|
NOTICE OF ACTION
Meeting of the
ENFIELD INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 P.M. (if applicable)
REGULAR MEETING -- IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING
*****COUNCIL CHAMBERS*****
************MAIN LEVEL***********
*********ENFIELD TOWN HALL *********
*** 820 ENFIELD STREET,***
** ENFIELD, CT 06082 **
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall at 7:00 p.m.
2. Pledge Allegiance to the Flag: The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was recited.
3. Roll Call: Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, Poirot, Szewczak, Tallarita, and Staples (7:03 p.m.) Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent, and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
4. Hearings:
Continuation of IW#456 - Carl Nelson - Proposed 4-lot subdivision involving excavation and placement of structures within 100 feet of Wetlands and Watercourses. Property located at 205 State Street (Map 35 Lot 240); Zoned R-33 [Submitted January 10, 2006; Received January 17, 2006; PPE January 31, 2006; MPHCD March 14, 2006; MPHAD 35 days from the closing date of the hearing.]: Mr. Carl Nelson and his sons Chris and Brian Nelson represented the applicant. Mr. Carl Nelson briefly summarized the proposed project on the 5.4 acre lot. In response to concerns raised by Staff and the Agency members, the original lot lines were moved east, away from the slope, drywells for the rear roof leaders were added and front roof leaders drain toward the road. The driveways drain toward the road as well. The house size was reduced by 10’ to move it further from the top of the slope. On lot one, the closest point of the house is now 26’ from the top of the slope. The Welti Report recommends a minimum of 20’ from the top of the slope. Mr. Nelson added that these slopes are more stable and compacted than those addressed in the Welti Report. A conservation easement is proposed along the rear of all of the lots. Test pits dug on lots one and two show the fill to be clean and probably came from the construction of Route 91, during the late 1950’s or early 1960’s. The Town Engineer has found this to be suitable for foundations. The plans are also now T-2 certified, as required, and the drywells are now separated between lots one and two. The proposed conservation easement and fence are shown on the plans. Mr. Nelson concluded by stating that he feels the slopes haven’t moved and are protected by the fence and easement. Agent Poirot asked the purpose of the rip rap shown between lots 1 and 2. Mr. Carl Nelson stated that it is to slow water coming from the paved driveway. Agent Arnone asked what the Town’s policy is regarding hooking into the Town storm drains. Mr. Angus stated that typically the Town has allowed it. This street doesn’t have any catch basins to hook directly into. He added that he believes the rip rap is for the footing drains. Agent Arnone stated that all of his concerns have been addressed and his questions have been answered. Agent Staples stated that he has visited the site, read the minutes and related materials and feels he has enough information to vote on this application. He also asked if the applicant has addressed the guard rails on the property. Mr. Nelson stated that they are just off the property. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that they are shown on the plans as being within the road right-of-way. Mr. Chris Nelson stated that the proposed fence will go along the guard rail, along the border, and loop behind the proposed house. Agent Tallarita stated that he will abstain from voting on this application due to having been absent from the past 3 meetings. Agent Szewczak asked if the conservation easement line could be moved to include the entire slope for lots 2, 3, and 4. Mr. Nelson was agreeable to this request. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that she also visited the site and noticed that quite a bit of debris has been dumped at the bottom of the slope – especially between the proposed lots 2 and 3. The debris is made up of tires, wood, auto parts, car batteries, and further up, an old pool. She added that she personally has concerns over the feasibility of lot one. It is very close to the slope and conservation easements are not always respected by homeowners. Mr. Chris Nelson stated that the debris at the bottom of the slope will be removed. The construction of the houses should deter future dumping. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that it is often the homeowners who are guilty of the dumping, not from people off-site. She asked what kind of fencing is proposed. Mr. Carl Nelson stated that he did not have a specific type in mind and was open to suggestions. Agent Arnone recommended using a chain link fence. It is more durable and is a deterrent for making a path. A stockade fence will be susceptible to rot and need upkeep. Mr. Angus distributed the Town Engineer’s most recent comments. The outstanding issues are minor and mostly technical in nature. He reminded the Agency members of their need to consider feasible and prudent alternatives in their decision. At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment. No one in the audience came forward to speak for or against this application. A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Arnone to close the public hearing for IW #456. Vote was 5-0-1(Tallarita).
5. Close Public Hearing portion of meeting: A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Poirot to close the public hearing portion of the meeting at 7:28 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to Order: The regular meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall at 7:29 p.m.
2. Roll Call: Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, Poirot, Szewczak, Tallarita, and Staples. Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent, and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
3. Executive Session – Matters regarding specific employees, pending litigation, acquisition of real estate and / or matters exempt from disclosure requirements, as needed. The specific reason should be stated for each session. There were no items for discussion in executive session.
4. Public Participation - Issues of concern not on the agenda: No one in the audience came forward to speak.
5. Correspondence: The following items of correspondence were received: letter dated 2/10/06 from D.O.T. approving proposed monitoring well for property of Mobil Service Station on Hazard Avenue. Letter dated 2/27/06 from Mr. Angus to Michael and Farrah Schultz regarding follow-up inspection of clear cutting at 38 Abbe Road; letter from Mr. Angus to William Zirblis, dated 2/27/06 regarding Agent Review of building permit for proposed detached garage at 220 Brainard Road; letters dated February 28, 2006 from Mr. Angus to Shaker Pines Lake Association and Crescent Lake Tax District regarding membership of Connecticut Federation of Lakes (CFL); Winter, 2006 issue of CFL News; notice of 2006 Municipal Inland Wetland Commissioner’s Training Program; letter dated 3/3/06 from Mr. Angus to Laura O’Brien regarding Agent Review of building permit for proposed in-ground pool at 6 Bacon Road; letter dated 3/3/06 from Mr. Angus to Scott and Lisa Kerry regarding Agent Review of building permit for proposed shed at 22 Rocket Run; list of Wetland Officer’s Building Permit Inspections from 2/2/06 thru 3/1/06; 2005 Summary Report of Rapid Bio-assessment in Wadeable Streams & Rivers by Volunteer Monitors.
6. Commissioner’s Correspondence: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted receipt of notice from North Central CT Conservation District regarding additional staff for storm water service center.
7. Approval of Minutes -- February 21, 2006 Meeting: A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Poirot to approve the minutes of February 21, 2006 as presented. Vote was 3-0-3(Szewczak, Staples & Tallarita)
8. Wetlands Agent Report – February 2, 2006 through March 1, 2006: Mr. Angus stated that most items are addressed in the Agenda or thru the correspondence section of the agenda. He added that he followed up on Agent Arnone’s request for more information regarding the issue of abstaining from voting, versus recusal. The Town’s attorney has stated that if a member believes he or she has reason to recuse, it is better to step down and leave the room. Abstaining from a vote only to keep a quorum still results in participation even if they say nothing. An agent should carefully consider the reason for recusal. If there is no direct personal interest in the application or with the Applicant or financial gain, there is no reason to recuse. Knowing an applicant or being distantly related is not always a reason to recuse oneself. Agent Arnone thanked Mr. Angus for the information. Mr. Angus also stated that Agent Arnone has returned the DVD for commissioner training program and also made additional copies for members. Mr. Angus updated the Agency members on the situation at 1427-1429 Enfield Street. The warning letter was issued, as was the notice of violation. Agricultural exemptions exclude filling of wetlands and watercourses that have a continuous water flow. The Town’s Attorney received a letter of complaint by the property owners regarding the enforcement issues and a reply was made. Mr. Angus provided photos of the site, taken from an adjoining property. Some erosion and control measures are up and some hay has been spread but because Mr. Angus has been denied access, he cannot tell if it is sufficient. He hopes to follow up with another inspection with the property owner but if he is unsuccessful in gaining access, he will issue a Cease and Desist Order. This will result in a “Show Cause” hearing at the Agency’s next meeting. It will then be up to the Agency to uphold the order or invalidate it. It is believed that the owner intends to construct greenhouses in this location also. This would require a DPN, at a minimum. Agent Szewczak felt that Mr. Angus has followed proper procedures and gave the owners time to rectify the situation. He felt that Mr. Angus should consider follow his good judgment in this matter. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall agreed, stating that she feels Mr. Angus is helpful and diplomatic and supports his work on behalf of the Agency. The photos show a great deal of siltation. Agent Poirot asked if the owners need to check with the Agency regarding construction of a greenhouse. Mr. Angus responded that a building permit and a zoning permit are required. No wetlands permit is necessary, according to State Statute, as long as the activity is directly related to the farming operation and does not result in the filling of wetlands and watercourses with continual flow. This is typically what the DPN process is for. He added that there is an existing greenhouse on the property, dating back to 2000 that went through the DPN process, so the owners should be aware of the requirements. In response to a question by Agent Poirot, Mr. Angus stated that the owners’ attorney did not give any indication of the owners’ plans for the property or correcting the violations. Agent Poirot added his vote of confidence regarding Mr. Angus’s actions on enforcement issues. He knows that enforcement is not an easy part of the job. In response to a question by Agent Staples regarding a garage on the property, Mr. Angus stated that it had been built before he came to work for the Town. A letter in the file stated that the existing greenhouse was outside of the wetlands, which is where the current activity is taking place. Agent Arnone stated that the Agency needs to be consistent in enforcement actions and wants the owners to come before the Agency to explain their plans and why they’ve gone this far. Agent Tallarita agreed and hoped that the owners would begin to work with Mr. Angus, but if not, that he should proceed with enforcement actions.
9. Old Business
IW#453 - Town of Enfield - Proposed stream channel maintenance and restoration involving channel dredging and clearing, excavation and grading within 100 feet of a watercourse (enforcement file). Activity located between properties between Meadowlark Road, Yale Drive and Broadleaf Lane (Map 11 Lots 99-101 and 111-114; Map 18 Lots 71-75, 131-133, 135, 136) [Submitted November 22, 2005; Received November 29, 2005; PPE December 13, 2005; MPHCD February 21, 2006; MPHAD 35 days from the closing date of the hearing.]: Agent Arnone excused himself from discussion on this application due to a potential personal conflict of interest. Agents Staples and Tallarita both stated that they felt they had enough information to vote on this application. Mr. Angus distributed a memo from the Town Attorney regarding the Agency’s last meeting where this application could not be heard because of a lack of quorum. The memo stated that the extension request submitted at that meeting could not be received because there was no quorum. Therefore, the hearing was automatically closed and the Agency must make its decision based on information received up to the meeting of February 7, 2006, at which revised plans were submitted. More issues were brought up at the February 7 meeting which could not be addressed at the February 21, 2006 meeting. The Agency can choose to approve the application with conditions that address the proposed plan revisions or deny it and the applicant can re-apply. Agent Szewczak interpreted the memo to state that anything submitted up to February 21, 2006 could be acceptable. Mr. Angus stated that the new plans were submitted, but could not be formally received and accepted as part of the public hearing process and therefore cannot be considered part of the record. The list of proposed conditions addresses the issues that were of concern at the meeting of February 7, 2006. Agents Szewczak, Poirot and Tallarita agreed that the proposed conditions address the concerns brought up at the meeting of February 7, 2006. Mr. Angus reminded the Agency members that because it was a public hearing, feasible and prudent alternatives must be considered in rendering a decision on this application. Agent Szewczak noted that modifications were made to the application from the original time of application through to the plans dated 2/2/06 and believes that feasible and prudent alternatives were considered and exhausted. Agent Szewczak made a motion to approve IW #453 with the standard 10 conditions, in addition to the following, numbered 11 through 19:
11. Permanent seeding of disturbed areas shall be achieved using a #2 seed mix on the channel banks and a #1 seed mix on disturbed lawn areas, as referenced in the 2002 Connecticut Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control;
12. Channel width is to be revised to 15 feet vs.20 feet. Additional rip rap is to be installed on the northern side of the channel at the bend near #63 Yale Drive to provide additional bank stabilization;
13. Limits of the 100 year floodplain shall be shown on plans along with appropriate construction sequencing notes;
14. Reference to and use of fertilizers is to be eliminated from the plans;
15. The Town shall notify all abutting property owners of the 10 foot riparian management area (or other acceptable management practice) that is to be left to grow in its natural state and mowed once yearly to aid in buffering this watercourse from abutting residential impacts to the watercourse. The purpose and goal of this area is to provide an additional level of protection to the watercourse and abutting residential properties from subsequent erosion and sedimentation that may occur from time to time when this watercourse periodically floods. Educational materials will be provided to residents as part of this notification as well;
16. All required easements shall be in place prior to commencement of construction activity. If modifications in or within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses are required as a result of easement negotiations or construction laydown areas, the applicant will need to come back to the Agency for a permit modification;
17. In-stream construction activities shall take place only during low flow conditions (June 1 through September 30) to minimize excessive erosion and sedimentation as a result of excessive runoff and heavily saturated soils;
18. Once all revisions are made, revised plans shall be submitted to the planning department that address the items in these conditions and that have the conditions of approval included on the plans;
19. With the exception of the addition of the items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with the plans entitled "Meadowlark Road Drainage Channel Improvements" Sheets 1 through 7; dated 2/2/06; Prepared by Town of Enfield Public Works Department Engineering Division. Any changes that would potentially cause greater impact to wetlands or watercourses, such as enlargement or reorientation of structure footprints, from the plans and any denial or changes made by any other regulatory agency or commission shall require the permittee to come before the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency for a Determination of Permit Need (Jurisdictional Ruling).
After brief discussion, Agent Szewczak amended his motion and Agent Poirot amended his second to the motion, to amend condition #11 to include: Erosion control hay blankets shall be installed over all disturbed areas where six mix #2 is specified. Blankets shall be placed starting downstream and working up so the blankets overlap faces downstream. Blankets shall be secured using appropriate methods. Vote was 5-0-0. Reason for approval was that The project, with mitigation, will not adversely affect wetlands and watercourses.
Agent Arnone returned to the meeting at this time.
IW#456 - Carl Nelson - Proposed 4-lot subdivision involving excavation and placement of structures within 100 feet of Wetlands and Watercourses. Property located at 205 State Street (Map 35 Lot 240); Zoned R-33 [Submitted January 10, 2006; Received January 17, 2006; PPE January 31, 2006; MPHCD March 14, 2006; MPHAD 35 days from the closing date of the hearing.]: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall reminded members of the need to consider prudent and feasible alternatives for this application. Agent Poirot stated that his concerns of trash will be addressed once the homes are constructed. Hopefully the owners will respect the conservation easement. He noted that having only 3 lots would have been better, but the applicant showed the prudent need for the 4th lot because of the cost of extending the sewer line to the existing house. The house size on lot one was reduced to address the concern of it being too close to the top of the slope. The slope seems reasonably stable and he feels the applicant has done all he can do to protect what’s there. He also feels that the chain link fence is a good idea. It is long lasting and protects the area from paths and dumping. It seems to work well in other areas of town. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agent Szewczak suggested moving the easement up the slope further. Members held discussion regarding the height of the fence as well as the exact location. Agent Poirot felt that the fence should go closer to the road. It is a safety issue for lot one, but that is not really an issue for IWWA. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall felt that is not just a safety issue, but will also prevent dumping. Agent Szewczak agreed with Agent Poirot regarding placement of the fence. If the tree buffer remains in the conservation easement, it will also deter dumping. The chain link fence also serves as a stop line, whereas a stockade fence is seen as more decorative. Agent Arnone stated that lot 1 has been difficult but is financially required because of the need to extend the sewer line by 600’. This will help the wetlands by putting the existing house on sewer. He added that a 6’ high fence should be adequate. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that she could support a 3-lot subdivision and does not see why the sewer connection is necessary, except for possibly not having enough room on the lots for septic systems. She is troubled by lot 1. It is not escarpment soils but may still be compromised. Everything is erodable under the right conditions. She feels 3 lots would be a feasible and prudent alternative but agrees that a 6’ chain link fence is wise and would request as a condition of approval that all trash and debris from the bottom of the slope be removed and that the conservation easement follow along the top of the slope. Agent Staples asked if the IWWA has the authority to require the fence. Mr. Angus stated that if the Agency considers it a measure that will aid in protecting the wetlands directly or indirectly, it could be considered within the Agencies jurisdiction to request it. He added that zoning regulations do not allow for higher than a 6’ fence. Members discussed having the fence follow the easement border instead of placing it inside the easement. Also, debris removal should be done by non-mechanical means. Mr. Angus reviewed proposed conditions of approval. A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Staples to approve IW #456 with the 10 standard conditions, in addition to the following nine conditions:
11. All Engineering concerns must be addressed prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit. If the footing drains are required to discharge to the surface, it shall be pumped and outlet to a location furthest away from the slope and/or drain to the street with outlet protection.
12. Erosion and sediment controls must be installed prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit for each lot;
13. The Wetlands Agent will not sign off on the certificate of occupancy for any lots until all disturbed areas, including roof drain outlets, are temporarily and/or permanently stabilized for each lot;
14. Those portions of the total site indicated to be conservation easement (as amended) shall be first offered to the town as an easement or restrictive covenant. Conservation easement markers shall be installed in accordance with Town requirements, by a licensed surveyor, at the applicant's expense. Easement markers will be provided by the Planning Department. Where no trees are present greater than 6" dbh, easement markers shall be placed on 4"x4" wooden posts to demarcate the easement boundary. Should the Town Council decline the acceptance of the easement or restrictive covenant, a notification shall be placed on the land records that indicates the extent of steep slopes and wetland resources on-site and the regulations governing those resources, including the prohibition of disposal of refuse and/or yard waste on or near the slopes and wetland and watercourse areas.
15. A note shall be placed on the subdivision plan, individual plot plans and deed before the wetland agent shall sign off on the building permit for each lot stating: “Portions of this lot contain steep slopes, wetlands nad watercourses and are therefore subject to the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations as amended. No disposing of leaves, grass clippings, brush or other lawn refuse, grading, filling or other modification shall be made to the portion of this lot that is encumbered with a conservation easement".
16. All accumulated trash/debris shall be removed from regulated areas using non-mechanical methods, prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the Certificate of Occupancy for any property;
17. A 6' high chain link fence shall be installed on Lot #1 along the proposed conservation easement boundary to the easterly lot line;
18. The conservation easement line shall be amended to be a minimum of 15 feet from the top of slope along he entire length of the property;
19. With the exception of the additional items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with the site plans entitled "Subdivision Plan Lot 240 - State Street, prepared for Carl Nelson, Enfield, Conn.; dated 11-25-05; Revised 3-6-06; 4 sheets; prepared by Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC, 1379 Main Street, East Hartford, CT, 06108. Any changes that would potentially cause greater impact to wetlands or watercourses, such as enlargement or reorientation of structure footprints from the plans and any denial or changes made by any other regulatory agency or commission shall require the permittee to come before the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency for a Determination of Permit Need (Jurisdictional Ruling) or request for modification.
Vote was 5-1(Pfeifer-Hall)-0. Reason for approval was the project, with mitigation, will not adversely affect wetlands and watercourses.
IW#458 - Joseph Voboril Jr. - Proposed temporary wetland crossings and clear cutting of a landing area associated with a selective timber harvest in and within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located along the south side of Bacon Road and east side of North Maple Street (Map 95 Lot 1); Zoned I-1 [Submitted January 30, 2006; Received February 7, 2006; PPE February 21, 2006; MAD April 13, 2006.] Mr. Joseph Voboril, Jr. represented the applicant. Mr. Voboril submitted revised plans and sketch to the Agency members. He stated that there had been questions and concerns over the locations of the crossings. The new plans show that crossings #6 & #7 have been deleted and replaced by #8 & #9 on the plans. Crossing C5 is a dead end. Part of the trail is an existing trail. Prefab mats or bridges would be used at this location. In response to a question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Voboril and Mr. Angus briefly explained that the project is now considered a “high grade diameter limit cut” by the D.E.P. instead of the previous “Shelterwood”. This is based on the number of trees to be harvested. No beech or hemlock are to be cut. This is not a clear-cut operation. Agent Arnone asked if Mr. Voboril is familiar with Cessosimo’s techniques. Mr. Voboril stated that he is and is very comfortable with the Connecticut Forester used by the company. Agent Arnone stated that he has seen the type of temporary bridges being proposed for this site and feels they cause less damage than poles. Mr. Voboril added that at $3,500 bond will be submitted to cover any restoration costs. The area will also be re-flagged. Mr. Angus reported that he has not had the opportunity to review the updated plans, as they were just submitted. It looks as though most crossings are located over old agricultural ditches. C5 is a large flat crossing, at 100’ long. He also noted that the wetlands extend into the property by C9 but believes that the landing area and trail would be outside the wetland area. The trees near the wetlands are double marked to ensure that machinery doesn’t go any further. Mr. Voboril stated that it is unlikely that any activity would take place prior to August, 2006 and the project would take approximately 6 weeks. Crossing C2 will have the most heavy use. Mr. Angus will review the updated plans and provide comments at the Agency’s next regular meeting. A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Tallarita to table further discussion on IW #458 to the meeting of March 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 6-0-0.
IW#459 - Mark and Edward Spazzarini - Proposed development of 2 single family homes with associated excavation and grading within 100 feet of an intermittent watercourse and 200 feet of the Connecticut River. Property located on the southwest end of Fairview Avenue (Map 20 Lots 344-346 and 96); Zoned R-33 [Submitted January 30, 2006; Received February 7, 2006; PPE February 21, 2006; MAD April 13, 2006.] Agent Arnone excused himself from discussion on this application due to a potential personal conflict of interest. Jay Ussery, Mark and Ed Spazzarini represented the applicants. Mr. Ussery briefly reviewed the changes to the plans. The 200’ line from the Connecticut River is now shown on the plans as is the 100’ buffer area from the drainage ditch. An easement by the town is recorded in Volume 70 of the Land Records. The applicant has proposed to do an initial cleaning of the culvert. The proposed homes have been moved closer to the road to meet Zoning requirements. A chain link fence will run along the top of the ditch to prevent debris from being thrown in. It will have a gate for access by the town for maintenance. Roof leaders will drain on splash blocks and drain toward the street, except for those on the side draining toward the railroad and the rear, draining toward the back of the house. The houses will be 50’x28’ and expected that the drainage will have no effect on the ditch. The temporary stockpile will be moved forward. In response to a question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Ussery added that the previous email by Mr. Cabibbo has been addressed. There was confusion at that time over the outlet of Pearl Street drainage. Mr. Angus added that the Town is in agreement that it is responsible for maintenance of the culvert but not the ditch. Mr. Ussery was under the impression that the Town is responsible for maintenance from the most easterly headwall to the railroad. Mr. Angus reviewed proposed conditions of approval. Mr. Ussery stated that the houses are to be raised ranches so there will be no footing drains. The proposed fence will be installed along the westerly side and rear of the westerly lot. There is an existing chain link fence along the entire school property. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall expressed appreciation for the changes made and for agreeing to clean the culvert. A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Staples to approve IW #459 with the 10 standard conditions, in addition to the following 6:
11. The temporary stockpile area is to be relocated away from the top of slope of the intermittent watercourse. Revised plans shall be submitted to show this, in addition to the lot numbers/labels;
12. All required erosion and sediment controls must be in place prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit. In addition, all exposed areas must be permanently and/or temporarily stabilized prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the Certificate of Occupancy;
13. Roof leader and footing drain outlets must discharge to a level area to minimize potential for surface erosion and sedimentation into the adjacent intermittent watercourse. Outlets must be permanently stabilized prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the Certificate of Occupancy;
14. All accumulated trash/debris shall be removed from the intermittent watercourse using non-mechanical methods to avoid soil disturbance. Accumulated sediment/material to be removed from the culvert must be contained and removed and all exposed areas stabilized in accordance with the 2002 CT Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control - Vegetated Waterway (VW). Cleaning should occur during low flow conditions (June 1 through September 30) or during an extended period when there is no flow in the intermittent watercourse. This must be done prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the Certificate of Occupancy;
15. Prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit, a note shall be placed on the plans and new deeds for each property notifying property owners of the intermittent watercourse and regulated areas. The note shall read "Portions of this lot contain and/or abut an intermittent watercourse. Any proposed activity (land clearing, excavation, filling, regrading and/or placement of structures) in or within 100 feet will require authorization from the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency prior to commencement. Failure to obtain the necessary approvals may result in enforcement action in accordance with Section 13 of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, as amended. Disposal of yard wastes (soil, leaves, brush, grass clippings, or any other form of waste) in or on the banks of the intermittent watercourse will also constitute a violation of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations";
16. With the exception of the additional items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with Site Plan entitled "Plot Plan, Plan prepared for Elm Construction LLC, Fairview Avenue, Enfield, CT"; sheet 2 of 2; dated 12/19/05, revised through 2/20/06; prepared by JR Russo and Associates, 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 06088. Any changes that would potentially cause greater impact to wetlands or watercourses, such as enlargement or reorientation of structure footprints, from the plans and any denial or changes made by any other regulatory agency or commission shall require the permittee to come before the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency for a Permit Modification or Determination of Permit Need (Jurisdictional Ruling). Vote was 5-0-0. Reason for approval was that the project, with mitigation, will not adversely affect wetlands and watercourses.
Agent Arnone returned to the meeting at this time.
10. New Business
DPN 2006-03-06 Town of Enfield Water Pollution Control Authority – Request for emergency authorization/Determination of Permit Need to temporarily deconstruct a portion of a beaver dam to lower the water level of St. Marthas Pond to allow for sanitary sewer access and maintenance. Property located off of George Washington Road (Map 62 Lot 3) Submitted March 6, 2006; Received March 7, 2006; PPE March 21. Mr. Angus stated that the applicant has requested that this item be tabled to the Agency’s next meeting, March 21, 2006. The applicant does not yet have all the details of the proposed project so it is difficult to tell if it may need a full permit application. After brief review of the photos provided with the application, a motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Tallarita to table further discussion on this application until the meeting of 3/21/06 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 6-0-0.
11. Other Business
• Next regular meeting is Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 7:00PM in the Council Chambers.
12. Adjourn: A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Staples to adjourn the meeting at 9:58 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
Acronym Key for Dates:
Submitted = Day it was Logged in by the Appropriate Town Office.
Rec’ed = Received (Date of First Regular Meeting after the day of submission or 35 days, which ever is sooner)
PPE = Petition Period Ends (14 Days from Receipt)
MAD = Mandatory Action Date (65 Days from Receipt)
EMAD = Extended Mandatory Action Date (Any combination up to 65 days from original MAD)
MPHCD = Mandatory Public Hearing Closing Date (35 Days from opening of the public hearing)
EMPHCD = Extended Mandatory Public Hearing Closing Date (Any combination up to 65 Days from first MPHCD)
MPHAD = Mandatory Public Hearing Action Date (35 Days after close of the public hearing)
EMPHAD = Extended Mandatory Public Hearing Action Date (Any combination up to 65 Days from first MPHAD)
*Applicant can consent to extend the time frame for any of the steps but the total of all extensions together cannot exceed 65 days
|
|
Last Modified: 3/10/2006 1:18:02 PM
|
|
|