CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS
AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - TUESDAY, July 12 2005
SIMSBURY TOWN OFFICES - 7:30 P.M. – MAIN MEETING ROOM
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Miller called the Meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency to order at 7:30 P.M. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Margery Winters, William Nowak, John Yocum, Thomas Sharpless, Ryan Mihalic, Andrew Bucknam, Christopher Ursini. Also present were Conservation Officer Howard Beach, and other interested parties.
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
None
III. PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE VOTE
A. Application of The Ethel Walker School-Owner, requesting a Map Amendment for property located at The Ethel Walker School, 230 Bushy Hill Road. (continued from June 21, 2005 meeting)
Commissioner Nowak read the call.
Present were Mr. James E. Wakim, and Mr. Mark Asmar of the Law Firm of Brown, Rudnick, Burlack, Israels, LLP, Ms. Susanna Jones, Head of The Ethel Walker School, Kyle Korkum, Head of Land Trust Consultants to EWS, Mr. William Root, Certified Soil Scientist-Milone & MacBroom, Inc, Mr. John Netherington, Land Trust Consultant for Ethel Walker School, and other interested parties.
Mr. Wakim introduced Mr. Root who provided information on the site walk as conducted on June 29, 2005 with Town Conservation Officer Mr. Howard Beach, Mr. Askew, Soil Scientist representing the town, and Mr. George Logan, soil scientist representing the interveners, in attendance. He submitted a summary report of the June 29, 2005 site visit.
Mr. Root stated that at the site visit they viewed certain areas of the wetland mapping with emphasis on areas where there were substantial differences between the town’s existing wetland map and the applicant’s proposed wetland map. He stated that on the site visit there were no new areas of wetlands identified, and no broad misses of wetlands identified.
Mr. Root noted on the map the areas that were visited on walk, and he spoke about the areas that were noted on the report by Mr. Logan. He stated that Mr. Logan, on his own site visit, identified areas 4A, 4B, and 4C, that are along the access way near Woods Road from Woodhaven Drive.
Mr. Root said that 4A was identified by the Commission on their walk as a puddle in the road, an area where there is a depression, and they found standing water after the heavy rains. On the site walk June 29 2005, there was also standing water. The dominant vegetation at area 4A is upland vegetation, and some wetland plants are to be found around the border of the pond, a bullrush and some weeds. On the site visit with Mr., Askew and Mr. Beach it was determined that area 4A is a puddle of standing water, not a marsh, or a watercourse. He stated that on the June 29, 2005 visit, it was decided that the site is not a mappable area.
Mr. Root explained that it was determined on the visit with the Commission that area 4B and 4C are the areas that have been excavated to build a roadway. One area that was excavated was the pit containing logs. The area was augured and no wetlands were found. On the June 29, 2005 visit with Mr. Logan, areas were augured 10-15 feet from the center of the pit, and upland soils were found. Mr. Logan augured in the center of it, and found water near the surface, but it was felt by all that after heavy rains that was not uncommon. The consensus was that the area was not a mappable area either.
Mr. Root noted that across the road, Mr. Logan had noted an area that had old wetland flags. Mr. Root said that the area was looked at, and on the June 29, 2005 visit it was determined that there are no wetland in the area of 4B.
Areas 2B, 1A, and 2C, were also looked at on the June 29, 2005 visit. It was concluded that there was no mappable wetland in that area.
Mr. Root noted that the area know as the dumbbell area was looked at on his visit with the Mr. Askew and Mr. Beach. The area is very flat, and no wetland soils were found in that area. Mr. Logan did not accompany them, and did not look at that area.
Commissioner Ursini asked why Mr. Logan did not look at the dumbbell area. Mr. Wakim stated that that was at the direction of council. He stated that the applicant thought its position had been made clear with respect to acknowledging access to the site by Mr. Logan. He noted that given that Mr. Logan does not intend to conduct a full site investigation of the same quality and standards, that there would be an opportunity to come and investigate the changes that were made. He also noted that appropriate access was not provided to Mr. Logan. He added that in an effort to avoid any issues, the visit made by Mr. Root, Mr. Askew, and Conservation Officer Beach was to go out an investigate the areas that were identified in the June 21, 2005 report to the Commission. He stated that it was an effort to try and close a gap on
what was a possible misunderstanding between what the applicant and the Commission agreed to with respect to the visit by Mr. Logan.
Commissioner Ursini summarized that Mr. Logan participated in all areas of his original concerns except the dumbbell area. Mr. Root answered yes.
Mr. Root explained that an adjustment to the map was made, known as the finger area. It is the area where glacial till soil meets sand-based soil. During the site investigation, some of the finger areas were found to qualify as wetlands, and they decided to include them even though most of it, two-thirds to three-quarters of it, is not a wetland. He added that it does not effect the overall basis for the map. He showed on the map the overall net change versus the town map, which calculates to approximately 3,500 square feet.
Commissioner Ursini asked if that was conducted on June 29, 2005 with Mr. Logan. Mr. Root answered yes, that was the only areas visited where there was change. He noted that the area is unusual geologically, and that the area excluded is mostly upland area, but they did not object to including the wetland area discussed.
Mr. Root reiterated that there were no new areas of mapped wetlands, no broad missed of wetlands. The mapping accurately depicts the wetland and watercourses on the site, and he feels that that all involved had a good opportunity to examine the wetland resources on the site and the map should be accepted.
Commissioner Ursini asked Mr. Root if in his opinion the areas of concern were covered and confirmed by everyone who participated. That the map amendment is an accurate depiction of wetlands on the property, and that the map amendment itself will not be a detriment to the natural resources on the property. Mr. Root acknowledged that all were true.
Mr. Logan was introduced to discuss his findings on the June 29, 2005 visit, and submitted his report to the Commission (Addendum #1). He noted that before the visit he received a fax by Mr. Wakim stating that he would be unable to examine any and all sites on the property, but only see specific areas where there were differences between the existing Town’s wetland map and Mr. Root’s map. He said that he takes exception to the applicant’s interpretation of the decision made by the Commission.
Commissioner Ursini asked Mr. Logan why he believed the interpretation would be an error, when it was determined that “Keep the Woods” was not going to submit the same quality of documentation as the applicant to the process. He stated that Mr. Logan’s role was to go and investigate on June 29, 2005 those areas that were broad in changing from the Town’ s map, and asked if Mr. Logan feels he accomplished that. Mr. Logan said that he did not accomplish his goal. Mr. Logan said that his understanding was that the entire map would be reassessed. Commissioner Ursini disagreed with Mr. Logan.
Mr. Logan began his report to the Commission. He stated that the change, because of an error in delineation, agreed to be made to the map, starts at flags WI-172, and ends at WI-180. In Area 1A one area was discovered to have some hydric soils, and the other side had one area that had poorly drained soils, and he agreed it was not a wetland.
Mr. Logan stated that in area 4B, a finger extension, there were not enough poorly drained soils to bring the wetland boundary out. He stated that that wetland delineation was correct, and that Mr. Askew agreed.
Mr. Logan explained that in the center of area 4C Mr. Logan found water with two to three inches of the surface. Beyond its center the water subsided. It was determined that the area is a manmade excavation. The area was also found to have, about 15-20 inches water was found. They agreed that the wetland was approximately 15 feet in diameter. Mr. Logan stated that he and Mr. Askew discussed how big an area has to be to be determined a wetland. Mr. Logan expressed that even though the area is small, it does have disturbed wetland soils and should have been delineated as a wetland.
Mr. Logan said that the one area he was unable to look at, the vernal area/wetland marsh because it was out of his purview of areas that he could look at. He explained that Mr. Askew looked at the site and told him that there was still some water in it. He explained that over the years, through logging a perch water table has developed, which in his opinion is enough to create a watercourse or marsh. He added that it is not very large, but that it meets the definition of a watercourse.
Chairman Miller asked if there was a disagreement between them as to the area. Mr. Logan answered that he was not able to look at the area with Mr. Askew. He expressed he belief that the area has an active marsh.
Mr. Logan stated that since he was unable to view the entire wetland delineation, he examined the plans to determine how much of the 46, 000 linear feet of wetland boundary he actually visited, and found that he only viewed 8, 000 linear feet of it. He added that when he asked Mr. Askew how much of the site he looked at, Mr. Askew’s response was that he saw probably 50% of it or even less. Mr. Logan added that when he has been asked to scrutinized other’s wetland delineations in the past, he has looked at whole sites, flag for flag.
Mr. Logan stated that Mr. Pietras and Mr. Askew have submitted the recommended outlines for conducting third party wetland boundary determinations, and that is what he though was going to be done, but he stated that the protocol was not followed.
Mr. Logan explained that he stated he noticed there were at least 17 locations on the maps where there were inconsistencies between the wetland delineation and the topographical map. An example of such is that there were instances where there were wetland flags in the middle of the brook. He expressed that this is a wetland map, and would hope that everyone would wish to have an accurate mapping done. He stated that in one location there were 9 flags placed every 145 feet, and he felt that they should be spaced out more to the north. He expressed that on the maps one will not find any embossed signature indicating what standards were followed for putting the maps together. He stated that he had hoped that he could have looked at the site without it being a contentious situation.
Commissioner Bucknam asked what locations Mr. Logan had issues with. Mr. Logan responded from what he had seen they are in total agreement, but reiterated that he did not have the opportunity to see other locations.
Commissioner Mihalic asked if Mr. Logan visited area 2C, 2B, 4B, 4C, and 4A with Mr. Root. He answered no he did not go to area 2C. As to area 2B they did not go there because it would have been a minute change. Mr. Logan stated that there were no issues with area 4B. As to area 4C, Mr. Logan stated that it contained a wetland area of approximately 15 feet in diameter, and that there had been a discussion between the soil scientists as to whether it should be deemed a wetland given its size. Mr. Logan expressed that there is no definition as to how small a wetland can be to be delineated. Commissioner Ursini expressed that as for area 4C there is still a disagreement between the soil scientists. Mr. Root answered that for area 4A he did not go there because it was outside of the areas that he could look
at.
Commissioner Mihalic questioned whether Mr. Logan visited an area that is identified with a star on the map, where there is discrepancy between the town’s existing map, and the applicant’s proposed map. Mr. Logan said that he examined the area before, stating that the star indicated that there was a discrepancy. He added that in his view there is no intermittent watercourse through that area. Mr. Logan acknowledged that the proposed amendment identifies a watercourse that is longer than he would have marked.
Commissioner Mihalic asked whether Mr. Logan visited the fingerlike area. Mr. Logan acknowledged that that was the area where he and Mr. Root agreed that the wetland boundary should be extended.
Commissioner Mihalic asked whether Mr. Logan visited the dumbbell area. Mr. Logan he did not go there because it was outside of the areas that he could look at.
Commissioner Nowak asked how much of the site he viewed. Mr. Logan stated that he viewed approximately 17% of the site, and acknowledged that on that 17 % there were changes.
Commissioner Mihalic asked whether in viewing the areas he did, did he have any reservations about the methods used by Mr. Root. Mr. Logan answered that of the sites he visited there were some changes, but that he did not see any glaring errors. He stated that it was very obvious where the wetlands were given the landscape.
Commissioner Winters asked if when Mr. Logan visited the site did he see areas he wished to visit. Mr. Logan said yes.
Commissioner Ursini asked Mr. Armstrong, council for KTW if the plan of the inspection was for Mr. Logan to view areas of concern by Mr. Logan and if the areas that were well outside the of original Simsbury Wetland map versus the applicant’s map, and is now hearing that they want more. Mr. Armstrong stated that there were areas that Mr. Logan wanted to look at as per the soil configurations but was unable to.
Commissioner Ursini stated it was stated Mr. Logan was not able to conduct a full site investigation of the same quality and standard as the applicant did. Mr. Armstrong stated that Mr. Logan’s statement about how other wetland scientists review other data is appropriate. He added that if there was not wetland it would not have had to have been flagged. He acknowledged that a full redelineation would not have been possible given the expense. He stated that the visit focused on areas that Mr. Logan felt were wetlands. Commissioner Ursini made the statement that the interveners wish to conduct an additional review flag by flag.
Commissioner Winters asked what the motion was at the last meeting, and that it was more open ended. Conservation Officer Beach read the motion that was made at the meeting on June 21, 2005.
Mr. Wakim asked whether Mr. Logan had sufficient time to view the areas approved. Mr. Logan acknowledged that he did not look at all of the areas that had been changed. He added that he had asked several times if he could look at specific areas, and was told that he could not. Mr. Wakim said that he wanted to understand the scope of the June 29, 2005 investigation in light of the fact that it was stated that there was an issue with timeliness, and also that there were changed areas that were not looked at.
Mr. Wakim asked Mr. Logan where he received Mr. Pietras’s map. Mr. Logan stated he received the information from Lally & Associates, and told of the where and how of the map.
Commissioner Sharpless asked whether there were alluvial soils on the site. Mr. Logan said yes based on the topography there might be, but that he did not find any on the site.
Chairman Miller asked Mr. Askew for his interpretations. Mr. Askew had submitted two reports to the Town. Mr. Askew said that the soil scientists were in agreement in all areas except areas 4A and 4C, as stated in the letter he submitted in his report to the Commission. He stated that basically when it comes to disturbed soils, soil scientists all have their subjective view of them. He noted that Mr. Logan did find some disturbed soils about 15 feet in diameter in the center of area 4A, and explained that in those smaller areas one has to take a look at the landscape outside of the area which in this case sandy well-drained soils were found. Mr. Askew noted that if he were surveying area 4A he would not have called it a puddle, not a wetland or a vernal pool.
Mr. Armstrong stated that he looked at the dumbbell area, which Mr. Logan was unable to look at. He stated there are moderately well drained to well-drained soils, and said that they investigated the area pretty thoroughly.
Commissioner Bucknam asked Mr. Askew if he had any concerns about the map amendment. He said no, and added that Mr. Root is a capable soil scientist and is he one who is responsible for signing the map. He also added that it is unusual to have three soil scientists to look at sites.
Commissioner Winters asked Mr. Askew if he would look at particular areas of the site. Mr. Askew said that there are no particular areas that he had issues with.
Commissioner Ursini made the statement that Mr. Askew has written about soil map amendments and asked him if he believes that after the three reviews of the property has been adequately reviewed for a map amendment. Mr. Askew said yes. He noted that in third party reviews particularly where there is competent staff they are working under the town’s direction, and added that under third party review guidelines there is not a presumption that in order to do an adequate review one needs to look at the whole site.
Commission Sharpless asked Mr. Askew if he has any role in certifying that the mapping of the flags is done correctly. He answered that sometimes he does. Mr. Askew said that third party reviews are done under the same guidelines in that they are working for the town.
Commissioner Sharpless asked Mr. Askew to comment on the statement made by Mr. Logan that there was wetland boundary flagging crossing a stream. Mr. Askew said that occasionally there are cases where things are off, but in this case he did not see any areas that looked like anomalies.
Commissioner Winters asked Mr. Askew about the flagging of the boundary. Mr. Root explained the differences between the GPS aerial map and viewing the site in the field itself.
Commissioner Bucknam asked Mr. Root about signing the map and embossed signatures. Mr. Root said that it will be done to the standards of the town.
Commissioner Winters asked about A2 surveys. Mr. Askew explained A2 surveys
Chairman Miller asked Mr. Askew about the dumbbell area with regards to Mr. Pietras’s map. Mr. Askew said that he could not really comment on the Pietras map without Mr. Pietras present. Chairman Miller asked Mr. Askew why the Pietras sketch would depict the area as a wetland area. Mr. Askew acknowledged that the area contains upland soils, and explained that there are not poorly drained soils from what they saw. Mr. Askew said that it would be an area one would come back to.
Commissioner Nowak asked Conservation Officer Beach for his interpretations. Mr. Beach said that he concurs with what was said. They looked at all of the sites, and stated that he was curious about the dumbbell area as well and stated that they looked at the area extensively and found nothing. They did see depressions, areas where wetland soils would likely be found, and none of them showed wetland soils.
Commissioner Nowak asked Conservation Officer Beach if he is satisfied that the applicant’s map amendment is accurate. Mr. Beach said that that is more a determination for the soil scientists and the Commission. He noted that they looked at sites that he had concerns about, as well as those they thought would be controversial, and feels that they addressed the areas of concern to the Commission as well.
Commissioner Nowak asked Conservation Officer Beach if he felt that the differences Mr. Logan pointed out were significant. Mr. Beach stated that with regards to the finger areas, the differences are not significant, the area is a hit or miss in terms of finding wetland soils, and that when the 100-foot regulated area is calculated in, this will cease to be an issue.
Chairman Miller opened it up to public comment.
Mr. Frank Plona, 29 Country Lane, Collinsville, CT.
Mr. Plona stated he represents 42 members in his organization that are residents of Simsbury.
He asked if the Commission is comfortable as to the definition of a wetland, stating that per the Army Corps of Engineers the definitions of federal wetlands are different from state wetland definition. Chairman Miller said that the Commission is familiar with wetlands and that they use the state definition of wetland soils as per state statutes and regulations. Mr. Plona said that he believes that the applicant might have to go before the Army Corps of Engineers because of the fact that it might effect the watercourses, and would then have to use another map.
Commissioner Ursini stated that ACE governs navigable waterway.
Mr. Plona asked if standing water qualifies as a wetland. Chairman Miller said that if it qualifies as a watercourse that it might be something that the Commission regulates, and added that wetland is defined by soil type. Mr. Plona asked about Stratton Brook. Mr. Miller stated the Commission would not be interested in that.
Jan Beatty, 30 Woodhaven Drive.
She stated that “pool” in area 4A appeared after machinery was parked in the area for a long time, and that the area is now teaming with life, and hoped that this information would help the Commission determine whether the area should be noted as a vernal pool.
Susan Brachwitz 10 Pinecrest Drive.
Ms. Branchwitz read her statement dated July 12, 2005 and submitted to the Commission (addendum #2), regarding her objection to the acceptance of the map amendment.
Dave Galt 41 Madison Lane
Mr. Galt read his statement dated July 12, 2005 and submitted to the Commission (addendum #3), regarding his objection to the acceptance of the map amendment.
Rev. Dave Chase 39 Woodhaven Drive
Mr. Chase read his statement dated July 12, 2005 and submitted to the Commission (addendum #4) regarding his objection to the acceptance of the map amendment.
Sue Masino 41 Madison Lane
She reiterated her view that there is a need for a review by the ERT, stating that ERT is willing to get involved without any cost to the town or the landowner. She submitted this information as well as a report she drew up with regards to a USDA soil report. She also spoke about the USDA soil map she received stating that it is more accurate than the town maps. She explained that the map was updated in the mid to late 90’s, and there are a number of wetland soil types that are not listed in Mr. Root’s report. She added she noticed there is a soil type called soil type 43A, which is found on the site. She noted on the map the areas where considerably thicker areas of wetlands are to be found as per the USDA soil map.
She added that on the June 7, 2005 meeting, Mr. Root stated that he had been over every inch of the property, but at the June 21 meeting, Mr. Root stated that with a parcel this big one is bound to miss some pieces of wetland. She expressed that this is not acceptable as part of a map amendment. She explained that KWT appeals the Commission to approve an accurate map and there are indications that this is not the case.
She added that she is not accusing Mr. Root of anything and understands that some of the soils are very hard to map at non-optimal times, but the parcel is environmentally important and the hearing should be about soil data. She thanked the Commission for allowing due process, timeliness, and appreciation for public comment.
Chairman Miller asked if KTW is asking for a review from ERT, adding that at this point in the process a third party review has already been performed. Ms. Masino said that a more broad- based review needs to be done and that she has been submitting information regarding a review by ERT to other Town of Simsbury Commissions who will be hearing the EWS application in the near future.
Ms. Masino said that they have been communicating with the town and the Trust for Public Land, who aims to offer fair market value for the land with purchase of it within 60 days. She said that the school has just done an appraisal, which will be a good platform to start negotiations. She added that many citizens support the preservation report.
Ms. Masino asked why in Mr. Root’s report in figure one shows a different property than the one that he mapped. She wondered why it shows the land adjacent instead of the actual property.
She also asked about information on the vernal pool report. She asked why if the report was done so carefully why it was amended twice since it was submitted, because of adjustments to the boundaries, flag numbers added, map legends added. Another point is that bulldozing has been done before the map amendment has been approved.
Rev. Dave Chase, 39 Woodhaven Drive
He asked how long Mr. Askew has had his certification. Mr. Askew responded that he has been a certified professional soil scientist for 3 years, with 6 years as a certified soil scientist.
Barbara Chase, 39 Woodhaven Drive
Ms. Chase read her letter dated July 12, 2005 and submitted to the Commission (addendum #5) regarding her objection to the acceptance of the map amendment.
Karen Brand, 22 Woodhaven Drive
Ms. Brand stated that at the last meeting there had been extensive discussion with regards to Mr. Logan’s access of the site. She said that EWS asked that his viewing access be limited to the differences between the town map and Mr. Root’s map. She said that that position was definitely rejected by KTW, and added that she is certain that it was not the position of the Commission. She added that if Mr. Logan had been able to look at all areas of concern, he would have looked at the property with the USGA soil map and the Pietras map, which was what KTW wanted. She expressed that Conservation Officer Beach and Mr. Askew’s walk through of the site led by Mr. Root was not adequate for KTW’ s purposes. Ms. Brand submitted a letter stating her concerns to the Commission (addendum #6)
Jack Pisinski, 8 Woodhaven Drive
Mr. Pisinski asked what governs what happens to the land in the interim before a new wetland map is established. Conservation Officer Beach said that in an area where there is a wetland, no construction could take place until a permit is issued. He explained that when a survey such as this is done, equipment is taken out to aid in the survey. For example, test pits are done with the aid of a backhoe to determine the water depth. He explained that typically a permit for that is not necessary.
Chairman Miller said that there are certain activities, such as landscaping, which are as of right. Mr. Pisinski asked if that is under way at the moment. Chairman Miller stated that he is not the person to speak to that.
Mr. Pisinski stated that he saw heavy equipment, a backhoe with a track, on the ridgeline
Conservation Officer Beach said that the last time he was on the site he had only seen a backhoe that had been in doing test pits. Mr. Wakim acknowledged for the record that deep hole testing associated with percolation testing is exactly as Mr. Beach described.
Rev. Dave Chase, 39 Woodhaven Drive
Mr. Chase asked to have answers to the questions asked by Ms. Masino.
Mr. Root answered Ms. Masino’s questions. The first question dealt with why in figure 1 does the map show an area that is unrelated the site. Mr. Root explained that the map product that is turned in often predates what is often going to be the surveyed boundary, and is often a sketch drawn quickly. He said that it is not meant to represent the property boundary, just a general location of the soils map.
The second question asked about vernal pools. He answered that all of the identified vernal pools are in the wetlands themselves. If EWS gets to the part in the application at that time a vernal pool report will be submitted.
As to the question about two amendments to the mapping, it was answered that one amendment regarding flag numbers, which consisted of Mr. Root reevaluating the map and having the surveyors go back on site and check. The second change was to add a trail system to the map.
Ms. Masino stated that there were other changes made besides those. Mr. Root stated that he was not aware of those changes.
In answer to the question as to why he viewed the property too rapidly. Mr. Root stated that he did not view the property too rapidly.
Ms. Masino questioned his two to three weeks to view the property. Mr. Root said that his work is well represented, and there is no issue with accuracy. The Commission asked that Mr. Root not challenge Mr. Root’s integrity.
Mr. Armstrong asked about flags that were on site in January and February. Mr. Root said that he is correct that some flagging was done at those times.
Mr. Root said that he has not seen previous wetland flagging on the site.
Mr. Root said that the map that the provide is more accurate than the USDA map.
Jack Pisinski, 8 Woodhaven Drive
Mr. Pisinski asked about the flagging done in January and February and asked if any of those had been changed. Mr. Root answered that he would not be surprised if some were, based on what was found in the spring season.
The Commission decided that public hearing would be left open to discuss the issue of Mr. Logan’s access to the site, and the discrepancy in the interpretation of the motion made at the June 21, 2005 meeting regarding this.
Commissioner Bucknam expressed that he has never recalled a map amendment that was given this much evidence and discussion. He expressed that Mr. Logan did not use all of the access he had, he did not attend the visit with the public on June 18, 2005, and when he did have access, no major discrepancies turned up.
Commissioner Ursini stated that Mr. Askew’s testimony supports Commissioner Bucknam’s position. As to the third party guidelines, it has been more than adequately reviewed.
Commissioner Winters stated that she regrets that Mr. Logan was not given complete access to the site, which would have put to rest the issue whether there are wetlands there or not. She expressed that in the public’s mind doubt will now exist that there is the possibility that somehow wetlands are there that may not be there, and the public will be questioning the accuracy of the map.
Commissioner Bucknam stated that there were many opportunities to see the site, and questioned why more opportunity should be given.
Commissioner Winters said that it has been poorly handled and that the applicant missed an opportunity by not letting Mr. Logan visit the whole site. She expressed that whatever happens now; the public will be disgruntled.
Commissioner Bucknam stated that the Commission has a process to go through.
Commissioner Mihalic stated that because KWT did not have the resources to complete a full resurveying of the property, Mr. Logan was allowed instead to visit those areas, excepting the dumbbell area, where he felt wetlands were missing based on his quick review. Mr. Logan had stated that in those areas Mr. Logan concurred with Mr. Askew and Mr. Root except for one area where there is some disagreement about the size of the wetland and whether it should be mapped.
As for the dumbbell area, Mr. Root, Mr. Askew and Mr. Beach had visited the dumbbell area. He added that Mr. Logan had ample opportunity.
Commissioner Winters stated that it would been a less contentious situation if the applicant had access to the whole site. She said that it was not the intent of the Commission.
Chairman Miller said that the dumbbell area was over by Mr. Root, Mr. Askew, and Mr. Beach.
Commissioner Mihalic said that the concerns were adequately addressed.
Conservation Officer Beach read the motion from the June 21, 2005 meeting.
Commissioner Winters stated with regards to the motion that wetlands and watercourses means wherever they are located, not necessarily where they are on the map. Chairman Miller stated that if seemed that people took what they wanted from the motion.
A motion was made to close the public hearing, but was rescinded.
Karen Brand, 22 Woodhaven Drive
Ms. Brand said that Mr. Logan repeatedly asked to see areas of concern, and was denied, and because of this everything was not addressed. She expressed that they did not know what the areas of concern were. With respect to the statement that Mr. Logan should have attended the public site walk she was of the impression that the public was unable to make any comments on the record on that walk and they also received a letter from EWS about the walk.
Mr. Armstrong asked Mr. Logan if he was able to visit any part of the site he wished. Mr. Logan said no. Because the resources were limited, his scope would have been limited to checking the areas he previously looked at plus the high target areas based on soil type.
Commissioner Ursini said that 43B soils were not discussed at the last meeting.
Commissioner Winters reiterated that she had hoped that Mr. Logan did not have in depth view of the site.
Judy Schaeffer 16 Lostbrook Road
Ms. Schaeffer spoke about the aquifer, adding that 70% of the town’s water comes from the aquifer. She added that she feels that Commission is in a hurry to decide.
Chairman Miller stated that this only deals with the soil map amendment, and the question about impact on water supply will come up at a later date.
Mary Bahre 92 Westledge Road.
Ms. Bahre said that KTW is not questioning Mr. Root. KTW wants to know why Mr. Logan could not have access to the whole site. She stated that these wetlands recharge the aquifer. She added that Stratton Brook may be a navigable waterway, defined as canoeing, and that it may have to be looked at by Army Corps of Engineers.
14 Merrywood Road
He asked what the map amendment is for, and asked if the Commission is concerned with what happens to the land. Chairman Miller said what the map amendment is essentially an inventory with what is on the site. It was expressed that the map amendment is only one part of the process.
14 Merrywood Road
She expressed that it is not acceptable that Mr. Logan was not able to visit the whole site, and he decided not to go to certain sites based on the resources he had available. She said that according to the minutes of the last meeting that was not what was agreed to.
Rev. Dave Chase, 39 Woodhaven Drive
Mr. Chase expressed that the Commission needs to get a complete check on the survey and that they should not be discussing what should have been done.
Tom Frank 19 Banbury Drive.
Mr. Banbury suggested that in order to rectify the controversy, the Commission should mandate Mr. Logan have access to the whole site,
Jack Pisinski, 8 Woodhaven Drive
Mr. Pisinski expressed that in the end everyone will have questions about the accuracy of the map if Mr. Logan is not granted access to the whole site.
Commissioner Winters reiterated her request that the applicant should reconsider on letting Mr. Logan visit the site.
Chairman Miller stated that it has been disregarded that Mr. Askew has also viewed the site.
The public expressed that he did not view the whole site, and also that he stated that he usually defers to the soil scientist.
Commissioner Sharpless stated that it seems that there are areas that need to be looked at, such as 43A. Commissioner Ursini expressed that it is not part of the wetland map. Commissioner Sharplesss stated that it states in the regulations that a wetland is what is on the ground, and that whether it shows it on the map or not is irrelevant.
The Commission discussed whether due process had been met, and if more information is warranted or not.
Commissioner Mihalic asked the applicant’s position. Mr. Wakim said that they discussed the motion, and he stated that Mr. Logan would not be allowed full access to the site. He added that Mr. Askew also provided his own verification. He added that no one stated that Mr. Root’s map was wrong, and that the access allowed Mr. Logan was not fully utilized. He expressed that it was a good faith effort by the applicant to allow third party access, and that Mr. Askew, Mr. Root and Mr. Beach checked the dumbbell area and found Mr. Root’s finding correct. Mr. Wakim said that the applicant would agree to extend the application for 30 days, provided that the interveners do a full-study of the site.
Commissioner Winters expressed that Mr. Logan by and large agreed to with the findings of Mr. Logan on his visit and wouldn’t it be sufficient for him to go out and spot check the areas he was not permitted access to. Mr. Wakim stated that Mr. Askew has done just that, and yet there are still questions.
Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Wakim debated the question of areas that Mr. Logan would like to visit.
Mr. Armstrong said that Mr. Logan only wants to look at areas of a soil type noting on the map those areas. He that they would appreciate the 30-day extension, but due to the expense added that they can’t provide a full survey. Mr. Wakim stated that areas 43A and 43B type soils were not mentioned in the last hearing and does not recall those areas were identified as significant. Mr. Wakim stated that if they open up the site, then the applicant should submit a full-study of the area. Mr. Wakim does not dispute that Mr. Logan was denied access to the dumbbell area.
Commissioner Nowak motioned for a 5-minute adjournment at 10:50PM. Commissioner Bucknam seconded with all in favor. The meeting reconvened at11PM.
Mr. Wakim stated that he and Mr. Armstrong have spoken and that the applicant has offered the intervener the A2 survey, and the to option to accept the 30-day extension with the proviso that the intervener conduct an complete survey of the same quality as done by Mr. Root. Mr. Wakim said that in doing this, the applicant wants to avoid the possibility of the intervener coming back before the commission saying that some areas still need to be seen. Mr. Armstrong stated that the intervener is rejected the proposal because they are unable to conduct a full-survey based on the expense. The intervener has proposed taking a look at the areas of wetlands they identified. They hope to find remote areas of wetlands that might have been missed.
The Commission discussed regulations numbered 11.3.3 and 11.3.4 regarding the timeline to act on the application. It was acknowledged that absent the extension proposed to the application, the public hearing needs to be closed at this meeting.
Debbie Barbery, Stratton Brook Road.
Ms. Barbery asked that the Commission to give this important application, which impacts the drinking water, all the time they need to access the facts and be certain of the decision
Commissioner Bucknam stated that given the fact the intervener declined the applicant’s offer, the public hearing should be closed.
Motion
Commissioner Bucknam motioned to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Nowak seconded, with all in favor.
Motion
Commissioner Mihalic motioned to table the vote on the application until the next regular meeting on July 19, 2005. Commissioner Bucknam seconded with all in favor.
Commissioner Mihalic handed out the regulations to the changes to the regulations and asked the Commissioners to read through them.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Bucknam moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:05PM
Commissioner Winters seconded with all in favor.
| 
