|
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Meeting
INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency was held on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall, Chairperson
Thomas Arnone
Frank Poirot
Louis V. Tallarita
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Mosschetti
Robert LeMay
Robie Staples
Richard Szewczak
David J. Wawer
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning/Acting Wetlands Agent
Susan Berube, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall at 7:02 p.m.
2. Pledge Of Allegiance:
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
3. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, Poirot and Tallarita. Also present were Jose Giner, Director of Planning/Acting Wetlands Agent, and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
4. Hearing(s):
IW#468 – Brad Collins - Proposed 2-lot subdivision and new house construction involving grading and placement of structures within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 20 Bacon Road (Map 95 Lot 2) Zoned R-R-44 [Submitted July 27, 2006; Received September 5, 2006; PPE September 19, 2006; MPHCD October 10, 2006]:
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall reviewed public hearing procedures for the benefit of those in the audience.
Attorney Carl Landolina of Fahey & Landolina, Michael Gragnolati, soil scientist and Brad Collins represented the applicant. Mr. Landolina noted that the project engineer, Mr. Kement was not available to be present at this meeting.
Mr. Landolina presented receipts from the required certified mail notice to the abutters. He noted that one of the abutters, MKR LLC, did not return the signed card.
Mr. Landolina described the subject parcel. It is 5 acres located on the south side of Bacon Road. The owner proposes to create 2 lots – one in the front and one in the rear. The proposed design complies with the Town’s zoning regulations.
Mr. Gragnolati noted that the front lot is 1.3 acres and the rear lot is 3.62 acres. The wetland boundary is shown in blue on the map and is a manmade drainage ditch that flows east to west.
The site is relatively flat. The spoils of the ditch were piled to the side of the ditch.
The soils on the site are made up predominately of Walpole and Scarborough types.
There is an isolated wetland in the front lot and was at one time probably connected to the wetland to the west.
The plans show the limits of clearing and will have silt fence along the limits and around the stockpile. There will be a screened area between the front and rear lots.
The site is currently secondary growth, and includes red maple, cinnamon fern, and high bush blueberry.
Agent Arnone asked if accommodations have been made for sumps and roof leaders.
Mr. Gragnolati explained that neither are planned. The house sites will be built up and the roof leaders will drain directly onto the ground. The water table likely is too high for an infiltration system to work. He added that rainwater is relatively clean.
Agent Poirot asked for the elevation of the water table.
Mr. Gragnolati responded that it is 17”, which is why the applicant will be building up the lot.
Agent Poirot asked the elevation of the basement floors.
Mr. Gragnolati responded that the top of the wall is at 181.5.
Agent Poirot asked if it is designed for a high water table.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that this was out of his expertise.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked for clarification of Mr. Gragnolati’s response that the 17” groundwater table is a general statement and not site specific.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that it is. He took borings. A steady level of 19” and above is classified as wetlands. Building up eliminates the need to deal with the water table.
Referring to Mr. Angus’ Staff Comments in the Agent’s Report, Mr. Gragnolati added that he saw no vernal pool on site. The comments may have referred to an isolated wetland but it is surrounded by bituminous concrete and pachysandra that someone left or planted there.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if Mr. Gragnolati had been on the adjoining property currently undergoing a tree-cutting operation.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that he was not authorized to enter the adjoining property and so did not. He did not that the adjoining property is significantly wet.
In response to a question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Gragnolati stated that the fill will be clean and pervious. The builder will work with the building department and will also want to ensure the use of clean fill for his customers. He does not know the amount of fill that will be brought in.
After brief discussion, if was assumed that approximately 4’ of material would be brought in for the front house.
Mr. Gragnolati also went on to say that the applicant proposes a shallow grass swale between the 2 lots to take runoff from both lots and direct it to the wetlands.
Agent Poirot asked if the applicant has considered having only one lot as a prudent and feasible alternative.
Mr. Landolina stated that the parcel has enough land for 3 lots and had originally considered 2 rear lots and one front lot. The applicant didn’t want to completely clear the lot and cross the ditch or encroach on wetlands. The applicant did not consider having only 1 lot.
Mr. Giner asked if the swale plans include any notes for maintenance and guaranteeing that it remains unobstructed.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that it will not be deep enough to dump into and will be to the benefit of the owners to maintain the swale. He added that the border between the front and rear lots will be treed so the swale should not need to be treed as well.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that she could see where the swale would be a dumping area for lot 2.
In response to a question by Agent Arnone, Mr. Gragnolati stated that the swale will be gradual, able to be mowed, as it will only be 1’ deep. He would expect that lot 1 would take care of it.
Mr. Landolina offered that the property line could be moved to make the swale in lot 1 and not lot 2. This might encourage the owner of lot 1 to take better care of it.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if the area within the limits of clearing would be entirely clear cut to the silt fence.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that this was his understanding.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that the grading on the east side is close to the wetlands where the underground utilities are planned.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that he could not go off of the subject property to flag wetlands. The clearing in that area is for a driveway only.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall wondered how accurate the delineation of the regulated area us in relation to the wetlands on the abutting property. She asked if it would be possible to see the wetlands delineation on the abutting property.
Agent Arnone asked if the applicant is proposing a conservation easement.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that the applicant is not proposing one at this time.
Agent Arnone noted that the wooded area leading to the wetlands would be a potential area for conservation easement but he has not yet visited the site.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that the placement of the house on lot 2 puts it ½ into the upland review area and asked if it could be situated totally outside of the upland review area.
Mr. Landolina stated that it could be moved further west but some of it would still remain within the buffer area. The engineer has tried to place the houses so that they will not be directly behind one another. Mr. Landolina offered to have the houses moved. He added that the front house cannot be moved east because of the side yard zoning requirement.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked that the applicant consider reducing the project to one lot from the two proposed. She realizes that the applicant was considering 3 lots at one time. Her concern is with homes that have been constructed recently with extensive wetlands and only small clearings for yards. Either the applicant/builder or new owner doesn’t abide by the deed restrictions.
Mr. Landolina offered to place a conservation easement beyond the limits of disturbance. Then it would become a matter of enforcement.
At this time, members reviewed the map of the abutting property, IW #458, which is currently being logged. The map provided by Mr. Giner does not seem to be flagged and was not helpful to Agency members at this time.
At this time, the public hearing was opened for public comment.
Mr. David Greene of 16 Bacon Road spoke. He stated that he is not opposed to the development but wants to understand the map and has concerns over the drainage of the lots.
Mr. Greene stated that the elevation of his land is 4 to 6’ higher than the subject parcel and he has a wet basement. He expressed concern over filling the land to elevate it and clearing it of trees, fearing it will cause additional water problems on his land. Mr. Greene stated that he has lived on this parcel his entire life and wants to make sure there that new water problems are not created. He feels that the current proposal will divert water towards his lot.
Agent Poirot asked if Mr. Greene knew the elevation of his basement.
Mr. Greene stated that the floor is only 4 to 5’ below ground level. He does have a sump pump and believes that the water table is higher than Mr. Gragnolati’s statement of 17”. He went on to say that he has had standing water in his back yard. His basement is shallow, less than 6’ in height and the 1st floor is less than 2’ from ground level. The grade goes down from the house. He is concerned over the possibility of having a swampy backyard.
Agent Arnone stated that the new homes would be brought up 4’ with fill and asked if that would still make them below the elevation of his basement, at elevation of approximately 172.
Mr. Greene believed so. He also noted that the subject property holds another ditch which goes the length of the property, alongside the wetlands, that connects with the ditch previously mentioned by the applicant. This ditch has 2 to 3’ of water in it at least 6 months of the year.
Ms. Denise Dupont of 12 Bacon Road expressed concern over the impact of the 2 homes. She noted that Hallmark Cards has a culvert that goes under Bacon Road into the ditch which eventually drains to Shaker Pond. The ditch has water in it pretty much year-round. She added that her basement has a sump pump and her yard is built up but she still gets water from underground springs.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that he has worked on the property to the south and feels that the water from the subject property travels south. The highlighted ditch on the map is noted only because it is an intermittent watercourse and crosses the property. The topography map shows the long ditch within the wetlands. He added that the site is relatively flat with a high water table. The applicant has tried to stay away from the abutters with the development.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked about the proposed swale.
Mr. Gragnolati explained that it will head toward Mr. Greene’s property but then will head south before his property line.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked what the impact of clear-cutting will be on the water table. The Agency has had situations before of the water table rising with the removal of trees.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that the clear cutting will be approximately 115’ from the abutters and will be 180’ in the front.
He stated that the clear cutting will be for creation of small lawns and he stated that the applicant would consider offering a conservation easement.
Agent Poirot suggested that the effect on the abutters might be better decided by Staff than by the applicant.
Mr. Giner stated that this would be an engineering issue.
Agent Poirot stated that he would like an answer from a third party or independent source.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that some clear cutting will be done just to accommodate the stockpile. If the application is approved, is it the applicant’s intention to build both houses simultaneously or could they be sequenced to allow for the stockpiles to be placed on the proposed house sites.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that the houses will be built up so the stockpiles are for topsoil only.
Mr. Landolina stated that the soil will be stockpiled until needed. Mr. Kement had agreed that the piles can be moved and Mr. Landolina agrees that sequencing the building would be prudent. The plans will be changed to address the stockpile issue.
Mr. Gragnolati was unable to answer agent Arnone’s question regarding the depth of the footing.
Agent Arnone stated that he would like the floor level question answered so that the Agency will know for sure whether or not a sump pump will be needed.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that he will request that the engineer address the drainage issues.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall added that Staff will need to address these issues as well.
At this time, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall again opened the hearing for public comment.
Mr. Greene, 16 Bacon Road stated that from the plans, it looks as thought the water wants to be diverted to the rear and directly to his property. He has been told by an engineer that his own house should be raised 5’. His neighbor’s land is even higher than his and also has water problems. He feels his house is an island. The area from his house to the proposed development site is wet year-round. He feels a sump pump will be a necessity for the new houses, if approved. He also feels that a large storm would bring water to the first floor of the new houses.
A motion was made at 8:05 p.m. by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Tallarita to continue the public hearing for IW #468 to the meeting of October 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 4-0-0.
IW#471 – Tim Fortune - Proposed 4-lot re-subdivision involving excavation, filling, grading and placement of structures within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 48 Steele Road (Map 52, Lot 55 and Map 53 Lot 1) Zoned R-33 [Submitted September 13, 2006; Received September 19, 2006; PPE October 3, 2006]:
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall again reviewed the public hearing procedures for the benefit of those wishing to speak on this application.
Mr. Tim Fortune of 48 Post Road represented the applicant.
Mr. Fortune submitted the certified mail receipts, noting that 20 of the 22 notices have been returned.
Mr. Fortune stated that he has downloaded and is reading the 2004 Storm water Quality Manual and plans to adhere to the recommendations.
He is proposing a conservation easement as noted on the map.
There is a drainage ditch that runs from Porter & Chester Institute on Weymouth Road and picks up water from storm drains along the way to the subject property. It also acts as a “gutter” for most of the lot. An easement will be granted to the Town of Enfield to maintain the ditch.
The houses will have as many trees and natural vegetation along the easement as possible, as a buffer for privacy and will make the lot more desirable for sale.
The gutter and footing drains will be shown on the plot plans prior to construction.
Mr. Fortune added that from experience, he prefers to wait until the land is cleared to see the natural flow.
He gave a brief overview of the schedule of construction: first will be placement of the erosion and sediment controls, then the conservation easement signs will be placed, and then the lots will be cleared and then the construction road will be created. He added that he will be on site daily.
Mr. Fortune stated that the homes on Pilgrim Circle are 4 to 8’ or even 10’ higher than the drainage ditch.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if Mr. Fortune had received a copy of the Staff comments by Mr. Angus. She stated that Mr. Fortune will need to address part C of the application, including a written sequence of construction and list any work to be done in the watercourse. A written, detailed plan of such work will be required.
She added that a public hearing has more requirements than a regular application. It would help to have the soil scientist present at the public hearing. She highlighted some of the items needing to be addressed in section C.
Mr. Fortune stated that the driveways are closest to the wetlands. For the disturbance, he plans to use a seed mix that is appropriate. He feels that the disturbance will not have a negative impact on the wetlands.
Agent Arnone stated that the applicant needs to provide a pre-construction effect on the drainage ditch from the roof leaders and sump pumps and where they will be located, if required.
Agent Poirot also noted that the stockpile location is not shown on the plans.
Mr. Fortune stated that they are not on the plans, since he will decide their location once the land is cleared.
Mr. Giner stated that these items do need to be shown on the plans. If necessary, plans can be changed if conditions in the field differ from the plans, after consulting with Staff.
Agent Arnone also stated that a soil scientist should be consulted regarding the proper seed mix and that mix should be noted on the plans.
Mr. Fortune stated that he can have his landscaper provide the seed.
Mr. Giner stated that he had no comments at this time.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall opened the hearing for public comment. She read into the record an email from David Frederick, in favor of the application.
Mr. Joe Jean of 14 Pilgrim Circle stated that his property abuts the site and he has lived there since 1988. He stated that in 2002 the IWWA stopped illegal clear-cutting on the subject property after approximately 40 to 50’ was cut. Last fall he had water and a cracked basement wall. It was the first time he had water and there was 6”, even with 2 sump pumps running constantly. He cannot say for certain that the loss of trees resulted in the water problems but feels it was a factor. He has had to spend a great deal of money to have drains and sumps installed to stop the water from coming in. He feels adding footprints to the site and the removal the trees could create additional problems for the entire neighborhood. He added that the ditch does not flow well.
Mr. Jean also stated that the lot behind him has a “lake” which has gotten worse since the trees were cut. He expressed concern over the mosquitoes and also feels that the water table will rise further with the development. He asked where the water will go and what size will the houses be.
He referred to the applicant’s map and showed where the trees were cut, a year ago, this past July, and where his house is in relation to the proposed lots, as well as the location of the “lake”.
Mr. Ron Bearse of 11 Pilgrim Circle expressed concern over the flow of water. There is an additional ditch along Steele Road that feeds into the ditch on the subject property.
Mr. Bearse has lived here 3 years. He had a dry basement during the heavy October, 2005 rains but had water in his basement during the spring, 2006 thaw, for the first time. He agrees that the ditch doesn’t flow fast unless there is an influx of rain. The water gets infiltrated into the wetlands.
Mr. Bearse asked how much fill will be brought in and where will the water go? He feels the impact should be minimized on the neighbors and the environment. He feels the entire area is wetlands.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall explained that in Connecticut, wetlands are determined by soil types.
Mr. John Lanlur of 13 Pilgrim Circle purchased his property 7 years ago. His basement has flooded twice. His backyard has been washed away, especially since the trees were cut. He added that when the trees were being cut, the neighbors were told that an orchard was going to be planted. His concern is that water will end up in his back yard. He was told the subject property could not be built on and the trees should not be cut because of wetlands. He added that Mr. Frederick was denied approval to build on this property several years ago.
Mr. Bearse asked if any of the site is town owned land. After brief review of the map, no town owned land was found. Mr. Bearse also asked if the existing lot will be cleaned up. He and the neighbors have offered to clean up the rear of the lot but have not been allowed to do so. He also feels that the plans are incomplete as presented.
Mr. Bearse also stated that the letter he received stated that only 2 houses are to be built; the plans show a total of 4 houses on the site.
Ms. Debra Berger of 6 Pilgrim Circle stated that her property backs to the property where the drainage ditch is. She is an original owner, living there since 1973. She had water in her basement for the first time, last October. The drainage ditch area is wet year-round. She is concerned that the grade of the new homes will be lower than hers, even with fill. There is a lot of standing water on the site. Adding impervious surface will make the water problems worse. She added that she feels that the developer is unprepared and will not do as he promises.
Ms. Amy Dietz of 139 Weymouth Road stated that the project will be in her backyard. Currently her back yard has water in it for 8 to 9 months of the year and a small portion has water year-round. She feels there will be more problems if development occurs. She was told by her builder in 2000 that the subject property could not be built on.
Mr. Michael Littlejohn of 12 Pilgrim Circle expressed concern over loss of privacy and water issues. He stated that even after the owner was told to stop clear cutting, the practice continued at night. Last year he had water in his basement for the 1st time in 20 years. He agrees with the others that the applicant is unprepared.
The subject lot constantly has water.
Silt buildup is also an issue. The pipe on Steele Road has a 2” opening. The rest is filled with silt. The drainage is flat so the water doesn’t move. Clear cutting has caused problems and he feels that the IWWA has a responsibility. He also feels that the Town will not maintain the ditch. He asked where all the water will go?
Mr. Adam McIntosh of 7 Rockland Drive has lived there 3 years. His sump pump runs year round. The subject site is saturated. Placing 4 houses on the site will not work without extensive drainage.
Mr. Steve Boucher of 4 Pilgrim Circle stated that the applicant told him that he, Mr. Fortune, would have to clean out the ditch as part of his application. Mr. Boucher asked where it will be cleaned. The whole length should be cleaned or it will back up into someone’s yard.
Mr. Fortune responded to some of the concerns of the public. He stated that he feels all of the owners will benefit. The ditch will be cleaned by him and he will then grant an easement to the Town to maintain it.
Mr. Fortune is proposing raised ranches and will maintain a tree line for privacy. The houses will be 100’ from the wetlands. The front house is proposed to be on Steele Road. The existing houses are lower than the one proposed.
Agent Tallarita asked if Mr. Fortune is aware of the water in backyards.
Mr. Fortune agreed that there is water in the backyards and that the ditch drains slowly. He will be cleaning the ditch, causing better flow. He stated he was surprised that more owners did not have sump pumps.
Agent Poirot stated that any vernal pools on the site need to be identified. He also asked how the letter to abutters was worded, leading them to believe that this would be only a 2 lot subdivision.
Mr. Fortune stated that there is some confusion. He is only building 2 houses. Other people are building 2 other houses.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that the certified letter to abutters should have stated the plan is for a 4 lot subdivision, not just the two houses that the applicant is building.
Mr. Giner read the letter in his file, addressed to abutters, into the record.
Mr. Fortune noted that the existing lot and house will be re-numbered only. He is only building 2 houses, lots #3 & #4.
Agent Poirot stated that the 100’ upland review delineation is not clear on the plans and requested a clearer definition on the plans.
He also asked if the Town will accept the proposed drainage easement.
Mr. Giner stated that the ditch is taking in town drainage, however it is up to the Town Council to decide to accept it.
Agent Poirot asked if the applicant had considered a smaller subdivision, perhaps one less lot.
Mr. Fortune stated that he had not given any consideration to a smaller project and apologized for seeming unprepared.
Agent Arnone requested more detail on the drainage ditch cleaning and suggested that the applicant go over this with the soil scientist and engineer as to how this will be accomplished.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall added that the ditch is within a watercourse. A detail is needed of how long an area of the watercourse is to be cleaned and a plan of action including when the cleaning will take place and what equipment will be used.
She added that the IWWA cannot consider loss of privacy in making a decision, only IWW impacts.
To Mr. Fortune, she noted that he will need to consider prudent and feasible alternatives as well.
Mr. Giner reported that an ART meeting has been held. He has not received any comments from the Engineering department to date.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall opened the hearing for public comment again.
Mr. Mike Littlejohn again spoke. He stated that he has only had to use his sump pump in the past year. The subject site is under water from thaw to summer.
Mr. Jon Lanlur stated that Mr. Angus had told the property owner that this is wetlands and that no trees could be cut. The debris in the ditch is from that clear cutting operation.
Mr. Giner stated that the ditch between 2 properties is between the owners. The Town doesn’t go onto private property unless it is carrying road drainage.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked Mr. Giner to look into past enforcement issues for clear cutting on the subject property.
A motion was made by Agent Poirot at 9:24 p.m. and seconded by Agent Tallarita to continue the public hearing for IW #471 to the meeting of October 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 4-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Tallarita to close the public hearing portion of the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Vote was 4-0-0.
REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to Order:
The regular meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall at 9:25 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, Poirot and Tallarita. Also present were Jose Giner, Director of Planning/Acting Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
3. Executive Session – Matters regarding specific employees, pending litigation, acquisition of real estate and / or matters exempt from disclosure requirements, as needed. The specific reason should be stated for each session.
There were no items for discussion in executive session.
4. Public Participation - Issues of concern not on the agenda:
No one in the audience came forward to speak.
5. Correspondence:
The following items of correspondence were received:
* Memo from Mr. Angus to Town Manager, dated 9/20/06 regarding IWWA election of officers and amendments to the Agency’s by-laws
* Warning letter from Mr. Angus to Randy & Lisa Johnson, dated 9/21/06 regarding clear cutting at 128 Post Road. Mr. Angus had reported that the owner is working on compliance.
* Warning letter from Mr. Angus to Edward Ingraham, dated 9/22/06 regarding recently constructed shed at 1445 Enfield Street, without a permit and within 100’ of wetlands. Mr. Giner was authorized by the Agency to issue an Authorized Agent Permit for this application if the owner complies with the warning letter.
* Authorization from D.E.P. to Department of Correction, signed 9/27/06, to repair an existing water line at 531 Taylor Road;
* Notice of workshop to be held October 12, 2006 regarding Keeping Of Horses In Residential Areas.
* Summer, 2006 issue of The Habitat.
6. Commissioner’s Correspondence:
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall reported that there were 35 volunteers at the recent Annual Connecticut River Cleanup. Approximately 6 tons of debris was removed from the river and adjacent areas. She added that fewer tires than in previous years were found.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall announced receipt of Agent Poirot’s resignation, effective 10/31/06. She accepted the resignation with regret, on behalf of the Agency. Agent Poirot will be moving from Enfield.
7. Approval of Minutes –September 19, 2006:
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Tallarita to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 19, 2006 with the following amendments: Title: correct date from September 5 to September 19; 4th page, 8th paragraph, correct “lope” to “slope”; 10th paragraph, 2nd sentence, change “The” to “They”; correct all references of “Beemins Brook” to “Beamans Brook”. Vote was 3-0-1(Poirot).
8. Wetlands Agent Report – September 14, 2006 through September 27, 2006
Mr. Giner briefly reviewed the report prepared by Mr. Angus. He noted that Staff had met with Mr. Mastroberti and his attorney almost one month ago but the town still has not heard anything from the owner regarding remediation.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that she was under the impression that Mr. Gragnolati was to be hired by the owner.
Mr. Giner stated that he has not seen a history of cooperation with the owner; in fact, the last correspondence to the owner was refused.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall authorized Mr. Giner to issue a notice of violation if he has not heard from Mr. Mastroberti by the end of this week.
Mr. Giner stated that he would make phone calls prior to the end of the week and if necessary, would have the Notice hand delivered by a Sheriff.
9. Old Business:
IW#468 – Brad Collins - Proposed 2-lot subdivision and new house construction involving grading and placement of structures within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 20 Bacon Road (Map 95 Lot 2) Zoned R-R-44 [Submitted July 27, 2006; Received September 5, 2006; PPE September 19, 2006; MPHCD October 10, 2006]:
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Poirot to table discussion on this application to the meeting of October 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 4-0-0.
IW#469 – Town of Enfield – Proposed Enfield High athletic field restoration involving grading and filling in and within 100 feet of wetlands. Property located at 1264 Enfield Street (Map 19 Lot 63) Zoned R-33 [Submitted September 6, 2006; Received September 19, 2006; PPE October 3, 2006]:
Mr. Vince McDermott of Milone & MacBroom represented the applicant.
Agent Poirot stated that he has read the transcripts from the previous meeting and the Agent’s Report and feels that he has enough information to make an informed decision on this application.
Agent Arnone stated that he is satisfied with the changes made in order to eliminate direct impact to 3,000 square feet of wetlands, which was the alternative plan presented.
Mr. Giner reviewed the proposed conditions of approval. He noted that the engineer’s concerns will be discussed at the ART meeting and must also be addressed prior to PZC approval.
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Tallarita to approve IW #469 with the 10 standard conditions in addition to the following, as amended during discussion by Agency members:
11. All erosion and sediment controls must be installed prior to commencement of any construction on-site. The Wetlands Agent shall inspect and approve such controls prior to commencement of construction. Strict measures for dust control shall be adhered to;
12. All Engineering concerns must be addressed prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit. Any footing drains that discharge to the surface shall be located furthest away from wetlands as possible (no direct discharge into wetlands) with outlet protection.
13. With the exception of the addition of the items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with the plans entitled “Enfield High School Athletic Field and Track Reconstruction”, dated 9/6/06 Sheets Title sheet, sheets EX1, LA1, GR 1A,2A, SE-1, SD-1, SD 2,3,4,5 revised through 9/19/06; Prepared by Milone and MacBroom, Engineering, Landscape Architecture and Environmental Science, 99 Realty Drive, Cheshire, CT 06410. Any changes that would potentially cause greater impact to wetlands or watercourses, such as enlargement of area of disturbance or reorientation of building footprints, from the plans shall require the permitee to come before the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency for a Determination of Permit Need (Jurisdictional Ruling).
Vote was 4-0-0. Reason for approval was that the project, with mitigation, will not adversely affect wetlands and watercourses.
IW#470 – Town of Enfield – Proposed Fermi High athletic field restoration involving grading and filling within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 124 North Maple Street Road (Map 82 Lot 14) Zoned R-33 [Submitted September 6, 2006; Received September 19, 2006; PPE October 3, 2006]:
Mr. Vince McDermott again represented the applicant.
He presented updated plans with corrections to the erosion and sediment controls plan (SE 10/30/06).
Agent Poirot asked if the area under the bleachers will be paved.
Mr. McDermott answered that it has not yet been determined. The size of the bleachers are still in question. He would prefer to place stone underneath – there is no reason to pave.
Mr. McDermott also stated that at the last meeting, Agent Szewczak had asked about the increase to impervious surface with the change of area for the shot-put and the answer is “not significant”.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked what type of dust control would be used during construction.
Mr. McDermott responded that it would be limited to use of water by may need to use calcium chloride. Air monitoring devices will be used to ensure that the dust is not migrating.
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Tallarita to approve IW#470 with the 10 standard conditions, in addition to the following as amended during discussion by Agency members:
11. All erosion and sediment controls must be installed within the existing fence line adjacent to wetlands. No disturbance is permitted beyond the fence line, towards the wetlands and watercourse in order to preserve the natural riparian buffer and slope vegetation. The Wetlands Agent shall inspect and approve such controls prior to commencement of construction. Strict measures for dust control shall be adhered to;
12. All Engineering concerns must be addressed prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit. Any footing drains that discharge to the surface shall be located furthest away from wetlands as possible (no direct discharge into wetlands) with outlet protection.
13. With the exception of the addition of the items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with the plans entitled “Enrico Fermi High School Athletic Field and Track Reconstruction”, dated 9/6/06, Sheets EX1-EX4, LA1-LA4, GR1-GR4, SE, SD1-SD5; revised through 10/03/06; Prepared by Milone and MacBroom, Engineering, Landscape Architecture and Environmental Science, 99 Realty Drive, Cheshire, CT 06410. Any changes that would potentially cause greater impact to wetlands or watercourses, such as enlargement of area of disturbance or reorientation of building footprints, from the plans shall require the permitee to come before the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency for a Determination of Permit Need (Jurisdictional Ruling).Vote was 4-0-0.
Reason for approval was that the project, with mitigation, will not adversely affect wetlands and watercourses.
IW#471 – Tim Fortune - Proposed 4-lot re-subdivision involving excavation, filling, grading and placement of structures within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 48 Steele Road (Map 52, Lot 55 and Map 53 Lot 1) Zoned R-33 [Submitted September 13, 2006; Received September 19, 2006; PPE October 3, 2006]
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Poirot to table discussion on IW #471 to the meeting of October 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 4-0-0.
New Business:
IW#472 – Galileo Enfield Stop & Shop LLC – Maintenance and restoration of a storm water drainage channel near the intersection of Hazard Ave. and Freshwater Blvd., adjacent west of 99 Restaurant. Property located at 54 Hazard Ave (Map 56, Lot 26) Zoned BR [Submitted September 27, 2006; Received October 3, 2006; PPE October 17, 2006]:
Mr. Stanley Dynia of GZA Geo-Environmental Services represented the applicant.
Mr. Dynia explained that tenants had hired a contractor to cut vegetation in the ditch located along Freshwater Blvd, adjacent to the Ninety Nine Restaurant. Because of the activity, a violation letter was issued by Staff.
The property owner has decided to make application for permanent maintenance and restoration of the ditch.
It is an artificially created watercourse channel with 3,500 square feet of regulated area.
A storm water management plan will be implemented as shown in Appendix E of the application.
The applicant will coordinate with the Town of Enfield on the cleaning of the catch basins.
A small fore bay will be established.
Phragmite will be removed, along with other invasives and replaced with native wetland plants and the applicant will maintain their height at 48” to 60”.
There will be no permanent impacts or loss of wetlands function or value.
The surveyor recently found that some of the culverts are filled with sediment and need to be cleaned.
A “no mow” zone will be established.
6” to 12” of sediment along the bottom of the ditch will be removed by a vacuum method.
A fore bay, check dam and stone gabion weir will be installed to lessen the amount of sediment entering from the culverts.
Mr. Dynia presented a list of mitigation Best Management Practices to be utilized.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if only the restaurant lot would be swept or the entire plaza.
Mr. Dynia stated that the entire plaza will be swept.
In response to a question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Dynia stated that he will provide a specific list of plants, trees, shrubs and seed to be used. He is proposing several varieties of trees, including white pine and choke cherry . The list allows for substitutions. The selection of species will be based on hydrology within the channel.
Mr. Dynia also stated that he can provide a table of the number of plants to be provided. The trees will be planted in the “no mow” area. No existing trees will be removed.
The proposed project will not disturb the function of the wetlands and will enhance the storm water treatment.
A monitoring schedule is included in the plans.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that it will be a good long term solution.
Mr. Dynia stated that the height of the cattails is not a concern, only the height of the phragmite, which will be removed.
Mr. Dynia will clarify the planting plan and schedule and will be working with the DPW regarding the easement.
Agent Arnone asked about the catch basin and culvert cleaning program. He asked Mr. Giner to check with DPW regarding the schedule.
Mr. Dynia noted that the owners of the various culverts need to be determined. Some are owned by the town, the state, and the plaza.
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Tallarita to continue IW #472 to the meeting of October 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 4-0-0.
11. Other Business
Members briefly discussed an email concerning the proposed addition to Yankee Castings. The email asked about the IWWA’s jurisdiction on the proposed project. All construction will take place outside of the 100’ buffer and all drainage will be sheet flow.
The IWWA can expand its’ jurisdiction but no storm drains are going into the wetlands so it was the consensus that there is no need for the Agency to expand its’ jurisdiction. If improvements are made to the roadway in the future, then the owner would need to come in.
* Next Regular Meeting is Tuesday, October 17, 2006 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers
12. Adjourn:
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Arnone to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Vote was 4-0-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
__________________________
Frank Poirot, Secretary
|