|
NOTICE OF ACTION
Meeting of the
ENFIELD INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 P.M. (if applicable)
REGULAR MEETING -- IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING
*****COUNCIL CHAMBERS*****
*********ENFIELD TOWN HALL *********
*** 820 ENFIELD STREET,***
** ENFIELD, CT 06082 **
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Richard Szewczak at 7:02 p.m.
2. Pledge Allegiance to the Flag : The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was recited.
3. Roll Call: Present were: Vice Chairman Richard Szewczak and Agents Arnone, Lemay, Poirot, Wawer and Staples (7:03 p.m.). Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
4. Show Cause Hearing - Violation 2006-02-07 - of David and Lori Longhi - unpermitted earthwork in and within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 1427-1429 Enfield Street (Map 18 Lot 271); Zoned HR-33. Cease and Desist order issued on March 17, 2006: Attorney John Wyzik, Lori Longhi, and George Malia, Soil Scientist represented the property owner. Attorney Wyzik noted his observation that the Show Cause Hearing is a “quasi-judicial” proceeding. He asked that the Agency present the facts prior to he or his client speaking. Vice Chairman Szewczak referred to a memo from Mr. Angus, dated 2/17/06 which outlined the initial sequence of events. Mr. Angus summarized the memo, describing events that took place. A warning letter was sent on February 1, 2006 after the initial inspection of the site. The inspection was prompted by a complaint from a neighbor. Recent excavation was found to have taken place on the Longhi property, causing sedimentation in a watercourse. A notice of violation was sent on 2/7/06. The next correspondence was a letter dated 2/8/06 from Attorney Wyzik to Mr. Bromson, acting Town Manager, regarding Mr. Angus’ conduct. The fourth correspondence was the memo dated 2/17/06 memo from Mr. Angus, sent March 7, 2006. The fifth was a response from Mr. Bromson. On February 3, 2006, there was a significant storm event and while on regular inspections, Mr. Angus inspected the site on 2/3/06 and noted that erosion controls were still not installed. He attempted to inspect again on the 7th of February, but was denied access to the property. Mr. Angus went on to say that before the Notice of Violation, the owners seemed initially responsive. The Agency was appraised of the situation during regular IWWA meetings. Mr. Angus issued the Cease & Desist Order on March 17, 2006 after 3 additional attempts to resolve the issues and gain the cooperation of the owners. Mr. Wyzik stated that in regard to his letter to Mr. Bromson regarding Mr. Angus’ conduct, Mr. Wyzik was unaware of the issuance of the Warning Letter to the Longhis. He feels that the letter is un-connected to the administrative proceedings this evening. He then asked what facts were used to determine that there are wetlands on the property. Mr. Angus stated that the Town’s official wetlands map indicates potential wetlands and also he visually saw what appeared to be a watercourse on the property. He added that the wetlands map is advisory in nature only. Mr. Angus handed out copies of the photographs he had taken of the site since the discovery of the violation. Updated photos of the site were also included, taken earlier today from an abutting property. He also referred to DPN 000928, an application by David Longhi for a greenhouse on the property in 2000. Part of the application packet had documents relating to wetlands on the property. At this time, Mrs. Longhi read a statement regarding her history with the property. She stated that she and her husband purchased the property in 1990. In 1995 they spoke with the Town Planner at that time, Michael O'Leary, regarding their intent to build a barn. They came back in 2000 to construct a green house and were told a DPN was needed. The Agency at that time determined that no permit was needed for the greenhouse they were building. Mrs. Longhi received a phone call from Mr. Angus in the spring of 2005 regarding a recent grant award and told him of their plans. She feels that the DPN did not expire and that there are no watercourses on the property and they are not shown on the map. A watercourse is also not shown on the Conservation map. She feels that this greenhouse is no different from the previous greenhouse project. She added that she feels that Mr. Angus is mistaken regarding the allegations. The silt fence was completed on 2/8/06. She also noted that while trying to determine the source of water coming onto her property, she discovered a bent culvert pipe on I91. She showed photos taken during the flooding. She has spoken with officials at D.O.T. but it has not been repaired to date. She feels water is coming onto her property by way of neighboring properties, caused by blocked culverts and the damaged pipe on I91. This is an active farm. She thought the issue was resolved in 2000. Moving the dirt was only in preparation for building the greenhouse. Vice Chairman Szewczak asked if Ms. Longhi has a site plan of the property. He added that conditions change as the environment does and that needs to be taken into consideration when building. It is difficult for the Agency to understand the site without plans. Agent Arnone feels that the issue is not of greenhouses, but of use “as of right”. He stated that the “as of right” activities privilege stop when filling or reclaiming of wetlands and watercourses begins. From the photos, he can see scouring, clear and defined banks, things seen in streams and watercourses. He added that contrary to Mr. Wysczik’s statement, the attorney’s letter is important. If Neil has to go to an adjoining property to see the site, that is not trespassing. He equated it to the postal carrier not trespassing by walking up a driveway to deliver U.S. Mail. Agent Wawer noted that the issuing of a warning letter is not uncommon. When the Town receives notification from a resident of a potential problem, the Town is obligated to investigate. He added that he was not part of the Agency in 2000 and so had no knowledge of the previous application. The Agency only looks at what is in front of them, not what was done in the past. Attorney Wyzik defended his letter, stating that he did not realize at the time that Mr. Angus was acting on the complaint of another resident. He feels Mr. Angus is mistaken on the facts of the wetlands and watercourse being present. Ms. Longhi felt that the 2000 approval was enough to do additional work. It was not a willful act to go against the regulations. Vice Chairman Szewczak asked if there was a layout provided in the 2000 application. Mr. Angus stated that the application indicated 1 greenhouse and only one was constructed. Each additional greenhouse is considered a new activity. The agricultural exemption is only for building in uplands. The original greenhouse was placed in a transitional area. At this time, Mr. George Malia spoke. After providing a list of his credentials, he stated that he has looked at the property at various times, using visual inspection only and utilized publicly available information. He referred to the wetland soils located to the west of the greenhouse. He noted that the official wetlands maps are based on the survey taken by the Federal Government, years ago. He provided information to members regarding wetland soils. A soil survey is available on the internet. He provided digitized photos of the Longhi property and detailed soil descriptions. He stated that the majority of the property is Broad Brook and Rainbow soils. He noted that the drainage moves north east to south west. It concentrates before leaving the property. There is an old subsurface drainage system in the field. During heavy sheet flow, drainage collects at the low spot. Some soil has been brought onto the site and stockpiled. He agreed that it was not protected by silt fence at first, but is now. The field is heavily mulched in preparation for seeding. He feels the erosion problem has been addressed. His 2000 letter stated that there were wetlands on the property, but not in this area. He feels that permanent vegetation and silt fence will solve the erosion problem. Agent Poirot asked if there is a constant flow of water across the property. Mr. Malia stated that during heavy rains, there is. It stems from heavy sheet flow and some high groundwater. Agent Arnone asked if it is an intermittent water course. Mr. Malia stated that it is, only at the lowest spot, just before leaving the property. He feels the site needs to be stabilized, and planted with a cover crop. Mr. Wyzik asked Mr. Malia if he agreed with Mr. Angus that there is a watercourse, according to the Enfield Regulations. Mr. Malia responded that there is one open area with standing water, only a few feet onto the property. There are no vernal pools on the property. This is a field manipulated by man through agriculture. Agent Arnone asked if, in Mr. Malia’s professional opinion, this is an intermittent watercourse. Mr. Malia stated that he would have to do more detail before answering. Mr. Wyzik asked if there is any reason to believe this is a new phenomena? Mr. Malia stated that it is probably due to the very wet weather, recently. Mr. Wyzik asked if it is possible that the changes to the property are due to the bent pipe on the highway. Mr. Malia stated that the water will find some place to go. He added that he viewed this site without digging test pits. He did not make an inspection of the channel to determine if it is a tributary of Beemans Brook. Agent Arnone stated that the erosion control is apparently now up. The reason for the Hearing was to make sure that controls are in place. He hopes to now be able to have Mr. Angus visit the site to monitor the situation. Vice Chairman Szewczak added that it is necessary to make sure that the drainage patterns are not obstructed in the construction of the greenhouses. It was determined that the applicant had the opportunity to build 1 greenhouse in 2000. The Agency and Mr. Angus need to be informed of plans. A farmer has certain rights but the Agency cannot be left in the dark. Mr. Wyzik stated that the water on the property is going to pose a problem. He asked for guidance on where to get assistance for directing the water. He also added that the Longhis are looking to build the additional greenhouse; planting season will begin soon. Mr. Angus spoke. He stated that the soil survey referred to by Mr. Malia is not the Town’s official wetlands map. The soil surveys are based on 3-5 acre areas and not to be used for detailed land use planning. Mr. Angus provided a copy of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency Official map for the property, an aerial photo of the property from the 2004 DEP flyover and a 1991 aerial photo of the site. Both show water visible and a longer channel than a couple of feet onto the property. In his professional opinion, he feels the channel meets the definition of an intermittent watercourse. It has a defined bank and channel, water is present for longer than the duration of a storm event and there is evidence of recent scour and deposits of sediment. Mr. Malia admitted that he did not do a detailed investigation. Mr. Angus added that the regulations don’t differentiate between natural and manmade watercourses. Mr. Angus also added that all of his correspondence mentioned both the need for erosion and sediment controls and a DPN application for the proposed greenhouses. Mr. Angus reported that he was at the neighboring property today. Some measures are in place and the water is running clear today. In response to a question by Agent Poirot, Mr. Angus stated that he would like an opportunity to inspect the erosion and sediment controls to verify proper installation and containment. Mr. Wyzik asked if the Agency would allow a third party to inspect the site, at the owner’s expense. Vice Chairman Szewczak noted that if another neighbor complained, Mr. Angus would not have any first hand knowledge. He added that he feels comfortable that the situation is somewhat rectified and hopes that everyone will be able to put their differences aside. Agent Arnone added that the Agency does not want to start a precedent by allowing third party inspections. In regards to the drainage problem, he suggested that the Longhis contact the State D.O.T. or the town’s D.P.W. Agent Wawer stated that he feels confident in the Town’s staff being competent and impartial. Agent Staples noted that the letters from Mr. Angus were clear on the requirements. Mr. Wyzik acknowledged that the issue of the dirt stockpile is valid but Ms. Longhi felt she had the right to do the work. Vice Chairman Szewczak stated that the evidence shows that significant erosion and sediment controls are installed. He would like Mr. Angus to do an on-site inspection. Any additional work requires a DPN. Any activity as of right would be allowed after a DPN review. He is willing to lift the Cease & Desist Order, but no further activity is to take place. Mr. Angus explained that the Agency needs to determine if the Cease & Desist Order stays in effect, is revoked, or amended. A formal inspection would suffice to satisfy the first point and a DPN is required for the second point. Mr. Wyzik stated that the regulations state that other professionals can be allowed onto property instead of Mr. Angus. Mr. Angus stated that he has no personal interest in this situation. He is simply doing his job and hopes that the applicant cooperates. He is only following the Regulations. Vice Chairman Szewczak stated that the Cease & Desist Order should not remain. It should be modified so that any further activity on the greenhouse or stockpile requires a DPN. A DPN would be required should any other activity take place. Mr. Malia suggested moving the stockpiles closer to the existing greenhouses where it is flatter. Erosion and sediment controls would be installed and the current stockpile site would be stabilized and vegetated. Vice Chairman Szewczak stated that this issue could be addressed as part of the DPN. A motion was made by Agent Poirot to modify the Cease & Desist Order to require submission of a Determination of Permit Need application and that all erosion and sediment controls remain in place, along with the existing stockpile, until a determination is made by the Agency. The Agent will also inspect and verify that the controls are working. Seconded by Agent Wawer. During the discussion regarding the motion, Agent Poirot stated there will be no third party agent for the inspection. Agent Arnone asked if Mr. Angus had any additional erosion and sediment control issues. Mr. Angus stated that if all necessary controls are in place, they should remain until the Determination is made by the Agency. The Agency Agreed. Agent Poirot suggested that Mr. Wyzik or another person could always accompany Mrs. Longhi during the inspection if she wishes. Vote was 6-0-0.
The hearing portion of the meeting was closed at 8:43 p.m.
Agent Tallarita joined the meeting at 8:43 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Richard Szewczak at 8:43 p.m.
2. Roll Call: Present were: Vice Chairman Richard Szewczak and Agents Arnone, Lemay, Poirot, Wawer, Staples and Tallarita. 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: Public notice dated 2/14/06 from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding a federal general permit in the State of Connecticut; registration form for 1st annual Connecticut Wildlife Conservation Conference on Tuesday, May 2, 2006; Permit Application for use of pesticides at Crescent Lake; March 27, 2006 letter from Mr. Angus to Paul Williams regarding property located at 263 North Maple Street and siltation in the adjacent pond; Certified letter dated March 22, 2006 from Mr. Angus to Marvin Serra of the Enfield WPCA regarding DPN 20060306. Mr. Angus explained that the project has been completed and he provided photos of the project from start to finish. He added that the erosion controls are still in place and it was completed with very little disturbance and well stabilized. Letter from Mr. Angus to Dan Collins, dated March 27, 2006 regarding beaver issues; copy of wetlands permit to Joseph Vobril, Jr. for temporary wetlands crossings and clearing of landing areas associated with timber harvest at the south side of Bacon Rd. and the East side of North Maple Street; letter dated 3/27/06 from Groundwater & Environmental Services to Mr. Angus regarding soil boring/monitoring well installation summary at the Mobil Service Station at 76 Hazard Ave. The most recent issue of The Habitat. Agent Arnone asked if the Town has regulations regarding use of road salt near streams and wetlands. Mr. Angus stated the use of road salt is an issue in all towns. It is a matter of safety verses the environment. Some alternatives are available. He will look into this further.
6. Commissioner’s Correspondence: There were no items for discussion.
7. Approval of Minutes -- March 21, 2006 Meeting: A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Tallarita to approve the minutes of the meeting of 3/21/06 with the following amendments: page 7, 1st sentence: correct spelling of “Roaed” to “Road”; condition #13, 3rd line, add “h” to end of “wit” and "clear-cutting" changed to "clearing". Vote was 4-0-3(LeMay, Poirot, Wawer)
8. Wetlands Agent Report – March 16, 2006 through March 29, 2006: Most items were addressed as part of Correspondence in the Agenda. Mr. Angus noted that the beaver project by the Boy Scouts was completed and considered successful. Agent Arnone asked if there is any official commendation available from the IWWA to the Boy Scouts. It was the consensus of the members to accept Mr. Angus’s offer to draft a letter on behalf of the Agency, for review at the next regular meeting. Mr. Angus also noted that the Town has received a grant for the planting of 30 additional trees at Freshwater Pond. He is looking into an Arbor Day planting ceremony to be held April 29, 2006 at the Pond. He will provide more details at the Agency’s April 18, 2006 meeting.
9. Old Business
None.
10. New Business
IW#460 - Stonegate Associates - Proposed 76-Unit Senior Residential Development involving excavation, filling regrading, stormwater management and placement of structures in and within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located off of Mayfield Drive, West View Drive, Pine Hill Road and West Shore Drive (Map 79 Lots 11, 12, 13 and Map 96 Lot 11) Zoned R-44 [Submitted March 29, 2006; Received April 4, 2006; PPE April 18, 2006]: Mr. Wes Wentworth of Wentworth Engineering represented the applicant. Mr. Wentworth explained that the application is a re-submission of a previous application that was denied 1/17/06 in part to running out of extensions and lack of information for the Agency. He stated that the plans have been modified and additional information was provided in the Agency members’ packets. The revisions are outlined in a letter dated 3/27/06. Agent Poirot stated that he would prefer to wait for the public hearing before hearing details. He added that another reason for the application’s original denial was that the number of units was too many for the site. Agent Poirot made a motion, seconded by Agent Staples, to hold a public hearing on IW#460 on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Reason for public hearing is due to a significant impact activity. Vote was 7-0-0.
IW#461 - Precision Camera - Proposed parking lot expansion within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 4 Anngina Drive (Map 82 Lot 60) Zoned I-1 [Submitted March 29, 2006; Received April 4, 2006; PPE April 18, 2006] Agent Staples excused himself from discussion on this application due to a conflict of interest and left the meeting for the remainder of the evening. Mr. Mark Friend of Megson & Heagle represented the applicant. The site is east of Anngina Drive. It is the second building, on the right, located in an Industrial I zone. The lot is 80,900 square feet. There is an existing building and parking lot on site. Precision Camera will be leasing the building and will need additional parking for its’ 300 employees. The original site plan showed dashed areas for building and parking expansion. This application is for parking area expansion only. There is a manicured lawn in the front. There are wetlands in the rear, approximately 14,000 square feet in size with an intermittent watercourse, and includes the detention basin which was sized for future expansion. The lot is flat with a slight slope to the east. There is a wooded buffer in the rear of the buildings, in front of the wetlands. The wetlands are part of a larger wetlands system. The wetland soils are poorly drained. The site is not part of the 100 year flood plain and soils on site are mostly disturbed. There is also a manmade wetland along the south border of the property. The applicant proposes no activity in the wetlands, but just to the west. There will be an additional 59 parking spaces in 2 lots. There will be 2 new catch basins that discharge into the existing detention basin. The applicant is not proposing to clean the trees from the detention basin. The construction area will have silt fence to the east and tracking pads. Vice Chairman Szewczak asked if there is any activity in the south east corner of the wetlands. Mr. Friend stated that they will be clearing trees in a fill area. The existing grade is at 167.5. It will be filled approximately 4 to 4 ½’ to an elevation of 171 and will be 1 ½’ from the wetlands. Vice Chairman Szewczak asked if a retaining wall has been considered. Mr. Friend agreed to look into the possibility. In response to another question by Vice Chairman Szewczak, Mr. Friend stated there will not be a water management system. This is not required when there are only 2 catch basins. Also, there are no direct discharges to the wetlands. He stated that the rip rap area could be expanded and a sediment forebay added. An oil and grit separator could also be added. He stated that a 3’ sump in one catch basin and an oil/grit separator can go in the last structure. There is no proposal to do anything with the existing catch basins. Agent Arnone noted the potential of heavy velocity in the heavy storms, all concentrated into the wetlands. He questioned if this would be a significant impact, requiring a public hearing. He also requested access to visit the site. Mr. Friend’s client gave verbal permission. Mr. Angus reminded members that if they visit the site, they must go individually. If two or more members visit at the same time, it is considered a meeting and must be properly noticed. Mr. Angus referred to his Agent’s Report and the 4 points that were discussed with Mr. Friend at a pre-application meeting. In response to a question by Vice Chairman Szewczak, Mr. Friend confirmed that there will be curbing around the parking lot. He also added that most snow melt would be picked up by the catch basins to drain toward the detention basin. He stated that the detention pond holds 68,000 cubic feet of water, up to the emergency spillway. A motion was made by Agent Poirot to hold a public hearing on IW#461 on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Reason for the hearing is due to potential significant impact to the wetlands. Seconded by Agent Wawer. Vote was 7-0-0.
11. Other Business
None.
• Next regular meeting is Tuesday, April 18, 2006 at 7:00PM in the Council Chambers.
12. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:35 p.m.
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: 5/2/2006 12:38:11 PM
|
|
|