Representative Town Meeting Budget and Special Meeting - DAY 2 (linked)

( oo
TOWN OF wATERFORD
GENERAL FUND
2023 - 2024 PROPOSED BUDGET
\
Lu
DEPT/AGENCY: 10114 CONSERVATION COMMISSION
[SERVICES
52010 [ADVERTISING 1,105 1,500 1,500 1,500
52020 __ [POSTAGE 84 125 125 125
52030 __ |PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 3,500 3,500 3,500
52031 __ [PLANNING SERVICES 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
52050 |DUES, CONF. & EDUC. 275 600 600 600
52060__ [PRINTING 0 25
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GjOlo|[ocjajajo
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
53020 OTHER SUPPLIES
500
500!

_ TOWN OF WATERFORD |
FY2024 BUDGET REQUEST
K Conservation Commission
FY 2023/24 PROPOSED CONSERVATION COMMISSION BUDGET
The Waterford Conservation Commission serves as the Inland Wetlands Agency; reviewing applications,
issuing permits and enforcing activities affecting inland wetlands and watercourses in accordance with
the Waterford Inland Wetlands and Watercourses regulations and CT General Statutes 22a-36 through
22a-45. The Conservation Commission also carries out the statutory responsibilities of a municipal
Conservation Commission, maintaining a survey of natural resources, reviewing land use proposals and
making recommendations to other Boards and Agencies on natural resource identification and
protection, and Open Space preservation.
The Conservation Commission conducted 19 regularly scheduled meetings and rendered decisions on 13
applications to conduct activities in and adjacent to inland wetlands and watercourses. Meetings were
conducted virtually via ZOOM from July 2021 through February 2022 after which in-person meetings were
resumed. Inland Wetland permits authorized the disturbance of 0.295 acres of wetland, of which 0.293
acres were restored.
co FEES — Application Fees Generated from Inland Wetland Permit Applications
Fiscal year Total Fees Collected
FY 2018/2019 S 250
FY 2019/2020 S$ 1,100
FY 2020/2021 S 800
FY 2021/2022 S 500
FY 2022/2023 -4 month . $ 700
The Waterford Conservation Commission requires an additional fee when public hearings are required.
The fee off-sets the cost for the two legal notices of public hearing required by State statute.

FY2024 BUD
Conservation Commission
BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY
Line Description FY23/24 AMOUNT
52010 Advertising S 1,500
52020 Postage S 125
52030 Professional Services S 3,500
52031 Planning Services $ 12,000
52050 Dues, Conferences & Education S 600
52060 Printing S 25
53020 - Other Supplies $ 500
= ‘Conservation Commission Total Request $ 18,250
KN. This is the same amount approved for the FY 2022/ 23 budget.
ADVERTISING LINE 10114-52010 $ 1,500 REQUESTED
The advertising account covers the cost of all legal notice requirements required by State statute. This
includes publication of notices of public hearings, enforcement orders and notices of decision on all
Commission inland wetland agency actions. Advertisements for public hearings and decisions of the
Commission are required to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in Waterford. To
off-set publication costs, the Commission requires an additional fee of $400.00 when a public hearing is
required for the legal notices. The costs for legal notices of decision placed in The Day newspaper
increased in 2021.
The requested amount is consistent with that approved for the previous fiscal year.
POSTAGE LINE 10114-52020 $ 125 REQUESTED
Postage expenditures include certified letter mailings required for notice of Commission decisions on
applications and for enforcement proceedings, correspondence to Town residents, and referrals to
municipal, State and Federal agencies.
The requested budget amount is consistent with that approved for the prior year.

‘TOWN OF WATERFORD —
FY2024 BUDGET REQUEST
Conservation Commission
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LINE 10114-52030 $ 3,500 REQUESTED
The professional services account is used to obtain professional technical reviews, retain expert
witnesses, chemical laboratory analyses and other professional technical assistance unavailable at the
municipal or State level which are needed to conduct the duties of the inland wetlands agency and the
Conservation Commission. These services may include assisting the Commission with technical expert
reviews of application documents, investigating complaints of wetland, soil or water quality impacts,
documenting violations of the inland wetlands and watercourses regulations, providing expert
testimony in court proceedings, or assisting the Commission in preparing natural resource surveys.
To carry out the responsibilities of the Inland Wetland and Watercourses Act, it is critical that the
Commission have the ability to retain expert witnesses for determination of impacts to wetlands and
watercourses in order to reach and maintain defensible decisions. Court case law has established that
the finding of adverse impacts and justification for conditions of approval requires technical expertise
and expert evidence in the application record. The Commission uses the expertise of staff members,
and regional and state technical offices when available, however specific technical expertise may be
required during the application process within a limited time frame. Having sufficient funding available
to procure services when expert review is needed is essential in consideration of the strict time frames
established by State Statute for rendering decisions on inland wetland applications.
The fee schedule for Inland Wetland permit applications allows the Commission to charge the applicant
for third party expert reviews and technical evaluations deemed necessary to assist in the review of
complex permit applications. However, the Commission continues to require funds for obtaining
professional expertise on items not associated with complex permit applications.
Expenditures under this item are difficult to predict and are related to the number and complexity of
permit applications, public hearings, enforcement proceedings and technical needs of the Commission.
The requested amount will fund an estimated 25 -35 hours of professional service at a rate of $100 -
$150/hr.
The requested budget amount is consistent with that approved for the prior year.
PLANNING SERVICES LINE 10114-52031 | $ 12,000 REQUESTED
The Conservation Commission conducts a water quality monitoring program of freshwater streams and
ponds in Waterford. Samples are collected at 30 locations in the early summer and late fall of a
calendar year to track water quality over the growing season and monitor changes in quality over time.
Sampling is conducted on Jordan Brook, Nevins Brook, Fenger Brook, Hunts Brook, Stony Brook, Oil Mill
Brook and its tributaries, Millstone (Beebe) Brook, Green Swamp Brook and a tributary stream to
Goshen Cove. Water quality parameters monitored include total coliform, e. coli and enterococci

FY2024 BUDGET REQUEST -
Conservation: Commission —_—
bacteria, chemical oxygen demand, chloride, pH, suspended solids, and nutrient loadings from nitrogen
compounds and phosphorus.
The surface water quality monitoring program has been conducted for the past 20 years by the
Conservation Commission and has generated comprehensive data on the quality of the town’s water
resources. This data is used to evaluate potential impacts of land development on stream health and to
track changes in water chemistry over time. It also provides a scientific basis for the Conservation
Commission to establish required levels of stormwater treatment for development proposals, and water
quality mitigation goals for enforcement proceedings.
Jordan Brook, Oil Mill Brook and Stony Brook support native trout and high quality waters. Habitat
requirements for these fisheries include cool, oxygenated waters with suitable substrate conditions to
provide food and aquatic habitat. Alterations and loss of vegetative cover, soil erosion, flow alterations
sewage discharges and stormwater run-off can adversely impact the biological conditions of these
watercourses.
The monitored temperature, nitrogen and phosphorus levels in these streams continue to indicate high
quality surface waters.
The 2020 State of Connecticut Integrated Water Quality Report, submitted by CT DEEP to the EPA,
identifies Alewife Cove, Niantic Bay and near-shore waters of Long Island Sound as not meeting
designated uses of habitat for fish and other aquatic life. In addition, Alewife Cove, Jordan Cove, and
areas of Niantic Bay and the Niantic River are listed as impaired for direct shellfish consumption due to
bacteria levels. Fenger Brook is listed as not supporting designated uses for aquatic life and recreation.
Hunts Brook downstream of the Miller Pond dam is listed as not supporting fish and aquatic life habitat.
The lower reach of Stony Brook south of Rte 1 has been identified as impaired for recreational use due
to bacteria. The State is developing restoration policies to improve water quality and habitat of
impaired waters.
The Commission continues to monitor bacteria, nitrogen and phosphorus levels in stream reaches that
eventually discharge to Jordan Cove, the Niantic River, and Long Island Sound. This long-term water
quality monitoring is a critical part of the natural resource inventory work the Commission conducts and
allows tracking of trends in water quality from land use changes and can provide an indication of where
water quality may be affected. Town staff conducts the sampling to minimize costs. Cost variations are
linked to the number of water samples collected.
The Commission is requesting the same amount for this item as approved in the previous fiscal year.

TOWN OF WATERFORD
FY2024 BUDGET REQUEST ©
Conservation Commission
ae
DUES, CONFERENCES, EDUCATION LINE 10114-52050 $ 600 REQUESTED
Expenditures from this line item include membership dues, commission and staff training, attendance at
seminars and workshops. The Connecticut Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act [CGS 22a-36 - 22a-
45a] recommends members of inland wetland agency complete a comprehensive training program
developed by the CT DEEP. Commissioners also attend environmental education conferences and legal
seminars regarding inland wetlands to keep informed of changes to State Statute or case law affecting
application review practices, public hearing records and decision-making for Inland Wetlands and
Watercourse Regulations application. The Commission satisfies the minimum required training
recommended by CT DEEP for inland wetlands agencies.
The Commission is requesting the same amount for this item as the previous fiscal year to maintain the
level of training of its members.
PRINTING LINE 10114-52060 $ 25 REQUESTED
Expenditures under this line item include printing of oversized documents, maps and colored copies,
which cannot be printed or are unavailable at Town facilities. As a result of changes in court procedures,
some printing funds may be necessary to reproduce, in paper or digital format, large documents and
files. The amount requested under this line item is the same as the prior fiscal year.
OTHER SUPPLIES LINE 10114-53020 $ 500 REQUESTED
Funds in this account are used to purchase and maintain environmental testing/monitoring equipment,
safety equipment, survey flagging, and Conservation Easement and Non-Encroachment Boundary Line
markers for field markings. This equipment allows the Conservation Commission with its professional
staff to perform wetland identification, water testing, natural resource inventory and conservation
easement boundary marking that would otherwise require contracting for outside professional services.
The amount requested under this line item is the same as the previous year.
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Richard Muckle , Chair ivy Plis - Alternate
Tali Maidelis, Secretary George Bray — Alternate
David Lersch
Mathew Keatley
Geneva Renegar
Wade Thomas

TOWN OF WATERFORD
FY2024 BUDGET REQUEST
Conservation Commission
HISTORY OF EXPENDITURES
FY 18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22 FY22/23
Proposed FY23/24
To date
52010 Advertising $469.80 $901.65 $989.00 $1,104.75 $682.30 S 1,500
52020 Postage $50.12 $104.40 $106.00 $83.87 $ 29.64 S$ 125
52030 Professional $2,900 SO $3,500 - - S 3,500
Fees
52031 Planning $10,665 $12,000 $12,000 $6,347 = - $ 12,000
Services
52050 Dues/Education $485 $455 $295 $275 $95 S 600
52060 Printing - - - - - S 25
53020 Supplies $404.37 $8.40 $365.92 - - S$ 500
Approved by Conservation Commission — October 27, 2022

MEETING MINUTES
Conservation Commission ~
October 27, 2022 6:30 PM
Waterford Town Hall
Members Present: Tali Maidelis, Rich Muckle, Dave Lersch, Wade Thomas
Members Absent: Matthew Keatley, Geneva Renegar 3 = Es)
Alternates Present: Ivy Plis a mR le &
Alternates Absent: Bud Bray ~ B BS
Staff Present: Maureen FitzGerald, Environmental Planner ge@ ~ ne
Leanne Santos, Recording Secretary SX ho on
Attorney Nick Kepple 2: 7
y pp F ~ U ne
1. CALL TO ORDER AND APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES %& ~ 23
Bim
The meeting was called to order at 6:34p.m. I. Plis was seated for the vacant se
2. APPROVAL OF THE October 13, 2022 MEETING MINUTES
Motion: Motion made by T. Maidelis, second by D. Lersch to approve the October 13,
2022 meeting minutes.
Vote: 5-0-0
3... PUBLIC HEARING - Continued
C-22-9, 21 Gurley Road, Commercial Office and Warehouse Complex, Stone Ridge R E, LLC, ©
Owner & Applicant, CLA Engineers, Agent
R. Muckle, Chairman opened the public hearing. Attorney W. Sweeney, counsel for applicant
and Elien Bartlett PE. (CLA Engineers) were present for the applicant. Staff noted the exhibit
list has been updated to include the responses to comments submitted by CLA Engineers as
exhibits 16 and 17.
Attorney Sweeney spoke briefly about the third party review submitted from Trinkaus
Engineering, LLC and the extension granted in order to address the comments. Revisions were
made to the plans to address the suggestions and comments. He also noted they have had
positive communications with one of the directors of Save the River Save the Hills.
E. Bartlett PE. of CLA Engineers presented a summary of the plan modifications and responses
to comments from the September 22, 2022 public hearing. The drainage calculations have been
revised using the TR-55 method. In response to the public concerns of flooding along the stream
and potential impact to a shallow well, E. Bartlett submitted a comparison of the existing to the
proposed storm run-off volumes contributing to the stream for the 2-year through 100-year storm
events. She noted that the basins are over-sized and provide detention and retention which
yeduce the volume of run-off as well as peak flows. (Entered spreadsheet with calculations into
the record as Exhibit #18).
E. Bartlett addressed comments from the Trinkaus Engineering report. She stated the
topography has been verified in the field and 31 test holes were logged. Permeability test results
were submitted, The bottom of all the basins are at or near seasonal high groundwater levels so

Conservation Commission Minutes
October 27, 2022
p.2o0f4
basin plantings will be supported. She stated that basins will infiltrate and recharge groundwater
and additional pavement will not be needed for parking or truck circulation.
E, Bartlett reviewed the revisions made to the drainage report in response to comments. In-flow
and outflow summary sheets for the basins were added, groundwater recharge calculations were
completed and exceed the required recharge volume. The plans were revised based on
recommendations from the report including increased depth of the temporary sediment traps,
increased depth of basin forebays, inclusion of a reverse bench in the eastern cut slope and a
curtain drain along a portion of the top of slope. Elevations of the rip-rap outlets were added to
sheet 3. Fore bays have all been reconfigured for depths ranging from 4 to 8 feet and inlets and
outlets have been reconfigured to maximize the travel time. E. Bartlett noted she could not find
the study Mr. Trinkaus referenced from North Carolina State University regarding roof run-off
pre-treatment. She stated that there will be no roof top units on the buildings for this project and
the metal roofs will be treated with an elastomeric coating. E. Bartlett noted there are 4 feet of
native soils between the infiltration chambers and seasonal groundwater elevation that will filter
run-off. The plans have been revised to include pre-treatment of roof run-off through rain
gardens with standpipes and the first row of infiltrators are wrapped in filter fabric. E. Bartlett
stated they have made all the physical changes to the plans to address the concerns in the
Trinkaus report. They have provided extra stormwater treatment to buildings 1 and 2. Run-off
from buildings 3, 4 and 5 flows to a man-made wetland in the center of site, which provides
natural storage and detention, after being treated through a series of treatment train components.
(Revised drainage report entered as Exhibit #19, revised plans discussed entered as Exhibit #20).
Chairman R. Muckle opened the floor for questions from commission members.
1. Plis noted the concerns about pollutants reaching the Niantic River and flooding have been
addressed. She asked how the roadway run-off is treated.
E, Bartlett reviewed the drainage collection and treatment systems on site, and that each basin
will retain the 2-year storm, which is 3.45 inches of rain. The project will include installing
sewer 1000 feet up Oil Mill Road and 500 feet up Gurley Road, there will be no septic systems
on the site.
Attorney Sweeney referred to the October 7, 2022 letter (Exhibit 11) responding to potential
bacterial loading. The project does not direct flow from the development into the stream or
utilizing on-site septic systems. The project is designed to protect the perennial stream,
D. Lersch asked for a definition to the term “storm water wetland” used. E. Bartlett responded
the CT DEEP storm water manual includes 4 different examples of stormwater wetlands, but she
does not use that term in the design. The basins are hybrids based on the site conditions.
D. Lersch asked about the potential for sediment basin failure during construction referenced in
the comments. E. Bartlett stated the basins are sized to contain 2 times the predicted sediment
volumes and they do not anticipate failure.
R. Muckle asked if the run off from I 95 can be mitigated. E. Bartlett stated the highway run off
goes to a paved swale and is not on the project site. They cannot do anything about that run-off.
Staff asked E. Bartlett to clarify for the record if there will be down stream flood impacts and
what type of stormwater basin is proposed. E Bartlett states she feels there will be no down
stream impacts from this development. The basins intercept seasonal high groundwater

iN
Conservation Commission Minutes
October 27, 2022
p. 3 of 4
elevation and the soils are well drained. The basin functions as a wet bottom infiltration basin.
Staff asked E. Bartlett to provide an estimated exfiltration rate for the basins for the record and to
assist with long-term maintenance. E, Bartlett said she will provide the estimate but thinks it will
be a2 to 3 day time frame. Attorney Sweeney stated they can provide that. Staff asked how the
provision of no outdoor storage of materials will be enforced. Attorney Sweeney stated it is not
permitted through zoning, but they could include a provision in the agreements/lease.
Chairman R, Muckle opened the floor to public comment, asked three times if anyone would like
to speak in favor of the application. No one spoke.
Chairman R, Muckle asked three times if anyone would like to speak that is not in favor of the
application. No one spoke.
Motion: Motion made by W. Thomas, second by I. Plis to close the public hearing.
Vote: 5-0-0
Motion: Motion made by T. Maidelis, second by W. Thomas to take a five minute recess.
Vote: 5-0-0
4, APPLICATION REVIEW
C-22-9, 21 Gurley Road, Commercial Office and Warehouse Complex, Stone Ridge RE, LLC,
Owner & Applicant. CLA Engineers, Agent
Staff will prepare a review of the public hearing record for the commission to review at the next
meeting. The request for an estimate of the rate of exfiltration from the basins was discussed by
the Commission. Staff clarified she is looking for a general rate of discharge from the basin to
substantiate the basins will drain within 2 to 3 days.
5. NEW APPLICATIONS
C-22-12, 23 Spithead Road, New construction of single home, Curtis C. & Urusla M. Carboni,
Owner & Applicant. John Paul Mereen (Gerwick-Mereen, LLC), Agent
Staff explained this is a re-submittal of a previously approved plan under permit #06-07 that has
since expired. No changes are proposed in the regulated activity. Staff will visit site to review
and report to the commission at the November 10, 2022 meeting.
6. VIOLATIONS
1122, 1124 Hartford Turnpike, Unauthorized fill, grading & deposition of materials adjacent to
inland wetlands. .
Staff reported most of the plantings are complete, boulders need to be placed. She believes the
owner will satisfy the October 30, 2022 deadline and will have a report at the November 10,
2022 meeting.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
72 Spithead Road, Review shed authorization.
Motion: Motion made by D. Lersch, second by T. Maidelis, that the shed does not involve
regulated inland wetland activity and to concur with staff approval.
Vote: 5-0-0
Conservation Annual Report (7/1/2021-6/30/22), Staff and commission reviewed the report.
Motion: Motion made by W. Thomas, second by T. Maidelis to approve the Annual
Report.
Vote: 5-0-0

em
Conservation Commission Minutes
October 27, 2022
p.4o0f4
Conservation Commission Annual Budget 2023-2024, Staff and commission reviewed the
draft budget. . |
Motion: Motion made by W. Thomas, second by T. Maidelis to approve the 2023-2024
Commission budget as written.
Vote: 5-0-0
8. CORRESPONDENCE - None
9, CONSERVATION OUTREACH
10. ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Motion made by I. Plis, second by T. Maidelis to adjourn at 8:03pm.
Vote: 5-0-0
Respectfully Submitted,
4 ;
Leanne Santos
Recording Secretary