|
THESE MINUTES ARE PRESENTED IN DRAFT FORM AND HAVE NOT BEEN FORMALLY APPROVED BY
THE ENFIELD IWWA
OFFICIAL COPIES OF MINUTES, WHEN APPROVED, CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE TOWN CLERK OR PLANNING OFFICE.
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Meeting
INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency was held on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 in the Council Chambers, 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
Robie Staples
Richard Szewczak
Louis V. Tallarita
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Michael Mosschetti
Robert LeMay
David J. Wawer
ALSO PRESENT: José Giner, Director of Planning/Acting Wetlands Agent
Susan Berube, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall at 7:00 p.m.
Pledge Of Allegiance:
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, Staples, Szewczak and Tallarita. Also present were José Giner. Director of Planning/Acting Wetlands Agent, and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Staples to add the following item to the agenda under “Other Business”: Election of Secretary position. Vote was 5-0-0.
Members discussed the need for executive session and Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if members wished to take care of this agenda item first so as not to keep Mr. Landolina waiting.
Agent Arnone suggested keeping the order of the agenda due to the number of public hearings to be heard.
After further discussion, a motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Arnone to change the order of the agenda to take up Executive Session before opening the public hearings. Vote was 5-0-0.
3. Executive Session – Matters regarding specific employees, pending litigation, acquisition of real estate and / or matters exempt from disclosure requirements. As needed. The specific reason should be stated for each session.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Arnone to enter into executive session in the Shaker Room with Attorney Carl Landolina at 7:05 p.m. regarding pending litigation on Longhi. Vote was 5-0-0. Agent Tallarita did not attend executive session.
The regular meeting of the IWWA reconvened at 7:25. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that no votes were taken and no decisions were made during executive session.
Roll Call: Present were: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, Staples, Szewczak, and Tallarita. Also present were Jose Giner, Director of Planning and Acting Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
4. Hearing(s):
Continuation of 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-44 [Submitted July 27, 2006; Received September 5, 2006; PPE September 19, 2006; MPHCD October 24, 2006; EMPHCD November 8, 2006]:
Attorney Carl Landolina of Fahey & Landolina, Mark Kement of Sanderson and Washburn and Soil Scientist Michael Gragnolati represented the applicant.
Mr. Kement stated that based on the concerns of the IWWA members and Mr. Greene, he reviewed the plans further and was able to put a berm on the west side of the property to divert runoff.
Surface runoff from the new houses will go to the low spot on the site and head east to the southeast portion of the property.
A conservation easement has been added along the limits of clearing for added protection of the wetlands.
Mr. Kement stated that notes have been added to the plans for proper shoring for protection of the wetlands during sewer hookup at the street.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall reported that she met with David Askew of the North Central Conservation District and walked the site with him. She read a memo from Mr. Askew into the record, dated 11/3/06.
She added that she looked at the triangular wetland area and it looks to be a filled area and is very flat. She feels that the conservation easement is a good idea. The wooded area beyond the manmade ditch is very pristine.
Agent Arnone asked about the flow at the swale. The elevation is at 176 at the beginning of the pipe and 156 at the end. He asked if it will stay dry most of the time.
Mr. Kement stated that it will. He does not wish to create a wet pond.
Agent Szewczak noted that the most recent plans seem to actually remove more water from Mr. Greene’s property.
Mr. Giner had no additional comments at this time.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall opened the hearing for public comment.
No one in the audience came forward to speak in favor of this application.
Mr. David Greene of 16 Bacon Road stated that he still had the same concerns as during previous meetings on this application. His concern is not about the diversion of water but about the water that flows under the surface.
Mr. Greene explained that the distance of his basement floor to ground level is 5 ½’. He already has water issues without the proposed construction and feels that the construction will create more issues.
He added that he feels that the berm will only stop surface water. Logging on the site and raising the lots will send water his way.
He wants to be rest assured or compensated if he has additional problems in the future. There is nothing to show that the proposed project will do anything to stop water from increasing on his property.
Agent Szewczak explained that the Agency cannot solve the pre-existing condition.
The Greene’s basement is at 172. The wetlands are at 174. A depression would have to be created to drain the water away and then everything down stream would need to be lowered as well.
The proposed berm will prevent water from flowing onto the Greene’s property.
Mr. Greene stated that he is concerned that water will be trapped on his property and unable to drain away.
Mr. Greene also stated that he would like to see the existing ditch along his property to directly connect to the main ditch that crosses it.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that Mr. Greene’s suggestion would be draining wetlands. The IWWA’s job is to protect wetlands.
Agent Szewczak reiterated that the IWWA cannot solve Mr. Greene’s groundwater problem.
Mr. Greene stated that he is officially against the plan because it will have an immediate impact of construction on his property.
Agent Szewczak stated that the only way to solve Mr. Greene’s water issues would be to raise his house.
Mr. Green stated that he wants a legal document saying there will be no impact to his property so that a future lawsuit can refer to it. There is no way he cannot be impacted with the proposed construction.
Agent Arnone stated that the Agency’s mission is to preserve wetlands. The developer has gone to great lengths so as to have less impact on the wetlands and possibly to make Mr. Greene’s situation better.
Mr. Greene suggested a dam type solution.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall thanked Mr. Greene for his comments.
There was no other public comment on this application.
Mr. Landolina referred to a previous email written by Mr. Cabibbo, from the Town’s Engineering office. It stated that it would be unlikely that the area of influence would reach surrounding properties.
A motion was made by Agent Tallarita and seconded by Agent Staples to close the public hearing on IW#468 at 7:56 p.m. Vote was 5-0-0.
Continuation of 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; MPHCD November 7, 2006; EMPHCD November 8, 2006]:
Mr. John Martucci, Engineer, represented the applicant.
Mr. Martucci presented updated plans as well as a copy of the Town’s 200’ scale topographical map from 1962.
In reviewing the map with the Agency, Mr. Martucci showed the drainage area of approximately 120 acres that contributes to the ditch.
He also has reviewed the subdivision plans for Pilgrim Circle from 1971 and found that it was all built in a fill area. The ditch drains this area.
Mr. Martucci explained that he used the TR55 method for drainage calculations for the ditch and broke it into 2 areas of approximately 27 and 92 acres respectively.
The Edgewood Drive area drains in 30 to 45 minutes and for the balance, the peak flow reaches the ditch in approximately 140 minutes.
Peak flows are as follows: 2 year storm = 36 cfs; 10 year storm = 72 cfs; 25 year storm = 92 cfs; 50 year storm = 110 cfs and a 100 year storm event = 130 cfs.
The ditch was designed at a 2/10% slope from Steele Road to the culvert under Pioneer and was built as it was designed and functions as it was designed. It is 1’ deep at the peak of a 2 year storm event and approximately 2’ deep at a 100 year storm event. The ditch varies in width of 10 to 25’ with an average of 15’.
The culverts at Steele Road and Pilgrim Circle show 1-1 ½’ sediment throughout the ditch. The engineering Department’s main concern is to have the ditch cleaned out and seeded. This will improve the existing drainage.
Agent Szewczak asked if it is possible that the natural tendency is for water to flow to the north and noted that during construction of the subdivision, a stream had been moved south.
Mr. Martucci stated that he doesn’t believe this to be the problem because the area is so flat. Pilgrim Circle was built on filled wetlands. He added that he checked with the D.E.P. and found that only the subject property is native land. The surrounding development is “urban soil”.
Agent Arnone noted that the bottoms of the basements of the subdivision are probably close to the original height of the land, with a high water table. The area is probably filled with sand from Powder Hollow.
Mr. Martucci stated that the applicant is proposing to build the slope along the ditch, from beginning to end, at a 3:1 pitch with a 15’ width, plant grass, and give easements to the Town.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked how much sediment would be removed and by what method.
Mr. Martucci stated that he had previously offered that it would be removed by hand but there will be several hundred yards of sediment.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that the applicant has been told he will need a written plan of what will be done but the Agency has not received one to date. The Public Hearing is set to close this evening.
Mr. Martucci stated that the applicant offered, at the last meeting, to remove brush by hand. Sediment removal will need to be done by an excavator.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall read a memo dated 11/3/06 from Mr. Askew of the North Central Conservation District.
Mr. Fortune stated that he will still hand clear the debris and remove the few trees that are growing within the stream.
Agent Arnone thanked Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall for having Mr. Askew visit the site.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall voiced her concerns over the fact that the applicant still does not have a written plan.
Mr. Martucci stated that he has all of the information needed such as slope elevations. There will be plenty of room for buffer plantings as the memo recommended.
He continued, stating that the ditch functions today. All of the sediment can be removed, but it would require a machine. It was designed at a 2/10% slope and still is at 2/10%. If the sediment remains, the applicant will go in and remove debris by hand. There is no flooding issue.
Agent Tallarita stated that the Agency is asking for a plan in writing.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall added that the plan should include construction sequence and timing also.
Agent Arnone added that this is important so that Staff can do on site and review.
Mr. Martucci stated that there are 2 issues. One is a plumbing issue with the Town’s infrastructure and the other is the fact that this is a wetland/watercourse.
He stated also that the project is not difficult to do and will be done in dry times and he can even provide the amounts of material to be removed. He added that he can provide a plan, but not tonight. The plan will show cross sections, timing, etc.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall quoted from the Agent’s Report regarding items still needed such as detailed plan of the ditch cleaning and erosion and sediment controls. She noted that there are too many conditions outstanding for her to be comfortable closing the hearing and voting on this.
Mr. Giner noted that this hearing can be extended up to December 5, 2006.
Mr. Gragnolati asked for guidance on buffer plantings.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that there is a conflict between Mr. Askew’s recommendations of planting trees along the slopes and Mr. Cabibbo’s guidance that trees should not be planted because of concerns of filling the ditch with debris. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall agrees with Mr. Askew’s recommendations and feels the applicant will need to find a happy medium to enhance plantings while retaining access to the ditch.
Mr. Martucci stated that the channel is approximately 15’ wide. There are a few access points for tracked vehicles. He hopes to have plans ready by next week so that they can be reviewed by Staff and Mr. askew prior to the next Agency meeting.
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Tallarita to accept a request for extension of #IW471 to the meeting of November 21, 2006. Vote was 5-0-0.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall read a letter received on October 24, 2006 from Ms. Tina Smith into the record.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall opened the hearing for public comment. No one in the audience came forward to speak in favor of the application.
Mr. Doug Fuller of 153 Weymouth Road stated that he is neutral but concerned over the right-of-way.
He stated that the runoff from Parkman School goes into the ditch. It has never been taken care of by the Town. He wants to make sure the drainage ditch is maintained. No one has maintained it in the 15 years that he’s been a resident. At one point, he was told it was a state owned ditch.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall explained that when the developments were built, many had no easements to get to the ditch. She suggested if Mr. Fuller knows of any easements, he should call the Town’s Wetlands Agent and also to let the Town know of problems with drainage.
Mr. Fuller asked if the improvements made by the applicant will cause problems downstream. He is under the impression that the proposed maintenance by the Town will not occur.
There were no other comments from the audience.
A motion was made at 8:54 p.m. by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Arnone to continue IW#471 to the meeting of November 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 5-0-0.
IW#473 – Karios Properties, LLC – Regulated activities consisting of 2 new commercial buildings of 11,400 s.f and 12,500 s.f., and associated parking areas, drive aisles and drainage located at the rear of 155 Hazard Ave (Map 75, Lot 120), Zoned BL [Submitted October 11, 2006, Received October 17, 2006, PPE October 31, 2006; MPHCD December 13, 2006]
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall reviewed public hearing procedures for the benefit of the audience.
Mr. Philip Tartsinis, Mr. Len Norton, Engineer, and Attorney Harold Cummings represented the applicant.
Mr. Tartsinis explained that there have been 9 alternative plans for this property. The applicant wants to develop with the least impact to the wetlands during and after construction.
Several parking spaces were removed near the wetlands and a whole parking area has been moved to the north.
Mr. Gragnolati has made recommendations on plantings.
The proposed development will have no long term impact on wetland with the proposed improvements, including expansion of the detention pond.
The applicant is not crossing a wetland in order to maintain the wetland body as a whole.
The latest changes have reduced the impact to the upland review area by 2,600 square feet.
Mr. Norton stated that the site is located on the north side of Hazard Avenue. The property runs north/south. Three lots were combined into 2. The first parcel houses Stella’s in front.
Mr. Norton showed the edge of the line of activity outlined on the map.
He stated that it is almost impossible to construct without impacting wetlands at all.
The proposed impact to wetlands will be 2 areas, 1,775 and 1,250 square feet, for a total impact to the wetland of 3,025 square feet.
Mr. Norton continued, stating that the drainage pattern on the vacant land runs east to west.
Storm drainage is being proposed to be piped and sent to the expanded detention basin area using Best Management Practices.
The Detention Basin will have a flat bottom and the flow rate will have less than or equal to the existing rates.
Based on the ART meeting and last meeting of the IWWA, the applicant has reduced the impact to the uplands by removing some of the parking spaces and moving others. The latest plans are dated 11/4/06.
Mr. Norton went on to state that the Zoning Regulations allow for 66% impervious coverage; the applicant is proposing 41.5%.
Building coverage is up to 20%; the applicant proposes 11.5%.
There will be a buffer between the project and the residential zone, as required by the Zoning Regulations, as well as a buffer to the wetlands.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that there is an existing roadway into the site and there is considerable disturbance to part of the wetland. The soils are Walpole, light sandy loam. There are conifers, pines and oak on the property with a mature forest toward the rear.
Mr. Gragnolati is proposing shrubs from wetland flag #10 to flag #42, which will provide food and nesting without large trees.
There will be a ditch toward the detention area. The detention area will be cleaned and invasives eradicated as part of the mitigation.
Some wetlands will be filled and there will be some temporary disturbance for piping.
The outlet to the detention basin will be changed but there will be no disturbance at the outfall.
Mr. Cummings stated that Mr. Gragnolati’s report is part of the application.
Mr. Tartsinis stated that he would give a brief overview of previous applications for this site.
Agent Szewczak asked if the schemes are based on current regulations. If they are not, then they are not relevant.
Mr. Cummings stated that the applicant would like to show how the plan has evolved over time.
Agent Szewczak stated that he is very much against the drainage pipe going through the wetlands. The Agency is here to protect wetlands and looking for feasible and prudent alternatives and this is what the Agency will be concentrating on.
Mr. Cummings stated that the pipe will be a temporary disturbance to enhance the detention basin instead of building a new one. It would have the least impact, over time.
Agent Szewczak stated that the applicant could consider an underground chamber under the parking area so as not to impact he wetlands at all. He wonders if the detention basin is viable at all.
Mr. Norton stated that the pipe will match the bottom of the existing detention basin. It will generally be dry when it is not raining. A secondary drainage system would require another point source discharge.
Agent Szewczak felt that the grades say one thing but the elevations are supportive of wetlands type soils.
He asked what is the groundwater table at these elevations?
Mr. Norton stated that the bottom of the basin is at elevation 130, making minimal disturbance.
Agent Staples asked for clarification that the parking lot is at elevation 135, with the wetlands at 130. Mr. Norton affirmed this.
Agent Arnone agreed with Agent Szewczak’s observations, especially on the use of a concrete pipe in wetlands. He also stated that he has a problem with having the mitigation area as the detention basin.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that she understands Agent Szewczak’s position on rehashing previous proposals but as she is the only member that was part of the IWWA during the previous proposals, she thought it would be helpful to current members.
Mr. Cummings stated that the presentation would only take a few moments to show that there were previous plans and that the current one is the most feasible and prudent alternative.
Mr. Norton added that the applicant proposes to use polyethylene pipe in 20’ lengths for the 30’ crossing.
Mr. Tartsinis stated that his purpose in showing previous proposals is to show how the project has downscaled.
The following are previous plans or applications:
Housing development with daycare facility
Changed to BL zone with proposal for 3 buildings
2 buildings on a cul de sac
same as previous but one row of parking eliminated
wetland crossing and 12,000 square feet of wetland impact
similar plan with less parking
1 building with inadequate parking, 5,500 square feet wetland impact
current application but prior to ART meeting
current application with 3,025 square feet of wetland impact and limits of disturbance moved back 25’.
Mr. Norton went on to say that the current plans have 2 professional office buildings. Entry to the property will be limited. If a driveway had impacted wetlands, it would have been over 5,000 square feet of wetland disturbance.
Agent Szewczak noted that one of the previous plans had only one building. Now there will be 2 footprints plus one of the buildings will be 2 story. It seems to be putting so much into a sensitive area. He added that he feels it is overly aggressive. It is adding three times as much area as the front building.
He asked if a one story building would be enough or only construct one building so as not to have to nip off wetlands and eliminate the need for more detention basin space.
Mr. Tartsinis replied that a one story building would have the same impact. The rear lot would require a professional type use and that requires 2 stories by today’s standards.
Agent Szewczak stated that building 2 is in the narrowest part of the site. If it were moved northwest, then the detention basin could be moved there and the pipe could go under the road, enabling disturbance to be further from the wetlands.
Mr. Tartsinis stated that the building was placed where it is for a view from the road or it would not be rentable.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that this is not an argument she could buy into. She gave the example of the nearby Gold’s Gym and office condominiums in that complex. None of those are visible from the street.
Mr. Tartsinis replied that those units are different because they are purchased, not rented.
Mr. Cummings stated that the Agency needs to remember the potential economic benefit to the Town.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that the wetlands were already disturbed in the past. He tried to keep the disturbance in areas of lower quality wetlands. The rear area is more of a natural wetland.
Agent Szewczak responded that the wetlands don’t care. The project could potentially have a different orientation of structures with a different parking situation, underground chambers, or whatever is appropriate. He added that he agrees with Agent Arnone that the detention basin is not mitigation. He feels the plan needs more thought.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that the applicant is trying to keep the impact towards the front of the property where the disturbance is and where the wetlands have been degraded.
Agent Szewczak stated that the further the activity is from the wetlands, the less impact it will have on the wetlands.
Mr. Gragnolati insisted that only in Connecticut are soils an indicator for wetlands. Elsewhere, different methods are used to determine wetlands.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that she wished to respond to Mr. Gragnolati’s comment regarding the wetlands that have been degraded. There is no reason to put more impact on these wetlands.
Mr. Cummings stated that the applicant is trying to explain the reason for keeping the building toward the front of the site and trying to keep away from the higher quality wetlands. Also, according to Zoning regulations, this is not an intense use of the property.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall responded, stating that if wetlands were not involved, she would agree but the Agency has the added concern of the wetlands. She added that she feels that Agent Szewczak has brought up some valid concerns and suggestions, such as having only one building, or smaller buildings, an underground chamber or moving buildings.
Mr. Norton stated that the recent project of Enfield Federal Savings & Loan used the underground chamber in order to maximize parking. He has been working on this plan for a year and feels it is a reasonable and prudent plan to be able to use the property.
In response to a question by Agent Staples, Mr. Norton replied that the new area of the detention pond will be 80’x100’.
Mr. Norton continued, stating that an underground detention system has maintenance issues and is usually only done when there is no place above ground for a basin.
Mr. Giner reported that the Engineering department has not had time to comment on the plans since they were submitted on 11/7/06. Also, a landscape plan has not yet been submitted.
He also asked what type the last catch basin before the wetland crossing is.
Mr. Norton stated that it is a 2 compartment sedimentation type with a 4’ sump.
Mr. Giner stated that a schedule of a detailed maintenance plan will also be required.
He also asked the total amount of wetlands located on the site.
Mr. Norton replied that there are 58,035 square feet of wetlands.
Agent Szewczak also noted that the snow stockpile area needs to be shown unless it is to be moved offsite. It can’t be discharged directly to the wetlands.
He also stated his concern over the effect on wetlands downstream and would like a riparian wetland buffer.
Mr. Tartsinis stated that the snow stockpile area will be included on the landscape plans and hopes to make the wetlands more viable, eventually.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if the applicant has provided proof of notice to abutters.
Mr. Tartsinis provided photocopies of the certified mail receipts but did not have a copy of the letter sent to abutters. He will provide one for the record.
At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment. No one in the audience came forward to speak in favor of this application.
Mr. Lee Hall of 201 Oldefield Farms and a member of the Board of Directors of the Oldefield Farms Condominium Association spoke on consensus of the members as being against the proposed project.
Mr. Hall explained that Oldefield Farms was developed in the 1980’s with 105 units, most of which back up to woods. He feels that the project will affect the pristine atmosphere, there will be loss of privacy, safety issues, and concern of runoff.
He asked if the proposed basin would hold during a 100 year storm event.
He feels that the Agency should look at the reasons that past applications were denied – many may still be valid today.
He noted that 45 varieties of birds as well as a flock of 25 turkeys, coyotes, deer and small mammals live on the site.
He stated that he is concerned over the impact of having 2 large buildings constructed and noted that there are many rentals available along 190 now.
He added that it is not desirable to impact any wetlands and these plans are clearly in the applicant’s best interest, not for that of the wetlands or abutters.
He asked if there is a minimal distance that construction must be from the wetlands.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall replied that there is not. The IWWA regulates activity within 100’ of the wetlands but there is not a law for minimal distance from wetlands.
In reply to a statement by Mr. Hall that the Agency should look at the whole picture, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall responded that the IWWA can only look at the impact to wetlands.
Mr. Hall noted that development has caused more water to enter woodlands in the past 15 years.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall agreed that this could be possible.
Mr. Lee feels that the Agency needs to look at the effect on properties surrounding the site and asked if the current runoff system is adequate. He also suggested that the Agency limit the time allotted to applicants for making a presentation.
Mr. George Poole of #54 Oldefield Farms spoke against the application, stating that a previous application, #264 was denied in 1997 by all 6 members at that time. The members saw no redeeming value to the Town or Oldefield farms for the project.
(At this time, Agent Staples left the meeting at 10:21 p.m. and returned at 10:23 p.m.)
Mr. Poole feels that this project and the concerns are all about money and feels that Mr. Tartsinis has no regard for those who will be affected by his project.
Sylvia Poole of 54 Oldefield Farms expressed concern over impact to the wetlands.
Mr. Vincent Pietze of 96 Oldefield Farms agrees with the previous Oldefield Farms residents who spoke on this application.
There were no other comments from the public at this time.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Tallarita at 10:27 p.m. to continue IW#473 to the meeting of November 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 5-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Staples to close the public hearing portion of the meeting at 10:28 p.m. Vote was 5-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Staples to hold a brief recess at 10:29 p.m. Vote was 5-0-0.
REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 10:35 p.m.
Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, Staples, Szewczak, and Tallarita. Also present were Jose Giner, Director of Planning and Acting Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
Public Participation - Issues of concern not on the agenda:
No one in the audience came forward to speak.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Arnone to move agenda items 5 through 8 to be taken up after “Other Business” items on the agenda. Vote was 5-0-0.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that there were still many items on the agenda but due to the lateness of the hour, the Agency may not be able to address all of the items.
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-44 [Submitted July 27, 2006; Received September 5, 2006; PPE September 19, 2006; MPHCD October 24, 2006; EMPHCD November 8, 2006] :
In order to review the conditions proposed by Mr. Giner, a motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Arnone to table discussion on IW#468 to the meeting of November 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 5-0-0.
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; MPHCD November 7, 2006; EMPHCD November 8, 2006].
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Staples to table discussion on IW#471 to the meeting of November 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 5-0-0.
IW#473 – Karios Properties, LLC – Regulated activities consisting of 2 new commercial buildings of 11,400 s.f and 12,500 s.f., and associated parking areas, drive aisles and drainage located at the rear of 155 Hazard Ave (Map 75, Lot 120), Zoned BL [Submitted October 11, 2006, Received October 17, 2006, PPE October 31, 2006; MPHCD December 13, 2006]
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Staples to table discussion on IW#473 to the meeting of November 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 5-0-0.
10. New Business
DPN 2006-10-27 – William Landry - Proposed 24’ x 25’ garage addition to an existing house located within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourse. Property located at 86 Jackson Road (Map 110, Lot 169), Zoned R-33. [Submitted October 27, 2006; Received November 8, 2006]
Mr. William Landry represented the applicant.
Mr. Landry explained that he would like to construct a two car garage, replacing the existing carport.
No wetlands are shown on the map, only a watercourse. The existing house is approximately 80’ away from the channel. The backyard has a gentle slope to the channel.
Mr. Landry stated that he will use hay bales and silt fence as needed. The only excavation will be for the footings.
In response to a question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Landry stated that there is currently not any fencing. The back is heavily wooded and has groundcover. The house is on a flat area, then a gentle slope in the back yard, then a steep drop-off to the channel.
Mr. Giner stated that he did not have any additional comments.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked where the excavated soils would go.
Mr. Landry replied that he would speak with the contractor. He may put it on the foundation to channel water away from the house. Any stockpile would be either in the front yard or taken offsite.
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Tallarita that no permit is necessary for this application. Vote was 5-0-0.
IW#474 – Ashmead Commons – Proposed maintenance of existing retention basin involving dredging of a watercourse. Property located at 327 Brainard Road (Map 77, Lot 58), [Submitted October 12, 2006, Received November 8, 2006, PPE November 22, 2006]
Mr. Kenneth Ouellette represented the applicant.
Mr. Ouellette explained that the retention basin was built in 1989 to recharge the ground water but is no longer permeable due to leaves and debris which is now 1 ½’ over the inlet. The basin holds drainage from the site including the parking area and roadway.
The applicant is proposing to excavate a 60’x150’ area down 2 ½’ to 3’ and haul the material away. This is a maintenance issue that was never addressed.
The applicant will leave three growth in place. The basin is all sand underneath the debris.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if the applicant has a planting plan for after the excavation is complete.
Mr. Landry replied that the applicant is not planning to plant anything. The goal is to get back to the sand so infiltration will occur.
Agent Szewczak stated that he does not feel that this is a significant impact but the applicant will need to provide additional copies of the plans.
Mr. Landry noted that the original plans show the plan as temporary but it is now permanent.
Agent Szewczak recommended that he applicant put his proposed plan in writing.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Arnone that there does not appear to be a significant impact associated with this application so a public hearing will not be required and to continue this application to the meeting of December 5, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 5-0-0.
IW#475 – Fine Realty/U.S. Glass Distributors – Proposed addition to building with related drives, parking and drainage improvements within 100 feet of wetlands and/or watercourses. Property located at 7 Niblick Road (Map 55, Lot 8), Zoned IP [Submitted November 1, 2006, Received November 8, 2006, PPE November 22, 2006]:
Mr. Gary Greenalch represented the applicant.
Mr. Greenalch explained that the applicant would like to build a 90’x112’ addition to an existing building.
The plans show the 100’ upland review area line and the wetlands.
The existing drainage will be revised. It will have an oil separator and then run to the retention basin and a rip rap pool into the wetlands. There will be a second retention basin for water quality.
Mr. Greenalch also presented a revised landscape plan and the soil scientist’s report to the Agency.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Arnone to extend the meeting to 11:15 in order to finish the current agenda item. Vote was 5-0-0.
Members reviewed the landscape plan.
Downspouts will be piped to a level spreader and then disbursed to the wetlands.
There will be double rows of silt fence along the limits of construction.
Stockpile areas are shown on the map.
There will be containment around the catch basins and rip rapped areas.
Agent Arnone asked where the building drainage goes now.
Mr. Greenalch replied that it goes to a wooded area in the rear.
Agent Arnone asked about the existing drywell on the corner of the existing parking lot.
Mr. Greenalch stated that this was due to the elevation of the parking lot. The loading dock drained there. It may be removed.
Agent Arnone also noted that the dumpster area needs spill protection and asked how the 1 |