|
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Meeting
INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, August 1, 2006
A Special Meeting of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency was held on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 in the Enfield Room, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall, Chairperson
Thomas Arnone
Frank Poirot
Richard Szewczak
Robie Staples
David J. Wawer
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert LeMay
Michael Mosschetti
Louis V. Tallarita
ALSO PRESENT: Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent
Susan Berube, Recording Secretary
SPECIAL MEETING
1. Call to Order
The Special Meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall at 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, Poirot, Staples, Szewczak and Wawer. Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
3. Approval of Minutes -- July 18, 2006 Meeting:
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Arnone to approve the minutes of the meeting of July 18, 2006 with the following corrections: First page, in both “Members Present” heading and #2, Roll Call, change Agent Wawer’s time of arrival to 7:30 p.m., page 5, third paragraph, change “that” to “than”. Vote was 6-0-0.
4. 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]
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall reminded Agency members and the audience that there would be no further input from the applicant, intervener or the public. She asked if members who had missed meetings during the public hearing had the opportunity to review the information received throughout the public hearing.
Agent Wawer, who had been absent at several meetings stated that he has reviewed all of the records, documents, and tapes available for the meetings of April 8, June 6, and June 20, 2006 and feels confident that he is able to make an informed decision.
Agent Poirot also missed a meeting and stated that he had read all documents submitted and the minutes for that meeting.
Agent Staples stated that he had also reviewed documents and minutes for the meeting that he had missed several months ago.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall thanked the applicant, intervener and their respective experts and members of the public that contributed to the public hearing.
At this time, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall opened discussion among Agency members.
Agent Poirot asked if Mr. Angus had heard from the Town’s engineer regarding the completeness of this application, or did Mr. Angus himself have any concerns regarding this.
Mr. Angus replied that his concerns and notes have been listed in his Agent’s Report. The Town Engineer had no concerns on the applicant’s last changes and Mr. Angus referred to the Town Engineer’s previous memo.
Mr. Angus did note his disagreement with a statement made by Ms. Olson, the applicant’s attorney. She had stated that the Town’s Engineer and Wetlands Agent had stated that the project will not negatively impact wetlands and watercourses.
Mr. Angus stressed that in none of his written comments, nor the Town Engineer’s comments was this claim made. Town Staff gives an unbiased review of the information submitted.
Agent Angus asked if it would be appropriate to ask questions about individual conditions of approval, such as who would the soil scientist report to.
Mr. Angus stated that it is up to the Agency members as to how to proceed.
Agent Szewczak stated that he would like to discuss several items of concern that he has. He noted that he heard a lot of expert testimony but that the Agency members are not experts themselves.
His first area of concern is in regard to the method of analysis regarding the amount of runoff accumulation and the Rational vs. the TR55 or TR20 Method.
Agent Szewczak stated that Mr. Goodin had indicated that one was used for sizing of pipes and one method was used for water accumulation.
Agent Poirot agreed. He stated that there had been a good discussion regarding the methodology. He noted that the Town’s Engineer had felt that the applicant’s chosen method was acceptable.
Agent Szewczak also noted that the detention basins and catch basins seem to be oversized but hopes that they are oversized enough. Extreme conditions would have to occur, which he hopes would not happen, but also noted that the margin of error is unknown. It could be 5% or 100%.
Mr. Angus stated that the Town’s Engineer had stated that the TR20 or TR55 method is a more exact calculation. The applicant used a more conservative approach, resulting in oversized basins. Mr. Angus quoted from the Town Engineer’s report that the system has been designed to hold up to a 100 year storm event.
Agent Poirot stated that he feels that between the conservative method chosen and the soil conditions present, address his concerns, in addition to the Town Engineer’s report.
Agent Szewczak also expressed concern over TSS and the accuracy of those calculations to determine what was and was not acceptable. The applicant stated that the removal rate would be between 90 and 95%.
The intervener’s engineer felt that the values were being used twice and were not accurate values.
Agent Szewczak is of the opinion that one cannot remove too many TSS and he would want to err on the side of being conservative. He also noted that the applicant’s soil scientist had agreed that it was possibly a good idea to use a hydrodynamic unit at the last catch basin.
Agent Arnone noted that proposed condition #26 mentions use of a cyclone separator, possibly at the corner of Mayfield Drive.
Mr. Angus stated that the condition is not specific of the site but if the Agency decides to use a hydrodynamic separator, the condition would need to state where it is to be installed.
Agent Szewczak noted that there are 3 other points of discharge that could also use further treatment.
He also noted that the minutes state that one of the attorneys had said that even little improvements are better than no improvements at all.
Agent Arnone stated that he feels that separators are more of a primary treatment, the beginning of a “treatment train”, not the end.
Agent Szewczak felt that it would be a good idea to start the train with cleaner water, which would make it cleaner at the end.
Agent Szewczak also noted that flock logs for use on solubles had been a topic of discussion at one point but he could not recall the conclusion as to whether or not they should be used.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall replied that it was the consensus that flock logs are best used during construction as they require a lot of maintenance.
Mr. Angus added that the use of flock logs are part of the erosion and sediment control plan during construction. Mr. Angus referred to the plans regarding the flock logs and noted that their performance is to be monitored throughout construction by REMA. The use of flock logs is also part of the water quality plan.
At this time (7:24 p.m.) Agent Poirot briefly left the meeting.
Mr. Angus added that the flock logs are only temporary and require monitoring and replacement. He quoted from Exhibit #24 where it is stated that flock logs will be used as a remedial measure as part of the water quality monitoring plan.
If they find problems during construction, they would add additional measures.
Mr. Angus also added that if the Agency felt strongly, it could be added as part of the conditions as reinforcement. They are mentioned on sheets 26, 27, & 28.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if Agency members had additional questions.
Agent Szewczak also expressed concern on the amount of volume of anticipated runoff. The runoff has to go somewhere.
Mr. Goodin had felt there should be zero increase of runoff from the site but the applicant was comfortable with allowing additional runoff from the site, as long as it is extended.
Agent Szewczak has concerns over the effect downstream from any additional runoff and noted the area of the 36” pipe that eventually down stream goes into an 18” pipe. The 36” pipe could not be increased in size due to the effect it would have downstream but there may be other areas of flow that could have the same effect down stream, possibly causing a “bottleneck”.
Agent Poirot returned to the meeting at 7:29 p.m.
Agent Staples noted that no one – applicant or intervener can say what the impact could or will be. All figures given have been estimated.
Agent Szewczak agreed. A decision needs to be made and it should be as informed of a decision as possible. Also, feasible and prudent alternatives need to be looked at. He wonders if the cycle of flow could be arrested so as not to send excess flow downstream.
Mr. Angus quoted from Mr. Cabibbo’s Report regarding the increase in volume and noted that the question remains unanswered.
Agent Staples noted that that a memo from Mr. Cabibbo also stated that there were several places on the plans where the minimum pipe requirements had not been met.
Mr. Angus stated that this comment was from a May 15 memo. This issue has since been addressed.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if changes to the detention basins in conjunction with the infiltration basins addressed the concern of additional off site flow.
Mr. Angus responded that the function of the infiltration basins is to allow recharging on site instead of the water leaving the site. The rain gardens are also for infiltration and are not considered in the calculations.
There will be some infiltration by storm water detention basins but their primary purpose is for storm water storage.
Agent Arnone also noted that even the Bay State Environmental Report shows that the lake is already being affected by the watershed and runoff now. He noted that the last page of the report mentioned that Stonegate might want to become a stakeholder in the lake.
He asked if the IWWA has the authority to make this a condition of approval or if Stonegate could be required to financially help with the upkeep of the lake.
Both Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Mr. Angus responded that the IWWA cannot get involved with private property issues and also the IWWA cannot make conditions that require monetary figures for upkeep. This would not hold up in court.
Agent Poirot asked how the bonding for proposed condition #18 works.
Mr. Angus explained that bonding is justifiable and permitted as per the IWWA Regulations and is typical for this type of application.
Agent Poirot asked if this is used as an insurance that remediation of damage caused by, as an example, an unfinished storm basin?
Mr. Angus responded that this is for stabilization of basins and creation of wetlands. The money can be used to have wetlands and basins function as designed. There is a separate erosion and sediment bond that is required from the Engineering Department and goes through the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Agent Szewczak noted that maintenance of the detention and infiltration basins is critical, in addition to the catch basins and other improvements.
Agent Szewczak quoted from the Clarence Welti report regarding the need for access to the basins for upkeep. The applicant had stated that specialized equipment would be used so as not to need a permanent access road and it was mentioned by the applicant, that if preferred by the Agency, an access road could be added as a condition of approval.
Agent Szewczak noted that he would want to ensure that access to the basins is available for maintenance, even if specialized equipment is not available.
Agent Poirot asked if the use of specific pieces of equipment could be made part of a condition of approval.
Agent Szewczak stated that he is only looking for access to the basin, not to specify the type of special equipment. This is as per the recommendation of the geo-technical engineer.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if Agent Szewczak wanted specific locations.
Agent Szewczak stated that this would not be necessary; it is more a matter of creating realized access points.
Agent Wawer asked if Agent Szewczak was suggesting adding impervious surface.
Agent Szewczak stated no, he was not. He quoted from Mr. Welti’s 2005 report, paragraph 4.5. He wonders if the Agency should be concerned about access to the basins.
Agent Arnone mentioned that the applicant had stated that roads are not necessary because the basins are already close to the roads.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that originally only 2 of the basins were near the roads, but the 3rd basin was moved and is now closer as well. The infiltration basins are not as easily accessed. Basin f is behind units and access to unit D is tight.
Agent Szewczak stated his concern is only with the detention basins. He is not an expert on how they are to be maintained. His concern is on the soils that are sensitive to remolding when they are wet. He feels it prudent to have access as suggested by the Welti Report.
Agent Arnone felt that the equipment will not go into the basin. Maintenance would be through use of bucket type vehicles.
Agent Szewczak noted that some of the basins are 100’ in diameter. They can easily be accessed from one side, but the rear of one basin is right at the upland review area. He feels that access would be insurance to maintenance being done.
Mr. Angus stated that these basins are designed to be wet bottom and are multi-celled basins.
He noted Basin C as an example. It has a sediment fore bay where sediment will stay and that area is to be maintained. The remainder of the basin will need no maintenance. He added that Welti’s design was based on a dry basin. He also noted that adding stone underneath the surface of the basin bottom would allow for infiltration and therefore the basin would not support some of the wetland plants.
Agent Szewczak noted that for Detention Basin C, equipment would have to go partly down into the basin. Also, the stone filter berms need maintenance and can’t be accessed from the road.
Mr. Angus stated that the plans state that the stone berms will be replaced every 5 years. He referred to suggested condition #23 which requires that wetland plants that are disturbed during maintenance be replaced. These conditions become part of the condo documents.
Agent Szewczak stated that the infiltration basins are in an area of free draining soils. The remaining disturbed area of the site are silty soils.
Mr. Angus stated that the detention basins are designed for detainment, not percolation.
It is important to keep vehicles out of infiltration basins so as not to change the hydrology.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted the need to address feasible and prudent alternatives and asked Agency members if the applicant has shown this plan to be the most feasible and prudent alternative.
Agent Poirot stated that he feels that the applicant has shown it to be on 3 fronts: the applicant reduced the impervious surface from the original proposal; enlarged the retention areas; and moved disturbance from the upland review area.
He feels it can’t be taken further than that before it becomes unfeasible. He won’t address “perfect world” issues of stopping building. The property rights of the owner and that of those already there must be realized and there is a need to be sensitive to all issues raised.
Also, we try to predict, in some ways, the future, in how things will end up. Two things helped him to come to his conclusions. He visited the site during both wet and dry conditions, although it was not extremely wet. He also noted that although it cannot be considered as part of the decision, he has looked at the track record of the applicant.
Agent Arnone spoke. He stated that he saw the Connecticut Storm water Manual used in this application. It is strictly a guideline and not normally followed to the letter. He feels what is presented here today, and what is modern in projects like this, is based on best management practices available today. The applicant has done a fairly decent job on putting all of this together.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that she also has given this application a great deal of thought and has come to the same conclusion.
She noted that the applicant had stood by their original plan but did make changes based on the intervener’s input. She feels that the original plan was unacceptable. The locations of the basins was a great concern to her; relocating them was crucial as was moving activity out of the regulated areas.
She added that this type of housing is the least intrusive and will have less impact than single family homes. There is less, or no likelihood of encroachment into the upland review area.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall also added that some comments made by members of the public cannot be considered by the IWWA, such as tax dollars, increase in traffic, and proximity of the basins to the units for safety concerns. The applicant has demonstrated that there are no alternatives to the road entry points and Planning & Zoning require 2 access and exit points resulting in 2 wetland crossings and the third crossing is necessary to develop the easterly portions of the property.
Agent Szewczak stated that he still has some concerns. He still has a problem with the density of the housing. He never received a definitive answer on what number of units would be detrimental.
He also noted his preference of vegetated swales instead of armored swales, for the benefit of water cleansing as it leaves the basins.
He feels there should be ways to minimize the impact. Any benefit is a worthwhile benefit to water quality and the downstream venue. He is not sure he can support the application.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that Mr. Angus has prepared a large number of possible conditions for approval. Mr. Angus had stated that many of the conditions are to back up the items already in the plan. It would have been nice if it hadn’t taken this long to get to this point and if these items had been in the plans already. However, it is not unusual for plans to develop through the course of the public hearing.
Mr. Angus reviewed the proposed conditions of approval. They serve to reinforce issues brought up by the public, intervener, and applicant so that everyone is aware that these issues are closely tied to the project.
During Mr. Angus’ review of the conditions, Agent Poirot briefly left the meeting at 8:24 p.m. during discussion of proposed condition #15. He returned at 8:31 p.m. during discussion of proposed condition #23.
In discussion of proposed condition #26, Agent Szewczak expressed his concern that hydrodynamic separators should be added at catch basins B, B1, B2 and C.
Mr. Angus stated that Catch Basin 3 is the first one off of Mayfield Drive and has a sedimentation structure. He asked if CB3 should be replaced with a hydrodynamic separator.
Agent Szewczak feels that adding the separators to Catch Basin 3 and also 17, 39 and 46 would be a positive attempt to catch sediment and suspended solids.
Mr. Angus noted that these need to be added to the list of sediment structures in condition #26.
Members held further discussion regarding the separators and it was the consensus to add hydrodynamic separators to the following 6 catch basins: 3, 17, 29, 39, 46, 53.
After Mr. Angus’s review of the proposed conditions, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall addressed the subject of feasible and prudent alternatives.
Mr. Angus noted that his Agent’s Report separated the proposed conditions and issues that need to be taken into consideration by the Agency to come to a decision.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that she believes that alternatives have been discussed by the applicant and that due to the configuration of the property and due to fire safety and zone regulations that 2 entries are required and 2 wetlands crossings, #1 and #2 are required.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall feels that the applicant has addressed many of the Agency’s concerns and has brought all activity except for the crossings and outlets out of the upland review area.
She added that she does not feel that the intervener’s experts proved that density would have an impact. She also feels that the court case information provided by Mr. Angus showed that the Agency can consider density. The expert provided by the intervener, however, would not provide an answer when questioned on this.
The intervener admitted that development cannot be stopped but wants it done in the best way. It is not always possible to have land abutting us undeveloped. With the intervener’s help, the Agency was able to do the best they could.
There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Wawer to approve IW#460 with the 10 standard conditions, in addition to the following 19 as amended during discussion:
11. Units #14, 16 and 18 are to be eliminated, modifying the total number of units from 76 to 73, as shown on the site plan entitled "Overall Layout Stonegate, Prepared for Stonegate Associates, Enfield, Connecticut"; dated 2-14-06; revised through 7-17-06; Sheet 2 of 33; Prepared by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, 177 West Town Street, Lebanon, CT 06249 (Exhibit #59). All required approved plan sheets, including but not limited to sheets 2, 7-10, 12, 19-22, 24, 26-29, shall be revised to reflect this reduction in units and change in locations of basins and phasing lines, prior to filing of the mylars;
12. Those portions of the total site indicated to be conservation easement shall be first offered to the town as an easement or restrictive covenant. The Easement language shall be approved by the Town Attorney and filed prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Conservation easement markers shall be installed in accordance with Town requirements, by a licensed surveyor, at the applicant's expense. Easement markers will be provided by the Planning Department. Where no trees are present greater than 6" dbh, easement markers shall be placed on 4"x4" wooden posts to demarcate the easement boundary. Should the Town Council decline the acceptance of the easement or restrictive covenant, a notification shall be placed on the land records that indicates the extent of wetland and watercourse resources on-site and the regulations governing those resources, including the prohibition of live vegetation removal and disposal of refuse and/or yard waste within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses.
13. This project is approved in five (5) phases as shown on the approved plan set. For each phase, the base course of asphalt must be installed and all exposed areas surrounding the unit are temporarily or permanently stabilized prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on any certificates of occupancy. Should stabilization not be possible due to the time of year, a stabilization bond will be required to be posted by the owner in the amount of $500 for each unit prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the Certificate of Occupancy. Phasing plan narrative on Sheet 30 of 33 shall also be amended to eliminate the construction of 2 model homes in phase 3;
14. Limits of disturbance for each phase are to be clearly marked in the field in accordance with the approved plans and approved by the Wetlands Agent prior to the commencement of any vegetation removal. Construction fencing shall be used to identify the limits of disturbance adjacent to approved crossing areas;
15. For each phase, all perimeter and approved crossing erosion and sediment controls and construction fencing must be in place prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on any building permits;
16. In-stream and in-wetland construction activities associated with the approved crossings shall take place only during low flow conditions (July 1 through September 30) to minimize excessive erosion and sedimentation as a result of excessive runoff and heavily saturated soils. Any dewatering required shall occur within the approved limits of disturbance and not be directly discharged into wetlands or watercourses. Where diverted runoff is expected to be carrying a sediment load, the runoff shall be released to a sediment impoundment prior to discharge to wetlands or watercourses. Construction access to the east side of the Stonegate Drive crossing at Sta.11+75 shall be from the existing crossing at Sta.37+40 (Westgate Drive). No construction equipment is permitted to cross through the wetland areas unless otherwise indicated on the approved plans;
17. Wetland Creation plans are approved in accordance with the May 11, 2006 Report from REMA Ecological Services (Exhibit 24). Referenced plans: Sheet M-1 and M-2 entitled "Landscaping Plan for Proposed Wetland Mitigation Showing Approximate Locations for Proposed Plants and Seeding Areas Wetland creation"; dated May 11, 2006. Westgate Drive wetland mitigation is approved in accordance with the details listed in the June 6, 2006 report from REMA (Exhibit 45) including mitigation area details, including planting notes, installation, follow-up maintenance and monitoring and planting materials lists;
18. A 'Wetland Enhancement Bond' shall be posted for both created wetlands, all detention basins, infiltration basins and buffer/crossing enhancement plantings. Bonding shall be calculated using the cost of plantings, plus a 50% mark-up for installation and labor. The bond amount is to be set by the Wetlands Agent and the full amount posted prior to the issuance of any building permits. Bonding is permitted to be phased in accordance with the approved phasing plans (for the purposes of bonding, the wetland creation area in the utility ROW is part of Phase I). Timing of release of the bond is after two full growing seasons and submittal of the second Annual Monitoring Report as required on sheet M-2 of the Wetland Mitigation Plan submitted by REMA(Exhibit 24). Should the report identify problematic conditions, the bonding will be held for an additional year, or until a favorable report is submitted by the Wetland Scientist;
19. At the applicant's expense, a Wetland Scientist must be hired to oversee each approved crossing construction (including temporary diversion construction and maintenance) and temporary and permanent stabilization in accordance with the 2002 CT Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. The Wetland Scientist must also oversee the construction of both wetland creation areas and all detention and infiltration basins, as well as all associated mitigative plantings, in accordance with the approved plans and reports. Upon the completion of each crossing and wetland mitigation area, the Wetland Scientist shall submit a report to the Agency to verify completion in accordance with the approved plans;
20. A Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Plan and Construction Water Quality Monitoring Plan are required to be implemented as part of this development as detailed in the May 11, 2006 REMA report (Exhibit #24). In the event of any problems identified, the applicant will implement the necessary controls as recommended by the consultant and/or Town Staff. Interim monitoring reports are to be submitted to the Agency as required;
21. Post-construction surface water quality monitoring plan entitled "Management Plan for Stonegate Estates, Mayfield Drive, Enfield, CT", dated March 2006, prepared by Somerset Development, LLC, Enfield Connecticut, as detailed in Appendix 2 of the REMA Report dated March 29, 2006 (Exhibit #5), is to be incorporated into the management plan documents transferred from the developers to the entity assuming ownership of the common properties. A copy of the document must be provided to the Enfield Department of Planning before the Wetlands Agent may sign off on the first building permit;
22. The report entitled "Landscaping and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan to Minimize Environmental Impacts" dated May 2006 as detailed in the May 11, 2006 REMA report (Exhibit #24) is to be incorporated into the management plan documents transferred from the developers to the entity assuming ownership of the common properties. A copy of the document must be provided to the Enfield Department of Planning before the Wetlands Agent may sign off on the first building permit;
23. The Storm water Runoff Management Plan on Sheet 33 of 33 is to be followed for long-term maintenance. The following notes shall be added to the appropriate section of the plan: "Supplemental wetland plantings shall be installed if significant portions have not established or after sediment accumulation removal and/or filter berm replacement." and "Any dewatering required for basin maintenance shall not be directly discharged to wetlands and watercourses" and "The responsible party shall maintain up-to date inspection logs and maintenance reports. Failure to follow the approved Plan will result in a violation of this permit and be subject to enforcement action as per the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses regulations". This plan is to be incorporated into the management plan documents transferred from the developers to the entity assuming ownership of the common properties. A copy of the document must be provided to the Enfield Department of Planning before the Wetlands Agent may sign off on the first building permit ;
24. Permeability tests shall be conducted to confirm the final permeability rates of the constructed infiltration basins to ensure rates are within the acceptable range of ½ " to 5" per hour. The ideal rate is 2" per hour;
25. The revised "typical infiltration basin detail" submitted on July 18, 2006 (Exhibit #61) shall replace the current detail on Sheet 31 of 33. This change shall be added to the final approved plans prior to filing of the mylars;
26. All sedimentation structures (CB3, 17, 29, 39, 46, 53) are to be replaced with hydrodynamic separators. Hydrodynamic structures must be appropriately sized to adequately treat the "first flush" and avoid re-suspension of materials. Sizing calculations must be submitted and approved by the Town Engineer. Quarterly detailed maintenance schedules, as per the manufacturers specifications, must be added to the storm water management plan on sheet 33 of 33 and incorporated into the management plan documents transferred from the developers to the entity assuming ownership of the common properties);
27. The following note is to be added to the Rain Garden Notes and Specifications on Sheet 23 of 33, as per REMA's June 6, 2006 report (Exhibit 45): "12. Rain garden area will be approximately 333 square feet. Plant 14 shrubs in each rain garden: three (3) each of two of the medium-tall shrub species and eight (8) low meadowsweet shrubs, in single species groupings (species listed above)." Rain Gardens depicted on Sheets 18-22 of 33 must be installed by a qualified professional, in accordance with the specifications and notes on sheet 23 of 33. Minor modifications/variations in locations are permitted within the approved limits of disturbance, based on site conditions. Additional rain gardens and/or dry wells may also be constructed within the approved limits of disturbance if soil and site conditions warrant;
28. Any fill material brought into the site must be inspected by a qualified individual to ensure it is relatively free of invasive seeds and/or plants;
29. With the exception of the additional items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with the Site Plans entitled "Stonegate Estates Prepared for Stonegate Associates, Enfield, CT, 76 Unit Senior Residential Development" Sheets 1 through 17 and 24 through 33, dated 2-14-06, revised through 7-17-06; prepared by Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC, 1379 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06108 and Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, 177 West Town Street, Lebanon, CT 06249; and Landscape Plans entitled "Landscape Plan Stonegate, Prepared for Stonegate Associates, Enfield, Connecticut" Sheets 18 through 23, dated 2-14-06 and 9-9-05, revised through 5-26-06; prepared by Raymond Jefferson Landscape Architect, 790 Farmington Ave, Farmington, CT 06032. Any changes that would potentially cause greater impact to wetlands or watercourses, such as enlargement or reorientation of structure footprints, from the plans and any denial or changes made by any other regulatory agency or commission shall require the permittee to come before the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency for a Permit Modification or Determination of Permit Need (Jurisdictional Ruling).
Vote was 4-1(Staples)-1(Szewczak).
Reason for approval was that the project, with mitigation, will not adversely affect wetlands and watercourses.
• Next regular meeting is Tuesday, September 5, 2006 at 7:30PM in the Enfield Room
5. Adjourn:
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Wawer to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
________________________________
Frank Poirot, Secretary
|
|
Last Modified: 9/7/2006 11:31:33 AM
|
|
|