Easton Conservation Commission Resolution - Saddle Ridge

8/6/2019 Easton Conservation Commission Resolution - Saddle Ridge

1/29

EASTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION

INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY

Saddle Ridge Village

Application No: 11-404

Public Hearings held: April 26, 2011; May 10, 2011; May 24, 2011; and June 13, 2011

Applicant: Saddle Ridge Developers

Property Owner: Silver Sport Associates, Marolyn Stonec/o Huntley Stone

68 Soundview DriveEaston, CT 06612

Applicants Counsel: Matthew Ranelli, Esq.Shipman & Goodwin

One Constitution PlazaHartford, CT 06103-1919

Applicants Engineers: Milone & MacBroom, Inc.

99 Realty DriveCheshire, CT 06410

I. The ApplicationThe Applicant has entitled his application as follows: Determination of No RegulatedActivity Or, In The Alternative, Request for Amendment of Existing Permit to Conduct

Regulated Activities of Saddle Ridge Developers for Property Located at Sport HillRoad, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road, Westport Road (Route 136), and 5 Silver Hill

Road (hereafter called the Application). The purpose of theApplication is to create amixed income housing community of 99 townhouses on 124.704 acres on the above

referenced property.

The Inland Wetlands Commission and the Easton Conservation Commission, actingjointly, are herein referred to as Conservation Commission or Commission.

The following party intervened pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes

22a-19:

Coalition to Save Easton

c/o Mr. Chris Miles and Ms. Leslie Minasi210 Silver Hill Road

P.O. Box 151Easton, CT 06612


2/29

2

II. Plans Reviewed

A. The Commission retained the engineering firm GHD, which issued a report dated

May 10, 2011 including appendices to its Saddle Ridge Review, Further Review

of Septic Impacts dated May 17, 2011, Response to Applicants Comments duringhearing dated May24, 2011, and memorandum of Final Overview `dated June 13,2011.

B. The Applicant retained the following consultants who also issued reports:

Milone & MacBroom, Inc., reports dated March 4, 2011, May 20, 2011,May 24, 2011, and June 9, 2011; Soil Science and Environmental Services, Inc.,

reports dated July 2, 2010 and May 23, 2011; and various response letters fromMilone & MacBroom.

C. The Intervenor retained the following consultants who also issued reports:

Environmental Planning Services (Michael S. Klein), reports dated December 1,2010, May 8, 2011 and May 24, 2011; Trinkaus Engineering (Steven D.

Trinkaus), reports dated October 22, 2010, November 4, 2010, December 3, 2010,May 8, 2011, and May 23, 2011; Catalyst Environmental Consulting Inc, report

dated November 8, 2010.

III. Past Application

The application for development of this property, made by the same Applicants in2008, was for a subdivision of 21 lots for 21 single-family dwellings, each lot comprising

three or more acres, plus a 14-acre parcel reserved for the existing horse farm(Application #08-367). This plan was approved with numerous conditions by the

Commission on January 21, 2009, and the approved plan was duly recorded with theTown Clerk of Easton on June 16, 2010.

The current Application No. 11-404 is the second application for a mixed-income

housing community at this Site and it is for 99 townhouses. The prior application for amixed-income housing community at this Site was for 105 townhouses.

The Applicant claims that this current permit request for 99 townhouses is an amendment

to the existing 21 lot subdivision permit with no new regulated activities proposed andrequested approval on that basis.

IV. Description of the Property:

The property (hereafter called the Site) is a 124.704 acre tract in north central Easton,

bounded by Sport Hill Road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road, Westport Road, and 5Silver Hill Road. Silver Hill Road and Cedar Hill Road are Town designated, Scenic

Roads pursuant to Town Ordinance under General Statutes7-149a. 28.2 acres(22.6%) of the Site is defined as wetlands.


3/29

3

The terrain of the Site consists of irregular topography divided by a major belt of

wetlands which extends from its northwest corner to its southeast corner. There areseveral smaller wetlands. A 1,000-foot long pond along Sport Hill Road, in the southeast

portion of the Site, is about six acres and is part of the FEMA 100 year flood zone.

There are several nearby rocky outcrops, and over twenty different soil types have beenidentified on the Site. Although once actively farmed in open meadows and twoorchards, the Site is now predominantly second-growth woodland, adjacent to which is an

open area of about 14 acres containing buildings and paddocks of the owners horse farm.

The entire acreage of the Site lies in the watersheds of two nearby public watersupply reservoirs owned by the Aquarion Water Company. The easterly portion of

the Site drains via Patterson Brook to the Easton Lake Reservoir about 1.4 miles to theeast, and the remainder of the Site drains via Ballwall Brook to the Aspetuck Reservoir,

which is about two miles to the west.

V. The Easton Regulations

A. 1. The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations of the Town of Easton(hereafter called Regulations), effective August 28, 2007, provide the

standards for the Commission. The Regulations begin as follows:

1.1 The inland wetlands and watercourses of the State of Connecticut are anindispensable and irreplaceable but fragile natural resource with which the

citizens of the state have been endowed. The wetlands and watercoursesare an interrelated web of nature essential to an adequate supply of surface

and underground water; to hydrological stability and control of floodingand erosion; to the recharging and purification of groundwater; and to the

existence of many forms of animal, aquatic and plant life. Many inlandwetlands and watercourses have been destroyed or are in danger of

destruction because of unregulated use by reason of the deposition, fillingor removal of material, the diversion or obstruction of water flow, the

erection of structures and other uses, all of which have despoiled,polluted, and eliminated wetlands and watercourses. Such unregulated

activity has had, and will continue to have, a significant, adverse impacton the environment and ecology of the State of Connecticut and has and

will continue to imperil the quality of the environment, thus adverselyaffecting the ecological, scenic, historic, and recreational values and

benefits of the state for its citizens now and forevermore. Thepreservation and protection of the wetlands and watercourses from

random, unnecessary, undesirable and unregulated uses, disturbance ordestruction is in the public interest and is essential to the health, welfare,

and safety of the citizens of the state. It is, therefore, the purpose of theseregulations to protect the citizens of the state by making provisions for the

protection, preservation, maintenance, and use of the inland wetlands andwatercourses by minimizing their disturbance and pollution; maintaining


4/29

4

and improving water quality in accordance with the highest standards setby federal, state, or local authority; preventing damage from erosion,

turbidity, or siltation; preventing loss of fish and other beneficial aquaticorganisms, wildlife, and vegetation and the destruction of the natural

habitats thereof; deterring and inhibiting the danger of flood and pollution;

protecting the quality of wetlands and watercourses for their conservation,economic, aesthetic, recreational and other public and private uses andvalues; and protecting the states potable fresh water supplies from the

dangers of drought, overdraft, pollution, misuse and mismanagement byproviding an orderly process to balance the need for economic growth of

the state and the use of its land with the need to protect its environmentand ecology in order to forever guarantee to the people of the state, the

safety of such natural resources for their benefit and enjoyment and for thebenefit and enjoyment of generations yet unborn.

B. The Regulations define significant impact as follows:

any activity, including but not limited to, the following activities which may

have a major effect:

1. Any activity involving deposition or removal of material which will ormay have a substantial effect on the wetland or watercourse or on

wetlands or watercourses outside the area for which the activity isproposed.

2. Any activity which substantially changes the natural channel or mayinhibit the natural dynamics of a watercourse system.

3. Any activity which substantially diminishes the natural capacity of aninland wetland or watercourse to: support aquatic, plant, or animal life

and habitats; prevent flooding; supply water; assimilate waste; facilitatedrainage; provide recreation or open space; or perform other functions.

4. Any activity which is likely to cause or has the potential to causesubstantial turbidity, siltation, or sedimentation in a wetland orwatercourse.

5. Any activity which causes substantial diminution of flow of a naturalwatercourse or groundwater levels of the wetland or watercourse.

6. Any activity which is likely to cause or has the potential to cause pollutionof a wetland or watercourse.

7. Any activity which damages or destroys unique wetland or watercourseareas or such areas having demonstrable scientific or educational value.


5/29

5

C. The Regulations define Regulated Activities (Section 2.1) as follows:

Regulated Activity means any operation [within] oruse of a wetland orwatercourse involving discharge of water, removal or deposition of material, or

any obstruction, construction, alteration, or pollution of such wetlands or

watercourses, and any earth moving, removal, deposition, construction, or clear-cutting of trees within one hundred (100) feet from the point on the boundary ofany wetlands or watercourses and two hundred (200) feet from the Aspetuck

River, Mill River, Saugatuck Reservoir, Aspetuck Reservoir, Hemlock Reservoir,Easton Lake Reservoir or Pfeiffer Pond, and ponds having an area in excess of

three (3) acres, but shall not include the activities specified in Section 4 of theseregulations. (Emphasis added by Commission)

D. Regulated Areas: DEP in its letter of June 30, 1997 states that for purposes of the

Guidelines (Upland Review Regulations, Connecticuts Inland Wetlands andWatercourses Act, Appendix C to the Regulations) the States Regulations define

non-wetland or non-watercourse areas in which certain types of activities wouldbe regulated by municipalities as Upland Review Areas. This term is

synonymous with Regulated Areas.

E. The highlighted portion (set forth above in C) of the definition of RegulatedActivity in the Regulations repeats a section of the definition from Conn. Gen.

Stat. Sec. 22a-38(13), which also defines Regulated Activityas meaning anyoperation within oruse of a wetland or watercourse involving removal or

deposition of material, or any obstruction, construction, alteration or pollution, ofsuch wetlands or watercourses(Emphasis added by Commission)

F. The Regulations outline the documents to be considered. (Section 10.1) In

addition to the Application and supporting documents for the Applicant, alongwith the Commissions designated expert, the Commission may also consider

comments from organizations which may be affected by the proposed activity.The Commission did receive letters from the Aquarion Water Company,

dated March 24, 2011; the Department of Public Health, dated March 11 throughJune 9, 2010; and the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, dated May 16,

2011.

G. The Regulations outline the standards and criteria for the Commissions decision.The criteria include the following:

10.2 Standards and Criteria for Decision. The Agency shall consider relevant

facts and circumstances in making its decision on any application for apermit, including but not limited to the following:

a. The environmental impact of the proposed action, including the

effects on the inland wetlands and watercourses capacity tosupport fish and wildlife, to prevent flooding, to supply and protect


6/29

6

surface and ground water, to control sediment, to facilitatedrainage, to control pollution, to support recreational activities, and

to promote public health and safety.

b. The alternatives to the proposed action including a consideration of

alternatives which might enhance environmental quality or have aless detrimental effect, and which could feasibly attain the basicobjectives of the activity proposed in the application.

c. The relationship between the short-term uses of the environment

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity,including consideration of the extent to which the proposed

activity involves trade-offs between short-term environmentalgains at the expense of long-term losses or vice-versa, and

consideration of the extent to which the proposed action foreclosesor predetermines future options.

d. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, which

would be involved in the proposed activity. This requiresrecognition that the inland wetlands and watercourses of the State

of Connecticut are an indispensable, irreplaceable and fragilenatural resource, and that these areas may be irreversibly be

destroyed by deposition, filling, and removal of material, by thediversion, diminution or obstruction of water flow including low

flows, and by the erection of structures and other uses.

e. The character and degree of injury to, or interference with, safety,health, or the reasonable use of property, including abutting or

downstream property, which would be caused or threatened by theproposed activity, or the creation of conditions which may do so.

This includes recognition of potential damage from erosion,turbidity, or siltation, loss of fish or wildlife and their habitat, loss

of unique habitat having demonstrable natural, scientific oreducational value, loss or diminution of beneficial aquatic

organisms and wetland plants, the dangers of flooding andpollution, and the destruction of the economic, aesthetic,

recreational and other public and private uses and value ofwetlands and watercourses to the community.

f. The suitability of the activity of the area for which it is proposed.

This requires a balancing of the need for the economic growth ofthe state and the use of its land, with the need to protect its

environment and ecology for the people of the state and the benefitof generations yet unborn.


7/29

7

g. Measures which would mitigate the impact of any aspect of theproposed regulated activity(ies). Such measure[s] include, but are

not limited to, actions which would avoid adverse impacts orlessen to wetlands and watercourses and which could be feasibly

carried out by the Applicant and would protect the wetlands or

watercourses natural capacity to support fish and wildlife, preventflooding, support water, control sedimentation, prevent erosion,assimilate wastes, facilitate drainage, and to provide recreation and

open space.

H. Regulation regarding feasible and prudent alternatives: The Regulations (Section10.3) provide that a permit shall not be issued unless the Commission finds that a

feasible and prudent alternative does not exist, as set forth below:

10.3 In the case of any application, which received a public hearing, a permit

shall not be issued unless the Agency finds that a feasible and prudentalternative does not exist. In making this finding, the Agency shall

consider the facts and circumstances set forth in Section 10 of theseregulations. This finding and the reasons therefore shall be stated on the

record in the decision of the Agency.

I . Regulated Activity/Jurisdiction: As noted above, the Regulations define regulatedactivity (Section 2, definitions) as any operation within oruse of a wetland or

watercourse involving discharge of water, removal or deposition of material, orany obstruction, construction, alteration or pollution of such wetlands or

watercourse, and any earth moving, removal, deposition, construction, or clearcutting of trees within one hundred (100) feet from the point on the boundary of

any wetlands or watercourses (Emphasis added by Commission)

J. Further Jurisdiction: In addition, the Regulations (Appendix C), incorporatingthe Guidelines (for the) Upland Review Area Regulations, state the following,

providing further jurisdiction for the Commission:

While requiring a permit for specified activities within defined upland review

area boundaries, these wetland agencies still maintain their authority toregulate proposed activities located in more distant upland areas if they find

that the activities are likely to impact or affect a wetland or watercourse.(Emphasis in Appendix C)

VI. Findings

The Commission finds that the proposed Application includes regulated activities which

are likely to cause a significant impact and adverse effect upon the wetlands andwatercourses. As set forth below, a number of these regulated activities are occurring

within the one hundred (100) feet upland review area. In many important respects, as

discussed below, the proposed development involves operations which use the

wetlands for discharge (stormwater, nitrogen), runoff, pollutants, and stormwater


8/29

8

control, thus directly implicating this Commissions jurisdiction pursuant to the

Regulations (Section 2.1) and Connecticut General Statutes Section 22a-38(13).

A. The Commission makes the following specific findings regarding density:

1. As noted in the GHD report of May 10, 2011 [Page 2]: Overly densedevelopment or destruction of resources on the property, but outside of theupland review area, can impact the down-gradient wetland. The wetlands

and buffer zones in turn provide filtrations of runoff, groundwaterrecharge, flood storage, along with specialized plant species and wildlife

habitats. Impacts to these wetlands via overly dense and improperdevelopment upgradient can result in significant adverse impacts to the

reservoir and to drinking water qualitysomething absolutely vital to thehealth and well being of hundreds of thousands of people.

2. The Commission finds that the overall density of this project violates state

land use policies which recommend a density of one residence in twoacres of property in public drinking water watersheds. The Commission

finds that the subject property drains to two different drinking waterreservoirs owned by Aquarion (Aspetuck to the west and Easton to the

east) that serve several hundred thousand people, and the Aquarion WaterCompany, the Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency, the State of

Connecticut Department of Public Health along with the Rivers Allianceof Connecticut and other interested groups expressed concerns with the

density of this proposed project. [GHD, May 10, 2011, Page 3]

3. The Commission finds that evidence in the record from outside agenciesand entities recommend against this project based upon overly dense use

in the public drinking water watershed, which will cause a directsignificant and adverse effect upon the wetlands. Specifically, reports

received from Aquarion Water Company and the State of ConnecticutDepartment of Public Health consistently state that residential

development density within a watershed should not exceed 1 dwelling unitper 2 acres of buildable area. The 9 lots proposed for multi-family

housing encompass an area of 81.313 acres exclusive of wetlands, whichyields a proposed density of 1 unit per 0.82 acres. This is 2.4 times

denser than the maximum density the DEP determined would protect

public drinking water supplies. Even including the Open Space, the

density of the multi-family housing would be substantially greater

than the maximum recommended. [Michael Klein letter, May 8,

2011, Page 3] (Emphasis added by Commission)

4. The Commission finds that there is significant support from the aboveentities as well as the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental

Protection to enforce a watershed protection area restricting residentialdevelopment density to no more than one dwelling unit per two acres of


9/29

9

buildable area. Specifically, per the GHD report, some of the technicalinformation for this originates from the State of Connecticut Department

of Environmental Protection, Water Compliance Unit May 1989 Reportfor the Blue Ribbon Commission on Housing, on the Land Required to

Support Residential Development in Connecticut. This report was a

thoughtful and heavily researched document that discusses criteria for landdevelopment that will minimize degradation considering their analysis ofpollutant impacts, septic system reliability, availability of potable water,

storm water runoff, short and long term construction impacts, and theavailability of regulatory resources to ensure that environmental and

health standards are met. [GHD report, May 10, 2011, Page 3] Further,as noted in the GHD report, the DEP findings are as follows:

After a careful review of the literature on this subject, and utilization

of the analytical techniques developed by the Department, the

following densities or lot sizes are recommended for various natural

resource conditions: Minimum lot area in public water supplywatershed (with or without public water); 1 unit/2 acres (exclusive of

wetlands). [GHD May 10, 2011, Page 4] (Emphasis added byCommission)

5. The Commission finds that the Conservation and Development Policies

Plan for Connecticut 2005-2010 [C & D Plan] states the following infurther support of this density limitation in watershed areas:

the Plan states as one of its fundamental principles that all Connecticut

municipalities must strive to protect and ensure the integrity ofenvironmental assets critical to public health and safety, and lists

drinking water supplies and water quality as principal among these criticalassets. The C&D Plan specifically states that the principles of conserving

and protecting the quality of our finite water resources must be integratedinto all planning activities and that sources of drinking water must be

continuously protected from intensive development because thecumulative impacts of continuing development on both existing and

future water supply watersheds can result in deterioration of waterquality. Accordingly, the C&D Plan recommends thatConnecticuts

towns require a minimum lot size of one dwellingunit per two acresof buildable area in all public supply reservoir watershed areas.

[GHD report, May 10, 2011, Page 4]. (Emphasis added byCommission)

Further, in balancing economic growth with protection of the environment

and watershed lands, the C & D Plan recognizes that different regionsprovide different resources/elements/functions to the well-being of the

state and its people. In the Introduction and Overview, Page 5, it states:Areas that have intrinsic qualities, perform useful natural functions, or


10/29

10

have existing or value for significant public use need to be protected fromdegradation or inappropriate development." On Page 7, under

"Conservation Area Policies," Item #4 outlines the critical role ofwatershed lands in protecting reservoirs and "ensuring a clean and safe

drinking water supply." Further, the Plan points to the fact that protection

of natural systems and a healthy and adequate drinking water supply arenot only essential to public health, but also to continued economicgrowth. [Growth Principle #5, Pages 79-80]

6. The Commission finds that further support for this density limitation is

stated in a publication called Carrying Capacity of Public Water SupplyWatershed: A Literature Review of Impacts on Water from Residential

Development [March, 1990], which states as follows:

Page 2: it is important that the cumulative impact of residentialdevelopment on water quality be considered in establishing

minimum lot sizes in public water supply watershed. Based on areview of the literature it appears that maximum development

density of 1 dwelling per 2 acres will provide adequate protectionof water quality as long as proper watershed development control

measures are utilized.

Page 4: Of the three categories of control measures, (vegetative,non-structural, and structural) greater emphasis needs to be placed

on the use and timely application of vegetative and non-structuralmeasures for both short and long term soil stabilization

Page 5: Other non-point source pollutants of concern include

fertilizers, pesticides, fuel-oil storage tanks, household hazardouswastes, construction materials, agricultural practices, and

silviculture practices. Fertilizers have been identified as a sourceof phosphorus inputs to lakes and reservoirs and phosphorus is one

of the driving forces of eutrophication in Connecticut. Researchindicates that 5 to 10 times as much phosphorus will be exported

from residential watersheds as from forested watershed [GHDreport, May 10, 2011].

7. The Commission finds that protection of the wetlands and protection of

the drinking water watershed are inextricably linked, as set forth by GHD[GHD report, May 10, 2011, Page 5]. The report states the following:

The Conservation Commission, like Eastons Planning and ZoningCommission, has an interest in protecting the watershed feeding the

reservoirs, as well as the more traditional role of evaluating the impactsof wetlands between the development and the reservoirs because of the

direct link between the two. These wetlands serve a vital function ofprotecting drinking water watersheds and thus the entire development


11/29

11

area, not just the 100 upland review area, should be considered here(and in all areas in Easton within the Drinking Water Watersheds)

because of the potential not just for wetland impacts via drainagesystems but also due to the significant degradation of vegetative

conditions and loss of natural resource connectivity within the existing

propertysomething much better retained in the previously approvedapplication.

The increase in density of the current plan has a direct correlation to thepotential for pollutant loading within the adjacent wetlands by the

relationship:

Pollutant loading = f (area x land cover x rainfall x impervioussurfaces) + other factors such as septic systems and general use of

property.

Thus, the greater the impact on land cover and the more impervioussurfaces and other impacts, the greater the challenge to collect and treat

the runoff, the greater the importance in this case on the stormwaterdetention and treatment basins, and also the greater the risk to all down

gradient resources.

8. The Commission finds that Aquarion, in its letter of March 24, 2011,stated that the site of this proposed development is wholly within the

watersheds of two of Aquarion's public drinking water supplyreservoirs, Easton Lake Reservoir and Aspetuck Reservoir. Further,

the letter states that a fundamental principle of drinking water

supply source protection is to limit the density of residential

development within public water supply watershed areas to no more

than one dwelling unit per two acres of buildable area. This

watershed protection maxim is clearly stated in the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut 2005-2010, as developed

by the Office of Policy and Management, and has been repeatedly

echoed and reaffirmed by the Connecticut Department of Public

Health, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection,and the Regional Planning Agency Association of Connecticut. The

development of this sensitive public drinking water supply area atover twice the maximum recommended development density remains an

inappropriate and unacceptable development plan for this location.The consistently high quality water from Easton wetlands and

watercourses is largely due to the Town's limited development andlarge-lot residential zoning. Aquarion urges the Town to consider that

while the Applicants for any one high density development proposalmay claim that their particular project will have no measurable effect

to the quality of the public drinking water supply, this proposal, ifapproved, could set the stage for an increased level of development in


12/29

12

Easton that would cumulatively prove to be detrimental to waterquality within critical public drinking water supply watershed areas.

Because the development density of this revised proposal stillconflicts with fundamental principles of watershed protection and

remains, consequently, contrary to the recommendations of the

Connecticut Department of Public Health, the ConnecticutDepartment of Environmental Protection, the Connecticut Office ofPolicy and Management and the Regional Planning Agency

Association of Connecticut, the Aquarion Water Company

Department of Watershed and Environmental Management strongly

urges the Town of Easton not to approve this application.(Emphasis added by Commission)

9. The Commission finds that the Connecticut Fund for the Environment

(CFE) in its letter dated May 16, 2011 stated that the property lies withinthe public water supply watershed of the Aspetuck and Easton Lake

Reservoirs. CFE notes that the Application proposes the construction of99 housing units on the site at a gross density of 1 unit per 1.12 acres,

while the C & D Plan calls for a maximum density of 1 unit per 2buildable acres for residential development in drinking water watersheds.

A high density development within the watershed property would set anextremely harmful precedent for watershed development not only in

Easton but also throughout the states. CFE urges denial of this

Application.

10. The Commission finds that the Department of Public Health in its

review of the septic plans of each of the 9 lots, dating fromMarch 22, 2010 through June 9, 2010, confirmed that the Drinking Water

Section within the Department of Public Health also reviewed theApplication so as to conform with the requirements of the C & D Plan.

The Drinking Water Section points out that theproposed density ofdevelopment for this application exceeds the density guidelines for

development within a public water supply watershed.

11. The Commission finds that regulated activities in a watershed area areemphasized by a notice requirement in Conn. Gen. Stat. 22a-42f.

12. The Commission finds that the evidence in the record is substantial to

conclude that the overall density in the drinking water watershed areaposes a direct, significant adverse effect to the wetlands.


13/29

13

B. The Commission makes the following specific findings regarding the septicsystems:

1. The Commission finds that the abundance of individual septic systems

creates significant adverse effects upon the wetlands and watershed as

follows:

What is of real importance to the wetlands and watersheds are the

impacts from the septic system discharges, which is something moreintensely reviewed under the jurisdiction of the DEP than the local health

department and state DPH. It is the DEP guidance and review jurisdictionas explained below that addresses this, and in particular the amount of

nitrogen being discharged to the environmentally sensitive areas from theseptic systems (as well as other pollutants such as phosphorus; bacteria,

protozoa and viruses; synthetic organic chemicals; and heavy metals).

The concentration of nitrogen discharges from the 99 units and their

associated 99 septic systems is of particular concern regarding environmental health and subsequent public health impacts fromnitrogendischarged to wetlands in a water supply watershed. Basedon the configuration of the proposed 99 individual septic systems,

essentially all wetland areas on the property will receive continuous andconsistent daily nitrogen discharges (and other pollutant discharges) via

groundwater transmission from the new septic systems. This continuousand consistent daily discharge of nitrogen and other pollutants to wetlands

via groundwater transmission does not currently exist on this property andthe impacts of introducing these pollutants to wetlands could have

significant detrimental effects on the quality of the wetlands and thesubsequent water supply reservoirs the wetlands feed into.[GHD letter

dated May 10, 2011, Page 6] (Emphasis added by Commission)

GHD points out in its May 17, 2011 letter, Page 1, that nitrogen minimallydegrades as follows: The total amount of nitrogen discharged, like a

number of contaminants, is conserved in the ground, that is, once it isdischarged from a septic tank it is not treated or removed to any great

extent, it simply gets diluted by ground water and rain thus the totalamount of pounds of nitrogen discharged per day remains constant and the

full amount of nitrogen (total pounds) can enter a down gradient wetlandand reservoir. The seriousness of this fact is stated on Page 8 of its

report dated May 10, 2011, where it points out that the only two nitrogenvalues given were quite high as follows: The Applicant states they

modeled the system using DEP criteria and the results are 9.5 mg/l ofNitrogen leaving the property in the Easton Reservoir watershed and 6.3

mg/l in the Aspetuck. Both numbers are significant but the EastonReservoir is attention getting. DEP regulations demand no more than 10

mg/l total nitrogen [at a point of concern including wetland boundaries].The Applicants number is very close to that limit; hence the proposal


14/29

14

deserves even more to undergo the strict scrutiny of DEP using DEPprotocols, safety factors, models and review. We cannot be comfortable

with this situation

2. The Commission has considered and rejected the Applicants argument

that in essence he was forced to install 99 individual septic systems dueto a Town of Easton ordinance forbidding community or engineered septicsystems. The Applicant chose to create this high-density development and

this particular high-density configuration on his own, while he hadfeasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed 99-unit development, as

discussed below.

3. The Commission finds that a project of this size, which produces morethan 5,000 gallons of sewage per day, laid out in a high-density manner, in

close proximity to the wetlands, poses a threat to the public drinking watersupply. The GHD report of May 10, 2011, Page 8 states the following:

The proposed development in total will have a discharge of greater than

5000 gallons per day (gpd) and in fact is likely to be more than 15,000 gpdaverage usage, and should thus fall under the DEP review and oversight,

not just to the local health department and the state DPH. The applicationis for 105 [now 99] units as a whole. Yet the Applicant carved out 9

separate lots as what we view as a contrived means to circumvent the

DEP regulation and oversight by what would in effect reduce the

onsite wastewater discharge on each of the 9 lots to below 5000 gpd,thereby keeping the project out of the DEPs jurisdiction. The DEP

criterion incorporates an in-depth analysis and review of septic systemdesign per standards and criteria which have been incorporated into their

on-site system design guidance documents. (Emphasis added byCommission)

4. The Commission makes the following specific findings regarding the

nitrogen loading of 99 septic systems:

a. The Commission finds that the cumulative effect of nitrogenloading from 99 septic systems was not adequately addressed.

b. The response from the Applicant [MM May 24, 2011 Chapter 2,

Page 3] was, The reviewer (1) misunderstands both thejurisdiction of the DEP and DPH and the protection provided by

the Connecticut Public Health Code and (2) ignores the Town ofEaston Ordinance that prohibits community systems or other septic

treatment systems under the DEPs jurisdiction.

Yet, GHD notes (May 10, 2011, Page 9) that although theApplicant asserts that they do not have to follow DEP guidelines


15/29

15

for pollutant analysis from wastewater discharges, in theirNovember 22, 2010 supplemental materials report (Page 9, Item

R3) they have presented nitrogen data while claiming to haveanalyzed the site in compliance with DEP criteria, but have not

provided the details of the analysis. GHD goes on to note It

appears that the Applicant has only analyzed the anticipatednitrogen concentrations from wastewater discharges at 2(unknown) locations and apparently at property lines rather than at

wetland boundaries since only two nitrogen values have beenprovided. Therefore, it is our professional opinion that the

Applicant has inaccurately represented that the Application iscompliant with DEP nitrogen criteria from onsite wastewater

discharges which clearly has not been proven. There is a

clear concern that Nitrogen will be exceeded because the

limiteddata provided by the Applicant shows values near thelimit, presumably at points farther down gradient.

(Emphasis added by Commission)

Regardless of the jurisdictional debate, it is clear to the Commission basedupon the evidence in the record that the concerns raised by GHD and the

Intervenors consultants relative to the attenuation of the nitrogen and thecumulative effect of 99 septic systems have not been answered. Adequate

analyses were not conducted on the additive effects of 99 individual septicsystems on the adjacent wetlands and watersheds.

With regard to the septic systems, the Commission concludes that the current

Application for 99 housing units, each with its individual septic systems, createssignificant adverse effects upon the wetlands and watershed.

C. The Commission makes the following specific findings regarding this Application

for 99 residences vs. the prior 21 lot subdivision:

1. The January 21, 2009 letter of approval sent from the Easton

Conservation Commission to Huntley Stone of Silver Sport Associatesstates in Point #3, "This permit is based on the wetland impacts of 21

single family housing units. No other use was considered." Contrary tothe Applicant's desire to portray this permit as an approval covering solelyregulated activities, the wording is clear in specifying that the approval

was for the impacts of 21 housing units.

During deliberations, the Commission, according to its regulations

(Section 10.2.c), must consider long term as well as short term impacts ofany proposal. The 2009 approval for 21 lots is separate and distinct from

the current Application for 99 housing units.

2. The Commission finds that there are fundamental differences between the

previously approved 21-lot subdivision and the proposed 99-unit


16/29

16

housing high-density proposal. Specifically, the higher density,according to GHD, has a direct effect upon the wetlands and watercourses.

GHD states the following:

While the total area of impact within the 100- foot upland review area is

+6.2 acres or 269,805 square feet and is less than the original 21unitplan, the critical issue relative to upland review areas remains the overall

environmental quality and viability of the upland buffer and consequentlythe wetlands following development. The Commission needs to consider

how the altered buffer will function to protect wetland resources and downgradient water quality during and after construction. Given the overall

amount of clearing and development of the vegetated upland areas is muchmore extensive, it will have a more significant impact on the overall

environmental resource on the site and in the watershed. For example:

1. A block of existing growth approximately 500 feet wide and 800feet long with extensions on two sides of several hundred feet is

shown being cleared and developed on the eastern side of thesite;

2. A block of existing growth approximately 400 feet wide and 1,000

feet long with extensions in two directions is shown being clearedon the southwest side of the site. [GHD report, May 10, 2011,

Page 11].

Page 12: The difference in overall environmental impact to naturalhabitat and the full range of ecosystems between the two development

proposals is dramatic; hence the impacts to the watershed lands are

significant. The multi-family plan essentially clears habitat from theentire development zone, and the limited proposed plantings along theroad edges and stormwater basins plus the written statements that

plantings will be installed around the houses will not be a character thatwill support viable levels of local fauna.

3. Page 12: "The 21 homes would generate a usage based upon

21 families. In Easton, an overall family is just under 3 people perhome, thus in round numbers using an average, this is about 60people. If one accepts the argument that these homes would

generate more people due to their expected size, and one uses 4 to

4.5 people on average, there would be 85 to perhaps 100 peopleoccupying the Site based upon the approved application He furtherstates, The new proposal of 99 units could be expected to generate

somewhere between 1.75 to 2.5 people per unit: 170-250 people,considerably more people and activity on the site. This difference in the

numbers of people likely to be in residence and supported on thissite impacts many factors including traffic, water use and

septic discharges, and the general use and impacts on the land once


17/29

17

development is constructed."

4. Page 26: With approximately 30% more total disturbance, the

addition of 78 septic systems, the increase in density, proposed

225,000 sq. ft of permeable pavers, and the elimination of many of the

natural resources and connectivity of remainingresources, thisapplication should be viewed as adifferent project from the oneapproved for 21 individualresidential lots." (Emphasis added by the

Commission)

5. Polly Edwards, the Easton Health Officer, in her memorandum tothe Conservation Commission dated May 13, 2011, calculated that

the 21 single family homes with 10 bedrooms each wouldgenerate total wastewater of approximately 22,050 gpd, while a

development of 99 units with 2 bedrooms each would generate29,700 gpd. Gary Dufel, in GHDs letter dated May 17, 2011,

calculates, using average occupancy of 4.25 people per home and2.13 people per townhouse unit and 70 gpd per person, that both

the wastewater and nitrogen discharges would be 2.3 times higher.He concludes that based on impacts to down-gradient resources

99 2-bedroom units are not equivalent to 21 10-bedroom homesbased on water loads and pollutant loads (in this case as measured

by nitrogen). Any pollutants that are conserved and not removedin the soils (i.e. nitrogen) will have a greater cumulative load at

wetland boundaries, and a greater cumulative impact on thewetlands and water resources.

6. Michael S. Klein, soil scientist and wetland scientist for

Environmental Planning Services, one of the experts for theIntervenor, in his May 24, 2011 letter to the Commission, concurs

that the current application differs significantly from the approved21- lot subdivision: "The March 4, 2011 plans for Saddle

Ridge Village are not the plans that were approved in 2009 by theEaston Conservation Commission. The change in the intensity of

the proposed land use, as well as the substantial increase indisturbance of land draining to the wetlands, creates a higher

likelihood of indirect impacts to wetlands that were not consideredin the agency's original proceedings. These factors point to a

significant adverse impact on wetlands and watercourses."

7. In summary, with regard to the differences between the two Applications,the Commission finds that there are fundamental differences, and it is a

new Application as follows:

a. 99 residential units vs. 21 residential units.


18/29

18

b. The density of the new application exceeds levels recommended inthe C & D Plan and by the Aquarion Water Company for

development within watershed lands.

c. 99 septic systems vs. 21 septic systems with resultant increase

in wastewater discharges and pollutant loads.

d. All driveways now to be permeable pavers amounting to 225,000

sq.ft (5.2acres) of permeable pavers.

e. Infiltration basins for stormwater management changed to wetpools.

f. Common driveways widened to 24 feet, 23% more land

disturbed overall with significant increase in clear-cutting ofvegetation with resulting thermal impacts to wetlands

and watercourses as well as loss of habitat and stormwaterinfiltration.

g. Introduction of water supply line necessary for a 99 unitapplication, but not necessary for 21 units. [See Section F.1.a.]

h. The 21 lot subdivision does not require 9 separate homeownersassociations to oversee maintenance. [See Section G]

D. The Commission makes the following specific finds regarding stormwater

control:

1. The Commission finds that stormwater control from residentialdevelopment plays a key role in protecting nearby wetlands and watersheds

for two drinking water reservoirs. GHD, in its letter dated May 24, 2011,Page 1, states, From testimony presented, no one can deny that these

basins need to play a very key role in protecting the nearby wetlands andthe watersheds for two drinking water reservoirs. Michael Klein noted

(EPS, May 8, 2011, Page 4) that Given the sites location in publicwatershed lands and the proximity of the stormwater basins to wetlands,

proper treatment for stormwater is of paramount concern. The DEP 2004CT Stormwater Quality Manual, Chapter 2.4, Pages 2-6 presents a similar

view.

2. The Commission finds that the Stormwater Control Plan (drainage basins)proposed by the Applicant is inconsistent in its approach and contrary to

the Applicants statements, fails to comply with the DEP 2004 CTStormwater Quality Manual. The stormwater management plan does

not demonstrate compliance with the Stormwater Manual or theGeneral Permit. (EPS, Michael Klein, May 24, 2011, Page 4)


19/29

19

Similarly, Steven Trinkaus, (Trinkaus Engineering, LLC) in his May 8,2011 letter, Page 2, states, I continue to concur with the technical

comments made by GHD regarding the proposedstormwater qualitybasins that they are not in compliance with the CTDEP 2004 StormWater Quality Manual and on 5/24/11, Page 2, GHD stated, We

continue to assert there is incomplete data on the existing soils and watertable to assure the ponds will maintain a permanent pool, the designs arenot consistent with the DEP Manual for such a proposal, nor is there

credibility that soluble pollutants are being retained and treated.(Emphasis added by Commission)

3. The Commission concludes that absent a well designed stormwater control

system based on adequate field testing to validate the design assumptions,pollutant loads not limited to excess nutrients, sediment loading,

pathogens, organic materials, hydrocarbons, metals, de-icing constituents,and trash and debris [DEP 2004 WQM], will have an adverse effect on the

adjacent wetlands and watersheds.

E. The Commission makes the following specific findings regarding pavers:

1. The Commission finds that the use of 225,000+ square feet of permeable

interlocking concrete pavement and grass pavers for common drivewaysand parking areas will have a significant adverse impact upon the wetlands

and watercourses. While reductions in impervious pavement are generallydesirable to mitigate development impacts, short term and long term

efficacy of the paver system in this Application is questionable. The

Commissions concerns include:

a. The Applicants design, as shown in the ICPI Permeable InterlockingConcrete Pavement detail on Drawing D-4, conveys a subgrade ofzero slope to allow the water to store within the stone subgrade and

slowly percolate into the surrounding soils. However, most of thedriveways are on a slope, ranging from mild grades to slopes as great

as 10%. As indicated in the GHD report (May 10, 2011, Page 18), theconcern is that rather than storing water in the stone layer, this stone

will serve as a rapid underdrain system, the water will flow downhilland every so often water and soils will blow out forming deep ruts and

damage the driving surface. This will then cause the groups ofhomeowners to pave over the system, eliminating the proposed

benefit. While the Applicant indicated in its May 24, 2011 response(Section 4, Page 5) that underdrains would be installed on the steepest

slopes, no updated drawings of this design modification wereprovided.

b. The Commission has concerns as to the degree to which the paversystem will provide the required Groundwater Recharge Volume


20/29

20

(GRV). The pavers will be installed over compacted fill, and asTrinkaus Engineering notes [May 8, 2011 letter]: It has not been

demonstrated that the GRV will fully infiltrate this fill layer and enterthe natural underlying soils which is the intent of the GRV.

c. Indeed, as noted by GHD [May 10, 2011, Page 19], Milone andMacBroom used different calculations in an earlier engineering report

(June 2010) to determine the retention volume of the permeablepavement sub-base. That report states that a clogging factor of 50%

was used in the computations to account for potential loss of filtrationand reduction in storage volume. This clogging factor was not

included in the March 2011 report computations, and no explanationwas provided for this change during the public hearings.

d. GHD also noted [May 10, 2011, Page 19] that thepavedroad surfacesall contain an underdrain system to direct water to the stormwaterbasins. According to GHD, there is an inconsistency. If the

engineer believes it is prudent to drain water from the roadway sub-base, it must be assumed there is a fear that the underlying soils will

not absorb this water. However the engineer is relying on thisabsorption in the permeable pavement locations. Again, no

explanation was provided by the Applicant.

e. The Commission is concerned that the paver system will not providecritical control of pollutants, including total suspended solids (TSS),

zinc, copper, metals, phosphorus, and nitrogen. The potential forpollution in the area of these pavers is significant, since they will serve

as driveways and parking areas around 99 homes. Potential pollutants

include (but are certainly not limited to): lawn fertilizers, householdhazardous waste, oil and other drippings from cars, garbage, andanimal waste. The Applicant provided data on pollutant removal from

the manufacturers product literature, but as Trinkaus Engineeringnoted [May 23, 2011 letter], there was no indication that this data was

independently verified.

f. Furthermore, the Applicant provided a table showing pollutantremoval percentages from two sources (June 9, 2011, Section 2, Page5), but the table does not indicate the timeframe for the suggested

pollutant removal results. It is unclear whether pollutants will beremoved at these levels for the lifetime of the pavers, or only when

initially installed. The Commission has no assurance as to the validityof these tables without more comprehensive, independent, andverifiable analysis.

g. The Commission is concerned that the efficacy of the permeable paversystem depends on maintenance. As noted extensively during the

public hearings, the pavers are highly susceptible to clogging byvarious substances and sediments. According to the Applicant


21/29

21

(May 24, 2011, Section 4, Page 5), the pavers would need to bevacuum-swept, and joint stones (pea gravel) replenished, at least twice

per year. In between vacuuming, the effectiveness of the pavers interms of infiltration and pollutant removal will steadily diminish. To

retain any effectiveness at all, the maintenance plan will need to be

followed rigorously. The entire viability of the paver system dependson it. Over the long run, the Commission is concerned as to whetherthe pavers will even be retained. Given the maintenance expense and

trouble, the homeowners associations may choose to abandon thepavers entirely, and retrofit with impermeable pavement, with

disastrous implications for the surrounding wetlands and watershed.

2. The Commission concludes the following as to pavers: Given various

concerns about the design, data, and maintenance, the permeable paversystem will not provide critical stormwater infiltration, groundwater

recharge, and pollution control. The lack of a viable, sustainable paver

system will have a direct, adverse impact on the wetlands,

watercourses, and watershed.

F. The Commission makes the following specific findings regarding theintroduction of the water supply line:

1. The Commission finds that the introduction of a 1700 +/- water supply

line presents a significant adverse impact upon the wetlands andwatercourses as follows:

a. The States policy in public drinking water supply watersheds is todiscourage the introduction of infrastructure for the purpose ofaccommodating new development. Exceptions may be allowed in

certain instances where development has already occurred, andadded pollution controls are required to protect potable waters.

Proposing a dense development that requires a new water line is indirect opposition to this important policy and the exception noted

does not apply to this property that is currently undeveloped(C&D Development Plan, Conservation Area Policies, Page 7).

2. Introduction of a water line may serve to induce further

development along the route of the pipeline causing furtherincremental impacts.

The Commission concludes the following: The introduction of a water

main tothe property is inconsistent with the C & D Plan.


22/29

22

G. The Commission makes the following specific findings regardingmaintenance and management by the separate homeowners associations:

1. The Commission finds that the proposal to have 9 separate homeownerassociations provides an overlay of complexity and inefficiency which will

aggravate all of the above problems and negatively impact the long termmaintenance of functions affecting the wetlands.

As noted in the GHD report of May 10, 2011 [Page 20], we believe

maintenance responsibilities include the following:

a. Snow plowing on private roads and shared parkingareas without disturbing the pavers.

b. Maintenance of pervious pavers twice a year (sweeping,

vacuuming) on private roads and parking areas.

c. Maintenance of stormwater systems.

d. Maintenance of all lawn areas and common lands including

mowing, maintenance of landscapes and judicious use of

fertilizers.

e. Repair, replacement and pump out of septic systems (pump outs

generally every 2-3 years).

f. Maintenance of exteriors of structures such as cleaning gutters and

drains for proper disposal of water.

g. Replacement of pervious pavers as they get clogged with dirt and

grit or get uprooted by plowing or erosion.

The failure of the associations to act, particularly with maintenance andrepair of drainage and septic systems, can easily impact downgradient

resources. It is unrealistic to expect these small groups to have theinitiative and financial resources to act as needed, and it is unrealistic to

expect each of the 9 associations to have enough interested andknowledgeable people to manage the work and expense that will be

necessary. The Commission is concerned about timely maintenance of theproperty.

Eight of the nine associations share a number of resources including the

following:

- Drainage from Lot 7 and 8 passes into the basin owned by Lot 9


23/29

23

- A portion of the drainage for Lot 3 passes to Lot 4s basin

- Lot 3 and Lot 6 share a common basin that is located on Lots 2 and 3

- The drainage basin on Lot 1 is located on open space land, and

- Lot 4 residents utilize the road of Lot 3 to access Lot 4

The Applicant has stated that maintenance will be performed by the

owners of the lot where the infrastructure lies. However, there aresignificant inequities among lots in cost, use of, and responsibility for

maintenance of such common areas that can be expected to produceconflict. The Commission is concerned that these conflicts will interfere

with proper and timely maintenance which will adversely affect thewetlands.

2. In addition to the maintenance responsibilities enumerated above, the

associations will need to manage the Drinking Water Quality ManagementPlan (DWQMP). The Plan is intended to ensure that construction and

occupancy of the property will not adversely impact drinking waterquality. Once the construction phase is completed it will need to be

administered by the individual associations. Responsibilities includehiring and supervising contractors to inspect and maintain stormwater

systems and basins and take action on deficiencies. Similarresponsibilities apply to management of landscaping tasks including

fertilizer/pesticide controls, turf management, septic cleaningscheduling and reporting, training of homeowners on proper septic use,

hazardous spill response, and monitoring and reporting on periodic water

quality testing.

The success of the stormwater, septic system and other tasks proposed for

the site depend on regular and proper maintenance and management.Questions to the Applicant regarding the Commissions concerns in this

regard were answered each time with, The homeowners associationswill take care of it. The health of the wetlands on the property and that of

the down-gradient reservoirs depends, therefore, on the vigilance,efficiency, knowledge, funding, staffing and cooperation of the 9

Homeowners Associations proposed by the Applicant. A failure to actexpeditiously and correctly in the maintenance and repair of septic

systems, drainage basins, pervious pavers, and other items noted couldhave deleterious effects on the wetlands and watercourses.

As GHD notes in its report of May 10, 2011, Page 21, concern regarding

shared resources, where the homeowners association on one lot wouldbear responsibility for the repair of infrastructure that would primarily

serve other lots is so stated, these lots have been unnaturally carved

out for the purpose of avoiding DEP review of the septic systems. The

contrived manner in which this is done for one purpose (septic


24/29

24

systems) has led to a maintenance challenge (roads and particularlydrainage) that can be predicted to lead to maintenance problems and

a hastening of the inevitable environmental problems. (Emphasisadded by Commission)

Michael Klein, in his Environmental Planning Services letter dated May 8,2011, stated, regarding the Water Quality Management Plan, The

proposed creation of 9 separate homeowners associations, coupled

with stormwater management facilities that are shared between

associations, makes for an administrative nightmare. (Emphasisadded by Commission)

The Commission concludes that the maintenance and management responsibilities

required for the project as a whole are subject to significant conflicts andinefficiencies if carried out by 9 individual homeowner associations that will

likely have a negative impact on the wetlands and water quality.

H. The Commission makes the following specific findings regardingthe Drinking Water Quality Management Plan (DWQMP):

1. The Applicant stated in its application Tab 11 that a DWQMP was

developed to ensure that construction and occupancy of Saddle RidgeVillage will not adversely impact drinking water quality. The goal of the

DWQMP is to become the first step in ensuring that activities associatedwith the development of the site and its post-development daily operations

will not adversely impact water quality, and provide for the placement andmaintenance of the initial barriers in the multi-barrier approach to

protection of public water supplies. Downstream barriers such as filtration

and chemical treatment of the water supplies will always be available forprotection of public health. The initial barriers help increase theeffectiveness of filtration and treatment while minimizing the associated

treatment costs.

2. Michael Klein, in his Environmental Planning Services letter dated May 8,2011 stated, The Water Quality Management Plan proposed by the

Applicant has numerous deficiencies. It is not a full-fledged plan, butrather an outline of the basic elements of a plan. It has no funding, no

enforcement mechanism, no definition of background levels, nor anydefinition of what constitutes a violation. He points out the

ineffectiveness of managing it through the homeowners associationsdiscussed in the prior section, and continues For example, a final WQMPis to be completed prior to construction, with input from a Technical

Advisory Committee. The Technical Advisory Committee is to includetwo representatives from the homeowners associations. However, none of

the homes will have been built yet, let alone sold. Four members are to befrom state and local governmental agencies without any indication that

these agencies are willing to perform this task, and have the manpower


25/29

25

and legal authority to do so. The Aquarion Water Company is alsoproposed as a member, again without any indication that they are willing

and able to so. The difficulties inherent in establishing an AdvisoryCommittee and overseeing final drafting of the plan, let alone

implementing the plan and any remedial measures that might be required,

are overwhelming.

3. The Commission concludes that the DWQMP has been designed by theApplicant to give the appearance of preserving water quality but, as

pointed out above, in practice would be ineffective. Any high densityproject as proposed can do nothing but degrade water quality. The

creation of such a plan is entirely in the developers hands and effectivemanagement and enforcement in the interests of the community at large

cannot be expected. The DWQMP is at best a list of suggestions thatwould be difficult to enforce.

I. The Commission makes the following specific findings pursuant to

Sec. 10.2 of the Regulations:

1. As noted in Section V of the Easton Regulations, the Commission hasjurisdiction to consider the impact on the wetlands and watercourses from

development and use activities both within the 100 Regulated Area andproposed activities in the more distant upland areas that are likely to affect

a wetland or watercourse. Mr. Klein, in his letter dated May 8, 2011states, The proposed development includes a substantial amount of

vegetation removal, earth disturbance, grading, rock removal, installationof storm drainage and detention basins, construction of roads, driveways,

and parking lots, installation of 99 sub-surface sewage disposal systems

and construction of 31 buildings. Many of these activities are locatedwithin the 100' upland review area. Regardless of the distance between

the activity and the nearest wetland boundary, virtually all of these

activities generate a discharge to wetlands, watercourses or

groundwater, during and after construction, thereby altering the

physical, chemical and biological attributes of the wetlands andwatercourses. (Emphasis added by Commission)

2. The proposed high density development of the Site poses a reasonablethreat to the environment and the inland wetlands and watercourses

capacity to protect surface and ground water, to control sediment and to

promote public health and safety in the public drinking water supplywatershed.

3. Expert testimony has given the Commission reason for concernregarding the discharge of nitrogen to the wetlands from the 99

septic systems. The testimony from GHD raised concerns aboutthe potential for pollution of ground water as well as thermal

impacts to wetlands and watercourses via the removal of


26/29

26

vegetation, roof runoff and impervious surfaces. GHD alsopointed to the loss of habitat and ecosystem connectivity with the

removal of vegetation and dense development.

4. In his March 24, 2011 letter in opposition to the current

Application, Brian Roach, Environmental Protection Supervisor forthe Aquarion Water Company states that the current Applicationproposed to develop this sensitive public drinking water supply

area at twice the maximum recommended development densityand consequently remains an inappropriate and unacceptable

development plan for this location.

5. A standard single-family subdivision is a feasible alternative withvastly less environmental impact, if any.

6. Once the proposed high density development is implemented, the

results will be irreversible. The wetlands and watercoursesimpacted are indispensable, irreplaceable and fragile natural

resources.

7. The proposed activity is not suitable and endangers the water qualityof thousands of people in the greater Bridgeport area.

8. Mitigations as proposed will take several years to materialize

without any interim safeguards.

VII. Findings Regarding Intervenor:

A. With regard to the Notice of Intervention filed by the Coalition to Save Easton(CSE), c/o Chris Miles and Leslie Minasi:

1. The Easton Conservation Commission finds that the Intervenor are

appropriate parties to intervene.

2. The Intervenor have filed a verified pleading.

3. The pleading alleges claims consistent with Section 22a-19 of theConnecticut General Statutes.

4. Based upon the record, and for the reasons cited herein, the Commission

finds that the proposed activities will involve conduct which is reasonablylikely to have the effect of unreasonably polluting, impairing or destroying

the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state.Specifically, the conduct will have a direct impact upon the wetlands and

watercourses. More specifically, as set forth above in the findings of theCommission, the Commission finds that impairment will occur due to


27/29

27

problems associated with increased density, nitrogen loading, use ofpavers, water supply line, 99 septic systems, maintenance and

management by the separate homeowners associations, inadequacy of thestormwater control plan, and the Drinking Water Quality Management

Plan, all of which have been shown as activities causing unreasonable

pollution and impairment to the water and other natural resources of thestate. The reports from the Intervenor cited herein and appearing in therecord support this conclusion: Environmental Planning Services

(Michael S. Klein), reports dated May 8, 2011 and May 24, 2011;Trinkaus Engineering (Steven D. Trinkaus), reports dated October 22,

2010, November 4, 2010, December 3, 2010, May 8, 2011, and May 23,2011; CatalystEnvironmental Consulting Inc., report dated November 8,

2010.

5. The Commission finds that there is a prudent and feasible alternative,which is set forth below in Section VIII.

VIII. Prudent and Feasible Alternatives:

The Commission concludes that a prudent and feasible alternative exists to this

Application. Specifically, the prior 21 lot subdivision represents such a

prudent and feasible alternative for the following reasons:

A. The Applicant would achieve the goal of development of the property

with significant reduction in overall disturbance to the site, which is in the

watershed of two public water supply reservoirs.

B. Reduction in vegetation removal would better preserve existing environmentalconditions conducive to maintaining the health of on-site wetlands and

wetland ecosystems as well as buffering the watercourses that feed the

reservoirs.

C. Reduction in the number of units would reduce the cumulative and ongoing

impacts of increased numbers of residents.

D. Reduction of the number of units to 21 would bring the density of

development within the guidelines recommended by the State of Connecticut and

the Aquarion Water Company, thereby better achieving the goal of protecting

public health and safety.

E. Reduction of the number of septic systems would reduce the amount of nitrogen

discharged to the wetlands.


28/29

28

RESOLUTION

Based upon the foregoing findings, including the findings regarding the Intervenorpursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 22a-19, the Commission RESOLVES to DENY the

Application due to the significant adverse impact of the development upon the wetlandsand watercourses. Specifically, the Commission resolves as follows:

1. The 99 unit development with all of its ancillary components represents an operationwithin or use of a wetland or watercourse involving removal or deposition ofmaterial, or any obstruction, construction, alteration or pollution, of such wetlands or

watercourses. These represent regulated activities within the jurisdiction of thisCommission, including, more specifically, discharges (stormwater, nitrogen),

runoffs, pollutants, stormwater control, and other uses as set forth above. The

Commissions definition of Regulated Activity and the Appendix C provision

cited above provide jurisdiction for this Commission.

2. The direct and indirect effects resulting from the proposed activities presentsignificant adverse impacts to the wetlands and watercourses, as set forth herein, andas supported by substantial evidence in the record.

3. The specific findings mentioned concerning unreasonably high density, highwastewater discharges and nitrogen loading from the 99 septic systems, the currentapplication vs. that of the prior 21 lot subdivision, the conclusion that this is a new

application, inadequacies in the stormwater control plan, effectiveness of usingpavers, introduction of the water supply line, maintenance and management by the

separate homeowner associations, the Drinking Water Quality Management Plan, and

findings pursuant to Section 10.2 of the regulations are supported by substantialevidence in the record of this proceeding.

Dated at Easton, Connecticut this 12th day of July, 2011.

Members Voting: Roy Gosse, Chairman; Stephen Edwards, Vice Chairman;Dori Wollen; Catherine Alfandre; John Mehanna; and

Marla Manning

Motion made by: Stephen Edwards; Seconded by John MehannaVote: 6-0

In Favor: 6 / Opposed: None

Eleanor Sylvestro was unavailable for the final vote.

Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. on July 12, 2011.

___________________________


29/29

29

Roy Gosse, Chairman

Documents

Easton Conservation Commission Resolution - Saddle Ridge