TOWN OF WOODBURY INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY

281 Main Street South Woodbury, Connecticut 06798-0369

(203)263-3467 — www.woodburyct.org way First land deed from the Indians

April 12th 1659

APRIL 9, 2018 REGULAR MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES INLAND WETLANDS & WATERCOURSES AGENCY

SHOVE BUILDING, 281 MAIN STREET SOUTH

MEMBERS PRESENT: Marty Newell Mary Tyrrell Ernest Werner Susan Windesheim

MEMBERS ABSENT: Charlie Lewis

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Don Richards

ALTERNATES ABSENT: Wes Clow Andrew Lampart

ALSO PRESENT: Attorney Robin Pearson, Matt Bruton, Eric Davison, Dr. Michael Klemens, and several interested members of the public.

1) REGULAR MEETING: a. Chairman Tyrrell convened the meeting at 7:38 p.m.

b. Seated were Regular Members Newell, Tyrrell, Werner, Windesheim and Alternate Richards. Reference was made to the Connecticut General Statutes regarding conflict of interest and the Town Regulations.

2) PUBLIC HEARING: a) 18-1W-1801 / Garrett Homes, LLC (applicant) / 614 Main Street South / 7,465 sf single story

retail building with associated paved parking, septic system, utility connections, stormwater management system, LED site lighting, and landscaping / Map 102 / Lot 025

It was noted that new plans dated April 5, 2018 were submitted on April 9, 2018. Some Agency members have now walked the site.

Attorney Pearson representing the applicant stated that the new plans dated April 5 th are refinements to the last set of plans taking care to make sure there was a good distance from the development and the vernal pool. She also introduced Dr. Michael Klemens an expert with regards to vernal pools and who is referenced in one of the peer reviews. His report is in the record.

Matt Bruton of BL Companies went through the plans noting the changes. A site plan was displayed for the Agency and audience. Minor changes have been made to the plans after receiving input from Milone and MacBroom and Trinkaus Engineering. It was suggested to add woody plantings within the 100' upland review area; those have been increased to add a buffer between the development and the resource areas. An invasive species management plan has been added and a Conservation Easement between the developed areas and the resourced areas was suggested by one of the peer reviewers, this was not on the plan but they are willing to add it if the Agency requests it. Other suggestions from Trinkaus Engineering were also applied to the new plans. Some were shown on the plans and some are included in calculations in a newly submitted Stormwater

IVVWA Minutes April 9, 2018

Page 1 of 7

Management report. They modified the rain garden and filter strip to be over a larger area and removed some of the proposed curbing in the parking area. Stormwater will flow from the parking area to this area which is now over 100'. It was noted that removal of plants from the gravel road area will not be done; the area can be covered with topsoil and planted for more cover for the species in the area. A rim of a catch basin was raised on the recommendation of Mr. Trinkaus. Explanation of a berm placement was given to keep stormwater away from the vernal pool and back toward their stormwater management features. The concrete washout area was also relocated to be as far away from the sensitive areas as they could during construction. The University of New Hampshire specifications have been added to the plans.

As a follow up to a question asked at the previous meeting, the developer spoke with Mr. Hardisty, the land owner, with regards to a monitoring well that had been installed on the property. Mr. Hardisty was concerned with contamination from an abutting property owner's septic system possibly contaminating the river and his property so he had the well installed. The tests showed no contamination.

Chairman Tyrrell questioned the three monitoring wells that were currently on the property. It was explained that these were installed by Anchor Engineering. These were installed to monitor direction of groundwater flow; they would be removed during construction. Mr. Bruton showed the curbed and curb-less areas of the parking area and how it is a major increase in sheet flow. Elongation all the way, would have pushed out the limit of disturbance farther down the slope. With the exception of one, Agency members walked the site. Chairman Tyrell questioned where the pipe near Route 6 discharges to, Mr. Bruton showed the area on the map. This pipe could not connect to the rest of the water management system without causing more disturbances in the sensitive area. Water is still cleaned, discharged and won't cause and erosion problem. It was explained that this rain garden was designed to handle the water sheet flowing across the parking lot. The areas where they will be removing invasive plantings (suggested by Milone and MacBroom), and replanting was shown on the plans. The curbing was said to be 6". Trash getting into the wetland is not a concern. The basin is raised, it would wind up in the grass for someone to pick up, if it does make it into the catch basin, there's a hood and a deep sump to catch anything to get into that area. It's not a large landscaped area. The area of a 3' timber guiderail at the edge of the parking lot was shown to protect the area. It was stated that the conservation area, if required, would be delineated however the Town requires it to be. Mr. Bruton explained the function of the rain garden by the building. Member Newell questioned the functionality of the raingarden in a large storm event. These are all designed to accommodate a 100 year storm. Once stabilized a majority of the water will be infiltrated. The slope is vegetated to keep it from washing out. Eric Davison stated that there are 6 mostly sugar maple trees with about 8-4" diameters anchoring the top of the bank that define the limits of disturbance. They will remove fill piles at the bottom of the bank. In a large rain event, what is to stop the water from washing out the bank and taking out the substructure of the trees? Rain gardens are being used for water quality. These systems are used everywhere and there are no concerns with water leaving the area and washing out the slope. Operations and Maintenance Plan ensures the maintenance of the stormwater features. Mr. Eucalitto, the developer, would be responsible for this. Chairman Tyrrell questioned the significant trees that are not marked on the maps, Mr. Bruton explained that a survey will not pick up and mark individual trees along the forest line and indicated a few that are shown on the map. Trees out of the limit of disturbance will remain. Chairman Tyrrell was not convinced that the trees would provide stability, as major tree limbs were noted as having fallen down during her site walk. Concerns with destabilization of the bank during high storm events were expressed. It was questioned how much water the basin will hold. Table 7 and Table 8 in the Stormwater Report were noted. Peak rates of runoff and for volume are decreasing the amount of water that goes down that slope. The slope is stable now and the water being introduced to it with the development is less than there is there today. Mr. Davison did not see any instability in the bank. At the base of the slope it is very flat. The truck sticking out of the bank is gone and chunks of concrete are now stuck there in its place. Stormwater will not touch this area. To address concerns about what if the developer comes across "surprises" in digging for the construction, it was explained that environmental testing is done before hand. If something comes up during construction, work stops, authorities are notified and testing is done before moving forward. Mr. Bruton stated that he has only come across sand in his test pits. The property has not been subdivided; the plan is to do a lot split of which 3.49 acres on the easterly side would be for this application, the remaining property would be owned by

IWWA Minutes April 9, 2018

Page 2 of 7

Mr. Hardisty. The sidewalk shown on the plan was questioned; the applicant will take a look to find out where the request came from. Maintenance logs are part of the Stormwater Management report and are detailed there. Maintenance essentially runs with the seasons and/or as needed in between and for the life of the building. The developer is responsible for maintaining these devices; it is part of the permit plans and is enforceable by the Town.

Michael Klemens, an expert with respect to vernal pools spoke to the Agency. His resume was provided for the file, as well as a copy of the vernal pool management manual. His letter of review was submitted for the record with the updated plans. Dr. Klemens noted that this vernal pool doesn't exist in isolation. It is the easternmost pool, which was shown on the existing conditions map. The pool is stressed because of its location (near the large flat dry developed are and proximity to two high traffic area roads) and existing environmental condition. Wood frogs are ecologically beneficial, as they can affect water quality. A barricade designed to turn the metamorphs around back toward the pool has been suggested. A fencing 24" tall, curved at the top will be placed at the top of the slope. This will enhance the pool. The vernal pool envelope is the critical piece of the vernal pool it's where the nutrients come in and where the metamorphs need cover. With this application about 3% of the envelope is being restored. This is a Tier 3 pool. There are not state listed species in the pool, no indicator species in the pool and there are not 25 or more egg masses in the pool. This application improves the current status of the pool. By restoring the significant portion of the envelope and creating a barricade to turn the metamorphs back from a certain death. What's being done with this application is enhancing the value of the environment. Two corrections to the report were made by Dr. Klemens. He indicated it's important that water does come down the slope to feed the vernal pool. Member Newell questioned how they are to know what is causing the effect on the pool is the environment, not the chemicals or something else coming down the hillside. Dr. Klemens stated if you had significant pollution/contamination in the pool, there would be no frogs in the pool. It was questioned when wood frogs would come out. It has become very unpredictable due to seasons starting and stopping. Many wood frogs hibernate very close to the vernal pool area, in the envelope. Last year's monitoring of the vernal pool showed very few egg masses and when they went back, they didn't survive. Maybe there should be concern with water quality because there isn't viable wood frog survival. Wood frog generation time is 2-3 years; they appear and disappear often in pools. Dr. Klemens felt the more logical explanation of what happened last year eggs are deposited pools are not fully charged with water and the water levels drop and the eggs freeze.

This site was an old dump used for many years, would any toxins caused by this have any effect on the vernal pool. Dr. Klemens stated if there was a serious effect on the water there would not be any frogs. It's a Tier 3 due to biological reasons. The pool didn't present to him as being polluted and he was not given any water chemistry data. The average distance a wood frog travels about 1,500-2,500 feet. Alternate Richards asked what Dr. Klemens' opinion was with respect to the closure of the dump site; the response being that DEEP would be responsible for that. He would have no idea of how severe the pollution is, how disturbing the area would change things or the biological effects. He does not see this pool as being vastly different than any pools he's seen around the State.

At 9:12 p.m. Chairman Tyrrell opened questions from the public.

Frederick Leavenworth, 365 White Deer Rocks Road — Mr. Leavenworth gave a brief history of the property, having lived in town for his entire life. He stated it was used as a Town dump and expressed his concerns with the water quality. He feels that deep well tests should be done to show what is there and what might happen with any disturbance. A ground water report of the entire is needed. They need to determine what's there and have monitoring wells there. Experts need to test the entire property.

Carl Rosa, 46 Rowley Road — Mr. Rosa questioned Mr. Leavenworth how deep the wells would need to be. He feels the State needs to step in and recommend some sort of remediation. This application is premature without knowing what's there. He is against the proposal.

IWWA Minutes April 9, 2018

Page 3 of 7

Alan Zinser, 113 Minortown Road — Mr. Zinser spoke against the proposal. He felt they are taking a risk in disturbing this area. With this development, he did not agree that the pool would be improved by adding a fence at the top of it.

Vanita Bhalla, 26 Parkland Drive — Ms. Bhalla questioned what the Agency members discovered on their site walk with the truck being removed and concrete being placed there. She felt that this activity would have required an application and felt this should be looked into. Chairman Tyrrell explained that there was an application approved several years ago to resolve an enforcement issue. Recently that permit was due to expire; the applicant requested an extension which the Agency turned down. The Agency is trying to look at this as an entire parcel, rather than a portion. In hearing about past history with the property owner, Ms. Bhalla expressed concerns whether or not conditions of a permit would be followed. Chairman Tyrrell responded that they are asking many questions to confirm who will be responsible for the site during and after construction and approval, would this be the current owner or a new owner.

Alternate Richards stated that they now know that the owner of the property installed the test well they were asking about (on Route 6). This should have received a permit from the Agency, and probably the State, as it was in the State right of way.

Tom Mansfield, 58 Rowley Road — Mr. Mansfield questioned if Mr. Hardisty had permission to pull the vehicle out of the berm. Chairman Tyrrell explained there was a permit that expired. Mr. Mansfield asked if this permit allowed the owner to remove the vehicle and do that type of work. Chairman Tyrrell stated they didn't tell him he could do that, he has done a lot of restoration on the property. He asked if anyone is pursuing this issue in Town.

Bob Bailey, 10 Weekeepeemee Road — Mr. Bailey felt that the sidewalk noted on the plan should remain, there's possibility to connection to the north.

Kerni Wolcott, 15 Pomperaug Road — Ms. Wolcott felt it hard to believe that the vernal pool is considered a Tier 3 pool. Dr. Klemens explained that Tier classification is a way to assess relative value of pools and why he categorized this pool this way. Chairman Tyrrell stated their regulations require a 500' vernal pool setback. Ms. Wolcott asked if the driveway onto South Pomperaug would be used by the developer. It was explained that this will never be a driveway access to the retail store. Attorney Pearson stated that whatever exists on the other side of the lot line is the owner's road, whatever happens to that has nothing to do with this particular development.

Carl Rosa questioned the well installed near South Pomperaug Road. He stated that this is a 7 acre parcel; this is one property they are talking about with a dump on it with water problems.

Vanita Bhalla questioned the status of DEEP's involvement with the dump. Chairman Tyrrell searched the file for a memo from the Town Planner regarding this issue and her contact with DEEP.

Kathy Doyle, 35 Washington Road — Ms. Doyle is concerned with water quality. The site needs deep testing and it needs to be cleaned up. She feels once cleaned up it can be used as a meaningful parcel of land. Without the dump issue being resolved, they should not move forward with this application. She felt the property owner should come to a meeting to answer questions that are being raised.

Chairman Tyrrell stated they would have their experts at the next meeting.

Matt Bruton of BL Companies responded to some of the questions/concerns expressed in the public hearing. With regards to water quality leaving the site, the rain gardens proposed are the top of the line for stormwater mitigation. The State requires 80% TSS removal, these raingardens get 90%. Water leaving the site will not affect the wetlands or vernal pools. He clarified this site is not within the Aquifer Protection area. Anchor

IWWA Minutes April 9, 2018 Page 4 of 7

Engineering will be present at the next hearing regarding the monitoring wells. Mr. Bruton stated that he had spoken with DEEP, subdividing the property is not contingent on the dump. There were three options (from DEEP) that were told at the last meeting being capping the dump, excavating the material or potentially leaving it in place depending on the stability.

Chairman Tyrrell pulled minutes from the November 14 & November 28, 2016 meetings at the request of Member Newell. The November 28th minutes reflect Dick Leavenworth's comments, they didn't have a letter. The Agency wanted this detail included for the record and Mr. Leavenworth spoke this evening. In the minutes of the 14th, Mr. Eucalitto advised that they are not purchasing the dump however he would be willing to help Mr. Hardisty close it out; it is a one month process that is not difficult, they will submit a Phase 1 at the next meeting. Chairman Tyrrell questioned why the same applicant was willing to work on closing the dump site and now he is not.

Attorney Pearson stated that all the wonderful improvements they've been talking about additional plantings substitution of native species for invasives, filling in the road by the vernal pool to enhance the 100' buffer area to make it a more viable pool all would be for not if they are digging out the pool or capping the pool. Mr. Klemens has stated that there is life in the pool now indicating it is not poisonous. This pool supplements a whole series of pools, an environment that is ecologically positive. She feels the Agency needs to segregate the two properties and the activities proposed. There's an existing land fill the question for the Agency is whether this application is doing anything that would negatively impact wetlands both on and off the site. They are not doing anything that will negatively impact wetlands, they are enhancing the environment. Stormwater features will clean the water and accommodate volumes and rate of run off. Testing that has been done on their site have not found anything but sand. Matt Bruton explained they did several test pits, 15-20 feet deep and found nothing. Evidence shows in the area of disturbance on the site they are developing there's no reason to believe there is debris in that location based on the tests. Testimony was given that if they were to run into something, they would stop and take care of it. It may or may not make sense to clean up the dump. This issue is not on this portion of this site that the applicant is looking to develop. The applicant has worked with the Town's experts and done what they have suggested. Plans have been changed to accommodate those suggestions. Attorney Pearson stated that this plan works. It is not going to create problems for wetlands on this site or off site. The applicant will talk to the owner about the closure of the dump that is an issue the Town can take up on its own.

Information on the depth of the wells will be determined.

Alternate Richards questioned the depth of the bedrock in the area because the chemicals that they are concerned with could be as Mr. Leavenworth stated, deep lying just above the bedrock. Mr. Bruton answered that it's not an issue with stormwater, he is not sure how deep the bedrock is or if it's there.

Tom Mansfield, 58 Rowley Road — Mr. Mansfield questioned the monitoring wells and who determined where they were to be placed.

Nancy Bailey, 10 Weekeepeemee Road — Ms. Bailey questioned the removal of invasives, stating that something like Japanese Knot Weed's roots can be 9 ft. deep. And that it will just grow back. Removing it will possibly cause more disturbances.

Eric Davison stated that they are using passive control of invasives. They did not propose removing invasives; this was suggested by the third party reviewers. Mr. Klemens stated that removing invasives is not always a good thing, it can be harmful.

The Public Hearing was continued to the next regular meeting on April 23, 2018.

(Member Newell left the meeting at 10:12 p.m.)

11A/WA Minutes April 9, 2018 Page 5 of 7

3) PENDING APPLICATIONS: a) 18-IW-1801 / Garrett Homes, LLC (applicant) / 614 Main Street South / 7,465 sf single story

retail building with associated paved parking, septic system, utility connections, stormwater management system, LED site lighting, and landscaping / Map 102 / Lot 025

(The Public Hearing for this application will be continued at the next regular meeting on April 23, 2018)

4) NEW APPLICATIONS: None

5) OTHER BUSINESS: None

6) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR: Adele Taylor, 471 Washington Road - Questioned who regulates the dump and what regulations those might be. Chairman Tyrrell stated that they should not be discussing the application while the public hearing is still open. In a hypothetical, DEEP would be the regulating authority. Ms. Taylor also expressed her disappointment at coming to a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and not being able to participate until nearly 9:30 p.m.

7) CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: 3/27/18 MOTION: To approve the March 27, 2018 minutes as submitted. Made by Alternate Richards, Seconded by Member Werner Vote 4-0-0 in favor

8) CLERK'S BILL: MOTION: To approve the clerk's bill Made by Member Windesheim, Seconded by Member Werner Richards Vote: 4-0-0 in favor

9) CORRESPONDENCE: Chairman Tyrrell read for the record e-mails from the Deb Carlton, the Selectman's Administrative Assistant, about policy with regards to mailings to Commission/Agency/Board members.

10) UPDATE OF PLANNING & ZONING: Member Windesheim updated the Agency with a summary of the April 4 th Planning Commission meeting.

11) ENFORCEMENT REPORT: 17-ENF-0007 / Warner / 133 Tuttle Road / Cease & Desist Violation of Approval #17-IW-1709 and Section 6 of the Regulations Lack of erosion and sedimentation control measures — There was no enforcement update. It was noted that a lot of the material has been taken out, the fencing looks good and that it's gotten better.

12) ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Made by Member Windesheim

IWWA Minutes April 9, 2018

Page 6 of 7

Filed subject to approval.

Respectfully Submitted,

Anne Firlings Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Clerk

RECEIVED & FILED IN WOODBURY, CT

N\ )This 3day of 1Q o'clock

■ .41 .!.!AAUJ.• •

• •

01,i A Cag-Towni lerk

IWWA Minutes April 9, 2018

Page 7 of 7