|
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Meeting
INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, June 6, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency was held on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 in the Enfield Room, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall, Chairperson
Thomas Arnone
Richard Szewczak
Robert LeMay
Frank Poirot
Robie Staples (7:07 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Mosschetti
David J. Wawer
ALSO PRESENT: Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent
Susan Berube, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
2. Pledge Allegiance to the Flag :
The American Flag was not present. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was not recited.
3. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, Lemay, Poirot, Szewczak and Staples (7:07 p.m.).
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall empowered Agent LeMay as a full voting member for the public hearing portion of the meeting.
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; EMPHCD June 6, 2006; MPHAD August 10, 2006]:
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall reviewed the procedures for comment at a public hearing. Mr. Wes Wentworth, Civil Engineer and Attorney Carrie Olson of 185 Asylum Street, Hartford, CT represented the applicant.
Ms. Olson stated she and Mr. Wentworth met recently to review Mr. Goodin’s comments from the last meeting and his report. Both Mr. Cabibbo and Mr. Angus have submitted comments from the review.
She stated that in response to the comments and discussion from the meeting, several minor changes have been made to the plans.
She also reported that an additional water test of the lake has been taken and the results will be discussed later in the meeting by Priscilla Bailey.
Ms. Olson stated that the applicant will not respond to comments made by Mr. Goodin regarding issues for other agencies such as the Planning & Zoning Commission and the D.E.P.
Ms. Olson also reported that the applicant made an effort to meet with the Shaker Pines Lake Association but a meeting could not be scheduled due to time constraints of the Association membership.
Mr. Wentworth presented a letter to the Agency members outlining the changes made since the last meeting. Mr. Wentworth stated that he was comfortable with the plans prior to Mr. Goodin’s comments and that the plans were in compliance with state and local guidelines.
Mr. Wentworth went on to say that he and Mr. Logan visited the site after the Agency’s last meeting. They observed the areas of the proposed outlet areas, infiltration basins and wetland crossings. Mr. Wentworth and Mr. Logan were both comfortable with the design and location of these structures.
Mr. Wentworth continued, stating that he disagrees with several aspects of Mr. Goodin’s report. Regarding the use of TR-55 and TR-20 which Mr. Goodin felt to be more appropriate than the Rational Method, Mr. Wentworth disagrees.
He referred to Mr. Cabibbo’s memos dated May 16 and May 22, 2006. Mr. Wentworth added that he feels the basin designs are conservative and Basins A, B, and C have enough detention to meet post development peak flow.
Agent Szewczak asked by what percentage the basins are over sized. Mr. Wentworth replied that it is between 10 and 20%. The eastern basin holds up to a 25 year storm.
The calculations also do not take into account the rain gardens which will hold the 1st inch of water from the roofs on 50% of the units.
He added that emergency spillways are not required for the basins but are provided.
He added that water quality calculations were submitted as part of REMA’s phosphorous study and meet the 80% removal recommendations.
At this time, Mr. Wentworth distributed newly revised plans to the Agency members and the intervener.
He briefly reviewed page 3 of his letter, outlining the larger revisions. A manhole has been added at the Mayfield Drive entry area where the 15” outlet heads east. A water quality swale has been revised. 4’ sumps have been provided in the forebays of Basins B1, B2, and B3. The outlets in each basin have been enhanced with rip rap.
Mr. Wentworth also explained that in order to retain water in the basins for 12-30 hours for cleansing, the outlets were revised so that an under-drain will feed the outlet pipe and allow 6” of water to remain in the basins and drain more slowly.
Emergency spillways have been widened and sized to hold a 100 year storm event. They are now to be rip rap instead of vegetation.
Infiltration basins D and F have been altered. Basin D has been moved and the grading lifted. There is now a 4 ½’ maximum cut.
Basin F has been shifted to the northwest and is now 100’ from the wetlands. The emergency spillway was changed and will cause less disturbance to the upland review area.
Erosion and sediment controls concerns have been addressed. The site is split into 5 construction phases. Phase 1 will now include the construction of 2 units as model homes. Narratives are now included separately for each phase.
Mr. Wentworth added that additional calculations were provided to Mr. Angus as to address the emergency spillway, sizing, basin sizing, rain garden sizing, etc.
Mr. Wentworth discussed prudent and feasible alternatives. He referred to a map showing the site. He stated that in the eastern portion, the applicant has a right to develop the property and the only access is through a crossing. The original plans showed 2 crossings in this area. Now there is only one and the most narrow strip was chosen for the crossing.
Regarding road access, Planning & Zoning regulations require 2 means of access. This requires a wetland crossing for the second access & egress and is at the point of an existing wetlands culvert.
At this point, Ms. Olson asked Mr. Wentworth if he felt all prudent and feasible alternatives had been used. Mr. Wentworth said yes.
Ms. Olson submitted for the record, a copy of the original application denial letter.
Ms. Priscilla Bailey came forward on behalf of the applicant and stated that REMA recently obtained another sample of water from Shaker Pines Lake. The data basically agrees with Baystate Environmental’s sample. The variances were similar; the only difference was in the nutrients.
The sample was taken on May 24, 2006 at four stations. One was upstream, one from the tributary, one from the lake near the applicant’s property line, and one from the lake outlet.
The dissolved oxygen was fine, being springtime, but was low last summer, which is to be expected. It has low alkalinity and the pH was within the expected range.
Regarding the nutrients, the nitrate level was fine. The total nitrogen level was very high – over 3mg per liter. It should be at .6 mg per liter, maximum. The phosphorous was also high. The lake is eutrophic.
The homes are now connected to the sewer system but that has not always been the case. REMA’s data is consistent given the spring season versus summer testing and dry conditions versus wet.
Agent Poirot asked if Ms. Bailey had been able to determine the source of nutrients and contamination.
Ms. Bailey stated that she was not, in her limited time. That type of study would take all summer.
Agent Poirot also asked if the water samples had been taken at a specific depth.
Ms. Bailey responded that the samples were taken by a REMA associate and were likely surface samples.
Agent Poirot asked about the turbidity of the water.
Ms. Bailey replied that it runs higher in the pond and lower in the tributary. It was considered to be moderately high and is highest at the incoming flow. There has been lots of rain to stir things up and there is a possible spring bloom occurring.
Mr. George Logan came forward to speak on behalf of the applicant. He stated that he submitted additional information in response to the comments at the last meeting. He still feels there will be minimal and negligible long term impact to the site.
The additional information submitted includes the results of the water test of May 24, 2006, more specific information on the rain gardens, such as the size of them being 333 square feet and includes suggested plantings, and an added table and narrative regarding the wetlands mitigation area near Westgate Drive. This will be a 450+/-square foot area with a detail of planting materials and a table with specific hydrology zones.
He noted that the phosphorous computations were submitted during the previous application but not the TSS computations. The TSS computations will meet the 80% guidelines but he believes it may be closer to a 90% removal of solids.
Agent Szewczak noted that the Clarence Welti Report shows some of the soils have silt in excess of 80%, which would be impossible to remove.
Mr. Logan stated that he is unsure which layer is silt that Mr. Welti was referring to and this is not throughout the whole site. It may be in some areas but most of the site is sandy.
Also, TSS is designed to get out larger solids and contaminants.
Mr. Logan briefly reviewed the table of sediment removal with the Agency.
Mr. Logan next stated that he was comfortable with the information submitted prior to the intervener entering the picture.
He added that in his career, he has done approximately 1,100 projects and can see that he feels completely good about only 4 or 5 of them, and this project is one of them.
Ms. Olson asked Mr. Logan if, in his opinion, the project would be reasonably likely to unreasonably pollute or destroy the natural resources of the property.
Mr. Logan stated that it would not.
Agent Szewczak asked how the basins would be accessed for maintenance.
Mr. Wentworth stated that no access is shown on the plans. The site will have common ownership with no easements necessary. The basins are within 70’ to 100’ of the road. Maintenance will take place during dry times of the year and with small tracked equipment. He feels it would be unsightly to have a roadway.
Agent Staples asked why page 8 of Mr. Goodin’s report states that the spillway should be 8’ but is only shown as 3’ wide on the plans. He also asked for verification that it will now be rip rap and not vegetated.
Mr. Wentworth replied that he has never designed a 20’ wide spillway. Each is designed to have necessary capacity. The rip rap has been added to a point.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked about prudent and feasible alternatives. She noted that the intervener had discussed basins B,C, and F being in the regulated area but could be moved. She has had concerns all along. Basin C could be moved to the long driveway area but wasn’t. Also, Basin F could be moved and there was concern of the 5% slope.
Mr. Wentworth replied that Basin F has been moved 35’ back north west and the emergency spillway has been redirected to a less steep area. It is not completely out of the upland area.
Basin C has a natural ravine and the natural drainage area will be utilized.
Mr. Wentworth feels that there is no significant impact to the wetlands. He is providing 60 to 70’ of buffer to the wetlands. It will look good aesthetically.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall also asked about Mr. Goodin’s concerns over runoff from the extended driveway.
Mr. Wentworth stated that the driveway goes down a bit. The flow should follow down the driveway. He has no concerns over icing in winter – it has a 1 to 2% grade and is on a south facing slope.
Agent Szewczak asked about concerns over rear yard ponding.
Mr. Wentworth stated that this concern has been addressed.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked also about a tree cutting meeting as recommended by the intervener.
Mr. Wentworth stated that this has been added to the plans – one for each phase and the trees to be removed will be marked.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that Mr. Goodin also had concerns as to how plants within the basins would survive at various water levels that will be present, as well as the number of plants being planned.
Mr. Logan referred to page 4 of his report. He stated that the soil is sandy and it is easy to determine the water levels.
He added that he feels comfortable with the hydrology on the plans. The basins will have 6” of water and he anticipates the basins will be saturated at least partly into the summer months.
Regarding the density of the plantings in the basins, Mr. Logan stated that he tries to emulate the natural way – not according to books. Also, the areas between the clumps of plantings will be seeded.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that one of the functions of the basins is to collect sediments. She asked if the basins have enough water to function correctly.
Mr. Logan answered yes due to the high spring water table plus each rain event. The catch basins prior to the detention basins have 4’ sumps which will also help remove sediments.
Ms. Olson asked Mr. Logan if the construction of basins C & F would have a detrimental effect on the wetlands.
Mr. Logan replied that he feels the effects are minimal, both short and long term. The basins will become part of the environment and add to the ecological integrity.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked about Mr. Goodin’s point that the basins could possibly be mistaken as vernal pools by amphibians.
Mr. Logan reported that he looked for evidence of vernal pool species in both 2005 and April, 2006 and didn’t find any, either time.
He added that there are 2 possible reasons. One is that in the spring, the site is very wet but only a few inches deep. This may not be deep enough, long enough. The second possibility is that the site had been stripped in the past and is “barricaded” on three sides of the site. There are lots of toads and frogs but the vernal pool species may not returned to this area from the remaining wetlands located to the north.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that the local residents always mention peepers being present and asked if they need vernal pools for reproduction.
Mr. Logan stated that they are not considered vernal pool obligates – only wood frogs and salamanders.
Mr. Wentworth responded more fully to Agent Szewczak’s earlier question regarding volume of the basins. He stated that Basins B1 & B2 are oversized in excess of twice the size required for volume and is the same for the outflow. Detention basin C is oversized by 1 ½ to 2 times the size required.
At this time, the intervener made a presentation. Attorney Amy Patterson of 74 Box Mountain Drive, Vernon, CT and Mr. Mark Goodin, Engineer, of Meehan & Goodin, Manchester, CT represented the Shaker Pines Lake Association.
Ms. Patterson asked if the applicant will be seeking an additional extension. There was a great deal of new information submitted this evening which neither she or Mr. Goodin have had the opportunity to review. She considers these items to be major modifications, not minor ‘tweaks and revisions”.
Ms. Olson stated that her client does not intend to request an additional extension. She also noted that Mr. Wentworth, due to family responsibilities, is not likely to be available on the next scheduled meeting date, June 20, 2006.
Ms. Patterson stated that not extending the public hearing would be difficult for both the intervener and the public. She wonders if this is the same application that was originally submitted. She feels this is piecemeal.
Mr. Goodin’s report was based on a review only and also feels that that the public is at a disadvantage.
Mr. Goodin stated that he had not seen the revisions and reports. The calculations are all new – they were missing prior to today. He feels that the changes presented this evening are large changes to the design, making it very different from the previous design. These changes only address approximately 30% of the comments in his report.
Mr. Goodin began by addressing Mr. Wentworth’s defense of using the Rational method as opposed to the TR20 method.
Mr. Goodin stated that the Rational method has not been used since the Erosion & Sediment Control Manual came out. He had submitted information at the last meeting to show it is not the preferred method by D.O.T.
A page from the CT D.O.T. manual, dated October, 2000 was distributed by Mr. Goodin. It states that the Rational method should be used only for storm drains, not detention basins.
Mr. Goodin briefly explained both methods. The basins require use of soil types to determine basin size. The TR20 method is more exact. Using the Rational method may result in a 20% smaller pond.
Also, the Lake’s watershed is over 1,000 acres. Other means of detention need to be looked at as well. This has not been done.
Agent Szewczak asked if the Rational method gives runoff hydrographs.
Mr. Goodin replied that this was not done as recommended in the manuals. “It’s like adding apples & oranges”. Because of known flooding downstream and the location of the lake and neighbors, a very conservative method needs to be used.
No calculations were provided for volume. An increase in volume will mean increased flooding.
Mr. Goodin added that in his brief opportunity to review the revisions submitted tonight, he found that there will be more disturbance in the buffers and within the limits of wetlands.
Mr. Goodin compared his copy of page 7 of the plans presented at the last meeting, with the page 7 revised plans presented tonight.
The previous basin had 18” of water and plants wouldn’t survive.
Also, he asked where the water table is now and if it is a dry basin, it would not provide remediation. He also asked when testing for the water table was done. It should be shown on the plans.
Mr. Goodin referenced page 5 of the REMA Report. It stated that the bottom of the basins will be at the approximate high water table. The Manual states that basins should be designed for the low water table.
Mr. Goodin added that he did not see the new detention basin calculations with the list of revisions; further information is needed. He also feels that test pits are needed, not hand augured holes.
Mr. Goodin also questioned the issue of access to the basins. The manuals state the importance of access to the basins. It is important in order to make maintenance happen.
Regarding the rain gardens, Mr. Goodin pointed out that they are located on steep slopes – with 3 to 4% grades. They should only be 1 to 2%.
Also, the rain gardens should be shown on the grading plans and should show the roof leaders going to them.
Basin F is still within the 100’ buffer. Also, it was raised 1.6’.
Basin D was raised 2.7’. The guidelines require soil and permeability tests but none are shown. Page 5 of the REMA Report states that following the manual guidelines is not necessary.
Mr. Goodin continued, stating that the calculations for Basin F were not provided. The basin has been moved back and the outlet moved, but the outlets are at a 10% grade. The maximum slope for a level spreader outlet should be 5%. The plans should show rip rap to the wetlands. It is still within the 100’ buffer. It could be moved at the loss of one unit.
Regarding Basin D, Mr. Goodin asked what happens after the end of the rip rap? The steep slopes will create erosion into the wetlands. The applicant needs to make sure that the outlet can handle the increase of velocity. The Report says that an outlet analysis is not necessary. It may require an easement on neighboring property.
Regarding the infiltration basins, the manuals state that three soil tests per basin are required. These are not included on the plans.
No calculations were provided at the crossings.
The detail for the rain gardens show a pipe outlet, but no permeability test was done.
Regarding the total suspended solids removal (TSS), Mr. Goodin feels that street sweeping will not remove 15% as reported. He feels that the plans do not meet D.O.T. guidelines.
It is critical that the basins have water through the summer for renovation. Driveways and land masses were not taken into consideration for TSS.
Also, the TSS is unknown for the site as a whole, only for the three basins.
Mr. Goodin referred to his page MG25 on which he reviewed the long driveway and drainage into Basin B. Mr. Goodin feels the drainage from the driveway will not drain into the catch basin as shown. It will go across the road. It needs an additional catch basin and crown in the road.
He suggested also, deleting one crossing and increasing the buffer to the lake to 750’.
Mr. Goodin referred to his report regarding the density of development. This should be less than 5% of the area of uplands. It currently stands at 10% +/-.
Mr. Goodin added that he feels that detention is not being provided for the entire site.
He reiterated that had very limited time to review the changes presented this evening. He feels information would be incomplete if the hearing were to be closed this evening.
There is also the question of increase in runoff to Dartmoor neighbors who already have a flooding problem. It is unknown if dewatering has been addressed.
Mr. Goodin noted that Dr. Robert DeSanto has provided a report on the water quality. Mr. Goodin presented copies to the agency members and the applicant. It includes impacts due to traffic and the density of upland development.
Ms. Patterson noted that Mr. Goodin’s comments relate to the Guidelines in order to minimize impacts. The assumptions of Ms. Bailey and Mr. Logan are based on information provided by the applicant’s engineer.
In response to Ms. Bailey’s comments, Ms. Patterson stated that she had hoped to have updates of the plans prior to this evening’s meeting.
The report provided by Dr. DeSanto is preliminary because the final plans had not been received.
Ms. Patterson reviewed the State Statutes, quoting from 22A-19 regarding unreasonable pollution. The Agency needs to determine which experts to believe. Is the project reasonably likely to cause unreasonable pollution.
Ms. Patterson referred to section 10.3a of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations.
Mr. Goodin feels it has not been met – the record is incomplete. TSS has not been done for the entire site. There will be impact to the capacity of the wetlands. No calculations have been done for impact to the lake. All experts agree that low pollution hinges on all systems working. There are ways to make the basins easier to access.
Ms. Patterson added that the responsibility will fall on the state and town to enforce these issues and after-the-fact enforcement is not the best way to protect. The damage is done and remediation takes time. She feels a more comprehensive plan is needed.
She feels the applicant has not met the test of feasible and prudent alternatives. It is their burden to provide analysis of why feasible and prudent alternatives were not used.
In regards to Section 10.3c regarding short and long term effects, Mr. Goodin stated that basins would be installed with homes built around them. Once constructed, they can’t be removed. The need is there to make sure that the plans will work and that all information is complete. Data is missing.
Mr. Goodin spoke regarding the issues of protection of the wetlands and habitat. He feels the overall impact has not been supplied. There is a substantial impact to the uplands that has not been addressed. Best Management Plans are incomplete.
Ms. Patterson reminded members to review Section 8.5 of the Town’s regulations and asked if the Agency has enough information to make a decision.
She also feels that this plan is not the same as was originally submitted. She feels it should be denied.
She asked Agency members to look at Mr. Goodin’s report, Dr. DeSanto’s Report, the ERT Report, and the Baystate Report.
Ms. Patterson referred to Agent Poirot’s question to Dr. Bailey regarding the source of nitrates and phosphorous. Dr. Bailey had said there was not enough information to know the source, that it would take all summer to find it. Ms. Patterson suggested that a long term study be done. She feels the application should be denied. She feels the activity will cause an adverse impact to the site, the lake, and the watershed in general.
Ms. Patterson added that when she had been approached by Ms. Olson, it was too late to meet with members of the Shaker Pines Lake Association and the proper time would have been before the public hearing was opened.
Ms. Patterson reserved the right to speak again if additional information is provided.
At this time, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall opened the hearing for public comment.
No one in the audience came forward to speak in favor of the application.
Ms. Karen Camidge and Mr. “Rej” Leonard came forward to speak against the application. Mr. Leonard expressed concern about the wetlands, erosion, runoff, drainage, and wildlife. He feels the application is invalid and incomplete. Ms. Karen Camidge stated that she built a house at Riverview Estates 5 years ago. She and her neighbors are having many problems because the engineering was not done properly or completely. It could be much worse on a large subdivision such as the one proposed.
Mr. Mike Niewola noted that the issue of the potential spring at one of the proposed crossings has not been brought up or addressed.
Ms. Pat Holden of 67 West Shore Drive stated that she is still opposed. It is alarming to find that Mr. Logan feels comfortable to stand behind only 5 of his projects, out of all that he has done. This is a sensitive area to have something go wrong.
Mr. Thomas Daley of 57 Jondot Drive is opposed to development that would jeopardize the lake.
No one else in the audience came forward to speak for or against this application.
Agent Szewczak noted that the proposed swales are no longer to be vegetated so less renovation is available to the drainage. Also, the increase in volume is a big concern, especially in sensitive areas and the effects to downstream areas already saturated. Also, as noted in the Welti Report, access to the detention basins is very important. The bottoms should have stone under the topsoil. Agent Szewczak didn’t see any of this in the plans. Also, zero increase at the property line needs to be shown. And the choice of method for runoff calculations is a concern. Agent Szewczak agrees that it should vary according to soil types and vegetation. He feels the Rational method is fine for piping but not overall drainage.
Mr. Logan responded to some of Agent Szewczak’s concerns. He stated that only one, the outlet to Basin C, will have only rip rap and no vegetation and will only be affected during very large storms. The benefit of vegetation will be lost but not he benefit of infiltration. It is not likely to see much water going through the rip rap swale during smaller storms.
Agent Szewczak stated that his concern is over larger events. The water has to go somewhere and at that point it will no longer trickle and will end up ultimately in the lake.
Mr. Wentworth stated that the goal is to treat water quality for smaller events, not the 25 year event. He is not trying to treat larger storms.
Agent Szewczak noted that without development, water quality would not be an issue. The source of pollutants is the development. There are no longer organic debris to renovate the water as it flows through to the lake.
Mr. Logan noted that TSS is on an annual basis per the EPA and D.E.P. , not specific situations. Concentrations have to be low enough not to have an effect on the environment. Removal happens because the TSS is being held back within the basins and plantings.
Mr. Logan feels this is not a fragile system. He feels it is a robust system. He doesn’t want to make it worse, so Best Management Practices will be used.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if the applicant would reconsider an extension. A lot of new information has been presented at the last minute by the applicant and the intervener. The Report from the applicant was signed on May 26, 2006, but not received until today.
Ms. Olson stated that Mr. Wentworth does not have anyone to cover for him at the next meeting. It is unlikely that he will be available due to the impending birth of his child. The applicant feels they have supplied a complete application and feels that extending it will do no good.
She asked that a brief recess be held so that she could speak again with her client. A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Poirot to hold a brief recess at 10:42 p.m.. Vote was 6-0-0.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall called the meeting back to order at 10:52 p.m. Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, Lemay, Poirot, Szewczak and Staples. Agent LeMay was still empowered as a full voting member.
Ms. Olson stated that while her client feels that a continuation is not necessary, he is willing, on the condition that the intervener provide any new information within one week.
Ms. Patterson replied that she could not promise that without knowing if any new information might be provided by the applicant.
Mr. Goodin also stated that he could not guarantee a full review within 2 weeks.
Ms. Olson replied that her client could not go beyond two weeks. She provided a letter to the Agency requesting a continuation to the meeting of June 20, 2006.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Arnone to accept the applicant’s request for continuance of IW#460 to the meeting of June 20, 2006. Vote was 6-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent LeMay to continue IW#460 to the meeting of June 20, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Enfield Room. Vote was 6-0-0.
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 10:56 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Szewczak to extend the meeting to 11:45 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to Order:
The regular meeting was called to order at 10:59 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, Lemay, Poirot, Szewczak and Staples. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall empowered Agent LeMay as a full voting member for the regular meeting.
At this time, a motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Poirot to move agenda items 3 through 9 to be taken up after item 10 “New Business”. Vote was 6-0-0.
10. New Business
Mr. Angus reported that an additional application, IW#465, was received in time to be added to the evening’s agenda. Also, an item under agenda item number 11, “Other” should be added regarding a transfer of permit for IW#400.
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Arnone to accept both of these items for the agenda. Vote was 6-0-0.
IW#463 - Holy Family Church - Proposed erosion repairs and drainage improvements involving excavation and regrading within 100 feet of an intermittent watercourse. Property located at 25 Simon Road (Map 68 Lot 164) Zoned R-88 [Submitted May 24, 2006; Received June 6, 2006; PPE June 20, 2006; MAD August 10, 2006]:
Mr. Anthony Spazzarini and Mr. Jay Russo, engineer, represented the applicant.
Mr. Russo explained that the project is for repair due to slope failure and a drainage system on the northwest portion of the property. It is the rear exit drive onto Post Office Road.
During the storm event of October, 2005, a severe slope failure took place. A 30” pipe portion fell off due to undermining of escarpment soils.
Michael Gragnolati, soil scientist, has provided a report which shows that there are no wetlands on the site but there is an intermittent watercourse.
The applicant proposes to add two manholes and sections of pipe to the area down stream where it is more stable. A pre-formed scour hole will be installed. The failed area will then be graded to a 3:1 slope using bank run gravel.
The applicant would like to perform the work during July and August, since they are the driest months of the year.
Agent Poirot asked what contingencies are planned for storm water during construction.
Mr. Ussary stated that the work area will have temporary sediment areas. A temporary pipe could be provided on top of the fill material to convey water through the construction area.
Agent Poirot asked if this project will be similar to the repairs done by the Town on the North side of Post Office Road.
Mr. Spazzarini responded that this project is deeper.
Agent Staples asked how long the project is expected to take.
Mr. Spazzarini responded that it will take approximately 4 to 6 weeks. Agent Arnone noted that it would be a huge improvement.
Agent Staples stated that it would be good to expedite this project since it is starting to undermine the road.
Mr. Angus noted that preliminary comments have been received by the Town’s engineer. It states that a temporary erosion and sediment control blanket should be used and there is concern over groundwater seepage from the side of the bank. It was also questioned as to why the bank originally failed.
Mr. Ussary stated that he knows only of some seepage near the rear watercourse but he will look into it further.
Agent Szewczak felt that there is no significant impact and no public hearing is necessary. Agent Poirot agreed. He stated that the impact would be greater if the project is delayed or nothing at all is done.
Agent Szewczak noted that there is a 16’ grade to the sinkhole being developed and asked if a 12” thick slope is thick enough.
Mr. Ussary stated that it would be more than adequate.
Agent Poirot noted that the Town’s engineer suggested a geo-tech blanket.
Mr. Angus replied that he did.
Mr. Ussary stated that he does not feel it is necessary because of the small slope. He will talk to the Town’s engineer further on this matter.
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Staples to table further discussion on IW#463 to the next regular meeting scheduled for June 20, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Enfield Room. Vote was 6-0-0.
IW#436.02 - Galaxy Development - Request for Modification to substitute approved Vortechnics Model 3000 storm water treatment unit with CDS Technologies model PMSU30_20 unit. Property located at 2 Shaker Road (Map 64 Lot 70) Zoned BL [Submitted May 31, 2006; Received June 6, 2006; PPE June 20, 2006; MAD August 10, 2006]:
Nicolas Reitzel, III, P.E. of Ashburnham, MA represented the applicant.
Mr. Reitzel explained that the developer of the site has requested that the originally approved Vortechnics Model 3000 be substituted with an equivalent CDS Technologies Model PMSU30-20 unit.
It will remove the same amount of solids and have the same flow rates. He provided a copy of recent certification for this product.
Mr. Reitzel went on to explain that the location and depth of the product will remain the same. The CDS unit will require only 1 manhole structure instead of 3 that are necessary for a Vortechnic unit.
He asked if the modification to the permit could be done through administrative procedures. He added that he spoke with Jeff Bord, Town Engineer regarding this product and its’ environmental and pollution control benefits for possible future use by the Town.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall explained that the Agency does not have a mechanism for administrative modification approval.
Mr. Reitzel stated that this is not a significant activity and asked what the next step in the process would be.
Mr. Angus explained that the Agency members need to determine if it is a significant activity and then either table the application or set a public hearing date. He added that the applicant has provided technical information showing how this product meets the Vortchnics specifications.
After brief discussion among Agency members, a motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Arnone that no public hearing is required. Vote was 6-0-0.
Mr. Angus did note that the applicant could withdraw his application and resubmit it under the Authorized Agent Approval Process. This would require an additional fee and take almost as much time as waiting until the next IWWA meeting. Mr. Reitzel chose not to withdraw his application.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Arnone to table further discussion on IW#436.02 until the next meeting, June 20, 2006 at 7:00 in the Enfield Room. Vote was 6-0-0.
IW#464 - Town of Enfield Public Works - Proposed Fermi High School Soil Remediation Plan involving excavation, filling, paving and regrading within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 124 North Maple Street (Map 82 Lot 14) Zoned R-33 [Submitted May 31, 2006; Received June 6, 2006; PPE June 20, 2006; MAD August 10, 2006]:
Colleen Brand from the Enfield Public Works Department and David Dixon of Milone & McBroom represented the applicant.
Mr. Dixon explained the proposed soil remediation plans for the fields at Fermi High. The existing turf will be killed and new topsoil laid down over it. It has not been deemed necessary that the existing soils be removed from the site.
There is an area of wetlands located at the far eastern edge of the property. The site is terraced in 3 levels. Drainage basically flows west and east.
The area of wetlands is made of two types. The first is a drainage swale and the second is a previously disturbed wooded area. Regulated activity will take place in the upland only. There will be no direct impact to the wetlands.
The existing gravel drive will be paved.
The applicant will return to the IWWA at a later date for proposed new playfields. The current application is for remediation only.
Irrigation will be installed and will establish the grass more quickly.
The applicant would like to start the project in July.
Members reviewed the plans for irrigation. No vegetation along the chain link fence will be removed for installation of the erosion and sediment control fencing.
Agent Szewczak stated that he does not feel this will be a significant impact on the wetlands but feel it will be of public interest.
Ms. Brand stated that the Town held a public informational meeting on June 5 to present the remediation plan. The Town Council has released the funds for the project.
Agent Szewczak stated that it would probably not be of public interest if the health issues were not part of it.
Agent Poirot asked if the drainage water is being tested as it leaves the site.
Mr. Dixon stated that he did not know. Ms. Brand stated that there is some level of contamination in the groundwater and has been monitored for the past 25 to 30 years.
Agent Poirot asked how the turf will be killed.
Ms. Brand stated that Roundup will be used and then the land tilled to decompose quickly.
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent LeMay to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
Mr. Angus stated that the Staff Report lists items needing to be addressed.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if the applicant had considered use of a paver system as opposed to pavement. It seems like an ideal location and is Town owned property. It would be a good way to set an example for others.
Mr. Dixon stated that the paver systems require maintenance and this is an area of concern that soil may be exposed again and this would risk having to shut the fields down.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Poirot to table further discussion on IW#464 until the meeting of June 20, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Enfield Room. Vote was 6-0-0.
IW#465 – Marilyn Tyler, Conservatrix – Proposed 7-Lot Subdivision involving excavating, filling, grading, and placement of structures in and within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 78 Post Office Road (Map 47 Lot 10); Zoned R-44 [Submitted June 1, 2006; Received June 6, 2006; PPE June 20, 2006; MAD August 10, 2006]:
Attorney Tom Tyler represented the applicant.
Mr. Tyler explained that this site received IWWA approval in 1998. The Mylar was filed, curb cuts made and pins set on site.
It was recently realized that the Mylars were never signed or returned to the applicant at that time, Mr. Mokrycki, Jr. Mr. Tyler distributed a copy of a letter dated 7/30/1999 from Mr. Giner to Mr. Mokrycki, Jr. regarding the failure on the part of the Town to sign and return the Mylars.
At the time of the original application and approval, there was one minor disturbance to wetlands proposed. This was when the upland review area was only 25’. It is now 100’.
Mr. Tyler is now requesting a refund or waiver of fees for the application process due to the need for re-application being the fault of the Town.
Mr. Tyler spoke to Laurie Whitten who was the wetland agent at that time. She suggested that the IWWA could either treat this as a new application or try to “fix” the situation.
At this time, it was 12:00 a.m. and a motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent LeMay to finish the current application. Vote was 6-0-0.
Agent Szewczak stated that, while sympathetic, the IWWA has established procedures to be consistent with all applications. IWWA applications expire within 5 years and then the applicant needs to start over under current rules and regulations.
Mr. Tyler explained that because Mr. Giner’s letter was possibly not received by his father in law and the fact that the Mylar has now been lost by the Town, he would like some consideration by the IWWA and not hold a public hearing.
Agency members discussed the possible need for a public hearing. Several of the lots are within the upland review area.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that the IWWA is required by law to review the application under today’s laws.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak that this application is a significant impact and a public hearing should be held.
Agent Poirot asked if there is any way to administratively take care of this. Does the IWWA look at this through 1996 or 2006 eyes?
Mr. Angus explained that it is a new application and would need to be reviewed against the current day regulations. Any issues with respect to Town procedures regarding the previous application would be a legal matter separate from this application.
Mr. Tyler stated that he has no problem with needing a new application but feels another public hearing is not necessary.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that the approval has expired and things change. The lay of the land can change.
Mr. Tyler explained that he feels that time, money and expense have already been spent. Changes to the plans would require additional time and expense. If someone wants a public hearing, they can petition for one.
Agent Szewczak feels that only a few would be affected and wouldn’t be able to meet the petition requirements. The Agency needs to give the opportunity for anyone interested for a public hearing.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall added that there may be no direct disturbance but there may be an impact.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall reiterated that Agent Szewczak had made a motion that a public hearing would be necessary due to significant impact.
She asked for a second to the motion. The motion was not seconded. Motion failed.
A motion was then made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Arnone to table further discussion on this application to the meeting of June 20, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Enfield Room. Vote was 5-1(Szewczak)-0.
• Next regular meeting is Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 7:00PM in the Enfield Room.
12. Adjourn:
Because it was now after midnight, no other business could be addressed. A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Arnone to adjourn at 12:25 a.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
_________________________
Frank Poirot, Secretary
|
|
Last Modified: 7/7/2006 11:26:42 AM
|
|
|