Planning & Zoning Commission (linked)

Docko 5 Inc. Serving th the waterfront community since 1987
RQ. ee 421, Mystic, CT 06355,(860) Be 8939 Fax: a 572-7569, email: age com
Tanvaty 27, 3023
Mr: Mark Wujtewicz, Planner
-.. Town of Waterford
_15 Rope Ferry Road’
Waterford, CT 06385.
Re: 21 Oswegatchie Rd
_ Planning and Zoning Application
ot Site Plan
Dear Mr. Wujtewicz, ae
We are pleased to transmit herewith documents for a Planning and Zoning Coastal Site Plan |
application and Coastal Area Management Review Mr. Mark Spery at a Ceeseie Rd in
Waterford. ; : :
Atadhed are 15 sets of the-application with the following documents inicluded: -
Planning and Zoning Commission Application
Application for Coastal Area Management Site Plan Permit
-Application Narrative .
Reference & Resource Maps. - ee
DEEP NDDB Application and Determination
Photographs :
Coastal Site Plan
A2 Boundary Survey (one copy) -
ee in the amount of $550payable to the noun of Waterford
a
I trust that you will find this application complete and acceptable. We look forward to
making our presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission at their next regulaly
scheduled meeting. If you get a chance ese forward a copy of the-agenda so that we can pas
. our presentation accordingly. : :
Yours ‘truly,
POO, INC.
a Bia
Keith B. Neilson, PE.
“KBN: cl
Enclosures '
* CC: Mr. Mark Spery
_ File: 19-07-3045 SPERY

PROJECT NARRATIVE
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SPERY SEAWALL EXTENSION
21 OSWEGATCHIE ROAD, WATERFORD
SHORELINE RESTORATION
COASTAL SITE PLAN
JANUARY 24, 2023
The following information is provided to document the alternatives considered for the continuation of the
bluff protection and stabilization stone wall to further protection for the pre-1995 home. The project, as
presented, is to protect the bluff and maintain a stairway system that provides access to the shore and water
for Mr. Spety’s family. Due to a DEEP enforcement issue which has been resolved, the existing wood stairs
do not reach the beach but that will be remedied under the DEEP permit to be issued.
Option 1. The first alternative is to do nothing.
To do nothing basically eliminates the viability of this site as residential and will leave the steep eroding
bluff property exposed to certain future damage due to wave scour at the base. To do nothing is an
unrealistic unreasonable, irresponsible approach for this property owner and also for the neighbor to the
north because that property will soon become threatened by the eroding bank and loss of soils as well.
Option 2. Rebuild the stairs alone.
Rebuilding the stairs alone would restore access that cannot currently be provided safely or reasonably by
the “do nothing” option. The existing stair system steps short of the beach.
The disadvantage to this alternative is the same as No. 1 above since the Spery property and adjacent
properties will continue to erode and destabilize the Pipen’s.
Option 3. Replace lost fill only at the toe of the bluff
To replace Jost fill only without any protection against wave scour would be as inappropriate as the “do
nothing” option in No. 1 above. Replaced fill will begin to erode again without some form of protection,
even if fabric reinforcement is utilized because of the abrasive nature of wave born sediment and scouring
actions of ice. Without wave energy attenuating and bank stabilizing stone, even heavily vegetated
reinforced fill soil would be quickly eroded, and the vegetation root system would lose its holding
capabilities in almost any significant high tide storm as it is now. Once the bottom cover of vegetation and
soil is gone, the reinforcement fabric would be exposed to the wave and ice induced scour. The key to
protecting these properties and infrastructure is some sort of armoring.
Option 4. Seawalls. A seawall or armor of some type us required
4.A. Concrete.
A concrete seawall to an elevation 10 feet above mean low water would be preferable but tough to build as
a long-term option for stability of this bank and requiring a footing foundation. The foundation could be
anchored to shallow ledge in the area and shaped to attenuate wave energy. The foundation work would
require substantial excavation jeopardizing the stability of the bluff The structure could be tiered and the
tiers could incorporate pockets which could be vegetated. The vegetation of course would be sacrificial

and be lost in high energy storms. A stairway could be worked into this tiered approach with nice looking
and functional results. Cost would be $100,000 to $200,000, higher than vegetation and armoring of stone.
4.B. Steel sheetpile bulkhead.
A steel sheetpile bulkhead system can be built and would probably be the best long-term solution for this
site and the neighbor north, but it would require a concrete curb base, anticipating shallow ledge in such a
way as to provide toe stability for the steel sheets. This system would be configured so as not to reflect
wave energy toward the Pipen property. The option would require drilled anchors in to the bluff. The steel
sheetpile could take a year to deliver. Sheets would have to begin with a slight overlap behind the seawall
to the south with a concrete fillet to ensure against degradation of the common end conditions. The vibratory
energy of driving the sheets and anchor auguring present a potential to induce sloughing in the bluff and so
this option is not avoidable. A stairway could be built over the top of the bulkhead cap and reestablish
beach access. Cost would be at 34 to 40 times the cost of the stone wall option proposed and is not
affordable.
4.C. Living Shoreline.
A Living Shoreline consisting of armor, stone fill, gravel fill and vegetation is the most natural, low impact
option available but with only limited structural capability to resist damage by the high energy wave field
at the site. The stone could also be oriented so as to minimize wave reflection and preserve stability of the
adjacent properties. A stairway could be worked into this approach with nice looking and functional results.
The Living Shoreline vegetation could be planted or established by seeding the gravel and topsoil fill placed
in and over the stone. The use of salt tolerant beach dune type native, non-invasive grasses, such as beach
grass switchgrass, and even supplemented with beach plum and/or bayberry, would establish a dune like
habitat that could be replaced if storm damage warrants.
This approach is considered consistent with the CT Coastal Management Act because if uses the most
natural, low impact method of protecting pre-1995 homes and infrastructure as well as neighboring property
but is too costly to implement and requires rebuilding every few years due to natural damaging ice and boat
wakes which are relentless on summer days.
The living shoreline would require an encroachment of 10 to 30 feet into the river would cost 20 to 30 times
the budget for this opposed work.
Summary:
Something must be done to preserve this site and the pre 1980 home which exists here. The proposed stone
wall is to be an extension of the wall to the south side of the stair. It represents a minimal scope of work
has undergone a pre application permitting review by the DEEP and is considered to be acceptable in terms
of materials, and methodology, demonstrating that it is in conformance with regulation, rules and policies
of the State.

PROJECT NARRATIVE & SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
MARK SPERY
21 OSWEGATCHIE RD
SHORELINE RESTORATION
COASTAL SITE PLAN
JANUARY 24, 2023
GENERAL — SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The Spery property is a coastal bluff which has been suffering from longterm erosion induced by
waves and ice in the Niantic River. The lot is depicted as approximately one tenth acre. The bluff is
critically steep and is eroding at the toe with sequential sloughing upslope. As owners of the bluff
the owners are legal able to effectuate repairs of the damaged area. The project is to repair the
eroded toe of the bluff with stone to minimize the erosion of the back along the edge of the
property. The stairway which for years provided access to the shore will ultimately be rebuilt.
The shoreline face of the property is an eroding coastal bluff facing westerly into the river. A rock
wall was originally built along the southerly half of his shoreline at the MHW line by Mr. Spery
several years ago but work was halted by the DEEP. The work has since been authorized. This
project will allow for the completion of the project previously started. It is the objective of this
restoration project to supplement the shoreline, adding stone unprotected toe of the bluff then allow
the bluff to revegetate and rebuild the stairway. Bluff stabilization is critical to the preservation of
the Spery’s pre 1980 home. The backfill work is landward of the Mean High Water and High Tide
Line (US ACOE Jurisdiction) and the CT Coastal Jurisdiction line (CT DEEP Jurisdiction limit).
The stone wall extension work is under final review by the CT DEEP and USACE for authorization
as shown on the attached drawings. This project will require a Coastal Site Plan review and
approval from the Town of Waterford because the site is in the coastal hazard zone.
This narrative is provided to describe the scope of the work and address issues raised in the
Municipal Coastal Site Plan Review Form required for the Coastal Erosion Permit. In summary,
there are minimal adverse environmental impacts created by the shoreline protection improvements
and the protection of the shoreline is required to preserve and protect the bluff feature and soils on
the site. will be a benefit, stabilizing the existing damaged conditions and the bluff habitat above.
The most significant benefit to the Spery’s is the preservation of their home. There are no adverse
impacts created by this project and the scope of work is minimal. No mitigative measures appear to
be necessary because no adverse environmental impacts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE
This project is to piecemeal excavate 10(+/-)CY of sand, stone and gravel and replace these soils
behind the shorefront protection authorized by DEEP/USACE permits over an area of 200(+/-)SF or
less. The backfill will include gravel stone and soil, vegetated to support living shoreline
characteristics to minimize the erosion and provide a vegetative habitat improvement along the bank
along the shore. Also included will be reconstruction of the stairway down the bluff as needed for
shorefront access, all landward of the Connecticut Coastal Jurisdiction line. It is intended that this
project will be to restore safe access to the shore and protection of the bluff for preservation of the
Spery’s home. There are no issues relative to building, parking and utility work as addressed in the

subsequent application except that protection of the bluff is essential to the preservation of the
Spery’s home which is permittable under the CT Coastal Management Act of 1980.
The proposed stabilization armoring an eroding shoreline is a minimal, low impact scope of work as
recommended by the Town’s Plan of Preservation Conservation and Development and is
permissible under the Coastal Management Act. It is readily apparent from the characteristics of the
bluff that this work is required as a result of the exposure to ice and coastal hydrodynamic wave
forces, but especially the boat wake-induced waves associated with this location on the Niantic
River. The top of the wall will be approximately 6 feet NAVD.
SOIL CONSERVATION AND EROSION SEDIMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
The project is for soil conservation and erosion protection to preserve a pre-1980 single family
residential structure, The bluff supports the house. The design rationale is to restore a stable slope.
The new slope will be graded at 1% to 1, more or less, a barely stable natural gravel slope suitable
for planting with salt tolerant, native, non-invasive species of vegetation at the toe,, initially switch
grass, which will help hold soil through the aggressive root structure and provide a protective
matting affect, laying down as water flows over it for rushing waves or backwash. The stabilized
toe will have very much the same profile as the previously stabilized bank toe on the south side of
the stairs as shown on the topographic survey of existing conditions.
Erosion and Sedimentation Controls, although of limited need and practical extent, are set forth on
the application drawings diagrammatically and by notes. This work will be undertaken by Mr.
Spery himself and thus will be accomplished incrementally in small sections.
The project will leave the bluff still steeply sloped but confined at the very bottom of the toe and
with a transition graded area of approximately 30% which is the stable slope of repair for gravel.
The DEEP will not allow further encroachment into the river for a more robust protection which the
slope deserves.
Based on these considerations, this project is consistent with the Town’s Plan of Preservation,
Conservation and Development as low impact development as well as DEEP criteria.
ZONING REGULATONS OF SECTIONS 22 AND 25
Site Plan Notes as Required by Section 22.4 of the Waterford Zoning Regulations
The following notes are addressed in accordance with Section 22.4.6 site plan specifications
(Waterford Zoning Regulations);
a. All of the land owned by the applicant properties are covered by the A-2/T-2 Survey
referenced in the project notes as depicted on the Site Plan submitted with this
application.
b. There is a single-family residence on the site and no changes to this structure are
proposed herein.
c. See note “b” above.
d. See note “b” above.
e. This project will not change or adversely affect the safe movement of pedestrians around
the site. It is intended to retain and improve bluff stability against river induced erosion

f. The driveway will be the area where construction supplies, materials and equipment will
be located during the prosecution of this shoreline restoration project.
g. 1. Property boundaries and owners names and location of adjacent properties are shown.
The site is bordered by the Niantic River on the west and Oswegatchie Road on the east.
2. i, Contours are at 1 interval and referenced to NAVD 88.
ii. There are no site improvement structures in this project. Drainage patterns are
sheet flow and overland.
iii. There is a stone wall along the bluff toe southside of the stair in the project area.
iv. A single tidal wetland plant exists to the north of the stair in the project area and it
will be transported as depicted in the same areas after completion of the stone work.
v. No habitat areas have been identified by NDDB; any area of concern will be
depicted if conditions change.
vi. Coastal resources subject to review under sections 25.4 are listed on the site
plan.
vii. The Coastal Jurisdiction Line is depicted on the drawing.
viii. The FEMA Flood Zone Line (VE Elevation 14 NAVD 88) is shown on the site
plan as determined by Mr. Fred Gunther, P.L.S., of Resource Mapping and
Management. The area prone to wave scour and erosion is the beach and area at and
above the restoration proposed. The property west edge of the site is subject to
flooding (inundation) and wave induced scour and erosion due to ice in the river.
The existing stone protects the south half of the property.
ix. There are no rock or ledge outcrops on the site.
x, The whole bluff is an of steep slope greater than 25% and is more than 50 feet in
length north to south along the shoreline and those characteristics will not change.
3. Site access will be from the existing driveway and via the Spery bluff stairway.
4. Storm water drainage will remain overland sheet flow.
5. There are no existing utility poles along the property lines in the rear yard.
6. Future water supply to the site is not planned; no utilities are being installed.
7. There are no fire lanes or restricted parking areas on this site.
8. There are no sanitary sewage systems proposed for this shoreline restoration project.
9. There is no new development proposed and no parking spaces proposed for this
shoreline restoration project.
10. There are no loading spaces proposed for this shoreline restoration project.
11. Trash from the Geotech fabric will placed in the Spey’s garbage can, otherwise, there
are no waste removal dumpsters proposed for this site and none are needed. Waste
stone will be worked into the backfill for added structural stability of the bluff toe.
12. There are no signs proposed for this project.
13. There are no large traffic islands or barriers and no traffic flow diagrammatics for
this project.
14, There are no proposed light standards for this site or this shoreline restoration
project.
15. There are large trees on the shorefront work site and it is the project intent to save
the smell to medium trees on the bluff for continued vegetative cover.

16. The planting plan is to cover the restored lower bluff stone slope with switch grass;
a detail of the plantings is included in the site plan. Plantings or seeding (such as
hydroseeded or premixed seed and topsoil) will be across the toe of slope. There is a
possible need to cut off a single oak tree which is falling over and currently braced.
Removal may be prudent to prevent toppling which might rip out part of the bluff
by the roots.
17. No screening materials are proposed as a part of this project.
18. No buildings are proposed as a part of this shoreline restoration project.
19. 15 sets of application documents are being submitted for review as required.
20. A complete Zoning Compliance Chart is included on the site plan.
SECTION 25. 1.1 EXCEPTIONS:
a. Excavation, potential removal of a tree (vegetation), re-grading, placement of
armor stone, and creation of blended soil surface and new plantings are all
covered under this Site Plan submitted for approval by the Zoning Commission.
The Planning Department determined that a Special Permit is required.
Other Notes Required By Section 25. 1.2 have been previously covered in the notes
above.
SECTION 25. 1.4 STANDARDS
a. There will be no processing of extracted earth materials or boulders
to be utilized in the prosecution of this work and will be imported.
b. There will be no explosives utilized in the prosecution of this work.
c. No excavation, grading or fill shall result in dust, noise, (except between 7:00
am and. 7:00 pm) weekdays and Saturdays, or hazard to children,
pedestrians, adjacent properties or passing vehicles.
d. Excavation will be limited to the line of the stone wall. In preliminary
discussions with the northerly neighbor, Mr. Pepin, about this shoreline
restoration project, he was supportive and offered no objections to the scope
of work. All of the work will be from the Spery property, and the property
corner will be staked by a professional land surveyor for accuracy.
e. Drainage is surface sheet flow for the entire site to allow adequate opportunity
for absorption into the ground prior to reaching the shore and minimizing
erosion or scouring on the coastal bluff. Trees and leaves on the bluff will not
be disturbed in order to defuse rainfall impact damage and erosion to the
bluff. ;
f. This project is to restore the damaged eroding toe of the bluff to preserve the
river bank soils and protect the foundation of the house.
g. Topsoil and general excavation materials will be reused in the blended topsoil
scope of work; none will be removed from the site. Any materials stockpiled
on the driveway access point and will be ringed with appropriate erosion and
sediment control hay bales, or straw wattle.
h. When the excavation, re-grading, removal and filling operations have been
completed, the affected areas and other unvegetated areas in the construction

process will be seeded with perennial rye or suitable coastal blend of grass
seeds.
i. During the prosecution of the work, the fence gate will be kept closed as
necessary to prevent inadvertent entry into the site. Access from the bluff
face is an unlikely possibility.
j. Truck access to the site will be scheduled and arranged so as to minimize
inconvenience and/or danger to traffic or pedestrians.
k. The completed stone wall and re-grading will not impair the use of the
property.
1. The work site premises shall be sequentially excavated, filled and re-graded in
conformance with the Site Plan.
m. All materials used as backfill will be natural earth products with no recycled
debris.
n. Backfill shall be compacted by hand tamping after placement to provide
improved stability of materials and prevent settling.
o. Unsightly piles of rocks or earth materials shall not be left onsite after
completion of the project. Topsoil if needed, will be utilized in final grading
uphill of the wall. Left over stone will be incorporated into the backfill.
p. There will be no coastal beach areas excavated, filled or re-graded as a part of
this project except reusing the existing beach gravel. All of the shoreline
stabilization work will take place upland of the CT Coastal Jurisdiction Line.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
This work site at the toe of the bluff is currently undeveloped and will remain so through this shore
restoration project. The site is a steep, lightly wooded bank maintained by the Spery’s. The
shoreline is a narrow beach and that will not change. The stone slope protection is highly pervious
and will not change the site drainage characteristics and there will be no induced erosion of the bluff
as a result of maintaining this feature.
The only change to the site will be that area of re-grading shown in the drawing, approximately
200(+/-)SF behind the wall which will be restored, planted with switch grass and perennial rye for
soil retention and stability with a similar runoff coefficient and no impermeable areas being created.
As a result, there will be no noticeable or measurable change to the amount or rate of rainfall runoff
from this site and no provisions for detention are required. Rainwater from the site only reaches the
waters of the river via subsurface seepage. Actual surface runoff will only reach the beach in times
of heavy, prolonged rainfall. In almost all cases, the site will retain rainfall through absorption into
the ground. Impact energy from rainfall is absorbed by leaf cover on the bluff.
COASTAL RESOURCE DESCRIPTION AND IMPACTS
The shoreline is characteristically a glacial deposit of gravel with stone and boulders left as a
severely eroded bluff characteristic down to the stony gravelly beach, in this project site. There is
no tidal wetlands on the site, only one sea myrtle plant which will be replanted. There is no .
submerged aquatic vegetation in the inter-tidal or shallow sub-tidal waters at the site. The site is
exposed to coastal hazards of flooding and significant waves. Attached are various resource maps
published by the CT DEEP. They include:
> General Resource Map

> Shellfish Concentration Area Resource Map
COASTAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
The proposed shoreline restoration will consist of minimal excavation and re-grading to form a
shelf on subgrade, placing armor stone on a geogrid and/or geotextile fabric on the shelf and then
backfilling the stone with salvaged gravel and topsoil for planting the surface new vegetation which
will be salt tolerant, non-invasive dune type grass, switch grass and perennial rye. It is envisioned
that this project will improve the habitat quality of the shoreline and will not have significant
adverse impact on the aforementioned coastal resources. This project will involve placement of
stone on the badly damaged and eroding toe of the bluff. The new stone will be infilled with
salvaged soil to serve as the growth media for the vegetation and will neither diminish the character
or nature of the shorefront nor will it usurp or impede resource quality or the quality of habitat
along the shorefront including wildlife habitat. This fill is located at and upland of the High Tide
Line, clear of the intertidal zone, and will not adversely affect the benthic community along the
shoreline. The stones wall will utilize large “one man stone”, consistent with the new surface
features of the adjacent southerly half of the property in this area, so the character of the shoreline
will change only with regard to the new stone. Vegetation will be reestablished. Work will be
situated on the Spery property and will not impede but restore access to Public Trust Lands of the
State waterward of the MHW line.
The resources and uses at the site, their condition, description, and discussion of project consistency
with these policies are as follows:
APPLICABLE COASTAL RESOURCE POLICIES AND STANDARDS
This site is located within the State-Designated Coastal Zone along the shoreline of the Niantic
River. The following resources are applicable based on CT DEEP Resource Maps:
> General Resources - It is the policy of the Coastal Management Act to preserve and
enhance Coastal Resources wherever possible by conserving, improving, and protecting
natural resources and the environment and to control air, land, and water pollution for the
health, safety, and welfare of the people.
Consistency: This project is consistent with this general resource policy because it
will help to protect, conserve and preserve the coastal bluff and will do so without creating
air, water or land pollution. Only clean material will be utilized, being placed by hand on
underlying geotextile erosion protection fabric. Some extent of natural erosion of fine-
grained gravelly sediments from the shoreline will continue but the toe of the bluff will be
preserved in profile as a minimal shoreline feature consistent with the Coastal Management
Act.
> Bluffs & Escarpments ~ It is the policy of the State to manage coastal bluffs to preserve
their slope and toe and to avoid activities or uses that will accelerate slope erosion or alter
essential patterns and supply of sediments to a littoral transport system. This site is
characterized as a bluff, but is in fact a modified bluff, armored and bordered by adjacent
stone work and/or concrete seawalls to the south and a beach immediately west. There is
virtually no vegetation growing at or below the damaged eroded toe of slope because of the
frequent exposure to elevated water levels and ice. The shoreline vegetation directly in front
of the project is sandy gravel and provides no special habitat until reaching the bluff. The
1

damaged face of the bluff is exposed to significant wave scour and ice erosion which
vegetation alone cannot protect against.
Consistency - This project will protect but not change the wave/ice exposure, but it will
substantially protect against the impacts of wave-induced erosion and damage and provide
stability for new vegetative habitat and maintain positive natural rainfall runoff drainage
from the grounds in extreme, heavy rainfall conditions and it is repairable and restorable
without the use of heavy equipment.
Coastal Flood Hazards — This site is adjacent to estuarine embayment waters of the Niantic
River and is subject to flooding in accordance with climatological characteristics, especially
prevailing coastal storm winds and strong frontal systems. The flooding characteristics of
the river are induced by storm induced extreme tides and hydrological conditions in Long
Island Sound 2 miles south of the site and the Atlantic Ocean.
The characteristics of the upland soil, according to the New London County Soil Survey, are
described as a coastal bluff of steeply sloping, well-drained soil. Permeability of the soil is
moderately rapid in the surface layer and subsoil and rapid in the substratum. The available
water capacity is moderate. Runoff is medium to light. This soil warms up and dries out
rapidly in the spring. This soil type can be used for cultivated crops, hay, or pasture except
for the steep slope. Other areas are used for residential and community development, or exist
as woodlands. This soil is well suited to cultivated crops. The hazard due to prevailing
winter ice and boat induced wave erosion is moderate, and for hurricanes severe, as recently
experienced firsthand, thus the stone protection requirement. Minimum tillage and the use
of vegetative cover help to control erosion. This soil is suited to trees as well as meadow
type vegetation.
This site is located in FEMA Flood Zone VE (Elevation 14 NAVD 88). Pertinent sections
including 22 and 25 of the Zoning Regulations have been addressed earlier in this narrative.
It is the policy of the State to manage Coastal Hazards so as to insure that development
proceeds in a manner such that hazards to life and property are minimized, to maintain
natural relationships between the shoreline and the adjacent coastal waters, and minimize
adverse impacts of erosion and sedimentation on coastal land uses, stating specifically that
structural solutions are permissible when necessary and unavoidable and there is no less
feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative. This is the case as demonstrated by the
2 to 3 foot deeper erosion to the north half of the shoreline over the south, armored section in
the past 2 years.
Consistency — This project addresses the need to protect the bluff against further erosion to
the extent allowable. This work proposed is essential and unavoidable. The site is already a
modified bluff because previous experience at the site was that anything less would fail in
the face of exposure to coastal storms, waves and ice. Vegetative measures alone are in no
way be adequate for this purpose as evidenced by the continued loss of soil and of vegetation
at the face of the bluff. Built up armor along the toe is most suitable, least invasive and
maintainable restoration and preservation of the toe protection consistent with site
characteristics and ice and storm induced wave exposure. The stable slope and shoreline

vegetation will enhance the site’s habitat value and is a low impact option compared to a
seawall or concrete retaining wall or bulkhead.
> Estuarine Embayment — The site is located on the Niantic River which is classified as
estuarine embayment on the CT DEEP Coastal Resource Map.
It is the policy of the State that pollution of waters is harmful to fish, wildlife and aquatic
life and impairs domestic agricultural, recreational, and other legitimate beneficial uses of
the water and, therefore, pollution must be avoided.
Consistency: There are no aspects of this site restoration process that will pollute the waters
of the State or adversely affect any water flow and circulation characteristics along the
shore. The groundwater which comes from the bluff formation is limited and has already
been substantially purged of grit and silts. Rainfall runoff is also relatively clean and
uncontaminated. The stone wall will be clean, from licensed quarries, and will be placed in a
manner so as not to disrupt the existing shoreline features adjacent to the work site. The
work will be conducted by Mr. Spery and so incidental damage to the property will be
minimal and restored upon completion of the day’s work. Minimal excavation is planned,
and the stone is clean with little dust or soil. Soil or sediment erosion controls in the form of
temporary matting provided by the Geotech fabric will be established at the toe of the bluff
landward of the CT CJL, as shown in the drawings, to protect and retain erodedable
sediment, protecting the beach as well as the water quality of the river.
> Shellfish Concentration Areas — The Niantic River is designated as a Shellfish
Concentration Area for Hardshell Clams.
It is the policy of the State to protect Shellfish Concentration Areas through municipal
shellfish management programs and zoning regulations.
Consistency - The upper inter-tidal waters bottom sediments at this site were documented as
typically stony to sandy in nature, which is suitable for shellfish concentrations but not so
much in the upper inter-tidal zone close to shore due to the high energy of the prevailing
boat wake wave field. The wave energy at this site makes it unlikely that shellfish could
survive in such stressed conditions on this shore. The proposed work is landward of the High
Tide Line and utilizes clean stone fill which will not degrade water quality. The area and
surface composition of the site are not changing significantly in the process of stabilizing the
bluff. This project will not change the soil characteristics or drainage characteristics of the
site. The runoff rate will be inconsequential to the shellfish beds not changing insignificantly
to the rate of rainfall runoff into the open water, therefore, this land-based project will not
adversely affect shellfish resources.
APPLICABLE COASTAL USE AND ACTIVITY POLICIES AND STANDARDS
>» General Development — It is the policy of the State to ensure that development and
preservation or use of the land proceeds in a manner that is consistent with the capability of
the land and water resources to support development.
Consistency — The Coastal Management Act supports municipal zoning and land use
planning. The project site is a residential neighborhood and virtually all of the development
in this section is residential in nature and has been since before the CMA. There are no

conflicts between residential uses, development of the property for residential purposes and
protecting the adjacent shorelands and tidal waters against pollution, or adverse
development. The Town of Waterford has determined zoning for this area to be residential.
This project is consistent with zoning for the site and therefore this project is consistent with
the requirements of the Coastal Management Act. The DEEP has also been satisfied with the
shoreline wall protection work previously accomplished as demonstrated by their recent
permit issuance.
Water-Dependent Uses — It is the policy of the State to promote water-dependent uses
along coastal features of the State, but in this case, the land is zoned residential and on
private land.
Consistency - This project is consistent with resource preservation requirements for
residential uses stipulated in the zoning regulations. While residential uses may not be
considered water dependent by the DEEP, a change of zoning of this area would, no doubt
be met with significant resistance. Protection of the shoreline, while not specifically a water-
dependent use, is in fact made necessary because of the exposure to the erosive forces of the
Niantic River especially during boating induced sea conditions and ice. This project is
located on private property, upland of Public Trust Lands of the State designated by the
MHW line and will not impede public access on Public Trust Lands. The project will
maintain access to the shore for the landowner who has deeded rights. The project will not
degrade water quality or any other DEEP resource but will preserve valuable land and
improve habitat consistent with Coastal Bluff policies. This project is consistent with Town
Zoning which is a mandate of CAM and, therefore, this project is consistent with CAM.
Coastal Structures and Filling ~ It is the policy of the State to require that development
along coastal waters be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts
on coastal resources, circulation, sedimentation patterns, water quality, flooding and erosion
and to reduce to the maximum extent the use of fill.
Consistency ~ This project is made necessary to rectify the damage to the modified bluff
caused by continued exposure to persistent natural and “man-made” waves and occasionally
severe climatic conditions of the Niantic River. Ice and waves have dislodged soils and
washed away valuable topsoil and sub-soils of the bluff, eroding and abrading the surface
which lead to deterioration of the property and longstanding habitat. The restoration of bank
profile; restoration of the damaged bank is designed specifically for this exposure at and
above the High Tide Line and CJL. The restoration will not adversely affect public access to
Public Trust Lands and Waters of the State or shoreline animal or plant habitat but is
essential to the preservation of the bluff and the existing home. It is anticipated that the use
of significantly angular and interlocking stone partially buried within the face of the slope,
will act as minimal but suitable wave attenuation and energy dissipation feature and the
backfill soils and vegetation will enhance and resource the animal and plant habitat, using
plant species which historically grow on the shore. This scope of work will also be
repairable and will be straightforward to replant when damaged by storms in the future.

IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS ON COASTAL RESOURCES
In view of the resources and use issues addressed above, the following general summary is offered:
The proposed project will not degrade or adversely impact tidal wetlands or beaches; the work will
be landward of beach features. The proposed toe protection improvements and vegetation are
designed for salt water inundation and yet will not increase coastal flooding characteristics of the
tiver. The flooding nature of the Sound is generated by storms where low pressure and adverse
winds tend to either inhibit the ebbing tide cycle through “The Race” and Fishers Island Sound or
accelerate the flooding cycle when the winds are strong and from the southeast. The flood levels in
Long Island Sound are tidal and climatologically induced, irrespective of the coastal shoreline
features and translate immediately into similar affects in the Niantic River, and this project will not
in any way change these flooding characteristics. In any case this project is restoring an eroded
shoreline to its previous conditions.
The project will also not adversely affect water flow and circulation patterns since the patterns of
tidal exchange or shoreline characteristics below the High Tide Line will not be changed in the
project. The project involves regrading work on the upland, however, the drainage patterns on the
coastal bluff will not change. The wall work is permeable and so there will be no alteration to the
ground water flow and recharge characteristics of the land.
This project will complement existing adjacent shoreline armoring to the south and will not change
natural erosion patterns or adversely affect littoral transport of sediments to the north. The waters in
front of this site are relatively active only in summer by boating and in winter by ice. Littoral
sediment transport is mostly shore normal and occurs close to shore. Shore parallel littoral sediment
transport at this site is minimal at this time and this work landward of the High Tide Line will not
adversely affect it.
There will be almost no change to the visual quality of the shore as a result of this project. Natural
views and vistas will not be significantly affected because of the limited size of the restoration work
site. There are no state listed vista access points at this site. The predominant vistas are available to
homeowners on the bluff looking from shoreline looking out onto waters of the river and
Oswegatchie Hills beyond to the west. The proposed shoreline improvements will only really be
visible at fairly close range from the water. It is not likely that the new wall will be distinguishable
to a significant extent nor would it be considered a detriment. The restored site will still look
natural.
Water quality should not be affected by this project. Clean stone will be utilized for the shoreline
protection supplementation and the stone will not affect the chemical or physical properties of the
waters of the river. The stone will be backfilled with salvaged gravel and topsoil, then planted. The
amount of rainfall runoff into the river will be insignificant as it is currently, and the introduction of
freshwater into the river, likewise be comparable to rainfall characteristics. The conditions of local
rivers, streams and brooks nearby and adjacent to the site will not be changed.
SUMMARY
This project will not damage or significantly alter essential wildlife habitat at the base of the bluff or
finfish and shellfish habitat in the shallow sub-tidal, estuarine and riverine habitat essential to the
preservation of the house and adjacent waters. The composition of the damaged shoreline is not of
10

high habitat value nor is the site according to the New London County Soil Survey but it will be
stabilized and thus improved in this project. There are no known special breeding habitats or natural
species population characteristics in this area. The alterations to the shoreline are not significant but
essential to the preservation of the house and property.
In summary, property protection with a minimally restored shoreline of stone, gravel and vegetation
will help to reduce undermining characteristics of the site and help to maintain suitable
characteristics essential for preservation of this residential homesite. The replacement stairway will
restore access without damaging or degrading habitat diversity and value. This project, while small
in scope, is highly justified, in fact essential to preserve the coastal bluff resource and the occupied
residential establishment. This scope of work is a minimal step, the unavoidable and least invasive
step required to restore some protection of the eroding bluff. There is no lesser scope of protection
that I know of that would be suitable to this site and the ongoing erosion. Infact, more would be
preferred but this application represents the owners preference which is agreeable to the DEEP. The
work has no foreseeable significant or long-term adverse impacts and is consistent with zoning and
the historical usage of the land and adjacent lands. This project is in the final stages of approval by
the CT DEEP and so the balance of stabilization for the bluff has been thoroughly weighed by the
Land and Water Resources Division. On this basis, all of this analysis and these findings, your
approval is respectfully requested.
Respectfully submitted,
DOCKO, INC.
Keith B. Neilson, P.E.
11

Town of Waterford Office Use Only
Dat itted:
Department of Planing and Development ate Submitte
Processed By:
www.waterfordct.org App N
pp. No.:
Total Fee: $
PZC Form 1 Electronic Submission
Waived: Yes No
Planning and Zoning Application
Type of Application(s), L ; and Property Information (check all that app) :
| Informal Staff Review LE] Site Plan/Design Review [| Municipal Project (CGS§8-24)
Cj Special Permit/Design Review! CJ Subdivision /Resubdivision CJ Lot line Adjustment
T] Zoning Map Change [| Regulation Amendment(s) CJ New District
[| Multifamily Development ial Coastal Area Management ? E] Earth Excavation
LJ Flood Hazard Area CJ Other: | Other:
Specify all uses and corresponding section for which this application applies’:
Use, Coastal Site Plan Section: 20:4
Use: Erosion and Sediment Control gi, 25-5
Use: Section:
Name of proposed development/subdivision: Not applicable If subdivision how many lots?: NA —
If applicable, are roadways proposed to be private, public or both:
[_] Private [_] Public [_] Both*
Parcel 1 Parcel 2
Map/Block/Lot; 19) 5%? iy Map/Block/Lot; __/__/ a
Street No. & Name: 21 Oswegatchie Rd Street No. & Name:
sizesp/ac: 9-11 _,acres Size SF/AC: /
Zoning District(s): R-20W Zoning District(s):
* Include a completed list of property owners with Parcel ID, name, address and mailing address. It is the applicant’s responsibility to distribute all
notices certified return receipt. Evidence of mailing shall be submitted prior to the start of the hearing, Failure to do so will delay the opening of the
hearing.
? Coastal Site Plan reviews under Coastal Area Management §25.4 must submit a completed PZC Form 2 in addition to this PZC Form 1.
3 The use listed must correspond to the exact use term noted within the zoning district as a permitted use allowed through site plan or special permit.
“A plan must accompany the application clearly delineating the limits of public and private roads.

2. Applicant Information
Name:
Title:
Company:
Address:
City/State:
Zip Code:
Telephone:
Mark Spery
Owner
21 Oswegatchie Rd
Waterford CT
06385
860-439-1999 p,,.
Applicant’s Authority to File Application®
P| Legal Owner of Record
Power of Attorney
Contract to Purchase
Other
Email: afrish1234@aol.com
3. Agent Information; if applicable
Name:
Title:
Company:
Address:
City/State:
Zip Code:
Telephone:
Keith Neilson, P.E.
Engineer
Docko, Inc.
PO Box 421
Mystic CT
860-572-8939
06355
Fax:
Specify Nature of Agent
Attorney
Pe] Civil Engineer
Land Surveyor
Design Professional;
Other:
Bar/License/Reg. Nox
Email: Office@docko.com
A Property Owner(s) and Parcel(s) Information
owner co-applicant? |_| Yes [IMJNo_
Note: If landowner is an LLC, Corporation, Trust or other legal entity, attach the names, addresses and title of each
member or officer, including agent(s). If same as applicant list ‘Same’.
Name:
Title:
Company:
Address:
City/State:
Zip Code:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
Name:
Title:
Company:
Address:
City/State:
Zip Code:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
5 Applicant must submit evidence attesting to the authority to file application (i.e. deed, option for purchase, etc.)

5. StatementofUse
Attached a typed statement of use in conformance with the Zoning Regulations as described in Section 22.4.2. In addition
include all hours and days of operation, size of buildings and number of stories, utilities servicing the parcel, variances
received, number of employee and structures to be demolished.
__ Statement of Design Compatibility (Site Plans and Special Permits only)
Attach a statement describing how the building and site design is compatible with the neighborhood, character of
Waterford and Zoning Regulations.
_ Consistency with Adopted Plan of Preservation, Conservation and Development (4 LL.
___ applications) oe a oe ce
Attach a statement attesting to how the proposed use, zone change, amendment or design is consistent with the most
recent adopted Plan of Preservation, Conservation and Development (the Plan). Note relevant Plan section numbers and
pages.
8. Natural and Cultural Resources :
Yes No : % of Property
a. Are inland wetlands present on site? Total SF/AC /
b. Are tidal wetlands present on site? © Total SF/AC /
c, Are their known or suspected vernal pools on the property?
d. CT DEEP NDDB: Are endangered, threatened or species of special concern suspected to be located on
the property? Applicant must attach an 8 %4 x 11 map of the most current CT DEEP Natural Diversity
Database with site clearly identified regardless of response provided. If you answered yes to item d.,
attach a letter from CT DEEP stating the name of the specie(s) that are suspected to be on the
property. See Section 22 of the Zoning Regulations for additional information.
[x | [J e. Are floodplains or flood hazard areas on the property?
Identify:
f. Is the property located within a local, state of national historic district?
If yes identify district name:
{| g. Does the site possess any structures or sites listed on the local, state or national register of historic
landmarks?
If yes, identify:

oO Additional Information —__
nd
&
ONOUROBAAO
FROROOOURDs
[]
a. Is any part of the site within 500' of the Town line? Which town: Town of East Lyme
b. Will any egress or ingress for the property use streets within an adjoining municipality?
c. Is any work proposed in wetlands or watercourses? Explain in Statement of Use
d. Is any work proposed within 100 feet of a wetlands or watercourse? Explain in Statement of Use
Is any work proposed within a floodplain or flood hazard area? Explain in Statement of Use
f. Is public water available or proposed to the site? Identify:
g. Are public sanitary sewers available or proposed to the site? Identify: Oswegatchie Rd
h. Is there a utility, drainage or other easement(s) on the site? Specify:
Is open space proposed on the property?
How much open space is proposed (SF/AC)? / Percent of property(s)
Use and purpose of open space:
10... Previous Land Use Permits Associated with the Property(s)
Have previous permits been issued for the Property: | Yes T] No _ (List singularly; attached additional pages if necessary)
Date Issued Issuing Agency Approved Use/Activity
2.2.21 CT DEEP Seawall Retention
2.2.21 CT DEEP New 4/40 GP Dock Facility

di. Change of Zone, Regulation Amendment or New Zoning District, if applicable -
Yes No
im [x | a. Is this application for a new zoning district and/or regulation not presently established within the
Zoning Regulations? If a new zoning district, distinguish type of zone proposed:
[_]Fixea Zone
[_ ]Floating Zone
LC] Overlay Zone
Identify proposed zone name:
For new regulations, list proposed section number(s) and titles(s):
i.
ii.
iii.
[| | b. Is this application an amendment to an existing regulation? Attach proposed amendments, clearly
noting any deletions, modifications or additions. List sections proposed to be modified:
i.
ii.
fii.
LC] | c. Is this application for a change to a district already established within the regulations? Identify:
Supporting materials:
For new zoning districts or a change in zone provide a legal description of the land involved in the zone district change
including the following:
e Location map at 1”=1000°
¢ Accurate description and acreage of tract(s) to be changed with existing buildings and uses
* Show existing features including but not limited to contours at two-foot intervals, wetlands and watercourses,
flood plains, all improvements and structures,
¢ All lots or parts of lots contained in an area within 500 feet in all directions of the zone change tract
¢ All lots shown in this area and within the zone change tract shall contain the name and address of owners as
recorded in the Assessor’s records and shall show the nature of use
® North point, and distance along road from nearest road intersection.
e Scale of map(s)

12. Bulk Zoning Requirements Table
Complete the following table, which must also be included on applic