|
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Meeting
INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, July 18, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency was held on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 in the Enfield Room, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall, Chairperson
Thomas Arnone
Robert LeMay
Frank Poirot
Richard Szewczak
Louis V. Tallarita
Robie Staples
David J. Wawer (7:30 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Mosschetti
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 7:03 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone. LeMay, Poirot, Staples, Szewczak, Tallarita and Wawer (7:30 p.m.). Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
As Agent Wawer was not yet present, Agent LeMay was empowered by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall as a full voting member for the public hearing portion of the meeting.
3. Hearings:
Continuation of 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; EMPHCD July 18, 2006; MPHAD August 22, 2006]
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall outlined the procedures for public participation during a public hearing.
She also noted that this public hearing must close this evening.
Attorney Kari Olson of 185 Asylum Street, Hartford, CT and Mr. Wes Wentworth and Mr. George Logan represented the applicant.
Ms. Olson thanked the Agency for their time and attention given to this application. She stated that she and the applicant’s experts will address the intervener’s comments.
Ms. Olson stated that the applicant will be submitting newly revised plans which show that 2 detention ponds have been moved out of the upland review area and the number of units has been reduced by 3. This represents an overall reduction of units by 14% since the original application.
There will now be no structures in the wetlands or uplands except for those at the wetland crossings.
Mr. Wes Wentworth stated that he had submitted the newly revised plans to Staff and the intervener on Monday.
Mr. Wentworth began his review of changes by stating that the applicant originally held to staying 50’ from the wetlands but several changes have been made since then.
Detention Basin C was 60’ from the wetlands and is now upslope. Three units were removed in order to accomplish this. This brings the total number of units down to 73 from the original 85 units originally presented to the Agency last fall.
The grading and bottom elevations are the same. The calculations are still pertinent and appropriate.
The second change was to Infiltration Basin F, which had been within the upland review area by 10 to 15’. It has been rotated and is now out of the upland review area.
The only activities with wetland disturbance will be for replacement of the 36” pipe, the bridge crossing for decking over the wetlands, temporary impact for installation of utilities, and the box culvert at the 3rd wetland crossing. This will be sunk into the grade by 1’ for naturalization.
There will be no buildings or driveways within the wetlands and except for the crossings, there will be no roads in the wetlands.
Storm water outlets will still be adjacent or close to the wetlands. Outlets for Basins B1 and B2 have been combined to minimize impact to the wetlands. Also, the exit line and overflow for Basin C have been combined.
Infiltration Basin D remains unchanged. The emergency overflow will continue flowing to the wetlands.
Mr. Wentworth stated that he feels that he has minimized all impacts.
He added that Mr. Logan performed test pits in the areas of the proposed basins and infiltration basins, within the past 1 ½ to 2 weeks. These are shown on a map being submitted for the record this evening.
Mr. Logan also performed permeability tests for the 2 infiltration basins. As a result, the design for them has changed. In order to slow the infiltration rate, 6” of sandy loam will be installed to slow the rate to approximately 2” per hour. A detail of this change with a notation of the 6” of fill has been submitted.
Mr. Wentworth went on to note that the intervener submitted 2 letters dated June 13, 2006, of comments. Mr. Wentworth has addressed these and submitted copies of his letter with the rebuttals.
Mr. Wentworth added that he stands by his calculations and designs and used best engineering judgment and practices. He feels that the Town engineer concurs.
In review of his reply to the comments, Mr. Wentworth stated that he is ensuring that the water in the basins will be 6” deep throughout most of the year based on field measurements, soil types, and deep test pits. These calculations include the under drain so that it will not go deeper than the 6”.
In response to the concern of access to the basins, Mr. Wentworth stated that the access drives are not required. They are designed as wetlands. The maintenance plan outlines the types of equipment to be used for cleaning. Most of the basins are self maintaining.
He added that all of the basins are near roads, as well. If, however, this becomes an issue with the Agency, it could be required as a condition of approval.
With regard to the volume calculations of the infiltration basins, Mr. Wentworth insisted that these are adequately sized and disagrees with Mr. Goodin’s findings. Mr. Wentworth stated that not all of the water will go into the pond. Some infiltration will take place.
Mr. Wentworth feels that 2” per hour is a safe drainage time and the infiltration basin should drain out within 48 hours.
He added that Wetland E will be picking up runoff from 2 units and a little bit of the roadway. He feels that this is not a significant increase. Any overflow will go into the Dartmoor drainage system, as it currently does. There are no signs of erosion at this time.
Mr. Wentworth continued, stating that he feels the storm water calculations for the ponds are accurate and feels that the peak flow discharge is negligible.
Agent Szewczak asked what runoff rates or factors were used. He used the example of times when the earth is saturated and there is no infiltration available, resulting in runoff. He asked what the co-efficient is for lawns.
Mr. Wentworth responded that he uses .35 as a co-efficient. He continued, stating that if there were a 2 year storm event one day, and another one the next day, during a saturated time of year, it would generate a 4 or 5 year storm event, which the system can accommodate.
Agent Szewczak asked how wintertime rains would affect this. The ground, being frozen, would not allow for infiltration.
Mr. Wentworth replied that the ground would thaw and absorb water and the snow absorbs water as well. The water that had been draining through the site would still drain through.
Large vegetative wooded buffers have been provided to accommodate sheet flow. The velocity is faster on pavement and slower on un-paved, flat areas.
He went on to say that this site is ideal for drainage since over ¾ of it will run to the basins.
Even during a saturated event, the flow will be slow and mild and will not change much whether the ground is frozen or not.
Agent Szewczak asked for verification on the basin sizing.
Mr. Wentworth replied that the basins are oversized by 40 to 50%. He submitted a detention basin volume comparison (exhibit #63), outlining a 100 year storm. The basins are oversized by differing amounts.
He added that a number of safety measures are factored in, prior to the water reaching the emergency spillway.
Basin C is oversized by 174% due to it being moved and the berm raised higher. This provides for additional volume.
Basin B1 is oversized by 52% and Basin B2 by 83%.
With reference to the interveners’ concerns of pre and post development conditions, Mr. Wentworth stated that he evaluated the increase in flows over all of the site and found no net increase that would provide harm or significant impact to the lake.
Regarding the bridges, Mr. Wentworth stated that the abutments are to be constructed each side independently. Access to the east side will be gained by the road used for installation of the 36” pipe that was created by the Town for installation of the sewer pipes.
There will be an inlet and an outlet at the 36” pipe. Aprons have been minimized due to it entering an established wetland and it will be at or less velocity than exists now.
There will be no rip rap in the box culvert because the intent is to create a natural stream bed.
Calculations have been provided for all spillways.
Agent Szewczak asked if all spillways extend to the wetlands.
While not directly answering the question, Mr. Wentworth stated that Basin C has an emergency spillway designed for a 100 year storm event of roughly 24 cfs +/-. The wetlands can handle 85-90 cfs +/-. The outlet pipe was combined to minimize disturbance to the wetlands.
The pipe is 120’ from the wetlands. It is likely that a visitor to the site 3 or 4 years from now will find vegetation growing through the rip rap and that is fine.
As for grading within the basins, the slopes are: B1 & B2 at 3:1; F at 4:1 and C & E at 3:1. Basins D & C only have 2:1 slope on the down hill side. There should be no weeping and Mr. Wentworth feels this is appropriate. It was made steeper to pull the basin out of the upland review area. Tracked vehicles can be used on the flatter sides.
In regards to volume increases off site, Mr. Wentworth stated that this is not prohibited but he has taken it into consideration and has used infiltration basins to try to reduce the volumes going off site and also to recharge the ground water.
Agent Szewczak noted that proposed units #4 & 6 on Sunnywood Lane are close to infiltration basin D. He stated that if perhaps the basin is marginal, could the units be moved to allow for a larger basin.
Mr. Wentworth stated that these will be dry basins and sees no reason to move units. He asked what Agent Szewczak’s concern is.
Agent Szewczak noted that most of the other basins are isolated from the units and this one is close to units.
Mr. Wentworth stated that infiltration basins are different from detention basins. They are meant to be dry. The units are all high enough so that basements won’t flood. Also, the basins will be landscaped for these units.
Agent Szewczak asked if this basin would accept runoff from the catch basins and Sunnywoods Lane.
Mr. Wentworth stated yes and that he is comfortable that it will drain in a short period of time and he is only looking at the effect on the wetlands.
Agent Szewczak expressed concern that, as the vegetation becomes established, it could become a man made wetland.
Mr. Wentworth stated that the area will be maintained so it doesn’t become a wetland. Also, it has sandy soil and will infiltrate.
Agent Szewczak mentioned that the 2” per hour infiltration is not by mechanical means and in reality, infiltration could vary from 45 minutes to an unknown time. He asked if there is any impact on the location of the units to the infiltration basins and noted that it is only 130’ from the edge of the lake.
Mr. Wentworth stated that there is no impact from the units to the infiltration basin. They are two separate structures.
Agent Arnone noted that there is only 2 ½ feet from the basin to the basement floor.
Mr. Wentworth agreed adding that the goal is to stay above the natural ground water.
In regards to volume increase of the overall site, Mr. Wentworth stated that over 70% of the site is protected with a conservation easement; 65% of which will be completely undisturbed.
Ms. Olson asked if eliminating one of the entrance ways to the site is a feasible alternative.
Mr. Wentworth stated that two full accesses, with 24’ wide roads are required by the Planning & Zoning Commission. They are at the locations shown because no other access is available.
Ms. Olson asked if there are any other areas for wetland crossings that would have less impact.
Mr. Wentworth responded that there are not. The areas being used are already disturbed and are the narrowest crossings.
Mr. George Logan of REMA Associates spoke. He stated that as a soil scientist, he has had 1,500 projects and this is one of the highlights, protecting wetlands to a high degree.
He reiterated Mr. Wentworth’s statement that the crossings are at previously disturbed areas.
Except for the crossings and outlets, the applicant has succeeded in staying out of wetlands and upland review areas.
Regarding short and long term impacts, he added, resources will be protected, both long and short term.
Mr. Logan submitted a rebuttal to Mr. Goodin’s and Dr. DeSantos’s reports.
In review of his rebuttal beginning with Dr. DeSantos’ report, Mr. Logan stated that he feels 5 things are wrong. He feels that the Doctor was not able to give specific details of potential degradation of the site.
He was not able to give specifics of pollution to the receiving waters and specific impact.
He also stated that the roof runoff will enter the groundwater. The study he based this on was done in Texas.
Also, the watershed studies quoted were not for this particular watershed. He mostly focused on the toxicity of metals and PAH’s.
Shaker Pond has over 1,200 acres of watershed. Dr. DeSantos did not take into account the dilution of concentrations of pollutants.
Mr. Logan stated that in regards to the infiltration basins, they are split into 2 cells. The larger cell promotes infiltration. The smaller cell will have higher amounts of organics to absorb pollutants.
Also, the roof runoff study is based on one Texas study done in 2004. It is out of state and Texas has higher temperatures for longer periods of time. Also, the roofing materials are not known so it really can’t be studied.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked why Mr. Logan is so concerned over the difference in states.
Mr. Logan responded that the climatology is different and the materials to be used are unknown.
He added that UCONN did a study on galvanized roofing but there has been no other Connecticut or regional data on other types of roofing.
Also, in areas of heavy air pollution, roofs become a source of pollution, such as if this were close to a highway.
In regards to the possibility of pollutants moving through the soils, Mr. Logan stated that he feels the sandy soils are not a direct conduit to the groundwater. There is sandy soil on site but there is a cap of sandy soil loams. Most of the site will be undisturbed so there will be high attenuation.
Mr. Logan went on to say that Dr. DeSantos feels that Best Management Practices on basins and swales will eventually turn into sources of pollutants. Mr. Logan disagrees, stating that many of these pollutants are destroyed by natural bacteria, known as “bio remediation”. He feels that the bacteria, Best Management Practices, and maintenance will not allow the basins to be sources of pollutants.
He added that if worse came to worse, the pollutant levels leaving the site would be very, very low. There would need to be gross negligence of maintenance for this to happen.
Also, some wetlands plants are mechanisms for attenuation of metals.
Mr. Logan also feels that the Doctor did not take the entire watershed into account, including that portion located in Massachusetts. The site is now 9% or less impervious surface and should not have an effect on the lake.
He also disagrees with the Doctor’s statement that all uplands will be developed. He feels that 65 to 70% will be undeveloped.
Mr. Logan also took exception to Dr. DeSantos’s statement that the habitat is imperiled. He feels this is untrue. 95% of the remaining critical habitat will be untouched. Also, this is not a wetlands agency issue.
Mr. Logan noted that Dr. DeSantos did not have any comment on the Integrated Pest Management Plan.
In conclusion, he feels that Dr. DeSantos had no substantiation of his allegations.
Regarding Mr. Goodin’s report, Mr. Logan stated that Mr. Goodin had thought that the TSS removal rates were over-estimated.
Mr. Logan referred to table #1 of his own report and stated that he uses this table for removal percentages.
One item in question was Mr. Logan’s calculation of 15% TSS removal for street sweeping. Mr. Logan noted that use of newer equipment is much more efficient and will be used here. Actually, he could have used a figure of 30% for TSS removal but didn’t. He feels he did not over-estimate.
Also, regarding 48% TSS removal for the sediment structure, Mr. Logan noted that the details state “4’ sump with hood before structure”. The combination gives the 48% removal rate.
In reference to Mr. Goodin’s letter dated June 13, 2006, Mr. Logan feels that the lake is not a high quality receiving water, as proved by both REMA and Baystate Environmental studies. He also feels there is no proof to the allegations of reasonable likelihood of unreasonable pollution.
Mr. Logan continued, stating that the TSS calculations were provided only for the storm water management, not the entire site because it is not required by the State.
In regard to the number of plantings for the basins that Mr. Goodin felt were too few, Mr. Logan stated that he took into account for spread and natural growth.
Mr. Logan went on to say that in regards to low and high water tables, his results were based on “reading the land” and also the recent test pits as pointed out on the map. The logs for the test pits are provided in Mr. Logan’s rebuttal. He feels that the test pits prove the ability to have 6” of water in the basins most of the year and will support wetland plants.
Mr. Logan stated that he felt that Mr. Goodin’s report was better than Dr. DeSantos’s report in that Mr. Goodin’s report gave suggestions.
Mr. Logan also stated that in regards to Basin F, the bottom will be 2 ½ to 3’ above the seasonal high groundwater table. At that site, the permeability was up to 60” per hour. This necessitates the 6” cap of fine sandy loam to slow the infiltration to 2” per hour.
With regard to the concern for mosquitoes, Mr. Logan stated that a wetland environment will have mosquitoes. Pre-treatment areas will attract insects such as dragonflies and maiden flies that will help keep the mosquito population down.
Salt will not be used on the site.
Hydrocarbons will be addressed by organic soils, catch basins and leaf base.
PH is not an issue because nothing is being done that will change the ph levels on site.
Water temperature should not be an issue. There are no cold water fisheries on site and the lake is a body of open water.
With regard to Mr. Goodin’s conclusion, Mr. Logan feels that it is very general and doesn’t tie back to specific analysis.
Mr. Logan noted that Mr. Goodin is not an ecologist or wetland scientist.
Mr. Logan feels that this project will not be an adverse effect.
Agent Szewczak stated that Mr. Logan spoke about suspended solids but asked about soluble contaminants and what can be done to minimize them.
Mr. Logan stated that nutrients are usually the soluble contaminants, such as phosphorus. The sediment is being trapped. There will be no phosphorus used past the initial set up of the lawns.
As for nitrogen, some are soluble and can leave the developed portion of the site. The wetlands are good at attenuating solubles. The concentrations leaving will be very small and have no effect on Shaker Lake.
For other solubles, such as hydrocarbons and PAH’s, organics and detention basins will be used.
As for metals, 65 to 70% are not soluble. They will remain in the basins, trapped by the organics and broken down thru long term exposure.
Some will leave the site but in concentrations too small to do harm to the lake or environment.
Ms. Olson referred to the IWWA regulations, Section 2.1, subsection gg in regards to definition of significant impact activity. She asked Mr. Logan his opinion as to whether or not this project will have any significant impact.
Mr. Logan responded that the project does not have a significant adverse impact based on these definitions and will not have a direct impact on the resources.
He continued, stating that the three crossings are not changing the natural channel. The dynamics of the watercourse is not changed; the project is not de-watering or diminishing the water flow within the wetlands or watercourse. Unique areas are not being damaged.
In response to Ms. Olson’s question of whether or not this project is likely to cause unreasonable pollution, impairment or destruction to wetlands or watercourses.
Mr. Logan responded that no, it is not.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that both Mr. Goodin’s and Dr. DeSantos’ reports state that the applicant has not provided a “treatment train”.
Mr. Logan stated that a treatment train is where several Best Management Practices are used in line. He referred to his report of June 6, 2006.
Mr. Logan added that it could include things such as maintenance of sediment basins and catch basins, street sweeping, and use of the sediment fore bay. Each practice works in tandem.
Agent Szewczak noted that deep sumps are being used. He asked if efficiency could be increased through use of a hydrodynamic trap.
Mr. Logan stated yes, it could but questioned if it is necessary. The sumps already collect 48%. If the sediment structure were replaced with a hydrodynamic device, the overall increase would be only 3 to 4%. He now estimates it is 90 to 91% efficient.
He went on to say that studies have shown that 94-or 95% is the top efficiency available with today’s technologies. He asked if it is worth the expense for a more complicated structure for an additional 4%. He added that the applicant would consider it as a condition of approval and noted that having one at the entrance way would be the best location.
Agent Szewczak stated that he feels a hydrodynamic structure is more efficient at removing floatable solids and to improve water quality.
Mr. Logan stated that he does not disagree but it is a matter of scaling. He feels it is a better system for areas where there is not room for large water quality treatment or areas where there is a likelihood of a large spill.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that as efficient as they are, they are also considered to be amphibian killers.
Mr. Logan stated that this site does not have a lot of amphibians. Any catch basin or set structure has the potential for amphibians falling in. He added that Cape Cod curbing is being used, allowing amphibians to move through without falling into the catch basins.
Ms. Olson noted that Ms. Bailey is present and available to answer questions of the Agency.
Agent Szewczak noted that Ms. Bailey had given 3 ways of renovation of runoff, vegetated swales, detention basins and another one.
Ms. Bailey stated that she didn’t remember her previous statement specifically, but her opinion generally is that rain gardens, wetland areas and vegetated swales are good for removing nutrients and pollutants. It is not within her expertise, it is more Mr. Logan’s.
Her impression of the use of rip rap is more to slow water than to treat it.
Agent Szewczak quoted from Ms. Bailey’s report, the summary section. He noted that the latest plans call for elimination of vegetated swales, using rip rap instead. He would have more confidence if vegetative swales were being used, for their ability to help remove nutrients and pollutants.
Ms. Bailey noted that her report stated that the storm water would be treated by engineered structures and referred to her statement referencing “vegetated areas”. She said this did not mean swales but more the buffer area. This would be for overland runoff, not storm water runoff.
Agent Szewczak stated that Ms. Bailey’s report let him to believe that vegetative swales were helpful in conjunction with mechanical means.
Ms. Olson gave summary comments, conclusions, and rebuttal to the interveners and their experts.
She stated that this is a regulated activity and the Agency must determine if there is significant impact and activity and their decision must be made within those parameters.
Only if there is significant impact and activity can feasible and prudent alternatives be considered.
Ms. Olson reminded the Agency that the only encroachment in the wetlands are for the 3 crossings. These crossings are located at the narrowest areas and are the most feasible and prudent alternatives for this site.
Ms. Olson also stated that the applicant feels that the activities taking place outside of the upland review area are not a significant impact.
Ms. Olson added that the intervener must have demonstrable, scientific evidence to prove that there is significant impact. The interveners have not visited the site and the studies quoted by them are not from this site.
In contrast, Mr. Wentworth and Mr. Logan have visited the site, tested and measured for accuracy of their calculations.
Town Staff has pointed out flaws of Dr. DeSantos’ comments.
She also referred to Dr. DeSantos’ comments and the lack of his ability to offer suggestions of changes.
Ms. Olson referred to Mr. Goodin’s report. She noted that the applicant made some changes based on the report but felt others were inappropriate. This included the use of the rational method as opposed to Mr. Goodin’s suggested use of TR20 or TR55 for drainage calculations. Mr. Cabibbo had stated that use of the rational method is acceptable and appropriate for this site.
Ms. Olson feels that the developer has a track record with the Town and there is no reason to believe this development will be different.
Ms. Amy Blaymore Patterson and Mr. Mark Goodin represented the interveners.
Ms. Patterson stated that on July 3, 2006 she had requested in writing that any additional information be made available to her. She did receive the 3 pages of updated plans but not items that were submitted to the Agency this evening, such as the test pit data and permeability data. It was noted by the Lake Association president that these are all new plans and she agrees. She feels at a disadvantage that Mr. Goodin has not been able to review these prior to this evening.
Mr. Goodin stated that it is up to the IWWA to decide the quality, sensitivity, and importance of the wetlands. He feels that these are important, sensitive wetlands.
He added that the lake is eutrophic but also highly sensitive and important. A development can increase the eutrophic nature of the lake.
He asked what are the best available Best Management Practices and alternatives.
He feels several Best Management Practices are being used, but they are of insufficient design and not up to today’s standards. This proposed development is 42 acres, surrounding wetlands and includes lawns for over 70 homes and 4,500 feet of roads. This is significant even if it is outside of the buffer. This is in addition to 3 wetland crossings.
Mr. Goodin went on to say that he feels the interveners have established that there is a significant activity taking place. He also feels that there are many errors and deficiencies in the plans.
Mr. Goodin referred to his original report of March 13, 2006 and his recommendations made there. Several items have still not been addressed and the applicant hasn’t met the Best Management Practices referred to.
He also referred to his reports dated June 13, 2006 regarding the total suspended solids and his general report based on revised plans.
He began with the TSS removal report. He noted that the applicant’s plans state that the street sweeping will be done once per year while Mr. Logan’s report states that it will be done twice per year.
He stated that there are hundreds of errors such as this.
Mr. Goodin noted that mechanical broom sweeping can create more particles and the plan doesn’t state that a different method will be used.
The plans show that regular sumps will be used and a few 4’ sumps. The deep sumps should be 4 times the diameter of the pipe. Regular sumps remove only the largest grit.
Deep sumps should not be used only at the end of the line. D.E.P. suggested guidelines have not been used.
Mr. Goodin also noted that the oil water grit separator is a very remedial system. It is, simply, a double chamber catch basin.
Regarding the detention ponds, Mr. Goodin feels that these are designed for detention but have not been checked for water quality. He wonders if there is enough area for the percentage of wetlands.
He also noted that Mr. Logan had stated that the 80% TSS removal was not necessary for the whole disturbed area. Mr. Goodin totally disagrees. He stated that the 80% removal rate is a minimum and needs to be for the entire disturbed area.
Regarding the 3 new sheets that were submitted, Mr. Goodin noted that the landscape, erosion and sediment control, and profile plans and detail sheets all will need revisions. These will all have to be done after closure of the public hearing.
He noted that Federal and State permits are not shown on the erosion and sediment control plan.
A Storm water construction permit is required. Not all of the requirements for that are incorporated into the plan.
He questioned if there would be an animal crossing at the bridge. The plans are unclear about this.
He also stated that the plans don’t show access across the culvert to build the bridge.
He recommends that the utilities be installed prior to the bridge abutments for less wetland disturbance.
He also suggested that instead of replacing the 36” pipe with the same, that a 48” pipe be installed, with one foot buried.
He added that all of these above items should have been added to the plans prior to submitting them to the Agency due to the potential need of a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.
Agent Poirot requested confirmation that the Army Corps of Engineers permit comes after IWWA approval.
Mr. Goodin stated that is correct but the Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted first to incorporate things that will be required by them for their permit. This will lessen the likelihood of the applicant having to return to the IWWA for a modification of permit.
Mr. Goodin continued, stating that the 3x8’ box culvert has a wing wall but it is not shown on the plans. Only one reference is made, on one page and it needs to be at a certain angle.
Mr. Goodin referred to the plantings at the basin bottoms. On page 22 of 33 it states that they are to be 3’ on center but if those directions are followed, the contractor will run out of plants when only 1/3 of the way through the basin.
He noted that that the permeability tests were provided only this evening. He still feels that the basins won’t work.
He noted an example of Basin B1, located at elevation 200. The bottom of the basin is at 193.8, the difference being 6.1’. This leaves the bottom at ½’ above high groundwater level. He feels the test pits are very sparse and asked if this is the seasonal high water table and asked about the dry months.
He noted that Infiltration basin D, near unit #4 has a depth to ground water of 67”, but no reference as to a high or low. This equals 5’ 6” and the basin is 5’ deep leaving it only about ½ foot above the water table.
Mr. Goodin also stated that he had not mentioned the issue of mosquitoes, except for the infiltration basins because of the proximity to homes.
For basin F, the basin is to be 8’ deep and the groundwater is at 8’3”. This leaves no room for error.
The applicant had stated that the infiltration basins are not necessary, yet the state guidelines require at least 25% infiltration.
Mr. Wentworth also stated that an increase in volume from the site is not prohibited but, Mr. Goodin noted, if someone else is to be flooded out, it is prohibited.
Mr. Goodin also noted that the rain gardens are still not shown on the grading plans and are in areas that are not appropriate.
Also, the outflow needs to be better designed and he disagrees with the calculations. He feels that the water will be going out of the basin more often that has been stated. He asked how long the water is anticipated to stay in the basins.
Mr. Goodin also feels that the drainage system and Best Management Practices are not correct.
He disagreed with the addition of the under-drain to the basin.
Agent Poirot asked if Mr. Goodin had taken into consideration the 24” of clean sand and 6” of loam proposed to be used to slow the absorption in the infiltration basins.
Mr. Goodin replied that it should be tested in the field to be within a certain design range and he has not seen the permeability test calculations. He has not seen how long the water will remain in the pond after the addition of the sand and loam.
Agent Poirot asked, based on the soil conditions being well drained, if Mr. Goodin feels that the infiltration basins will have outflow in a 25 year storm, effecting the wetlands and ultimately, the lake.
Mr. Goodin stated that there are multiple times of year when this can happen. Basin D has an emergency outflow as well as a piped outlet. Even with great soils, it depends on the amount of water coming in and the size of the basins. He also noted that the basins are located next to a tree line. This could cause certain areas to freeze over and not allow for infiltration.
He also noted that the top of the basin is 1’ higher than the basement floor of one of the units close by. If the water were allowed to get that high, the unit would have water problems.
Agent Wawer asked if Mr. Goodin has ever worked in Enfield.
Mr. Goodin replied that he has not.
Agent Wawer noted that Mr. Goodin had mentioned something about the contractor not adhering to the plans. Was he referring to developments in other towns?
Mr. Goodin replied that, with his knowledge of engineering and reading of the plans, he himself can’t answer these questions, so how would a contractor know the answers. The better and more detailed the plans, the more likely it is that the contractor will be able to follow them as intended.
Ms. Patterson asked Mr. Goodin that, based on review of the latest information and revised plans submitted tonight, does he still maintain the conclusion that the activities proposed are reasonably likely to cause unreasonable pollution of the wetlands and watercourses on and off the site.
Mr. Goodin stated yes.
Ms. Patterson also asked, with reference to Mr. Goodin’s June 13, 2006 letter, if he still shares these same conclusions outlined in that letter of adverse impacts and likely unreasonable pollution.
Mr. Goodin again stated yes.
Ms. Patterson concluded by stating that she feels that the plan is not complete and again noted Mr. Rodriguez’s observation that the plan submitted this evening is another new plan. She went on to say that the plans submitted throughout the public hearing have been reactive and were not submitted as complete.
She referred to the Regulations, section 2.1, subsection bb which states that the Agency has the authority to look at any activity, in or outside of wetlands or upland review areas that is likely to have an impact on wetlands and watercourses.
She referred to a statement made by Ms. Olson that the intervener was not specific enough. She noted that a lack of specifics is exactly what the intervener has been dealing with all along.
Dr. DeSantos relied on Mr. Goodin’s information as Dr. Bailey relied on Mr. Wentworth’s information.
Dr. DeSantos agreed with Mr. Goodin’s conclusions and feels that Dr. DeSantos’s conclusions are no more generalized than Dr. Bailey’s or Mr. Logan’s. She quoted from Mr. Angus’ Wetland Agent’s report regarding the burden of proof to be provided by the applicant.
Regarding the Best Management Practices, it is up to the applicant to provide adequate ones. Baystate Environmental noted on page 29 of their report that Best Management Practices are crucial to the duration of a project.
Ms. Patterson stated that she feels the burden of proof required of the intervener has been met. The reports and conclusions provided by the intervener include impacts likely to occur if protections are not taken.
Ms. Patterson referred to the 1992 case of Gardner vs. Waterford and the question of what is unreasonable pollution. Even minimal amounts of pollution is to be avoided if there are reasonable and feasible alternatives.
Regarding unreasonable pollution, Mr. Goodin has provided countless feasible and prudent alternatives from minute to major. The opinions of Mr. Goodin and Dr. DeSantos are not speculations. They have given specific adverse impacts. She also referred to an additional court case that states that the Agency can consider as many alternatives as necessary until the balance between protection of the wetlands and economic development can be achieved.
She also feels that adverse affects by the development have been addressed in detail by Dr. DeSantos and Mr. Goodin.
She mentioned the Riverbend Case and noted that the Agency must find specific evidence of adverse impact. She feels that this is not the same as that case. Mr. Goodin and Dr. DeSantos have provided expert testimony on evidence of adverse impact.
At this time, 10:57 p.m., a motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent LeMay to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall verified with Mr. Angus the appropriateness of Agent LeMay taking part in voting since Agent Wawer is now present. Mr. Angus stated that Agent LeMay was appointed as a full voting member for the public hearing portion of the meeting. Vote was 8-0-0.
Ms. Patterson feels that the applicant has not met the burden of proof and that the Best Management Practices are not enough to adequately protect the wetlands and watercourses and the application should be denied.
At this time, a gentleman from the audience spoke up and requested that audience participation be allowed before the applicant could present a rebuttal.
Mr. Angus stated that it is up to the Chair whether or not to have the rebuttal prior to audience participation.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall chose to allow the applicant’s rebuttal first.
Ms. Olson stated that she disagreed that this application had nothing to do with the Riverbend Case. She feels that Dr. DeSantos was not specific with his expectations or calculations. She also cautioned the Agency to limit their considerations of Mr. Goodin’s comments to those to which he is qualified for. He is not a soil scientist, limnologist or ecologist.
Mr. Wentworth stated that there will not be winged ends on the box culverts. The box culverts are oversized flared ends and he stands by his plans as presented.
With regards to the depths to groundwater, he feels they will perform as planned. He agreed that test pit #3 had a typographical error. The depth will be set to have 3’ of standing water.
Basin D has been designed to accommodate peak flow.
Agent Szewczak asked about the 36” culvert and referred to the Army Corps of Engineers’ requirement of a 12” sandy bottom. Would the applicant consider the increase in pipe size to 48”?
Mr. Wentworth stated that it would change the hydrology. There is an undersized 18” culvert further downstream.
Agent Szewczak asked about the possibility of burying it to provide natural terrain.
Mr. Wentworth stated that it would require a weir further upstream. That could cause erosion but it could be a stone berm within the mitigated wetlands.
Agent Arnone noted that the change could be made, only to find that a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers is not required.
Mr. Wentworth agreed and prefers to maintain the 36” pipe size until told differently by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Ms. Olson stated that the intervener accused the applicant of having incomplete plans and asked Mr. Wentworth if he concurred.
Mr. Wentworth disagreed, stating that if it was the case, the Agency would have denied the plans without prejudice.
Mr. Logan took issue with Mr. Goodin’s comments regarding TSS removal. He stated that these calculations are from the EPA. Also, he is an expert in buffers. These calculations give 90%, if not complete removal.
Moving basin C does not change the landscape plans. He feels he is making it simple by not being specific on the plantings. He or an associate will be present during the planting, to direct it.
Regarding permeability, the rate should be between ½” per hour to 5” per hour. Mr. Logan is aiming for 2” per hour. The applicant would accept a condition of approval of a permeability test to show that the range has been met.
In regards to the statement that Dr. DeSantos could only rely on Mr. Goodin’s engineering analysis, the applicant has provided ecological, wetland and soil experts.
Agent Szewczak asked if the under-drain is adequate to drain?
Mr. Wentworth stated that they will adequately drain over time. There are small orifices to drain. There will be additional volume because of the slow outlet by the under-drain.
Ms. Olson stated that it is up to the intervener to prove that the project will cause harm and only on items within the jurisdiction of the IWWA.
At this time, Agent Staples had momentarily left the room. A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Szewczak to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m. Vote was 7-0-0.
At this time, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall opened the meeting for public participation.
Agent Staples returned to the meeting.
Mr. Richard Ouellette of 47 Shaker Road spoke in favor of the project. He feels it will bring in additional taxes and will be good for the town. He feels that it will not hurt the environment any more than any other development in town has. He feels it is the highest and best use of the site.
Mr. Alan Levitz of 52 Dartmoor Circle, representing Dartmoor Condominiums, spoke against the project. He feels it will bring more flooding problems and raise the water level further at the condominium site. He also expressed concern over the huge increase in traffic.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall reminded Mr. Levitz that traffic is not relevant to the IWWA.
Mr. Silva, president of Dartmoor Condominiums also spoke against the project. He noted the constant changes to the plans and the high water levels at Dartmoor. He also noticed that many of the proposed homes will have to have sump pumps because of the high water levels. He requested that the Agency deny the application.
He also noted that the one speaker in favor of the application is in the real estate business.
Ms. Denise Petula of 57 Jondot Drive sees flooding under current conditions at West View Road. She noted that there are even mallard ducks floating in back yards. She also fears that the project will bring harm to the habitat and aquatic creatures.
Mr. Rej Leonard of 42 Fairfield Road also spoke against the project. He noted that he does not live near the lake but is still concerned. It is up to the IWWA to determine if the application meets all of the requirements. He feels that there are alternatives and that the IWWA is responsible for changing the character of the land.
Mr. Bob Rossman of 14 Shaker Hill Road spoke against the project. He referred to the permeability test. He stated that having lived by the lake for 30 years, he knows that putting loam over sand won’t work.
He also stated that the people who will be following the condo association regulations are not here at the meeting. He feels that the developer did not do due diligence prior to purchasing the property and asked that the IWWA not allow the lake residents to pay for the developer’s mistake.
Ms. Maureen Butler of 65 West Shore Drive noted that the proposed project will have 100 or more vehicles on the new roads in the winter. The will be bringing in salt.
Agent Poirot asked if salt is now being used in that area.
Ms. Butler stated that it is not supposed to be, but is. The Association has also requested that street sweeping be done, but this has not been accomplished because of the construction taking place in the area.
Mr. Angus stated that exhibits numbered 59 through 66 were submitted tonight. His Report lists the previous 58 exhibits.
Agent Poirot asked if the plans have been reviewed by Town Staff.
Mr. Angus answered that the engineer has not had a chance to review the items submitted tonight and he will get a final statement from them shortly.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that the public hearing must close tonight and a decision rendered by August 22, 2006.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Arnone to close the public hearing on IW#460 at 11:45 p.m. Vote was 8-0-0.
A motion was made Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Arnone to close the public hearing at 11:46 p.m. Vote was 8-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Poirot to close the public hearing portion of the meeting at 11:46 p.m. Vote was 8-0-0.
REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to Order:
The Regular meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall at 11:47 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone. LeMay, Poirot, Staples, Szewczak, Tallarita and Wawer. Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Wawer to change the order of the agenda by taking item #9, Old Business before proceeding with the remaining agenda items. 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; EMPHCD July 18, 2006; MPHAD August 22, 2006]
Members discussed their availability for holding a special meeting to discuss this application. Agents LeMay and Tallarita will not be available on the proposed date of August 1, 2006. Other members would not be available the following Tuesday.
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Wawer to hold a special meeting on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Enfield Room to discuss IW#460. Vote was 6-0-1(Tallarita).
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Wawer to table discussion on IW#460 to the special meeting of August 1, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Enfield Room. Vote was 7-0-0.
IW#467 - Associated Builders, Inc. - Proposed building addition and parking lot expansion involving activities within 100 feet of wetlands. Property located at 4 Peerless Way (Map 94 Lot 69); [Submitted June 28, 2006; Received July 5, 2006; PPE July 19, 2006; MAD September 8, 2006]
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Wawer to table discussion on IW#467 to the special meeting of July 19, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Enfield Room. Vote was 7-0-0.
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 Wawer and seconded by Agent Arnone to enter Executive Session with Mr. Angus at 11:55 p.m. to discuss pending litigation, specifically Longhi vs. the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency. As Agent Tallarita has a potential conflict of interest in this matter, he did not participate in the vote and left the meeting for the evening. Vote was 6-0-0.
Members came out of executive session at 12:02 a.m. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that no decisions were made and no votes were taken during executive session.
Adjourn:
As it was now after midnight, no other business could be discussed. A motion was made by Agent Staples and seconded by Agent Arnone to adjourn the meeting at 12:03 a.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________
Frank Poirot, Secretary
|
|
Last Modified: 9/7/2006 11:26:15 AM
|
|
|