Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVerbatim Minutes 96-44P Wyngate Commons Pt. 5 STATE OF CONNECTICUT ss . SOUTH WINDSOR COUNTY OF HARTFORD Date: I,�cx,�.�srl rn �a-�1'� �� hereby certify that I • typed an accurate transcript of the (-)D v-Cm _�' �v , �� q meeting of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission re: Application # gU•y'-[ F' -PO-0-CUC-ce Ito that a true copy of said transcript is attached hereto, and it is accurate to the best of my knowledge, ability and belief and further certify that I have this date filed said transcript in the office of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission. t - a �- 9 -) Date STATE OF CONNECTICUT ss . SOUTH WINDSOR COUNTY OF HARTFORD Personally appeared laaw M ` 3amse signer and sealer of the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the same to be her free act and deed, before me. Notary Public fa 3i � My Commission Expires INLAND/WETLANDS AGENCY APPLICATION 96-44P PAUL UCCELLO-WYNGATE COMMONS November 20, 1996 . . . wildlife habitat and ecological integrity is rated high. There's no question that disturbance as proposed would result in loss of wildlife and negative impact on the water quality,where there's already nutrient in existence in this area. And to add to that is not wise or sound environmentally. (Tape change) And many attempts to respond to concerns and to mitigate and has done,I think,all that the area can provide it to do. But,even so, in my mind there is no mitigation possible to offset the major disturbance in this very significant wetland. The negative impacts I view as permanent and serious,and like I say,the attempts to mitigate are commendable and the applicant's response to this commission at every question is commendable,but if it looks like a duck and walks likes duck and quacks like a duck its a duck. And the duck is the watershed area. The poorly drained soils. The significant wildlife impact and in my mind,my obligation to this body,to respond and protect significant water lands and wetlands in the town. There is no way possible that this applicant can respond to meet the needs of this wetland. It's just impossible. And I will be voting against the motion. Thank you Audrey. Um,I share a great number of your concerns. Also, appreciate the fact that the applicant did pull back some of the units from the buffer area. But I still have a strong concern about the proximity to the swale to the structures. And I'm not sure that that would be in the best interest to the purchasers. I mean I believe did we say their within 20' of the structure. So you're basically stepping out your front door into a basic flood control kind of area. Um,I'm troubled by that. I guess under other circumstances, and I'm not quite sure what circumstances frankly,but other circumstances other than this specific proposal I might be inclined to consider some kind of development on this piece. But,I think it can be handled in a more satisfactory way. But,Audrey actually put it quite s ?. So I tend to agree with her on the issue. Anyone else? Yes Susan. I do believe Audrey put it very well. And I'm not going to elaborate any further. Except to say that I will vote against,also. Yes,Jack? I too agree with what Audrey said. And for the record I did walk the property for a fair period of time with Jeff and Betty to view it and also in regards to the prudent and feasible alternatives that there is another, while looking at the full 13.74 acre plot. There is another portion of uplands that no presentations were made as to alternatives of how that might be used instead of this piece of uplands on it. And what impacts that might have had on the wetlands. So,between reiterating what Audrey said and the scene that there,I believe that 2 there very well maybe other alternatives that were not addressed and shown to be less feasible and prudent. I too,am not in favor of this application. Carol? I would vote in favor of the application. And I agree with Audrey's issues that she raised. And they were raised early on through our discussions. However, I also see that the applicant has addressed every concern that this commission raised, question by question. That includes pulling back the three units. They reduced the impact on the wetland by 71%. They increased the buffer areas where we asked them to. Mr. Logan gave us a blow by blow on the plantings that would go in and would enhance the area. And, like I said, we raised a lot of questions associated with this application. And I do believe that the applicant addressed them. And mitigated them as much as possible. Where the impact would not be as strong as what I initially thought it would be in the beginning when I first heard this application. And I would be voting in favor of it. Okay,thank you Carol. Anyone else have any comment? Yes,Phil? I'd like to reiterate what Carol said. I'll be voting in favor of the application and for additional reason that I feel pretty strongly that they did address the buildable or the upland areas on the entire property. We discussed it at length. And I think they made a good presentation that indicated that this was the most developable portion of the property, and that their access was the most reasonable way to get to that developable part. Thank you. And they did address everything that we asked them too. Uh huh. Uh huh. And I walked the property. Anyone else? Seeing we have a motion to approve,well maybe I would ask prior to going forward if the applicant, for any reason,would wish to grant us an extension and not see us vote tonight? I'm not sure my timing is perfect on this,but seeing we have a motion on the floor,my timing's less than perfect. But,Phyllis just set it down there,and I thought oh, could ask that prior to . . If the discussion or the commission had offered some guidance as to what it was exactly that the plan could offer as a remedy that might change someone's mind,then we could certainly consider whether or not it would be appropriate to extend. Unfortunately the comments of the commission don't add anything to what we know. So that there's absence of guidance to us as to whether or not there's anything we can do to resolve this plan if I were to interpret what some commissioners said. It sounds to me like with several commissioners there is nothing 3 we can do. If there are things to do,if the commission has suggestions we'd certainly listen to them. If not then,the plan is ??? Um, I guess,and I apologize if my timing is bad on this. That I probably should have . . Well,no. The motion was on the floor before. So I guess I couldn't have done anything differently. It's on the floor for two meetings now. Yes,right. Um,depending on how it goes, I'm not sure we're certain yet how we're going to end up here,but. That might be something after the vote that we could say,those were negative at least this is what I don't like kind of thing. Well I think some of that was clear. And um,I know, from my part I find the impact too great. That I think that fewer units,I don't know. I don't know. Carol you had a. . . Um,with all respect Betty. And to the applicant. I don't really feel that extending this or asking the applicant to extend it is going to add anything to what we have already. �.� No. We have heard, they have presented us with loads of information. We have asked questions from here to eternity. They have addressed every question. I don't know what we would accomplish by extending this for what purpose? VMAP-"LJ Okay. Yeah. Okay,I agree. No I accept that Carol, that's,you know. Um,I guess my next concern is that we a motion to approve that should the carry we want to be sure we have all conditions in place that we had discussed over the whole length of time. Um,the first that comes to mind simply because it,and I do commend the applicant on the thorough job they did in preparation. But,the first one that comes to mind on the wetlands issue report,was one of the things I asked where it was more sweeping. I guess I'd like that as a. . . That,yeah. I would agree that that would be a condition. Condition of approval. And they had discussed that with us, and we had set some date before 5/l/96 for the first sweeping. And between 11115 and 12/15 for a second sweeping,and I thought they had agreed to that. But it would be a condition of approval. Okay. One of the other things . . Uh,go ahead Carol,I'm sorry. 4 Sediment controls,um more than annually would be another. The cleaning of the sediment vh-�- controls. Right. Right. Would be another condition. And I think they also agreed to that,that it would be a condition of approval. And Jeff had agreed with their plan on that. Uh, one other thing that we talked about was no pesticides at all in the area. Do through the nutrient modings. And I think that George Logan. Pesticides or is that. . . Pesticides. Chemicals. You know. Fertilizers or whatever. And George Logan had recommended spot applications. And that would be a condition of approval. I can't think of any others. So if anybody has any,jump in. I don't know what you mean by spot applications? For the spot applications with respect to pesticides to control a problem rather than just generally doing it throughout the area. Every spring and fall you bring in Chemlawn and treat the whole area. That's not what we want. Spot application will indicate okay you've got a bare spot on your lawn, and yes you can put down fertilizer to reseed and that would be my interpretation of spot application. Yes. Or you have a control that. That's something this would be an association that would control it. And they would have to write it into their association rules,I would assume. So,that you don't then have the golfer who likes a putting green for a lawn kind of thing,that is free to you know,do whatever he pleases to turn it into the surface he wants kind of thing. So, it would have to be controlled by the owners association,I would think. And it would to, and we could require that they the association not. i I think we mentioned that it would written right into their rules. Yeah. Yeah right. So that's how you control it. Jeff,did you feel under the current application that the mitigation was adequate? Um,yeah I do. I know that George had outlined Mr. Logan had outlined several best management practices and I think those are some that in addition to what was mentioned here could also be incorporated into a condition. You know that looking at his report. 5 Okay, specifically? Oh. You know. . Didn't we talk about some land to the east? We didn't. . . Five and a half to . . . Did the applicant at one point offered. . �! That was the easement. to Yes,that the conservation easement privately held. Well . . . (94l I don't know if. I That wasn't conservation easement it was what . . . I think that was o. . . Encumbrance to the property. 4a��It's our standard conservation easement they're talking about. Right. Okay. Okay_ Right. Right. It is still privately held,I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. Okay. Um,are you making a list of all these Phyllis? 7 I'm trying to back to the which concerns were. It's the orange one. I just have a technical correction. I don't really care just that it's technical. That I made that motion to approve and Carol seconded it. That's how I remembered it and that's how it's in the minutes I just wanted to be technically right. Oh. Okay. 6 So it's Forzley,was your turn. It must have been. And Carol seconded it. Yeah. Fine,just the other way around. Did we not have a discussion also the swale that would run in front of the units. Any treatment of that? ` George Logan addressed that by way of the design. He recommended plantings that are now listed on the plans about eighteen. Yeah. Betty? Excuse me? George Logan had introduced plantings which are now on the plan regarding the swale. Okay. All right. So they that would be untouched. 41&k-- Right. That are natural for the drainage. Maintenance. It would remain,once it's planted it would remain untouched. We also discussed yeah,the pumping of the tanks. Does anyone recall how often we asked for. . . A recommendation was made or. . . Yeah,but didn't. . . Their recommendation? But we changed that. AO VP , Condition here that it is to be done at least twice a year? �� �. Twice a year. 7 %Ptj Yep. Okay. The sweeping and the emptying the sumps. Right. Okay. Detention tanks. And you have spot treatment only, with chemicals. #C— Spot applications. Okay. And granting of conservation easement? To cover how many acres? Z�Z�,,Xj There's five and a half to eight and a half is what my notes say. I thiM we have to be more specific. That's why I was. And now I've closed the public hearing we can't ask . . . Can that be worked out with town staff? Meaning Jeff. Yeah,when in doubt make Jeff the responsible,right? x 23 to 28, something like that? IJhh let's see. Five and a half of eight and a half acres. Conservation to east, five and a half acres is what I have. Okay. 4119-11-- Right. �L I Have to cover five and a half acres? 6t4-A� Right. Carol takes great notes. � t)LO/1'1 Yes she does. Yes, we're commending you for your great notes. 8 Don't talk notes. (Laughter) It's been very helpful many times,yes. Okay, I have a note on a plunge pool. Did we,my notes are terrible. They're just written all over the application and they don't mean anything. We corrected that. Yeah. Concerns. OOLI�4- The plunge pool and the vinyl filter and struct work &MjULvr,,- Okay. JWYA-1 The latest revision. Okay. Have we covered everything? .�� Uh,I think so, um E&S . . is what I was just recommending. Which would be . . .? It's a small . . I still think 5,000 should cover it. Um, since f our 5,000 gallon tanks and plunge pools and stuff are all part of the sedimentation control for the overall um the overall project. And critical to the wetlands,do we need to consider what if none of those engineering uh you know,none of the structural work is done. Five thousand would not cover. For the engine for the installation of the . . . Would not cover that yeah. Okay. Do public improvements I don't think is it. No,Planning and Zoning does that. But if houses get put up and that's not there to truly stabilize the site, does it not require that go in. Or would there just not be a CO issued if that's not in. We have there's a construction sequence where those were slated to(go in first)go in first. Okay. You've had a concern about having to do a lot of dewatering or something to get that in. And maybe having a problem with that,but. 9 That's really more if it's then how do you buck it up so that's it's stay stable and remain stable. I would probably put um an addition onto the bond that the bond remain in place for at least one full growing season to insure that all proposed plantings take. As opposed to having a release bond seeing how the sites stable. Okay. And that's probably would be incorporated any kind of a plantings,landscaping bond. But, some of these plants are more for bio-filtration and not really for landscape or ornamental purposes. A4LUAU Uh huh. Uh huh. Okay, does anyone else have any other conditions I think we should. . Do you want to identify which ones should specifically go into the bylaws or rules? You ?(Tf XAX know you're not going to put all the conditions in there,right. Like there's specific ones you want in there. I would say any of the . . . No. No. He's saying what we're saying is the control for this is the homeowner's association. And should we say the following will be incorporated into regulations for the yeah,it's probably a good idea. The one's on cleaning. The one on spot application. And either recurring ones. Yeah Right. The one's that are maintenance of the property as opposed to construction of. P PertY PPo (/ Right. I have a point of order, a legal question on that. Are we saying that if this body does not adopt such requirements after the buildings are up and everything's in place,that the permit isn't valid. I mean how do we force what we say. I assume then,we could site them for a violation. I#VL- Right. a)(i6� They have to work into their budget and everything else, some of these cleanings and everything that we require. . . to Right. Right. Right. Right. Yeah,this is unusual in that way,but I would assume that that would be a violation if we found that they weren't complying to the conditions of the permit. If we found. We want you crawling down into those underground tanks,Jeff. And. . You're not claustrophobic by any chance are you. And you swim well? The motion doesn't say anything about claustrophobia? Okay,do we think we have. . Can I make an inquiry relative to your question as to an extension? It wasn't clear,it's still not clear to me,but are all nine sitting,eight sitting numbers voting on this application. Uh, Susan is out,because she has not participated. . Under that circumstance and the fact that of course we don't know how everyone would vote. It's conceivable that it would be a four-four vote with eight people voting. And under that circumstance if the abstaining member would agree to listen to the record,and view tapes so that she could vote. Then at least it would be a full commission voting. Under that circumstance we would agree to an extension for that purpose. -tOAAJU," Oh my,my,my. You're trying to confuse us further here,aren't you? That's pretty Although well yes,I guess your,I understand your goal here is because if the motion is a tie, it fails to carry. That's correct. So. I don't understand. How would that work procedurally. Yeah. If the motion is defeated. Fails and it's denied. Then I don't understand how we could kind of. . Only if we agree that we're waiting until next. . . No,he would grant us an extension,and ask to table our. . He's not asking us to . . . 11 He's asking us not to vote. He's asking you to do some more homework. Yeah, he's asking us not to vote until you're prepared to vote. Oh. Whoa Susan, here you go. I hadn't. . (Laugher) How much of you. ..It also could,yes, go ahead Audrey. But,um I just think the discussion around the table in terms of the extreme measures which had been requested of this applicant,and the extreme measures that um we're going to with the requirements attached to the motion. Just underscores my point. That there's serious problems with this application because,and not because of the applicant. And not because of the comments made. And not because of the good intent to respond. But because it's a significant wetland. It is a significant wetland and it's beyond mitigation to all because that it is such a significant wetland. Toss that comment. Okay,Phil? I think we ask for an extension from the applicant, if we feel that we don't have enough AA41 information to make a decision. And that's really what our issue is. Uh huh. And that is not an issue you're saying on this particular. . That's what I'm saying. Me personally. Okay. Yes,Carol. I want to go on the record to agree with Phil on that point,we have more than enough information for the commission members to vote on this application. Okay. So we seem to have a consensus that we want to go ahead an vote. (Tape Change). . . prepared to do that. We've had all the discussion we need? &tA� I have one question. Okay. 12 And it's really directed to Jack why I think. . he was we were referring to um the absence of any of any inquiry to the other upland areas. Correct? 00 tic, Yes. I guess for the benefit of the listening audience here who happens to be the applicants,if �. would an extension and maybe, would an extension permit them you guys are the engineers, not I. Would an extension permit them to adequately investigate that so that that might be. . . No. No. We closed the public hearing. And actually they're free to reapply immediately. I realize that. Okay. You know under different circumstance well,not with the exact same plan. There has to be some I think we've danced that around before. There's has to be some significant change to the plan. But,we always deny in my memory,without prejudice. Which means they simply they can come back in two weeks if they wanted to. Yes,Carol. I seem to recall early on in this application that there was significant discussion regarding the uplands when we asked them questions related to who had ownership etcetera, on the property. And I remember we went to great lengths discussing that upland with them. And I don't know what else could possibly be said about it. I'm not the smartest guy at the table,what can I tell you. (Laughter) Is there any other discussion? Does everyone,do you want the motion read back? Here's a challenge for you Phyllis. You gotta be kidding. (Laughter) Standard condition. Now the ones that will be in the associated bylaws are the spot applications,the cleaning and the maintenance of the property. And the cleaning of catch basins twice a year. That's the cleaning. No chemicals. Agree due to a nutrient overloading. Maintenance of detention tanks bi-annual and the granting of a conservation easement to cover five and a half acres,E&S bond of 5,000. Remain in place for one full growing season. And then I go . . . . which will mean I will pick it up from him tomorrow. Because he speaks too fast for me. But that gives you. . Did you mention the sweeping? Yes. Well,the spot application,cleaning and the maintenance of the property,which includes Ac the sweeping the changing of the catch basins. 13 W G uu,,►'1 Cleaning. 42-4-- Yeah,the cleaning. And the maintenance of the detention tanks. Okay. And the spot applica. . yep. Okay. Okay. That is to be in the associated bylaws. Okay. No other discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Okay,so Phil is yes,John is yes, Sal is yes. Carol is yes. Opposed. And Betty is no.No. Sue is no,and Audrey is no. Called that one right. (Laughter) .� We have a tie. And the motion fails to carry. So the application is denied. That's it. I'd just like to say on the record that I would not have been the this suggestion simply because even if I heard the record I wouldn't have been able to ask questions of the applicant and any of the people who commented on the application,and I don't feel that I would have been able to participate fully,and really be sure that I had all the information that I might have needed to reach an informed decision. No,I appreciate your. And it was kind of luck of the draw,because if either of our alternates had been here,well no. We've got a full. One would have sat.