Good evening, and welcome
to the Environmental Impact
Commission.
Today is Wednesday, February
11th, it's 7 o'clock,
so I can get roll call
from my right.
Jeff Harreld.
Gary Dufill.
Christina Brenn.
John Schwartz.
Elizabeth Falk.
Matt Rose.
And Jeff, if you can lead us
in pledge. Please.
Please rise if you're able.
I pledge allegiance
to the flag of the United
States of America, and to the
Republic for which it stands,
one nation, under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice
for all.
The members of the last meeting
that were here can vote
on the minutes, go ahead.
I make a motion we accept the
minutes from January 28th.
I'll second that.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Thank you.
The next meeting is February
25th, and the first reading
of the activity is item 1261,
134 Chambers Road, the
applicant here.
Hi I'm Abigail Varga.
And I am Brooke Clark.
We're from Brooke Clark
Landscape Architects.
And we are the agent for 134
Chambers Road.
The property is a 7.9 acre
zoned in RA40.
It has an existing brook that
bisects the property
with the majority
of the property
on the far side
of the brook being wetlands.
There are some existing
wetlands also on this side
of the brook close
to the home.
And it's located in the
Paternarum Brook Watershed.
Existing or proposed activity
includes the demolition
of an existing
above ground pool, the removal
of an existing terrace,
removal of an existing shed,
and the relocation of a septic
pump and septic tank.
Proposed mitigation measures
include holding an average
of a 10 to 15 foot buffer
from the wetland line
on this side of the brook.
The demarcation is utilizing
the pool enclosure fence.
And beyond that, where needed,
it is demarcated
through boulders.
And then beyond that, between
the demarcation line and the
brook would be no mow,
fine fescue.
Some erosion has occurred along
the bank alongside the brook.
At critical areas,
we are proposing boulders set
in grade
with native planting.
And certain more critical
areas, we're proposing a
fieldstone wall.
There's an existing footbridge
that we are proposing
to rehabilitate
with added concrete footings.
And we're just holding a mown
lawn footpath
to that bridge.
Oh, so the proposed barn is a
20 by 20 with an added lean-to
on the rear.
And that is held in the same
location as the existing shed.
No tree removal
in the wetlands is occurring.
There's one small ornamental
tree located
between the terrace, the
existing terrace and the house
that's to be removed.
And I think that's it.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I was
the sanitarian that was working
on the 100% replacement area.
So I did the test holes
with the engineering company,
which is far enough removed as
it is because they're a
swimming pool and it needs
to be a B100.
And the B100 is,
they're asking for permission
for us
to accept that as well.
The site,
like the applicant has stated,
the site is seven and a half
acres and they're really
primarily just working
on everything that's in the
front and the areas that have
already been an active,
the active part
of the home site.
The stabilization of the stream
bank was something that we
discussed when we walked,
saying that there are some
definite erosion measures and
they actually located them and
they're showing what needs to
be done.
I know that we can go
out there.
We should go out there and take
a look because even though
there may be snow cover,
it's very fairly evident of
where everything is going so
that we can see it.
I know that it's been brought
to my attention by one of the
commissioners that the invasive
species removal that's
on there, that all invasive
species should be bagged and
removed from the site, not
stockpiled or placed anyplace
else so that we don't spread
them around.
It's just put it in
with the trash, thank you.
As well as there's a lot of
down debris that you're
referring to.
We need to maintain some
critter habitat, please, so we
can discuss that as we're there
and we can look
at it when the commissioners go
out and look at it.
I do recommend that if you go
out there that you can just
obviously introduce yourselves
and if you want me there
with you, I can,
and take a look
at it.
I do have to admit, the
planting plan and everything
that they did,
everything is list
of species, the list of cost, I
mean we can do bond estimates
right from the thing, it's
very, job well done ladies,
thank you very much.
We appreciate that.
It's very complete, it is
definitely a good application
and I look forward
for making it work.
Thank you.
Yeah, maybe there's a question
for you Larry.
The stream bank stabilization,
I haven't been out there.
They show some boulders,
they show some walls.
There's not a lot of detail
on that, how high the wall is
and all that.
Is there enough information
for you
to know what's going on?
That is a question that we're
going to, that is a question
that was going to be asked
in the staff report
in between, and yeah, I do need
a little bit more detail
about the wall specifically,
especially if the wall is
going, especially wall height,
because if it's
over three feet, it needs
to be designed
by a professional engineer.
The scouring areas where they
are and where they're going
to place the boulders for,
well it's really not placing
boulders, it's kind
of armor plating, some
of where the scour is
from the meander
of the stream, I mean that's
fairly evident and that detail
is in their stabilization,
but you're right, the wall
needs a little bit more
fine-tuning and that's, I'm
sure that will be asked and
answered
before the next meeting.
The same with the footers
for the little bridge,
I don't know if those are just
like footers that are just
like for a deck.
When you see it, you'll see
what they're talking about.
They're just going to pour,
obviously they're just going
to pour two concrete curbs,
for lack of a better term,
that they're going to attach
to it.
This isn't a foot, this isn't a
bridge that's going to be
for vehicles,
this is just a bridge
for pedestrian traffic, it's
just, and right now,
I think that what they want
to do is they want to make sure
that it doesn't wind up
downstream, and part
of the process of doing this,
what I would be also
recommending is how are they
going to anchor it or at least
tether the bridge should a
flash flood come by,
that the bridge is, that
footbridge doesn't become
something clogged
in a culvert downstream.
Thank you.
Gary.
Any other questions
from commissioners?
Is the,
where the improvements are
going in, is there a flood zone
that extends out
from the creek?
There's not currently shown a
flood zone.
Okay.
It's unshaded accent on FEMA,
or?
There's a wetland line that's
been depicted,
but no flood zone.
Okay.
It's picked up by the CRIR.
On the firm map, it doesn't, it
does not say that there's a
flood zone.
Okay.
Any other questions, comments,
if there aren't any,
if someone could make a motion
to table
to the next meeting.
All right.
We'll make a motion.
We table regulated activity
1261 for Chambers Road until
the next regularly scheduled
meeting, which is the 25th of
February.
Second.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Thank you.
(Inaudible). The application is
not completed so the applicant
has decided to wait this evening
and submit a full application.
So we will have to make a motion
if the application is not
complete and vote on it next
meeting. (Inaudible) is in Utah
right now on vacation, I spoke
with him yesterday, saw the
report, this is on the previous
subdivision.
And I said I'd like that
revisited.
Are there multiple lots
associated
with the proposed development?
Ten.
Ten?
Ten.
We can't talk about it.
We're not talking
about it tonight.
It's not a completed,
this is coming down the pipe,
but yes, this is a subdivision
application.
Are you talking
about the future is going to,
they want to break it down
into ten lots?
Well, again, we can't talk
about that.
We're not talking
about it tonight.
The application is different
than what's submitted,
so we need to vote
on that it's not.
We need additional information
at this point.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I'll make a
motion
to table regulated activity
12.
I know.
You don't accept the
application.
Yeah.
Okay.
We need a motion that the
application is not complete.
Okay.
We move on.
Good deal.
Do we have a second?
Second.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Thank you.
Old business.
We have regular activity
1258, 227-297.
So move.
Chairman and Commissioner.
Oh, this one's on.
There we go.
My name is Charles
Lichtenauer.
I'm an attorney with Chipman
Mizuko Emerson located at 44
Old Ridgebury Road in
Danbury.
I represent the owner
of the property,
and I'm here tonight with
Jamie LaGiudice from Insight
Engineering and Daniel Knight
from Morphar.
We received the staff report
dated February 9th
from staff, and we appreciate
staff's thorough review and the
recommendation that with the
appropriate measures and
conditions in place,
the project will not result
in significant impacts
to wetlands or waterways.
Our team is generally agreeable
with the conditions, but we'd
like to make one request
for a modification.
And our team would like
to see the modification
from five years to three years
with respect
to condition four.
And that would be so that our
monitoring and our
documentation requirements are
consistent with Southeast's
requirements.
And that is our only comment.
So I will open the floor
to conversations with our
project engineer and owner,
myself,
but that's our only comment.
So thank you very much,
Larry, for your report and
for the diligent conditions
of approval.
And I'll leave it at that.
Thank you.
I will open this up for
discussion with the
commissioners, anybody has any
questions? Make any comments.
I did, and I have one question
to their comment.
They want to reduce the
five-year monitoring
post-complete
of the project.
Is that what he said?
Post, you know, I didn't, I'm
sorry,
I didn't understand what.
The five, the condition four
states, the invasive species
removal plan shall be
implemented and the area
monitored
for five growing seasons.
Okay.
And they would like to change
that
to three growing seasons.
Okay.
I said five only because I
chose five, and my reasoning
was that the area that the area
of Barbary that they're
removing is massive.
We walked through that when we
were there.
And that three years,
you're just going
to start seeing a little bit
of growth.
In my opinion, three years, you
just start seeing if it's kind
of bounced back.
You're going
to start seeing a little bit
of growth, and then it's going
to wind up being ten years
from now,
it'll wind up being fully full
of Barbary again.
So in five years, it gives
them, in my opinion, five
years, and I will,
obviously it's just a changing
of a wording in the approval,
however,
it's something that we're
trying to make it that the
plants that they're planting in
these areas can harden and
maintain and out-compete the
Barbary, which has really taken
over a large portion
of that wetland.
And if the agency feels that
three is sufficient, I'm okay
with that, too.
I got to follow up
with my question, though,
but they, I'm sorry, you
referenced,
I don't remember your name
already, you referenced that
to comport with,
I think you said comport with
Southeast regulations.
So they have a three-year
monitoring?
Is that the idea?
Correct.
Is that what you're just trying
to make them both the same?
Correct.
Okay, just a question,
hypothetically, I can
understand the monitoring and
maybe you don't want
to send pictures back
in every year
after three years, but if
in five years you start
to see an infestation of
Barbary back
into your driving range,
what are you going
to do?
I mean, I'm assuming you're not
just going to say, oh, look,
there's Barbary and let it go,
but what is that,
not necessarily reporting back
to us as
to what the status is, but
what's your standard management
practice if you start
to see that pick up again?
So that would be part of the
overall golf course management
plan, so they,
they're not going to let
Barbary just kind of take
over the driving range,
it defeats the point
of the driving range, but that
would be included as part
of their management plan,
but their overall operations,
so it would be maintained.
And my other reasoning
behind that is, is that they
are limiting their invasive
removal to the area where
they're doing work and not the
entirety of the wetland, and
it's inevitable that that area
is going
to revert back.
I'm trying to make it, the five
years is that if we have it and
they maintain it, but again,
this is not my decision,
it's your decision, and if the
agency thinks that marrying
with what Southeast does is
appropriate,
then so be it.
I'm on, okay, I think I'm
personally uncomfortable just
marrying it because that's what
Southeast does, but
from your perspective, five
years is a more robust and
ensuring it, however, you've
also just described the fact
that they have a seedbed just
outside the area,
which is still going
to be full of Barbary, and it's
right there.
Okay.
We didn't require that the
entire wetland be mitigated
of Barbary, okay, because that
would be an undertaking that we
wouldn't ask to do anyway,
okay, that would be
astronomically expensive as
it's not prudent or feasible,
however, what we, you know, if
we can make it the areas that
are visible and are going
to be utilized, again,
I have no objection to three,
okay, but knowing that their
maintenance program is going
to be that they're going
to maintain the driving range,
once the driving range is
complete,
I'm really not that concerned
about the driving range,
I'm concerned about the
periphery and the wetlands
on the outskirts
of the driving range, and so,
you know, it's going to be,
it's also utilized
for good scientific research as
to what we see, what we
monitor, what we saw
from the beginning,
and I might be able
to write a paper about that,
about, you know, golf course
improvements,
which is what we talked
about when we were out there,
you know,
so the golf course is just
another,
it's just a technical term
for turf management,
that's what they do, they
manage the turf and they manage
the environment,
I'm just trying
to set some parameters, again,
I have no objection to three,
and you know, if necessary,
you know, if it comes in, you
know, they're not going
to get their bond release until
everything is taken care of,
and the plantings that they do,
it's got
to be an 80% success rate
after five years, three years,
whichever way that,
whichever number you guys agree
to, so that's the way that that
is and that's fine,
that's okay
with me.
I'm just listening to different
comments, I mean,
what I'm hearing from Larry is
we're only just going
to see how it's doing
after three years,
and the only reason not
to do it is to be the same as
Southeast, I just assume then
stay with the five,
because there's a staff there,
a good staff,
this is a good way
to make sure we're going
to get what has been promised,
so I'm not an expert
on these plants,
other people know more,
but I'm just going
by what people are telling me,
so.
If I may, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners Harreld and
Dufel, completely understood
with respect to your reasoning
behind the five years, and
after discussion
with the owner,
we will concede
to the five years,
we don't have a problem
with that, it would be nice
to have consistency, but we
understand staff's arguments,
and so with the conditions
of approval shown
on the staff report, we are
hoping and requesting that this
commission will approve the
application this evening.
Thank you very much.
Solves that?
Any other questions, comments,
or is anybody interested in
making a motion?
I'll make a motion we approve
regulated activity 1258 for
Morphar Golf Course, and
with the stipulations noted
in the staff report.
Do we have a second?
Second.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Good.
Next item on the agenda is
1260 Ann Albert Road.
Hi, Marissa Bablako, I'm the
homeowner.
I read through the staff
report, happy
to provide a bond and plant 15
plants.
Larry sent over a list of
approved shrubs.
I found one that was non-toxic
to dogs, and it looks great,
so happy
to meet all the conditions
of the report.
Do we have a motion to review
the report and the commission?
I'm doing it.
The suspense is killing us.
Okay, I make a motion we accept
regulated activity 1260
with the specifications noted
in the staff report,
and approve the request,
approve the...
Do we have a second?
Second.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Thank you.
We don't have any applications
for administrative approval,
staff actions, violations.
Anything there?
As far as the violations,
we are in contact with council
about a few of these,
and there will be news coming
in the not-too-distant future.
Larry, I'm
in the work group.
Okay, working group updates,
we met last week.
Yeah, last Wednesday.
Wednesday, Thursday?
Was it Thursday?
Yes, right, it was Thursday,
Thursday the 5th,
not the 4th.
And reviewed the edited version
of the regulations,
made a few minor changes
for clarification
on what's written in there.
Next step is to update that
version and send it out
for review.
So this will be the existing
Danbury regulations showing all
of the edits and using the
trace function in the Word
document for everybody
to review, and we will meet.
The crux of the revision is
that the fee schedule is taken
out of the body
of the regulation and made
into an appendix.
The fee schedule is also going
to be distributed to everybody
so that this way then you can
review it and make comments,
and then the next steps that we
have is to have it reviewed
by the Corporation Council,
just because they have
to review all changes,
and then after it goes
to the DEP for their review and
final blessings of it.
Then we will have
to publish it in the paper.
That's part
of the requirements.
Okay, so proposing to meet, I
think, like Tuesday, February
24th?
Sure, that works for me.
Okay, at 4 o'clock?
4 o'clock.
I serve at your pleasure.
You guys tell me when you can
do it.
And whoever can make that,
we'll start, you know,
we'll go
over the complete document.
Okay? Great, thank you. We have
no correspondence. Do we have a
motion to adjourn? Who wants
to adjourn? Make a motion we
adjourn. Do we have a second?
Second. All those in favor?
Aye. Aye. Opposed?
Thank you, everybody.
I hope you have a good
Valentine's Day.