Town of Redding - Conservation Commission Minutes 12/19/2006

On the motion of W. Perlman and the second of J. Ross, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the 12/5/06 Meeting Minutes as amended: Page 3, first paragraph under "Chairman's Report", change to "A foreclosure was reported on the Mangini property, George Hull Hill Road. The Commission will pursue the issue to make sure Commission interests are protected."

Application #06-24, Reeda B. Harsche (owner), Three Levels Corporation (agent), 626 Redding Road. Received 7/18/06. Discussion on an application for "Riverbend", an Affordable Housing Project on 14.19 acres for the proposed location of a subsurface waste disposal system and earth disturbing activities associated with ten (10) proposed dwellings, three (3) of which will have a one-bedroom accessory apartment. Site Walk 7/25/06. Public Hearing opened 9/19/06. Continued 10/3/06; 10/17/06. Public Hearing closed 11/7/06. Discussion 11/21/06; 12/5/06.

On the motion of J. Ross and the second of W. Perlman, the Commission voted unanimously to deny Application #06-24 and as the basis of the denial, adopt the Decision Document of 12/19/06.

Upon motion made and duly seconded, the Redding Conservation Commission (“Commission”) hereby DENIES Application No. 06-24, Reeda B. Harsche (owner)/Three Levels Corporation (agent), 626 Redding Road, Redding, CT. The Commission, upon written information received and testimony provided at the public hearing, including certain reports, documents and records from prior proceedings relating to the property which is the subject of this application, makes the following findings:

The regulated activities in this application are the construction and operation of a subsurface waste disposal system, including earth disturbing activities associated therewith, approximately 400 feet from and within 500 feet of the high water line of a vernal pool, as regulated pursuant to Section 2.23c of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations (“Commission’s Regulations”). Additional regulated activities include the construction and operation of subsurface waste disposal systems, drainage systems and earth disturbing activities associated with the construction of ten proposed dwellings and driveways located upgradient and in close proximity to highly valuable wetlands and the Saugatuck River, as described below. The Commission is authorized to regulate such activities pursuant to Sections 2.23, 2.24 and 2.26 of its Regulations and Section 22a-42a(f) of the Connecticut General Statutes.

The proposed project is located on a 14-acre parcel in close proximity to sensitive wetlands, watercourses, public water supply reservoirs and recharge zones. Three wetlands areas have been identified on the property. One of the identified wetlands (wetlands #2) is a floodplain wetland bordering the Saugatuck River which is located immediately downgradient of the proposed development. It is described by the applicant’s soil scientist as a “high value” wetland. The groundwater in the area of the proposed development discharges to the Saugatuck River and its associated wetlands. It is important to note that the applicant’s project is located within a public water supply watershed and in close proximity to a state-listed endangered plant (lizard’s tail). In addition, a vernal pool is located immediately across from Gallows Hill Road, which is the main entrance road that will serve the development.

Several experts have expressed concern regarding the proposed development’s impact on these valuable resources and have requested additional information from applicant to assess potential impacts, as discussed below.

1. Incompleteness – The applicant has failed to submit requested information regarding the proposed septic systems, including sewage leach field elevations, cross sections and septic tank details. Specifically, the Commission’s consultant, James MacBroom of Milone & MacBroom, made repeated requests for this information in order to assess any impacts to wetlands or watercourses. In his October 31, 2006 letter he states: “In conclusion, the applicant has not submitted sufficient information to assess the project’s potential impact on adjacent inland wetlands.” Accordingly, the applicant has not sustained its burden in establishing that the construction and operation of the septic systems are consistent with the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act and the general criteria and detailed parameters set forth in Section 8 of the Commission’s Regulations.

2. Incompleteness – The applicant has failed to submit information, as requested by the Commission’s consultant, James MacBroom, regarding the cumulative impacts on wetlands due to surface runoff, infiltrated stormwater and wastewater discharges. The Southwest Conservation District also expressed this concern in its October 10, 2006 report. It noted: “[T]he existing proposal does not appear to have sufficient supporting evidence to suggest that there in fact would not be a negative impact to the resources on or off site.” Without this information, the applicant has not sustained its burden in establishing that the proposed regulated activities will not adversely impact wetlands or watercourses.

3. Incompleteness – The applicant has failed to submit information requested by the Commission’s consultant, James MacBroom, regarding the effect of stormwater recharge on ground water flow, leaching fields and bacterial travel times. In his October 3, 2006 letter, Mr. MacBroom noted: “The project does have large scale stormwater and wastewater activities in areas upgradient of regulated inland wetlands that are likely to impact the wetlands. The applicant has not submitted sufficient or acceptable information to assess the project and we cannot confirm that the application has acceptable wetlands impact.” Without this information, the applicant has not sustained its burden in establishing that the proposed regulated activities will not adversely impact wetlands or watercourses.

4. Incompleteness – The applicant has failed to provide information that the increased impervious surface of the proposed development, which is well in excess of the percentage of impervious surface in the area surrounding the site, will not negatively impact the water quality of the Saugatuck River or any on-site or off-site wetlands. This information was requested by the Commission’s consultant, Thomas Ryder of Land-Tech Consultants, Inc., in his October 17, 2006 letter to the Commission. Concern about increased impervious cover was also expressed by Sally Harold of The Nature Conservancy in her October 16, 2006 memorandum to the Commission. Without this additional information, the applicant has not sustained its burden in establishing that the proposed regulated activities will not adversely impact wetlands or watercourses.

5. Incompleteness – The applicant has failed to submit an updated vernal pool study, as requested by the Commission and the Commission’s consultant, Thomas Ryder of Land-Tech Consultants, Inc., to assess the impact of the proposed development on the vernal pool. The current application involves a relocated entranceway along Gallows Hill Road, which is adjacent to the vernal pool. Since the findings in the applicant’s consultant’s February 15, 2006 report relate to an earlier application in which the main entranceway is sited along Route 53 (Redding Road), the findings in that report are no longer relevant. Without an updated vernal pool study, the applicant has not sustained its burden in establishing that the proposed regulated activities will not adversely impact the vernal pool.

6. Applicant’s plans are inconsistent with the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut, 2005-2010 (“State Plan”), as noted by several experts during the public hearing process. The State Plan recommends that a density of “one dwelling per two acres of buildable area” be required in all public water supply watershed areas in the State in order to help prevent water quality degradation. The applicant’s proposal exceeds this density as it consists of ten houses on fourteen acres. In addition, the State Plan identifies an area immediately adjacent to the proposed development as a “Preservation Area”. The State Plan provides that: “due to the critical nature of their resource, Preservation Areas should be managed to the degree feasible as no-build areas and no-net-loss areas.”

Based on the nonconformance with the State Plan, Aquarion Water Company recommends to the Town in its March 2, 2006 letter: “that proposals for high-density residential developments of any type only be considered for approval at locations that are not within the watershed of a public drinking water supply reservoir.” It reiterated this concern in its letter dated August 24, 2006. These same concerns regarding nonconformance with the State Plan are expressed by the Saugatuck River Watershed Partnership in its April, 2006 letter, by Planning Consultant, John Hayes, in his April 18, 2006 and July 31, 2006 memoranda and by The Nature Conservancy in its memorandum dated October 16, 2006. These letters and memoranda have been incorporated into the record for the current application.

7. The applicant has not shown that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the current proposal that would have less impact on the wetlands and the Saugatuck River. The applicant should investigate other feasible and prudent

8. Incompleteness – The Commission allowed the current application to proceed only after its counsel was assured by applicant’s counsel that the fees from both the prior and current applications would be paid before the close of the public hearing on the current application. The Commission is authorized to assess such fees pursuant to the Town of Redding’s “Ordinance establishing Fees for Municipal land Use Applications” and Section 5.2 of the Commission’s Regulations. Because the fees were not paid in full, the application is deemed incomplete for this additional reason.

Application #06-38 Barrett Cram, Executor (owner), Steven D. Trinkaus (agent), 146 Cross Highway. Received 10/17/06. Discussion and possible vote on an application for wetland activities associated with a proposed six-lot subdivision. Site Walk 10/29/06. Discussion 11/7/06; 11/21/06; 12/5/06.

Barrett Cram was present along with Steve Trinkaus. Nancy Burton, intervenor, was also in attendance. D. Pattee noted receipt of a memo dated 12/12/06 from Land Tech Consultants and a memo dated 12/19/06 from N. Burnham, Milone & MacBroom.

N. Burton submitted new letters and reiterated her request for a public hearing. She questioned the decision made at the 12/5/06 meeting not to hold a public hearing. D. Pattee confirmed that the Commission does not take a vote in deciding not to hold a public hearing. Two additional petition signatures were received and will be incorporated into the record. It is too late to consider them as part of a formal request to hold a public hearing.

S. Trinkaus will submit a new drawing and response to the letter from Milone & MacBroom for discussion at the next meeting. Mr. Trinkaus also noted his concern re: prejudicial opinions from N. Burnham.

Application #06-44, Teixeira and Antonia Neves, 28 Blueberry Hill Road. Received 11/21/06. Discussion and possible vote on an application for tree and brush removal from bank and landscaping within the regulated area. Site Walk 11/26/06. Discussion 12/5/06.