|
NOTICE OF ACTION
Meeting of the
ENFIELD INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
TUESDAY, MAY 16, 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 Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall at 7:03 p.m.
2. Pledge Allegiance to the Flag: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
3. Roll Call: Present were: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, LeMay, Poirot, Szewczak, Tallarita and Wawer (8:26 p.m.). Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall empowered Agent LeMay as a full voting member for the evening.
4. Hearings:
Continuation of IW#460 - Stonegate Associates - Proposed 76-Unit Senior Residential Development involving excavation, filling regrading 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; MPHCD May 23, 2006]: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall reviewed the procedures for comment at a public hearing. She also noted that a Notice of Intervention has been filed, pursuant to Section 22A-19a of the CT General Statutes, by Attorney Amy Blaymore Patterson for Shaker Pines Lake Association. Attorney Carrie Olson and Wes Wentworth represented the applicant. Ms. Olson briefly reviewed the application. She stated that the first application was denied without prejudice and listed 4 reasons for the denial: Detention basin locations, headwall, water quality issues and the pest management plan. She stated that Staff comments have been incorporated into the updated plans. Ms. Olson stated that she appreciated comments made by the Agency from the previous hearings, including the suggestion of meeting with the Lake Association. The applicant has attempted to meet with Association members but the Association has not yet responded. Ms. Olson added that she would be presenting Priscilla Bailey, Limnologist, to discuss her findings of effects of the proposed development on the Lake. She distributed copies of Ms. Bailey’s report to the Agency members. Mr. Wes Wentworth stated that he met, within the past 2 weeks, with Mr. Angus and Mr. Cabibbo. He reviewed, in detail, the responses to Mr. Angus comments from April 18, 2006. #3:The road orientation has been shifted to the north, adding 40 to 50’ vegetative buffer to the wetlands. This will mean, however, that development will encroach 10’ into the wetlands for one unit on the north side of the development. #1: the sidewalks remain on the south side. This will require less disturbance to wetlands than moving them to the north side of the road due to the revised road re-alignment. #2 The detention basin has been moved back to 55-60’ from the wetland, utilizing the natural low area and meets the minimum for ERT recommendations. The emergency outflow for Infiltration Basin F has been eliminated, leaving a 60’ vegetated buffer. #4: Double rows of silt fence and a maintenance schedule have been added during construction of the foundation drains for added wetland protection. #5: The detention basins will function during high ground water situations. Items #6, 7, and 8 are housekeeping items and have been corrected. #9: Mr. Wentworth feels that it would be best to fill and hold the culvert at the existing grade. Adding a headwall would require more disturbance and time. A pre-fabricated box culvert could be installed within 48 hours; a headwall could take 6 to 8 weeks. #10: Notes have been added to the plans regarding the need to install the bridge during low flow periods. The utility trench for underground utilities will also be done within a 48 hour period. Agent Poirot asked if directional drilling will be used anywhere. Mr. Wentworth responded that this method is not applicable under the roadways as the area will be already disturbed. He feels it is not appropriate at the wetland crossings. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked for an explanation of directional drilling. Mr. Wentworth explained that holes would be dug on either side of the wetland and drilling would take place under the wetland surface. Agent Poirot asked if “jack and bore” drilling was considered. Mr. Wentworth stated that this method is basically the same as directional drilling and he doesn’t feel it would be appropriate. #12: The filter berm notations will be added to the plans. #13: The landscape plans have been modified to show the limits of disturbance on a 40 scale plan. Additional landscaping will be done in the buffer areas. #14: Mr. Logan’s REMA Report noted use of a conservation strategy, realizing that the applicant must seek approval from the D.E.P after receiving IWWA approval. #15: The revised plans show connectivity between wetlands A & C. Mr. Logan feels it is not critical for connectivity between wetlands C & E. #17: Details for the 4,000 +/- square foot mitigated wetlands have been provided as an addendum to the REMA Report. Mr. Logan briefly reviewed sheets M1 & M2, showing grading. He explained how it was determined that the area would support the proposed wetland plantings. The water table in that area is stable. Sheet M2 shows detailed planting notes and monitoring and maintenance schedules. Mr. Logan stated that topsoil needs to be incorporated into these wetlands. He noted that the amount and quality of the topsoil is not directly tied to the size or quality of wetlands. Topsoil will be brought into the site. Soil being removed in the creation of the new wetlands will be removed from the site through the existing road. The existing road to the new wetlands will eventually be blocked off. #18: Compared the original application, the impervious surface has been reduced by approximately 10%. #19: Mr. Logan stated that he feels that the wetlands north of the CL&P right of way are adequately protected from any development. #24 & #25 have been addressed in the REMA Report. #30 has been covered by the revised plans. #32: The Integrated Pest Management Guidelines are now listed as a Plan, not guidelines, updated to May, 2006. “Soft” language has been eliminated. Mr. Logan gave a brief example of steps to be used for fertilizer application. #33: A baseline water quality monitoring plan and construction water quality monitoring plan has been taken from the first application and added to the current application. Agent Poirot asked for an explanation of the erosion and sediment control monitoring program during construction. Mr. Logan explained that the developer is required to bring in a professional who will responsible to have conditions over and above what the D.E.P. requires. The D.E.P. requires inspections on storms over 1”. The plans require monitoring on an “as needed” basis by an independent person, possibly someone from REMA. There will be a standard form from which the contractor has 48 hours to respond to items listed on the report. The contractor must initial the form to show he is aware of the condition and then initial again, once the work has been completed. The Erosion Control Monitor will work together with Town staff. Dr. Priscilla Bailey of Marine & Freshwater Services spoke to the Agency on behalf of the applicant. She gave her professional background. She was asked to give an unbiased view of potential impact to the lake from the proposed development. She visited the lake and proposed development site on May 15, 2006. She briefly reviewed her report with the Agency members. She noted that 57% of the site will be preserved as open space and trees along the lake will remain, acting as a buffer. The applicant has selected the narrowest areas of the wetlands for crossings. She looked at the characteristics of the lake and watershed. The lake is shallow, relative to its area. The watershed analysis by Baystate Environmental showed a 3.4% increase in residential use of the watershed. The Lake is eutrophic, having many nutrients and has been this way for years. Ms. Bailey added that she does not feel the nutrient data is complete. She also stated that there are 3 problems with residential subdivisions – storm water, nutrients, and septic systems. The proposed development will be serviced by public sewers. She felt that the REMA report was well thought out to protect the lake and feels that the specifics of the fertilization program are important, as is the use of non-phosphorous fertilizers. Also, the development will have one professional landscaper instead of numerous companies using various products. The location of the detention basins allow for renovation of the outflow as it travels 120’ to 160’ through natural vegetation to the lake. Erosion is the main way that phosphorous enters bodies of water. Ms. Bailey feels that the precautions listed in the plans will protect the lake from erosion during and after construction. She also feels the impacts to the wetlands are minor, given the size of the site. She referred to page six of her report which lists a summary of typical recommendations. Agent Poirot asked what percentage is the site of the total watershed. Ms. Bailey stated that she had not done a calculation but that the watershed is 1,200+/- acres and the site is 96 acres. Agent Poirot asked how do the 2 streams on site entering the Lake compare to Jawbuck Brook. Ms. Bailey stated that Jawbuck Brook is a large stream. Turn over time of the lake is approximately 28 days. The feeder brooks are not large streams. She added that because she was not looking for any springs on the site, she is not sure if any exist. Agent Poirot asked if Ms. Bailey felt that the proposed measures would address “first flush” runoff. Ms. Bailey responded that she is unsure how the basins function but feels that the engineers would design them to renovate the water. Agent Poirot asked if Ms. Bailey had any sense of the trend of the lake. Ms. Bailey responded that all lakes are in the process of turning into wetlands but it can take hundreds or thousands of years. Mankind's activities and influence can accelerate this. She added that she is not a fan of grass carp because they don’t remove anything from the system. Agent Arnone noted that Baystate Environmental found no nitrogen but high phosphorous levels. Ms. Bailey stated that there was only 1 sample taken. It may be correct or that the plants used all of the nitrogen. REMA had different results but again, only one sample was taken. Agent Arnone asked if long term sampling is needed. Ms. Bailey responded that it should be sampled at least once per month, May through September, in addition to samples being taken from the brook. Agent Szewczak noted that the two largest concerns are fertilizer and storm water. He asked if there is any method for the first planting of grass that would need less fertilizer. Ms. Bailey stated that she would defer the answer to Mr. Logan. Agent Szewczak then asked about the vegetated basins, wondering if they should have large clumps of grass and shrubs to minimize the effects of nutrients in the water. Ms. Bailey responded that no plantings are necessary. The natural vegetation will be fine. The water will disburse whatever nutrients are in it, whether it be into soils, forest or plants. Agent Szewczak expressed concern that at some point the area would be “full” of nutrients, unable to accept more and asked if anything could be done to ensure improvement of absorption of the nutrients. Ms. Bailey responded that she did not think so. The additional nutrients would likely just make larger plants. Some plants are better at accepting nutrients, such as phragmite or cattails, but these are invasives. She feels it is best to let nature choose which plants are best. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if Ms. Bailey has had any experience with the use of flock logs. Ms. Bailey responded that she has not, but they sound like a good idea. Mr. Logan responded to Agent Szewczak’s questions regarding the lawns. He stated that the start up can be a problem. Soil tests will be done and specific types of grass that do not require a lot of fertilizer will be chosen. The front yards will have sod. Also, he feels that the natural soils are better and the existing plants with root systems already in place are better for the basins. He added that the D.E.P. is requiring use of flock logs on a project that he is working on in another town. They must be placed in flowing water.
Attorney Amy Blaymore Patterson and Mark Goodin from Meehan & Goodin, representing Shaker Pines Lake Association, made their presentation. Ms. Patterson noted that the report by Baystate Environmental shows that the efforts of the Lake Association have moderated conditions, but not reversed the eutrophic condition. She stated that the conclusions by the applicant that the proposed development will have no impact are based on assumptions. Dr. Bailey could make assumptions only on the information that was provided to her. Mr. Mark Goodin of Meehan & Goodin in Manchester provided a report and reviewed his findings on the proposed plans. He noted that the developer will need to take care of erosion caused by the development as well as storm water quality and detention issues. Mr. Goodin stated that his report and presentation utilize the 2002 Erosion Control Manual and the 2004 Storm water Quality Manual. Mr. Goodin noted that this is a sensitive area and Best Management Practices should be followed. Mr. Goodin stated that he made copies of the applicant’s plans and has numbered them as M6 through M33. On M6 he noted several problems. There are no drainage calculations shown for wetland E. Even 2 to 3 cfs could be meaningful. Sediment structure A should be sized to the Guidelines and should be off-line. Complete calculations were not done and primary treatment was not addressed. Only secondary and outlet treatments were addressed. Also, there are no calculations for the rip rap at the outlets and level spreaders were not correctly used. Mr. Goodin referred to the ERT report noting that total suspended solids should meet the 80% recommendations; no calculations were provided and should not be done basin by basin but by the entire 40 acre project area because some of the drainage will not end up in the basins. He noted one instance where one common driveway will service 5 homes and all of the runoff from these homes will cross the road. This will be a safety issue in the winter, requiring sand and/or other treatment. Also, a 2:1 slope enters a critical habitat in the north end of the common drive. The open space easement should be permanently staked. He went on to say that although the applicant stayed out of the areas that had species or habitat of special concern, the ERT Report states that 100’ buffer is not enough for breeding pools and recommended at least a 750’ buffer. He added that the ERT team noted that they would make themselves available to review the final plans. Mr. Goodin suggested that catch basins be used on page 6 instead of drainage crossing the road. On page M7, he referred to detention basins B1 & B2. These are to be used as primary treatment and as detention basins. The Manual states that a dry basin has no removal of pollutants. These basins have a piped outlet and calculations show 1.3’ volume to be available for treatment but it is highly likely that it will not be available due to the water table. He also noted the importance of knowing where the water table is. These basins have no test pits to show low and high water table. The basins are sized for detention but not for water quality. The forebay should have a permanent pool of water, 4’ to 6’ deep. Basins have a 2” outlet which is considered sub standard. The Guidelines state the importance of maintenance of the basins and they should have an access drive for ease of maintenance. If the basins are to be pumped regularly, the plans should state where and how it is to be done. For the rip rap outlets, the plans show that they are 35’ long but no details are provided. The Manual states that over flows should have a 20’ to 25’ spillway at a minimum. The plans show the over flows as only 3’ wide. On page M8 there is no rip rap to prevent erosion in the steep area at the wetland crossing on Westgate Drive and no calculations to show velocity into the wetlands. Basin C has no rip rap and a 4” outlet pipe, which Mr. Goodin feels is too small. This basin calls for a level spreader but the slope is too steep. The drainage calculations are not valid due to the unknown water table level. He suggested use of gate valves or basins as opposed to pumping. This basin also needs roadway access. Mr. Goodin went on to say that he feels there are many alternatives that are not addressed in the plans. He also suggested that Basin C be moved, and moving the outlet to the new planned culvert, otherwise erosion materials could enter the lake. Page M9 shows rain gardens but should be shown on both the grading and utilities plans. For infiltration Basin D, there are no calculations, no design standards. The plans show grading into 100’ of the buffer. Also, level spreaders are not appropriate at this location due to the slope. In addition, the ERT noted the possibility of dwarf bulrush along the shore, which drainage could impact. Sheet M10 shows infiltration basin F but no calculations are provided. It also has a steep slope and the water table level is unknown. He added that 3 of the planned rain gardens are on a 4:1 slope, which is not appropriate. He suggested moving the basin and piping the drainage. On Sheet M23, he feels that the rain garden plans are not specific enough and do not include square footage, number or size of plants or permeability tests. Regarding the plantings for Basin C, they are shown as a 1’ depth from the bottom to the outlet pipe. Also, only 70 plants are shown. This size basin should have over 300 plants. Sheet M25, Stonegate Drive needs design guidelines for the temporary sediment basin. It should hold 134 c.f. per acre of disturbed area. It is unclear how the water will drain into the wetlands. Inlet and outlet details are needed. Sheet M28 there are not any hay bales shown at the low spots of the road during construction at all 3 wetland crossings. Because Basin D is an infiltration type, it cannot be used as a temporary sediment basin. Mr. Goodin asked how where water will flow during construction and how will water from phase 4 construction be treated. Sheet M30 is a narrative, but incomplete and not comprehensive. Mr. Goodin feels that separate narratives are needed for each phase, house construction and the construction sequence. Also, there is no mention of a pre-construction meeting or tree cutting meeting. Also, the plans should show emergency procedures. The trench dewatering filter detail is incorrect. Sheet M31 has storm basin details. The details show 2’ sumps but the plans show deep sumps. They are also not sized correctly for the areas in which they will be placed. Sheet M32, Mr. Goodin feels that the notes are not specific enough regarding de-watering and leaves other items up to interpretation. He also feels more erosion and sediment controls are needed at the bridge construction area. Sheet M33 deals with post construction notes. Mr. Goodin feels that more detail is needed and the notes do not follow the Storm water Quality Guidelines. MG100 show storm drainage calculations, showing no increase of runoff in 3 areas, but 4 other areas need calculations. He suggested use of TR20 method instead of the Rational Method for the drainage calculations. He stated that the Guidelines recommend use of TR20 or TR50 instead of the Rational Method. He referred to the appendix in his report as the basis for his preceding comments. Mr. Goodin added that the project should be inspected weekly for one year, not only after 1” or greater rain storms. Mr. Goodin concluded that he feels that the existing conditions were not analyzed, creating unknown conditions of infiltration, capacity, location of species of concern, and that there are no calculations for some areas. He feels also that not all alternatives have been explored. Ms. Patterson stated that in the interest of time, she would be willing to wait until the next meeting to share her closing comments if the hearing is not closed this evening. Ms. Olson stated that the applicant had not received a copy of Mr. Goodin’s report until this evening and would respond after the public comment portion of the hearing. At this time, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall opened the hearing to public comment. No one in the audience came forward to speak in favor of the application. Mr. Silva, president of Dartmoor Condominium Association spoke against the project. He provided photos of the site taken after heavy rains during the past few days. He stated that the developer has a right of way to the site but access will ruin the existing cul de sac. He noted that one existing pond doesn’t show on the maps and that there are also 2 new ponds that have recently developed. He believes that sump pumps would run constantly and that development of the site would bring more water problems to the area. Mr. “Reg” Leonard of 42 Fairfield Road also spoke against the project. He feels the IWWA is a critical board and that state regulations and guidelines should be followed for all development. Mike Niewola of 57 West Shore Drive is also opposed. There needs to be more study done before anything can be considered. Ms. Pat Holden of 67 West Shore Drive stated that she finally received her registered mail notice of the public hearing. She is still against the project. Mr. Guy Beck of 139 Cottage Road stated that in the 8 years he has lived there, his front yard has been under water more than once, in what was considered to be a 30-50 year flood event. In October, 2005, he had 2’ of water in his basement. This is a sensitive watershed and he hopes that the IWWA takes this into account in its decision. He is against the application. Ms. Laurie Parker of 105 Cottage Road is also opposed. She is concerned for the lake, vegetation and animals. She feels due diligence is needed for the lake and all of the residents on the lake. Mr. Levitz of Dartmoor Condominiums suggested that members of the IWWA visit the site at Westview Drive to see the water in the residents’ back yards. Ms. Lisa LaCombe of 143 Cottage Road, secretary of the Shaker Pines Lake Association spoke on behalf of other members that were not able to attend tonight’s meeting. She read into the record three letters, which were then given to Mr. Angus for the permanent record. The first letter was from Darlene Duga of 44 Cottage Road and in opposition of the project. Ms. Duga also included photos. The second letter was from Mike and Maureen Sullivan of 137 Cottage Road. They have lived on the lake for 30 years and vehemently opposed to the project. The third letter was from Jessica Duga of 101 Cottage Road. She also is strongly opposed to the development and asked who would guarantee the quality of life with the development and guarantee that there would be no effects to wildlife, the lake and basements. She asked the IWWA to deny the application. Ms. LaCombe added that she too is in opposition of the project. Ms. Denise Petula of 57 Jondot Drive stated that she enjoys lake life and doesn’t want to see the area destroyed by development. Ms. Lorraine Creedon of 57 Cottage Road expressed concern over the amount of runoff. She never has dry land in the rear of her home anymore and fears conditions will worsen after development. Mr. Vincent DiMauro of Dartmoor Condominiums also expressed opposition to the development. He stated “the site is a swamp”. Ms. Maureen Butler of 69 West Shore Drive stated that she wanted to go on record as disagreeing with the development. The development will push ATV users onto even more sensitive land. After another opportunity by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall for anyone in favor or in opposition to speak, no one in the audience came forward and the public comment portion of the hearing was closed. Ms. Olson stated that she feels it unfortunate that members of the Lake Association have refused to meet with the applicant and requested an extension to the Agency’s next regular meeting on June 6, 2006. She provided the extension request in writing. Mr. Angus noted additional exhibits, numbered 23 through 35 added to the record: REMA Report dated 5/11/06, Bailey Report, Staff Report of 5/16/06, Engineer’s memo dated 5/16/06, Intervener Request, IW#447, 3 drawings submitted by the Intervener, Intervener’s Report, Dartmoor photos, photos from 1345 Cottage Road, letters read by Ms. LaCombe, Hearing continuation notice and letter requesting extension by the applicant. A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Poirot to accept the request for extension. Vote was 7-0-0. At 10:39 p.m., a motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Wawer to continue IW#460 to the meeting of June 6, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Enfield Room. Vote was 7-0-0.
5. Close public hearing portion of meeting: A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent LeMay to close the public hearing portion of the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Vote was 7-0-0.
REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to Order: The regular meeting was called to order at 10:42 p.m. by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall.
2. Roll Call: Present were: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, LeMay, Poirot, Szewczak, Tallarita and Wawer.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Wawer to move to Agenda item 9 and then take up the regular order of the agenda. Vote was 7-0-0.
9. Old Business
IW#460 - Stonegate Associates - Proposed 76-Unit Senior Residential Development involving excavation, filling re-grading 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; MPHCD May 23, 2006] A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Tallarita to table discussion on IW#460 to the meeting of June 6, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Enfield Room. Vote was 7-0-0.
IW#462 - Anthony Spazzarini - Proposed New House Construction involving grading and placement of structures within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located on the north side of Elm Avenue (Map 59 Lot 70) Zoned R-33 [Submitted April 26, 2006; Received May 2, 2006; PPE May 16, 2006] Mr. Spazzarini represented the applicant. He stated that the house will not have footing drains because it is not required based on the group soil type at the site. He added that a few trees will need to be cut beyond the planned 20’ yard clearing limit. He will adhere to the 20’ limit except where the trees need to be removed. They were damaged by other trees falling on them. It is unclear if the house can be moved forward because of Planning & Zoning requirements. He is planning to build 38’ from the street, one foot closer to the road than the neighboring house. In response to a comment by Agent Szewczak, Mr. Spazzarini agreed that the lot is small, only 99’ deep. No topsoil will be stockpiled. Sand removed from the cellar hole will be contained. Roof leaders will be haybaled until the area is stabilized with grass. Mr. Angus distributed aerial photos taken in 2004 of the site. No comments have been received from Engineering department yet, but Mr. Angus has addressed this in his suggested conditions of approval. At this time (10:58 p.m.), a motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Wawer to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. Vote was 7-0-0. In response to a statement made by Mr. Spazzarini, Mr. Angus stated that the town map showed wetlands for this site but that it is only advisory in nature. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if a deck would be built onto the house. Mr. Spazzarini stated that one is not planned. Agency members discussed proposed condition #12. Mr. Angus explained that removing 2 individual trees is not considered clear cutting but the stumps should not be removed. Mr. Spazzarini explained that leaving the stump could be a problem because the trees were partially pushed over by the other trees landing on them. The roots are now partially exposed. He plans on having them grinded in place. He also noted that part of the lot is bare due to it being used as a playground area. Members discussed use of a conservation seed mix in this area. Agent Szewczak suggested moving the erosion and sediment controls to follow the limits of disturbance across the rear of the lot, making it 17’ from the property line. This would leave 20’ of lawn and allow for seeding of the bare spot and removal of the 2 damaged trees, but no other disturbance beyond the silt fence. A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Wawer to approve IW#462 with the 10 standard conditions in addition to the following conditions 11-17 as modified:
11. All engineering comments and concerns must be addressed by the applicant prior to the commencement of construction activities;
12. Limits of clearing are to extend a maximum of 20 feet to the north. Erosion and sediment controls are to be placed 17' from the rear property line to contain the exposed site. Two additional trees and stumps discussed can be removed beyond these limits. Revised plans shall be submitted to show this prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit;
13. Any temporary stockpiling on-site must be within the approved limits of clearing and contained with the proper erosion and sediment controls;
14. 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;
15. Roof leader and footing drain outlets must discharge to an area within the approved limits of disturbance and outlets must be permanently stabilized. All exposed areas must be permanently stabilized prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the Certificate of Occupancy;
16. Prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit, a note shall be placed on the plans notifying property owners of the regulated areas. The note shall read "Portions of this lot are within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Any proposed activity (land clearing, excavation, filling, regrading and/or placement of structures) 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) within this regulated area will also constitute a violation of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations";
17. With the exception of the additional items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with Site Plan entitled "Plot Plan, Lots 68-70 Elm Avenue Prepared for Tony Spazzarini, Enfield, Conn."; Sheet 1 of 1, dated 9-30-05, revised 4-14-06; 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 Permit Modification or Determination of Permit Need (Jurisdictional Ruling).
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. A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Wawer to enter into executive session with Mr. Angus at 11:14 p.m. to discuss pending litigation. Vote was 6-0-1(Tallarita). Agent Tallarita left the meeting for the evening due to a conflict. Members came out of executive session at 11:30 p.m. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that no decisions were made or votes taken during executive session.
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Poirot to extend the meeting to 11:40 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Arnone to dispense with agenda items 4, 5, and 6. Vote was 6-0-0. There were no members of the audience present.
4. Public Participation - Issues of concern not on the agenda.
5. Correspondence.
6. Commissioner’s Correspondence.
7. Approval of Minutes -- May 2, 2006 Meeting: After brief review, a motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Wawer to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 2, 2006 as presented. Vote was 6-0-0.
8. Wetlands Agent Report – April 13, 2006 through May 10, 2006: There were no comments or questions by Agency members regarding the Agent’s Report.
10. New Business
None.
11. Other Business
None.
• Next regular meeting is Tuesday, June 6, 2006 at 7:00PM in the Enfield Room.
12. Adjourn: A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Arnone to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 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: 5/18/2006 3:07:51 PM
|
|
|