Minutes Inland Wetlands and Watercourses ... - Town of Cheshire

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
CHESHIRE INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011
TOWN HALL 84 SOUTH MAIN STREET
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M.
Members present: Robert de Jongh, Charles Dimmick, Earl Kurtz, Sheila
Fiordelisi, and Kerrie Dunne.
Staff: Suzanne Simone
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman de Jongh called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Those present recited the pledge of allegiance.
II. ROLL CALL
Ms. Dunne called the roll.
Members present at tonight’s meeting were Robert de Jongh, Charles
Dimmick, Earl Kurtz, Sheila Fiordelisi, and Kerrie Dunne.
III. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Chairman de Jongh determined there were enough members present for a
quorum.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Special Meeting – February 7, 2011
Regular Meeting – February 15, 2011
The approval of the minutes was deferred to the end of the meeting by
consensus of Commission members present.
The approval of the minutes was revisited at the end of the meeting at 8:04.
Moved by Dr. Dimmick. Seconded by Ms. Dunne. Motion approved 4-0-1
with Ms. Fiordelisi, who was not present at the meetings.
Motion: To approve the minutes from the February 7, 2011 special meeting
and February 15, 2011 regular meeting with corrections.
1

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
February 15, 2011 regular meeting: Pg. 4 L32 after “public” add “act”, L35 “conversation”
to “conservation”; L46-47 delete “would be able to”, Pg. 5 L26 “Richman” to “Richmond”;
Pg. 6 L9 “they” to “the”, L20, “issues” to “issued”, L24-25 “work” to “permit” and “then”
to “been”, L40 “put” to “but”; Pg. 8 L19 after “Ms. Simone” to “said”, L23 “one” to
“once”; Pg. 10 L7 “intensive” to “intents and”; Pg. 11 L33 “citing” to “siting”, L43 delete
“gain”, L44 delete “[– respond to”; Pg. 12 L32 “117.717” to “117.7”; L37 “grader” to
“greater”
Moved by Dr. Dimmick. Seconded by Ms. Dunne. Motion approved 4-0-1
with Ms. Fiordelisi, who was not present at the meetings.
VI. COMMUNICATIONS
1. Connecticut Conference of Municipalities
Basic Overview of the Freedom of Information Act
This communication was reviewed.
2. Quinnipiac River Land Use Leaders Training Short Course training
program
April 2 and/or April 8, 2011at CFPA in Rockfall, CT
This communication was reviewed.
3. Letter from Ronald Hurlburt, LS, Juliano Associates
Re: Engineering Comments of 2/18/11for IWWC App. #2010-027
This communication was reviewed.
4. Site Development & Erosion Control Narrative/Sequence of
Construction
Re: IWWC App. #2010-027, Richard Abbate Resubdivision
This communication was reviewed.
5. Engineering Comments date February 22, 2011
Re: IWWC App. #2010-027, Richard Abbate Resubdivision
This communication was reviewed.
6. Letter from Ryan McEvoy P.E., Milone and MacBroom, Inc.
Re: IWWC App. #2010-021A, Finch Avenue Modification
This communication was reviewed.
2

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
VII. INSPECTION REPORTS
1. Written Inspections
Ms. Simone stated there were no written inspection reports.
2. Staff Inspections
a. Richmond Glen Subdivision
Ms. Simone reported that staff conducted an inspection of Richmond
Glen Subdivision; the inspection was required per stipulation to
ensure that the clearing limits stakes were up and visible so that the
clearing limit was marked. She reported she did go out to the site
and that was the case so they then starting putting up the sediement
and erosion controls which will be inspected upon their completion
of installation.
VIII. ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
1. Unauthorized Activities in a Regulated Wetland Area
Ms. Karin Eichten
630 Cook Hill Road
Chairman de Jongh stated this item is subject of ongoing litigation.
This item would be discussed in Executive Session.
2. Unauthorized Activities in a Regulated Wetland Area SC 5/04/10
Dr. Robert Henry and Maria Passaro-Henry
12 Mountaincrest Drive
Chairman de Jongh stated this item is still an open issue.
3. Unauthorized Activities in a Regulated Wetland Area SC 10/05/10
Edward and Lisa Ellis SC 10/19/10
79 Dundee Drive
Chairman de Jongh said conditions are such that they can’t tell what
is going on. They will have to wait for the snow to melt.
IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Permit Application APP #2010-027
3

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
Richard Abbate DOR 12/07/10
Yalesville Road FT 12/11/10
Resubdivision/Site Plan - Driveway MAD 3/01/11
Ron Hurlburt, licensed land surveyor from Juliano Associates,
Wallingford, CT was present on behalf of the applicant.
Mr. Hurlburt addressed the Commission. He stated he was
representing Richard Abbate for the subdivision on the corner of
Terrell Farm Road and Route 68.
Mr. Hurlburt said he the majority of the Commission is fairly well
versed on the application so he would just do a real quick brief recap
on everything.
Mr. Hurlburt said the proposal is for a subdivision – a 13 lot
subdivision that was done in 1986. It was the original Terrell Farm
homestead which was its own separate piece and the adjacent
property to the right was lot 6 of the 13 lot subdivision, dividing it
was the highlighted yellow line.
Mr. Hurlburt said lot 6 was never built – it merged in with the Abbate
property when Mr. Abbate built a garage over the division line
therefore making it one piece of property and the Town felt the best
way to go about this was to go for resubdivision.
Mr. Hurlburt said they have been before the Commission several
times. They have tried to address all of the comments from both the
Town Engineer along with the Wetlands Commission.
Mr. Hurlburt said at the last meeting they were here, he believed the
only outstanding issues from the Commission they have addressed
which was to have storm drainage calculations entered into the
record along with some miscellaneous items put on the map just as
legends, silt fencing and so forth. He reported that all of those items
were submitted to Ms. Simone along with a sequence of construction
which was also put in.
Mr. Hurlburt said the Engineering comments at that time were
adhered to and they had most recently received either today or late
yesterday additional comments from…he said he believed as of
yesterday everything has been addressed both what the Wetlands
Commission had asked for historically all the way to present along
with the Engineering Department.
4

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
Mr. Hurlburt said as of yesterday the only comment that needed to be
addressed from the Engineering Department was the storm-tech
units that they are proposing at the bottom corner of the property
adjacent to the road. He said he responded to that with an email to
Ms. Simone that they can go either way – right now the Commission
was concerned and the Town Engineer was concerned with runoff
coming down the proposed driveway so they have made a small
detention area with storm-tech units so they have allowed for a zero
net additional runoff on the site.
Mr. Hurlburt said a possible concern of the Town Engineer is that
since the storm-tech units that have stone on the bottom and there is
the possibility that that could catch some ground water possible
running down hill into it which the storm-tech would act like kind of a
curtain drain and run into the catch basins.
Mr. Hurlburt said they don’t really feel that would happen but the
only alternative to that would be is to put in solid pipes and therefore
that would act as a retention of the water and any overflow from that
would then wind up going in.
Mr. Hurlburt said he would like to point out that you have a fairly long
wetlands slope and prior to the units that we’ve put which is to catch
the service water between the wetlands and the storm-tech units is a
major gas line that’s running through so the wetlands have already
been severed by the gas easement along with fill and two gas lines
that run it. He said he really didn’t think there was going to be much
of any infiltration or any change in it – he said he would be more
concerned if the storm-tech units were above the gas line because
then that would actually be interfering with the slope of the wetlands.
Mr. Hurlburt said he thinks the design the way they have it fine but
again as he had responded to the Engineering comments that if the
Commission felt more satisfactory to have solid pipes put in they
could do that to.
Dr. Dimmick stated that he did review those comments from the
Engineering Department and that regard and he did some
calculations – he said he agreed with Engineering Department that
there would be some affect but he did not see an affect more than
about 6’ from the pipes; another words there is going to be some
draw down but because of the nature of the wetland when you get
about 6’ off slope he did not think you would see it again so you are
essentially going to lose wetland functionality right where the storm-
5

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
tech thing is because of the draw down its not going to go very far –
that is his interpretation of it.
Chairman de Jongh asked Ms. Simone if Engineering Department
had any kind of comments.
Ms. Simone said the Engineering Department did verbally respond
today to the latest email and their comment is they still standby their
comment and that they just refer this to the Commission for their
consideration.
Chairman de Jongh said so it’s an FYI and the Commission can
determine which way they want it done.
Mr. Hurlburt said with that, again, he would like to reiterate that
historically this was two lots, they are looking to have two lots, it’s a
additional lot in the 13 lot subdivision that was accounted for
originally when the subdivision was created – it just never got built.
Mr. Hurlburt stated there really is no additional impact to the
subdivision – there is no change – there is no change – there is
nothing different then what anyone else would have ever expected
buying into that subdivision.
Mr. Hurlburt said he thought that they have proved that it is feasible.
He said he though they have addressed every concern and they have
supplied all of the information necessary and they have been holding
off and tabling Planning and Zoning obviously until they have
Wetlands approval so without any further questions he would like to
see this evening an approval from the Wetlands Commission.
Chairman de Jongh said he had just one question – he said Mr.
Hurlburt had mentioned that the construction sequence was
provided to staff – is it also on the map.
Mr. Hurlburt said no – it’s a two page report that originally the
Commission had asked for it to be entered into the record and that is
the way he presented it – it’s pretty lengthy so he really did not
foresee that being part of the plans but part of the application.
Chairman de Jongh said his only concern about it not being apart of
the plans is that typically the people who do the construction go by
the plans and not necessarily by the file so the sequence of
construction is going to be important to this Commission to make
sure that its done the way they want it to be outlined so he did not
6

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
know how it could be incorporated on the plans so they can see that
as they are going through that – he said he was not a contractor but
typically they are going to go with as few pieces of paper as they
possibly can.
Mr. Hurlburt said he can make an additional sheet to the set, not
change the sequence if it’s satisfactory and add that into the set of
drawings.
Chairman de Jongh said and if Mr. Hurlburt could make references
on those other pages that might be pertinent to say “see
construction sequence on page such and such.”
Mr. Hurlburt said he could also put that in the general notes on the
site plan and so forth.
Chairman de Jongh said he would feel more comfortable with that.
Mr. Kurtz said Mr. Hurlburt stated that there is no difference between
what they are proposing tonight and what was originally approved –
he asked where the driveway on the original approval was.
Mr. Hurlburt showed on the plan the location of the where the
driveway originally proposed.
Mr. Kurtz asked if that take up 3,500 square feet of wetlands.
Mr. Hurlburt said it was an entire different layout because the house
was in a different spot.
Mr. Kurtz asked if it took 3,500 square feet of wetlands.
Mr. Hurlburt said he did not believe so – no.
Mr. Kurtz said Mr. Hurlburt said there is no difference – he said in his
opinion it is a big difference and that was the problem he had.
Mr. Hurlburt said that is why they are in front of this Commission. He
said where there is no difference is that they are not looking for
making an additional lot – they are not creating an additional lot.
Mr. Kurtz said in his opinion Mr. Hurlburt is presenting this as an
entitlement - that they have to have the lot now let’s go across the
wetlands and get it - he said this is where he has a big problem.
7

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
Mr. Hurlburt said the reasoning for that is it’s not feasible at all and
in past meetings they have gone over this to try to come in outside
the wetlands and because of the town regulations for driveway
requirements and the gas company there – they have proven – they
went out and actually excavated – they can’t adhere to the town
regulations for driveway slope and make a cut.
Mr. Kurtz said he agreed with Mr. Hurlburt that it’s not feasible either.
Mr. Hurlburt said he apologized if he meant is as – he didn’t by any
means mean it as an entitlement – that was taken out of context what
he meant was there were two lots and they are using two lots – lot 6
didn’t get built on and the remaining land they are now splitting –
there is still a lot of the 13 subdivision and that is all he meant by
that comment.
Chairman de Jongh asked if there were any other questions from the
Commission or staff.
There were no other questions asked.
Dr. Dimmick said that staff has prepared proposed wording for a
permit and he has been convinced by the previous arguments that
there is no way to put a driveway on to this lot except through
approximately the way that it’s being proposed and therefore he
moved staff’s wording.
Seconded by Ms. Dunne.
Ms. Simone noted a correction in item number seven – three words
needed to be deleted.
Chairman de Jongh stated a motion has been made by Dr. Dimmick
and seconded by Ms. Dunne to accept staff’s wording – any
questions or comments from Commission members.
Mr. Kurtz stated that he is obviously against the application and he
felt all along that they have been hearing too much about the history
and that they are being asked to find a way to do something that he
personally doesn’t feel should be done. He said there was an
original approval and if the original approval had been followed then
everything would be fine but things have changed and he did not feel
under an obligation to provide a lot when the driveway is going to be
totally in the wetlands.
8

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
Mr. Kurtz said the Commission has had people come before them in
the past and they have said “well I have to put a sidewalk here and
it’s going to be in the wetland area or it’s going to have to cross a
stream or something but what I’m going to do in regard to this is I’m
going to provide wetlands over here or I’m going to clean up the area
over there” – they have made a mitigation as a swap – they are using
wetlands but they are going to improve something else.
Mr. Kurtz said he admitted he wasn’t here at the last meeting but he
did read the minutes but he did not seen anything like that and he
has concluded that the Commission is being asked to approve a lot
with a driveway through a substantial amount of wetlands and he
can’t come to grips with that and say okay. He said he was a rather
permissive person but he just has a problem with this application.
Mr. Hurlburt said he would like to just state that several meetings
ago Ken Stevens from Soil Science and Environmental Services had
been here and did an elevation of the wetlands and the driveway is
going to be as narrow as it possibly can – he said he believed is was
about 120’ in length where the wetlands is and its not your standard
wetlands where its low lying with active vegetation and active animal
amphibian life – it’s actually on the first initial appearance of it is
does not appear like its wetlands – it’s sloping woods.
Mr. Hurlburt said the property adjacent to it was more intrusive and
was built and came out rather attractive. He said they are keeping it
to an absolute minimum – the driveway is staying at grade – they are
not filling or excavating and it’s actually just a very narrow strip
going through the wetlands part of which is already been drastically
disturbed by a gas line that runs through it.
Mr. Hurlburt said he really doesn’t personally or professionally see a
large impact or much of any impact to the wetlands in that portion of
where it is especially since the more valuable wetlands is to the
south.
Chairman de Jongh asked staff for clarification that the application
was purely for resubdivision and driveway installation – it has
nothing to do with the location of the location of the house that
would require a separate site plan approval.
Ms. Simone stated that was correct. The wording regarding
resubdivision and driveway installation is under stipulation item
number three in the draft motion.
9

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
Chairman de Jongh said to Mr. Kurtz’s point – he said he was kind of
caught between a rock and a hard place on this simply because he
did think that they are being asked to look at a situation that was
created by the original property owner because he chose to put a
barn which crossed property lines and as the original property owner
he certainly knew where the property lines were. He said Mr. Abbate
has been a resident of this town and is familiar with the regulations
of this town for quite some time.
Chairman de Jongh said so while that may have been an accidental
placement of it – it wasn’t placement by ignorance. He said Mr.
Abbate knew where the barn was going so the Commission is having
to deal with what is left over and he felt that was an unfair position to
the Commission in so to Mr. Kurtz’s point he felt he is valid in his
decent.
Mr. Kurtz asked if there was a chance they could come back with a
proposal and say they are going to enhance the area in some
fashion.
Mr. Hurlburt said they could do an elevation to see the merits of the
area further to the south of a way that they can enhance, if that is
something the Commission would like to have them enter into.
Chairman de Jongh said that would certainly be received well by this
Commission – call it suave on the wound if you want. He said any
time a land owner is defacing a piece of wetland if they can create
something somewhere else then its not exactly one for one put its
better than nothing.
Dr. Dimmick said one of the problems with that is after they did
examine the site it is true that the part of the wetlands that has the
greatest value is the part towards the south which is the part that
changed his mind towards agreeing to a driveway to the north would
be less of a problem but the only place he saw for possible
mitigation they run right into the whole bit of where the gas line runs
– he would not want to touch the part that is west of the gas line –
that’s the good part of it and he did not see any mitigation that would
make it any better. He said what would work is an area roughly where
the gas line is down slope from where they have the springs.
Mr. Hurlburt said where the south end of the wetlands exists is to
maybe possibly put in some sort of vegetation and extend that
without being on the wetlands - where the wetlands end push that
further.
10

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
Dr. Dimmick said something of that sort without getting into the gas
line because the place that would work is essentially down slope
from the springs were.
Mr. Hurlburt said they could do an elevation to see if either the area
of the road and the gas line on the south side would work or on the
other side but obviously it would not be prudent to anything within
the gas line because that’s maintained by the gas company.
Dr. Dimmick said when he went out and saw actual ground water
flowing out at a time when everything else was frozen he knew they
had an active situation.
Mr. Hurlburt said right and that is why they stayed away from that
area. He said by all means they could look into some sort of
mitigation down in that area and come back to the Commission with
that.
Ms. Simone said staff would recommend that if there was any
mitigation that is being entertained that that would coincide with
whatever approval was given so she did not know if the Commission
would want to enter into discussion of separating the issues to split
the application – to have one application to be for subdivision that
possible the Commission could discuss tonight; so essentially
withdrawing the driveway installation portion of the application that
is before the Commission tonight – that is if the Commission feels
there is unfinished business then possible ask the applicant to
resubmit for the driveway installation and already have mitigation
plans worked out.
Dr. Dimmick stated they have a mandatory action date on this for
tonight.
Ms. Simone said she was just throwing ideas out there – the
applicant also has the ability to request additional time. If there is
any thought of mitigation that the Commission members would want
to see mitigation as part of this plan that it would be part of the
application instead of going through this tonight possibly approving
it and there would be no mechanism to require them to come back.
Chairman de Jongh asked Mr. Hurlburt about the issue the applicant
has with Planning and Zoning – is it just the approval or the entire
package.
11

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
Mr. Hurlburt said it’s the approval here because they have already
had a public hearing and then it was presented but that is as far as it
went pending what happens at Wetlands.
Chairman de Jongh said he was asking that if it were this
Commission’s suggestion that they split the baby if you will and
divide the applicant into one for subdivision and one for the
driveway installation would that in any way interfere with the
applicant’s ability to get an approval with Planning and Zoning.
Mr. Hurlburt stated he did not think so – he said he thought that’s
what’s needed because then they can rule on the subdivision.
Chairman de Jongh said he felt there was a feeling on the part of the
Commission that the issues raised by Mr. Kurtz were valid issues
and they have requested that before so since this is kind of a new
conversation piece that they have had it maybe worth, with the
applicant’s approval, and it may worth it to look at these as separate
issues that way Mr. Hurlburt could come back with some more
details as to what that mitigation plan might be and then they could
discuss the driveway installation with that mitigation plan separately
but that would require an extension of the mandatory action date on
the applicant’s part.
Ms. Simone said if the application were to be split it could be split
tonight and the applicant would say which part he wanted to drop out
of tonight’s application – let’s say it’s the driveway installation so
then the Commission would look at subdivision just tonight.
Mr. Hurlburt said it would just be the turning of the lot line 90
degrees. He said would that now be a new application to present to
come back in for the mediation and the driveway – so the applicant
would be making a new application.
Ms. Simone said yes.
Chairman de Jongh said speaking for himself the new application
would not require a fee.
Mr. Kurtz asked how you approve a lot without access.
Chairman de Jongh said they are approving subdivision – a line on
paper.
12

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
Ms. Simone stated in the past the Commission has done that and it’s
just more of a theoretical okay. She said it does not show the
location of house just the lot line.
Mr. Hurlburt said the access they would have is legal access and
legal frontage they would just not being having approval for the
driveway to be going through the lot.
Dr. Dimmick said they then would normally give a report to Planning
and Zoning that states there are wetlands on the property and in this
case access to the property would be subject to further permit from
the Commission.
Ms. Simone said access as well as development of the lot.
Mr. Hurlburt said the alternative would be – is can they keep this
application open if they were willing to grant an extension and just
keep it going.
Ms. Simone said if Mr. Hurlburt would like to do that – yes.
Mr. Hurlburt said that might be easier and also although this would
help with Planning and Zoning he said Planning and Zoning tends to
be a little bit spooked if there isn’t Wetlands approval and he thought
they are still going maybe feel that they applicant does not have
Wetland approval so let’s table it.
Mr. Hurlburt said he thought it was better to just continue the
application.
Chairman de Jongh said if Mr. Hurlburt wants to keep the application
as one unit Mr. Hurlburt can extend the mandatory action date and
come back in with the mitigation plan to kind of add that to this
application and that way the Commission could look at everything in
its entirety and just more on from there.
Mr. Hurlburt said in his opinion that would be the clearer way to go.
Chairman de Jongh said there was a motion and a second on the
floor.
Dr. Dimmick moved to defer acting on this motion until the next
meeting on March 15 then that way when they bring it back out the
motion would be on the floor and they could talk about modifying it
accordingly.
13

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
Dr. Dimmick moved to defer action on this motion to approve until
the next meeting.
Seconded by Ms. Dunne.
Motion approved unanimously by Commission members present.
Chairman de Jongh said they are going to defer consideration on the
motion to approve and the application as requested there be an
extension of the mandatory action date.
Mr. Hurlburt stated for the record that the applicant grants and also
request an extent ion of the mandatory time limit until unless the
next meeting which would be March 15
Mr. Hurlburt agreed to submit this request for an extension in
writing.
Mr. Hurlburt said he would have to get a soil scientist involved and
start doing mitigation – if for some reason that can’t be done in the
next week in a half or two weeks.
Chairman de Jongh said if they could get kind of idea of what the
mitigation would be.
Dr. Dimmick said if they would some conceptual approve which
means an approval of an area for mitigation and the details could be
stipulated in the findings.
Mr. Hurlburt said he would also add the construction sequence to the
plans.
Chairman de Jongh deferred further action on this item to the next
meeting on March 15, 2011.
2. Permit Application APP #2010-021A
Pinnacle Land Development DOR 2/15/11
Finch Avenue
Modification MAD 4/21/11
Ryan McEvoy, PE of Milone and MacBroom was present on behalf of
the applicant Pinnacle Land Development.
14

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
Mr. McEvoy said just as a brief update to what has been submitted to
staff since the lat meeting they have presented a bond estimate as
was discussed at the last meeting about the cost to install the rain
garden and they have also written a letter that addresses some
questions that staff had about the time line that the applicant
anticipates being able to construct this rain garden and that letter he
believed was part of the correspondence in the Commission’s packet
tonight.
Motion:
That the Cheshire Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission,
having considered the factors pursuant to Section 10 of the Inland
Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations of the Town of Cheshire,
Commissioners’ knowledge of the area, previous site visitations, and
after review of written information provided by the applicant on this
application, finds the following:
1. That the current application is for construction of a stormwater
basin as a modification of permit #2010-021.
2. That on February 7, 2011 the Commission determined that the
proposed modification of permit #2010-021 requires a permit
from the Commission.
3. That the applicant’s engineer stated that the proposed
stormwater basin design is superior to the design approved by
the Planning and Zoning Commission as part of the Marta Farb
subdivision permit.
4. That the applicant’s engineer stated that there are no
proposed direct or indirect impacts to the wetlands or
watercourses.
5. That the proposed construction activities will not have a
significant adverse effect on the adjacent wetlands and
watercourses.
6. That the Commission declared this application not significant
within the context of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses
Regulations of the Town of Cheshire.
Based upon the foregoing findings, the Cheshire Inland Wetland and
Watercourses Commission conditionally grants CIWWC Permit
15

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
Application #2010-021A, the permit application of Pinnacle Land
Development for site plan, stormwater basin construction as
presented on the plans entitled:
“Proposed Site Plan and Sub-surface Sewage System
Design
Lot 2-Finch Avenue Subdivision, 355 Finch Ave.,
Cheshire, CT
Dated August 3, 2010; Revised February 10, 2011
Scale: 1”=30’
Prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc.”.
And “Letter to William Voelker
Dated February 18, 2011
Prepared by Ryan McEvoy, Milone & MacBroom, Inc.”
The permit is granted on the following conditions and stipulations,
each of which the Commission finds to be necessary to protect the
wetlands and watercourses of the State and the Town of Cheshire:
1. Any lack of compliance with any condition or stipulation of
this permit shall constitute a violation of the Cheshire Inland
Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, and an enforcement
order shall be both issued and recorded on the Town of
Cheshire Land Records.
2. No changes or modifications may be made to the plans as
presented without subsequent review and approval the
Cheshire Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission.
3. Prior to clearing, grading, and site work associated with the
stormwater basin construction, all erosion controls depicted
on the above-referenced site plan shall be property installed.
Staff may insist on additional controls if warranted by field
conditions.
4. Per Section 12 of the Cheshire Inland Wetlands and
Watercourses Regulations, a bond covering the costs of the
erosion and sedimentation controls shall be filed with the
Town Planner’s office prior to the commencement of
construction activities. The amount of the bond shall be
determined by the Cheshire Planning Department.
5. The stormwater basin shall be installed and function as
designed by May 15, 2011, as detailed in the February 18, 2011
16

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
letter provided by the applicant’s engineer. In the event the
stormwater basin is not installed by the agreed timeframe the
Commission may call the bond to have the permitted work
completed and/or begin proceedings to revoke permit #2010-
021A.
6. Prior to the written request to release the posted bond upon
completion of all permitted work, a professional engineer
shall certify, in writing to the Commission that the stormwater
basin is installed and function as represented in the above
referenced site plan. The cost of the professional engineer
shall be borne by the applicant.
7. Throughout the course of conducting construction activities
covered by this permit grant, and per Section 11.2K of the
Cheshire Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, the
applicant shall be responsible for ensuring the following:
a) That all maintenance and refueling of equipment and
vehicles is performed as far as practical from all
wetlands and watercourses, at least 100’ if possible. All
oil, gasoline, and chemicals needed at the site shall be
stored in secondary containment to prevent
contamination of any wetlands or watercourses from
possible leaks.
b) That all disturbed areas on the site not directly
required for construction activities are temporarily
hayed and seeded until the site is permanently
stabilized.
8. This permit grant shall expire on March 1, 2016.
Moved by Dr. Dimmick. Seconded by Mr. Kurtz. Motion approved
unanimously by Commission members present.
X. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business entertained at tonight’s meeting.
XI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
17

Cheshire Inland Wetlands March 1, 2011
Regular Meeting
Chairman de Jongh moved to go into executive session at 8:05 p.m. to
discuss pending litigation. Motion approve unanimously by Commission
members present.
The Commission came out of executive session at 8:08 p.m.
There were no votes taken or decisions made in executive session.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman de Jongh called for a motion for adjournment. The meeting was
adjourned at 8:09 by consensus of Commission members present.
Respectfully submitted:
Carla Mills, Recording Secretary
Cheshire Inland Wetland and
Watercourse Commission
18