|
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Meeting
INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency was held on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall called the meeting to order at 7:28 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall, Chairperson
Thomas Arnone
Richard Szewczak
David J. Wawer
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Mosschetti
Robert LeMay
Robie Staples
Louis V. Tallarita
ALSO PRESENT: Steven Sadlowski, Wetlands Agent
Jose Giner, Director of Planning
Susan Berube, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall at 7:28 p.m.
2. Pledge Of Allegiance:
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
3. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, Szewczak and Wawer. Also present were Jose Giner, Director of Planning, Stephen Sadlowski, Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
4. Hearing(s):
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 21, 2006 – 14/65 days]:
Mr. John Martucci, Engineer and Tim Fortune represented the applicant.
Mr. Martucci reported that he walked the channel. The water appears to be standing but is actually moving slowly. He stated that he also saw several dams, holding back flow. There is not a lot of sediment and the channel is clearly defined.
The north bank is 7-8’ from the bottom of the channel and the south bank is 4-5’ from the channel.
The low-flow channel is 4 to 6’ wide and the flow normally stays within those limits.
A drainage report has been submitted.
Mr. Martucci went on to say that the applicant is proposing to hand clean the channel, except for a few areas at Steele Road where there are sediment bars. The sediment will be removed for 100’.
A detailed removal plan has been created. Removal will be done during the dry season or low flow period. Debris will be removed from the top of the bank. Existing ground cover will remain intact. Sandbagging upstream will be done up stream if there is a flow.
An excavator will be used from the south bank to reach in the channel, but it will not go into the channel.
Sediment will be removed within 20’ of the Pilgrim Circle outlet; Rip rap will be installed in a 10’ x 10’ x20’ area as recommended by the Enfield DPW.
He added that there is no evidence of erosion or overtopping of the banks.
Mr. Martucci noted that Mr. Askew of the NRCS had suggested planting a buffer. Mr. Cabibbo of the Town’s Engineering office, has requested access points to the channel. Both requests have been accommodated.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that Mr. Askew has suggested that the work be done by hand and that leveling the base by use of excavation equipment would cause pools.
Mr. Martucci responded that some sediment bars will require a bucket of a machine to shovel into. Mr. Askew’s concern was about driving through the channel with machinery. When the stick dams are removed, there will be only a few inches of water in some places and other places will be dry.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked about plantings along lot #2.
Mr. Martucci stated that he did not realize that plantings should be included in that location.
Mr. Gragnolati, soil scientist, presented a planting list. It will include conifers and deciduous plants. They will be staggered for full summer coverage.
Mr. Gragnolati went on to explain that he has listed the suggested plantings but not particular species. The final decisions will be made based on available species at the time of planting, but all will be native to the area.
He added that if the IWWA desires, a definitive plant listing when the work is to be done, could be included as a condition of approval.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that several of the plantings are different than those recommended by Mr. Askew.
Mr. Gragnolati responded that he does not feel that some of these plants are appropriate for this area. Winterberry Holly is more for wetlands and Mountain Laurel is found more often in the downstate area.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that she believes that the small leaved plants were chosen for concerns of clogging the channel.
Mr. Gragnolati answered that bayberries don’t drop leaves. Conifers and Dogwood are typical along streams. Also, he added, along the strip, every 100’ there will be an access to the channel.
Mr. Martucci stated that he had just received a copy of Mr. Cabibbo’s memo regarding the planting plan. It requests that none of the plantings be trees and that the openings to the channel be at least 20’ wide.
Mr. Martucci added that he will add a buffer between lot 2 and the channel.
Agent Szewczak asked about the driveway, which drains east to west, with a low discharge point on the rear lot. He asked if there will be a significant amount of water there and will a special grass seed be necessary to eliminate erosion.
Mr. Martucci stated that the driveway is a flat slope with a 1% grade. He prefers a cross slop so that there will not be concentrated runoff to cause erosion.
Agent Szewczak asked about a high spot at one of the contour elevations along the channel where the sediment is to be removed.
Mr. Martucci responded that this is where the channel is divided. The applicant will selectively go in and remove sediment bars.
He added that he feels that once the debris is removed, there will be very little water in the channel.
He also added that he will revise the cross slop of the driveway and add a plant buffer along lot 2 and the channel.
Mr. Giner noted receipt of Mr. Cabibbo’s memo dated 11/21/06, which was previously referred to by Mr. Martucci.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall read into the record a letter dated 11/14/06 from Raymond Romaniello of 10 Pioneer Drive requesting information on ownership of the channel and also made several other points regarding this application.
At this time, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall opened the meeting for public comment.
No one spoke in favor of the application.
Ms. Deborah Burger of 6 Pilgrim Circle presented photos of the brook flooding in 1990 after a heavy downpour. Water came into her yard 36’ at that time. She stated that she has lived there over 30 years and flooding has occurred on several occasions.
She added that she does not believe that the banks are 7’ high and asked how much fill is to be brought in and what affect it will have on the neighborhood.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if flooding occurred during the heavy rains of October, 2005.
Ms. Burger responded that it was the first time she had ever had water in her basement, and she did have water in her yard and it did overflow the banks. She added that the area is never dry. Water can be found when digging at a depth of 6”.
Mr. Doug Fuller of 153 Weymouth Road asked who is responsible for maintaining the stream and what the Town will do above and below this area. He feels that the Town should be looking at the entire area, not just one part.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that she appreciates Mr. Fuller’s comments however the Town does not own watercourses. They are owned by those whose property it runs through. Because of this application, the IWWA has jurisdiction at that site. An easement will be granted so a problem area can be addressed in the future. If an area does not have an easement, the Town does not have access to the channel.
She added that unfortunately, access is acquired piecemeal. Residents are always welcome to speak at any IWWA meeting on matters that are not on the agenda.
Agent Szewczak added that the IWWA cannot be police and check everyone’s backyard.
Mr. Fuller again stressed the need for the entire channel to be cleaned and maintained on a regular basis.
Mr. Mike Littlejohn stated that he feels that the IWWA has a social responsibility. Changing weather patterns and clear cutting all have an effect and he feels that the IWWA should look closely at the whole picture.
Mr. Joe Jean of 14 Pilgrim Circle stated that abutters have water problems – some have had them for years and others only since the clear cutting. He wonders if “Mother Nature” is trying to correct the issue of moving the stream years ago.
He added that he would also like to see the pond area on Pilgrim Circle addressed. It lasts longer and gets larger each year and he has concerns of the mosquitoes.
He also asked if there is a provision for maintaining the channel once it is cleaned and would also like to know more about the houses to be built and what problems their construction might bring. Will they be on slabs, with basements, and will this cause further displacement of water.
Mr. Fortune asked to see the photos that were submitted by Ms. Burger.
Mr. Fortune and Mr. Martucci reviewed the photos.
Mr. Martucci noted that the channel in that area does flatten out with only 3’ banks in that area. He had estimated the banks at 6’, which do occur elsewhere.
Mr. Martucci added that the entire Pilgrim Circle was built on filled wetlands. The applicant is proposing to build in uplands soils.
Agent Szewczak asked the location of the original stream.
Mr. Martucci reviewed the Town’s 1964 topo map which showed 2 streams, neither of which showed a defined watercourse.
In response to a question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Fortune stated that the proposed homes on lots 3 and 4 will be raised ranches. “No fill really, to be brought in”.
Mr. Martucci added that all three proposed lots show basement floor and finished floor elevations. The basement floors are to be 1’ above the existing grade.
Mr. Martucci also added that a couple of feet of fill will be brought in for grading. Footing drains are shown but not likely to be needed.
In response to a question by Agent Arnone, Mr. Martucci continued, stating that the 4” rip rap backsplash is a site plan requirement. Roof leaders are to be at surface at stabilized points.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted Mr. Askew’s letter of 11/3/06, which stated that surface drainage was not affected by the tree cutting. The area has had an extra large amount of rain recently. Mr. Askew did not recommend planting new trees because the cut tree stumps are re-sprouting.
Agent Szewczak expressed concern over the projected depth of water. A 100 year storm event figures the depth to be at 2.3’. He asked if this is based on certain channel configuration and if the configuration changes, would that affect the depth. He asked if calculations are based on free flow or does it take into account some of the areas currently backed up.
Mr. Martucci stated that the calculations are based on a 15’ wide channel with a 2:1 slope, which will be the approximate configuration through the subdivision. TR55 was the method used for the calculations.
He added that in the area shown in the photos as being flooded, this is not as much a defined channel. Flooding would not come into the area to be developed and does not show up on FEMA documents. It is not considered to be a flood hazard area.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall pointed out that one thing IWWA needs to consider is how this decision will impact areas above and below the subject site, especially, in this case, below the development area.
She asked Mr. Giner if there is any Town owned property in this vicinity and if so, it should be shown on the plans.
Mr. Giner stated that he did not recall anything being mentioned at the ART meeting. He believed that the closest is downstream, off of Deerfield Circle.
Members again reviewed the Town’s 1964 topo map with the subdivisions overlaid.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked Mr. Giner if confirmation can be had from Mr. Askew after the close of the public hearing.
Mr. Giner stated yes, if it is just to clarify a point from Staff.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak at 8:56 p.m. and seconded by Agent Wawer to close the public hearing for IW#471. Vote was 4-0-0.
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]:
Attorney Harold Cummings and Mr. Philip Tartsinis represented the applicant.
Mr. Cummings requested that the public hearing be continued to the meeting of December 5, 2006 due to lack of a full board being present. He stated that extensive information had been given at the last meeting and those members are not here tonight. He also noted that one member is present this evening that was not present at the previous meeting.
Mr. Cummings went on to say that if his request for continuance was not granted, that the public hearing remain open to the next meeting in order to answer questions by members of the Agency who are not present this evening. The applicant would agree to any extensions when necessary.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that only 2 members are absent that were present at the previous meeting.
Mr. Giner noted that a full board cannot be guaranteed at any meeting. Members can always listen to the tapes. The more delays there are, the more chance that there will not be a quorum.
Mr. Cummings replied that he feels it is a matter of procedure and if there is not a full board at the next meeting, he will have to rely on the members listening to the tapes. He feels that the applicant is entitled to a full board.
Agent Arnone stated that there is not always going to be a full board. He expressed concern about the agendas being very full.
Agent Wawer stated that the public can still make comments. The applicant does not need to make a presentation if he prefers not to.
Agent Szewczak noted that he did not see any major changes to the most recent plans. Perhaps an additional 2 weeks would allow the applicant time to come up with more prudent and feasible alternatives.
Mr. Cummings stated that the client would proceed but requested that the public hearing not be closed this evening so that Agency members not present this evening would have the opportunity to ask questions at the next meeting.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that the Agency does not bargain. There will be no guarantee that the public hearing will not be closed. The decision to close cannot be made until after the public hearing this evening.
Mr. Tartsinis stated that wetlands of the lowest functional quality will be used.
This application is 63% smaller than a previous application.
The main body of the wetlands have been maintained.
Mr. Tartsinis added that he has offered to meet with Oldefield Farms residents to hear and address their concerns.
The current application is the least impact and smallest of 9 previous proposals.
The temporary disturbance is for installation of the pipe in the wetlands. The pipe will have only 1 seam within the wetlands.
Mr. Len Norton, engineer, reviewed the landscape plan on sheets 2 & 3. The planting area shows detail and spacing.
Page 4 shows the maintenance schedule for dumpsters, parking, storm water detention, sediment basin and other areas. It also addresses Mr. Cabibbo’s comments dated 11/16/06.
Mr. Norton reviewed a colored copy of the plans which show the limits of the buildings, wetlands, plantings and parking. The above ground detention basin is more easily maintained than an underground storage system.
Agent Szewczak noted that wetlands are found at elevations 133 or 134. The outlet is at 130. If wetland soils are saturated, the groundwater table would be approaching 134. The water would need to equalize at groundwater table elevation.
He asked where additional runoff from pavement will go. He also added that he has concerns over the proposed wetland crossing.
Mr. Norton responded that the crossing is temporary. It will be invisible in 6 months.
The outlet matches the existing elevations and Mr. Norton believes the bottom is dry now.
Agent Szewczak asked if a geo-technical survey has been done. He expressed concern that soils are being removed as they go closer to wetlands and that some of the impervious surface may be disturbed. This could “open a floodgate”.
He added that since the basin is 4’ lower than the wetlands, he can’t understand how it will store water.
Mr. Tartsinis stated that the existing basin has been there for 20 years.
Agent Szewczak stated that he feels that a geo-tech survey would be helpful.
Mr. Gragnolati, soil scientist, stated that there is a thin layer of sand overlaying impermeable silts and clay. Expansion of the detention basin will not have a negative effect on the wetlands if constructed correctly.
Agent Szewczak asked if a geo-tech survey has been or will be done. He gave an analogy of digging a hole at the beach near the ocean and watching it fill with water.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that this is not the beach. There is sand over impermeable soils.
Mr. Norton reported that a geo-tech survey has not been done. Borings will be done in the area of the buildings, but not until the buildings are to be constructed.
Agent Szewczak stated that other applicants have researched the best areas for a detention basin. It can’t always go where it is convenient. He would like documentation, not an opinion. He feels there is not a lot of clay at 3 to 4’ below grade.
Mr. Norton offered to dig a hole, do a soil analysis in the area of the proposed basin to give an idea of the soil types and water table and provide a report prior to the next meeting.
Agent Arnone asked why it is not possible to take the drainage network from catch basin #8 to #12 and run it around and back to the detention basin instead of through the wetlands.
Mr. Norton responded that it needs to start at the detention basin elevation. The further the run, the more fill that will need to be brought in due to the elevations.
Agent Arnone then asked about losing the parking area in the corner and creating a detention basin near catch basin #8.
Mr. Norton stated that there is an existing facility and point source discharge. A new basin would require an additional discharge.
Agent Arnone stated that the applicant needs to address using the detention pond as a mitigation area.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that the applicant is trying to create a buffer between the parking and wetlands. The basin is now full of phragmite. The applicant will try to eliminate them as a type of mitigation. The applicant is not looking to create wetlands as mitigation.
Agent Szewczak noted that underground storage is a possibility. The catch basin tops are at elevation 136. The inlet is at elevation 132. Some detention could be created under the parking area or the building could be moved to the west and the basin can go where the building currently proposed.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that Mr. Tartsinis had stated that this proposal is smaller than the last plan presented. Not all of the 8 proposals mentioned at the last meeting are at town hall for review. The last plan presented was approximately 1998; this proposal is not much smaller.
She also noted that the wetlands delineated last time are now different – 2 areas of wetlands are now missing.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that the roadway was brought in further. The soils were disturbed and the previous application had a different soil scientist. It was not flagged by Mr. Gragnolati, although he did sign it.
Mr. Tartsinis added that they had used existing maps and can provide paperwork.
He also stated that the alternative plans were not proposed to the Town. Only 2 plans have been formally proposed. He will provide copies of the others for the record.
Mr. Sadlowski noted that the signature block on the previous plans were signed by Mr. Gragnolati with the statement that the wetlands had been delineated by him.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that there was some activity at the site but he is unsure how long ago it was. In his opinion, the pocket no longer exists.
Mr. Sadlowski noted that the most recent application was in 1998 and asked if the one prior to that was a year or two before that.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall repeated Mr. Tartsinis’ earlier statement that this application is 53% smaller than previous plans but it does not seem much smaller.
Mr. Tartsinis referred to a recently approved application at 177 Hazard Avenue and stated that he wanted to have less impact than that application.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that each application is based on its’ own merits.
Mr. Sadlowski asked if the area below the parking lot will be wooded or grassed.
Mr. Tartsinis responded that it will remain undeveloped.
Mr. Sadlowski asked if there is any standing water in the wetlands.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that there is.
Mr. Sadlowski asked if construction would break the layer of impervious surface under the proposed pipe and also asked how deep the impervious layer is.
Mr. Norton stated that this would be answered during a test hole dig.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that he believes the layer to be deep enough so as not to break through.
Mr. Cummings asked if the test boring should be at the site of the proposed pipe.
Mr. Sadlowski stated that it should not as that could create problems.
Agent Szewczak requested that the Wetlands Agent be present during the digging of the test hole.
At this time, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall reminded those in the audience that any comments on this application must be related to IWWA issues.
She then read into the record a letter from Mr. Lee Hall, dated 11/13/06 and excerpts from the email attached to his letter from Paula DeProspero regarding various forms of wildlife witnessed on the site.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall went on to say that there have been changes to the IWWA regulations since the last application for this site. Most notable is the decision of the court case involving Avalon Bay. It states that the IWWA cannot base a decision on the loss of habitat for animals, only the loss of wetlands themselves.
At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment.
Mr. Don Boulette of 16 Grandview Drive, Enfield, spoke in favor of the application. He owns a business at 155 Hazard Avenue and supports the application because it increases the tax base.
Mr. George Poole of 54 Oldefield Farms spoke against the application. He stated that he is opposed now and was opposed to the previous application, #264 for this site. He feels that the only beneficiary of the proposed project is to the applicant. He also feels there is no guarantee that this property must provide a profit. He asked what Criteria the IWWA must follow to make a decision.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall read the list of criteria from “What’s Legally Required”. It includes environmental impact, feasible and prudent alternatives, short and long term impacts, irreversible loss of wetlands, loss of use of property, and impact on wetlands outside of the subject site.
Mr. Clifford David of 143 Oldefield Farms also spoke against the project. He stated that it will affect all neighbors. It was denied in the past. In the 8 years since the last application, there has been additional development in the area making this wetland more valuable. Construction would cause a loss of wetlands, creating more drainage problems.
Sylvia Poole of 54 Oldefield Farms spoke against the proposal. She feels that the best use of this land is not more development. She asked why the debris hasn’t been cleaned up during Mr. Tartsinis’ ownership. She is concerned over pollutants that will be washed into the wetlands through construction and requested denial of the application.
Beverly Jerrim of #222 Oldefield Farms spoke against the application. She has concerns over increased noise, litter, and pollutants entering the water table.
Paula DeProspero also spoke against the application. She stated that she is on the landscape committee, which oversees drainage at the complex. The committee has noted an increase in flooding of basements in the past 3 to 4 years. She feels that this is because of the increase of local construction.
She also has concerns of the maintenance schedule that was discussed earlier. Who will do this and how often, and is there any recourse if it is not done? And, she asked, why can’t there be a geo-technical report done?
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall responded that the property owner will be responsible for the maintenance plan. She knows of no penalty if it’s not followed, but is in their best interest to do so.
Mr. Giner stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission has regulations for maintenance and it would be a violation of site plan approvals if it is not done.
Mr. Vincent Pitzi of 96 Oldefield Farms spoke against the application. He stated that he is against it for all of the reasons stated by other residents thus far and asked if the detention pond empties into the brook heading to Route 190.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall responded that yes, the pond does empty into that brook.
Mr. Jerry Voisin of 55 Oldefield Farms also stated that he is opposed to the proposal.
Mr. Mike Filoza of 81 Oldefield Farms also stated that he is opposed because of the pollution and snow and rain will have no place to go.
Joyce Lingler of 183 Oldefield Farms also stated that she is opposed to this application.
Mr. Cummings stated that the applicant would make rebuttal at the next meeting.
A motion was made at 10:27 p.m. by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Arnone to continue IW#473 to the meeting of December 5, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote was 4-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Arnone to close the public hearing portion of the meeting at 10:28 p.m. Vote was 4-0-0.
A motion was made at 10:28 p.m. by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Wawer to hold a brief recess. Vote was 4-0-0.
REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to Order:
The Regular Meeting was called to order by Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall at 10:35 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, Szewczak and Wawer. Also present were Jose Giner, Director of Planning, Steven Sadlowski, Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Arnone to change the order of the Agenda to move directly to DPN 2006-11-16, and then “Other Business”, and then “New Business”, as time permits. Vote was 4-0-0.
DPN -2006-11-1b – Joseph & Sharon Jean – Proposed placement of fill and construction of a fabric storage building on a metal frame within a regulated area. Property located at 14 Pilgrim Circle (Map 53, Lot 499) Zoned R-33. [Submitted November 1, 2006, Received November 8, 2006]
Mr. Joseph Jean represented the applicant.
He explained that a hoop house is similar to a nursery and referred to his plot plan included in his application, to show the location of the proposed building.
He went on to explain that the building is made mostly of pipe. Anchor pipes are sunk 2 ½’ to 3’ deep so the building won’t blow away. It will be 20’ x 20’ with wood doors for entry and the building will be covered by a 6 mil poly membrane covering. The pad is made from screenings.
Agent Szewczak asked for confirmation that the only excavation is for sleeves to accept the frame.
Mr. Jean replied that is correct.
Mr. Sadlowski noted that the building will need to be stabilized on the sides and rear to keep the pad from washing out.
Agent Arnone stated that he would lean toward Authorized Agent approval and agreed with the points made in the Agent’s Report.
Agent Szewczak noted that if the applicant can accomplish the points made in the Agent’s Report, the IWWA could issue a DPN and the applicant would not need to wait for the 14 day appeal period as required through the Authorized Agent process. This is already in an established lawn area and not really any excavation is being done.
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Wawer that a permit is not needed on Application 2006-11-1b. The applicant will work with Mr. Sadlowski to make sure there are no erosion issues. Vote was 4-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Arnone to amend the agenda to tae up “New Business, IW#453-02” prior to “Other Business” as time permits. Vote was 4-0-0.
IW#453-02 – Town of Enfield – Drainage Channel Improvements including re-alignment and construction of a rip-rap channel between Yale Drive and Broad Leaf Lane along existing Town Drainage Easement Zoned R33. [Submitted November 7, 2006, Received November 21]
Mr. Jeff Bord of the Town of Enfield Engineering Department represented the applicant.
Mr. Bord explained that the IWWA had issued a permit last February to construct rip rap through the Broadleaf and Meadow Lark Lane areas, for approximately 800’.
The next section proposed is from Broadleaf to Yale Court, for approximately 300’. Also, at #46 Yale Court, a gabion retaining wall will be constructed.
The Town will acquire easements and then construct a rip rap channel. Work will be done during low flow periods, June through September.
At 49 Yale Court, the swale will be moved closer to the property line. The existing swale will be filled and seeded with a wetland seed mix and stabilization blankets will be installed along the swale.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak to hold a public hearing on IW#453-02 due to public interest at the meeting of December 5, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Agent Arnone asked what the response was at the recent public information meeting held by the Town.
Mr. Bord responded that the room was full and residents were upset because nothing has been done yet. Hopefully the Town will receive emergency funds and the reimbursement of funds from FEMA for money already spent by the Town on flood related problems.
He added that he is considering this application to be an amendment to the original application approved earlier this year.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Arnone to continue to meeting to 11:08 p.m. as it was now 11:00 p.m. Vote was 4-0-0.
Agent Szewczak amended his motion to hold a public hearing on IW#453-02 due to public interest at the meeting of December 19, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Seconded by Agent Wawer. Vote was 4-0-0.
• Next regular meeting is Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 7:00PM in the Council Chambers
Adjourn:
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Arnone to adjourn the meeting at 11:08 p.m. Vote was 4-0-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
________________________ |