
horses on the property, stating that farming develops over time. Mr. Canaveri said that he had owned horses
for 25 years and that he felt that her question about his future plans was
unfair.
Ms. Briggs asked if there were any other structures on the
property. Mr. Canaveri said that there
were mobile structures.
Mr. Neporent, 5 North Wind Lane, an adjacent property owner,
stated that he was concerned about the impact of the horses on the immediate
ecosystem. He said that there was some
blight on the property, including logs, an overgrown area and woodchips. He said that there needed to be coverage
between the two properties to reduce the visual impact. Mr. Neporent also stated his concern about
wells in the area.
Mr. Benjamin, 1 North Wind Lane, an adjacent resident,
stated his concern with the eventual intent of the applicant, as well as the
environmental impact of the horses. He
also said that he was concerned that the application could be paving the way
for making new homes in the area.
Mr. Pico, the president of the Four Winds Farm Association,
discussed the property’s effect on the water table. He also discussed the blight of on the
property, adding that he believed that the blight had impacted the sale of a
nearby property. He said that his opinion
of the use would be affected by what kind of barrier could be put up between
the property and its neighboring properties. Mr. Pico added that he was speaking on behalf of 24 nearby home- owners.
Ms. Cagnina said that the Commission could only regulate
what occurs to the wetland, stating that it had no jurisdiction regarding what
happens with barriers between properties.
Ms. Cherichetti discussed the nature of permitted,
as-of-right activities and regulated activities.
Ms. Wilson asked if there was anything from Corporation
Counsel on the item. Ms. Cherichetti
said no, though she had discussed components of the application with counsel. Mr. Caputo stated that the Commission should
have a chance to discuss the item with Corporation Counsel prior to the closing
of the hearing. Ms. Wilson added that
the Commission should specifically discuss case law and Connecticut statues, as
well as Conservation Commission regulations.
The Commission agreed to leave the hearing open and
reconvene at the next meeting on September 9, 2008.
b)
#S08-328 – 104
Dry Hill Road – Torrano – Corrective Action construction of low retaining wall,
filling and grading in and adjacent to a wetland and watercourse
Mr. Hubbard opened the public hearing. Ms. Cherichetti took the roll call. She said that she had received the receipts
notifying residents of the hearing.
Mr. Torrano said that he had put together a planting
plan. He gave a background of the
property, explaining that nine houses had been built across the street, causing
a heavy rise in the water level on his property. He said that the water sometimes came to
within 20 feet of his house and that trees were dying and soil was eroding on
his property. He showed photographs and
described the site, particularly the railroad ties which were now exposed due to
heavy erosion. Mr. Torrano explained that
he had been advised to put down cinderblocks and gravel for drainage.
Ms. Cherichetti described an aerial photograph of the
property, indicating the location of the wall on the wetland line.
Mr. Torrano reiterated that the object of the wall was only
to prevent soil from running off his property. Following questions from the Commissioners, Ms. Cherichetti discussed
the difference between disturbed soil and wetland soil. She presented a letter from Ms. Skutch, dated
August 5, 2008.
Ms. Skutch, 102 Dry Hill Road, an adjacent property owner,
passed around copies of her letter. She
said that she was glad to be informed of the applicant’s intentions initially
and did not pay much attention to the work until it was being conducted on her
own property. She explained that she had
retained an expert to get an opinion on the watercourse, which flooded
frequently. Ms. Skutch debated the need
for the wall, which she described as 20 inches, rather than 10 inches, in
height.
Ms. Skutch read her letter, which discussed the watercourse
and flooding. She added that Mr. Torrano
did not submit the necessary information about the proposed activity and its
impact. She also said that the wall had
been constructed of poor materials, which would collapse over time.
Ms. Skutch answered questions from the Commission about the
nature of her property. Mr. Caputo asked
if Ms. Skutch believed that the wall was increasing the water on her
property. Ms. Skutch said yes, pointing
out her loss of flood storage. Mr. Holowinko
asked what Ms. Skutch would ideally like to see done. Ms. Skutch said that she wished for the
problem to be properly identified and to determine whether the rationale for
building the wall was reasonable. She
added that her expert believes that the wall was “overkill” for a condition
(erosion) that did not really exist.
Mr. Pierce, an arborist and president of Green Cross,
discussed tree health issues and showed photographs of flooding that occurred
in April, 2007. He explained that
flooding does not kill red maples (the same type of tree that is on the
applicant’s property). Mr. Pierce showed
photographs that indicated no obvious erosion at the bench on the property,
despite flooding in the area.
Ms. Cagnina asked what the difference was between the two
properties. Mr. Pierce discussed a small
tributary in the area, as well as root systems and topsoil.
Mr. Torrano stated that he found it curious that Ms.
Skutch’s argument seemed to focus on why he was doing the work on the property,
rather than on the actual effect of the work. He also described the angle of the two properties, pointing out that his
property was uphill and tended to flood after Ms. Skutch’s property. He stated that the waterway comes closer to
her property. As a result, Mr. Torrano
said, things tend to settle on her property, while they wash away on his
own. He also disputed Ms. Skutch’s
assertion that the wall was 20 inches high. Mr. Torrano stated that he did not believe that the wall affected the
wetland, since he was simply retaining soil on his property.
** MS. CAGNINA MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
** MR. CAPUTO SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
VI.
DISCUSSION
&/or DECISION II
a)
#S08-324 – 379
Chestnut Hill Road – Canevari/Vey – Corrective Action clear cutting and
preparation of land adjacent to a wetland
The Commission agreed to postpone a decision.
b)
#S08-328 – 104
Dry Hill Road – Torrano – Corrective Action construction of low retaining wall,
filling and grading in and adjacent to a wetland and watercourse
The Commission agreed to postpone a decision.
VII.
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
a)
SHOW-CAUSE HEARING (continued) –
Cease & Restore Order #V08-814 – 4 Little Fox Lane – Giapoutzis – Filling,
grading, removal of vegetation, construction of patio & stone wall structures,
alteration and obstruction of flow in and adjacent to a wetland and watercourse
The Commission agreed
to discuss the item at the next meeting.
b)
SHOW-CAUSE HEARING (continued) – Cease & Restore Order #V08-815 –
147½ East Rocks Road – Zacklewicz – Filling, grading, and removal of vegetation
in and adjacent to a wetland and watercourse
Ms. Cherichetti said
that she had been unable to contact the owner. Commissioner Caputo suggested that she ask Attorney Maslan how to
proceed.
VIII.
MINUTES
a)
August 12, 2008 minutes
Ms. Cherichetti stated that the minutes had not yet been
finished.
IX.
COMMENTS OF STAFF
There were no comments from
staff.
a)
Minor Permits and Enforcement Actions
There
were none tonight.
X.COMMENTS
OF COMMISSIONERS
a)
Report of
Commission Chair
There were none tonight.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:31 pm.
Respectfully submitted by Charlene Smith.
