|
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Meeting
INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency was held on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 in the Enfield Room, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall, Chairperson
Thomas Arnone
Frank Poirot
Richard Szewczak
Robie Staples
David J. Wawer
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert LeMay
Michael Mosschetti
Louis V. Tallarita
ALSO PRESENT: Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent
Susan Berube, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall at 7:31 p.m.
2. Pledge Allegiance to the Flag:
The Pledge of Allegiance was not recited as there was no flag in the room.
3. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, Poirot, Staples, Szewczak, and Wawer. Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
4. Hearings:
Continuation of IW#451 - Jeff Filiault - Proposed house and associated site improvements involving a proposed wetland crossing and additional regulated activities in and within 100 feet of wetlands. Property located on Second Avenue (Map 36 Lot 311) Zoned R-33 [Submitted November 22, 2005; Received November 29, 2005; PPE December 13, 2005; MPHCD January 17, 2006; MPHAD 35 days from the closing date of the hearing.]
Mr. Jeff Filiault represented the applicant. Mr. Filiault presented certified mail receipts for the remaining abutter and the Connecticut Water Company. He also presented a letter dated 1/11/06 from the Connecticut Water Company,which stated that the proposed home will have no impact on Connecticut Water Company resources.
A report from Michael Gragnolati was submitted as required in Section C of the Public Hearing portion of the application.
Mr. Filiault reviewed the revised plans and stated that the stockpile has been moved, the line of clearing has been moved up by 15’ to be further from the wetlands, and the proposed pool is eliminated at this time.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that a new application will be required should the applicant wish to install the pool at a later date.
Mr. Angus noted that the revised plans were dated January 12, 2006 but do not show the revisions mentioned by Mr. Filiault. The only change in the new plans, from the ones submitted on 10/20/05 are the change to the locations of the dry wells, moving of the stockpile, and additional mitigative plantings at the wetland crossing.
Mr. Angus also noted that the Agency had questioned the watershed area. Mr. Angus submitted an aerial photo showing the general drainage patterns in the area surrounding the subject site.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall clarified with Mr. Filiault his intent to remove the pool from the plans and to move the line of clearing away from the wetlands by 15’. She noted that a larger buffer, of at least 50’ would be preferable.
Agent Staples agreed.
Agent Szewczak noted that the intent is to buffer the wetlands from any activity.
Mr. Filiault stated that the proposed pool would have been within 50’ of the house, leaving plenty of room for a yard. He does not intend to clear any further, nearer the wetlands.
Agent Szewczak noted that the current plans show a relatively large front yard and suggested maneuvering the position of the proposed house so that the back yard could be larger and the front yard, smaller.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall added that the Engineer and Soil Scientist stated that the wetland in the front is smaller and less valuable than the one located at the rear of the property.
Mr. Filiault stated that he would prefer to move the house toward the front since it would require a shorter driveway. The front is basically a field.
Agent Szewczak then noticed a discrepancy on the plans. The plans show the regulated area buffer line to be only 50’ from the wetlands, instead of the required 100’.
Mr. Angus reviewed the 1/11/06 letter from Mr. Gragnolati. The letter recommends a conservation easement as opposed to mitigation. Phragmites would likely invade any mitigation area.
The applicant would have preferred coming through Falcon Crest which would have kept any disturbance out of the regulated areas. The request was denied by Town Council due to uncertainty of ownership of the right of way.
Mr. Angus also noted that a memo from the Engineering Department was received that states that their concerns to this point have been addressed but more detail would be needed for a building permit.
Mr. Filiault noted that in light of the plans showing only a 50’ buffer line, correction of the lines to the 100’ mark would allow virtually no build able area outside the regulated area. Moving the house substantially would require 2 wetland crossings as opposed to the existing one planned.
Agency members explained to Mr. Filiault that if the applicant returned at a future date to request a permit for a pool, leaving the house where it is would leave no backyard beyond the pool. The plans could be adjusted to move the house forward. Because of construction taking place within the regulated area, certain protective measures would need to be addressed. In order to accomplish this, the public hearing could be extended by up to 65 days if requested by the applicant.
Agent Poirot suggest that the applicant request the 65 day extension and possibly find ownership of the right of way in question or adjust the plans to move the house forward .
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall explained that the development can be done within the regulated area, but there will be limitations. It would be better to move the house forward since the front wetlands have little value as their water supply has been cut off. This would allow a larger buffer in the back yard. Moving the house forward by 10 or 15’ would allow a 50’ buffer and a 30 to 40’ useable rear yard.
The proposed mitigation area was briefly discussed. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that it may be counter productive, by encouraging invasive species.
Agent Szewczak agreed, stating his preference of a conservation easement and additional plantings being made along the wetland crossing.
At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment.
No one in the audience came forward to speak for or against this application.
Mr. Filiault submitted his written request to extend the public hearing by up to 65 days.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Staples to accept Mr. Filiault’s request to hold the public hearing open for IW#451 for up to 65 days. Vote was 6-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Poirot to continue IW#451 to the meeting of 2/7/06 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers. Vote was 6-0-0.
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 conflict of interest.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall outlined procedures for public hearing participation.
Mr. Jeff Bord, Engineer for the Town of Enfield, represented the applicant.
Mr. Bord presented certified mail receipts for abutting property owners.
He also distributed copies of the proposed work to Agency members.
Mr. Bord explained that the heavy rains in October required that the Public Works Department open the channel on an emergency basis.
The watershed is a total of 2,500 acres. The area within the work area encompasses 250 acres of the watershed.
The channel area to be worked on is 800’ long along Broadleaf Lane and under Meadow Brook Dr.
In October, the channel was cleaned out enough to get the water flowing. The materials removed from the channel were left on the sides.
The channel has a slope of ½%.
18” of rip rap will be installed over 6” of stone, which will be over geo-textile materials within the channel. The side of the slopes will have a 2:1 pitch. The sides will be loamed, seeded and covered with hay blankets in the disturbed areas. A more complete set of plans will be available at the Agency’s next meeting.
Work will commence in the spring, 2006.
In response to questions by Agent Poirot, Mr. Bord stated that there is at least a small trickle in the channel, year round. Storm drains from Route 5 empty into it. He will include a construction sequence for Agency review.
In response to a question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Bord stated that the meandering of the channel will not be changed. The channel will remain within the current lines.
Mr. Bord also explained that the photos taken November 17, 2005 are still accurate. Hay bales still block water trying to enter the channel. The bales were placed on the sides of the channels to keep the excavated materials from falling back into the channel. The plans will show how the site will be accessed at 59 Meadowlark and 61 Broadleaf Lane in order to remove the excavated materials.
Agent Szewczak asked if the existing grades of the rear yard will be changed.
Mr. Bord explained that only the materials placed there during the cleaning of the channel will be removed. The land will be sloped to the top of the channel so as not to flow back into the residents’ properties.
The elevations from the rear yards to the swale will remain approximately the same as they currently exist.
The channel currently has the capacity of 65 cfs for a 10 year storm.
Mr. Angus noted the email he had sent to Mr. Kazmarski regarding the hay bales and erosion concerns.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked about long term liability and maintenance and how long the channel will function as intended. Are the catch basins being upgraded to keep out silt?
Mr. Bord stated that the channel, prior to October, had probably never been cleaned since it was built. Catch basins need to be cleaned more frequently in that area. The Town is not proposing any drainage improvements to that area at this time. If this project does not happen, eventually erosion would occur and allow sediment to go into Beemans Brook and then into the Connecticut River.
The rip rap that will be installed will interlock and become permanent.
Temporary easements are currently being procured. Possibly a 20’ permanent easement will need to be established along the meandering of the channels so that the Town will have access for future cleaning. This may require the removal of some trees. Disturbed areas would be planted with seed mix.
At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment.
Ms. Clair Daigle of 55 Meadowlark Dr. spoke in favor of the proposed project. She noted that nothing has been done to the brook since 1958. Her only concern is that of the crossing of Meadowlark Dr. The trash rack there becomes clogged and backs the water up into the yards. Water does flow in the channel year round.
Mr. Patrick Sharon of 57 Yale Drive also spoke in favor. He showed photos taken in 1989 at which time there was flooding. The trash rack was installed after that flood. He noted that erosion is already occurring. He did express concern over the paperwork to be signed by the owners. This is being required by the Town to hold the town harmless.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall directed Mr. Sharon to speak with the Town Manager’s Office regarding the paperwork issue. It is not a wetlands issue.
Mr. Sharon also noted that the channel has further problems, outside of the area shown on the plans.
Ms. Sharon Roberto of 49 Yale Drive asked where her property is shown on the map.
Mr. Bord showed her that it is outside of the limits of the proposed work and will likely be addressed at some point in the future.
Ms. Roberto had no further comments.
Mr. Walter Sjoka of 61 Yale Drive was against the project. He feels that the plans are not complete and are lacking in detail. This was the worst flood that he’s seen in his 34 years of living in the neighborhood. The end of his property is a drop off – there is no slope.
Agent Poirot asked Mr. Sjoka for suggestions to a solution.
Mr. Sjoka had none.
Agent Szewczak asked if the bend needs reinforcement to dissipate the energy.
Mr. Sjoka agreed that either the culvert needs to be made larger, or the water slowed down. He has seen it 13” deep and 60’ wide at times.
Agent Wawer asked for Mr. Sjoka’s professional background.
Mr. Sjoka replied that he is a professional mechanic.
Agent Szewczak suggested that perhaps a fence at the end of the property could be installed as a safety feature.
Ms. Marilyn Hart of 55 Yale Drive spoke neutrally.
She noted that a pond has been created in her backyard due to the materials being left on the side of the channel, preventing water from flowing into the channel. A storage shed has floated off of the foundation. Also, when the Town’s trucks came through, they left large ruts in her yard.
Mr. Michael McCormick of 63 Broadleaf Lane spoke against the project. He noted that his property has flooded 3 times. 1/3 of his yard has been destroyed and he fears that more will be taken.
Agent Poirot asked if Mr. McCormick had any suggestions for a solution.
Mr. McCormick suggested that a large pipe be installed at the other end. He feels the channel can’t handle the increased water flow.
Agent Poirot noted that the Town cannot not do anything.
Mr. McCormick expressed frustration that the Town only acted as a reaction, not pro-actively.
Agent Szewczak asked if there is significant erosion where the water takes a right hand turn.
Mr. McCormick stated that there was never much flow there – it was more like a swamp. He agrees that something needs to be done but feels this proposal is not the solution.
No one else in the audience came forward to speak on this application.
Mr. Bord explained that a flood study was done on Beemans Brook in 1990 in response to the flooding in 1989. A 72” pipe takes Beemans Brook down behind the development. Improvements have been made in 3 phases since 1990.
The inlet and outlet have been improved to be able to handle a 20-25 year storm flow. Larger intensity flows will still flow over yards, onto the street and into the channel.
A proposed phase 4 will be for a permanent detention basin for 50 and 100 year storm flows. This could be accomplished by purchasing flooding rights to farm fields located further up route 5. Drainage would be diverted there during large storm events.
Mr. Bord continued to explain, stating that the proposed project is to improve drainage for a 20 year storm. Anything larger will still create too much water for the 72” pipe because of the size of the watershed draining into it. But there will be no erosion, once the rip rap is installed.
Also, in regards to the curve, the center line will be moved away from the resident’s yard. It will remain a steep slope, as it has for years. He showed a 1958 topography map, showing the same elevations at that spot. More detailed plans will be made available to residents and the agency as soon as they are complete. Only 4’ of the channel will be armored. The remainder of the slope will be seeded.
Agent Szewczak asked if erosion will occur at the top of the armored area during high flow.
Mr. Bord stated that he check to see if there are any special grasses that could be planted.
Agent Szewczak asked if some sort of mesh could be installed to make sure there is no erosion.
Mr. Bord will also look into that possibility.
Regarding the ruts, Mr. Bord stated that the property will be back bladed, hand raked and re-seeded.
Regarding a fence at the top of the slope, this has not been a Town issue. The property owner could consider installing a fence, however the Public Works Department would not want to start a precedent by installing one. Also, the Town does not wish to consider piping in the channel.
Mr. Bord reviewed his objectives for the Agency’s next meeting. He stated that he will draw up a construction sequence, finish the plans to be shown to residents, and obtain easements.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall opened the hearing for public comment again.
Mr. Chris Orefice of 43 Meadowlark Dr. spoke neutrally. He stated that his property is at the curve. He wonders what will be done where the pipe comes out of Meadowlark. There is a great deal of erosion there.
Mr. Bord responded that it will be treated the same as the rest of the project. Materials will be removed that were taken from the channel. Water will still overflow until phase 4 is complete.
Mr. Angus recommended that the public hearing be held open to allow Engineering a chance to submit the new information as part of the hearing record.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Poirot to continue IW#453 to the meeting of February 7, 2006 in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. Vote was 5-0-0.
5. Close Public Hearing portion of meeting
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Poirot to close the public hearing portion of the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Vote was 5-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Poirot to hold a brief recess. Vote was 5-0-0.
REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall at 10:03 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, Poirot, Staples, Szewczak, and Wawer. Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Arnone to amend the agenda, taking Agenda items nine and ten prior to items three through eight. Vote was 6-0-0.
9. Old Business
IW#447 - Stonegate Associates - Proposed 85-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 September 14, 2005; Received September 20, 2005; PPE October 4, 2005; Public Hearing Closed on December 13, 2005; MPHAD January 17, 2006.]
Agent Staples stated that although he missed the meeting of December 13, 2005, he has read the minutes of that meeting and related materials and feels he can make an informed decision on this application.
Agent Arnone stated that he did not feel prepared to make an informed decision on this application, recused himself, and left the meeting room.
Mr. Angus briefly reviewed the Agents Report and possible conditions of approval/reasons for denial for consideration. He also noted that members had been provided with a copy of section 10 of the Town’s regulations – “Considerations for Decision”.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked members if they felt that feasible and prudent alternatives exist.
Agent Poirot voiced his opinion that they do. He expressed concern over how the buildable property has been used, crowding it to the limit. He feels a better plan is possible, with larger buffers on the outer reaches of development and fewer roads.
Agent Szewczak agreed and added that the density has an impact on the wetlands and watercourses and forces the detention basins to be in certain locations.
He also had a problem with the plan to fill in wetlands without mitigation and felt that there were alternatives to the wetland crossings, especially 26-31.
Also, some of the units require footing drains. While some unit elevations were raised, less density of units could mean that none of the units would need to be built where footing drains might be necessary.
Agent Wawer had no comment.
Agent Staples stated that his biggest concern is drainage to the lake. The lake is in bad shape now. Flooding occurred a few months ago from a not-very-large storm. He doesn’t see where drainage from the proposed development will go.
The project is large and there is a great deal of wetland on the site. Drainage has a tendency go where we don’t think it will. The applicant proposes using sump pumps but Agent Staples suggested that people might not want to buy a new home with problems already existing. He added that perhaps the whole project is in the wrong place.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that she reviewed in particular sheet #2 of 33 which shows the whole project with all of the units, but not the infiltration or detention basins, which she drew in. She came to the same conclusion as the other members.
The project is too dense. It forces detention to regulated areas and the outlets are too close to the lake. If some units were eliminated, the detention could be moved. The concept is probably a good use for the property with less impact to the wetlands, by having an association as opposed to individual ownership with younger families.
The ERT recommended that no encroachment of the detention basins be within a minimum of 50’ of the wetlands. This could be accomplished with fewer units.
Also, shorter streets would limit impact and the wetland crossing could be redesigned to maintain connectivity.
She added that the lake has been degraded. The Lake Association has provided documents to show the work done by them to try to improve conditions. No further degradation is needed. There are still water quality issues, sand filter berms for storm water filtration, and the pest management plan needs to be firmed up.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall’s major concern is the scope of the project and the resulting impact to wetlands and watercourses. If some of the units were eliminated, possibly one of the three detention basins could also be eliminated. There are three impacts within close proximity to one watercourse.
Agent Szewczak made a motion to deny IW#447 without prejudice.
It is a good plan but needs work and to take into consideration the density issues and wetlands being filled and recognize the impact to the lake, and improve these situations.
Seconded by Agent Poirot. Vote was 4-1(Wawer)-0. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall added that there are other prudent and feasible alternatives as outlined by members prior to the vote.
IW#451 - Jeff Filiault - Proposed house and associated site improvements involving a proposed wetland crossing and additional regulated activities in and within 100 feet of wetlands. Property located on Second Avenue (Map 36 Lot 311) Zoned R-33 [Submitted November 22, 2005; Received November 29, 2005; PPE December 13, 2005; MPHCD January 17, 2006; MPHAD 35 days from the closing date of the hearing.]
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Poirot to table discussion on IW#451 until the meeting of February 7, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 6-0-0.
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.]
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Staples to table discussion on IW#451 until the meeting of February 7, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 5-0-1 (Arnone).
IW#454 - Paganelli Construction - Proposed wetland reclamation involving filling, excavation and grading in and within 100 feet of wetlands (enforcement file). Property located at 60 Weymouth Road (Map 49 Lot 4); Zoned R-44 [Submitted December 7, 2005; Received December 13, 2005; PPE December 27, 2005; MAD February 16, 2006.]
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that she received a letter from Michael Gragnolati, soil scientist for the applicant.
Mr. Gragnolati asked that the Agency table discussion of this application to the next meeting. Snow cover has prevented Mr. Gragnolati from inspecting the area and developing a plan.
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Arnone to table discussion of IW#454 until the meeting of February 7, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 6-0-0.
IW#455 - Margaret R. Pappas - Proposed drainage improvements involving excavation and replacement of structures within 200 feet of the Connecticut River. Property located within the Parson Road Right of Way, 200 feet south of Bridge Lane (east of Map 10 Lot 9); Zoned R-33 [Submitted December 7, 2005; Received December 13, 2005; PPE December 27, 2005; MAD February 16, 2006.]
Agent Arnone stated that he has read the minutes of past meetings and reviewed related documents and feels he has enough information to make an informed decision on this application.
Mr. Tim Coon represented the applicant.
Mr. Coon briefly reviewed the project and plans. He stated that a DPN for this 15 lot subdivision was recently discussed by the IWWA and no permit was required.
The Planning and Zoning Commission has requested that the applicant provide drainage for a 50 year storm event. This will require improvements to the existing pipe on Parsons Road.
The pipe has the capacity for a 50 year storm event, however the inlet is too small. The applicant proposes to replace the 6’ section of pipe with a reducer with a 24” opening. It will be done within the road right-of-way. The limit of work will be within the road and wood bollards located at the edge of the road.
Town Engineer John Cabibbo has reviewed the plans and indicated that they meet the Planning & Zoning requirements. The project will need to be done during a dry period and should be completed within one day, with patching and repaving accomplished the following day.
Agent Arnone asked if the pipe has a steady flow.
Mr. Coon replied that it is fed by 2 catch basins and accepts flow from only 3 acres. The drainage eventually outflows onto bedrock at the river.
In response to another question by Agent Arnone, Mr. Coon stated that the pipe will be cleaned during construction to make sure that no rock, stone or other debris get in the pipe.
In response to a question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Coon responded that the sanitary sewer line has not been inspected, however it is constructed of cast iron and is very durable. The outfall was inspected. There have been no back ups to Mr. Coon’s knowledge.
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Wawer to approve IW#455 with the 10 standard conditions, in addition to the following:
11. Erosion and sediment controls must be installed and inspected by the wetlands agent prior to commencement of pipe replacement excavation;
12. No fill material is to be stockpiled beyond the limits of silt fence indicated on the plan. All disturbed areas must be permanently stabilized immediately;
13. With the exception of the addition of the items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with the Site Plans entitled "Drainage Improvement Plan Parsons Road" Sheet 1 of 1, dated 12/07/05, prepared by JR Russo and Associates, 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 06088. Any changes from the plan and any denial or regulated 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 6-0-0. Reason for approval was that the applicant has demonstrated that the project will not adversely affect wetlands and watercourses.
DPN 2005-12-12 - George Newman - Proposed 24' x 30' garage and 22'x 10' addition on a frostwall involving excavation within 100 feet of wetlands. Property located at 20 Vernon Road (Map 54 Lot 56); Zoned R-33 [Submitted December 12, 2005; Received December 13, 2005;]
Mr. George Newman represented the applicant.
Mr. Newman explained that he is proposing to build a 24’x30’ garage on a frost wall and exposed breezeway on a concrete slab at his property at 20 Vernon Road. He plans to keep the limit of construction within 4 to 5’ of the actual foundation.
Drainage will run to the street, over the driveway. Drainage from the rear of the building will run to a small manmade garden pond in the back yard.
During construction, the stockpile will be barricaded with hay bales and contained also within 5’ to 10’ of the proposed garage.
He added that the roof peak runs from front to back and the drainage will run underground to the garden pond in the rear and overland from the front leader.
The garage pitches 1 ½’ to 2’ to the rear of the property, with a gradual pitch.
In response to a question by Agent Szewczak, Mr. Newman stated that some of the excavated fill will be re-used by filling in a low area toward the neighbor’s property, allowing drainage to spread instead of pond.
Mr. Angus stated that the applicant should ensure that drainage is not directed onto adjacent property or into the wetlands.
Mr. Newman added that drainage will be directed towards the street and he will be doing the work himself; he is a contractor by trade. The work will be done in the summer. The street has a drainage system.
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Szewczak that DPN 2005-12-12 does not need an IWWA permit. Vote was 6-0-0.
At this time, a motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Wawer to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m. in order to complete remaining agenda items. Vote was 6-0-0.
IW#424.02 - Charles Mastroberti - Request for modification to previous approval for a single family development in and within 100 feet of wetlands. Property located on the south side of Weymouth Road (Map 16 Lot 40). Zoned R-33 [Submitted December 12, 2005; Received December 13, 2005; PPE December 27, 2005; MAD February 16, 2006.]
Charles Mastroberti represented the applicant.
Mr. Mastroberti explained that he is now proposing to use pavers, as was originally permitted. He will wait until summer to install them.
The millings were used in front of the garage and will not be used at the crossing.
The driveway currently consists of processed stone and millings and will not be paved at this time.
Agency members briefly reviewed the applicant’s plans.
Mr. Mastroberti went on to say that the millings are placed 20’ out in front of the garage, with processed stone over the millings, as well as processed stone down the entire driveway to the road. Paving will be done within 5 years.
Members discussed the fact that technically, since Mr. Mastroberti is intending to stay within the conditions of the previously approved application, there is no modification to the plans at this time.
Mr. Angus added that the only modification at this time is the addition of inspection of the fill which was condition #14 on the original application.
Members discussed the use of millings. Approximately 1” of millings have been placed on the driveway. Members discussed concerns of keeping the millings under the future pavement.
It was the consensus of the members that since the buffer is 30 to 40’ and there is only 1” of millings, there should be no harm to the wetlands.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Wawer to approve IW#424.02 with the original conditions and modification to condition #14 to add that the fill be inspected by June 30, 2006. Vote was 6-0-0.
10. New Business
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Szewczak to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
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; MAD March 23, 2006.]
Carl Nelson represented the applicant.
Mr. Nelson explained that the parcel is 5.4 acres, with one existing house and garage. Three new lots will be created. He plans to save as many trees as possible. The existing street is curbed and slopes to the west.
Agent Szewczak asked if the land has escarpment soils.
Mr. Nelson stated that he plans to install dry wells.
Members briefly reviewed the plans.
Agent Arnone expressed concern over erosion that could occur ten or fifteen years in the future because of the size of the slope, on lot #1.
Agent Szewczak agreed stating that the proposed construction may be too much for lot #1.
Mr. Nelson stated that the useable area of lot #1 is comparable to other lots in town.
Agent Szewczak replied that many other lots are more flat. This one has a slope and potential of failure. The proposed improvements would not give future owners much room in the rear yard.
Mr. Nelson expressed his willingness to enhance the safety of the lot such as a conservation easement, deed restrictions and use of a dry well.
Agent Wawer added that perhaps it would be best not to develop the lot at all.
Mr. Angus noted that the lots are not marked as escarpment soil but are historically filled so there is a potential for erosion and failure.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall agreed with the other Agency members, stating that Lot #1 is a problem waiting to happen. More than ½ of the proposed building area is within the regulated area and it is inevitable that future owners will dump debris down the slope. These will likely be smaller homes with a high turnover.
Mr. Nelson stated that he plans to build capes with approximately 2,000 square feet and a garage.
Agent Arnone asked if the building could be moved further away from the slope.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that the plans show the building lines and no room for change unless the lot configurations are changed.
Mr. Nelson stated that he would be willing to install a fence if that would make lot #1 buildable.
At this time, a motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Arnone to extend the meeting to 11:45 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Szewczak to hold a public hearing on IW#456 on February 7, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers because of the potential of significant impact.
Agent Poirot then asked if it would be wise to hold a public hearing when there is doubt on lot #1. If this lot were eliminated, there would still be an issue, but possibly not the need for a public hearing.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that it did not look like there is enough room on lot #1 to reconfigure it enough to make a significant change. Vote was 5-0-1(Wawer).
Mr. Nelson asked if there is a safe distance from the embankment.
Mr. Angus responded that usually a geo-technical investigation is done by a professional to determine that. The report the Agency has from Clarence Welti is used for general information concerning escarpment slopes.
IW#457 - Paul Maniscalchi - Proposed single family home involving excavation and placement of structures within 100 feet of Wetlands and Watercourses. Property located at 9 Mitchell Drive (Map 19 Lot 38); Zoned R-33 [Submitted January 11, 2006; Received January 17, 2006; PPE January 31, 2006; MAD March 23, 2006.]
Paul Maniscalchi represented the applicant. He plans to build a colonial style home. The soil scientist’s report has been submitted. Drainage calculations will be available at the Agency’s next meeting.
The Scientist’s report states that there are no wetland soils on the property, but it is within the regulated area of the detention basin installed by the Town on the adjacent property to the north.
The subject property is down hill from the basin so no runoff can go into the basin.
Agent Szewczak asked if a spade and auger test was done.
Mr. Maniscalchi stated that it was.
Agent Szewczak requested that the soil scientist modify his report to state how the wetland determination was made.
At this time, a motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Poirot to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m. Vote was 5-0-1(Wawer).
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall requested a revised map to show the regulated area in relation to the subject site.
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Wawer to table discussion to the meeting of February 7, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 6-0-0.
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:
Items of correspondence were as follows:
• 2006 Meeting Schedule for Land Use Boards and Commissions;
• article from December, 2005 issue of ICSC Government Relations Report regarding wetlands issues;
• notice of receipt of 2005 edition of Registry of Soil Scientists;
• letter dated 12/19/05 from Mr. Angus to Troiano Professional Center, LLC regarding stockpiled materials;
• letter dated 1/3/06 to IWWA from Sherry Rinaldi;
• memo from Jack Kazmarski to Neil Angus and Dan Vindigni dated 12/28/05 regarding Fletcher Road culvert;
• Notice of Stormwater Management in Connecticut Update to be held 1/27/06;
• Winter, 2006 issue of The Torrent;
• November/December 2005 issue of Connecticut Wildlife;
• memo from IWWA to Enfield Town Council regarding Agency Approved Town Drainage Projects;
• reply memo from Jack Kazmarski to C. Bromson, dated 12/21/05.
Mr. Angus noted in a response memo to Mr. Kazmarski, dated 12/28/05 that permitted work has been done by the DPW, but was done outside of the construction window (June-September) as required in the conditions of approval.
The agency discussed the fact that the Town should be setting a good example, not being the exception to the rules.
Mr. Angus added that he has been in touch with Mr. Kazmarski regarding the need to follow the permit approval conditions.
Members discussed this issue. It was the consensus of the members that contractors are held to the rules and the Town should also be, otherwise, it opens up the possibility of lawsuits.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Arnone to authorize Mr. Angus to re-emphasize to the DPW the importance of following conditions of approval. Vote was 6-0-0.
6. Commissioner’s Correspondence:
There were no items brought up for discussion.
7. Approval of Minutes -- December 13, 2005 Meeting:
After brief review, a motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Staples to approve the minutes of the meeting of 12/13/05 as presented. Vote was 5-0-1(Arnone).
8. Wetlands Agent Report – December 8, 2005 through January 11, 2006:
Most items were covered on the agenda or in Correspondence.
11. Other Business
None.
• Next regular meeting is Tuesday, February 7, 2006 at 7:00PM in the Council Chambers.
12. Adjourn:
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Arnone to adjourn the meeting at 12:00 a.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________
Frank Poirot, Secretary
|
|
Last Modified: 2/22/2006 5:15:08 PM
|
|
|