CONNECTICUT
RIVER GATEWAY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
December 4,
2008
Deep River: Amy Petrone,
Nancy Fischbach
East Haddam: Harvey
Thomas, Robert Boulware
Essex: Ellen Wexler,
Fred Vollono
Fenwick: Chuck
Chadwick
Haddam: Scott Thompson, Susan Bement
Lyme: Kevin Mazer, J. Melvin Woody
Old Lyme: Vacancy, Ted Crosby
Old Saybrook: Madge
Fish, David Lemay
CRERPA: Steve
Williams
Midstate RPA: Raoul De Brigard, Stacia DeMichele
DEP: David
Blatt
Staff: J.H.
Torrance Downes
Tidewater: Judy Preston
Call to Order
Treasurer Peggy Wilson called the regular meeting of the
Gateway Commission to order at 7:40 pm in the CRERPA meeting room.
Approval
of Minutes
Steve Williams moved to accept the
minutes from October 23, 2008. David Blatt seconded. All were in favor.
Staff
Report & Correspondence
A copy of the Staff Report is filed with these minutes.
Torrance reported that the 8 lot
subdivision on the Black Hall River in Old Lyme was withdrawn rendering the
Commission’s “inconsistent” finding moot.
Letters of appreciation to Ed
Marlowe and Logan Clarke were presented thanking them for their service on the
Gateway Commission. Special
consideration will be given to their service on the finance committee as well
as their lengths of service on the Commission.
Treasurer’s Report
Torrance presented the month’s Treasurer’s report on the
screen to save paper. Peggy Wilson
explained the billing.
Susan Bement moved to pay the month’s bills for $2460 to CRERPA,
and $2800 to Tidewater, and $2272 for insurance. Ted Crosby seconded. All were in favor.
Peggy reported that auditor Joe Wollack
requested a meeting with the Treasurer and Chairman to go over the audit before
December 31, 2008.
Ted Crosby asked about the Commission’s investment
status. Peggy has not spoken with Liz Devoe this month but will be in contact again in the new year.
Tidewater
A copy of Judy Preston’s Tidewater report is filed with these minutes.
Referrals
Torrance reported on two variance referrals from Essex of
no impact and one from Lyme at 11 Oakland Avenue in Hamburg Cove. The Lyme
application requested to retain a small open deck erected on a steep vegetated
hillside above Hamburg Cove without required land use permits and within both
the 100 foot structure and 50 foot riparian buffer setback standards included
within the Lyme Zoning Regulations.
Following discussion of the potential impacts of the extensive
vegetation cutting, David Blatt moved to write a letter recommending opposition
to the issuance of the requested variances due to adverse impacts to the
natural riverway scene and the likelihood that
riparian buffer vegetation removed from the steep sloping area around the open
deck will never be allowed to re-grow to its pre-cutting density. It was felt that the loss of the native
vegetation will ultimately jeopardize the stability of the steep slope. The
Commission also commented that, although not their purview, there appears to be
an insufficient hardship demonstrated in application materials. Minimally the
Commission would like to see the hillside stabilized with increased plantings
and specific non-invasive vegetation to help camouflage the deck. Susan Bement
seconded. All were in favor.
Status of 2004 Standards
No update.
Torrance reiterated from his staff report that Ellen Wexler has been
newly appointed to the Gateway Commission from Essex. She was unable to attend this month’s
meeting.
Status of Gateway Owned
Properties
The DEP is moving forward on the transfer of the Balleck property.
Transfer has been complicated by the fact that there is an old
foundation that straddles the property line.
The situation is being addressed.
Other Business
Torrance went over Raul’s concerns with the proposed
regulations referred from Haddam exempting propane tanks from zoning height
restrictions. After discussion, the
Commission decided to send a letter expressing concern over loss of control
over potential visual obstruction caused by large tanks in the Gateway
Conservation Zone.
Torrance passed out a first draft of language intended to
prohibit wind turbines within the Gateway Conservation Zone. Ted Crosby brought up the possibility of a
grandfather clause. Discussion will
continue at January’s meeting.
Meanwhile, Torrance will write letters stating the Commission’s
interpretation that turbines are indeed structures and proposals for a
structure of any type exceeding 35’ must be made through the local ZBA.
Adjournment
There
being no further business, Susan Bement moved to
adjourn the meeting at 9:25 pm.
The next regular meeting of the Gateway
Commission is
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Gateway Items of Interest
December 4, 2008
Correspondence
(1) DEP/OLISP Review of 8-Lot Subdivision on the Black Hall River in Old Lyme – INCONSISTENT.
Developer has not mitigated the adverse impact of not providing any meaningful public access to the Black Hall River and, ultimately, the CT River. CCMA policies require that waterfront parcels be reserved for water dependent uses which, in a residential setting, can include such public access. This review is to be included in the record of the process for the Planning Commission review of the Coastal Site Plan Review application for the Subdivision.
(2) Lynde Point Land Trust (Borough of Fenwick within Gateway Conservation Zone), November Newsletter.
Stanford Brainerd is President.
(3) Letters to Ed Marlowe, Logan Clarke (provided at meeting).
(4) Otfinoski, Letter from TPL. Update on the Otfinoski property acquisition process (forwarded by email). DEP announced awarding $489,020 to the Town of Chester through TPL.
(5) Happy Thanksgiving. Card from TPL.
Staff Report
(1) Met with Architect Tony Terry and property owner regarding construction of a new home exceeding 4000 SF on the riverfront of Chester off Parker’s Point Road. Discussed Gateway Commission policies and purposes for over an hour. Emphasized the method of measurement for the 35 foot height maximum, critical on this site, the importance of retaining site trees and limiting lawn to the greatest degree possible. Discussed muted colors, raising the tree canopy as opposed to tree removal and planting of non-invasive plants to soften the terrain-to-structure interface (i.e. planting landscape shrubbery). The structure will have an uninhabited cupola that will exceed 35 feet in height but is less than 10% of the footprint. As such, it is approvable by Special Exception. Informed ZEO Judy Brown that I reviewed the project and concurred that no variance was needed. Also told ZEO Brown that we stood ready to officially review the Special Exception application, if so desired.
(2) CY EOI. Elaine Richardson of Vita Nuova was informed that the Gateway Commission, through an email from staff, authorized the release of their involvement to other conservation organizations involved in the ongoing Expression of Interest process.
Variance Referrals
(1) Lyme, 11 Oakland Avenue on CT River. Construction of a deck within 50 foot riparian buffer and within 100 foot structure setback without permits. “L”-shaped on river side of an existing shed/boathouse. Enforcement action from 2007 construction.
(2) Essex, 32 West Avenue. Cupola over 35 feet, less than 10% of area. Includes a “sitting area”. No impact.
(3) Essex, 10 Clark Lane. Open deck on side of structure opposite river. No impact.
Regulation Referral and Discussion
Haddam. Raul DiBrigard (who will not be able to attend on 12/4/08) expressed concern over several proposed regulations including (1) removing propane-type fuel tanks of any size from the definition of “structure”, and (2) proposed regulations for fences within the Gateway Conservation Zone (currently, fences 6 feet and under are not “structures” and therefore don’t require permits; revision requires for fences in excess of 4 feet, making the regulation more stringent. See Raul’s comments below.
Status of Standards
No update. New member from Essex, Ellen Wexler.
Draft Language, Alternative Energy
Draft language regarding exclusion of residential wind turbines from the Gateway Conservation Zone to be provided at meeting.
Status of Dock Standards, Old Lyme Harbor Management Commission
The final “unofficial” submission of the draft addendum has been sent up to Marcy Balint in Hartford. Although the OLHMC is sure the draft is in good shape, if it’s submitted “officially”, the clock starts on all the statutory review criteria. Best to get an “unofficial” looks-good first, which they’re willing to do. At the same time, the portion of the addendum that covered a local permitting and enforcement program was removed and formatted to be a local ordinance. That draft ordinance is being submitted to Town Counsel for her review. Again, the approach being taken by the OLHMC is ground-breaking in CT.
Transfer of Gateway Property – Balleck
Waiting for report from Suzanne Barkyoumb (11/20/08). Will report at meeting.
Comments of Raul DiBrigard as written by
him in an email:
1.
The effect of declaring that liquefied petroleum tanks
"of any size" are not "structures" is that they would no
longer be restricted by the Gateway´s
150-wide riverside setback*. Potentially, such tanks "of any
size" could be located at the river’s edge, except
as they might conflict with wetlands regs. I am
not sure that is wise.
2.
Currently, under Haddam regulations, any fence of any type
is not a structure, hence, under zoning, it could be constructed "as of
right" anywhere on the property so long as it is less than 6 feet high,
and conform to Section 22. This would be true even for fences within the
Gateways 150 ft setback. Clearly the changes to Section 22 are intended
to fix some of the problems that the current zoning regulations do not address
properly as they now stand. However, I am not sure they are particularly
helpful as they apply to "protecting the quality of the scene from the
river", as the Gateway seeks to do. The principal suggestion in the
comments that follow is that fences inside the Gateway´s 150ft river setback
area should, at the very least, require a zoning permit (at least if they
exceed 4 ft in height), and Sec 22.1 should be worded so that the ZEO has the
opportunity (if not the obligation) to turns down fences that are inot harmonious with the river scene. That is the simplest
and least onerous way to make sure the underlying intent of the Gateways 150
setback are not met.:(I stress "river scene" here as opposed to
ecology, because one supposes the wetlands commission will stop anything that
is ecologically egregious).
3.
2a & 2b. Section 22.1 should, in addition to
calling for harmony with the general character of the neighborhood, also add
"and the river scene if in the Gateway Zone". That way, when
the ZEO reviews the application under 22.3 (see 2b) the ZEO has a basis
for holding up proposals that don´t harm the neighborhood per se, but are
unsightly and other wise inappropriate as seen from the river.
4.
I am not sure that a 6-ft-high chain link fence along the rivers edge is acceptable. even if
it can be seen through as seen from land. That is why fences inside the
river setback area should at the very least be subject to a zoning permit, with
the ZEO determining if they are acceptable from the point of view of Sec 22.1
as revised above.
5.
I find this much too wide open, since "agriculture
could mean almost anything, and this applies to any fence, even a solid
one. Obviously this again would be "solved" if the ZEO could
review fences in the setback area and hold back those "not harmonious with
the river scene".
6.
In general I have no problem with this clause (fences
under 4 ft high are the least likely to be an eyesore). However we have
seen how people cheat to meet the Gateway 32ft high limitation, and I don´t know
what is to prevent a person (e.g. next to a neighbor) from grading a small 2 ft
berm on top of which eh/she build the 4-ft
wall. Some wording might be appropriate to control such abuses.
7.
Sec 22.3 should have an added condition, namely or if it
faces the CT or Salmon River and is within the setback area. This would
not prohibit such fences, but would at least bring them all under the purview
of the ZEO, who could then determine if they were "harmonious with ...the
river scene if in the Gateway Zone".
Raul (PS I have written this very fast so I hope
I am making some sense, and that I am not getting too carried away!)
*As
a note, the setback is 100 feet, not 150 feet as the 50- foot riparian
buffer is included within the 100 foot structural setback.
Gateway Commission
Meeting
Tidewater Institute
Report
Presented latest version of Riparian standards, combining language from: Gateway cutting standards, Eightmile Watershed Overlay District, the state proposed Waterfront Protection legislation, and the New Hampshire Comprehensive Shoreline Protection Act. Substantive changes include creation of a 50' primary setback from the shoreline (waterfront buffer), and 50' woodland buffer, and recommended 50-point scoring system to determine how many trees to leave standing or add to the buffer. The point system is based on caliper size and total trees within a 50' x 50' area. Definitions also included: "natural ground cover", natural woodland buffer", "sapling", "shrub", and "tree". Outline of final recommendations format were also included in presentation.
Comments from commission: take into account slope and cover; how to advise relative to trees that are topped, and work on replacement vegetation recommendations (what plants/trees to recommend).